McNary and Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Prepared by: 

Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

3250 Port of Benton Boulevard 

Richland, Washington 99354 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pacific Northwest Planning Team 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

December 2006 

 

i

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 

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

1.2 Proposed Action.............................................................................................................1-1 

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action.........................................................................................1-2 

1.4 Content and Scope of Plan.............................................................................................1-3 

1.5 Refuge System Laws and Directives .............................................................................1-3 

1.6 Establishment and Purposes of McNary and Umatilla Refuges....................................1-7 

1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans......................................................1-13 

1.8 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts .....................................................1-15 

1.9 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities............................................................................1-18 

1.10 Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................1-19

1.11 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................1-20

1.12 Planning Process........................................................................................................1-21 

 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design............................................................................2-1 

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Developed .................................................................2-1 

2.3 Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................................2-2 

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..................................................................................2-8 

Chapter 3: Physical Environment 

3.1 Climate...........................................................................................................................3-1 

3.2 Hydrology......................................................................................................................3-3 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry .......................................................................................3-11 

3.4 Geology........................................................................................................................3-12 

3.5 Soils .............................................................................................................................3-13 

3.6 Environmental Contaminants ......................................................................................3-14 

3.7 Surrounding Land Uses ...............................................................................................3-15 

Chapter 4: Refuge Biology and Habitat 

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis.........................................................................................4-1 

4.2 Conservation Target Selection and Analysis.................................................................4-5 

4.3 Shrub Steppe System .....................................................................................................4-7 

4.4 Riparian System...........................................................................................................4-10 

4.5 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats...............................................................................4-13 

4.6 Cliff/Rimrock and Outcroppings .................................................................................4-19 

4.7 Islands ..........................................................................................................................4-21 

4.8 Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................4-25 

4.9 Shorebirds ....................................................................................................................4-30 

4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................4-32 

4.11 Current Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts................................4-35
ii

Chapter 5: Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 

5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ..................................................................5-1 

5.2 Recreation Overview .....................................................................................................5-6 

5.3 Waterfowl Hunting ........................................................................................................5-9 

5.4 Upland Bird/Small Game Hunting...............................................................................5-16 

5.5 Big Game Hunting .......................................................................................................5-18 

5.6 Fishing..........................................................................................................................5-20 

5.7 Wildlife Viewing and Photography .............................................................................5-22 

5.8 Environmental Education.............................................................................................5-24 

5.9 Interpretation................................................................................................................5-26 

5.10 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation .........................................................................5-27 

5.11 Illegal Uses.................................................................................................................5-30 

5.12 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ..............................................5-30 

 

Chapter 6: Special Designation Lands, Culture Resources, and Social/Economic 

Environment 

6.1 Special Designation Lands ............................................................................................6-1 

6.2 Archaeological and Cultural Resources.........................................................................6-2 

6.3 Social/Economic Environment ......................................................................................6-9 

 

Chapter 7: Environmental Effects 

7.1 Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................7-1 

7.2 Effects to Species and Habitats......................................................................................7-7 

7.3 Effects to the Physical Environment............................................................................7-16 

7.4 Social Effects...............................................................................................................7-19 

7.5 Economic Effects.........................................................................................................7-30 

7.6 Effects to Cultural and Historical Resources...............................................................7-32 

7.7 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................7-35 

 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Public Involvement ....................................................................................... A-1 

Appendix B: Species Lists.................................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations ....................................................................... C-1 

Appendix D: Implementation ............................................................................................. D-1 

Appendix E: Wilderness Review ........................................................................................E-1 

Appendix F: Condition Classes for Shrub-Steppe and Riparian Habitats ...........................F-1 

Appendix G: Compliance ................................................................................................... G-1 

Appendix H: Glossary......................................................................................................... H-1 

Appendix I: Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Needs ....................................................I-1 

Appendix J: CCP Team Members ....................................................................................... J-1 

Appendix K: Appropriate Uses Determinations................................................................. K-1 

Maps.....................................................................................................................After Page #

Map 1 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Map ...........................................................1-2 

Map 2A McNary Refuge Boundary and Land Status ..........................................................1-2 

Map 2B Umatilla Refuge Boundary and Land Status ..........................................................1-2 
iii

Map 3 McNary Refuge Alternative 1 ...................................................................................2-8 

Map 4 McNary Refuge Alternative 2 ...................................................................................2-8 

Map 5 McNary Refuge Alternative 3 ...................................................................................2-8 

Map 6 McNary Refuge Alternative 4 ...................................................................................2-8 

Map 7 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 1...................................................................................2-8 

Map 8 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 2...................................................................................2-8 

Map 9 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 3...................................................................................2-8 

Map 10 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 4.................................................................................2-8 

Map 11A McNary Refuge Main Habitats.............................................................................4-4 

Map 11B Umatilla Refuge Main Habitats ............................................................................4-4 

Map 12A McNary Refuge Key Waterfowl Use Areas .......................................................4-26 

Map 12B Umatilla Refuge Key Waterfowl Use Areas.......................................................4-26 

Map 13A McNary Refuge Existing Key Public Use Features .............................................5-2 

Map 13B Umatilla Refuge Existing Key Public Use Features.............................................5-2 

Map 14A McNary Refuge Existing Hunt Area ..................................................................5-12 

Map 14B Umatilla Refuge Existing Hunt Area..................................................................5-12 

Map 15A McNary Refuge Hunt Area-Burbank Slough Unit ............................................5-12 

Map 15B McNary Refuge Two Rivers and Peninsula Units, and Burbank Sloughs .........5-12 

Map 15C McNary Refuge General Hunting Regulations-Wallula Unit.............................5-12 

Map 15D Umatilla Refuge McCormack Slough Unit ........................................................5-12 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

When first encountered by Lewis and Clark and early settlers, the Columbia River of the Pacific 

Northwest was enormous, wild, and seemingly uncontrollable. Yet for all its enormous flows, the river 

was nearly unusable in its native state as a source of irrigation water. Early settlers found that 

agriculture was nearly impossible in most of the hot, arid Columbia Plateau (Dietrich 1995). 

A grassroots effort to provide water for struggling small farmers culminated in the construction of 

Grand Coulee Dam, finished in 1941, it was–at that time–the largest concrete structure ever built 

anywhere in the world. Successful construction of the initial Columbia River dams led to increased 

confidence and enhanced expectations for development of the water and hydroelectric resources in 

the basin. Within a few decades, more than 400 dams—11 run-of-the-river dams on the mainstem—

and hundreds of major and modest structures on tributaries had been constructed, tapping a large 

portion of the Columbia's generating capacity, more than 21 million kilowatts. The Columbia River is 

now considered the most hydroelectrically developed river system in the world (Dietrich 1995). 

McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges were both established subsequent to the construction 

of two large dams on the mainstem of the middle Columbia River, as part of the Federal Columbia 

River Power System. McNary Refuge is located near the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland 

(together known as the Tri-Cities) upstream of the McNary Lock and Dam on waters of Lake Wallula 

and adjoining uplands. Umatilla Refuge is situated upstream of the John Day Lock and Dam on Lake 

Umatilla and on adjoining uplands about an hour’s drive southwest of the Tri-Cities. Map 1, the 

Vicinity Map, shows the major features within the vicinity of both Refuges. Maps 2a and 2b show key 

features for each Refuge. 

Dam structures fundamentally alter riverine systems. Rivers are transformed by large dams from a 

seasonally fluctuating, dynamic flow of water, into deep lakes, with slow-moving waters. In 

recognition of this, the U.S. Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which requires 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and state fish and wildlife agencies for 

federally-licensed dams and diversions. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of 

"preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act authorizes land to be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for wildlife protection 

purposes. McNary and Umatilla Refuges were each established directly as a consequence of the 

Coordination Act requirements for dams and as such are often spoken of as “mitigation” refuges. 

However, there is no direct language in any establishing documents referencing mitigation. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

The Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for McNary 

National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge. This document is a Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for the two 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Refuges. The CCP sets forth management guidance for the Refuges over the next 15 years, as 

required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 688 dd-688 

ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). The Improvement 

Act mandated that CCPs be developed for all Refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The proposed action in the Draft CCP/EA is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified as 

the Service’s Preferred Alternative. This Draft CCP/EA explores three other options (alternatives) for 

the CCP and discloses anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Alternatives are presented in 

Chapter 2, and effects are analyzed in Chapter 7. Appendices provide supporting information. 

 

The actions under Alternative 2 best achieve the purpose and need for the CCP while maintaining 

balance amongst the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2 addresses the issues 

and relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action 

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

Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats, for the long-term conservation of 

native plants and animals and migratory birds. The CCP will identify appropriate actions for 

protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of the river islands, the Refuges’ 

wintering waterfowl populations and habitats, the growing migratory shorebird populations that use 

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

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

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

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

habitat conditions on the Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff/talus habitats, many of 

which are highly degraded by invasive plants and animals, and to identify and deal with key threats to 

these habitats, including altered fire regimes and altered hydrological regimes. There is a need to 

address the Refuges’ contributions to listed salmon species that migrate through McNary and Umatilla 

waters and use certain Refuge habitats for rearing. There is a need to address public concern about 

colonial waterbird populations that consume listed fish. 

There is a need to analyze public use programs for the Refuge System’s “Big Six” uses and to 

determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit of higher quality programs 

The Big Six wildlife dependent uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation (See Section 1.5A for more on the Big Six uses.) 

There is also a need to determine whether and how the Refuges should continue to offer camping and 

other nonwildlife dependent uses, including horseback riding, beach use, and boating. There is a 

need to address strategies to better prevent use of Refuge lands and waters for illegal uses including 

off road use and trash dumping. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be taken to 

better protect cultural resources. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-3

1.4 Content and Scope of Plan 

 

This CCP provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of 

public uses on Refuge lands and waters. An outline of the key information in the CCP follows. 

• An overall vision for the Refuges and their role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1). 

• Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and public use programs, as well as 

strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2). 

• A description of the conservation targets, their condition and trends on the Refuges and within the 

local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for sustaining the targets, 

and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter 4). 

• An overview of the Refuges’ public use programs and facilities, a list of desired future conditions 

for each program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5). 

• Evaluations of existing and proposed public and economic uses for compatibility with each 

Refuge’s purposes (Appendix C), and appropriate use evaluations (Appendix K). 

• An outline of the projects, staff and facilities needed to support the alternatives considered 

(Appendix D). 

• A list of vertebrate species known or suspected to occur on the Refuges, with information about 

their State and Federal listing status, and identifications under relevant ecosystem plans (Appendix 

B). 

1.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives 

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior, is the principal 

Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95 million acre 

Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife Refuges, thousands of small wetlands and 

other special management areas. 

Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and executive orders, Service policies, and international 

treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or 

Refuge System) and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, 

executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. The 

hierarchical relationship of these documents in regards to refuge-specific planning and management 

are, illustrated in Figure 1. 

Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System were derived from the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is 

implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of 

the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general administration of units of the 

Refuge System. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-4 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Guidance within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

 

Applicable Federal laws and executive orders 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

Refuge Purposes 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission*/Goals/Policies 

Ecosystem Vision/Goals/Objectives 

Refuge Vision 

Refuge Goals 

Refuge Objectives 

Refuge Strategies 

Developed or 

revised as part of 

the CCP process

 

 Projects Developed as part 

of the CCP or with 

Step-down 

Management Plans

* established by law 

A. Improvement Act 

Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act (Improvement Act) undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act 

amended the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, by including a unifying mission for all 

National Wildlife Refuges to be managed as a System, a new process for determining compatible uses 

on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, developed in an open public process. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-5

The Improvement Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife and 

plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House Report 105–106 

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

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later explained in the 

Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (see section 1.5B), “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 Improvement Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as well 

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

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

Additionally, the Act identifies six priority wildlifedependent recreational uses (“Big Six”). These 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. Through the Improvement Act, 

the U.S. Congress directed the Service to grant 

these six wildlife-dependent public uses special 

consideration in the planning for, management 

of, and establishment and expansion of units of 

the Refuge System. In addition, when determined 

compatible on a refuge-specific basis these six 

uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or occurring on a refuge. The Service is to 

make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, Refuge Managers must reevaluate the compatibility of all general public, 

recreational, and economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) 

proposed or occurring on a refuge. No refuge use may be allowed or continued unless it is 

determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of 

the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge 

System or the purposes of the refuge. No refuge use may be allowed or continued unless it is 

determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of 

the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge 

System or the purposes of the refuge. The authority to make the determination is delegated to the 

Refuge Manager. Updated compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for McNary 

and Umatilla Refuges are in Appendix C of this Draft CCP/EA. 

The Improvement Act also required 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 guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and with the formal 

guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. 

 “Big Six” 

The six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses identified under the 

Refuge System Improvement Act are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education 

and interpretation. These uses are to 

receive enhanced consideration over 

other uses in planning and management. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-6 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

B. Other Laws, Policies, and Orders 

Many other laws govern the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge System lands. A list and brief 

description of each can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. 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 Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the Biological Integrity, Diversity, 

and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW3); the Compatibility Policy; the Refuge Planning Policy; 

Mission, Goals, and Purposes (601 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Uses (605 FW 1); and the Director’s Order for Coordination and Cooperative Work with State 

Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

These policies and others in draft or under development can be found at: 

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

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

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

purpose. Figure 1 illustrates the hierarchy of planning guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

C. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997) 

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 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. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-7

D. Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose 

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

Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. The purposes of a refuge are 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

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

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

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

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

specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired 

under an authority different from the 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 purpose(s) of the 

addition. 

By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between the 

Refuge System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede 

the Refuge System mission. 

1.6 Establishment History and Purposes of McNary 

 and Umatilla Refuges 

A. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Both McNary and Umatilla Refuges were originally established under the authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667e, March 10, 1934, as amended 1946, 1958, 

1978 and 1995). This Act requires consultation with the Service and the States’ fish and wildlife 

agencies where the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, 

permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or otherwise controlled or modified" by any 

agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of 

"preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act authorizes land to be made available to the Secretary of Interior for wildlife protection purposes. 

Section 664 of the Act specifies that areas made available for the purposes of the wildlife conservation 

and development as outlined in sections 661 to 666c, must be administered by the Secretary directly 

or in accordance with cooperative agreements, and “in accordance with rules and regulations 

adopted by the Secretary for the conservation, maintenance and management of wildlife resources 

thereof, and habitat thereon, under plans” approved jointly by the Secretary and the head of the 

agency exercising primary administration of the areas. General plans may also include the transfer of 

project lands to a state for management. Lands having value to the National Migratory Bird 

Management Program may be made available without cost directly to the state agency having control 

over wildlife resources. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-8 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Wildlife and wildlife resources are defined under section 666 as “birds, fish, mammals and all other 

classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is 

dependent.”

The Cooperative Agreement/General Plan associated with each Refuge provided more detail about 

the resource values. 

B. McNary National Wildlife Refuge Purposes 

 

Dam Authorization: The United States Congress authorized the construction of McNary Dam at River 

Mile 292 in 1946, under Public Law 14, 79th Congress, 59 Statute 10, for the primary purposes of 

navigation, power development, and irrigation. The purpose of “conservation of wildlife” was added 

to McNary’s project purposes by Public Law 732, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 1080, 16 USC 661 et seq). 

 

General Plan: The McNary Dam flooded about 39,000 

acres of river bottomlands for 61 miles upstream of the dam. 

As part of the responsibilities under the Coordination Act, the 

Secretary of the Army, with the Secretary of the Interior, and 

the Directors of the Fish and Game Departments for the 

States of Oregon and Washington, signed a General Plan in 

1953 which set aside various wildlife lands as encouraged 

under the Coordination Act, including the original McNary National Wildlife Refuge, as well as other 

lands that became State wildlife areas (US DOA et al. 1953). 

The 1953 General Plan identified seven areas of land “for the conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon.” With the exception of the current 

Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units, all areas currently managed as part of the Refuge are referenced 

in this document. Specific language relative to wildlife management and public uses was included for 

each of the seven areas. With a few exceptions, the language is open-ended enough to be 

interpreted as recommended strategies to be pursued in perpetuity, but not mandated. The specifics 

are detailed below. 

Two of the seven areas were termed the Burbank National Wildlife Refuge and the Hanford National 

Wildlife Refuge. These two sites, now named the McNary Headquarters, Strawberry Island, and 

Hanford Islands Units, formed the original McNary National Wildlife Refuge. The plan noted that both 

areas “have particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program.” 

McNary Headquarters and Strawberry Island Units. Specific language from the General Plan includes 

the statements: 

• The slough will provide area for waterfowl nesting, resting and feeding. 

• Extensive stands of aquatic vegetation will develop in the shallow areas. 

• Food and cover crops can be grown on adjacent tillable lands. 

• Inland sections can be isolated, providing water surface control for fish production and enhancing 

waterfowl habitat. 

• Fishing may be permitted consistent with sound waterfowl management practices and in 

accordance with state laws and regulations. 

The 1953 General Plan identified 

seven areas of land “for the 

conservation, maintenance, 

and management of wildlife, 

resources thereof, and its 

habitat thereon.” 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-9

The other five areas described in the General Plan were identified by the Secretary of the Army to be 

“made available for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources.” These areas 

were particularly singled out for their “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fishlife, 

waterfowl and upland game birds” and were initially placed under the State of Washington’s 

management through a cooperative agreement. It is important to note the “multiple use” term was 

used for describing different fish and wildlife values and was not used in the now common parlance 

relating to recreation. Two of these five areas are now managed by the Service as part of McNary 

Refuge. 

Wallula Unit. This unit, originally identified in the General Plan as Area Number 3–Walla Walla River 

Wildlife Area–was noted for having extensive shallow water areas well adapted for waterfowl habitat 

development. Specific statements from the General Plan are listed below. 

• Some present river bottom agricultural lands will be infrequently flooded and are well suited for 

the production of cereal and cover crops. These will enhance the area for waterfowl production 

and stimulate production of upland game birds. 

• Public shooting may be desirable on all or part of the area. 

• A substantial fish population may be developed in the waters of the area, thus providing excellent 

angling opportunities. The area is also a migratory route for anadromous fish. 

• Peculiar value as a wildlife demonstration and educational area. 

Two Rivers, Peninsula, and Burbank Sloughs Units. These units were identified as Area Number 4–

Columbia River Wildlife Area–in the General Plan. Specific language from the General Plan includes 

the following statements. 

• Emergent aquatic vegetation may develop 

• There are several excellent locations for creation of subimpounded or isolated water areas 

suitable for fish production 

• Water areas will be utilized by waterfowl and the shore areas will be used by upland birds 

• Production of food crops and establishment of other vegetative cover will further attract both 

waterfowl and upland game birds and stimulate an increase in their population. 

• Public hunting for both will be highly desirable on all or part of this unit. 

• Public hunting and fishing is permitted consistent with sound management practices. 

Cooperative Agreement: After the General Plan was finalized, a cooperative agreement among the 

same parties was signed in July of 1955. The cooperative agreement transferred administrative 

control of 2,849 acres of land to the Service under the terms of the General Plan. Minor supplements 

and modifications were made to the cooperative agreement in August 1963 and May 1965. In 

1969, the cooperative agreement was rewritten, replacing and superseding the previous version of the 

agreement (US DOA and US DOI, 1969a). An additional minor modification of the agreement was 

made in 1975. The cooperative agreement gave little further mandatory guidance for habitat or 

public use management. 

McNary Master Plan: As mentioned above, the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units were not included 

in the General Plan. These lands were withdrawn for dam project purposes, which are navigation, 

power development, irrigation, and conservation of wildlife, as detailed under the dam authorization 

section above. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-10 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

The only other details available for these lands are found in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) 

Reservoir Master Plan for dam project areas. The Reservoir Master Plan was first published in July 

1952, revised in 1964, with a comprehensive revision published in 1982. Although this plan is not 

an original establishing or authorizing document and cannot be interpreted as being at the level of a 

“purpose” as defined under Refuge System policy, the 1982 plan did provide land use allocations 

which help provide some insight into the intent for the various project lands. The Stateline, Juniper 

Canyon, and Wallula Unit lands lying west of Highway 12 were designated as “Moderate Wildlife 

Management,“ defined as “lands that are valued for fish and wildlife management, but will not sustain 

intensive management practices . . . Moderate management lands should be continuously available 

for low-density recreation activities such as hiking, primitive camping, hunting, fishing, nature study, 

nature photography, bird watching, and other related activities.” (McNary Master Plan 1982). 

2000 Cooperative Agreement: In 2000, the Service assumed management, by cooperative 

agreement, of 14,739 acres (GIS estimate) of the Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, Wallula, 

Juniper Canyon, and Stateline Units (US DOA and US DOI, 2000). The Walla Walla River Unit—

now known as the Wallula Unit; and Columbia River Unit—now known as the Two Rivers and 

Peninsula Units) had been originally set aside under the General Plan of 1953 and were managed by 

the State of Washington until 1987, at which time the State relinquished its management control over 

the areas. The Corps managed the areas over the next thirteen years. In 2000, the Service and the 

Corps signed a cooperative agreement which permitted the Service to assume management authority. 

Items of particular interest in the 2000 cooperative agreement include the following clauses: 

• “The Department hereby makes available to the Service the land and water areas...hereinafter 

referred to as the Premises, for the purpose of development, conservation and management of 

recreation and wildlife resources thereon in accordance with the General Plan and under the 

authority of the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 as amended.” 

• “The Service shall manage, operate, and maintain the Premises included in the Cooperative 

Agreement in accordance with its Comprehensive Conservation Plan....which shall be prepared by 

the Service and submitted to the District Engineer for review and approval...The Service shall 

complete the CCP within 5 years of the effective date of this Cooperative Agreement.” 

• “The Service shall continue to manage the parcel of land known as the Cummins Property in the 

Wallula Habitat Management Unit to meet or exceed the habitat goals identified in ‘Design 

Memorandum No. 6, Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan, Wildlife 

Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter supplement No. 15, SITE Development 

Plan for the Wallula HMU,’ Exhibit C. The remainder of the lands shall continue to be managed 

to help meet the wildlife losses identified in the ‘Wildlife Impact Assessment, McNary Project, 

Oregon and Washington...Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration’ (BPA), dated 

October 1990.” 

• “The Service shall ensure that Madame Dorion Park and all facilities thereon shall continue to be 

operated and maintained as a day-use and overnight camping recreation area at the same level 

of service or better than currently provided. The Service shall be responsible for all costs 

associated with...the Madame Dorion Park...Reasonable fees may be charged for entrance to or 

use of facilities.” 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-11

The cooperative agreement was intended to be temporary. Both agencies envisioned an eventual full 

transfer of these lands in fee title to the Service, as evident from the following clause in the 

agreement: 

• “The Department and the Service intend to recommend to their higher headquarters that 

legislation be sought to authorize transfer of these Premises to the Service by fiscal Year 2002, or 

as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. The District, subject to the approval of the 

Departments of Fish and Wildlife in Oregon and Washington, will provide the Service all 

assistance allowed by law and policy regarding such transfer . . . This interim agreement will 

terminate when primary ownership is transferred to the Service.” [Note: An amendment was later 

signed extending the original agreement to January 13, 2007.] 

Language has been drafted and added to the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) bill 

authorizing the transfer but the bill has not yet cleared Congress. Because the cooperative agreement 

was intended to be a temporary set of management guidelines until a CCP was developed and/or the 

land was transferred in fee to the Service, none of the clauses in the cooperative agreement have 

been interpreted to be equivalent to “purposes” for McNary Refuge. 

Other parcels: Small pieces of McNary Refuge were also added by purchase under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract under a 10 year lease with the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. And, according to Realty files, approximately 300 acres in four 

tracts were acquired under authority of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

. 

Unit Sizes: As depicted on Map 2A, McNary Refuge includes 7 separate units (not including the 

Hanford Islands Unit, which is being evaluated under the Hanford Monument CCP). These units, their 

land status and their acreages are shown in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1. McNary Refuge Units – Status and Acreage* 

Unit Name Management Authority Unit Acres 

McNary Headquarters Fee title/Lease 2,960.40

Burbank Sloughs Fee title/Coop Agreement 430.63

Juniper Canyon/Stateline Coop Agreement 1,692.38

Peninsula original (all land and water, includes Badger, 

Foundation, and Crescent islands) 

Coop Agreement 

7,838.80

Strawberry Island Fee title 135.74

Two Rivers Coop Agreement 344.01

Wallula Coop Agreement 2,264.04

Total Acreage (excluding Hanford Islands Unit) 15,666.00 

 *Acreages calculated from GIS analysis of the mcn_bnd coverage, modified as necessary to divide units. 

C. Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Purposes 

 

The Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge was created under Coordination Act obligations due to the 

construction of the John Day Dam at River Mile 215. The Dam impounded waters along a 76-mile 

stretch of the mainstem Columbia River, with about 48,000 acres flooded (Rasmussen 1989). The 

General Plan, signed in 1968, designated various lands and waters to be set aside for the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-12 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

“conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon” 

including most of the lands located in the present day boundaries of the Umatilla Refuge. Like 

McNary Refuge, the Umatilla Refuge is administered by the Service and much of the underlying land 

and water are under ownership of the Corps. 

Initial Consultation: Consultation with the Secretary of the Interior as part of the process for water 

resources development for the John Day Lock and Dam Project was completed with a report by the 

Service titled A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by the John Day Lock and 

Dam Project (US FWS 1961). Information in this report as well as correspondence between the 

Service and the Department of Army focused on Refuge creation for proposed management areas as 

compensation for waterfowl losses. Additional correspondence continued to focus on waterfowl 

resources for the proposed management area. 

General Plan: A General Plan for the project (US DOA et al. 1968) was written in accordance with 

the Coordination Act. The General Plan states that “those lands and waters acquired for primary 

purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] and found to have their greatest value in furthering 

the national migratory bird program will be made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau 

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for administration and 

management.” 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298): Public Law 89-298 authorized the Secretary of 

Army to acquire additional lands to be part of the management area “for waterfowl management.” 

These lands are referred to as ‘special law lands’ (Exhibit A described as Exhibit C) and are the 

original lands held in fee by the Service. 

1969 Cooperative Agreement: This agreement transferred administrative control of the nonfee lands 

to the Service for management “for the purpose of development, conservation, and management of 

wildlife resources thereon in accordance with said General Plan” (US DOA and US DOI, 1969b). 

Specific language relative to wildlife management and public uses was included in the agreement. 

The language is open-ended enough to be interpreted as recommended, but not mandated, 

strategies to be pursued in perpetuity. The specifics are detailed below. 

• The Bureau...may enter into special use permits with local ranchers to graze and pasture land for 

the purpose of maintaining optimum food and habitat conditions for wildlife. 

• The Bureau may also plant and harvest crops...to provide: (a) food for wildlife; and (b) necessary 

compensation to farmers under any sharecrop agreement...the lands will not be used by the 

Bureau for the production of crops or any purpose solely to produce revenue to defray costs of 

management of the wildlife area. 

• Lands within the wildlife area which are not needed for the production of wildlife food and the 

maintenance of wildlife habitat...will be leased by the District Engineer. 

• The Bureau shall administer and maintain the area included in this Agreement in accordance with 

its Master Plan for wildlife development...there shall be included within this plan those areas that 

are designated for public hunting; for wildlife sanctuaries, and for the production of food for 

wildlife or other purposes. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-13

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement: The cooperative agreement was modified to 

provide Service authority to manage portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands, which had formerly 

been under Corps management. The agreement stated that these lands were “originally excepted 

from management by the Service because they were classified for recreation use.” The amendment 

stated that “All remaining terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” 

Additional Land Acquisitions: Additional land tracts were added to the Refuge as shown in Table 1-2. 

 

Table 1-2. Umatilla Refuge Land Acquisitions Subsequent to Original Refuge Establishment. 

Tract Acres Acquisition Authority Purpose 

10M 670 Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 

“development, management, advancement, conservation 

and protection of fish and wildlife resources” 

1121, 

1122 

136.45 Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

“for migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries 

and for other management purposes” 

2a 27.6 Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 and 

Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act 

See above. Also, authorizes the purchase of wetlands or 

interests in wetlands, which are not acquired under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan 

using LWCF monies. 

3015 27.1 Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 

See above 

Umatilla Refuge: Map 3 shows the units of Umatilla Refuge. Acreages for each unit are shown in 

Table 1-3. The Columbia River Navigation Channel acres are shown for informational purposes only, 

therefore, the Refuge does not have any management authority over these waters, and they are not 

considered further in the analysis. 

 Table 1-3. Umatilla Refuge Units Sizes. 

Unit Name Management Authority Unit Acres 

Boardman Partially fee title, coop agreement 2,174.49

Columbia River Unit (includes some islands) Cooperative agreement 5,954.09

McCormack (includes some islands) Partially fee title; remainder coop 

agreement 6,886.79

Paterson Partially fee title, coop agreement 4,665.27

Ridge Coop agreement 985.21

Whitcomb Partially fee title, coop agreement 4,463.26

Total Acreage 25,129.11 

 *Acreages calculated from GIS analysis of the umt_bnd coverage. 

1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans 

 

Planning has been a part of Refuge operations since their beginning. Although not all were done in a 

comprehensive fashion, or with public participation considered adequate today, a considerable 

number of plans were completed over the years to guide managers. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-14 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

A. Previous plans 

Following the inception of McNary Refuge in 1955, a “Master Plan” was published in 1969. The 

document included the then 3,215-acre McNary Refuge plus the 4,000-acre Ringold Division being 

managed at that time for the Atomic Energy Commission. The Master Plan summarized project 

history, Refuge purposes, and provided developmental plans for the Refuge which included estimated 

cost and benefits. Management responsibilities for the Ringold Division were later transferred to the 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 

The next large planning effort was the “Station Refuge Management Plan, Parts I and II” completed for 

both Umatilla and McNary Refuges in 1987. Part I was a detailed and valuable plan covering 

location, history, environment, resources, administration, land status, agreements and permits, and 

management direction. Part II set detailed wildlife and public use objectives and strategies. 

In addition, several smaller “step-down” plans (plans addressing one program or resource) have been 

developed for both Refuges including: 

• Fire Management Plans- 2001 

• Station Safety Plans- 2005 

• Hunting Plans-1986 

• Sport Fishing Plans-1987 

• Fire Dispatch Plans-2006 (Updated annually) 

• Fisheries Management Plan-1988 

• Cropland Management Plan – Umatilla-1996 

• Cropland Management Plan – McNary-1999 

• Umatilla Public Use Plan-1996 

• Wildlife Inventory Plan Umatilla Refuge-1984 

• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan-2006 

• West Nile 

B. Future planning 

The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that changes 

are needed to achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides guidance 

in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for Refuge program areas but may lack some of the 

specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore be developed for 

individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down plans require 

appropriate NEPA compliance. Several step-down plans (Habitat Management Plan, Public Use 

Management Plan, Inventory and Monitoring Plan, and Integrated Pest Management Plan) are 

appropriate to develop and/or update following the CCP completion; all of these should be founded 

on the management goals, objectives and strategies outlined in the CCP, and should be scheduled to 

be completed by 2009. The Integrated Pest Management plan should address coordination with all 

other Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies as well as neighboring private landowners in order to 

effectively combat the spread of invasive species. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-15

1.8 Relationship to Other Ecosystem 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. 

 

A. Columbia River Region 

 

Columbia River Fisheries Management Plans: The art and science of Columbia River fisheries 

management continues to evolve. There is no formally recognized "umbrella" plan that governs 

fisheries management, and litigation continues over key aspects of fisheries management. Key 

documents that were reviewed include the document known as the “All H Paper” (Federal Caucus 

2000) and the 2004 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. 

Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan (Lloyd et al. 1983): This plan, a partnership effort between 

WDFW, Oregon Department of Wildlife (ODFW), and the Service, modified hunting areas and 

regulations in the Columbia Plateau area with the purpose of “redistributing” waterfowl (mainly from 

the Umatilla/Boardman area to the Yakima subbasin area). Because basin-wide numbers of wintering 

waterfowl have dropped sharply since the plan was first implemented, possibly due to area-wide 

cropping changes, climate change, and habitat improvements in California, the Columbia Basin 

Wintering Waterfowl Plan is currently in the process of being updated with the same partner 

organizations that originally authored the plan. 

Subbasin Plans: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) has overseen the 

development of plans for each of the 60 interior tributary subbasins of the Columbia River. Subbasin 

plans are expected to assess the biological potential of the subbasin and to describe opportunities for 

restoration. Plans also describe the amount of habitat change that has occurred within the subbasin 

and limiting factors (analogous to stresses/sources in this plan). The plans will be the basis for review 

of proposals for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) each year by the fish and wildlife agencies and 

tribes, the Independent Scientific Review Panel, and the Council. All of Umatilla Refuge and much of 

McNary Refuge is situated within the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin (Yakama Nation et al. 

2004). Focal habitats included in the subbasin plan also occurring on McNary and Umatilla Refuges 

include interior riparian wetlands and shrub-steppe/interior grasslands. These habitats include a set 

of focal species selected for the subbasin plan. Part of the McNary Refuge falls within the Walla 

Walla Subbasin (Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit et al. 2004). Focal habitats for the plan 

include interior grasslands, shrub-steppe, and interior riparian-wetlands. Quantitative objectives were 

written for each focal habitat, based on the needs of selected focal species. The Refuges will have the 

opportunity every five years to submit project proposals for BPA funding that are consistent with the 

subbasin plan. 

Caspian Tern Management in the Columbia River Estuary (U.S. FWS 2005): This plan focuses on the 

tern colony located in the Columbia River Estuary and recommends management of alternate sites in 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-16 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Western Oregon and Washington to redistribute terns away from the Columbia River estuary, so as to 

reduce consumption of juvenile listed salmonids on their way to the ocean. The mid-Columbia River 

area is not specifically covered under the plan. 

The Nature Conservancy Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Assessment (The Nature Conservancy’s 

Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team 1999): This assessment identified a portfolio of sites 

that, collectively and with appropriate conservation action, could maintain all viable native species 

and communities within the analysis area. In addition, it provides an assessment of threats to the sites 

and develops multi-site strategies to conserve the biodiversity of the ecoregion. The document and 

assessment are in the process of being updated. 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan: This project was an ambitious effort covering 

the majority of the Inland Northwest and is one of the best sources of broad scale ecosystem analysis 

for the region. The scientific assessment which underlies the plan identified numerous threats to the 

ecological integrity of the basin (Quigley et al. 1997). Within the vicinity of the Mid-Columbia 

Refuges, report authors listed the primary opportunities to address the risks to ecological integrity as: 

(1) maintenance or restoration of riparian condition; (2) restoration of productive aquatic areas; and 

(3) conservation of fish strongholds and unique aquatic areas. 

B. Migratory Bird Plans 

 

Birds of Conservation Concern (US FWS 2002): Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three 

major bird conservation efforts (Partners In Flight, the U.S. 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. The MidColumbia Refuges are located within BCR Region 9, for which 29 species are listed. 

Partners in Flight (PIF), Columbia Plateau Plan: The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy for 

Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman and Holmes 2000) is 

to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. Specific management 

activities and strategies are recommended. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan: The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to 

protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through habitat 

protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan contains population goals for several species 

and groups of species by season or life stage. The plan was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on 

strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding partnerships. 

Additional strategic guidance was provided in a 2004 update, with specific population objectives by 

species. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the regional level by partnership, within 11 

Joint Venture areas. The Mid-Columbia Refuges are located within the area of the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture. The document 2004 Strategic Guidance (North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, 2004), a 15 year plan, does contain species-specific population objectives as a 

stepdown 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-17

plan did 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 26 management plans to date in 

either draft or final form available at http://pacificflyway.gov/Abstracts.asp#rmts. The following 

flyway management plans pertain to the McNary and Umatilla Refuges and the CCP: 

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

Control 

• Greater White-fronted Geese: Pacific, Tule 

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

• Ross' Geese 

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

• Sandhill Cranes: Pacific Coast, Central Valley 

• Mourning Dove: National Mourning Dove Plan 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Oring, Neel, and Oring, 2006): 

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

maintaining the continent’s shorebird population. 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, agricultureshorebird interface; and wintering sites. Concern ranking scores are provided for each of the 34 

shorebird species breeding or moving through the region. Species ranked as “critically important” 

include snowy plover, black-necked stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher, 

and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Draft Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2003): 

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

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

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

 

C. State plans 

 

State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2003): 

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

of the State’s biological diversity. Species and ecosystems 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/index.html. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-18 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

State of Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WDFW 2005) and State of 

Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2005): These plans were written by 

each of the States to create a management framework for the protection of State species and habitats 

in greatest need of conservation. The plans outline species and habitats of concern (called “species 

of greatest conservation need” in the Washington plan and “Strategy species” in the Oregon plan). 

Specific conservation actions are identified for these species. 

1.9 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

A. Issues to be Addressed in the CCP 

 

The following issues are within the scope of the CCP/EA and are considered by the Service to be the 

major issues to address in the planning process. 

Habitat and Species Management: What habitat conditions should be targeted and restored on the 

Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff/talus habitats, many of which are highly degraded 

by invasive plants and animals? How can the Refuges best prevent wildfire, particularly those that 

arise regularly from trains that cross many miles of each Refuge numerous times each day? What are 

the best methods for maintaining productivity and diversity in wetlands, when natural hydrologic 

fluctuations no longer exist? What other actions should the Refuges take to sustain and restore priority 

species and habitats over the next 15 years? 

Waterfowl Management: Where shall specific waterfowl management tools and techniques, including 

provision of cropping areas and sanctuary areas, be utilized at the Refuges? What role shall the 

Refuges play in providing wintering waterfowl habitat and hunting areas within the Mid-Columbia 

basin? 

Shorebirds: How shall the Refuges best manage a thriving shorebird migration area? 

Salmonids and Other Declining Species: What actions should the Refuge undertake to protect and 

enhance habitat for the migratory and rearing needs of seven stocks of listed salmon and steelhead? 

Should backwater areas be restored? What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values 

for other declining species? 

Islands: To what extent should islands located in the Columbia River be maintained free from human 

disturbance? Are diverse suites of waterbird colonies that currently nest on the islands significant 

sources of mortality to listed salmonids? If so, should populations or habitats be managed to prevent 

their increase? 

Wildlife Dependent Uses: Which “Big Six” programs should be offered at each Refuge and what kinds 

of improvements to these programs can be provided to enhance public enjoyment and ensure a 

quality experiences for Refuge visitors? 

Camping and other Nonwildlife Dependent Uses: Shall the Refuges continue to offer additional 

various non-wildlife dependent recreational opportunities, including camping, dog trials, swimming 

and beach use, and horseback riding? What facilities and program support should be offered? 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-19

Cultural Resources: What steps should be taken to better protect and interpret cultural resources? 

Effective Law Enforcement, Outreach, and Prevention of Illegal Uses: Between 2003 and 2006, the 

Complex lost 75% of its law enforcement capacity. How can the Refuges better prevent the use of 

Refuge lands for a variety of illegal uses, including dumping, ATVs, target shooting, and vandalism? 

B. Issues outside the Scope of the CCP/EA 

Hanford Islands: Many comments were received on this issue, with public opinion regarding summer 

beach use on the islands varying greatly. This issue and management of the Hanford Islands Unit will 

be addressed as part of the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP and not the McNary and 

Umatilla Refuges’ CCP. 

Columbia River Hydropower Operations: Operations of the Columbia River hydropower system are 

not within the scope of the CCP/EA. Minor changes in pool level may be recommended under some 

alternatives for limited periods of time, but analysis or proposals dealing with major modifications of 

operations at McNary or John Day Dam are outside the scope of this CCP/EA. Ongoing litigation 

over management of anadromous fish may result in major changes to hydropower operations, 

especially in the McNary Pool. If this occurs, many of the CCP actions included under Preferred 

Alternative 2 may require rework. 

1.10 Refuge Vision 

Encompassing the bend in the middle Columbia River where the waters of the Snake, Walla Walla, 

and Umatilla Rivers join the Columbia, the McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges link a 

network of diverse habitats stretching nearly 90 miles from Richland, Washington, to Boardman, 

Oregon. The two Refuges’ 42,782 acres of shrub-steppe, basalt cliff, riparian, river islands and 

aquatic habitats will be managed to fulfill the needs of native fish, wildlife, and plants. By actively 

restoring habitat, controlling exotic species, and enhancing existing habitats and resources, the 

Refuges will serve as anchors for biodiversity and models for habitat restoration and land 

management. 

Just as the Columbia River is an important corridor for the transportation of people and goods, it is 

also an important natural corridor for migratory birds and fish, including endangered salmon and 

steelhead stocks. Food, rest and sanctuary will be provided for large concentrations of migratory and 

wintering waterfowl and shorebirds using the Refuges each year. Extensive corridors of riparian and 

floodplain habitat will be restored and enhanced for nesting and migrating neo-tropical songbirds. 

Management and enhancement of the Refuges’ waters, shorelines, channels and bays will contribute 

to the needs and recovery of endangered salmon and steelhead passing through and rearing in 

Refuge waters. By reaching out to neighbors and building strategic partnerships, the Refuges will seek 

new and innovative ways to conserve and protect fish and wildlife resources along the entire stretch of 

river. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-20 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Wildlife abundance and well planned and high quality interpretive facilities will attract thousands of 

visitors to the Refuges. We will work with partners and volunteers to provide a wide range of high 

quality recreational and environmental education programs, build Refuge support, and attract visitors. 

Encouraging an understanding of and appreciation for the Refuges and the mid-Columbia River 

environment will be a focus of the McNary and Umatilla Refuges for generations to come. 

1.11 Refuge Goals 

1. Manage high quality food and sanctuary to support large concentrations of migratory waterfowl. 

2. Provide secure and productive foraging and nesting habitats for a diversity of shorebirds. 

3. Contribute to the recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species by protecting, 

maintaining, or increasing suitable habitats. 

4. Provide a diversity of high-quality wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other 

wetland plants and animals. 

5. Provide high quality riparian habitats for the benefit of nesting and migrating birds, fish, riparian 

plants, and other riparian wildlife. 

6. Protect the integrity of the biological resources of the river islands. 

7. Conserve and restore the plants, animals and shrub-steppe community representative of historic 

Columbia Basin habitats. 

8. Protect and maintain the ecological integrity of talus, outcropping, and cliff habitats for natural 

levels of species diversity. 

9. Visitors and local residents enjoy, value, learn about, and support the Refuges. 

10. Hunters appreciate and experience a variety of quality hunting opportunities. 

11. Anglers experience abundant opportunities to catch fish while appreciating the Refuges. 

12. Students and teachers understand and value the Refuge System, and the ecology and 

management of McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges. 

13. Manage cultural resources for their educational, scientific, and cultural benefits for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Refuge users and communities. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-21

1.12 Planning Process 

A core planning team, consisting of a project leader, deputy project leader, biologist, public use 

planner, the Refuge Managers for both Refuges, and a regional planner, began developing the CCP 

in 2003. An extended team assisted in development, particularly in providing comments at key 

milestones. The extended team consisted of various professionals from other agencies and within 

Service. A list of core and extended team members, and their experience is located in Appendix J. 

Early in the planning process, the team cooperatively identified the top eight priority species, groups, 

and communities for these Refuges. These priorities were also called “conservation targets,” and most 

of the biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these targets. The 

analytical framework for analyzing the targets and for devising appropriate conservation objectives 

and strategies for each target was loosely based on The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation 

Assessment Methodology (formerly known as Five-S) process (TNC 2000). 

Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives and strategies around the Big Six uses. 

Other nonwildlife dependent uses that currently occur were also addressed. 

Public scoping began in spring and summer of 2004. Scoping meetings were held in Burbank and 

Boardman in June 2004. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning 

update to the Refuges’ mailing list. A complete summary of public involvement is in Appendix A. 

An internal draft was distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers and members of the extended team, 

including States and Tribes, in May 2006. All changes requested by reviewers and extended team 

members and actual changes made were documented. 

References 

Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

Eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight, 97pp. 

Dietrich, William. 1995. Northwest Passage: The Great Columbia River. Simon & Schuster, New 

York, NY. 

Federal Caucus. 2000. Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish. Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery 

Strategy. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Ivey, G. and C. Herziger. 2003. Draft Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

Lloyd, T.M., R. Denney, and G. Constantino. 1983. Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan for the 

Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales, 22 pp. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

1-22 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. State of Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. 

Oring, L., L. Neel, and K. Oring. 2006. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Intermountain West 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0 

Quigley, T.M. and Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 3. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment). 

Rasmussen L. and P. Wright. 1989. Wildlife Impact Assessment, John Day Project, Oregon and 

Washington. Annual Report 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Field Station. 

Project No. 88-12. 

Rasmussen L. and P. Wright. 1989. Wildlife Impact Assessment, McNary Project, Oregon and 

Washington. Annual Report 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Field Station. 

Project No. 88-12. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner’s 

Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation Success. Second 

Edition, June 2000. 

The Nature Conservancy’s Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. The Columbia 

Plateau Ecoregional Assessment: A Pilot Effort in Ecoregional Conservation. 

US DOA, US DOI, State of Oregon and State of Washington. 1953. Memorandum of Joint 

Agreement and Understanding Between the Department of the Army and Department of the 

Interior and the State of Oregon and the State of Washington for the General Plan of 

Development, Conservation and Management of Wildlife Resources within the Reservoir Area 

of McNary Lock and Dam Project. Signed and finalized August 14, 1953. 

US DOA, US DOI, State of Oregon and State of Washington. 1968. General Plan for the Use of 

Lands. John Day Lock and Dam Project for Wildlife Conservation and Management. Signed 

and finalized May 2, 1968. 

US DOA and US DOI. 1969a. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of the Army and 

the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries. Signed and finalized September 25, 

1969. 

US DOA and US DOI. 1969b. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of the Army and 

the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. DACW57-4-70-14. 

Signed and finalized July 3, 1969. 

US DOA and US DOI. 2000. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of Army and the 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No. DACW68-4-00-13. Signed 

and finalized January 13, 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, 

Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961. A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by 

the John Day Lock and Dam Project. 

Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council. 2004. Walla 

Walla Subbasin Plan Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-23

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2003. State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan. 

Olympia, Washington, 64pp. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. State of Washington Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. 

Yakama Nation, Klickitat County, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Lower 

Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan, including Rock Creek, Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program. 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design 

In drafting the alternatives for this long term conservation plan, the Service reviewed and considered a 

variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for managing the Refuge. 

These background conditions are described more fully in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. As is appropriate 

for a National Wildlife Refuge, resource considerations were fundamental in designing alternatives. 

House Report 105-106 accompanying the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

states "...the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife 

conservation must come first." 

The team reviewed scientific reports and studies to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest 

scientific recommendations for species and habitats. 

The Service met with staff from local, State, and Federal agencies and elected officials to ascertain 

priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff met with Refuge users, nonprofit groups, 

and community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were considered during CCP 

development. Details of public involvement can be found in Appendix A. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Developed 

Federal agencies have been at work since the fall of 2005 to revise a 2004 Federal Columbia River 

Power System biological opinion that U.S. District Court Judge James Redden declared invalid. Part 

of the new proposed action under that effort may involve “summer spill” to promote fish passage. In 

2005, a court injunction directed the Corps to spill water at several Columbia and Snake River dams 

“in excess of that required for station service” June 20-August 31 at several Snake River dams and “all 

flow above 50,000 cubic feet per second” from July 1– August 31 at the McNary Dam. In practice, 

this meant that the reservoir level was dropped to near the minimum operating level of 335 msl (mean 

sea level) at McNary Dam, dramatically lowering flooded wetland acres on McNary Refuge. 

The final biological opinion may contain a provision to make summer spill an annual event. This 

could dramatically change summer habitats and recreational opportunities on McNary Refuge. 

However, an alternative taking summer spill into account was not developed, because it is unknown at 

this time if such a strategy will become part of normal dam and fish management along the Columbia 

River. 

The planning team considered the appropriateness of providing opportunities for various nonwildlife 

dependent recreational activities suggested during scoping including field dog trials, geocaching, 

hang gliding, paragliding, rock climbing, motorized and nonmotorized off-road use, waterskiing, 

camping, beach use, and personal watercraft. Based on policy guidance in the Service’s Appropriate 

Refuge Uses Policy 603 FW 1 (2006), these uses were determined not appropriate, and are 

documented on FWS Form 3-2319 in Appendix K. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-2 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.3 Alternative Descriptions 

 

A summary table is presented on the following pages. This table summarizes the key differences 

between the alternatives. Following the summary table, detailed descriptions of the goals, objectives, 

and strategies for each alternative are presented. Maps 3, 4, 5, and 6, which follow the alternatives 

descriptions, display the four alternatives at McNary Refuge. Maps 7, 8, 9, and 10 display the four 

alternatives at Umatilla Refuge. 

A. Features Common to all Alternatives 

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length and 

redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability: 

Under each alternative, actions will be implemented 

over a period of 15 years as funding becomes 

available. Project priorities are in Appendix D. 

Refuge Fire Management: Fire Management Plans, 

and accompanying NEPA documents and Endangered Species Act consultations, were finalized for 

both Refuges in 2001. Fire management actions will continue to be guided by the direction set forth 

in the plans. 

Tribal Coordination: Regular communication with Native American Tribes who have an interest in the 

Refuge will be common to all alternatives. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (consisting of the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Tribes) are the major local Tribes the 

Refuges will coordinate and consult with on a regular basis regarding issues of shared interest. 

However, other Tribes with special interests, especially relating to the traditionally shared resource 

corridors along the Columbia River and near the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, will 

also be included in consultations affecting those resources. These traditionally local Tribes include the 

Yakama, Nez Perce, Colville (Palouse), and the Wanapum. Currently, the Service seeks assistance 

from Tribes in both Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) related issues. 

State Coordination: Similarly, under all alternatives, the Service will continue to maintain regular 

discussions with the Washington and Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife. Key topics for 

discussion will be the Columbia Basin Winter Waterfowl Management Plan, colonial nesting birds, 

wildlife monitoring, big game management, hunting and fishing seasons and regulations, and 

endangered species management. 

Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships: Volunteer opportunities and partnerships occur in all 

alternatives. These are recognized as key components of the successful management of public lands 

and vital to implementation of Refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining 

budgets. 

Actions will be implemented over a 

period of 15 years as funding becomes 

available. Implementation priorities are 

designated in Appendix D. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment: Annual payments to Counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Program will continue according to the established formula and subject to payments authorized by 

Congress. Total payments made to local Counties in 2005 are listed in Appendix D. 

Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities: Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge 

buildings and facilities will be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of 

facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs and is 

incorporated in the Service Asset Management System. 

Management of Minor Recreational Uses: Minor recreational activities are occasionally pursued on 

the Refuge. Such recreational activities not specifically addressed in this document may be allowed 

on Refuge lands if the Refuge Manager first finds they do not conflict with wildlife or habitat objectives. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities: The Service will actively 

participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future industrial and urban development, 

contamination, and other potential concerns that may adversely affect Refuge and wildlife resources, 

and habitats. The Service will cultivate working relationships with pertinent county, State, and Federal 

agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments; and will utilize outreach and 

education as needed to raise awareness of Refuge resources and dependence on the local 

environment. 

 

Maintain Existing Waterfowl Sanctuary in Support of Mid-Columbia Basin Planning Efforts: Waterfowl 

sanctuary is an area that is closed to hunting and significant disturbance from other public uses to 

provide important resting and/or feeding areas for waterfowl during the hunting season. Security, 

indicated partly by the acres of sanctuary area provided during hunting season, was listed as a key 

ecological attribute supporting waterfowl. There is public support for maintaining “large 

concentrations” of waterfowl, as they have been important for hunting and viewing users. However, 

Refuge sanctuary must be considered within the wider scope of Pacific Flyway and/or Region-wide 

area closures and numbers of birds wintering in the Lower Columbia Basin. Defining the role and 

extent of such sanctuary areas is a major component of the Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan 

for the Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington (Lloyd 1983). It is presently being re-written and 

updated through a partnership that includes WADFW, ODFW, Yakama Nation, the Corps, and the 

Service. Therefore, except for very minor changes at McCormack Unit proposed in this CCP, McNary 

and Umatilla Refuges will continue to manage waterfowl sanctuary in accordance with open and 

closed areas called for in the 1983 Wintering Waterfowl Plan and existing Refuge closed/open zones, 

and will make adjustments as needed, in consultation with the partnership agencies. 

Vegetation Inventory and Condition Ranking. By the summer of 2007, the Service will complete a 

vegetation inventory begun during the summer of 2005. Ground-truthing from randomly-selected 

sites will be used to complete an inventory map to the Alliance level for all vegetation polygons and to 

rank habitat conditions according to criteria outlined in Appendix F Condition Classes for Shrub 

Steppe and Riparian Habitats. Further refinement of the condition classes may occur. 

Section 106 Compliance. All ground-disturbing projects will undergo a review under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-4 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

B. Alternative Descriptions Summary 

 

Alternative 1: Emphasize Migratory Waterfowl Management and Consumptive Public Uses

Under Alternative 1, the Refuges would focus on providing migratory waterfowl with high quality, 

easily accessible food, by expanding both crop production and wetland food plants. Secure and 

adequately sized resting areas will be provided to ensure the health of overwintering and migrating 

waterfowl. Hunting and fishing would be emphasized, with improvement to facilities and increased 

opportunities through habitat improvements. A Washington State pheasant augmentation/release 

program would be phased out and camping would be discontinued at Madame Dorion Park. Other 

public uses would continue at approximately their current levels of service. 

Alternative 2: Emphasize Migratory Birds, Special Status Species, and Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 2, the Refuges would manage its resources for all migratory birds and to enhance 

populations of targeted special status species and their habitats. Habitats for migratory waterfowl, 

shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, and other native wildlife would be improved. The 

Refuges would emphasize control and reduction of weeds and improvement of riparian, shrub-steppe, 

island, and cliff habitats. Wildlife-dependent public use would be emphasized with opportunities for 

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

maintained or improved from present conditions. A Washington State pheasant augmentation/ 

release program would be phased out in two years and camping would be discontinued at Madame 

Dorion Park. Disturbance to island resources would be reduced through closure of all beach use and 

implementation of a no-wake zone within 100 feet of Refuge islands. 

 

Alternative 3: Emphasize Native Species Diversity and Non-Consumptive Public Uses 

Under Alternative 3 the Refuges would focus on allowing management that mimics natural processes 

to maintain or enhance native fish, wildlife and plant diversity. Improving existing island, riverine and 

shrub-steppe habitat and restoring degraded habitat to more native conditions would be emphasized. 

Fewer acres would be managed in croplands. The Refuges would contribute to recovery of threatened, 

endangered or rare species such as salmon, steelhead and long-billed curlews. Hunting and fishing 

opportunities would be available at most sites, however, pheasant and fish stocking would be 

eliminated and fewer acres would be managed to provide waterfowl food. Opportunities for wildlifedependent nonconsumptive uses would be improved and expanded. Camping would be discontinued 

at Madame Dorion Park. All island areas would be closed to public access, including beach use, and 

a no-wake zone within 100 feet of Refuge islands would be implemented during summer. 

Alternative 4: Continue Current Management 

Alternative 4 is the no change alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The Refuges would continue programs at current levels as described in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

Specifically, the Refuges would maintain, and where feasible, restore habitat for waterfowl, migratory 

birds, and State and federally-listed species. Existing public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, interpretation, environmental education, horseback riding, camping, 

boating, and limited beach use would continue.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5Table 2-1. Summary of CCP Actions, By Alternative  Key Themes/Issues 

Alternative 1 

 

Emphasize 

Migratory Waterfowl and 

Consumptive 

Public Uses 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) 

 

Emphasize Migratory Birds, 

Special Status Species, and 

Wildlife-Dependent Public 

Uses 

Alternative 3 

 

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and 

Non-Consumptive 

Public Uses 

Alternative 4 

 

Continue Current 

Management 

(No-action Alternative) 

Waterfowl 

Croplands:  Total Acreage  Share to Refuges 

2,400 acres 

25% 

2,100 acres 

25% 

1,850 acres 

25% 

2,100 acres 

25% 

Grain Availability over Season and During Emergency Weather Conditions 

390 acres scheduled for mid winter (post-hunting season) 

knockdown. 70 acres for late season knockdown. 

Emergency knockdown under severe weather conditions. 

 Most knockdown late Jan-mid Feb (no scheduled late 

season knockdown and no provisions for emergency 

knockdown 

Moist Soil Management:  Total Acreage  Floodup for Early Migrants 

406 acres 

30 acres flooded by 9/15 

366 acres 

30 acres flooded by 9/15 

Decrease acreage 

 All flooded 10/25 or later 

356 acres 

All flooded 10/25 or later 

Shorebirds 

Foraging Area:  Mudflats on Columbia River  Alternate Foraging Sites 

Same as Alt. 3 and 4 20 acre increase for migration. 

Alternate sites at moist soil units. 

No change to existing mudflat acres. 

No alternate sites provided. 

Curlew Upland Habitats Existing suitable habitat 

maintained 

Existing habitat maintained and suitable nesting and foraging 

habitat increased by 25% on inactive former croplands. 

Existing suitable habitat 

maintained 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Salmon Rearing Habitats None Protect and where feasible enhance backwaters and sidechannel habitats. Some backwater areas used for salmon rearing. Inventory for Rare Species not Monitored by Other Agencies 

No inventory conducted Undertake inventory. Specific habitat or population 

management strategies determined in step down plan. 

Minimal inventory conducted 

Wetland and Deepwater Habitats 

Shallow Marsh Management:  Open Water Areas Created  Emergent Invasives Cover 

96 acres/year 

< 20% 

67 acres/year 

< 20% 

0 acres 

Reduced 

33 acres/year 

Variable (30-50%) 

Elimination of Carp Eliminated at 4 wetlands Eliminated at 2 wetlands No effort to reduce carp. 

Riparian Habitats 

Nesting Habitats Improved 0 acres/year 62 acres/year 5 acres/year improved 5 acres/year improved Cottonwood Developed 0 acres/year 5 acres/year 0 acres/year 0 acres/year 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 2-6 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Islands and Cliffs 

Waterbird Populations and Coordination 

Habitat maintained to support a diversity of island-nesting birds and colonies. Continued coordination with partners on research, 

monitoring, and management of the Refuge’s colonies of salmonid-smolt eating birds. 

Reduce Disturbance to Island Wildlife to Protect Nesting and Breeding Ares 

Same as Alt. 4 Existing island closures to be enforced. No beach use. Nowake zone within 100-feet of islands on Refuge waters. Islands mostly closed in summer but some trespass 

issues. Crescent Island is open 

for waterfowl hunt. 

Protection of Rocky Habitats No mining, collection or extractive activities permitted on any natural Refuge rocky features. Baseline inventory of plant and 

wildlife resources (Alts 1, 2, and 3 only). Protection for raptor nesting sites and limit public uses to Big Six uses. 

Shrub-Steppe Habitats 

Existing Habitats Improved 64 acres/year 192 acres/year 288 acres/year 64 acres/year Restoration of Roads, Mining Sites, and Inactive Croplands 

100 acres 350 acres 600 acres 0 acres 

Protection from Fire and Ground Disturbance 

No emphasis Active measures taken with partners, public, and contractors to 

reduce fire damage and soil disturbances. 

Frequent fires burn about 

1,000 acres annually. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Trails 

McNary Opportunities  

No changes to current 

trails, viewing, and 

interpretive opportunities. 

Trail/interpretive improvements 

at Headquarters and Wallula 

Units. 

Trail and interpretive 

improvements at 

Headquarters Unit. 

Existing trails, viewing and 

interpretive signs at McNary 

Headquarters Unit maintained. 

Umatilla Hwy 14 Interpretive Overlooks No change Improved and expanded No change 

Interpretive signs at several 

overlooks on Hwy. 14 

Umatilla Heritage Trail Consider Heritage trail 

realignment. 

Add benches, blind, sun shades, and potential side trails to 

Heritage Trail; consider realignment. Add interpretive area at 

check station. 

County Heritage Trail traverses 

Refuge. Portions of trail unsafe 

during hunt season. 

Hunting 

Waterfowl Hunt Types Reservation fee hunting, posts/free roam, and youth hunts. Waterfowl Hunt Areas 25,952 acres 25,739 acres 25,698 acres 25,905 acres Sanctuary Areas Alt 4 minus Col. River 

shoreline at McCormack 

Alt 1 plus 

East McCormack Slough 

Alt 4 plus 

East McCormack Slough 

Existing areas (44% of 

Umatilla, 24% of McNary) 

Upland Bird Areas  

All open units. Hunting improved at Peninsula (eliminating 

mowing at former goose blinds). 

Upland game bird hunting provided on all open units. 

Upland Bird Hunt Schedule Hunt days and times standardized Variety of days/start times Upland Permits (McCormack) Permits reduced to 15 on opening two weekends. 25 daily permits, crowding issue on opening two weekends Pheasant Releases (McNary) Pheasant augmentation phased out in 2 years (Service policy prohibits nonnative stocking). State pheasant releases Deer Hunt (McCormack) Doe hunting emphasis to reduce population and address vegetation impacts issue. Hunt open at current level. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fishing 

Diversity of Fishing Opportunities Maintain diverse opportunities, including State seasonal 

stocking of rainbow trout at Quarry Pond for youth and family 

fishing. Improve parking facilities and access. 

Same as Alt. 4 except 

Quarry Pond stocking 

ended. 

Plentiful walk-in and boat 

fishing opportunities. Stocking 

for family fishing at one pond. 

Tournament Fishing Work in partnership with States and others to develop standard tournament permit conditions. 

No tournament access within 1⁄2 mile of pelican nest colonies. 

Several tournaments on both 

Refuges 

Fishing Outreach and Information Develop fishing brochure or tear sheets. Install kiosks at two 

on-Refuge and two off-Refuge boat launches. 

Large numbers of anglers and boaters using Refuges but little 

Refuge information is disseminated to this user group. 

Environmental Education 

Number of Students Served McNary:1,500-3,000 

Umatilla: 0 

McNary: 1,500 – 3,000 

Umatilla: 100-500 

McNary: 1,500-3,000 

Umatilla: 50 

Teacher Led Program Some emphasis At least 75% of the classes teacher-led. Some emphasis. EE Facilities at McNary Continue EE program at McNary Environmental Education Center at Burbank Slough. EE Facilities at Umatilla None Field study sites integrated into East McCormack Slough None 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Uses 

Horseback Riding Same as Alt. 4 Improve signing, outreach, and interpretive materials. Riders 

allowed on public roads and horseback designated trails. 

Riding allowed on public roads 

and designated trails. Limited 

information/facilities. 

Camping at Madame Dorion Park Madame Dorion Park available for day use for Big Six uses. 

Eliminate camping. Maintain existing rest area facilities. 

Camping permitted under 

temporary coop agreement 

Swimming and Beach Use Same as Alt. 4. Island beaches closed to all use. Beach use permitted on 

designated portions of 

Umatilla Islands in summer. 

Heavy beach use on 

Strawberry Island. 

Law Enforcement 

Illegal Shooting and Dumping Reduce dumping at Burbank Sloughs Unit by 80%. Eliminate target shooting. Illegal shooting and dumping 

occurs . 

Cultural Resources 

Monitoring and Protection Increased with greater survey effort, enforcement, training, and consultation with Tribes. Enforcement, consultation and 

project review per NHPA. 

Interpretation Programs Develop interpretive materials in partnership with Tribes and historical societies. No active interpretation Bank Stabilization Seek funding to stabilize eroding banks to protect buried cultural resources No funding for bank 

stabilization sought.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-8 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 

Refuge System Mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System 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 (USDI 2002). 

In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a variety of 

management goals, objectives and implementation strategies. 

The goals for McNary and Umatilla Refuges over the next fifteen 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 goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are assigned in Appendix D. 

 

Readers, please note the following: 

 

• The objective statement as written is the objective statement that applies to the Service is Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative 2. 

• Bolded text in the objective statement indicates specific items that vary in the other alternatives. 

How those items vary is displayed in the short table under each objective statement; as applicable, 

each other alternative shows substitute text for the bolded item or items. 

• If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is used to indicate that this objective is not 

addressed in that alternative. 

Finally, below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to 

accomplish the objectives. Again, note the following: 

• Check marks alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. 

• If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it 

means that strategy will not be used in that alternative. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9

GOAL 1: Manage high quality food and 

sanctuary to support large concentrations 

of migratory waterfowl. 

 

 

Objective 1a: Provide Crops for Waterfowl 

Maintain 600 acres at McNary and 1,500 at Umatilla (2,100 total acres of Refuge land) for the 

production of crops on both Refuges, with a minimum of 400 acres to a maximum of 580 acres to 

be grown as grain (corn preferred) and left standing to benefit trust species of waterfowl (mainly 

mallard, northern pintail, Canada geese, and greater white-fronted geese). In addition, provide a 

minimum of 1,000 acres in green feed for waterfowl use during winter. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective is modified by replacing bolded type 

above with the text in this row. Increase crop 

acreage to 

2,400 acres 

Maintain 

2,100 

acres 

Reduce 

acreage to 

<1,850 acres 

 Maintain 

2,100 acres 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Plant crops on an additional 300 acres of cropland at 

Umatilla (100 acres) and McNary (200 acres) Refuges; 

use inactive agricultural lands currently in fallow, weedy 

condition. (There will be no conversion of existing 

grassland/shrub-steppe). 

9 

Conduct cooperative farming in accordance with 

guidelines, best practices and acreages outlined in the 

existing McNary and Umatilla Cropland Management 

Plan; and maintain Organic Farming Program on 

Whitcomb Island and McCormack Units of Umatilla 

Refuge. 

9 9 9 9

Consider force account farming to increase net food 

availability if and when appropriate. To do so, increase 

Refuge funding $100,000 annually for force account 

equipment, supplies and staffing and submit funding 

requests (RONS) for $300,000 to develop new 

irrigation circles. 

9 9 

Develop partnership programs to provide incentives and 

funding to private landowners to provide standing corn 

and other grains off-Refuge. 

9 9 

Rationale: Upland food availability, including the amount of land in corn and available as green feed, was identified as 

a key ecological attribute for waterfowl by the CCP team. Approximately 2,100 acres of Refuge lands are currently farmed 

under cooperative agreements. Under the Cropland Management Plans for Umatilla and McNary Refuges (USDI, 1996; 

USDI, 1999), croplands are managed for the benefit of waterfowl, but many other species benefit (i.e. bald eagles which 

rely on Refuge waterfowl concentrations). Refuge crop shares are generally 25% of what is grown and are limited to 1) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-10 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

cereal grains, preferably corn, to meet the high energy demands of migrating and wintering waterfowl, and 2) green winter 

forage and cover crops which provide for Canada goose populations. In addition, harvested areas provide foods for 

waterfowl, including waste grains and green forage such as alfalfa and grasses. Opportunities to provide natural foods on 

the Refuges are limited, especially for the large concentrations of waterfowl (peaks of nearly 250,000 to 500,000 birds for 

both Refuges combined). The 2003 Wildlife and Habitat Management Review of McNary and Umatilla Refuges 

recommended providing additional corn for wintering waterfowl. Increasing corn is limited by costs of installing irrigation 

systems, operation of the Organic Farming Program at Whitcomb Island, the need to rotate crops, and use of negotiated 

cooperative agreements with farming cooperators versus force account. Substantial increases in funding to both develop 

and maintain force account irrigation circles for corn would provide the best scenario for corn production. Partnerships and

incentives to area farmers to grow grains is another possibility. In addition, 300 acres of fallow agricultural land could be 

redeveloped and cropped to meet the demand for standing corn for waterfowl. These 300 reactivated cropland acres 

could be developed as follows: a 40-acre new irrigation circle at McCormack Unit, and a 60-acre new irrigation circle at 

Paterson on Umatilla Refuge; and at McNary, 60 acres of dryland wheat at Peninsula, 77 acres of dryland or reactivation 

of irrigation at Field 9 on Humorist Road, 37 acres irrigation system reactivation at Kohler, and 72 acres of irrigation 

system reactivation on Field 4, and former irrigated cropland on the southside of Wallula. 

Objective 1b: Extend Timeperiod Grain is Made Available to Birds. 

Extend time period grain is made available to waterfowl and provide grains during emergency 

weather conditions. Provide for mid and extended late-season nutritional needs of migrating and 

wintering waterfowl, especially mallard, northern pintail and greater white-fronted geese, by 

scheduling “knockdown” of 460 acres of available agricultural grain crops. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Expand knockdown dates both earlier and later in the season: 

• Post-hunting season (approximately January 18 – March 1): 390 acres 

total for both Refuges, staged knockdown over this time period, if possible. 

• Late season (week of March 1): 35 acres at Umatilla and 35 acres at 

McNary 

9 9 

Coordinate with cooperators and/or increase force account crop knockdowns 

to achieve the schedule listed above. 

9 9 

Allow for emergency knockdown during the hunting season if severe weather 

causes a documented need. This action may require closure of hunting due to 

baiting regulations; therefore coordinate with law enforcement and the public. 

Severe weather is snow or ice covering of most local fields and or weather 

below 0 degrees F for an extended time leading to generally inaccessible food 

supply on surrounding farms and agricultural fields. 

9 9 

Rationale: Traditionally, Refuges reserved the standing crop to be knocked down during severe winter weather and/or 

immediately after the close of hunting season in late January to mid February. McNary staff have noted that in years when 

they were “late” (February-March) in knocking down the corn crop, more white-fronted geese (early spring migrants) were 

attracted. White-fronted geese have increased significantly in recent years, presumably in response to this late food 

availability. Providing grain crops in a scheduled, staged way throughout the season will help provide for fall and spring 

migrants as well as the wintering population. However, under this schedule the majority (85%) of standing crop is still kept 

for late January–post hunting–knockdown. Refuge managers have documented extreme winter weather events leading to 

area fields being covered with ice and snow; in such times Refuge corn fields have been mowed to supply the nutritional 

need for a large percentage of Columbia Basin wintering waterfowl and have likely prevented die-off events. 

Objective 1c: Increase Size and Availablity of Moist Soil Areas 

Add10 acres to the existing 356 acres of managed moist soil units for both Refuges (5 acres each), 

and increase efforts to provide high production of natural foods favored by mallards and northern 

pintails, such as smartweed (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa spp.) and swamp timothy 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11

(Crypsis schoenoides). Provide early flood-up, by September 15, on 30 acres of existing moist soil 

units (10 acres at Umatilla/5 acres at McNary) to support early migrants such as northern pintail. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above 

with the text in this row. 

Add 40 

acres to 

Add 10 

acres to 

Substract 8 

acres from 

Maintain 

current 

acreage of 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Flood units in fall and follow with a late spring drawdown, 

properly timed to maximize germination and growth of the 

desired species. 

9 9 9 9

Utilize disking at Umatilla’s McCormack Slough to set back 

taller persistent wetland vegetation, and to provide a seed bed 

for preferred moist soil annual vegetation. 

9 9 

Where water and precise water control is available, utilize 

summer irrigations to keep vegetation actively growing (timed 

to minimize standing water since mosquito larvae production 

period is 5-7 days). 

9 9 

Develop 10-40 acres of new moist soil units from the following 

potential areas: McNary - Unit 3, Two Rivers, and Peninsula 

units; and Umatilla - Boardman, and Paterson units. Utilize 

irrigation water and manage piping/pumps as needed. 

9 9 

Coordinate irrigations and new moist soil development with 

local mosquito control districts (see West Nile Virus 

Contingency Plans for both Refuges. 

9 9 9 9

Annually provide water for early flood up (by September 15) of 

30 acres of moist soil from the following units: McNary-Dudley 

wetlands, Wallula Units wetlands; Umatilla - Kathy’s Pond; and 

any new sites to be developed (see above objective 4a). 

9 9 

Coordinate timing and treatment of early fall flood-ups with 

the mosquito control districts at both Refuges to reduce risks of 

mosquito-borne diseases (see West Nile Virus Contingency 

Plan). 

9 9 

Terminate flood up at Dudley Ponds 1 and 2 and at Wallula 

South 1. 9

Rationale: Wetland food availability was identified as a key ecological attribute supporting waterfowl. Moist soil 

wetlands use annual water control regimes to promote production of annual plants preferred by waterfowl, such as wild 

millet, smartweeds, swamp timothy and goosefoot. Typically this includes a spring drawdown, one to two summer 

irrigations, and a fall/winter flood-up. These wetlands also provide a variety of water depths that support a wide variety of 

waterbird species including shorebirds and wading birds and serve as important feeding areas for young waterfowl bro 

 Although not considered typical moist soil management units (due to a lack of direct water control), some Refuge areas 

are already being managed for moist soil plant production. These include several wetlands at McNary’s Wallula Unit, and 

shoreline areas at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit. Expanses within McCormack Slough of Umatilla Refuge have been 

excavated to elevations that fall between the annual minimum and maximum water levels of the slough, as dictated by John

Day Dam forebay operations. Under the influence of this operation, these sites are inundated with shallow water from 

November through June and are exposed as saturated or moist soils from July to October, thus performing as a seasonal 

wetland that is highly suitable for moist soil plant production. Disking has been used at these sites to eliminate 

development of tall persistent vegetation such as bulrush, and to promote establishment of annuals as soon as the flats 

become exposed about early July. Managed moist soil areas on the slough are used heavily by waterfowl, particularly 

northern pintail, green-winged teal, and mallards. There has also been much use by shorebirds and wading birds in the 

spring season. 

 New moist soil areas could be developed and/or managed for moist soil including: small wetlands associated with 

irrigation water at the Dudley wetlands at McNary and additional sites at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit near Hunt Blinds 1, 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-12 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2, 5, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37, and shorelines at hunt blinds 7 and 30. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004) lists the long-term trend for northern pintail populations as 

declining. The Refuges could distribute the benefits of moist soil management to a greater diversity of waterfowl, including 

northern pintail, by providing earlier fall flood-up of units. Pintail generally arrive earliest of the waterfowl, with peak 

concentrations sometimes occurring in September. The Refuges have limited ability to control the timing of flood-up at 

some of the moist soil units. McNary’s Dudley wetlands and other irrigation-dependent wetlands generally have irrigation 

water through mid-October, and could provide excellent smartweed beds to early migrants if managed and flooded early. 

In the past, mosquito breeding and the potential for mosquito-borne diseases (such as West Nile Virus) has limited the use 

of early flood ups. With close coordination and cooperation with the local mosquito control districts, early flood-up of 

moist soil wetlands could be accomplished.

Objective 1d: Relocate Sanctuary Area within McCormack Unit 

Improve resting and feeding opportunities for migratory birds and wintering waterfowl and increase 

opportunities for wildlife observation on the eastern portion of McCormack Slough at Umatilla 

Refuge by closing the area to hunting, eliminating foot traffic and access to the wetlands, and 

restricting public use and access to the auto tour route and selected public viewing or overlook sites. 

Move the current waterfowl and upland game bird hunting opportunity on the eastern portion of 

McCormack Slough to a new area within current sanctuary along river shoreline on the north side of 

the unit. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Close all public access to the east portion of McCormack Slough except at 

designated viewing and interpretive sites, and designated trails and roads (see 

Objective 9d and 9e). 

9 9

Sign perimeter of new sanctuary area to inform public of area closure and make 

changes to Refuge brochures and hunting tear sheets. 

9 9

Open new designated site along river shoreline for waterfowl and upland bird 

hunting and sign as needed (see Objective 10a) 

9 9 

Rationale: The East McCormack Slough is an ideal area for sanctuary and use by waterfowl away from the buffeting 

winds on the river. Its high quality wetlands and intensively managed foraging areas are used by large numbers of 

waterfowl and other wildlife. The area is also currently heavily used, both as a hunt area and also (and at the same time) 

by birdwatchers, photographers and general wildlife observation. Managing the East McCormack Slough with fewer 

disturbances would help to greatly improve the quality of Objectives 9d and 9e, and better separate hunting from the 

visiting public using the tour route and Heritage Trail. All three of these objectives, if implemented together, would 

complement and benefit one another. If any one of them was implemented alone, it would be less valuable as a resource 

to the public. The loss of waterfowl and upland bird hunting in the East McCormack Slough would be replaced with a new 

hunt area located along the river shoreline with nearly an equal amount of hunting opportunities and overall land area. 

Hunting quality at the new site would likely be the same or better than that provided in the east slough since an interior 

sanctuary wetland could be expected to increase overall bird distribution and hunting success (similar to the situation at 

McNary Refuge with Units 3 (sanctuary) and 2 (hunted). Intensively managed sites in the east slough would also provide 

opportunity to expand desired habitats for various species other than waterfowl, such as shorebirds, wading birds, and 

other water birds. Hikers, birders, and photographers would lose direct and close access to the wetlands; but the auto tour 

route and carefully placed designated observation sites and decks would still provide for quality wildlife observation visits. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13

GOAL 2: Provide secure and productive foraging and nesting 

habitats for a diversity of shorebirds. 

Objective 2a: Increase Available Delta Mudflat 

Increase the acres of mudflat available for migratory shorebird foraging by 20 acres during peak 

migration periods at McNary Refuge’s Walla Walla Delta to benefit shorebird species such as blacknecked stilt, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, dunlin, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Coordinate with the Corps for draw downs of McNary Reservoir to 336–337 

mean sea level (msl) mid-July to October and mid-March to late April migration 

peaks, to expose an additional 20 acres of mudflats for shorebirds at the Walla 

Walla Delta 

9 

Monitor and control expansion of invasives and other upland plants onto 

mudflats: increase chemical and mechanical treatments to maintain and/or 

increase mudflat habitat. 

9 

Increase use of signing, education, and law enforcement to eliminate illegal 

trespass onto Delta. 

9 

Rationale: Foraging habitat and security were both identified as key ecological attributes for shorebirds by the CCP 

team. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Oring 2004) lists black-necked stilt, American 

avocet, dunlin, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope as “critically important” species. The Walla Walla Delta is 

a major shorebird migration feeding area for these and other shorebird species, with documented annual populations 

numbering up to 8,600, representing nearly 40 species (International Shorebird Surveys, Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences). Careful management of this area would help enhance and increase the habitat value of this site, 

supporting goals of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). Spring and fall drawdowns of the McNary 

Pool would create more exposed mudflat during the shorebird migration. Vegetation, including purple loosestrife, 

phragmites, and false indigo, is encroaching onto Delta mudflats. Available biocontrols for purple loosestrife may be 

limited by reservoir fluctuations and wintertime inundation. Public use planning can help eliminate illegal uses and 

trespass. 

 

 Objective 2b: Provide Alternate Shorebird Foraging Areas 

Annually provide 10 acres of alternative shorebird foraging areas within moist soil units at McNary 

(Wallula Unit 8 acres) and Umatilla (McCormack Unit 2 acres) during the peak of the migration 

period (August/September) and/or when the Walla Walla Delta is unavailable to shorebirds due to 

high reservoir levels (e.g., during boat race week). Objective will benefit up to 40 species of 

shorebirds documented to use the Delta, including species identified as “critically important” such as 

black-necked stilt, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-14 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Determine best time periods for providing alternative foraging sites based on the 

Corps’ projected reservoir levels and peak migration periods. Annually select and 

prepare 10 acres of moist soil units needing treatment (i.e., disking and invasive 

plant removal) and flood/drawdown these units just prior to projected periods of 

high reservoir levels. Potential sites at McNary include Wallula and Dudley ponds; 

and at Umatilla, McCormack Slough and Kathy’s Pond. 

9 

After disking and where water control is available, flood to a maximum depth of 

one-to-three inches over the disked area for approximately one week; allowing 

water to drop naturally and provide habitat. 

9 

Rationale: Large populations of migratory shorebirds often find themselves without adequate foraging habitat when the 

Corps suddenly increases and maintains reservoir levels for an extended period. Examples include boat race week and 2 

to 4 day increases for special shipping/barging requests. Alternative foraging sites nearby could be valuable during these 

time periods. The availability of alternate sites was identified in a literature review as a key consideration for managing 

shorebird populations effectively (Prindle 2004). Properly timed draw downs, disking treatments, and/or irrigations of 

existing moist soil units would help provide more habitats for shorebirds on the Refuges if the Delta becomes unavailable. 

Potential locations for this include the Wallula moist soil units adjacent to Walla Walla Delta, and the McCormack Slough 

and Kathy’s Pond area at Umatilla. These alternative mudflat-shorebird foraging sites will have the side benefit of 

providing irrigation for the surrounding moist soil vegetation that remains untreated. Weedy areas and canary grass 

portions needing a treatment (disking) will be chosen, not good moist soil sections. Remaining moist soil plants will be 

allowed to continue to grow productively, and could produce larger seed heads irrigated. Many shorebird experts have 

recognized the importance of providing alternate sites, especially along river systems (EDAW 2004). The timing will have to

be precise to provide habitat during the projected high water periods, requiring close Corps dam reservoir coordination. 

Irrigations will also have to be conducted with shallow water and short time periods to prevent mosquito breeding. Under 

current operations, the Delta should continue to expand in area, and if properly managed, may someday qualify as a 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Regional Site (supporting greater than 20,000 shorebirds per year).

Objective 2c: Maintain or Increase Long-billed Curlew Habitat 

Maintain long-billed curlew nesting and foraging habitat, and increase existing curlew nesting 

habitat by 25% on appropriate sites at each Refuge to benefit this species. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the 

text in this row. 

Maintain 9 9

Increase 

by 25%

Maintain 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Continue to identify and quantify existing curlew nesting and foraging 

areas to determine location and amount of habitat on the Refuges. 

9 9 9 9

After habitat has been identified and quantified; increase existing 

acreage at each Refuge by 25% by restoring inactive, formerly 

cultivated lands to curlew foraging and nesting habitat, specifically: 

McNary Fields #9 and #4; the Kohler Field; and at Umatilla, areas 

south of the Callow overlook and edges of field circle 5 and the 

surrounding grassland. 

9 9

Restore both formerly cultivated agricultural lands (above) and convert 

existing cropland in Umatilla field circle #5 to native shortgrass 

habitat favorable to curlews. 

 9

Focus management in curlew use areas toward maintaining and 

restoring native shortgrass habitats; use planting, burning, and 

mowing methods. 

9 9

Monitor populations and/or nest success using transects or other 

standardized techniques. 

9 9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15

When conducting restoration efforts under objectives 7a and 7c, 

avoid planting shrubs in curlew focal areas. 

9 9

Rationale: The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan’s list of High Priority Shorebirds (USFWS 2004) lists the long-billed 

curlew as a “globally highly imperiled” species in need off protection measures. Long–billed curlews have been assigned 

the highest score (5 on scale of 1-5) for conservation efforts under criteria established by the Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2004). The Intermountain West Region is considered an area of critical importance 

(compared to other regions globally) for their conservation. The Umatilla Refuge and surrounding lands serve as a key 

breeding area for long-billed curlews. An accurate estimate of the curlew’s current population on the Refuges is not 

available, but range-wide survey efforts completed in 2004 showed populations on Umatilla Refuge to be higher than all 

other sites surveyed that year. There is likely an opportunity to expand the population. Areas that have been known to be 

used by curlews at Umatilla include: McCormack Slough, uplands south of McCormack Slough, Kathy’s Pond, Whitcomb 

Islands, and agricultural field #5 near the auto tour route on McCormack Unit. McNary has only limited curlew habitat 

with small numbers at the following locations: Dudley Wetlands, Kohler Unit, and Wallula South Unit. Because curlews 

tend to avoid habitats with dense vegetation cover (both vertical height and horizontal density), the Refuges could manage 

for short vegetation during the curlew nesting season (mid-March to mid-May). Curlews favor areas with a mosaic of 

shortgrass and downy brome, typically within one mile of a water source (Pampush 1980; Pampush and Anthony 1993). 

 

Objective 2d: Conduct Shorebird Studies 

Conduct or facilitate completion of research studies to better understand shorebird ecology and 

management at both Refuges to benefit high priority species including the long-billed curlew, solitary 

sandpiper, western sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, Wilson’s plover, 

sanderling, and dunlin. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Evaluate existing literature and consult with experts regarding macroinvertebrate 

prey items for the shorebird species breeding and migrating at the Refuge. 

Conduct inventory of macroinvertebrates at the primary and alternate foraging sites 

to determine and compare species present, densities, etc. 

9 

Correlate 1990-present reservoir levels (Corps) with shorebird abundance data 

(Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences), with a focus on the peak migration 

periods and presence of high priority species. 

9 

Assess connectivity between known shorebird migration sites in the lower and midColumbia basins. 

9 

Rationale: The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan’s list of High Priority Shorebirds (USFWS 2004) lists the American 

golden plover, solitary sandpiper, western sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, Wilson’s plover, 

sanderling, and dunlin as a “high concern” species in need off protection measures. All of these species use Walla Walla 

Delta and other Refuge sites during migration. More data is needed to document forage base underpinning the shorebird 

populations using Refuge habitats, especially the Walla Walla Delta. A greater understanding of the ecology of shorebirds 

there would help support goals in the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2004) and would help the 

Refuges to establish baseline information on shorebird use and ecology at these sites. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-16 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 3: Contribute to the recovery of endangered, threatened, 

and sensitive species by protecting, maintaining or increasing 

suitable habitats. 

Objective 3a: Salmon Backwater Enhancements 

Protect, and where feasible restore or enhance backwater sloughs, side channel connections, 

shallow water marshes, or embayments that support juvenile salmon to benefit federally listed 

species/stocks, including Snake River Chinook, sockeye, and steelhead; Mid-Columbia steelhead; 

and Upper Columbia Chinook and steeelhead. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective applies as written above to alternatives (9) 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Assess the biological benefits (both waterfowl and fisheries) of restoring sidechannel fish habitats at Burbank Sloughs and Casey Pond at McNary Refuge; and 

Patterson Unit of Umatilla Refuge; and coordinate with State/Federal/Tribal fishery 

biologists. 

9 9

If deemed likely to provide biological benefits to listed salmon, prepare technical 

feasibility report and funding requests for salmon backwater enhancement projects. 

9 9

Evaluate and develop strategies to maintain and/or enhance connectivity between 

Columbia River and backwater slough areas. 

9 9

Rationale: Seven federally-listed species/stocks of anadromous fish, including Snake River Chinook, sockeye, and 

steelhead; Mid Columbia steelhead; Bull trout, and Upper Columbia Chinook and steelhead spend portions of their life 

history either on, or adjacent to, Refuge waters and shorelines on the Snake, Columbia, and Walla Walla Rivers. The 

Hanford Reach contains the last major mainstem spawning habitat in the Columbia River System for fall Chinook salmon, 

and up to 80% of the total run of adult fall Chinook salmon returning to the Columbia River spawn in the Hanford Reach 

(Dauble and Watson 1990). The Casey Pond area at McNary Refuges, and other shorelines and embayments on both 

Refuges, serve as nurseries for young developing fall Chinook (Easterbrooks, 200). Conserving and restoring salmon and 

steelhead populations is an important regional goal, not only for their own sake, but also because of their cultural, 

historical, and ecological value. Salmon are an important food source for numerous other wildlife species. Sixty-seven 

wildlife species of the Pacific Northwest, including many known to inhabit the Refuges, have been shown to have a “strong” 

or “recurrent” relationship with salmon (Cedarholm et al. 2000). Protection and/or restoration of these shallow habitats 

may also benefit waterfowl as embayments and backwater areas are less common now than historically. A previous project

proposal to Bonneville Power Administration for a restoration project at Peninsula received high scores but went unfunded. 

Paterson Slough also constitutes one of the larger embayments on the Middle Columbia. 

 

Objective 3b: Conduct Inventory and Establish Habitat/Population Management Strategies for 

Certain Rare Species 

Identify potential habitat areas and conduct a targeted inventory (primarily focused on determining 

presence/absence and indication of breeding) for the following species or species groups. If species 

are present, document population information. After determining species status, determine which, if 

any, habitat or population management strategies should be undertaken for the benefit of rare 

species. This determination may be made in a step-down plan. 

• Washington ground squirrel (OR–Endangered. WA–candidate. Federal–Candidate). 

• Burrowing owl (WA–Candidate. Federal–Species of Concern). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17

• Peregrine falcon (OR–Endangered. Federal–Species of Concern). 

• Golden eagle (WA–Candidate. Federal–No Status). 

• Swainson’s hawk (OR–Sensitive. Federal–No Status) 

• Ferruginous hawk (WA–Threatened. Federal–No Status). 

• Native Amphibians and reptiles (Varied status). 

• Bats (Varied status). 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective applies as written above to alternatives (9) 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Follow established and current protocols for surveys of rare species/species groups. 

When and where possible, participate in regional partnership efforts and conform 

to recommended timeframes. 

9 9

Alert Heritage programs and key State biologists of any new or expanded locations 

as well as the results of any negative searches. 

9 9

Rationale: Rare species were selected for inventory work primarily due to their sensitive status (threatened, endangered, 

etc) and because they may occur on either Refuge, thus possibly providing opportunities for habitat restoration or 

enhancement that could help to further their recovery. Specific information is summarized below. 

• Washington ground squirrel. McNary Refuge and the Oregon portion of Umatilla Refuge lie within the historic range 

of the Washington ground squirrel. The species is likely extirpated from the Refuge and its historical occurrence is 

unknown, however, the Refuges could possibly provide habitat for any proposed future re-introductions. 

• Burrowing owl. This species has seen a dramatic loss of habitat in the local area due to conversion to agriculture or 

urban development. Burrowing owls are known to nest on Umatilla Refuge, but data on colony locations is limited 

and data on population size is non-existent. 

• Peregrine falcon. At least one pair is known to nest on or near McNary Refuge at the Stateline Unit. Both Refuges 

provide foraging habitat. 

• Golden eagle. Golden eagles are reported to have nested in the cliff habitat on the Stateline Unit of McNary Refuge. 

• Swainson’s hawk. This species nests in the local area and has historically nested at McNary Refuge, but current status 

on Refuges is unknown. 

• Ferruginous hawk. Nests locally, though status is unknown on Refuges. Basalt cliffs on McNary’s Stateline Unit may 

provide nesting habitat. 

• Native amphibians and reptiles. Little information exists on the occurrence and abundance of native amphibians and 

reptiles both historically and/or following creation of the Refuges. Paralleling a global decline by at least a third of 

the world’s amphibians (Stuart et al. 2004), many of the Refuges’ native amphibian populations thought to be 

present at Refuge establishment appear to be dwindling or absent. The causes of declines at the Refuges (and 

elsewhere for other amphibians) are not fully known but may be related to loss of habitat, changes in hydrology, 

habitat fragmentation, introduction of nonnative predatory fish and bullfrogs into historic habitats, drought, mortality 

on roads, environmental contaminants, disease, and other factors (McAllister et al. 1999). The Refuges need to 

improve their knowledge of potential and occupied habitats for native amphibians and may be able to play a role in 

reestablishment of declining populations. 

• Bats. Virtually no information exists on bats occurring on either Refuge. Further information would help to 

understand Refuge species richness and diversity. 

We did not include here other species such as the bald eagle, American white pelican, and salmonids, for the following 

reasons. Bald eagle: the Corps already collects winter population information on bald eagles at McNary Refuge. The 

Refuges also tally bald eagles observed during aerial waterfowl surveys and contributes data to the annual Oregon Winter 

Eagle Survey. American white pelican: Population numbers are “rough” but data is collected by researchers as part of 

their work on the piscivorous fish research. American white pelican counts are estimated by researchers from aquatic and 

aerial counts. Once additional information is available on each of these species or groups population status on the 

Refuges, the staff can better determine appropriate habitat or population management objectives and strategies. Such 

detail may best be developed in a step down Habitat Management Plan. Salmonids: Endangered salmon stocks and 

other Columbia River System salmon are regularly monitored and/or studied by the WADFW, Corps, Tribes, Service, and 

NOAA Fisheries. Data is available for use by the Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-18 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 3c: Conduct Baseline Inventory for Small Mammals 

Conduct a one-week long baseline inventory in approximately six shrub-steppe priority areas to 

collect initial data on the presence, abundance, and diversity of small mammals. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective applies as written above to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the 

text in this row. 

minimal 9 9 minimal 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Map Quincy and Warden soil types, and an overlay with areas of lessdisturbed vegetation cover likely to be suitable for the Washington 

ground squirrel, to prioritize search areas for this species. 

9 9

Select other areas for survey based on State records and historic 

reports. 

9 9

Alert Heritage programs and key State biologists of any new or 

expanded locations as well as the results of any negative searches. 

9 9

Rationale: Small mammals are very important as a food source to higher level predators, including several migratory 

birds of interest, such as the golden eagle and Swainson’s hawk. In addition, structures made by some burrowing small 

mammals are important for use as nest sites for the burrowing owl. There is a need for the Refuges to have a greater 

understanding of the diversity of small mammal species inhabiting Refuge habitats, their relative abundances, and locations

of highest habitat value, as Refuge data is lacking in this area. An abundance rating for certain small mammals was 

provided in the McNary Habitat Management Assessment baseline inventory (WADFG 1980). Some of the data presented 

in that report originated in the Columbia River System inventory. The Washington ground squirrel, listed as endangered by 

the State of Oregon, is currently thought to be restricted to three populations in Oregon and Washington. Suitable soil 

types may exist on the Refuges. Restoration of shrub-steppe and grassland habitats as described in shrub-steppe objectives 

should also aid in supporting native small mammals. 

GOAL 4: Provide a diversity of high-quality wetland 

habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other 

wetland plants and animals. 

Objective 4a: Increase Amount of High Quality Shallow Marsh 

Conduct needed management on 350 acres at Umatilla Refuge and 650 acres at McNary Refuge,

resulting in an increase in acreage of high quality shallow marsh available for use by waterfowl and 

other waterbirds. High quality marsh will consist of open shallow marsh habitat with less than a 50%

cover of tall persistent emergent vegetation (bulrush, cattail) at full pool level, with persistent 

emergent vegetation patches smaller than 10 acres, and no unbroken shoreline patches longer than 

300 yards. In addition, in managed areas, no more than 20% f plant cover in the wetland emergent

plant zone shall be comprised of the following non-native invasive wetland plants: purple loosestrife, 

phragmites, cocklebur, Russian olive, and false indigo. Conduct needed management at the rate of 

about 67 acres per year over the life of the CCP. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row. 

1,438 acres 1,000 

acres 

500 

acres 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Mechanically re-open areas that have become vegetated with persistent 

emergent vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, 

shallow water areas. Mechanically remove longer term mineral and 

organic deposits that lead to filling and wetland loss. 

9

Up to 200 

acres treated 

annually 

9 9

Utilize mowing, disking and burning for elimination of vegetation mats and 

organic material. 

9 9 9

Utilize surface excavation and shoreline recontouring where appropriate to 

open marshes. 

9 9 9

Develop and implement an IPM plan (use mechanical, cultural, biological, 

hydro management and chemical methods) to aggressively reduce the 

presence of the five nonnative plants in the wetland emergent plant zone. 

9 9 9

Inventory plant communities and annually monitor effectiveness of 

treatments. Control any reinvasion by nonnatives; and plant native 

emergents as needed. 

9 9 9

Partner with counties for education/weed control along Refuge borders 

and reduce sources. 

9 9 9

Increase annual funding by $100,000 to address costs of monitoring, 

biological controls, equipment and chemicals used under an Integrated 

Pest Management Plan. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Both Refuges were established to mitigate losses of habitat, including wetlands, caused by dam building in the

Columbia River. Providing a diversity of wetlands is vital to the purposes of both Refuges. Yet because of the numerous 

dams along the length of the Columbia River, and the specific dam and lock operations encompassing river sections within 

the Refuges, the natural fluvial processes of a free-flowing riverine system have been eliminated. Refuge waters, which are 

now human-managed and relatively constant-elevation reservoirs, alternately support lacustrine and palustrine systems, but 

lack necessary disturbance mechanisms to provide and maintain the cyclical aging and renewal processes of wetlands over 

time. Non-persistent wetlands and mud flats, for example, are vital to a variety of migratory birds and other wetland 

animals. Both habitat types are mostly non-existent on the Refuges because of the absence of natural disturbance 

mechanisms. By increasing the number of acres of open shallow marsh through artificial means such as mechanical 

operations or prescribed fire, the Refuges will mimic natural processes and provide a diversity of successional stages that 

increase overall biodiversity and prevent wetland loss over time. Species benefiting by such actions could include 

shorebirds, wading birds, rails, waterfowl and muskrats. Invasive plants (primarily purple loosestrife, phragmites, cocklebur,

Russian olive, and false indigo) are widespread in the emergent plant zone of most wetlands on both Refuges and may 

currently be as high as 30-50% of plant cover in certain areas. Altered plant and animal community composition was 

identified by the CCP team as a very high stress to wetland systems. Invasive plants limit native plant production and cause 

impacts to food, nesting, and cover for wildlife. Invasives in wetlands reduce waterfowl food availability during the 

migration and wintering periods. Limiting invasive species will help the Refuge to comply with county and state ordinances. 

However, the task is immense, and the Refuge currently does not have either the staff or funding to contain the expansion 

of invasives, let alone reduce infested acreage. In addition to the expense of new equipment, staff, biological controls, 

chemicals and monitoring, there would be the recurring expense of reestablishing native vegetation on controlled sites. In 

addition, within the 15 year timeframe of the CCP, new invasive plants may establish and become the next “problem 

plant.” 

Objective 4b: Maintain and Improve Aquatic Bed Habitats. 

Manage wetlands to increase submerged aquatic vegetation cover by eliminating rough fish (carp 

and bullhead). By the end of 15 years maintain carp-free conditions in at least 2 of these wetlandsMcNary Headquarters Wetland Units 2,3, or 4; and Umatilla’s McCormack Slough, Sasquatch, and 

Figure Eight-and determine the most effective control methods to reduce carp numbers from present 

levels in areas open to the Columbia River (Casey Pond, Burbank Sloughs and Paterson). Objective 

will benefit migratory waterfowl (mallard, pintail, lesser scaup, tundra swan) as well as waterbirds 

(pied-bill grebe) and other native aquatic species. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-20 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the alternative is 

modified by replacing bolded type above with the text in this row. 

4 

wetlands 

9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Conduct initial inventory for submerged plants within two years after CCP is 

finalized; and monitor every five years after that. 

9 9 

Obtain bathymetric data for Burbank Slough and Peninsula wetlands on McNary 

Refuge and Paterson and Whitcomb Sloughs on Umatilla Refuge. 

9 9 

Eradicate carp and bullhead at one or more of the following wetland locations: 

McNary Headquarters Wetland Units 2, 3, or 4; and at Umatilla wetlands 

(McCormack Slough, Sasquatch and Figure Eight Ponds) by the end of 15 years. 

Draw down these wetland areas and if needed utilize rotenone to kill carp and 

bullhead populations. For effective use of rotenone, and facilitation of equipment 

needs, burn residual vegetation when appropriate. Coordinate with WDFW and 

ODFW on rotenone projects, funding initiatives, and partnerships. 

9 9 

Experiment with water draw downs in advance (work with the Corps on schedule) to 

determine how low water can get, and make any needed changes in water control 

structures to facilitate carp removal and growth of submergent vegetation used by 

waterfowl. 

9 9 

Consider permitting commercial carp and bullhead fishing in areas open to the 

Columbia River (Casey Pond, Burbank Sloughs, and Paterson). 

9 9 

Rationale: Umatilla and McNary Refuges have significant wetland resources that provide habitat for wildlife. However, 

outside of their extensive use by waterfowl and other migratory birds, little is known about submerged vegetation and other 

aquatic species inhabiting Refuge wetlands. Carp, which are widespread in permanently flooded wetland habitats on the 

Refuge, are thought to represent a high threat to the functioning of the wetland system, due to their impacts on submergent 

vegetation and water quality. Carp uproot and eliminate submerged vegetation, increase turbidity (see stress source 

analysis), and decrease the overall abundance and diversity of the invertebrate community (Miller 2006). Treatments using 

the natural plant chemical rotenone are expensive, but can be more effective if the amount of water to be treated is 

minimal and carp and bullhead are concentrated in a small area. Past rotenone treatments have generally been effective, 

but reintroduction and infestation have occurred at varying rates. This may have occurred because adequate water draw 

downs did not occur, and/or, all connected pools/sloughs were not treated at the same time. Partnering with experienced 

State fishery program managers should increase success rates. 

GOAL 5: Provide high quality riparian 

habitats for the benefit of nesting and 

migrating birds, fish, riparian plants, and 

other riparian wildlife 

Objective 5a: Improve Condition of Riparian Habitat for Nesting Native Passerines 

Conduct needed management on at least 30% (463 acres at each Refuge or 926 total acres) of the 

total 3,082 acres of priority riparian habitat on both Refuges over the next fifteen years to improve 

nesting success for native riparian passerines such as the Lazuli bunting, yellow warbler, and yellow 

breasted chat, and other riparian species identified as Partners In Flight focal species. Needed 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21

management is defined as that combination of treatments and re-treatments which successfully 

improve the overall condition rating, resulting in a rise into the next highest condition class (poor, 

fair, good). Conduct needed management at the rate of about 62 new acres per year over the life 

of the CCP. See condition definition ratings in Appendix F. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the alternative 

is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text in this row. 

62 acres 

/year 

5 acres 

/year 

5 acres 

/year 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Develop Integrated Pest Management Plan within 1 year of CCP completion 

and address control of invasives in riparian understory (reed canarygrass, 

poison hemlock, and false indigo). 

9 9

Enhance nesting opportunities within riparian areas by decreasing invasives 

using weed control techniques (chemical, mechanical, biocontrols) on 5-62 

acres of riparian habitat per year. 

9 9 9

Enhance shrub and tree layers within existing blocks of habitat by selective 

planting of native shrubs and cuttings on 5-62 acres of per year. 

9 9 9

Monitor species richness, abundance, and productivity by expanding McNary’s 

MAPS station (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival) to include the Walla 

Walla Delta, and adding point counts and nest searches. Track changes in 

species richness, abundance, and productivity over time, aiming for a 10% 

increase in species richness and; 20% increase in passerine productivity from 

2005 levels. 

9 

Reduce browse damage to trees and shrubs by using fencing, the hunt 

program, and tree guards. 

9 

Construct one exclosure in each key riparian area and monitor effects on the 

herbivory. 

9 

Rationale: Refuge riparian habitats are threatened and/or degraded by the presence and dominance of invasive weeds; 

lack of native shrub components, herbivory by large deer herds (Umatilla), and altered hydrology. Restoration and 

enhancement efforts are needed to improve overall habitat conditions for migratory birds. Photographs dating from the 

early 1900s suggest that cottonwood dominated riparian was not common, and willow dominated riparian shrub 

communities were present along narrow corridors of the river. Therefore, under Alternative 3, there would be a more 

pronounced focus on restoration of the willow habitats of historic conditions. Ninety-seven native bird species are highly 

associated with riparian habitat (Altman and Holmes 2000) and six of these are “focal species.” Data from the MAPS 

station at Wallula show the Lazuli bunting, yellow warbler, and yellow breasted chat (three of the focal species) present, but 

as uncommon nesters on McNary Refuge. 

 

Objective 5b: Enhanced Cottonwood Recruitment: 

Promote enhanced recruitment (at least 300 stems/acre) and development of cottonwood stands on 

5 acres per year at each Refuge. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Select sites and use managed pool and wetland water levels in concert with soil 

disturbance (disking) to promote more favorable conditions to induce germination 

of available cottonwood seed source on exposed soils. 

9 

Request that dam operations make short duration increases in pool levels during 

the summer to irrigate and enhance young cottonwood survival and recruitment at 

sites. 

9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-22 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Provide weed control in newly developing cottonwood riparian sites using 

techniques/treatments identified in the IPM Plan. 

9 

Undertake supplemental plantings of cottonwoods in riparian areas to increase tree 

diversity and density. 

9 

Rationale: As the dominant native overstory tree species of mainstem and low elevation tributary riparian zones, 

cottonwood is recognized as a “keystone” species in riparian areas. These stands provide important nesting and migrating 

habitat for migratory birds. Reliable cottonwood recruitment is necessary for the perpetuation of cottonwood dominated 

riparian stands. The altered water regime of the Columbia River was identified by the CCP team as a high source of stress, 

leading to low or altered recruitment of native plants and an altered plant community composition in most Refuge riparian 

zones. Major losses to riparian vegetation and ecological function have occurred in response to regulated flows in river 

systems (Jamieson and Braatne 2001). Cottonwood recruitment may be improved, however, by using managed 

pool/wetland levels which mimic natural timing of cottonwood seed dispersal and germination (Jamieson and Braatne 

2001). Managers have noted extensive cottonwood regeneration after soil disturbance in managed moist soil units at the 

Wallula Unit and within reservoir dominated embayments at Patterson and McCormack. Recruitment density of about 300 

stems per acre would achieve approximately 12’ by 12’ spacing at the mature stage, assuming no mortality (Ashrein/ 

Clarrs). The cottonwood species that is currently regenerating most naturally in the system is the plains cottonwood 

(Populus deltoides). However, when constructing restoration and planting using cuttings/rootstock, the Refuges will try to 

use the native black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. tricarpa). 

GOAL 6: Protect the integrity of the biological 

resources of the river islands. 

Objective 6a: Maintain Waterbird Populations 

Manage river island habitats at Umatilla and McNary Refuge’s to benefit a diversity of nesting birds 

(ducks, geese, songbirds and shorebirds) and waterbird colonies( gulls, terns, herons, and 

cormorants) at their current population levels. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Increase law enforcement patrols, news releases, and signage to protect island nesting 

birds from disturbance. 

9 9 9 9

Manage island substrate and vegetation to ensure that a diversity of nesting habitats for 

colonial waterbirds are available. 

9 9

Monitor size of nesting and waterbird colonies, including Canada geese, mallard, 

American white pelican, Forster’s tern, Caspian tern, and great blue herons; and identify 

potential threats to production. 

9 9

Increase coordination with various agencies, scientists, and others studying island 

resources, and assist their efforts by seeking funding, issuing special use permits, helping 

design study protocols, and monitoring research progress. 

9 9 9

In response to Endangered Species Act requirements for federally listed salmon stocks, 

consider a range of options to limit piscivorous waterbird depredation, if scientifically 

sound data demonstrate a critical need to limit depredation due to significant impacts 

on salmon survival. If controls are deemed appropriate, a written step-down plan and 

the National Environmental Policy Act documentation shall be developed with 

evaluation of the effects to fish and waterbird populations. Actions shall be planned 

and implemented using a multi-agency approach and multiple funding sources. 

9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-23

Continue to monitor, measure, and document rates of erosion of all islands. 9 9 9

Rationale: Canada geese nest on all Refuge islands, as do lesser numbers of mallards and other migratory birds. The 

American white pelican colony (listed as endangered by the State of Washington) at McNary Refuge’s Badger Island is the 

only successful breeding colony in the State. Foundation Island provides nesting habitat for great blue heron, doublecrested cormorant, and black-crowned night heron colonies. Piscivorous colonial nesting birds, especially Caspian terns, 

have been identified as having negative effects on salmon smolt survival (USFWS 2005). Double-crested cormorants can 

consume relatively large numbers of salmonids at certain times of the year. Caspian terns nesting on McNary’s Crescent 

Island number only about 500 pairs, however, as much as 70% of their diet consists of salmon or steelhead smolts (Antolos

et al. 2005 and Collis et al. 2004). This colony inhabits only a small area of Crescent Island and will likely not grow larger

as it is surrounded by a gull colony and vegetation. Nesting gull colonies, mainly ring-billed and California gulls have 

increased significantly in the last 20 years. Forster’s terns have declined as a nesting species, while great egrets have 

recently expanded into the area. As conditions continue to change in the larger Basin-wide area due to prey species, 

human recreation/disturbance, management of water/hydropower, and animal and human population changes, waterbird 

populations will continue to change and provide a good barometer of island integrity. Erosion of Refuge islands has been 

documented in the past; however, more recent changes in reservoir elevations and pool operations have likely reduced the 

rate. Any erosion that does occur means remaining island acreage becomes more important to wildlife. It is important to 

monitor measure and document changes in island erosion rates. 

Objective 6b: Limit Island Disturbance 

Limit disturbance to island habitats, wildlife, and other island resources by enforcing existing and 

new island closures as follows: 

• Strawberry Islands: Existing total closure of Strawberry Islands to public use, including beach 

areas, will be enforced. 

• McNary Islands: Existing total closures of Foundation and Badger islands will be enforced. 

However, Crescent Island will continue to be open to waterfowl hunting. 

• Umatilla Islands: Total closure of all Umatilla Islands to all public use, including closing the 

islands to existing seasonal beach use and implementing a no-wake zone. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Increase public education and outreach to notify and inform public about the sensitivity 

of biological resources on the islands and the need for closures to protect birds. 

9 9

Improve and increase island signs as needed. 9 9 9

Implement a no-wake zone within 100 feet of islands on Refuge managed waters 

(Umatilla). Prohibit fishing tournament access within 1⁄2 mile of pelican nest colonies. 

9 9

Increase law enforcement patrols, enforce beach closures, and deter use in 

unauthorized areas. 

9 9

Rationale: The river islands on McNary and Umatilla Refuges support breeding habitat for several groups of species, 

including colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, geese, ducks, swallows and deer. Wildlife seek out the islands for breeding 

habitat because of the islands’ relative isolation, security, and general lack of mammalian predators. Security was 

identified as a key ecological attribute supporting the islands’ wildlife communities. The islands also have important 

cultural resources; especially Strawberry Island which contains a site in the National Register of Historic Places. Because of

these unique traits, recreational disturbance and recreation-induced habitat modification such as accidental fire, has long 

been a concern. Human use causes direct impact on the beaches themselves, including direct displacement of geese, 

shorebirds, and bank nesting swallows from potential foraging and nesting habitat. Garbage and human waste present 

ongoing problems. Island closures are necessary to protect biological and cultural resources from adverse modification. 

Umatilla Island previously open to seasonal beach use would be closed to protect archeological resources and habitat and 

wildlife resources. Of particular concern is the potential of human-induced fire on the islands, which would threaten the 

heron rookeries on Big Sand Dune Island, and important sagebrush habitat used by nesting geese on Blaylock Island. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-24 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 7: Conserve and restore the plants, animals and 

shrub-steppe community representative of historic 

Columbia Basin habitats. 

Objective 7a: Improve Shrub-Steppe Condition 

Conduct needed management on 30% of the 9,605 acres (2,000 acres at Umatilla and 881 acres 

at McNary for a total of 2,881 acres) encompassed by the fifteen priority shrub-steppe interest areas 

(see Appendix F). Needed management is defined as that combination of treatments and retreatments which successfully improve the overall condition rating resulting in a rise into the next 

highest condition class (poor, fair, good). Conduct needed management at the rate of about 192 

new acres per year over the life of the CCP. See the definitions and habitat condition class ratings in

Appendix F. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the 

text in this row. 

Improve 

conditions 

on 10 % 

Improve 

conditions 

on 30% 

Improve 

conditions 

on 45%

Improve 

conditions 

on 10% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Each year, improve native plant cover and distribution within one of 

the fifteen blocks by active planting or seeding appropriate native 

species. Consider needs of long-billed curlew, burrowing owl and 

other shrub-steppe inhabitants. 

9 9 9 9

Conduct follow up treatments for weeds and/or additional plantings 

on each managed block as needed. 

9 9 9 9

Conduct chemical weed control to reduce cheatgrass and other 

targeted weeds annually. 

9 9 9 9

Initiate integrated pest management by writing an IPM step-down 

plan by 2008. 

9 9 9

Rationale: An estimated 10.4 million acres of shrub-steppe habitat occurred in the state of Washington at the time of 

European settlement (Dobler et al. 1996). By the late 1980s only about 40% remained. Locally, Benton and Walla Walla 

Counties had 48% and 33% of the original shrub-steppe habitat remaining, respectively (Dobler et al. 1996). Both Refuges

total more than 10,000 acres of shrub-steppe habitat in various conditions. Most shrub-steppe areas on the Refuges are 

threatened and/or remain in a degraded condition due to invasive plants, wildfire, and poor native plant recruitment/ 

recovery. Fifteen of the larger blocks of shrub-steppe habitat totaling 9,605 acres were selected (Table 4-2) for the focus of

shrub-steppe restoration and enhancement activities based on their size and connectivity on-and-off the Refuges. Though 

these acreages are relatively small, restoration efforts may provide valuable habitat for some shrub-steppe dependent 

species. 

Objective 7b: Protect and Restore Burrowing Owls 

Pending the results of inventories listed above in 3b, protect and restore suitable habitats for the 

benefit of burrowing owls. At a minimum, we will maintain one viable colony at the McCormack 

Unit of Umatilla Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the alternative 

is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text in this row. 

Protect 

only 

9 9 Protect 

only 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Investigate the possibility of transplanting ground squirrels in appropriate areas 

on both Refuges 

9 9

Experiment with the creation of artificial burrows adjacent to existing nesting 

areas 9 9

Identify historic sites that may have been occupied by colonies on the Refuges. 9 9

Restrict public access to known and historic breeding sites. 9 9

Prepare materials and messages for public outreach and education efforts to 

raise awareness of burrowing owls and the threats posed by urban 

development, including shooting/poisoning/control of burrowing mammals. 

9 9

Rationale: Burrowing owls are declining within the states of Oregon and Washington and may be at risk on the Refuges.

Small numbers have historically nested on the Refuges, but there has not been an extensive inventory.

Objective 7c: Protect Shrub-Steppe Habitats 

Over the life of the CCP, protect and/or maintain the 9,605 acres (2,796 at McNary and 6,809 at 

Umatilla) encompassed by the fifteen priority shrub-steppe interest areas for both Refuges (see 

Appendix F), by minimizing ground disturbance, reducing fire starts, and implementing emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation of wildfire impacts. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with 

the text in this row. 

Current fires 

starts and 

response time 

9 9 Current fires 

starts and 

response 

time 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Incorporate standards and procedures for maintenance and 

management activities to minimize activities that disturb soil 

surfaces. 

9 9

Increase fire crew availability and readiness for initial attack by 

maintaining three fire engine crews at McNary and one at Umatilla. 

9 9

Reduce likelihood of fire ignitions from recreational activities in 

priority shrub-steppe areas through education, interpretation, and 

careful planning of recreational facilities. 

9 9

Increase coordination and cooperation with rural fire districts and 

expand mutual aide agreements. Provide education and assistance 

to rural fire district staffs. 

9 9

Coordinate with railroad companies to alter train operations, if 

possible, to reduce fire ignitions. Investigate and document fire 

starts and seek compensation from railroads for restoration needs 

where ignitions can be tied to train operations. 

9 9

Implement emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions 

following wildfires; including soil stabilization, cultural resource 

protection, nonnative invasive species control, native grass/shrub 

seeding and planting, and effectiveness monitoring 

9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-26 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Continue to inventory and control nonnative invasive plant species 

(cheatgrass, starthistle, knapweed) based on IPM plans and 

procedures. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Remaining shrub-steppe habitats are threatened and/or remain in a degraded condition due to an extensive 

history of wildfires, poor native plant recruitment/recovery following fires, and ground disturbance activities (roads, trails,

heavy equipment). Limiting/eliminating ground disturbing activities and reducing fire starts and/or decreasing fire sizes by 

through fire suppression and aggressive initial attacks, would benefit habitats. Fire regime is one of the key ecological 

attributes affecting the viability of the shrub-steppe system. A less intense and less frequent fire regime was present 

historically. The current more intense and frequent fires create a cycle of habitat modification and degradation that needs 

to be reversed and better post-fire rehabilitation and stabilization project planning and on-the-ground success instituted. 

Objective 7d. Bitterbrush Management 

Over the life of the CCP, maintain existing stands of shrub-steppe habitat containing bitterbrush as a 

key shrub component on the Umatilla Refuge; and increase acreage by planting bitterbrush in 50 

acres of shrub-steppe to achieve at least a 30% bitterbrush component. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified with the text in this row. 

 maintain 

as 

resources 

permit 

50 acres 100 acres maintain 

as 

resources 

permit 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Review, consult with experts, and if necessary, initiate research 

studies to explore local causes of bitterbrush decadence and death 

at Umatilla Refuge. 

9 9

Increase the rate of reduction of the deer herd at Umatilla Refuge, 

McCormack Unit (see Objective 10d). 

9 9

Over the life the CCP, plant 50-100 acres of bitterbrush in 

appropriate areas of shrub-steppe to obtain a minimum 30% 

bitterbrush shrub component at Umatilla; avoiding areas known or 

potentially inhabited by Long-billed curlew. 

9 9

Rationale: Shrub-steppe habitats on Umatilla Refuge, and to a lesser extent on McNary Refuges, have historically 

contained areas of high density bitterbrush. Bitterbrush has been declining at an alarming rate in recent years; possibly 

from fires, altered hydrology, herbivory by deer, and/or all three. Herbivory was identified as a moderate stress on shrubsteppe habitats as a whole, but it disproportionately affects bitterbrush. Reductions in fire ignitions and fire damage can 

benefit bitterbrush and are covered in Objective 7c. At this time, the Refuge does not have a strategy for addressing 

altered hydrology. Restoring bitterbrush to these areas would increase the overall plant diversity and integrity that is 

characteristic of good quality Lower Columbia Basin shrub-steppe. Restoring bitterbrush as a natural component of the 

historical assemblage of plants present on the Refuges’ shrub-steppe habitat, would also be consistent with the Service’s 

2001policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (601 FW 3). However, the Refuges will avoid 

concentrating bitterbrush plantings in curlew focal areas because curlews tend to avoid dense shrubs. Pampush (1981) 

found that nest density was negatively correlated with vegetation height and vertical density, and areas with bitterbrush and 

dense forbs were avoided by curlews. 

Objective 7e. Restore Shrub-Steppe Habitats by Decreasing Roads and Development 

Restore native shrub-steppe habitats on suitable lands such as those occupied by unnecessary roads, 

waste sites, gravel pits and cropland no longer suitable or needed for crop production for waterfowl. 

Restore 350 acres total (175 acres for each Refuge) during the life of the CCP. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the alternative is 

modified by replacing bolded type above with the text in this row. 100 350 600
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-27

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Close all remaining unnecessary and unauthorized roads or trails in the Burbank 

Sloughs and the Peninsula Unit of McNary, and Paterson units at Umatilla, as well 

as other Refuge sites as needed. Restore 25 acres of shrub-steppe on these areas. 

Also see Objective 9i. 

9 9 9

Restore to native shrub-steppe habitat 75 acres of former mining and gravel sites 

adjacent to Humorist Road at McNary, and other minor sites as needed. Remove 

large rock piles, level all areas, and restore native shrub-steppe habitat by 

controlling nonnative plants (i.e. cheatgrass and kochia) prior to seeding areas 

with site-appropriate native grass seed or planting native shrubs. 

9 9 9

Restore native shrub-steppe plant communities on 250 acres of fallow croplands 

which are not needed or are unsuitable for crop production as identified on the 

vegetation map. 

9 9

Restore native shrub-steppe plant communities on up to 250 acres of existing 

cropland if agricultural acreage is reduced. Restoration of cropland should be 

completed in the same year that the land is taken out of production, in order to 

take advantage of weed free fields and the availability of fall irrigation. 

 9

Use chemical weed control treatments and fall native grass seed drilling when 

possible. 

9 9 9

Use site monitoring, multiyear follow-up treatments, and selective planting of 

shrubs and forbs in all restoration treatments. 

9 9

Consider needs of high priority wildlife species including: burrowing owl, longbilled curlew, and ground squirrels in site plans. 

9 9 9 9

Rationale: Shrub-steppe habitats can be restored on many areas, including areas those occupied by unnecessary and 

unauthorized roads, especially in the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units. The existing spider-like web of trails is the 

result of illegal and/or unfettered public access over many years of management with little enforcement presence. Once 

access is restricted to designated roads, all unnecessary roads can be restored to shrub-steppe habitat. It is estimated that 

25 acres of roads, trails, and waste sites could be closed and restored. In addition, there are approximately 250 acres of 

abandoned former agricultural lands in a weedy condition are absent of native grasses or shrubs. These lands can also be 

restored using chemical weed control, fall native grass drilling, and selective plantings of shrubs and forbs. In addition, if

agricultural land dedicated to production of crops for wildlife is reduced under Alternative 3 of this plan; an additional 250 

acres of existing cropland will become available for restoration. Restoration of croplands should be completed the same 

year lands are taken out of production, to take advantage of weed free fields and the availability of fall irrigation. Former 

gravel and rock operations off of Hansen Loop Road at McNary account for another 75 acres of land for potential shrubsteppe restoration. Because much of the restoration will occur on smaller habitat fragments, it is important to carefully 

consider the needs of high priority wildlife species including: burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, and ground squirrels in all 

site plans prior to initiating restoration projects. 

 

Objective 7f: Increase Shrub-Steppe Connectivity 

Increase connectivity of Refuge priority shrub-steppe areas to off-Refuge shrub-steppe lands 

adjacent to or near the State Line and Juniper Canyon Units on McNary Refuge. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9). 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Work with neighboring private landowners within the Wallula Gap area to pursue 

cooperative plans and/or incentive programs for maintaining or improving shrub-steppe 

habitats. Also see Objective 8c. 

 9

Explore use of cost share and volunteer agreements, projects, grants, easements and 

other innovative tools to encourage restoration and/or maintenance of surrounding 

lands. Also see Objective 8c. 

 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-28 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Explore use of cooperative agreements/memorandums of understanding with the Bureau 

of Land Management, Lewis and Clark College and Oregon Department of Lands for 

projects and coordinated management efforts to improve habitat. Also see Objective 8c.

 9

Rationale: Habitat fragmentation was identified as a medium stress to the shrub-steppe system on the Refuge, which 

stems from a variety of threats, including transportation and development, agricultural conversion, and an altered fire 

regime. The most promising areas, in which greater connectivity could be achieved, are the shrub-steppe habitats within 

the Wallula Gap area, which represents one of the most extensive areas of good quality habitat in close proximity to the 

Refuge. This checkerboard pattern of ownership, however, will need a cooperative effort by various landowners and 

government entities to effectively protect and restore this area. Unique resources such as the peregrine falcon, prairie 

falcon, and golden eagle use areas extend over many ownerships. Large portions of land owned and managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management and Lewis and Clark College may lend itself to joint projects and coordinated management 

efforts to improve habitat. Cost share and volunteer agreements/projects, grants, easements and other innovative tools 

used to encourage restoration and/or maintenance of surrounding lands could be effective in protecting habitat on a larger

landscape scale needed by several species. Also see Objective 7c. 

GOAL 8: Protect and maintain the ecological integrity of talus, outcropping, 

and cliff habitats for natural levels of species diversity. 

 Objective 8a: Maintain Intact Rock Structures 

Protect and maintain all cliffs, talus slopes, and outcroppings in intact structural condition to benefit 

cliff nesting birds (peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and white-throated swift) and other unique 

species (common night snake, and rattlesnake hibernacula). 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Prevent illegal mining or extractive activities on the Refuges’ natural rocky features and 

basalt columns, including collection for home landscaping, through proper signing and 

education. Photograph/document significant areas most threatened by illegal activities. 

9 9 9 9

Provide adequate sanctuary for raptor nesting sites, and limit public uses to the Big Six 

uses only, in areas without significant nesting bird populations. 

9 9 9 9

Rationale: Maintaining the size and composition of rocky habitats was identified as a key ecological attribute of the cliff/

rimrock/talus and outcroppings target as indicated by cliff dominance (high cliffs), the variety of rock features and the 

amount of talus with larger rocks and deeper masses. The Refuges have received requests for rip-rap and basalt columns, 

increasingly being used in home landscaping, with at least one incidence of theft/vandalism occurring at a neighboring 

Refuge. Signing, law enforcement and education may help prevent illegal activities and theft. The rock outcroppings 

represent a small portion of Refuge lands, but they provide habitat for cliff nesting birds (peregrine and prairie falcons, 

white-throated swift, and golden eagle) and other unique species (common night snake, rattlesnake hibernacula, bighorned sheep, and mule deer. 

Objective 8b: Conduct Baseline Inventory of Rocky Habitats 

Conduct baseline inventory of plant and wildlife resources inhabiting rocky habitats, with particular 

emphasis on Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units at McNary Refuge and Crow Butte and Ridge Units 

at Umatilla Refuge. Inventories should focus on determining the presence and abundance of birds, 

bats, reptiles, amphibians, rare plants of any key functional areas such as nest sites or hibernaculum.

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Pursue cooperative funding and partner contributions for the inventory. 9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-29

Survey and mark the boundary of the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units at McNary 

and fence cattle out of protected areas. 

9 9 9

Rationale: The wildlife and plant resources utilizing the Refuges’ rocky habitats have not been systematically inventoried.

Experts present during the wildlife and habitat management review stated that the Juniper Canyon/Stateline cliffs and talus 

areas are known to provide habitat for big herds of mule deer, prairie falcons, white-throated swift, common night snake, 

big-horned sheep, black-tailed jackrabbit, and golden eagle. In addition, there is a known peregrine falcon eyrie on 

McNary Refuge, as well as a rattlesnake hibernaculum at Paterson Unit (there may be a hibernaculum at Wallula too). 

There is the potential for several species of bats and various reptile, and amphibian species to be present as well. An 

inventory is needed. It is also important to mark the boundary since the zigzag ownership pattern makes it difficult to 

discern property lines, and to fence cattle out of protect resources. 

 

Objective 8c: Develop Corridor Management Plan 

In partnership with neighboring landowners and other partners, develop a management plan along 

the Stateline/Juniper Canyon corridor of McNary Refuge to protect resources and prevent the 

degradation of biological resources due to misuse or overuse. Plan should specifically focus on: 

• Cooperative wildfire management 

• Coordination on public uses and access 

• Coordination on habitat management issues and opportunities 

• Coordination on wildlife protection 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Invite the following partners to participate in the corridor plan: all adjacent landowners, 

Lewis and Clark College, the Ice Age Institute, Smith Farms, the Bureau of Land 

Management, ODFW, WDFW, Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT), and 

Union Pacific Railroad. 

 9

Seek funding from diverse sources (Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, etc.) and add 

one term position to aid in the partnership planning effort. 9

Work with WDOT to encourage designating the Highway 730 corridor a scenic byway. 9

Identify types, magnitudes, and locations of existing public uses and their relation to 

wildlife resources. 9

Discourage the expansion or development of new recreational sites and facilities until 

more information is gathered about existing biological resources. 9

Increase cooperative law enforcement efforts aimed at illegal uses such as trespass 

grazing, All Terrain Vehicles, and target practice and increase signage and 

informational efforts 

 9

With partners, address recreational uses including hiking, rock climbing and other uses 

potentially detrimental to wildlife. As needed, enact use zoning, area closures and/or 

regulate seasons of use in response to wildlife and habitat data gained in Objective 7B. 

 9

Rationale: The unique native wildlife and plant resources found on the Refuges’ rocky habitats will be best conserved 

and protected if a larger area-wide conservation plan can be adopted. A plan that involves all landowners in a corridorwide conservation approach has the potential to restore the rich native diversity of plants and animals. Funding for projects

will also benefit from involving a number of partners and publics. Since all the unique native wildlife and plant resources 

found on the Refuges’ rocky habitats have not been inventoried, it is appropriate to delay development or expansion of any 

public uses until the resources and sites are known. Currently, the Refuge managed area is open to the big six uses, but 

because of the severe terrain and lack of parking, access sites, and trails, public use is very light. However there is demand

for more hiking trails for wildlife observation, so it is imperative to conduct baseline inventories soon. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-30 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 9: Visitors and local residents enjoy, value, 

learn about, and support the Refuges. 

Objective 9a: Expand and Enhance Viewing Opportunities and Trail at McNary Headquarters Unit 

Enhance and improve wildlife viewing, interpretive, and trail opportunities and facilities at McNary 

Refuge’s Headquarters Unit. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above alternatives (9) 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Improve the current wildlife viewing trail by developing a safe pathway or boardwalk 

parallel to Lake Road, or creating a new loop trail that allows visitors to begin and 

end their walk at the Education Center. 

9 9

Provide a spur off the north side of the Wetland 4 leading to a new overlook/ 

interpretive point and continuing on to connect to the Walla Walla District Library. 

9 9

Develop a new kiosk/overlook on the north side of the Headquarters overlooking 

Wetland 4. 

9 9

Evaluate connection to Hood Park hiking trail via a proposed underpass at SR 124 if 

WDOT constructs a new cloverleaf access from State Highway 12 

9 9

Expand bird list to an all wildlife species list and make available at the Education 

Center. 

9 9

Enhance viewing opportunities along the south, west and northwest shorelines of Unit 

4 by opening vegetation (i.e. reduce the density of emergent vegetation). 

9 9

Rationale: The McNary Headquarters Unit is the most heavily used unit at McNary Refuge for wildlife viewing, 

photography, and interpretation, and is the center point of the Refuge’s Environmental Education program. The current 

wildlife viewing trail serves all these uses, providing a relatively flat two-mile nature walk through native shrub-steppe 

habitat, along the shores of two wetlands, and near the edge of Refuge agricultural fields. However, the trail could be 

much improved with certain modifications. Most pressing is the completion of a loop offering a safe return along Lake 

Road (currently users who wish to loop back to the headquarters must share the narrow Lake Road crossing with cars and 

trucks). A boardwalk could be constructed parallel to the roadway or through the east side of the slough. Users have also 

requested enhancement of viewing areas along the south side of the slough, which can be provided by opening the dense 

vegetation along the shoreline area. There is an intriguing potential to connect the McNary Headquarters trail directly to 

the Corp’s Hood Park nature trail and possibly a regional bike trail system through the creation of a SR-124 underpass as 

part of a WDOT highway 12 improvement project. Doing so could conceivably attract new visitors to the Refuge system; 

however, impacts need to be evaluated. Local connectivity of the Refuge with the town would be enhanced by connecting 

the north end of the trail to the library via a new spur. 

Objective 9b: Promote Bird Watching at the Wallula Unit 

Provide new bird watching opportunities and facilities at the Wallula Unit of McNary Refuge with a 

focus on expanding visitors’ awareness of riparian passerine birds and their habitats. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-31

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Sign and develop the Wallula South Wetland 3 trail for bird watching use. Improve 

and expand trail from existing parking area using the old road bed and new dike; 

add foot bridge. The area currently has holes in the old roadbed and other 

obstacles making it user “unfriendly.” 

9 

Develop interpretive signs for the area focusing on passerine birds and riparian 

habitat. 

9

Sign the Horse Trail on north side of Wallula Unit for use by birdwatchers. 9 

Develop a brochure for a new “birding-canoe” trail along the Walla Walla River. 

Brochure should describe the birds that can be observed along the route. Partner 

for an off-Refuge canoe trail connection to either Pierce Campground or upstream 

to Nine Mile Ranch for canoe put-in, and to the existing boat launch at Madame 

Dorion for take-out. 

9 

Rationale: The Wallula Unit is currently open for public use but is not promoted by the Refuge for one of its prime 

assets–riparian bird habitat. Encouraging existing Refuge wildlife viewers (who primarily utilize McNary Headquarters Unit) 

to use the trails in the Wallula Unit for birding, will expand Refuge visitor awareness of migratory passerine birds and their 

habitats and diversify visitor experiences. Similarly, defining and advertising a canoe trail along the lower Walla Walla 

River would expand visitor awareness of safe boating opportunities and enhance users’ ability to sight and enjoy riparian 

and aquatic birds and other wildlife. 

 

Objective 9c: Expand Interpretive Overlooks along Highway 14 

Develop (expand upon) interpretive overlooks along Highway 14 overlooking the Columbia River 

Islands on Umatilla Refuge. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Identify sites and develop interpretive themes with assistance from the Service’s 

Branch of Visitor Services and Communications. 

9 

Improve Refuge boundary signage where it parallels or is adjacent to State 

Highway 14. 

9 

Work with the State of Washington and the railroads to plan and fund safe pull-offs 

with identification signs along State Highway 14. 

9 

Expand, improve, and pave parking lots at overlooks as necessary using Refuge 

Roads funding. 

9 

Rationale: The drive along State Highway 14 on the Washington side of Umatilla Refuge affords the best overlook of 

Umatilla Refuge and one of the few broad vistas of shorelines and islands along the Mid-Columbia River. Much of the 

Refuge boundary along Highway 14 is an ideal location for emphasizing interpretation. Interpretive panels are currently 

installed at one overlook site but there are opportunities to designate additional sites, especially overlooking the 

picturesque Blalock Islands. Parking, highway turnoffs, and signing all need improvement. 

 

Objective 9d: Enhance Viewing Opportunities at the McCormack Unit 

Enhance and expand wildlife viewing, interpretation, and trail opportunities on the McCormack Unit 

of Umatilla Refuge. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-32 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Add improvements such as benches and sun shades along the Morrow County 

Columbia River Heritage Trail. 

9 9

Establish a photography/wildlife viewing blind along the Heritage Trail at a site 

adjacent to the East McCormack Slough in consultation with professional wildlife 

photographers. 

9 9

Realign last 1⁄4 mile of auto tour route and restore and open up adjacent wetland 

unit to provide more open water and close up views of wetland and wildlife. 

9

Improve Heritage Trail alignment and trailhead locations to minimize trail user 

conflicts between hunting and auto tour routes; and provide better access to trails 

from a centralized parking area. Trailhead parking would be located at current 

hunter check station parking lot with three possible realignments of the trail. 

Update Refuge brochure after any realignment. 

• Shift Morrow County is Columbia River Heritage Trail south along the south 

ridge road and connect the trail to current hunter check parking area; 

eliminate crossing the wetlands. Under this proposal the fill material and 

bridge added to cross the wetland would be removed. 

• Combine 1above, by shifting the Columbia River Heritage Trail south along 

the south ridge road, connecting the trail to the current hunter check-in 

parking areas and eliminating crossing the wetlands; plus construct a .2 mile 

loop trail on the north side of East McCormack Slough connecting the current 

hunter check-in parking area with the existing auto tour route. 

• Connect to the current Heritage Trail and auto tour route from the hunter 

check-in parking lot via a bridge and/or boardwalk area making a .2 -mile 

loop trail; but no realignment of current Heritage Trail or removal of the 

bridge. 

9

9

9

Explore potential for adding side trails off Heritage Trail; however not in the 

proposed closed area of east McCormack Slough. 

9 9

Rationale: The McCormack Unit is the focal point for Umatilla Refuge wildlife viewing activities. The improvements 

listed above will enhance the visitor viewing experience, increase visitor access to interpretive and informational material, 

and provide better opportunities for wildlife photography and other nonconsumptive uses from designated sites. These 

activities will complement Objectives 9e (nearby facility consolidation and improvement) and Objective 1d (designation as 

sanctuary on the East McCormack Slough). To reduce waterfowl hunter/wildlife observer/auto tour route user conflicts, the 

Heritage Trail could be realigned to be adjacent to Ridge Road above the slough. Although this would limit user conflicts, 

it would lessen opportunities for viewing wetland birds at close proximity. The preferred option is to build a boardwalk 

along Patterson Ferry Road from the hunter check station parking lot to the current trailhead but have seasonal closures on 

the trail. This is the preferred alternative because it brings trail users closer to the sloughs and improves wildlife viewing

and photography opportunities. 

Objective 9e: Consolidate McCormack Unit Visitor Facilities 

Develop a consolidated visitor contact site that includes the hunter check station; trailhead facilities; 

visitor orientation; information interpretive panels; and a new Refuge manager’s office at Umatilla 

Refuge’s McCormack Unit. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Replace and move a new Refuge manager’s office to the McCormack Slough 

check station site. 

9 9 

Create small interpretive area at contact station at or near the new manager’s 

office. 

9 9 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-33

Create outdoor visitor orientation/interpretive panels and/or kiosk; and have 

parking area serve as trailhead for Heritage Trail. 

9

Rationale: The Refuge manager’s office is currently located on the Columbia River shoreline on the McCormack Unit. 

The area is closed to public access and well away from McCormack Slough where most Refuge visitors spend time. 

Moving the manager’s office to the hunter check station location will provide the public with greater opportunities to ask 

questions of the manager, will provide the manager a better understanding of visitors and their use needs and patterns, 

would provide greater program visibility, and will promote visitor compliance with Refuge regulations. 

Objective 9f: Improve Horseback Riders’ Awareness of Refuge Riding Areas and Policies 

Horseback riders should be aware of and understand the reasoning behind horseback riding 

restrictions at both Refuges. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Assess usage of trails by horseback riders 9 9 9

Develop new signs and/or improve existing signs, brochures, or kiosks to inform 

users that horseback riding on the Refuges is limited to public roads and horseback 

riding trails and to explain the reasons for restricting riding to these areas (non-Big 

Six use, nonnative seeds are spread by hoof and through manure). 

9 9

Work with local horseback riding clubs to improve relationships, develop 

partnerships, and promote the “Adopt a Trail” program. 

9 9

Increase patrols and continue using law enforcement to educate and/or cite 

offenders. 

9 9 9

Use Friends Newsletters to get the message out to the riding public (Friends Group 

members have a large positive impact in spreading the Refuge message). 

9 9 9

Rationale: Horseback riding is popular with local and surrounding riding clubs and horse owners. Currently, horseback 

riding is allowed on existing roads and two designated trails. Use is seasonal, mostly during the fall and spring. This 

contingency has historically been very supportive of the Refuge and has advocated an “Adopt a Trail” program. This 

objective should be attainable by implementing the stated strategies under the checked alternatives. 

Objective 9g: Manage Madame Dorion Park as a Day-use Only Site. 

Limit public uses at McNary Refuge’s Madame Dorion Park to day use only with an emphasis on the 

Big Six uses and eliminate public camping. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified with the text in this row. 

9 9 9 Continue to 

operate campsite 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

After publication of this CCP and in coordination with and review by the 

Corps, Walla Walla County, and owners of the campsite and park at the 

Pierce Happy Valley Campsite, close the campsite at Madame Dorion 

Park and change use to a day use area only. 

9 9 9

Rationale: The January 2000 Cooperative Agreement with the Corps specified that the Madame Dorion Park and 

campground were to be operated and maintained for the term of the agreement; it also included a provision that the 

Service should address future management and operation issues by completing a CCP within 5 years of the effective date 

of the Agreement. During the CCP review, the team focused on the presence of an alternative, privately-owned campground (Pierce Happy Valley) in close proximity to the Refuge, just 4 miles upstream. This well maintained fee camping site 

provides enhanced services over the government-operated campground. The team believes the public is better served by 

converting Madame Dorion Park to a day use only site, reducing law enforcement issues associated with camping, and 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-34 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

allowing the Refuge to promote Big Six uses such as wildlife viewing and photography at Madame Dorion Park site. 

Existing boat launch and rest area facilities would be maintained. 

 

Objective 9h: Eliminate Illegal Shooting 

Eliminate illegal target shooting at gravel pits at McNary’s Juniper Canyon and Peninsula Units. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Install Refuge unit entrance signs on each unit and clearly sign illegal target 

shooting areas with “No Target Shooting” signs. 

9 9 9 9

Clean up debris in target shooting areas, especially at Juniper Canyon. 9 9 9 9

Increase patrols and use law enforcement to educate and deter illegal usage. 9 9 9 9

Coordinate with the Refuges’ Friends Group, the Richland Rod and Gun Club, 

and other news outlets to get the message out to the public. 

9 9 9 9

Rationale: As an illegal activity that causes disturbance, trash issues, and safety concerns, it needs to be eliminated. 

Objective 9i: Drastically Reduce Dumping at the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units and Involve 

the Burbank Community and Other Refuge Users in Maintaining a Clean Environment 

Reduce the tonnage of dumped material at the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units of McNary 

Refuge to <1 ton/year, within 5 years, to increase value of habitat and reduce pollutants at sites. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row. 

9 9 9 5 tons/year 

dumped 

currently 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Increase present efforts to involve and inform the Burbank community and 

other Refuge users about to reducing dumping. Begin outreach during 

initial cleanup project so the that area is less likely to revert to its former 

condition: consider workshops, posters, direct letters, contests, school and 

youth involvement. 

9 9 9

Research title history to accurately establish boundary at the Burbank 

Sloughs and Peninsula Units. Survey and post the boundary. 

9 9 9

Define and mark access points and routes, closing and restoring other 

unauthorized routes and access points. Develop one or two main entrance 

points and sign them appropriately as entrances of a National Wildlife 

Refuge unit. (Also see Objective 7e) 

9 9 9

Increase law enforcement, signing, and education, to cut down on illegal 

activity, especially dumping. 

9 9 9

Increase both law enforcement patrols and regular (scheduled) staff 

presence on the site by all Refuge staff and/or volunteer representatives. 

9 9 9

Rationale: With its complex shoreline fronting the Columbia River behind the small community of Burbank, the Burbank 

Sloughs and Peninsula Units possess a great deal of wildlife habitat potential and represent the Refuge’s finest potential 

bank fishing areas. Currently, the area is severely degraded and resources have not been available to improve the site. 

With its varied topography and dense riparian habitat, it has traditionally attracted a variety of illegal uses, including 

dumping, methamphetamine labs, illegal road cutting, off road vehicle usage, etc. Because of these illegal uses, many 

Refuge visitors and staff do not feel safe using these units. Eliminating illegal uses, defining access routes, restoring 

habitat, and creating a sense of community pride in the Refuge will all be necessary for this unit to serve as high quality 

habitat for wildlife, for the public to feel safe using the site, and for priority public uses to be the dominant uses on the site. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-35

GOAL 10: Hunters appreciate and experience a variety of quality hunting 

opportunities. 

Objective 10a: Provide a Variety of Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities 

Provide a wide variety of waterfowl hunting opportunities at both McNary and Umatilla Refuges. 

(Also see Objective 1d). 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as writtenabove applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Maintain current fee reservation hunting at the McNary Headquarters Fee Area and 

McCormack Hunt Unit and evaluate the need for additional areas. 

9 9 9 9

Establish a combination of designated hunting sites (posts) and designated parking 

on the north side of the Wallula Unit at McNary. 

9 9 9

Close current waterfowl hunt area on east McCormack Slough (207 acres) Unit as 

described in Objective 1d. 

9 9

Open a new designated hunt site (48 acres) along river shoreline with a similar 

number of hunting posts/sites (opportunity) as east McCormack Slough Unit. 

9 9 

Coordinate with law enforcement and the public through news releases and signing 

if an emergency knockdown of cornfields (see objective 1b) is needed during the 

hunting season due to severe weather. Knockdown may require closure of hunting 

due to baiting regulations. Severe weather is snow or ice covering most of local 

fields, and/or weather below 0 degrees F for an extended time, leading to an 

inaccessible food supply on surrounding farms and agricultural fields. See 

Objective 1b. 

9 9 9 9

Eliminate goose pit blinds in the middle of McNary Refuge’s Peninsula Unit, and 

increase the availability and quality of this area for upland bird hunters (see 

Objective 10c). 

9 9 

Eliminate fall mowing for geese browse and hunting opportunities for geese on the 

Peninsula Unit and manage for upland grasslands, nesting cover, and pheasant 

hunting opportunities. 

9 9 9

Rationale: The variety of waterfowl hunting opportunities that are currently offered at the Refuges are quite popular and 

allow people of all abilities to enjoy hunting that suits their needs. Fee hunting is very popular at both Refuges (the Refuges 

have more hunters using fee units than any of the other units); however, many hunters prefer less regulated opportunities. 

Fee hunts allow hunters to be guaranteed a spot in advance which provides hunters traveling from a long distance some 

security. Fee hunting can also reduce law enforcement needs. However, the administrative costs of fee hunts are relatively 

high, and despite the fee, fee hunts generally don’t pay for themselves. There’s also a certain loss of freedom for the user–

there is a higher likelihood of encountering regulation, law enforcement etc. Fee hunts were considered but not adopted 

under any alternatives for the Peninsula area. At some point in the future, if competition for hunting gets more intense, 

other areas may need to be managed as fee hunt units. However, fee hunting is neither necessary nor desirable for all 

units, currently, or in the future. The combination of free roam and designated blind sites at the Peninsula Unit and 

proposed for the Wallula Unit is another method to reduce competition. Requiring hunters to park at designated posts 

corresponding to hunting posts will reduce conflict over hunt sites which have been a problem at Wallula Unit. Free roam 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-36 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

hunts are popular with many hunters and will be maintained at the Two Rivers and Burbank Sloughs Units at McNary 

Refuge, and at the Crow Butte, Ridge, Paterson, and Boardman Units at Umatilla Refuge. Lost waterfowl hunting sites in 

the East McCormack Slough would be replaced with one new hunt area located along the river shoreline with nearly an 

equal amount of hunting opportunity. Hunting quality at the new site would likely be better than that provided in the east 

slough because a sanctuary wetland could be expected to increase overall bird distribution and hunting success, similar to 

the situation at McNary Refuge with Headquarters Units 3 (sanctuary) and Headquarters Unit 2 (hunted). The goose pit 

blinds at the Peninsula Unit are seldom used and generally unproductive for goose hunters. Their elimination, together with

habitat managed for upland grasslands and nest cover, will provide increased upland game habitat and hunting. Maintain 

free roam hunts at the Two Rivers and Burbank Slough Units at McNary and the Crow Butte, Ridge, Paterson, and 

Boardman Units at Umatilla.

Objective 10b: Improve Access for Disabled Hunters 

At the McNary and Umatilla fee hunt areas, improve existing access programs for disabled 

waterfowl hunters at designated blinds. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Bring blind sites #2 and #8 at the McNary Headquarters fee hunt area, and blind 

site #11 on the Peninsula Unit up to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) standards for 

accessibility. 

9 9 

Bring access and blind site #35 at the McCormack Unit up to current ADAAG 

standards. 

9 9 

Add 2 additional ADAAG compliant blind sites: 1 at Wallula and 1 at Patterson, 

Ridge or Whitcomb. 

9 9 

Rationale: Currently, the number of blinds designated for disabled hunters is reasonable and meets the current needs. 

At least one more accessible site may be needed at each unit over the next 15 years to meet the needs of a growing and 

aging population. However, the current designated blinds and access routes are not up to ADAAG standards. 

Implementing this objective would further bring the Refuges’ compliance with ADA and will provide better opportunities for 

hunters with disabilities. 

Objective 10c: Enhance Upland Game Bird Hunt 

Enhance the quality of upland game bird hunts for both Refuges; promote consistency in hunting 

regulations among all Refuge units and increase hunt opportunities. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified with the text in this row. 

9 9 Maintain 

current 

program 

Maintain 

current 

program 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Decrease permits for the fee based lottery system from 25 to 15 and 

extend the permit requirement over the first two weekends of the 

upland game bird season at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit. 

9 9 

Eliminate goose pit blinds in the middle of McNary Refuge’s Peninsula 

Unit, and increase the availability and quality of this area to upland 

bird hunters. 

9 9 

Eliminate fall mowing for geese browse on Peninsula and manage for 

upland grasslands and nesting. 

9 9 

Within two years of CCP completion phase out current program that 

allows WDFW to augment pheasant populations for take by hunters at 

9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-37

traditional sites, during the upland bird hunting season at McNary 

Refuge. 

Standardize hunt times and hunt days where possible; continue noon 

start times on fee units only. 

9 9

Close current upland hunt area around east McCormack Unit as 

described in Objective 1d. 

• Open new designated site with an approximately equal 

amount of hunting opportunity along river shoreline (see 1d). 9

9

9

9

Rationale: Fees and permits are primarily used as a tool to limit space competition between hunters and to improve the 

quality of hunts. At this time, the only location where permits are thought to be necessary is at the McCormack Unit on 

Umatilla Refuge. Hunters are required to reserve opening weekend in advance through a fee based application process. 

The current limit of 25 permits per day results in a poor quality hunt because many hunters are constantly cutting each 

other off in competition for the best hunting spots. Although the number of hunters decreases as the season wears on, 

implementation of a lottery system and lowering the number of permits for both opening weekends will increase the safety 

and improve the quality of the hunts. 

 There is also inconsistency between the management of upland hunts on the former Corps lands and other McNary 

Units. Regulations (entry times, permits, fees, days open, etc.) should be consistent between units unless special 

conditions exist. Current inconsistencies make it difficult for hunters to abide by the regulations. In addition, upland bird

hunts can conflict with waterfowl hunts partly through space issues (hunters competing for similar areas to shoot) and 

partly through creating disturbance for each other. Changing the start time to noon on all units except fee areas (after 

most of the best waterfowl hunting is usually over) would help hunters understand and remember the regulations and 

would also reduce bird disturbance and conflicts between the different hunting programs. 

 Goose blinds are unproductive on the Peninsula Unit; staff feels this area is better managed as an upland game site. Because operation of a put-and-take hunting program through stocking of a nonnative species such as ring-necked 

pheasant is a violation of NWRS policy (601 FW 3.14 F.), this program should be phased out. 

Objective 10d: Provide Quality Deer Hunting Opportunities 

Provide quality deer hunting opportunities at McNary and Umatilla Refuges and increase 

opportunities and permits at Umatilla Refuge’s McCormack Unit. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Increase the total number of hunting permits at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit to provide 

more hunting opportunities while reducing the deer population to a target population of 

80-100 animals within 5 years. 

9 9 9

To safely accommodate increased hunting permits at Umatilla, extend the length of the 

season and the days hunted, but continue to limit access to no more than 5-10 hunters 

per day on the Refuge. 

 

Annually monitor deer population dynamics and their impacts to vegetation; conduct a 

post-hunting season November survey; adjust the number of hunt permits for upcoming 

seasons, considering vegetation conditions and other relevant factors. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Despite five years of deer hunting, little visible improvement has occurred in upland shrub condition on the 

McCormack Unit. Wildland fires and the management of the John Day pool have contributed to the problem, but staff 

observations at exclosures show that browsing continues to seriously limit shrub and tree growth in riparian and upland 

areas. The recent decline in the number of deer permits granted is likely to worsen the problem. Better estimates of deer 

populations are needed, as are more regular assessments of vegetation recovery. In the meantime, with the current 

population at 150-200 deer, it is necessary to increase the hunt take, especially of does, to reach the target population of 

80-100 deer. Controlled special permit hunts are an effective and inexpensive method of reducing herd size.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-38 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 11: Anglers experience abundant opportunities to catch fish while 

appreciating the Refuges. 

Objective 11a: Provide for Diverse Fishing Opportunities 

Maintain diverse fishing opportunities on both Refuges and improve fishing facilities and access. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives 

(9) or the alternative is modified with the text in this row. 

9 9 Slightly reduce 

area open to 

fishing 

9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Continue to allow WDFW to operate youth and family fishing 

augmentation/stocking at McNary Refuge’s Quarry Pond (a small 

isolated pond) each spring; however, limit stocking to rainbow trout 

populations. 

9 9 9

Maintain accessible sites for disabled fishing at Quarry Pond and on the 

Walla Walla River at McNary Refuge’s Wallula Unit. 

9 9 9 9

Improve parking facilities and access to river shoreline fishing sites: 

upgrade fishing access at the Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula 

Unit at McNary, and the McCormack and Paterson Units at Umatilla. 

9 9 

Rationale: Both Refuges have lengthy shorelines, abundant reservoir space, and diverse river, slough, and wetland 

habitats which provide opportunities for anglers fish for everything from large Chinook salmon to small perch and trout. 

Warm water fish are abundant and anglers can take home smallmouth bass, walleye, and other fish. At Umatilla, warm 

water fishing is the most popular kind of fishing and has won regional and national acclaim. Fishing for sturgeon is 

popular, as is fishing for salmon, steelhead, shad and catfish. Similarly, there are abundant bank fishing opportunities as 

well as river fishing from boats. This diversity of fishing opportunities is a plus for the Refuges. The Refuges can provide a 

satisfying recreational experience to many people each year from a great diversity of backgrounds. There is opportunity to 

upgrade fishing facilities. Although stocking of a nonnative species is a violation of NWRS policy (601 FW 3.14 F.), the 

current State funded and operated program at Quarry Pond is allowable because it only includes seasonal stocking of 

rainbow trout, a species that is part of the historic fish assemblage of local streams. 

 Objective 11b: Promote Fishing Awareness 

Improve public knowledge and awareness of quality fishing locations on the Refuges and 

disseminate public knowledge about the Refuge System at fishing and boating areas. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective applies as written above to alternatives (9) 9 9 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Continue to define and map fishing locations. Develop a fishing brochure or set of 

tear sheets for the public, including information such as parking, roads, boat launches, 

and accessibility for people with disabilities. Seek partnerships with State and private 

groups for funding and publication. 

9 9 

Improve Refuge fishing and related information by installing kiosks at Casey Pond, 

Wallula Unit boat launch, Paterson Unit boat launch, and McCormack Slough/Oregon 

fish hatchery boat launch. Include information about the Refuges, good fishing 

practices, fish identification and other interpretive information. Seek partnerships with 

State and private groups for funding and construction projects. 

9 9 

Conduct surveys to determine needs of the fishing public; and provide a Spanish 

language informational brochure. 

9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-39

Rationale: Fishing on the Refuges is dispersed and managing fishing has been more low-key than other Refuge 

recreational programs. Yet more visits are made to the Refuges for fishing than for any other use. The Refuge’s fishing 

public is more culturally diverse than any other Refuge user group and includes recent immigrants from a variety of 

countries and tourists from other parts of the State. Yet many who come to fish are probably unaware that they are on a 

Refuge. There is an opportunity for enhancing communications with the fishing population, to provide greater information 

to these users about the Refuge and Refuge System, and to create greater awareness of good fishing practices. Results 

from surveys will help the Refuge deliver the Service’s message. Since many people who fish on the Refuges are recent 

immigrants, it is desirable to provide some brochures and information panels in Spanish and other languages as 

appropriate. 

GOAL 12: Students and teachers understand 

and value the Refuge System, and the ecology 

and management of McNary and Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

 Objective 12a: Provide Environmental Education for Students 

Provide environmental education (EE) for 1,500-3,000 students at McNary and 100-500 students 

at Umatilla annually. Ensure that the program helps fulfill Washington Assessment of Student 

Learning (WASL) curriculum requirements. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to altnernatives (9) or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with text in this 

row. 

9 9 9 McNary 

only 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Maintain total students served, but concentrate on programs for 4th graders. 9 9

Develop more “teach the teacher” programs and Refuge specific instructor 

training 

9 9

Meet annually with Educational Service District 123 to ensure programs are 

helping the school meet the state requirements. 

9 9

Make use of existing high quality programs, such as the Shorebirds Sister 

Schools Program, that have been developed and tested throughout the 

northwest. 

9 9

Rationale: Currently the Refuges provide EE to 1,500-3,000 students, the majority at the 4th grade level. About 15% 

of the EE classes hosted are off-Refuge (a staff member or volunteer visits the school). The rest of the classes are held at 

the McNary Environmental Education Center. By using high quality and time tested programs, such as the Shorebird 

Sister Schools Program, the Refuge can deliver high quality “teach the teacher” programs with a minimum commitment of 

resources.

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-40 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 

Objective 12b: Provide Environmental Education Support 

Foster long-term support for the Environmental Education program by ensuring that McNary Refuge 

always has a minimum of 25 committed teachers and 30 committed volunteers available for the 

program. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Continue to support the Friends partnership at McNary Refuge with supplies and 

facility space. 

9 9 9 9

Explore opportunities to gain additional teacher volunteers through the Washington 

State University teaching program. 

9 9

Provide leadership and resources to manage and train volunteers. 9 9

Rationale: The Friends group has played a critical role in supporting the McNary Environmental Education program, with 

an estimated 10,000 hours per year of volunteer support. This is equivalent to about five full-time equivalent employees 

(FTEs). Supporting the Friends with needed office space, supplies, and an available staff partnership is vital to allow the 

Friends to continue to provide this critical service. In addition, since the Friends group is comprised mainly of retired 

citizens in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, for the long-term health of the EE program it is essential to recruit and maintain 

additional volunteers. 

Objective 12c: Promote Teacher-led Classes 

By the end of 15 years, ensure that at least 75% of the environmental education classes visiting the 

McNary Refuge are teacher-led. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Offer teacher training workshops and establish a program to encourage and select 

trained teachers to use the Refuges’ facilities and programs for teacher led EE. 

9 9

Conduct outreach to build the base of knowledgeable and enthusiastic teachers. 9 9

Develop lesson plans and supply education module boxes for use by teachers and 

volunteers 

9 9

Develop curricula for the EE program and provide support and resources for the 

Friends group and volunteers. 

9 9

Rationale: An EE program that focuses on teaching the teacher has the potential to both expand the number of potential 

students participating in EE and to broaden the base of knowledgeable EE instructors in the community. Indirectly, this 

would have the effect of broadening support for the Refuges within the communities. Since it takes time for teachers to 

receive the training and get comfortable with the educational materials and environment, we anticipate slowly but gradually

moving toward a thirty-five percent mark over the life of the CCP. Currently, Refuges’ Complex Outdoor Recreation 

Planner and the McNary Refuge Manager spend approximately 200 hours per year total supporting the EE program. The 

support needs of the program would be better served by an EE Specialist and/or Volunteer Coordinator. 

 

Objective 12d: Maintain and Improve Enviornmental Education Facilities 

Continue to focus McNary Refuge’s environmental education efforts in and around Burbank Slough 

and the McNary Environmental Education Center (MEEC), while initiating limited EE programs at 

Umatilla Refuge based on volunteer and community interest and support. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-41

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) or the alternative is 

modified with the text in this row. 

9 9 At MEEC 

only

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Provide support and resources to support EE facilities and programs, and to 

maintain enthusiastic EE volunteers at McNary Refuge. 

9 9 9

Initiate contacts with the community, schools, and volunteers, to find interested 

teachers and volunteers interested in starting an EE program at Umatilla Refuge. 

9 9

Utilize alternative funds to construct EE sites at Umatilla, associated with the auto 

tour route. Explore opportunities to apply for wildlife-dependent use grants 

through the Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Heritage Trail funds. 

9 9

Tie Umatilla EE facilities (existing and new) into the proposed earthen trail or 

boardwalk accessing the east McCormack wetland and a .2 mile loop (objective 

9d); and integrate features with the Morrow County Columbia River Heritage Trail. 

9 9

Rationale: The EE program is currently concentrated at the McNary Refuge which has developed a large volunteer 

program to support activities. This program benefits the Refuge, community, and school kids and should be supported to 

keep it running well. Umatilla currently has no program for EE but receives requests from local teachers. Staff, volunteers, 

and materials could be allocated to Umatilla to begin building an EE program similar to McNary’s based on volunteer and 

community involvement. The existing auto tour route and Morrow County Columbia River Heritage Trail offer excellent 

areas for EE development and field activities. 

GOAL 13. Manage cultural resources for their 

educational, scientific, and cultural values for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Refuge 

users and communities. 

 

Objective 13a: Protect Cultural Resources 

Increase monitoring and protection of all cultural resources and historical sites on both Refuges 

while increasing public and staff support and appreciation. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Using guidance and assistance from the Regional Cultural Resources Team and Tribal 

programs assemble Regional/National/Tribal databases, reports, and site information to 

provide Refuge managers with specific access-protected data, site information and 

guidance. 

9 9 9

Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when 

conducting ground disturbing activities or modifying historic structures. 

9 9 9 9

Complete a comprehensive cultural survey of both Refuges as called for in Section 110 

of the NHPA, and pull together all previous site surveys, work requests and reports for 

easy access by managers 

9 9 9

Develop a Refuge GIS layer for cultural resource sites and resources that contains 

barriers to protect sensitive information. 

9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-42 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

All Refuge law enforcement officers will receive training in the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), and other State and Federal cultural resource regulations no later than 

March 2008. 

9 9 9

Develop law enforcement monitoring protocols and schedules for patroling cultural sites 

as part of a Law Enforcement Management Plan, to be completed no later than 2008. 

Hire one additional Law Enforcement Officer. 

9 9 9

Identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources associated with rocky 

features; coordinate with the Umatilla Tribe’s Cultural Resources Program to identify 

significant sites, and plan for the protection at rocky sites; especially on the Stateline, 

Juniper Canyon, and Columbia River Island areas. 

 

Rationale: The key to protecting cultural resources is promoting knowledge of and appreciation for the resources. 

Currently, information on known cultural sites is fragmented and not easily accessible to the Refuge Managers responsible 

for the Refuges’ management and operations. Umatilla had a comprehensive survey of resources completed by Willamette 

Associates (1986) and there are several other major surveys and project-specific survey work and reports that include 

portions of both Refuges; however, a comprehensive access-protected GIS-based database is needed. Law enforcement 

officers have received training in cultural resource law, but continuing education and coordination, with Tribal and State 

officers, is needed. Rocky sites are specified because Refuge managers do not know enough about the cultural resources 

of these sites. 

 

Objective 13b: Increase Awareness and Appreciation for Cultural Resources 

Increase awareness of and appreciation for historic, archaeological, and cultural resources among 

Refuge staff and the public. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Bi-annually, provide all Refuge staff with 2-4 hours of training on managing historic, 

archaeological, and cultural resources. 

9 9 9

Consult with Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify types 

of cultural resource information appropriate for public interpretation. 

9 9 9

Partner with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and 

other interested groups to tell the history of the Stateline-Wallula area, and prepare 

media (pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that portray the American Indians’ and early settlers’ 

cultural resources and history, on the Refuge, with emphasis the on fish and wildlife 

resources and their uses during these periods. 

9 9 9

Partner with Tribes, historical societies, interested groups, and government agencies, to 

develop an overlook site at Wallula to interpret the rich history and importance of the 

area to Tribes and early Washington settlement. 

9 9 9

Partner with the CTUIR, the Oregon Heritage Trail committee, and other interested 

groups, to tell the history and interpret the cultural resources of the Umatilla Refuge, and 

prepare media (pamphlets, signs, and exhibits) describing the history of American 

Indians and early settlers in this area. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Little interpretation of cultural resources has occurred to date on the Refuges. The rich history and cultural 

sites within both Refuges needs to be told. The Refuge, however, needs assistance and could achieve a higher level of 

interpretation by partnering with tribes and groups interested in history. 

Objective 13c: Coordination on Cultural Resources 

Increase coordination and consultation with Tribes. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-43

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

In partnership with Tribes and the Regional Cultural Resources Team, establish "protocol 

for consultation" to help managers meet NHPA and ARPA requirements including 

consultation, identification, inventory and evaluation of projects and sites. 

9 9 9

Establish NAGPRA protocol and procedures for handling inadvertent discoveries of 

human remains, burial objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. 

9 9 9

Meet at least semiannually to discuss programs and projects with staffs of each of the 

following: Tribal Cultural Resources Programs; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Indian Nation; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation; the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation; and the 

Wanapum Band of Indians. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Research conducted for this CCP has confirmed the historical presence of the following tribes within the lands 

encompassed by Refuge lands: Palouse, Cayuse, Yakama, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Nez Perce and Wanapum Tribes and 

affiliated bands. Although the Refuges have had consultations and meetings in the past, it is important that communication

and consultation become more regular and systematic. Since the 2004 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the 

Kennewick Man case, it has become incumbent on agencies to ensure that special and significant genetic or cultural 

relationship to a presently existing indigenous Tribe has been demonstrated, before any objects and remains can be 

repatriated. How the Refuges can accomplish this, in order to comply with NAGPRA, needs to be addressed. 

 

Objective 13d: Shoreline Bank Stabilization 

Explore the potential for shoreline bank stabilization, and bio-engineering, at eroding areas on the 

Strawberry Islands and Umatilla shoreline to protect cultural resources listed on and eligible to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Apply for Corps and BPA funding for protection of shorelines threatened with erosion as 

a result of dam/reservoir operations. 

9 9 9

Rationale: Some bank restoration was completed by the Corps at Strawberry Island. Erosion from operation of the 

reservoirs may threaten cultural resources at Strawberry Island and the Umatilla Refuges’ islands in the Columbia River, and

should be considered effects under the Corps/BPA Systems Operation program. 

Objective 13d: Increase Management Efforts for Archaeological Features at Two Sites on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

Identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources associated with the Miller Site and 

Telegraph Island, both listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives (9) 9 9 9

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Adopt and accomplish recommendations from the 1983 Strawberry Island Excavation 

Report (Schalk 1983), including removing sage and basin wildrye and replacing it with 

bluebunch wheatgrass and other forbs better representing historic conditions. 

9 9 9

Increase law enforcement efforts to protect cultural resources at these two sites. 9 9 9

Conduct annual site visits and maintain written records and photo documentation. 9 9 9

Rationale: The final report by archeologists conducting the 1978-1979 Strawberry Island excavation (Schalk 1983), 

recommended five management actions to improve protection of the Miller Site, which is on the Register of National 

Historic Places. One of the recommendations was to maintain vegetation at an early stage of succession. Researchers 

were worried that both big sagebrush and basin wildrye, which were just beginning to colonize the previously bluebunch 

wheatgrass dominated site in the 1970s, could damage buried sites because of their extensive root systems. Since then, 

both species have come to dominate the surface of the archeological site. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

2-44 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

References 

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Unpublished Report. [Available in html, version 1.0, at 

http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/columbia_basin.pdf] 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, and K. Collis. 2004. Breeding ecology of Caspian terns at colonies on the 

Columbia Plateau. Northwest Science 787:303-312. 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, K. Collis, A.F. Evans, M. Hawbecker, and B.A. Ryan. 2005. 

Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 134:466-480. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill (editors). 2001. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 

2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Buchanan, J.B. 2005. Priorities for Implementation of the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird 

Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 

Dauble, D.D. and D.G. Watson. 1990. Spawning and Abundance of Fall Chinook Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, 1948-1988. PNbill L-7289, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Dobler, F.C., et al. 1996. Status of Washington’s shrub-steppe ecosystem: extent, ownership, and 

wildlife/vegetation relationships. Research Report. Washington Department of Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 

Easterbrooks, J. 1999. Letter of correspondence to Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Work group for 

Yakima Basin Fish Passage. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Ellis, D.V. 1986. Cultual Resources of the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Report. Willamette 

Associates, Portland, Oregon. 

Lloyd, T., R. Denney, and G. Constantino. 1983. Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan for the 

Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, 

WA. 

Miller, S. and T. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and 

invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51 (1), 85-94. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan – Strengthening the biological 

foundation. Washington, DC. 

Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. 2004. Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan. 

Unpublished manuscript. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Pampush, G. 1981. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest site selection of the Longed 

Curlew in northcentral Oregon. Master’s thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 

Pampush, G and G. Anthony. 1983. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 95:957-967. 

Schalk, R.F., D.L. Olson, and R.R. Mierendorfy. 1983. The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at 

Strawberry Island in the McNary Reservoir. Project Report 19. Washington State University, 

Center for Northwest Anthropology, Pullman, WA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Environmental Impact Statement: Caspian Tern Management 

to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2004. High Priority Shorebirds. 2004. Unpublished Report, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1980. McNary HMA Baseline Inventory. Washington 

Department of Wildlife, Yakima, WA. 
Chapter 3– Physical Environment 3-1

Chapter 3. Physical Environment

3.1 Climate 

The Refuges lie in the semi-arid shrub-steppe Columbia Basin Plateau in southeastern Washington 

and northeastern Oregon. The region’s climate is greatly influenced by the Pacific Ocean and the 

Cascade Mountain Range to the west, and other mountain ranges to the north and east. The Pacific 

Ocean moderates temperatures throughout the Pacific Northwest, and the Cascade Range generates 

a rain shadow that limits rain and snowfall in the eastern half of Oregon and Washington States. The 

Cascade Range also serves as a source of cold air drainage, which has a considerable effect on the 

wind regime of the area. Mountain ranges to the north and east of the region shield the area from 

the severe winter storms and frigid air masses that move southward across Canada. 

Meteorological measurements have been taken at the Hanford Meteorological Station since late 

1944, and can be considered representative of the general climates of both McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges. Hanford data are used below to discuss weather patterns on the Refuge. 

A. Temperature 

Based on data collected from 1946 through 2002, the average monthly temperatures range from a 

low of 31°F in January to a high of 76°F in July. The highest winter monthly average temperatures 

recorded were 44°F in February 1958 and February 1991, and the lowest average monthly 

temperature was 12°F in January 1950. The highest monthly average temperature recorded was 

82°F in July 1985, and the lowest summer monthly average temperature was 63°F in June 1953. 

Daily maximum temperatures vary from an average of 35°F in late December and early January to 

96°F in late July. There are, on average, fifty-two days during the summer months with maximum 

temperatures of 90°F, and twelve days with temperatures greater than or equal to 100°F. The 

greatest number of consecutive days on record with maximum daily temperatures of 90°F is 32. The 

record maximum temperature was 113°F, recorded on August 4, 1961, and again on July 13, 2002. 

From mid-November through early March, the average daily minimum temperature is below freezing; 

the daily minimum in late December and early January is 21°F. On average, the daily minimum 

temperature drops to 0°F or below only three days per year; however, only about one winter in two 

experiences such low temperatures. The greatest number of consecutive days on record with 

minimum daily temperatures of 0°F or below is 11. The record minimum temperature of -23°F was 

recorded on both February 1 and 3, 1950. 

B. Precipitation 

Average annual precipitation is 6.8 inches. In 1995, the wettest year on record the precipitation 

measured was 12.3 inches; in 1976, the driest year, only 3.0 inches were measured. The wettest 

season on record was the winter of 1996–97, with 5.4 inches of precipitation; the driest season was 

the summer of 1973, with only 0.03 inches of precipitation. Most precipitation occurs during the late 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-2 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

autumn and winter, with more than half of the annual amount occurring from November through 

February. Days with greater than 0.50 inches of precipitation occur on average less than once each 

year. 

Average snowfall ranges from 0.1 inch in October to a maximum of 5.2 inches in December, 

decreasing to 0.5 inches in March. The record monthly snowfall of 23.4 inches occurred in January 

1950. The seasonal record snowfall of 56.1 inches occurred during the winter of 1992–93. Snowfall 

accounts for about 38% of all precipitation from December through February. 

Fog records at Hanford may differ with those for both Refuges, as the Refuges generally see more fog 

days as a result of slightly lower elevations and the concentration of river systems (Columbia-SnakeWalla Walla Rivers at McNary Refuge and Columbia-Umatilla Rivers at Umatilla Refuge). So the 

following are likely under-reported. At Hanford, fog has been recorded during every month of the 

year; however, 89% of the occurrences are from November through February, with less than 3% from 

April through September. The average number of days per year with fog (visibility of six miles or less) 

is 48; the average number of days with dense fog (visibility of 0.25 mile or less) is 25. The greatest 

number of days with fog was 84 in 1985–86 and the least was 22 in 1948–49. The greatest number 

of days with dense fog was 42 in 1950–51 and the least was nine days in 1948–49. The greatest 

persistence of fog was 114 hours in December 1985, and the greatest persistence of dense fog was 

47 hours in December 1957. 

C. Wind 

Monthly average wind speeds varies between the Refuges, as features such as the Wallula Gap, Walla 

Walla Valley and Horse Heaven Hills influence local microclimates within the Refuges. Hanford 

records are likely lower for wind speed and wind events compared to both Refuges, with maximum 

wind speeds and wind days occurring along the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units as a result of the 

Wallula Gap. In general, winds are lower during the winter months, averaging six to seven miles per 

hour (mph), and faster during the summer, averaging eight to nine mph. The fastest wind speeds on 

Hanford are usually associated with spring and fall flows from the southwest. Monthly averages and 

extremes of temperature, dew point, and humidity are presented for Hanford in Neitzel (2004). 

Prevailing wind directions near the surface in most of the Refuges are from the northwest, all months 

of the year, although winds from the northwest occur most frequently during the winter and summer. 

Winds from the southwest also occur frequently. During the spring and fall, there is an increase in the 

frequency of winds from the southwest and a corresponding decrease in winds from the northwest. 

Concerns about severe weather generally center on hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms. 

Washington does not experience hurricanes, and tornadoes are infrequent and generally small in the 

northwestern part of the United States. The National Climatic Data Center maintains a database that 

provides information on the incidence of tornados reported in each county in the United States. This 

database reports that in the ten counties closest to the Refuges (Adams, Benton, Franklin, Grant, 

Klickitat, Kittitas, Walla Walla and Yakima Counties in Washington, and Morrow and Umatilla 

Counties in Oregon), only twenty-two tornados have been recorded since 1950. Of these, fifteen 

tornadoes had maximum wind speeds estimated in the range of 40 to 72 mph, four had maximum 

wind speeds in the range of 73 to 112 mph, and three had maximum wind speeds in the range of 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-3

113 to 157 mph. There were no deaths or substantial property damage (in excess of $50,000) 

associated with any of these tornadoes. 

3.2 Hydrology 

A. Columbia River and Hydropower Project System 

Both Refuges are situated on and adjacent to slackwater pools created by the McNary and John Day 

Lock and Dam Projects located on the Columbia River. The dams are two of 31 federally owned 

hydropower projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers that are owned and operated by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation (USACE et al. 2005). All 31 dams and the 

electrical system are known as the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). Twelve of the 

major dams were constructed and are operated by the Corps, including McNary and John Day Dams 

(USACE 2000b). The FCRPS provides nearly 40% of the region's electric power as well as flood 

control, power production, navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and water supplies for irrigation, 

municipal use, and industrial uses (USACE 2000a). Given their location, the hydrology of McNary 

and Umatilla Refuges is largely dictated by management of the FCRPS, especially by forebay 

operations of the McNary and John Day Dams. 

Development of hydropower projects on the Columbia River radically altered the flow regime of the 

river during the twentieth century. Reservoir storage projects constructed watershed-wide, principally 

between the 1930s and the mid-1970s, have created an active storage capacity in excess of 46 

million acre-feet (MAF). This is equivalent to 1/3 of the mean annual flow of the river (as measured at 

The Dalles, Oregon). This storage capacity can be found in four projects in excess of 5 MAF each, six 

projects in the 1 to 4 MAF range, and dozens of smaller projects (WDOE and WDFW 2004). 

The dams have a profound affect on Columbia River hydrology. In the pre-dam era, the river typically 

had relatively low flows during the fall and winter (October through March) period and much higher 

flows during the snowmelt runoff period, which occurs in the spring and summer (April through 

September). The outmigration of salmon smolts coincided with this former peak in flows producing a 

quick journey or “flush” to the ocean for the young fish. In the post-dam era, normal high water flows 

have been reduced with the peaks flattened out. Rather than peaking strongly during late spring and 

summer, spring runoff is contained within numerous storage reservoirs and gradually released over 

the year. There are now relatively higher flows in the winter, as the stored water is tapped for power 

generation, and lower summer flows than occurred historically. Figure 3-1 illustrates the change in 

the hydrograph from historic to current times. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-4 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Figure 3-1. Historic and Current Hydrograph of the Columbia River 

 

Exceedence curve: A flow exceedence curve shows the percent of time a flow has occurred historically. In this case, during 

50% of the years, the flow equaled or exceeded the value shown. Source: Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, 

Water Withdrawals and Salmon Survival (2004) by Committee on Water Resources Management, Instream Flows, and 

Salmon Survival in the Columbia River Basin, National Research Council, 268 pages.

McNary Dam Operations: The McNary Refuge is greatly influenced by the Corps operation of Lake 

Wallula, the reservoir behind McNary Dam. Lake Wallula at its normal operating pool (an elevation 

of 340 feet mean sea level [msl]) is 61.6 miles long. The pool extends one mile up the Walla Walla 

River, 9.7 miles up the Snake River to Ice Harbor Dam and six miles up the Yakima River. McNary is 

a “run-of-the-river” project. It has no flood storage, no irrigation storage, and only limited short-term 

power-peaking functions. Therefore, the pool has been relatively stable, although daily fluctuations 

occur for power generation (Figure 3-2). In the upper reaches of the pool, near Strawberry Island, 

greater fluctuations occur seasonally from the backwater effect of variations in river flows. At the dam, 

the project is physically capable of drawdown from full pool level (340 msl) to minimum pool level 

(335 msl), a total of five feet. However, normal drawdown typically does not exceed three feet. In 

general, the pool builds to a maximum elevation at about 8:00 a.m. daily and is steadily drawn down 

all day as power is generated. The daily range in elevation depends on natural river flows and power 

demands, but a two or three foot fluctuation at the forebay is not uncommon (Corps, 1976). High 

pool levels often occur as the result of special requests for barge traffic, recreational needs, and the 

annual hydro-plane racing event held on the River every summer. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-5

Figure 3-2. Hydrograph of Columbia River Water Levels behind McNary Dam (1974-2005).

Year

1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 

Columbia River behind McNary Dam (ft MSL)

328

330

332

334

336

338

340

342

344

346

348

350

John Day Dam Operations: The John Day Dam, 215 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean, creates 

a 76-mile-long reservoir (Lake Umatilla). Lake Umatilla is the longest reservoir on the lower 

Mid-Columbia River and is also operated as a “run-of-the-river” project with little water level 

fluctuations. Normal reservoir operating elevation is 265 feet msl (normal pool). At the dam, the 

natural river level is about 100 vertical feet below the normal reservoir pool level, and the spillway 

crest is about 50 feet below the normal pool (USACE 2000a). 

The John Day dam forebay operations were dramatically changed in accordance with the 1993 

FCRPS Biological Opinion (BiOp). These changes reduced minimum and maximum pool elevations, 

especially spring and summer maximum pool elevations (Figure 3-3). Minimum pool levels were 

based on the needs of irrigators pumping from the river. Outside of drawdown studies in 1998, only 

slight modifications to dam operations have occurred since 1993. Current John Day Pool operations 

include a maximum pool elevation of 265 feet msl from October through March and 264 feet msl 

from April through September (USACE 2005a, USACE per. comm.). Minimum pool remains at 262.5 

feet msl year round (USACE 2005a, USACE 2006 per. comm.). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-6 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Figure 3-3. Hydrograph of Columbia River water levels behind John Day Dam (1974-2005). Bars 

represent open water wetland acreage of McCormack Slough for specific air photograph years. 

Year

1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 

McCormack Slough Open Water Acres

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Columbia River behind John Day Dam (ft MSL)

254

256

258

260

262

264

266

268

270

272

274

276

 

Operations from April though September represent the drawdown period (1.5-foot range of the 

minimum level) for fish passage (USACE 2005a, USACE 2005b). The 264-foot maximum is in stark 

contrast to pre-1993 operations, when pool elevations exceeded 267 feet (max 268) during peak 

spring-summer flows. This 4-foot decrease in maximum water elevation had a large impact to 

shorelines and shallow backwaters within Umatilla Refuge. Since 1993, the changed river operations 

create a seasonal cycle of reservoir water levels with higher fall through winter and lower spring 

through summer elevations from pre-1993 levels, which is a reversed seasonal cycle from both the 

pre-1993 project period and pre-dam natural flows. The difference in the current April-September 

and October-March periods averages about one foot in elevation. Frequent, daily and weekly 

changes in elevation occur, but a cyclical seasonal pattern remains that has profoundly changed 

Umatilla Refuge wetlands. 

Effect of the Endangered Species Act on FCRPS River Operations: In 1991, NOAA Fisheries (formerly 

NMFS) listed the Snake River sockeye salmon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Over the last several years other Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead stocks have been 

listed under the ESA. Currently, there are 13 listed salmon and steelhead stocks within the Columbia 

Basin (USACE et al. 2004). The Service also listed two species of resident fish in the basin: bull trout 

and Kootenai River white sturgeon. 

The ESA requires any Federal agency proposing a project that might affect an ESA-listed fish to first 

seek the expert opinion of the Service or NOAA Fisheries about the effects of the action on listed 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-7

species (NOAA Fisheries 2004a). An ESA recovery plan is not yet in place, however, a BiOp can be a 

component of such a plan as one part of the ESA process (USACE 2005a; NOAA Fisheries 2004a). 

BiOps are written as interim documents pending results of long-term studies (USACE 2000b). 

The FCRPS Action Agencies, consisting of the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, and BPA, operate the 

FCRPS consistent with BiOps issued by NOAA Fisheries and the Service (NOAA Fisheries 2000). The 

NOAA Fisheries FCRPS BiOp “incorporates flow, spill and other measures to improve fish migration 

conditions for anadromous fish listed under the ESA.” Both the NOAA Fisheries BiOp and the 

Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program establish regional processes for fish 

passage management” (FPC 2005). 

Chronology of Biological Opinions and Associated Litigation: 

• In May 1993, following the ESA-listing of the Snake River sockeye, spring/summer and fall 

Chinook salmon, NOAA Fisheries issued its BiOp for 1993 operations of the FCRPS (NOAA 

1994). 

• The 1993 FCRPS BiOp was set aside by Federal Court in 1994. 

• In March 1995, NOAA Fisheries issued its new FCRPS BiOp (NOAA 1995a). The 1995 BiOp 

concluded that the operation of the FCRPS as described in the 1993 BiOp “is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon stocks” (spring/summer Chinook, fall 

Chinook, sockeye). The BiOp also concluded that "the only way to achieve significant 

improvements is with long term system reconfigurations" (NOAA 1995a). 

• A supplemental BiOp followed in 1998 and 2000 to address additional salmon and 

steelhead species listed after 1995. They contained measures to avoid jeopardizing the 

continued existence of listed salmon, steelhead, bull trout and white sturgeon species. 

• In June 2003, Judge Redden remanded the 2000 BiOp and directed NOAA Fisheries to 

resolve several deficiencies (NOAA Fisheries 2004). 

• A new BiOp was issued in 2004 and the most recent operations of the action agencies have 

been under the 2004 BiOp. 

• In May 2005 Judge Redden invalidated the 2004 BiOp as arbitrary and capricious and 

contrary to provision of the ESA, but did not require it to be withdrawn (USACE 2005a; USDC 

2005). 

• In October 2005, the court gave NOAA Fisheries a year to rewrite its BiOp and schedule 

quarterly reports to the Court (USACE et al. 2005). 

• The remanded 2006 FCRPS BiOp will address each of the areas identified as inadequate in 

the 2004 BiOp. The action agencies prepared an implementation plan that describes actions 

they intend to implement to avoid jeopardy to Columbia Basin salmonids listed or proposed 

for listing under the ESA (USACE et al. 2005). 

2006 Water Management Plan: Reservoirs slow river current and create slack water, slowing juvenile 

fish migration through the river system (USACE 2000). Lowering water levels behind the dams to 

levels that are substantially below the normal operating range is called drawdown. Lower water levels 

decrease reservoir width and depth, which increases water velocity. Increased water velocity could 

move juvenile fish through the reservoir more quickly, thus mimicking historically faster journeys 

downriver (USACE 2000). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-8 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

The action agencies develop a Water Management Plan each year as part of the overall BiOp 

implementation planning process. The 2006 Water Management Plan (USACE 2005a, 2005b), 

includes the following river operations: 

 

• “John Day pool shall operate within a 11⁄2-foot range of the minimum level [262.5–264 ft msl] 

that provides irrigation pumping from April 10 to September 30. The purpose of this action is to 

provide a smaller reservoir cross section to reduce juvenile salmon travel time.” 

• “The spring flow objective at McNary Dam [April 10-June 30] is set according to the April final 

runoff volume forecast at The Dalles Dam for April to August. When the forecast is less than 80 

maf the flow objective will be 220 kcfs [thousand cubic feet per second]. If the forecast is 

between 80 maf and 92 maf the flow objective will be linearly interpolated between 220 kcfs 

and 260 kcfs. If the forecast is greater than 92 maf the flow objective will be 260 kcfs. 

Weekend flows are often lower than weekday flows due to less electrical demand in the region. 

During the spring and summer migration period (April through August), the Action Agencies will 

strive to maintain McNary flows during the weekend at a level which is at least 80% of the 

previous weekday average.” 

• “The summer flow objective at McNary Dam [July 1-August 31] is 200 kcfs.” 

Of concern to the Service are recent discussions of lowering the Wallula Pool to 335-336 feet msl 

during the spring to facilitate smolt passage. If enacted, a 3-4 foot drawdown would seriously and 

negatively impact McNary Refuge wetlands and irrigation systems. Similar operation changes at John 

Day Dam have already significantly affected resources at Umatilla Refuge by lowering spring-summer 

water levels by approximately four feet. The Refuges will need to watch and participate in these 

discussions to protect wildlife resources. 

B. Wetlands Hydrology 

The majority of the wetlands located on both Refuges are directly or indirectly connected to the 

Columbia River. Water level patterns in wetlands, therefore, generally follow the water level pattern of 

the pools themselves. For those wetlands that lack a direct connection to the river, water fluctuations 

are generally muted relative to the river, with increases and decreases occurring more gradually. 

Such wetlands include McCormack Slough, four wetland units near the McNary Headquarters, and 

several wetlands on the Peninsula Unit (J-Line and Curlew). 

A recent study by the Service at McCormack Slough of Umatilla Refuge has provided Refuge staff with 

increased understanding of the relationship between river operations and Refuge wetland hydrology. 

McCormack Slough, like many other Refuge wetlands, lacks a direct connection to the river. The 

current land bridge located at the mouth of the slough was created after the initiation of the lowered 

John Day forebay operating levels, in 1993. Since the advent of the land bridge, the hydraulic 

connection between the river and the slough has occurred as ground water exchange, which causes 

the slough’s response to the changing river levels to be muted due to slow groundwater movement 

through the land bridge. Like the river, McCormack Slough water levels increase from October 

through March and decrease from April through September. Unlike the abrupt changes in the river, 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-9

the seasonal rise and fall of slough water levels is a gradual and steady change that extends through 

the April-September or October-March periods (see Figures 3-4 and 3-5). 

Figure 3-4. Hydrographs of selected groundwater monitoring wells, West McCormack Slough water 

levels (black), and Columbia River water level behind John Day Dam (grey) (2004-2005). Rapid 

elevation decreases on November 1, 2004, and August 22, 2005, represented on the graph for 

groundwater wells and the slough, are due to the breaching of an internal earthen dike, and later a 

beaver dam, between the western and eastern halves of the slough. Higher water levels in the west 

slough (which is nearer the river) flooded into the east slough (that extends well away from the river). 

Since August 22, 2005, a direct overland connection remains within the slough. 3/1/04 5/1/04 7/1/04 9/1/04 11/1/04 1/1/05 3/1/05 5/1/05 7/1/05 9/1/05 

11/1/05 

Elevation (ft MSL)

260.5

261.0

261.5

262.0

262.5

263.0

263.5

264.0

264.5

265.0

265.5

McCormack Slough

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

Columbia River

A second difference from the river is the annual maximum water level fluctuation in the Slough, 

approximately two feet, as opposed to a one foot change in the river. Additionally, McCormack 

slough water levels are about one foot below the river year round. The difference in slough elevation 

from the river might be due to water flowing from the slough into adjacent groundwater (Figure 6). 

This loss probably increases with distance from the river and may be exacerbated by groundwater 

pumping. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-10 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Figure 3-5. Hydrographs of selected groundwater monitoring wells, East McCormack Slough water 

levels (black), and Columbia River water levels behind John Day Dam (grey) (2004-2005). Rapid 

elevation decreases on November 1, 2004, and August 22, 2005, represented on the graph for 

groundwater wells and the slough, are due to the breaching of an internal earthen dike, and later a 

beaver dam, between the western and eastern halves of the slough. Higher water levels in the west 

slough (which is nearer the river) flooded into the east slough (that extends well away from the river). 

Since August 22, 2005, a direct overland connection remains within the slough. 3/1/04 5/1/04 7/1/04 9/1/04 11/1/04 1/1/05 3/1/05 5/1/05 7/1/05 

9/1/05 

11/1/05 

Elevation (ft MSL)

260.0

260.5

261.0

261.5

262.0

262.5

263.0

263.5

264.0

264.5

265.0

ES1

ES2

ES3

ES4

McCormack Slough

Columbia River
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-11

Figure 3-6. Cross section profile through west section of McCormack Slough. The Figure displays 

highest and lowest water surface elevations in 2004 and 2005, in addition to the approximate 

location of different vegetation types.

Distance (ft)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Elevation (ft)

252

255

258

261

264

267

270

273

276

279

Ground Surface

 W ater Table 8/24/04

W ater Table 2/19/05

WS4 WS3

WS1 WS2

South North

Vertical Exaggeration: x50

Cottonwood

Bare Ground

Emergent Wetland Plants Bulrush

Bulrush

Great Basin Rye

Upland Shrubs

Open Water

 

The Slough’s current hydro period (and other Umatilla Refuge wetlands) no longer reflects pre-1993 

seasonal patterns as before but are more similar to other naturally occurring wetlands that have a 

summer drawdown. The peak minimum elevation of the slough is at the end of September and 

reflects a reduction by as much as six feet from pre-1993 conditions. This has had substantial affects 

to Refuge resources. Open water areas within the slough, after the operational change of the river in 

1993, has been reduced from just over 300 acres to slightly under 200, a decrease of 40% in open 

water surface area. Similar losses have occurred to other Refuge wetlands. Additionally, these 

changes have had detrimental impacts to all Refuge riparian areas. Stands of trees that were once 

near the water’s edge are now high on the bank, resulting in widespread mortality among trees and 

shrubs. However, there are some positive benefits of the changed hydrology, such as opportunity to 

utilize the summer drawdown effect in wetlands. Several areas within McCormack Slough have been 

mechanically excavated to elevations that now function as highly productive seasonal wetland units 

(which are intensely managed for waterfowl foods). This potential exists elsewhere on the Refuge, in 

particular at Paterson Slough. 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry 

Except for steep cliffs located along the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units, the majority of upland 

habitats at both Refuges is flat or gently rolling. Elevations vary from 265 to 671 feet above mean 

sea level at Umatilla Refuge. At McNary Refuge, elevations vary from 340 to 440 on McNary, Two 

Rivers, Peninsula and Wallula Units. Cliffs top 1,200 feet elevations at the Stateline Unit. 

Bathymetry data is available for McCormack Slough from a Minster-Glasser 1995 survey for the 

majority of McCormack Slough, from 263 feet (high water level) and below. A complementary 

topographic and bathometric survey of designated areas of McCormack Slough was completed by 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-12 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Ducks Unlimited (DU) in 2004. Topographic mapping was completed for shoreline areas at 

elevations from 263 feet (high water level) and above. In addition, two small backwaters on the 

slough (not completed during Minster-Glasser bathometric work) were completed by DU. Most areas 

of topographic mapping by DU were later excavated during a wetland enhancement project, so 

mapping of those specific areas does not reflect current conditions. 

3.4 Geology 

The landforms comprising the Refuges have been shaped by water, wind, and volcanic action. 

During multiple ice ages, the last being 18,000 to 12,000 years ago, a series of cataclysmic floods, 

popularly called the Spokane Floods, inundated large portions of the Pacific Northwest. Periodically, 

perhaps every 40 to 140 years, waters from glacial Lake Missoula in Montana burst forth past ice 

dams, crossing and creating the area now known as the Channeled Scablands of Washington, and 

eventually emptying through the Wallula Gap. For several weeks, as much as 200 cubic miles of 

water per day were delivered to the Wallula Gap, a constriction of the Columbia River that could 

discharge less than 40 cubic miles per day. As a result, ponded water temporarily filled the Pasco 

Basin and the Yakima and Touchet valleys to form huge but temporary lakes geologists refer to as 

Lake Lewis. Wallula Gap is one of the most spectacular examples of such Ice Age hydraulic dams, 

and exhibits other flood evidences such as “overtopping flows” on the Horse Heaven Hills which can 

be seen from McNary Refuge’s Stateline Unit. The Wallula Gap was recognized by the National Park 

Service as a National Natural Landmark in 1999 (36 CFR Part 62). 

In 2001, the National Park Service completed a major special resource study and submitted a report 

to Congress proposing that an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail be established. Such a trail 

would represent the largest, most systematic, and most cooperative effort yet proposed to bring the 

dramatic story of the ice age floods to the public's attention. This in turn has the potential to bring 

significant visitors to the Refuges. The trail would essentially be a network of marked touring routes 

extending across parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, with several special interpretive 

centers located across the region including possibly one proposed for the Wallula Gap on Refuge 

managed lands.

The following geology discussion is excerpted from the McNary Master Plan (1980). 

(http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/planning/ER/mcnary/default.htm#7_04). 

Columbia River basalt underlies the Refuges and surrounding areas, and is the most prominent rock 

formation in the Columbia Basin physiographic province. As part of a series of immense lava flows, 

mostly of a middle Miocene period, this formation covers over 250,000 square miles. The formation, 

ranging in total thickness to over 5,000 feet, is made up of numerous individual flows, commonly 25 

to 100 feet thick, extending laterally for miles. The rock is typically fine-grained, dark gray, dense 

basalt in the massive parts of the flows, but may be scoriaceous (cindery lava) in the upper parts. The 

upper parts of the flow are commonly oxidized and partly weathered and, therefore, shades of red 

and brown are common. Vertical columnar structures of polygonal cross sections formed as the lava 

cooled. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-13

Throughout the study area, much of the basalt bedrock is overlain by sedimentary deposits composed 

of several formations. These deposits, consisting of silt, sand, gravel, and volcanic ash of the Pliocene 

or Holocene periods, were deposited by the glacier-swollen Columbia River at the close of the 

Pleistocene epoch. 

Recent alluvium represented by narrow ribbons of river-washed gravels and reworked loess of volcanic 

ash, border the Columbia River and many of the smaller streams in the study area. This alluvium 

covers many larger areas along the Columbia River. With a high ratio of silt to gravel, this material 

displays limited permeability. 

The Columbia River basalt is generally associated with the later sedimentary deposits. Basalt provides 

a good building or foundation material, and also serves as a principal groundwater aquifer, due to 

the water-bearing ability of the upper flows. Much of the area is overlain in varying degrees by a 

veneer of loess. These Pleistocene to Holocene silts were derived in part by wind action. 

3.5 Soils 

The soils of the Umatilla Refuge are mainly within the Quincy-Winchester-Burbank association. Areas 

close to the south shore of the Columbia River are largely made up of Burbank loamy fine sand with a 

2-5 percent slope. These soils are deep excessively drained soils formed in gravelly alluvial deposits 

on terraces of the Columbia River. This soil is replaced with riverwash on the north side of the 

Columbia River. 

Further inland from the Burbank soils are the Quincy loamy fine sands, which are found on gently 

sloping terraces (2-12 percent slope), along the Columbia River. These soils are excessively to 

somewhat excessively drained and are coarse textured. 

South of the McCormack Slough area of the Umatilla Refuge are the Winchester soils and Dune land, 

which are deep, excessively drained soils. The Winchester soils range in slope from 0-5 percent. 

Dune land is a very minor portion of the Refuge lands. This soil type is very deep, loose sand that 

blows and shifts with the wind. These dunes vary in shape and size, but are predominantly 5-20 feet 

high and orient their long axis from southwest to northeast (Rasmussen 1971). 

In addition to these soils the portion of the Umatilla Refuge located on the north shore of the 

Columbia River contains an additional soil type called Pasco silt loam. This soil has a slope of 0-2 

percent and occurs on bottomlands. Pasco silt loam is poorly drained and is affected by salts and 

alkali to a depth of about 20 inches. 

The McNary Refuge soil types are for the most part similar to the Umatilla Refuge soils with exceptions 

in the Walla Walla River area. The majority of this Refuge contains the same Quincy soils as the 

Umatilla Refuge with the same general characteristics. 

That part of the McNary Refuge found along the Walla Walla River brings in a few new soil types that 

are similar to the Quincy series. This area has Hezel loamy fine sand and Sagemoor very fine sandy 

loams. Hezel soils are somewhat excessively drained and gently sloping to somewhat hilly. These 

soils consist of 15 to 30 inches of loamy fine sand over compact, stratified fine sand and silt of the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-14 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Touchet beds (Harrison et al. 1964). The Sagemoor soils are well-drained, medium textured soils that 

have lime at a depth of 8 to15 inches below the surface. In addition to these two soil types the Walla 

Walla River area also has the Esquatzel silt loam soil type. This soil type is found in wide stream 

bottoms as well drained, medium textured soil. 

3.6 Environmental Contaminants 

A study of environmental contaminants in sediments, invertebrates, fish, and bird eggs at multiple 

locations along the Columbia River was completed and published by the Service in 2004 (Buck, 

2004). The purpose of the study was to determine contaminant concentrations, compare 

concentrations within river segments, identify concentrations in biota that exceed guidance or 

reference levels, evaluate the magnitude of exceedances using hazard quotients (HQs), and derive 

biomagnification factors (BMFs) for persistent, bioaccumulative compounds. The BMFs were used to 

develop target fish concentrations (TFCs), or the concentrations in fish estimated to be protective of 

upper trophic level species such as bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

A total of 274 samples of sediment, invertebrates, fish, and eggs of piscivorous and non-piscivorous 

birds were collected in 1990 and 1991. Samples were collected from the lower Columbia River 

below Bonneville Dam (four river segments including three Refuges), at Umatilla Refuge, at Crescent 

Island on McNary Refuge, above McNary Dam, and in the lower Willamette River near Portland. 

Study results are summarized below. 

Results showed that most organochlorine (OC) pesticides were below detection in sediment and biota. 

However, similar to previous and concurrent studies, the pesticide transformation products DDE and 

DDD were the most commonly detected and most elevated compounds in biota from both rivers. The 

pesticide DDE was detected in all fish samples during both years of the study, and in nearly all 

samples of clams and bird eggs. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), represented as total Aroclor PCBs 

or by summing individual congeners, were commonly found in fish and bird egg samples, but were 

rarely detected in sediment or invertebrates. Polychlorinated biphenyls and DDE in most fish samples 

exceeded mean concentrations reported in nationwide comparison studies, and exceeded estimated 

guidance values for the protection of avian predators. Concentrations of DDE and total PCBs 

exceeded estimated no-observable adverse effect levels (NOAELs) in some eggs of double-crested 

cormorants and Caspian terns in the lower river segment. 

Mercury was detected in all invertebrates and birds eggs, and in most fish sampled. In invertebrates, 

mercury was below estimated guidance values for the protection of avian invertebrate predators, but 

some fish samples exceeded these guidance values. Mercury in eggs of some piscivorous birds in the 

lower river segments exceeded values associated with impaired reproduction in sensitive individuals. 

Most dioxin and furan congeners were near or below detection in sediment and invertebrates, but 

were commonly detected in fish and bird eggs. Nearly all fish sampled contained 2,3,7, 8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) in excess of 

guideline values derived in this study or other studies for the protection of bald eagles or other avian 

predators. The TCDD and TCDF exceeded estimated NOAELs in eggs of some piscivorous birds, 

particularly double-crested cormorants. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-15

The BMFs derived based on data from Columbia River fish and bald eagle eggs were fairly consistent 

among river Segments 1 to 3 in the lower river, and the combined BMFs for the three segments were 

113 for total PCBs, 75 for DDE, 2.8 for mercury, 16 for TCDD, and 2 for TCDF. The TFC values 

derived from the BMFs were 0.06 μg/g for total PCBs, 0.04 μg/g for DDE, 0.20 μg/g for mercury, 

0.9 pg/g for TCDD, and 7.5 pg/g for TCDF. 

Although bioaccumulative contaminants were near or below detection limits in sediment and 

invertebrates, study results document biomagnification of some OC compounds to concentrations 

likely resulting in adverse impacts to piscivorous birds. Results did not indicate that individual river 

segments differed in their contribution to the contaminant concentrations observed in biota. This trend 

indicates that the river receives contaminants from numerous widespread sources, and that 

contaminants were evenly distributed in biota. The role of bed sediment in contaminant transfer to 

biota in the river is unknown, and additional information is needed to characterize this role and to 

develop better management strategies for bed sediment disturbance. 

Study authors recommended a basin-wide strategy to better control release of bioaccumulative 

contaminants to the river and minimize impacts to fish-eating birds, to monitor changes in OC 

contaminants over time, and to better address contaminant uptake from sediment sources. 

The study authors recommended that Refuges located along the Columbia River provide adequate 

riparian or vegetative buffers on any land supporting agriculture or pasture, or land formerly used for 

these purposes, to prevent erosion of soil associated with DDT or its metabolites from entering 

waterways. The report also recommends that population monitoring or nest counts of breeding terns, 

cormorants, and bald eagles continue, and that eggs of piscivorous birds be monitored for 

contaminants every five years. 

Other Water Quality Issues at the Refuges: Although not a contaminant issue, an associated water 

quality problem involves carp–because they stir up the bottom it prevents establishment of aquatic 

vegetation and the development of the invertebrate community that would provide a food source for 

various diving waterfowl, as well as numerous dabblers during the breeding season. 

Nitrogen levels of 30-35 mg/liter were noted at McNary Headquarters Unit 4 by Environmental 

Science students from Columbia Basin College (pers. comm., David Linehan). Natural concentrations 

of nitrogen are generally less than 10mg/liter (Lind 1979). Nitrates cause periodic algal blooms on 

the sloughs. It is not known whether the high levels of nitrates are attributable partly to chemical 

fertilizers and if this might be an argument for increasing the level of organic farming on the Refuges. 

3.7 Surrounding Land Uses 

A variety of land uses occur in the vicinity of both Refuges. Much of the land adjacent to Umatilla 

Refuge is agricultural or rangeland. Several small commercial enterprises for the storage and 

shipping of agricultural products are adjacent to Refuge lands. The small towns of Boardman and 

Irrigon, Oregon, and Paterson, Washington are nearby, but except for the Boardman Unit, little 

residential development borders the Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-16 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

Much of the land in the immediate vicinity of McNary Refuge is also agricultural or rangeland. 

However, residential and commercial uses in the town of Burbank, Washington, are common near the 

McNary Headquarters Unit and will likely increase in the future. Land along U.S. Highway 12 is 

zoned heavy industrial by Walla Walla County. In 2000 the Refuge and Port of Walla Walla 

exchanged Refuge agricultural lands lying west of Highway 12 that were designated commercial use. 

In exchange, the Refuge received Port lands along the Columbia River plus funds to help purchase 

additional lands. These funds were used to purchase the Kohler tract in 2004. The former Refuge 

lands now owned by the Port are scheduled for development for light industrial purposes, most likely a 

business office complex. Current industrial uses include the Boise Cascade Paper and Tyson Foods 

Meat processing plants. 

Crow Butte State Park lies adjacent to the Crow Butte Unit and occupies approximately the west half of 

Crow Butte Island. 

A number of transportation corridors occur on the Refuges. At Umatilla Refuge, U.S. Interstate 

Highway 84 runs adjacent to and bisects portions of the Boardman Unit, in Oregon. U.S. Highway 

14 runs adjacent to portions of the Refuge in Washington. The Union Pacific Railroad line runs 

adjacent to Interstate 84 through the Boardman Unit. The Burlington Northern Railroad line runs 

through parts of the Refuge on the Washington side. Trains using these tracks have been ignition 

sources for many wildfires on the Refuge. 

The Umatilla Army Depot site occupies about 20,000 acres in Hermiston, Oregon and has operated 

as a storage depot for conventional munitions and chemical warfare agents since 1941. The Depot 

has stored stockpiled chemical weapons including mustard agent, and the nerve agents GB and VX 

since 1960. The Depot built an incinerator called the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility and 

has been destroying its' chemical stockpile since September 7, 2004. Portions of Umatilla Refuge are 

designated within Depot’s “Immediate Response Zone", which are those areas closest to the Depot 

and extending to an 8-mile radius. Under the State and County’s Emergency Response Plan, a 

warning system will alert residents living or working near the Depot if an emergency occurs. The 

system includes 49 sirens that will broadcast emergency instructions within the Immediate Response 

Zone, and programmable highway message signs along major evacuation routes. If there is a 

chemical accident at the Umatilla Army Depot, a natural disaster, or any other type of emergency, 

officials will set off outdoor warning sirens and messages. Depending on the nature of the accident, 

the public will be instructed to shelter, evacuate, or do nothing. 

At McNary Refuge, the U.S. Highway 12 corridor is adjacent to and in some areas bisects Refuge 

units. Portions of the highway are currently being widened to 4 lanes as part of an overall widening 

project from the Snake River to Wallula Junction, which has resulted in filling some Refuge wetlands 

and loss of some upland habitat. Mitigation projects to compensate for the loss of wetland and 

riparian habitats are being carried out by Washington Department of Transportation. Future 

completion of the project may impact more wetland areas. 

The Union Pacific Railroad line lies adjacent to and within portions of McNary Refuge. As with 

Umatilla Refuge, trains passing on these tracks have been ignition sources for wildfires on McNary 

Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 3-17

Powerline corridors also cross the Refuges and more may be added. The 500 kilovolt (kV) Ashe-Slatte 

electrical transmission line crosses the Umatilla Refuge at Crow Butte. At McNary Refuge, there is an 

existing 500 kV transmission line at Wallula and another 500 kV line that crosses the Strawberry 

Island and the Burbank Units. Near McNary Refuge, Florida Power and Light operates the Stateline 

Wind Energy Project, with over 500 wind turbines, on the ridges south of the Wallula Unit. Proposed 

development projects currently include the Wallula Power Project, a 1,300 megawatt, natural gasfired, combustion turbine power plant. Associated with this project is the proposal to add another 

500 kV power transmission line parallel to the existing 500 kV line that crosses the Wallula Unit. 

References: 

Agrinorthwest Farms. 2006. Personal Communication. 

Buck J. 2004. Environmental Contaminants in Aquatic Resources from the Columbia River. Final 

Report. Study Identifiers: 1130-1F02 and 1261-1N04, On and Off-Refuge Investigation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Committee on Water Resources Management, Instream Flows, and Salmon Survival in the Columbia 

River Basin, National Research Council. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, 

Water Withdrawals and Salmon Survival. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 

268 pages 

Ducks Unlimited. 2004. Bathometric and Topographic Survey of Lands and Waters at McCormack 

Slough, Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge. 

Fish Passage Center. 2005. (www.fpc.org) 

Frederickson, V. 2006. Frederickson Farms, Personal Communication. 

Harrison E., N. Donaldson, F. McCreary, and A. Ness. 1964. Soil Survey of Walla Walla County, 

Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with 

the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Lind, O.T. 1979. Handbook of common methods in limnology. Second edition. The C.V. Mosby 

Company, St. Louis, MO. 

Maddox, J. 2006. Maddox Family Farms. Personal Communication. 

Minster-Glasser. 1995. Bathometric Survey of McCormack Slough, Umatilla National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Neal, G. 2006. Port of Morrow. Personal Communication. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association - Fisheries. 2004a. Endangered Species Act 

Consultation Biological Opinion. Consultation on Remand for operation of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. 

NWF v. NMFS. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association - Fisheries. 2004b. Remand of the NOAA Fisheries 

2004 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

(www.salmonrecovery.gov) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association - Fisheries. 2000. Remand of the NOAA Fisheries 

2000 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

(www.salmonrecovery.gov) 

Offutt, R.D., 3-Mile Canyon Farms. 2006. Personal Communication. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. John Day Lock and Dam Operator/Control Room. Personal 

Communication. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005a. 2006 Water Management Plan: Second Draft – October 18, 

2005. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

3-18 Chapter 3 – Physical Environment 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005b. 2005. Water Management Plan: Final – January 31, 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000a. News Release 00-007 John Day Drawdown Report, Public 

Affairs Office. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000b. Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Complete Statement of Brigadier General Carl A. Strock Division Engineer, Northwestern 

Division before the Subcommittee on Water and Power Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, United States Senate on Federal Actions Affecting Hydropower Operations on the 

Columbia River System, April 12, 2000 Washington D.C. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study: 

A Historical Perspective on Salmon Recovery Efforts for the Federal Columbia River Power 

System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration. 

2005. 2005-2007 Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System 

Endangered Species Act Updated Proposed Action. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration. 

2004. Protecting Salmon: Highlights. Endangered Species Act Federal Columbia River Power 

System 2004 Progress Report. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Banks Lake Drawdown Final Environmental EIS, US Department 

of the Interior, Upper Columbia Area Office, Pacific Northwest Region, Ephrata Washington, 

Boise, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of Agricluture. 2006. National Agricultural Statistical Service data web link. 

(www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp) 

United States District Court. 2005. Opinion and Order: In the United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon, CV 01-640-RE (Lead Case) CV 05-23-RE (Consolidated Cases) 

(www.salmonrecovery.gov) 

Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, Columbia River Mainstem Water Management Program. 

Publication No. 04-11-031. December, 2004. 
Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-1

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitat

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on the Refuges. However, it is not 

an exhaustive overview of all species and habitats. The chapter begins with a discussion of biological 

integrity, as required under the Improvement Act. The bulk of the chapter is then focused on the 

presentation of pertinent background information for each of the eight conservation targets 

designated under the CCP. That background information includes a description, location, condition 

and trends associated wildlife or habitats, key ecological attributes, and finally, stresses and sources of 

stress (collectively, “threats”) to the target. The information presented was used as the CCP team 

developed goals and objectives for each of the conservation targets. In some cases, the information 

collected for key ecological attributes was later modified (see especially Appendix F, which presents 

the final structural attributes and conditions to be attained for shrub-steppe and riparian habitats. 

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis 

The ecosystem surrounding McNary and Umatilla Refuges has undergone dramatic alteration since 

pre-settlement times. The three most discernible changes include a) the transformation of the 

Columbia River into a series of dammed slow-moving reservoirs; b) conversion of large portions of 

upland areas into agriculture, housing, commercial, and industrial lands; and c) loss of native species 

accompanied by a large influx of nonnative and 

invasive plants and animals into the system. Many 

of the changes to uplands and the spread of 

invasive species were underway long before the 

dams were built and the Refuges were established. 

This section discusses the connection between 

these main landscape level changes with the 

current vegetation and wildlife on the lands and 

waters occupied by the Refuges. This summary is not a complete analysis of all factors related to 

changes in native vegetation, fish and wildlife. Much of the information presented here is based upon 

the team’s knowledge of the area.

A. Damming of the Columbia River and Associated Aquatic and Shoreline Changes 

 

Physical changes: The Refuges were established in areas that were inundated by the McNary and 

John Day Dams and on adjacent uplands. Historically, the river system was subject to enormous 

seasonal and annual fluctuations in volume. Huge floods coming down the Columbia created 

tremendous annual scouring with large annual flows flushing out small fine sediments. The cycles of 

scouring and deposition created a topographically diverse river channel, with flat benches on the sides 

and a deep channel with fast water in the middle. Braided side channels are evident from photos 

taken before dam construction. The river bottoms and margins were composed of a clean, gravelly 

substrate. After the dams were constructed, the flood cycle was disrupted. Sediments originating from 

exposed soils in upland portions of the watershed accumulate on the margins of the pools themselves, 

as runoff rushing from upland areas slows dramatically upon reaching Columbia River pools. This is 

evident along the depositional margins of McNary pool, especially along the Refuge’s shorelines from 

Burbank to Wallula where the Snake and Walla Walla Rivers meet Lake Wallula. 

The Service manages a highly altered ecosystem at the Refuges, due in large part to: 

• Artificial river operations 

• Widespread nonnative invasives 

• Extensive land use conversion and 

fragmentation 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-2 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

The slow moving water in the pools is higher in temperature than under pre-settlement conditions and 

the river receives chemicals and contaminants of various sorts. Agricultural runoff increases nitrogen 

in the water, possibly enough to affect plant growth and accelerate eutrophication. Nitrogen levels of 

30-35 mg/liter were noted in McNary Headquarters Unit 4 by Environmental Science students from 

Columbia Basin College (pers. comm., David Linehan). Natural concentrations of nitrogen are 

generally less than 10 mg/liter (Lind 1979). 

These environmental alterations have resulted in a variety of changes to vegetation, fish and wildlife 

along the river above and beyond the original inundation of habitats. 

Vegetation changes: Actively accreting deposition zones are creating new areas for the colonization 

of riparian and wetland vegetation, while former riparian and wetland areas slowly loose access to 

surface water. The lack of scouring prevents early successional processes; therefore, perennial 

aquatic vegetation is slowly creeping further into the pools as new substrate gets deposited. The band 

of shoreline vegetation is widening with semi-aquatic plants, many of which are invasives. Backwater 

areas formerly dominated by large expanses of plants more characteristic of seasonal marshes are 

now changing to cattail and bulrush. Although the extent of cottonwood in the past is not fully known, 

some historical records indicate that woody riparian vegetation was sparse especially near the 

confluence of the Walla Walla and Columbia River (Lavender 1972, Evans 1991). Lewis and Clark 

found the lower Walla Walla valley to be poor and 

sandy, but to rapidly improve as they moved upstream, 

where they found the Walla Walla and Touchet Rivers 

lined with cottonwood, birch, hawthorne, and willows 

(Meinig 1995). It is likely that the Refuges today support 

a wider strip of woody riparian vegetation than existed in 

presettlement times due to more permanent inundation. 

Waterfowl changes: Some waterfowl nesting and feeding areas have been inundated due to dam 

construction, however, wintering area acreage, characterized by open water, has increased 

substantially (Rasmussen and Wright 1990). The slower river is more attractive to waterfowl, and 

waterfowl food sources have changed. A loss of suitable nesting areas for geese occurred with the 

inundation of nearly 9,500 acres of islands (Rasmussen and Wright 1990). 

Changes to colonial nesting birds and shorebirds: Though island habitat was more available in the 

past than now, wildlife using the islands may have changed significantly. Judging from the accounts 

of older residents of the area, it was once a rarity to see gulls, pelicans or terns. Gulls began nesting 

on Island #22 in the 1970s and are now abundant, possibly supported by human garbage. 

Cormorants are also recent arrivals. Colonial nesting birds may have increased on both Refuges. 

The most reasonable explanation for this change is that piscivorous birds have a more assured food 

supply along the Middle Columbia River now, year round. In the past the river was confined to 

deeper channels in the summer. Shad and warm water fish resident year-round have increased and 

serve as a food supply in the shallows. Because of the abundance of mudflats now accumulating 

along the margins of the river and the creation of the Wallula Delta, shorebirds have shown a steady 

increase in the system. 

It is likely that the Refuges today 

support a wider strip of woody 

riparian vegetation than existed 

in presettlement times due to 

more permanent inundation. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-3

Changes in aquatic wildlife and fish: Some areas of the Mid-Columbia River historically served as 

spawning grounds for fall Chinook salmon and steelhead (Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council 2004). The loss of shallow aquatic gravels due to inundation and sedimentation has reduced 

ecosystem availability of spawning habitat for salmonids. The Mid-Columbia River today serves 

mainly as a migration corridor to and from the Pacific Ocean for adult and juvenile salmonids 

B. Uplands Conversion and Development 

Upland areas surrounding the Refuges have been heavily converted to agricultural uses. The 

percentage of land in farms in 2002 was approximately 86% in both Morrow and Walla Walla 

Counties and was about 56% in Benton County. This compares with about 28% of the State of 

Oregon overall in farms and 36% of the State of Washington (National Agricultural Statistics Service 

http://151.121.3.33:8080/Census/Create_Census_US_CNTY.jsp - accessed November 2005). 

The fragmented nature of Refuge uplands due to roads and railroads (particularly at McNary) together 

with the high degree of land conversion of shrub-steppe uplands along the Refuge edges and vicinity, 

affects the potential of the Refuges to support some native wildlife species, especially those requiring 

large patch sizes. The size of some patches remaining on the Refuges, even if restored to good 

condition, may be too small to support some Partners in Flight focal sagebrush breeders (Altman and 

Holmes 2000), such as sage grouse (Altman and Holmes 2000), sage sparrow (Vander Haegen et al. 

2000), and Brewer’s sparrow (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). Even those species such as small 

mammals and herptiles that typically have smaller home ranges and, therefore, may occupy smaller 

patch sizes can be negatively affected by habitat fragmentation due to isolation and limited dispersal 

options (Vander Haegen et al. 2001). 

 

C. Influx of Exotic and Invasive Species 

One of the most striking features of both Refuges is the extent to which invasive plants and animals 

have taken hold on both Refuges. Invasive plant species displace native vegetation, altering the 

composition and structure of vegetation communities, affecting food webs, and modifying ecosystem 

processes (Olson 1999). Ultimately, both plant and animal invasives can result in considerable 

impact to native wildlife. For example, though native to the eastern United States, bullfrogs 

introduced in the western United States have been implicated in localized declines of a number of 

native amphibian species through predation and competition (Bury and Whelan 1984, Kupferberg 

1997). Current main habitats and ecotypes are mapped on Maps 11a and 11b. The vegetation 

map follows the National Vegetation Classification System. 

 

Upland habitats: The spread of invasive species in upland habitats was likely facilitated by the rapid 

increase in grazing that resulted from European exploration and settlement in the American West. The 

first horses are thought to have reached the Columbia Plateau about 1730. Cattle and sheep were 

introduced next, first raised at Fort Nez Perce and later kept by the Cayuse and Walla Walla Indians, 

and by increasing numbers of settlers. By the 1880s, cattlemen were complaining about diminishing 

areas of native perennial bunchgrasses and their replacement by various weeds (Saul 2004). 

Primary invasive plants on uplands on both Refuges include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), camelthorn 

(Alhagi maurorom), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), kochia (Kochia scoparia), Russian 

knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), Swainsonpea (Sphaerophysa salsula), and 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-4 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Less common species include hoary cress (Cardaria draba), 

puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), and Scotch thistle 

(Onopordum acanthium). 

Cheatgrass, the most widespread and established weed in upland habitats, is linked to an altered fire 

regime. Cheatgrass is an annual grass that completes its lifecyle by mid-May or June. The carpet of 

dead plants creates a continuous low-stature fuel bed that facilitates the spread of fire. Fire kills 

sagebrush plants and seeds (Whisenant 1990). As a result, sagebrush cover has decreased and 

cheatgrass cover has increased, creating conditions for the cycle to repeat itself at shorter intervals. 

Fire now recurs at intervals much shorter than it did historically and with detrimental effects to the 

natural regeneration of native vegetation. 

Riparian and wetland systems: Exotic plants that have proliferated in riparian areas include, false 

indigo (Amorpha fruiticosa), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), phragmites (Phragmites 

australis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae), and Russian olive. Shade from Russian olive 

prevents development of a grass/forb layer underneath and inhibits cottonwood and willow. The loss 

of grass and forbs from olive shading may have affected small mammals. Russian olive does provide 

food, hiding, and thermal cover for black-billed magpies and brown-headed cowbirds, species 

generally negatively associated with native bird populations, while also benefiting resident birds such 

as ring-necked pheasant and California quail, breeding species such as long-eared owl, and 

wintering and migrating songbirds such as white-crowned sparrows and yellow-rumped warblers. 

Aquatic systems: Historically, the Columbia River and its tributaries supported primarily a cold water 

fishery dominated by various salmonid species. Since presettlement, a large complement of warm 

water fish species has been introduced to the Columbia River, with the original intent to increase the 

diversity and quality of recreational angling. Many of these introduced fish prey upon native 

salmonids. For example, the common carp, a major pest in wetlands, was introduced as a foodfish in 

the Pacific Northwest in the late 1800s (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Carp disrupt wetland 

functioning by stirring up bottom sediments. 

Control efforts: Mechanical, physical, biological and chemical methods have been used to combat 

invasive plants in a variety of habitats. Control efforts are planned annually and Pesticide Use 

Proposals are submitted to Regional and/or National Integrated Pest Management Coordinators for 

approval. Insects introduced for biological control include: 

• Thistle stem gall flies (Urophora cardui) for Canada thistle. 

• Black-margined and golden loosestrife beetles (Gallerucella calmariensis and Gallerucella 

pusilla, respectively) and loosestrife seed weevil (Nanophyes marmoratus) for purple loosestrife. 

• Lesser knapweed weevils (Larinus minutus) for diffuse knapweed. 

Considerable progress has been made in some areas with infestations of Russian olive, false indigo, 

perennial pepperweed, purple loosestrife, and Russian knapweed bein reduced or eliminated. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-5

4.2 Conservation Target Selection and Analysis 

A. Conservation Target Selection 

Early in the planning process, the team cooperatively identified eight priority species, groups, and 

communities for these Refuges, as recommended under the Service’s Habitat Management Planning 

policy (620 FW1). These priorities, also called conservation targets, frame the CCP actions for 

wildlife and habitat. The conservation targets are species, species groups, or features that the Refuges 

will actively manage to conserve and restore over the life of the CCP. Negative features of the 

landscape, such as invasive plants, may demand a large part of the Refuge management effort, but 

are not designated as conservation targets. 

The three main criteria for selection of these targets included: 

• inclusion of the four main natural habitat types found at the Refuges; 

• reflective of the Refuge System mission and the Refuges’ purposes; and 

• recommended as a conservation target in the Wildlife and Habitat Management Review 

recommendations from October 2003. 

 

Other criteria that were considered to some degree in the selection of the targets included: 

• highly localized and restricted mobility species; and 

• species groups and Refuge features of special management concern. 

Table 4-1 displays the targets that were selected and are the main focus of this plan. 

Note that although migratory birds comprise a major focus of the purpose on both Refuges, migratory 

birds were not designated as a conservation target separately, mainly because migratory birds occupy 

such a variety of habitat niches. Migratory birds (as defined at 50 CFR 10.13) are included as part of 

the nested or benefiting resources for each of the identified targets as defined below. Example 1: the 

migratory bird species vesper sparrow is an occasional breeder on McNary Refuge. It is associated 

with shrub-steppe habitats, grasslands and weedy fields (Jones and Cornely 2002). It is also listed as 

sensitive under the Oregon list. Therefore, it is a nested species under the shrub-steppe habitat target. 

Example 2: Peregrine falcon is a migratory raptor that has nested on cliffs at McNary Refuge and 

feeds on shorebirds and waterfowl in wetland areas. It has recently been delisted but is still 

categorized as a Federal Species of Concern. Therefore, it is a nested species under the endangered, 

threatened, and sensitive species target. Example 3: Partners in Flight Columbia Plateau (Altman and 

Holmes 2000) focal species, the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat, are included as nested 

species under the riparian habitat target. 

Table 4-1. Conservation Targets for the CCP 

System Targets Nested or Benefiting Resources 

Shrub-steppe 

habitats 

All shrub-steppe associated species as detailed in Appendix B but not including 

any waterfowl, shorebirds, or endangered, threatened or sensitive species. 

Riparian habitats All riparian habitat associated species as detailed in Appendix B but not 

including any waterfowl, shorebirds, or endangered, threatened or sensitive 

species 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-6 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

System Targets Nested or Benefiting Resources 

Wetland and 

deepwater 

habitats 

All wetland and deepwater habitat associated species as detailed in Appendix 

B, but not including any waterfowl, shorebirds, or endangered, threatened or 

sensitive species 

Cliffs, rimrock, 

and outcropping 

All cliff, rimrock, or outcropping associated species as detailed in Appendix B, 

but not including any waterfowl, shorebirds, or endangered, threatened or 

sensitive species 

Species Group 

Targets 

Nested or Benefiting Resources 

Waterfowl All resident and migratory ducks, geese and swans listed in Appendix B. 

Endangered, 

threatened, or 

sensitive species 

Species known currently or suspected historically to have inhabited the Refuges 

that are listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act as well as Federal Species of Concern. 

Target also includes Washington and Oregon State-listed threatened, 

endangered or candidate species but does not include State-listed sensitive 

species; these are included as nested species under the appropriate habitat 

targets. 

Shorebirds All avian species of the order Charadriiformes listed in Appendix B. 

Landform Target Nested or Benefiting Resources 

Islands Colonial nesting waterbirds, nesting Canada geese, wintering waterfowl and 

other migratory birds, and mule deer. 

 

B. Conservation Target Analysis 

Goals and objectives were designed directly around the Conservation targets. In developing 

objectives, the team analyzed each conservation target using a modified version of The Nature 

Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP - formerly known as Five-S) process (TNC 2000). 

Under this process, each conservation target is analyzed to determine its key ecological attributes – 

those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or patterns of biological structure and 

composition that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of the target. These key ecological 

attributes are further divided into measurable indicators which consist of a characteristic of that factor 

that strongly correlates with the status of that factor. For most indicators, the team developed 

“desired” conditions that were based partly on scientific literature review and partly on team 

professional judgment. These desired condition levels for specific indicators were used to help design 

objectives for each target, as presented in chapter 2. 

The team further borrowed from the TNC CAP process by brainstorming and ranking stresses and 

sources of stress (collectively “threats”) for most of the targets. A stress is the impairment or 

degradation of a key ecological attribute for a conservation target. A source is an extraneous factor 

that causes the stress (the most proximate cause). The relative severity of each stress was analyzed as 

well as the scope of the stress across the Refuges. Similarly, sources of stress were analyzed to 

determine their degree of contribution to the stress and the irreversibility of the stress caused by the 

source. Overall, these rankings were integrated in a way that resulted in a set of stresses and sources 

that were ranked Very High, High, Medium, or Low. In developing objectives, the team paid more 

attention to abating the risks from High or Very High stresses and sources. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-7

4.3 Shrub Steppe System 

A. Description and Location 

Shrub-steppe habitats (many highly degraded) are located in all Refuge areas not dominated by 

riparian, wetlands/deepwater, cliff/rimrock, or agriculture. On McNary Refuge shrub-steppe habitats 

total approximately 3,000 acres and on Umatilla Refuge they total approximately 10,000 acres. 

Originally, upland habitats were comprised of native shrubs, including sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and bunchgrasses such as needleand-thread (Stipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa 

secunda), and various forbs. Most of the former native vegetation has been severely altered by 

historical land use, including intensive grazing, burning, and cultivation. The majority of nonirrigated 

lands on both Refuges is dominated by a gray rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) - cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) association. In some of the more stable areas bitterbrush, big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata), and Sandberg’s bluegrass is mixed with a lichen and moss layer. 

Based on professional judgment, the CCP team identified certain blocks of shrub-steppe habitat 

(Appendix F, Table F-2) as priority areas for management, and identified certain key characteristics of 

note about each. These blocks represent most, but not all shrub-steppe habitat on the Refuges. The 

vegetation inventory, that began in 2005, will yield information that may result in changes to this list, 

but for now, the following list represents the locations that the Refuges’ staff felt merited the most 

attention in terms of management for shrub-steppe characteristics to support associated species. 

B. Condition and Trends 

In 1989, Wildlife Impact Assessments were completed for the areas flooded by the McNary, John Day, 

Bonneville, and The Dalles projects (Rasmussen and Wright 1990). These assessments relied on 

vegetation maps created from aerial photography. Sources of historical vegetation maps came from 

aerial photographs dated before or at dam construction, and current vegetation maps were based on 

1987 aerial photographs. 

According to the McNary Assessment, shrublands comprised 34% of the land area inundated by the 

McNary reservoir, and grasslands comprised an additional 22% of the project area inundated. The 

John Day Assessment reported that shrub/steppe/grass habitats comprised 46% of the land area 

inundated by the John Day reservoir. 

Sand blowouts and dunes are a separate cover type that was mapped by Rasmussen and Wright in 

the loss assessments, with value for native plants and some herptiles. About 1,100 acres and 3,425 

acres categorized as sand blowout or dune were flooded by the McNary and John Day Pools, 

respectively. 

At a regional scale, approximately half of the original distribution of shrub-steppe in the Columbia 

Basin of Washington and Oregon has been converted to agriculture (Quigley and Arbelhide 1997). 

In Washington, about 10.4 million acres of shrub-steppe existed prior to the arrival of settlers in the 

mid-1800s. By the late 20th century, only about 40% remained (Dobler et al. 1996). Locally, Benton 

and Walla Walla Counties had approximately 48 and 33 % of original shrub-steppe habitat 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-8 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

remaining by the late 20th century, respectively (Dobler et al. 1996). In addition to direct loss and 

conversion of shrub-steppe to other land uses, fragmentation, alteration of historic fire regimes, 

livestock grazing, and the spread of more than 800 species of exotic plants changed the character of 

existing shrub-steppe habitats (Johnson and O’Neill, 2001). 

C. Associated Wildlife 

Birds: About 100 bird species can occur in sagebrush habitats (Braun et al. 1976). Some of these 

species are sagebrush-obligates, almost entirely dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round or 

during the breeding season. Examples of obligate shrub-steppe species include sage grouse, Brewer’s 

sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. Historical accounts from early explorers indicate that sage 

grouse and sharp-tailed grouse were common near the mouth of the Walla Walla River (Dice 1918, 

Gunkel 1978). Both of those species are now extirpated from the Refuges and local area. Brewer’s 

sparrows, sage sparrows, and sage thrashers were fairly common and likely breeding on the Refuges 

and the local area historically (Snodgrass 1904, Dice 1918). These birds have likely been extirpated 

as breeders on both Refuges due to habitat fragmentation and loss but occur as migrants. 

 

Many other birds occur in shrub-steppe but are not as dependent on sagebrush or key on other 

habitat features such as soil type or presence of fossorial mammals (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001). 

Examples of these species are burrowing owl, lark sparrow, vesper sparrow, horned lark, loggerhead 

shrike, long-billed curlew, and western meadowlark. Both Refuges support these species during 

breeding and/or migration. Shrub-steppe uplands also currently provide habitat for California quail, 

ring-necked pheasant, Northern harrier, western kingbird, and savannah sparrow. 

Mammals: Limited data is available on most mammals occurring on the Refuges. The most common 

large mammal occurring in shrub-steppe habitat on Umatilla Refuge is the mule deer. The current 

population numbers approximately 200. Viewing these animals from a close range along the 

Umatilla auto tour route is a popular public activity. Both mule and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) occur on parts of McNary Refuge. Carnivores such as coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon 

(Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are frequently seen on both Refuges. An 

occasional cougar (Felis concolor) may visit Umatilla Refuge. Further work to gather baseline data on 

small and medium mammals, including bats is needed. 

Herptiles (Reptiles and Amphibins): Species know to occur in Refuge shrub-steppe habitats include 

pygmy short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), racer (Coluber 

mormon), gopher snake (Pituothis melanoleucus), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus). 

However, data on population size and distribution throughout both Refuges is lacking. The common 

night snake (Hypsiglena torquata) occurs in the cliff and talus habitat of the Stateline Unit on McNary 

Refuge (pers. comm., Mike Denny) and may occur in similar habitat elsewhere on the Refuges, but 

specific data is lacking. Historically, the striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) likely occurred on 

the Refuges, but current status is unknown. 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-2 describes key ecological attributes of a functioning shrub-steppe system and associated 

indicators. For each indicator, the conditions that would represent “good” or better are shown. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-9

Table 4-2. Shrub Steppe Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Fire Regime • Fire intensity 

• Fire return interval 

• Lack of cheatgrass dominance 

• Cool creeping mosaic 

• >25 years 

• <15% cover 

Shrub-dominated 

Community Structure 

• Shrub cover 

• Average shrub heights 

• 20%-50% 

• >2 feet 

Shortgrass-dominated 

Community Structure 

• Average shortgrass heights • 3-6 inches 

Native Plant Species • Total native plant cover 

• Understory native plant richness 

• >70% 

• >10 species, including at 

least 2 native grasses 

Level of Herbivory • Percent of first or second year 

wood not browsed 

• >50% new wood left on plant 

Connectivity • Barrier type to next nearest patch 

• Distance between any 200+ acre 

patch and other shrub-steppe patch

• Not separated by deepwater, 

paved roads, or tilled lands 

• < 500 yards 

Patch Shape and Size • Patch size 

• Patch shape 

• >200 acres 

• Minimal edge; blocky or 

circular 

E. Threats

Stresses and sources of stress to shrub-steppe habitats are shown in Figure 4.1. As explained in 

Chapter 1, a stress is something that destroys, degrades, or impairs a conservation target by 

impacting a key ecological attribute of that target. High ranked stresses are placing more pressure on 

the system than medium or low ranked stresses. Sources (the proximate cause of a stress) can 

contribute to more than one stress. Sources contributing to multiple stresses and having high 

contribution and irreversibility were ranked higher than other sources. 

 

Figure 4.1 Stresses and sources of stress to shrub-steppe habitats. 

(Stresses and sources ranked low not shown) 

Altered Plant

Community 

Composition

Herbivory Habitat

Fragmentation

Destruction of

Soil Crusts

Circles with dark outline indicate High stress. Ovals indicate medium stress.

Octagons with dark fill indicate source is a high threat. Diamonds with light fill boxes indicate source is a medium threat.

SOURCES

STRESSES

Altered 

Fire 

Regime

Nonnative 

Seed 

Sources

Agriculture Transportation 

and 

Development

Soil 

Disturbance
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-10 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

4.4 Riparian System 

A. Description and Location 

Woody riparian habitat (see definition in glossary) occupies a narrow fringe on both Refuges generally 

along the edges of wetlands and the Columbia River shoreline. On McNary Refuge, riparian habitats 

total approximately 1,650 acres and on Umatilla Refuge they total approximately 1,800 acres. 

Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willow (Salix spp.), 

white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and exotics such as Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), false indigo 

(Amorpha fruticosa) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) are the primary tree and shrub species. 

Large areas of woody riparian habitat can be found on the McCormack, Paterson and Whitcomb 

Units of Umatilla Refuge. The Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units on McNary 

Refuge also support significant stands of woody riparian habitat. 

Native low elevation riparian habitats would typically include trees, such as black cottonwood, white 

alder, Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), and peach-leaved willow (Salix amygdaloides). Common native 

shrubs include coyote willow (Salix exigua), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), black hawthorn 

(Crataegus douglasii), currants (Ribes spp), and Woods rose (Rosa woodsii). 

The CCP team identified several blocks of riparian habitat on each Refuge that merit high 

consideration for management. These areas, called the “key riparian areas,” are listed in Appendix F, 

Table F-4. Although other riparian sites exist on each Refuge, their structural condition, size or width, 

and/or degree of exotic invasion, precludes them from being among those considered most important 

for conservation and restoration during the life of the CCP. 

In addition to these riparian blocks, McNary Refuge manages a large, labor and time intensive 

farming operation at the Cummins Property, located on the Wallula Unit. This mitigation site was 

established (while under Corps management) as part of the “Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife 

Compensation Plan,” to replace upland and riparian habitat lost due to dam construction. The site 

includes eight tree and shrub plots planted in 1998 for riparian trees and shrubs, and four food plots 

intended for upland game use. Under terms of the cooperative agreement that McNary Refuge 

maintains with the Corps, the Refuge is obliged to continue managing these sites with irrigation to 

promote riparian and shrub vegetation. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Woody riparian habitats have never occupied a large portion of the landscape in the Inland Pacific 

Northwest. Quigley and Arbelhide (1997) estimated that prior to 1900, riparian habitats occupied 

only 2% of the landscape, but that current representation has dropped by approximately 75% to 0.5% 

of the landscape. Prior to 1900, approximately 60% of woody riparian habitat occurred in lower 

elevations (below 3,280 feet); now only 20% of woody riparian habitat in the Interior Columbia Basin 

is found below that elevation. Agricultural development, roads, dams, and other flood control 

activities in these lower areas are responsible for the decline (Quigley and Arbelhide 1997). 

The McNary Loss Assessment (Rasmussen and Wright 1990) reported that 8% of the terrestrial habitat 

lost to inundation by the McNary Pool was comprised of riparian tree habitat, 2% riparian shrub 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-11

habitat, and 0.1% riparian herb habitat. The John Day Loss Assessment (Rasmussen and Wright 1990) 

reported that 4% of the terrestrial habitat lost to inundation by the John Day Dam was comprised of 

riparian tree habitat, 4% riparian shrub habitat, and 4% riparian herb habitat. These numbers should 

probably be used with some caution given the extremely dynamic nature of riparian plant communities 

under natural flooding and disturbance regimes. Riparian herb and shrub communities are 

particularly ephemeral. 

Much of the riparian habitat that currently exists on the Refuge is located in what was formerly shrubsteppe habitat. The extent of riparian tree communities that may have occurred on the Refuges prior 

to Euro-American settlement is unknown, however, accounts from some early explorers reported very 

little woody riparian habitat at the confluence of the Walla Walla and Columbia Rivers (Evans 1991, 

Meinig 1995). Aerial photos, taken prior to dam construction, show few if any trees, along the 

shorelines of the river at Umatilla Refuge, and almost none at the mouth of the Walla Walla River. 

Photographs dating from the early 1900s suggest that cottonwood dominated riparian was not 

common, however willow dominated riparian shrub communities were. 

Currently existing riparian habitat is deteriorating or disappearing, as access to ground water and 

surface water recedes, as pool operations have changed for the benefit of migrating salmonids. 

Existing riparian areas suffer poor recruitment due to the reservoir-caused diminishing of flood events 

and the dynamic changes that occur in natural fluvial systems. As a result, older mature trees that die 

are not being replaced by new growth. Still, as deposition and sedimentation proceeds in both the 

McNary and John Day pools, new substrates for riparian habitat will continue to be created. An 

example is the deposition area at Wallula Delta. One unknown is whether deposition areas will be 

colonized by native willows or cottonwoods or by invasive exotics. The channels created for the 

Wallula wetland restoration project show thriving recruitment of Plains cottonwood. Cottonwood 

recruitment is related to flooding events (Braatne and Jamieson 2001), but can be stimulated by other 

means. The Refuge staff noticed cottonwood recruitment occurring at Paterson where discing 

associated with moist soil management had occurred. 

Riparian areas are plagued by Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), false indigo, kochia, perennial 

pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), phragmites (Phragmites australis), poison hemlock (Conium 

maculatum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and Russian olive. Less common invasive 

plants found in riparian habitats include hoary cress and salt cedar (Tamarix ramossissimus). 

C. Associated Wildlife 

Birds: Riparian areas are disproportionately important to bird species (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001). 

The Refuges’ riparian zones host large numbers of migratory birds during spring and fall, including 

yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, orange-crowned warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, dark-eyed 

junco, white-crowned sparrow, and song sparrow. Some of these species winter on the Refuges. As 

many as 60 bald eagles have been sighted using the Refuges’ riparian trees for roosts during winter. 

Common breeding species in Refuge riparian habitats include red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, 

great horned owl, California quail, ring-necked pheasant, eastern kingbird, American robin, downy 

woodpecker, northern flicker, Bewick’s wren, house wren, black-capped chickadee, Bullock’s oriole, 

and song sparrow. The nest-parasitic brown-headed cowbird commonly occurs in riparian habitats 

during spring and summer. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-12 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Ninety-seven native species are considered to be highly associated with riparian under the Partners in 

Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau (Altman and Holmes 2000). This 

plan lists several species as “dependent”: western wood peewee, Bullock’s oriole, willow flycatcher, 

yellow-breasted chat, yellow-billed cuckoo, and yellow warbler. The same species (but including 

Lazuli bunting and excluding western wood peewee) are considered to be focal species (those species 

highly associated with important attributes within each habitat and used to represent highly functioning 

ecosystems) under the PIF plan for riparian habitat. Data from the Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship station at Wallula show Lazuli bunting, yellow warbler, and yellow breasted chat to be 

present, but as uncommon nesters on McNary Refuge. 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

The CCP team members identified the following as key ecological attributes for a healthy and 

functioning riparian system: 

Table 4-3. Riparian Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Hydrologic 

Regime 

• Flooding severity (depth, 

duration) 

• Fluvial processes, timing 

• Sediment left 

• Water table height 

• Influence of reservoir 

• Natural or artificial flooding imitating natural 

flood regime 

• River and floodplain functions and processes 

intact or maintained artificially with structures; 

timing follows natural flooding hydrograph 

• Deposition occurs in patterns mimicking 

natural; no perched floodplain. 

• Water table available to trees and shrubs for 

most of the year 

• Minor influence; increased water availability 

Community 

Structure and 

Composition 

• Total canopy closure 

• Dominant tree heights 

• Snags and woody debris 

• Age classes 

• Vertical structural 

complexity 

• >40% 

• >35 ft. 

• Snags >0.8/acre. Fair number of downed 

trees and stumps available. 

• Mostly mature forest or mostly shrubland 

• Multi-layered forests 

Native Species 

Representation 

• Total native species cover 

• Use by PIF focal species 

for breeding 

• >75% 

• Good numbers of migrants and nesters using 

areas; moderate nesting success, some PIF 

focal species present and breeding successfully 

Disturbance 

Events 

• Fire frequency and severity 

• Drought frequency and 

severity 

• Public use 

• Herbivory/grazing 

• Return interval >10 years, moderate or mosaic 

pattern 

• Not frequent or severe 

• Restricted or light in breeding season 

• Light grazing only by natural herbivores 

Connectivity • Barrier type to next nearest [Analysis not complete] 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-13

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

patch 

• Distance between any 

medium to large patch 

and closest riparian patch 

[Analysis not complete] 

Patch Shape 

and Size 

• Patch size 

• Riparian width 

• >5 acres for shrublands; >50 acres for 

woodlands 

• >100 feet width from water edge to upland. 

Sources for parameter condition definitions: Faber (2003), DiGuadio (2003); Knutson and Naef (1997); Mount et al. 

(2003); Hudson et al (2003); Askins et al (1987); Jaramillo and Hudson (2003); Opperman and Merenlender (2003); 

Halterman (2003); Evans (1989); Gardwall (2003); Sweicki and Bernhardt (2003); Jackson and Allen-Diaz (2003); Asherin 

and Claar (1976); and Altman and Holmes (2000). 

E. Threats 

The CCP team identified and ranked stresses (circles and ovals below) as well as the sources of stress 

(octagon and diamonds) to riparian habitat, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. Stress ranks were based on 

team rankings of severity and geographic scope of the problem. Source ranks were based on the 

contribution and irreversibility of the source. Overall source rankings, as illustrated by the degree of 

shading of the box, reflects the overall source ranking for all stresses to which it contributes. 

 

Figure 4.2 Stresses and sources of stress to riparian habitats. 

(Circles with dark outline are high stress. Ovals are medium stress. Octagons with dark fill indicate high source. Diamonds 

with light fill indicate medium source). 

 

4.5 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats 

For the purposes of the CCP, wetlands are defined according to the classification system (Cowardin et 

al. 1979) used by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), but the wetlands and deepwater habitat 

conservation target excludes all riparian habitats which might be included under this classification, 

that is, those areas dominated by woody perennial shrubs or trees. According to Cowardin et al. 

Altered Plant

Community

Composition

Habitat

Fragmentation

Habitat

Destruction

Habitat

Degradation

Disease

Low/

altered

Recruitment

of Natives

Historical Land

Conversion and

Agricultural

Development

SOURCES

STRESSES

Altered 

Water 

Regime

Transportation

and

Development

Altered

Fire

Regime
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-14 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Though they occupy a large portion of each 

Refuge’s total area, habitat management 

influence over these areas is limited. The 

lacustrine habitats are subject to pool 

management decisions made by the Corps. 

Transportation, recreation, and water quality 

issues also affect the lacustrine habitats. 

(1979) wetlands are 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. A positive indicator of wetland 

status requires the presence of one of the following: a) hydrophytic plants; b) hydric soils; or 

c) saturated or flooded soils during part of the growing season. Deepwater habitats are permanently 

flooded lands lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands. 

The key divisions of the NWI classification relevant at these Refuges include the lacustrine and 

palustrine systems. Lacustrine wetlands are generally permanently flooded and are identified as those 

areas lacking trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation with greater than 30% areal coverage and 

measuring greater than 20 acres. Smaller areas can be defined as lacustrine if the water depth in the 

deepest part of the basin exceeds 6.6 feet at low water. Palustrine areas may or may not be 

permanently flooded, but they are typically recognized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous 

emergent vegetation. On these Refuges, the palustrine type can also include nonvegetated areas less 

than 20 acres with water depths shallower than 6.6 feet in the deepest part of the basin at low water. 

Aquatic bed wetlands are wetlands that are dominated by vegetation that is floating and/or 

submerged and can be either palustrine or lacustrine. See the glossary for a complete definition of 

these three system types according to the NWI. 

A. Description and Location 

 

Lacustrine Habitats: Lacustrine habitats occupy 29,231acres at Umatilla Refuge and 8,656 acres at 

McNary Refuge (NWI]. Though they occupy a large portion of each Refuge’s total area, habitat 

management influence over these areas is limited. 

The lacustrine habitats are subject to pool 

management decisions made by the Corps. Other 

factors affecting lacustrine habitats that are outside 

Refuge control include water quality problems that 

mainly emanate from outside the Refuge borders, and 

transportation and recreation uses along the River. 

 

Umatilla Refuge: The primary aquatic feature of Umatilla Refuge is Lake Umatilla (Columbia River) 

which was created in 1969 when the John Day Lock and Dam was constructed on the Columbia River 

near Biggs, Oregon. Lake Umatilla is a run-of-the-river reservoir that is not designed to hold water 

for flood control but rather provides water depth sufficient for the passage of barge traffic and the 

production of hydroelectric energy. Umatilla Refuge is located about 50 miles upstream of John Day 

Lock and Dam and includes a portion of upper Lake Umatilla. The John Day Pool, as Lake Umatilla 

is commonly called, generally falls into the Lascustrine System under the NWI based on its location 

within a dammed river channel, size (>20 acres), and lack of persistent woody or emergent 

vegetation (<30% cover). 

McCormack Slough in Oregon and Paterson and Crow Butte Sloughs in Washington are backwater 

sloughs of the Columbia River that make up the majority of wetland acreage on Umatilla Refuge. The 

open water portions of these sloughs are considered lacustrine, while the borders of the sloughs fall 

into the palustrine type. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-15

McNary Refuge: The dominant aquatic feature of McNary Refuge is Lake Wallula (Columbia River), 

formed by the construction of the McNary Lock and Dam near Umatilla, Oregon. Lake Wallula is a 

run-of-the river reservoir that is not designed to hold water for flood control but rather provides water 

depth sufficient for the passage of barge traffic and the production of hydroelectric power. A 

significant portion of McNary Refuge includes deepwater areas in Lake Wallula. Other lacustrine 

portions of McNary include the deepwater sections of wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the McNary 

Headquarters Unit, Casey Pond on the Two Rivers Unit, and White-tail Bay, and Sanctuary Pond on 

the Wallula Unit. These wetlands are flooded due to backwater effects of Lake Wallula. 

Although the normal operating level of the McNary Pool ranges only five feet, dropping water levels to 

the lowest allowable level (335 feet msl) for long periods, as is currently being implemented under 

court order to speed fish migration downstream, could have a significant impact on the amount of 

wetland acreage available (Table 4-4). Water levels in Casey Pond, White-tail Bay, Sanctuary Pond, 

and the Wallula Delta can fluctuate dramatically due to operation of the McNary Dam. At times, 

large areas of these wetlands can become exposed as water levels in Lake Wallula drop. This 

phenomenon makes the Wallula Delta an attractive area to shorebirds and other waterbirds during 

migration; however, the Refuge has little control over timing and level of inundation or exposure. 

 

Table 4-4. Surface area (in acres) of McNary Headquarters Unit wetlands at different operating levels 

of the McNary Pool 

River Surface area 

elevation Unit 1 Unit II Unit III Unit IV Total 

335 feet msl 25 20 30 15 90 

336 feet msl 30 25 60 30 145 

340 feet msl 136 140 260 48 584 

Source: Report by Glen Gately, Warrenstone Field Station, June 1979 

Wetlands acreage at the lowest allowable operating level (335 feet msl) is 85% smaller than wetland 

acreage at the highest operating level of 340 feet msl. Evaporation rates on the remaining shallow 

water would likely be higher than at present, which would exacerbate wetland drying. 

Palustrine Habitats: Palustrine habitats occupy 851 acres at Umatilla Refuge and 1,605 acres at 

McNary Refuge and offer high habitat values. These values include productive foraging habitat for 

seed eating waterfowl, breeding habitat for waterfowl, and muddy exposed substrates which support 

shorebirds. Palustrine habitats can be highly productive for various kinds of invertebrates because of 

temperature and water fluctuation cycles and decaying vegetation. 

McNary Refuge: The borders of McNary Headquarters Unit wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 4 constitute 

palustrine wetlands and are dominated by emergent plants, especially bulrush, cattail, and 

phragmites. Several recently created wetlands on the Wallula Unit are flooded annually from fall 

through spring with water pumped from the Walla Walla River. Dudley wetlands created on the north 

side of the McNary Headquarters Unit 3 are flooded seasonally with excess irrigation water. 

Other wetland sites on McNary Refuge include J-Line, Curlew and several unnamed wetlands on the 

Peninsula Unit, East Millet, West Millet, Cottonwood, Woodland and Wallula south wetlands on the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-16 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Wallula Unit. Some of the grassy slopes below outcroppings on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon 

Units may support small saturated wetlands due to groundwater seepage. 

Umatilla Refuge: The borders of McCormack and Paterson Sloughs fall into the palustrine system, 

and smaller palustrine wetlands can be found on the Boardman, Paterson, and Whitcomb Units. 

Large areas of the palustrine wetlands located on Umatilla Refuge are permanently flooded with 

emergent vegetation composed primarily of cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), but 

some areas are seasonal in nature, becoming exposed during the late summer and producing some 

annual moist-soil plants. 

Kathy’s Pond on the McCormack Unit of Umatilla Refuge is a created wetland that is flooded 

seasonally using return water from the nearby Irrigon Fish Hatchery operated by Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Dam construction caused several significant changes in wetland and deepwater habitats along the 

stretches of the Columbia River now occupied by the Refuges. The dams significantly increased open 

water areas and covered over naturally occurring habitats. Rasmussen and Wright (1990) reported 

that open water acreage nearly doubled in the area of the McNary Pool after dam construction, from 

about 16,000 acres to approximately 32,000 acres. Similarly, within the area flooded by the John 

Day Dam, open water acreage more than doubled from about 21,000 acres to 48,000 acres. As a 

result 511 acres of emergent wetlands were lost (Rasmussen and Wright 1990). The character of the 

open water was changed in both cases from free-flowing river habitat to slackwater pool and 

backwater habitat. Using NWI terminology, riverine habitat was converted into lacustrine habitat. 

Natural fluvial processes that occurred along the river were lost, such as seasonal flooding and 

scouring that helped maintain river-associated wetlands by setting back succession. The timing of 

seasonal flows were also severely altered, which prior to the dams, included high water flows during 

spring and summer and low flows during fall and winter. 

Under the highly altered managed system, the reservoir backwaters and associated wetlands lack 

natural renewing processes and are aging in terms of succession. The John Day report noted that 

“there were more areas supporting emergent vegetation at both Paterson and McCormack Sloughs in 

1989 than were apparent on the 1979 aerial photographs. The numerous ponds appear to be 

undergoing natural succession through emergent wetland to uplands, probably primarily because of 

sedimentation.” Diversity in habitat types has been giving way to dominant monocultures of tall, 

persistent emergent plants, that when combined with sedimentation, causes the infill of shallow 

backwaters and wetlands. As a result, certain types of palustrine habitats, particularly the shallow 

permanently or semi-permanently flooded areas known as “shallow marsh” are gradually declining. 

Non-persistent wetland and mud flats, for example, are vital to a variety of migratory birds and other 

wetland animals and both types are mostly non-existent on both Refuges. Under the NWI 

classification, shallow marsh includes the following palustrine types: 

 Class = Aquatic bed (water regime modifier = semipermanently flooded) 

 Class = Emergent wetland (water regime modifier = semipermanently flooded) 

 Class = Emergent wetland (water regime modifier = seasonally flooded) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-17

At Umatilla Refuge, in 1993, a large decline in shallow marsh occurred when the Corps changed the 

spring-summer operating level of the John Day pool in accordance with the NOAA Fisheries (formerly 

NMFS) biological opinion on the ESA listing of Snake River sockeye salmon. Modified operations of 

the FCRPS have since continued and were updated due to subsequent ESA listings of salmon and 

steelhead. Compared to pre-1993 operation, the current river levels have averaged approximately 4 

feet lower during spring and summer months, with further reduced fluctuation. As a result, seasonal 

patterns of high and low water elevations were reversed from both the pre-dam and pre-1993 project 

eras. Water elevations are now lowest during the spring and summer as opposed to the fall and 

winter. This river operations modification beginning in 1993 resulted in substantial changes to 

wetland and riparian habitats that had become established since dam construction. Backwater 

wetlands were markedly reduced in size, including a measured decrease by one third in open water 

area within McCormack Slough. Riparian vegetation was left higher on the river bank resulting in the 

ongoing death of established trees and shrubs, with new recruitment of trees and shrubs on the lower 

banks, among a plethora of nonnative and invasive plants. Currently, similar changes in reservoir 

operations have been implemented for Lake Wallula for which parallel impacts are anticipated. 

Exotic invasives occurring in Refuge wetlands include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), phragmites 

(Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

and Russian olive. Less common invasive plants found in wetland habitats include hoary cress, 

perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis), and salt cedar (Tamarix ramossissimus). Aquatic areas likely 

host the invasive submergent, Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). 

 

Good quantified information on submerged plants is lacking, however, transects on some aquatic 

areas were done in the 1970s. Managers reported that areas on McNary used to support large areas 

of sago pondweed, a species which supports larger populations of diving ducks and tundra swans, 

which is now much diminished (pers. comm., Al Sutlick). 

C. Associated Wildlife 

Birds: Wetlands and deepwater habitats on McNary and Umatilla Refuges provide habitat for a 

variety of migratory birds. Thousands of waterfowl representing over 20 species use both Refuges 

during winter or as stopover sites during spring and fall migrations. Shorebirds are another major 

group supported in muddy substrates and shallow waters at Refuge wetlands, most particularly at the 

Wallula Delta area at the confluence of the Walla Walla River with the Columbia. Most shorebirds 

using Refuge wetlands are migrants, however, American avocet, black-necked stilt, killdeer, longbilled curlew, Wilson’s phalarope, and Wilson’s snipe are known breeders on both Refuges. See the 

waterfowl and shorebirds conservation targets for more information on these two species groups, 

which constitute conservation targets in their own right under the CCP. Other common waterbird 

species that use Refuge wetlands primarily for foraging and/or resting include American white pelican, 

double crested cormorant, great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, Caspian tern, and ringbilled gull. Refuge wetlands also provide nesting habitat for other marsh birds such as pied-billed 

grebe, American coot, and Virginia rail. Common songbirds breeding in wetlands on both Refuges 

include marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, and yellow-headed blackbird. 

 

Fish: Several species of native anadromous salmonids traverse the Columbia River portion of Umatilla 

and McNary Refuges during their migrations upstream to spawning areas and downstream to the 

Pacific Ocean (see discussion under Threatened and Endangered Species below). Backwater wetland 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-18 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

areas with a direct connection to the Columbia River, such as Casey Pond on McNary Refuge and 

Paterson Slough on Umatilla Refuge, are used as rearing habitat by juvenile salmonids during winter 

and early spring when water temperatures are not too high. Other native fish that can be found 

(primarily within the Columbia River) include chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus), northern 

pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus orgenensis), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), sand roller (Percopsis 

transmontana), and suckers (Catostomus spp). 

Creation of Umatilla and Wallula Lakes changed Columbia River conditions from what had been 

primarily a coldwater fishery to warmer, deepwater reservoirs, which consequently resulted in the 

introduction of a number of species of fishes not native to the area. Common introduced fishes 

include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), crappie 

(Pomoxis spp), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and yellow perch (Perca

flavescens). 

Mammals: American beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), 

and river otter (Lutra canadensis) inhabit wetlands on both Refuges. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: Species known to occur in suitable habitat include great basin spadefoot 

(Spea intermontana), Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousii), the nonnative bullfrog (Rana 

catesbeiana), and western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-5. Wetland and Deepwater Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Hydrologic Regime • Water depth and annual 

cycle 

• Water quality 

• Groundwater exchange 

• Natural fluvial cycle approximating natural 

hydrograph or direct artificial manipulation 

that mimics this cycle. 

• Natural successional processes 

• <1 foot in “depression” wetland pool levels 

compared to pool elevation. 

Plant Community 

Structure and 

Composition 

• Seral stages 

• Presence of emergents 

• Presence of aquatic bed 

• Percent cover 

• Interspersion 

• [Analysis not complete] 

• Approaching a 50:50 cover-water ratio 

 

Native Species 

Representation 

• Native species percent 

cover 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Food Chain • Presence of invertebrates 

and invertebrate prey 

• [Analysis not complete] 

E. Threats

Stresses and sources to wetland and deepwater habitats are shown on Figure 4.3. The highest ranked 

threats included dam operations, nonnative seed sources and carp. Operations of the John Day Lock 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-19

Altered Plant

and Animal

Community

Composition

Altered 

Invertebrate 

Community Lack of 

Disturbance 

Event Impaired 

Water 

Quality 

(Eutrophication)

Circles with dark outline indicate High stress. Ovals indicate medium stress.

Octagons with dark fill indicate source is a high threat. Diamonds with light fill boxes indicate source is a medium threat.

SOURCES

Nonnative

Seed

Sources

Irrigation

System

Mosquito

Control Bullfrogs Agricultural

Runoff

 

 Housing

Public

Uses Dam

Operations Carp

Altered

Water

Regime Turbidity

Reduction

of

Submergent

Plant

Habitat

STRESSES

and Dam dictate Refuge water levels in the reservoir and backwater sloughs, as well as the majority of 

ponds and other wetlands on the Refuge. As such, the option to use water control to mimic a more 

seasonal cycle of inundation and drying in Refuge palustrine wetlands is precluded except in a few 

small areas. Carp are also considered particularly insidious because they contribute to so many of 

the stresses, eliminating submerged vegetation, increasing water turbidity, and impacting the 

invertebrate community. 

Figure 4.3 Stresses and sources of stress to wetland and deepwater habitats. 

(Circles with dark outline are high stress. Ovals are medium stress. Octagons with dark fill indicate high source. Diamonds 

with light fill indicate medium source). 

 

4.6 Cliffs, Rimrock, and Outcroppings 

A. Description and Location 

Areas of steep basalt cliffs and outcroppings can be found on both Refuges. The largest areas occur 

on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units of McNary Refuge. The Ridge, Whitcomb Island, Crow 

Butte, Paterson, and Boardman units on Umatilla Refuge contain smaller areas of basalt cliffs and 

outcropping, as does the east end of Wallula Unit on McNary Refuge. Areas of shallow to moderately 

deep sandy and silt loam soils supporting shrub-steppe vegetation are found in association with these 

outcrops. Acres for these habitats are hard to estimate but on McNary and Umatilla Refuges, it’s 

estimated that cliffs and rimrock occupy roughly 458 acres and 90 acres, respectively. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Rasmussen and Wright (1990) reported that an insignificant amount (<0.1%) of this habitat type was 

lost due to the McNary Dam, but that 894 acres were inundated by the John Day Pool. McNary 

Refuge supports the largest acreage and best quality of this habitat type. Cliff and talus habitats on 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-20 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units are very steep, with some cliff faces having a nearly vertical 

slope and peaking at over 900 feet above the Columbia River, offering habitat for a variety of plants 

and animals, some of which may be unique or rare. Vegetation, when it is present, is primarily shrubsteppe with native shrubs, bunchgrasses, and forbs more prevalent than in other Refuge shrub-steppe 

habits. This is likely due to the more protected nature of the cliffs and talus. However, wildfire has 

damaged shrub cover in some areas, and grazing has occurred historically and is currently occurring 

illegally in some areas, due to the lack of boundary fences. A lesser amount of this habitat is found 

on Umatilla Refuge. Umatilla cliff/talus habitat lacks the dramatic steep cliffs common to McNary. 

Frequent wildfires have reduced the quality of vegetation occurring on and near Umatilla cliff/talus 

areas. The trend for the condition of these habitats on both Refuges is generally to remain stable, if 

the frequency of wildfires can be reduced and grazing can be eliminated. Public use is likely not great 

except in a few areas such as Juniper Canyon or the Twin Sisters area bordering McNary Refuge. 

C. Associated Wildlife 

These areas provide nesting habitat for cliff dwelling birds as well as various reptiles. Biological 

resources have not been formally surveyed, but subject matter experts have noted that the Juniper 

Canyon/Stateline cliffs and talus areas are known to provide habitat for big herds of mule deer, a 

peregrine falcon eyrie, prairie falcons, white-throated swift, common night snake, big-horned sheep, 

black-tailed jackrabbit, and golden eagle. Rattlesnake hibernaculas are known to exist at Paterson 

and Crow Butte on Umatilla Refuge and there may be one on McNary’s Wallula Unit as well. 

Ferruginous hawks are in the vicinity of the Refuges and use the Refuge for at least foraging. 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-6. Cliff, Talus and Outcropping Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Size and 

Composition of 

Rock-dominated 

Habitat 

• Height of cliffs 

• Varying rock features 

supporting different 

species 

• Size and depth of 

talus 

• >25 feet considered priority habitat by WDFW. 

Higher cliff dominance 

• Maintain rock fissures, ledges, overhangs, deep 

cliff-face caves, loose slab rock, and shallow 

caves with a variety of aspects 

• Maintain stable talus with larger rock and deeper 

masses (Maser et al. 1979a, 1979b) 

Security and 

Human Impacts 

• Human activity on or 

near cliff, talus, or 

outcroppings 

• Buffer zones near potential nests, roost sites, or 

maternity colonies of 980 feet (Holmes et al. 

1993) or WDFW recommendation that human 

access along cliff rims, faces, or immediately 

below nest cliffs be restricted within 0.5 mi. of nest 

from March-June 30 (Hays and Milner 2004). 

Distribution of 

Habitats and 

Proximity to 

Forage and 

Water 

• Presence of human 

developments, 

habitat alteration, or 

chemical 

applications 

• Human development is a quarter-mile or more 

from important prey concentrations near cliffs used 

by nesting raptors. Habitat alterations should be 

avoided and pesticides and rodenticides should 

not be used within this buffer. 

Sources: All cited sources referenced in Tressler (2004). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-21

E. Threats 

A formal stress and source analysis like Figure 3 was not completed for this target. Currently, 

unauthorized uses present some of the larger threats to these habitats. Examples of these include a 

short-range shooting gallery at Juniper Canyon, and cow trespass from adjoining BLM land. 

No rock-climbing is currently known to occur anywhere on the Refuges; however, future expansion of 

recreational activity, including rock-climbing, could occur if the National Geologic Trail under 

consideration for the Wallula Gap area draws many visitors (see Chapter 5 discussion for more 

details). 

4.7 Islands 

A. Description and Location 

Both Refuges contain a number of large and small islands in the Columbia River. Some of these 

islands are the remnants of larger islands that existed in the Columbia River prior to flooding; others, 

such as Crescent Island, derive from dredge spoil. Island acreage currently totals 419 acres on 

Umatilla and 212 acres on McNary. These islands contain a variety of habitats, including sand and 

cobble beaches and flats, shallow river shoreline wetlands, sagebrush-dominated shrub-steppe, and 

woody riparian. 

Table 4-7. Islands at McNary and Umatilla Refuges – Background Information 

Refuge 

Jurisdiction 

Significant Features Open to Public Management Issues 

Hanford Islands 

Extends only to 

high water mark 

• Heron, great egret, gull 

and Forester’s tern 

colonies. Swallow colony, 

use by pelicans, owls, and 

sandpipers 

• Extensive use of shoreline 

areas by juvenile flightless 

waterbirds and waterfowl 

(Butler and Linehan 1994) 

Officially closed in 

1993 to all uses 

except hunting, but 

trespass occurs. 

• Public trespass, 

especially at 3rd island 

(Island 20) 

• Disturbance from 

beach use and 

adjacent boating 

• Trees dying 

• Growing gull colonies

Strawberry Island 

Extends to low 

water mark: 

beaches under 

Refuge 

jurisdiction 

• Designated National 

Historic Site. 

Archaeological sites. 

• Winter roosting bald 

eagles, fawning deer herd. 

Not officially, but 

beaches exposed at 

low water are heavily 

used (Refuge lacks 

enforcement staff). 

• Island trespass 

• Disturbance from 

beach use and 

adjacent boating 

• Erosion of banks 

Foundation, Badger, and Crescent 

Jurisdiction on 

all islands and 

extending into 

water to 

• Caspian Tern colony on 

Crescent 

• Pelican colony on Badger 

• Double-crested cormorant 

Only Crescent open 

to hunting. 

Foundation and 

Badger closures 

• Tern colony 

controversial but 

colony is not 

expanding 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-22 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Refuge 

Jurisdiction 

Significant Features Open to Public Management Issues 

shoreline. colony on Foundation extend 1⁄4 mile 

around islands 

Umatilla Islands 

Jurisdiction on 

all islands and 

extending into 

water to 

shoreline, 

excluding only 

Columbia River 

navigation 

channels. 

• nesting Foresters terns, 

and possibly Caspian 

terns 

• great blue heron, great 

egrets, black-crowned 

night herons nest 

• bank swallow colony 

• Geese/duck nesting 

• Deer fawning 

Closed to all uses 

except for 

summertime use at 

the east end of West 

Blalock Island and 

the east end of Big 

Sand Dune Island 

and the tip of Crow 

Butte. 

• Island trespass in 

summer 

• Potential impacts 

from campfires and 

fireworks 

• Signs need work 

For the purposes of the CCP, Whitcomb Island and Crow Butte are not considered “islands” in further 

discussions of this conservation target. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Rasmussen and Wright (1990) reported a total of 6,708 acres of islands lost to inundation as a result 

of the construction of John Day Dam, while Lake Wallula flooded 2,741 acres of islands. 

Probably due in part to the relative lack of human disturbance, habitat modification and degradation 

has also been somewhat attenuated at the islands. For example, the Umatilla Islands have some of 

the finest shrub-steppe habitat available on the Refuge. 

Island size can and does change over time. During the 1980s, erosion at Umatilla Islands was 

described as a potentially large problem. Erosion can occur as the current washes against soft 

substrates on the islands. Yet currently, island size seems fairly stable at Umatilla. At McNary Refuge, 

Foundation Island is growing on its east side as the result of silt deposition. 

C. Associated Wildlife 

Colonial Waterbirds: Nesting waterbird colonies are the most distinctive biological feature of the 

islands. Colonial nesting birds present include California gull, ring-billed gull, Caspian tern, Forster’s 

tern, great blue heron, great egret, black-crowned night heron, and double-crested cormorant. The 

only known nesting colony of American white pelicans in the State of Washington occurs on Badger 

Island. White pelicans are listed as endangered by WDFW. Great egrets are frequently observed 

during summer and fall and may have begun nesting on East Sand Dune Island as well. The 

waterbird nesting season on the islands generally extends through July. 

Most of the waterbirds are piscivorous (feed on fish) for most if not all of their diet and as such have 

caused concern, with other fish predators present in the Columbia system (such as northern 

pikeminnow and sea lions), about impacts to listed salmonids. Introduced fish such as large-mouthed 

bass and walleye also prey on young salmonids. Within the Refuge area, several waterbird species 

have been the subject of study, however, Caspian terns have so far been the avian species of greatest 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-23

concern, mainly due to their preference for juvenile salmonids and the impact that a large colony 

downstream in the Columbia River estuary has had on juvenile salmonid survival. Several years of 

data have been collected by researchers from Real Time Research, Inc. and Oregon State University, 

on the Crescent Island colony on McNary Refuge (Antolos et al. 2004, 2005). The following 

paragraph is excerpted from (Collis et al. 2004) Executive Summary. 

 

The tern colony on Crescent Island consisted of about 530 breeding pairs in 2004, similar in size 

to the previous year. The diet of Caspian terns nesting on Crescent Island in 2004 consisted of 

about 70% juvenile salmonids, similar to diets of Crescent Island terns during the 2000-2003 

breeding seasons. An estimated 470,000 (95% c.i. = 370,000–570,000) juvenile salmonids 

were consumed by Caspian terns nesting on Crescent Island in 2004. Preliminary results from 

2004 suggest the predation rate by Crescent Island terns on Snake River steelhead smolts was 

23%. In-river steelhead smolts from the Snake River were more vulnerable to tern predation than 

in-river steelhead smolts from the Upper Columbia (an estimated 4%). The high predation rate 

on in-river migrants from the Snake River was, however, offset by the transportation of most 

juvenile salmonids around the McNary Pool. Conversely, juvenile salmonids from the upper and 

mid-Columbia River (upstream of McNary Dam) were not transported past Crescent Island, 

resulting in a much larger proportion of those runs being susceptible to predation by Crescent 

Island terns. Predation rates on salmonids by Crescent Island terns are unlikely to increase 

appreciably over those observed in 2004. Reasons for this include the constraints on tern colony 

expansion (they are hemmed in by gulls) and a limited capacity for increased per capita smolt 

consumption. High transportation rates for Snake River smolts also preclude the vulnerability of 

many migrating juveniles. 

 

A small tern colony was discovered on Rock Island in the Blalock Islands at Umatilla Refuge in 2005. 

Six breeding pairs were observed on one census, but only one chick appears to have fledged (Collis et 

al. 2005). 

A bioenergetics model completed upstream near Wenatchee along the Columbia River (Parrish 2005) 

considered the potential impact of all piscivorous birds on salmonids, and identified common 

merganser and gulls as likely having a greater impact on salmonids than terns. At this time, no 

similar analysis has been completed for the Mid-Columbia area; therefore it is unknown whether the 

conclusions of that study apply to the Refuges. 

Other Species: Canada geese and ducks nest on the islands and deer are known to fawn at least on 

the Strawberry and Umatilla Islands. A colony of bank swallows inhabits the Umatilla Islands. Sand 

and cobble shorelines and shallow water areas adjacent to the islands are used by thousands of 

waterfowl and other waterbirds during winter, and by rearing broods in summer (Butler and Linehan 

1994). Wildlife likely seek out the islands for breeding habitat because of their relative isolation and 

the ability of the islands to provide security and protection from mammalian predators. 

There is uncertainty whether colonial nesting birds that are now present along the mid-Columbia river 

were present before the dams. If here, they were probably present in much lower numbers. Gulls and 

cormorants seem to be rising more rapidly. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-24 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-8. Islands Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Water Regime • Flooding frequency 

• Height above river 

• Water depth around islands 

[Analysis not complete] 

Security • Distance from shoreline 

• Amount of public use 

[Analysis not complete] 

Size • Acres [Analysis not complete] 

Status of key 

species 

• Nest sites of colonial waterbirds 

• Goose nest sites 

• Deer fawning areas 

• Waterfowl loafing areas 

• All nesting and fawning 

features “stable” 

[Analysis not complete] 

[Analysis not complete] 

E. Threats 

Figure 4.4 shows the stresses and sources of stresses for the islands target. Potential impact to wildlife 

and cultural resources from recreational disturbance and recreation-induced habitat modification such 

as accidental fire has long been a concern of the Refuge. Human use causes direct impact on the 

beaches themselves, including direct displacement of geese, shorebirds, and bank nesting swallows, 

from potential foraging and nesting habitat. Garbage and human waste present ongoing problems. 

Although this stress (disturbance) was ranked as medium, the source (public use) was ranked as low 

(based upon public use having a high contribution to the stress of disturbance but a medium 

irreversibility). Thus, in keeping with our other diagrams, public use is not shown as a high or medium 

source of stress. 

Figure 4.4 Stresses and Sources of Stress to Islands

Altered Plant

Community

Composition

Altered

Substrate

Dynamics

Erosion Disturbance

SOURCES

STRESSES

Dam

Operations

Commercial

River

Traffic

Circles with dark fill indicate High stress. Ovals indicate Medium stress.

Octagons with dark fill indicate source is a High threat. Diamonds with light fill boxes indicate source is a Medium threat.

Nonnative

Seed

Sources
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-25

4.8 Waterfowl 

A. Description and Location 

Thousands of waterfowl use both Refuges during fall, winter, 

and spring. Waterfowl species nesting on the Refuge include 

Canada goose, mallard, gadwall, Northern shoveler, 

American green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, 

redhead, ring-necked duck, ruddy duck, and wood duck. 

Production levels are not presumed to be high compared to 

other breeding areas along the flyway, but there is little data 

on this aspect. 

Abundant wintering species include mallard, Canada geese, pintail, and American wigeon. 

Significant numbers of gadwall, Northern shoveler, canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup, and ringnecked duck also winter on both Refuges. Hundreds to several thousands of white-fronted geese and 

snow geese can occur during fall and spring migration. Up to 1,600 white-fronted geese have been 

observed during the spring migration, with the largest concentration of these located east of Highway 

14 and Casey Pond on McNary Refuge. More than 3,000 snow geese were sighted at Whitcomb 

Island on Umatilla Refuge in February 2006. Small numbers of tundra swans also use the Refuges. 

Harvest records show that 90% of birds taken are mallards. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Prior to about 1990, the number of wintering waterfowl utilizing the two Refuges exceeded 500,000, 

about 50% of the flyway total for wintering populations. Since then, generally, less than 200,000 

waterfowl have been recorded during individual aerial surveys (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). Continental 

populations for mallards, the most numerous Refuge species, are stable. This supports the hypothesis 

that a redistribution of wintering birds, at least for mallards, has occurred. Most local waterfowl 

biologists believe that a combination of warmer winters and lower food resources within the Columbia 

Basin (as compared to the 1980s) account for the population drop. The Central Valley in California 

has been the focus of numerous habitat enhancements recently and may be drawing a larger 

percentage of the wintering population. Changes in hunting areas and regulations enacted as part of 

the 1983 Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan in the Columbia Basin (Lloyd et al. 1983) may also 

have contributed to the decline in numbers of wintering birds on the Refuges. 

In 2005, an initial meeting was held to discuss writing a new Columbia Basin waterfowl management 

plan, and was attended by staff from McNary and Umatilla Refuges and other Columbia Basin 

Refuges, Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Migratory Birds, ODFW, WDFW, Corps, DU, and the 

Yakama Nation. The plan is intended to explore all factors affecting waterfowl in the Columbia Basin 

including crop production, and other habitat data, weather factors, areas open or closed to hunting, 

waterfowl movements taken from banding data, and waterfowl production in an effort to boost 

waterfowl populations wintering in the Columbia Basin, recognizing that we will probably never return 

to number of birds common in the 1980s. Currently, a target numerical objective for wintering or 

migratory waterfowl in the Columbia Basin does not exist. The 2004 Strategic Guidance (NAWMP, 

Plan Committee 2004), a 15 year plan, does contain species-specific populations targets as a step-
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-26 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

down from the NAWP and evaluations of whether the continental population is currently short or over 

the target. There are also flyway goals for production by species. Annually there are population 

reports available based on the spring breeding surveys in the northern U.S. and Canada. 

Figure 4.5 Waterfowl high counts, McNary Refuge, 1981-2004 

Aerial Waterfowl Surveys

McNary National Widlife Refuge

High Counts

Fall 1981-Winter 2004

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1981-821982-831983-841984-851985-861986-871987-881988-891989-901990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04

 

Figure 4.6 Waterfowl high counts, McNary Refuge, 1981-2004 

Aerial Waterfowl Surveys (Ducks and Geese)

High Counts

Umatilla National Wildife Refuge

Fall 1981 Through Winter 2004

413275

563714

360549

183657

277501

125021

493292

51757

52680

69771

81272

72311

76731 64449 74516 82683

193877

295464

372760 384570

206182

147223

413274

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

1981-821982-831983-841984-851985-861986-871987-881988-891989-901990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04

 

According to the NAWMP Strategic Plan, pintail and scaup are decreasing at the flyway level. The 

western population of tundra swans exceeds the population objective by about 22,000. Population 

objectives have not been established for most of the Pacific Flyway Canada geese subspecies. Pacific 

white-fronted geese are increasing and numbers are well above the population objective. No trend 

data is available for Tule white-fronted geese, an uncommon migrant on the Refuges; however, the 

population estimate is only about 50% of the goal of 10,000 birds. 

C. Habitats Utilized 

Key waterfowl use areas are displayed in Maps 12A and 12B. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-27

Wetlands: Waterfowl utilize both lacustrine and palustrine wetland habitats on the Refuges. 

Lacustrine habitats that support invertebrates and/or submergent vegetation (such as Potamogeton, 

duckweed [Lemna spp], or coontail) are particularly beneficial. Waters should be clear (with no carp). 

Palustrine wetlands that host seed producing native annuals such as smartweed, swamp Timothy, wild 

millet, and goosefoot are considered valuable foraging habitat for waterfowl. Water depths between 

6” and 30" are preferable to support a range of species. Invertebrates found in wetlands are also an 

important food source for ducks in spring and summer due to the increased demand for protein to 

support reproduction. 

A few Refuge areas are managed as moist soil units, where water control is available, and the 

wetland can be flooded during fall and winter and then drawn down in spring to stimulate annual 

seed-producing plants in spring and summer. Current areas where moist soil management is 

practiced, include Kathy’s Pond on Umatilla Refuge and West and East Millet Ponds on McNary 

Refuge. Irrigation water is available and used to flood Dudley wetlands at McNary, but effective 

moist soil management is precluded there by sandy soil conditions. 

Due to the Corps-managed seasonal pool elevation patterns of Lake Umatilla, other moist soil 

management units are also possible within the Umatilla Refuge, and are in practice at McCormack 

Slough, without the advent of direct water manipulation by the Refuge. These designed sites have 

excavated ground surface elevations that fall between minimum and maximum annual pool 

fluctuation, providing seasonally flooded wetlands with spring-summer drawdown that support 

production of moist soil plants. Currently, these units are relatively some of the better and most 

consistent producing moist soil areas within the Refuges. 

Croplands: Croplands are maintained on both Refuges to provide forage for thousands of Canada 

geese and mallards. White-fronted geese, snow geese, American widgeon, northern pintail, 

California quail, and ring-necked pheasant also frequent Refuge croplands. 

Cooperative farming has been practiced for many years at both Refuges with the objective of 

providing grain and green feed to migrating and wintering waterfowl. The Whitcomb and 

McCormack units on Umatilla Refuge support 1,297 acres of cooperative farming programs, and the 

McNary Headquarters Unit supports 632 acres. At Whitcomb Island, five of the agricultural circles 

are certified organically farmed, and the area is occasionally used to showcase successful organic 

farming programs. Cropland management plans exist for both Refuges (FWS 1999). 

The crops grown in all the cooperatively farmed fields are mutually agreed upon by the Refuge and 

farmer, with the Refuge receiving shares (usually 25%). The Refuge shares are made up of grains and 

green forage, as best determined by the Refuge to meet wildlife objectives, while maintaining a viable 

cooperative agreement. The Refuge receives additional wildlife benefit, although not counted as 

Refuge shares, through the availability of waste grains and green forage following harvest of the 

cooperator’s portion of the crops. The cooperator also maintains agricultural fields being transitioned 

into native grass stands, as well as grass shelterbelts on the perimeters of irrigated agricultural circles. 

Crops grown include alfalfa, field corn, winter wheat, and grasses. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-28 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

The Refuge shares are left unharvested in the field for wildlife use as food and/or cover and are 

knocked down as needed to be made available following the end of the waterfowl hunting season. 

Corn is a more important food source later in the season, in part, because the moist soil units are 

generally available early in the fall and winter. 

Winter wheat is also planted on the Peninsula Unit to attract geese. Portions of the Wallula Unit are 

planted to Japanese millet. Grain corn production within the Columbia Basin and in the local vicinity 

of the Refuges is of high importance to waterfowl. The availability of waste corn after harvest provides 

an important high-energy food source, with particular value to mallards. Migrating and wintering 

waterfowl population numbers are believed to have a high positive correlation to available grain corn 

(Figure 4-7). Relatively high growth and harvest of grain corn in the 1980s, and subsequent 

reductions in later years, are reflected in the numbers of waterfowl counted in annual population 

surveys. 

Figure 4.7 Local Corn Production and Wintering Mallard Numbers, 1969-2005 

Source: Mallard data from Refuge flights (no data 1969-1974; missing data 1980, 1986, 1998, 2004, 2005). 

Agricultural data from USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service. No data for Benton County 1998-present. 

 

Within the south basin, there is currently a corn production deficit in meeting local needs, such as for 

dairy and beef, with local area farmers providing about 80% of demand (Neal 2006; Frederickson 

2006). The reason for this deficit is economic. In general, grain corn is used as a rotational crop, as 

is wheat and sweet corn, for preferred money crops such as potatoes, onions or sugar beats. Sweet 

corn has a higher return than field corn or wheat, which have similar returns. Corn used to be sold 

for $135/ton, but now goes for $90 to $110/ton, and irrigation costs have risen (Frederickson 2006). 

Given this, production of field corn will not increase from current levels unless there are additional 

markets for it at increased prices (Agrinorthwest 2006; Frederickson 2006). This year grain corn 

acreage will likely be down in Morrow County (Fredrickson 2006; Offut 2006), and stable in Benton 

County (Agrinorthwest 2006). 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Year

Acres

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Benton Co. WA Morrow and Umatilla Cos., Oregon December Refuge Mallard Populations

 Acres December Mallard Counts 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-29

Some food-grade field corn has been grown for foreign markets by Frederickson Farms in the last two 

years (having the same value to waterfowl), but will not be grown this year (Frederickson 2006). 

Possible other new future markets for grain corn largely include: organic field corn for high-moisture 

dairy feed (organic dairy products); and ethanol production. This year will be the first time that 

organic field corn will be grown in the area (Maddox 2006) by Watts Brothers Farms on relatively 

small acreages. New ethanol plants are proposed at Plymouth, Washington and Boardman, Oregon. 

The new Boardman plant, currently under construction at the Port of Morrow, will use approximately 

65,000 acres worth of grain corn (Neal 2006), which is higher than total current production in the 

south basin. Construction is planned for two more ethanol plants at the Port of Morrow, one of which 

will have twice the demand for corn as the plant currently under construction (Neal 2006). 

Unfortunately for area waterfowl, corn for the ethanol plants will be transported by rail from the 

Midwest (lower costs), and little is expected to be provided locally (Neal 2006; Frederickson 2006, 

Agrinorthwest 2006). However, RDO 3-Mile Canyon Farms in Morrow County is considering growing 

corn for ethanol production (Offutt 2006). Given the high past corn production and waterfowl use, 

and the continued poor outlook for increased corn production, growing these types of food resources 

on the Refuges will be of particular importance to help reduce the rate of decreasing waterfowl 

numbers.

Islands: During the waterfowl hunting season, the majority of waterfowl are concentrated near islands 

in the John Day and McNary pools that are closed to hunting. Islands also provide goose nesting and 

waterfowl brood habitat during late summer and fall. 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-9. Waterfowl Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

 

Species 

Abundance 

and Diversity 

• 5-year average winter populations (or 

use-days) for declining species 

especially pintail and scaup 

• Population available for viewing and 

shooting 

• Stable or increasing 

• Large concentrations 

Upland Food 

Availability 

• amount of land in irrigated croplands 

• acres grain available and acres of 

corn available 

• acres of green feed available 

• timing of knock-down 

• Areas provided off-Refuge 

• All current circles fully utilized 

• Maximize 25% share as grain with 75-

100% of this as corn. 

• As much as can be made available 

• Within constraints of baiting laws and 

farming seasons, spread knock down 

dates over fall, winter and spring to 

help provide for early and late migrants 

and provide more efficient utilization of 

crop by wintering birds. 

• Possibility of providing part of the corn 

needed on off-Refuge land, using 

Private Lands programs and incentives. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-30 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

 

Wetland Food 

Availability 

• Acres of moist soil units with high 

quality foods available over full 

migratory and wintering season. 

• Acres permanent wetland with aquatic 

vegetation and healthy invertebrate 

communities established. 

• Swans tied to sago pondweed. 

• Macroinvertebrate abundance and 

diversity 

• Increase in current moist soil areas; 

manage flooding regime to provide 

some areas with 6-24” water depths 

throughout fall, spring, and winter. 

• [Analysis not complete] 

 

• [Analysis not complete] 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Hydrologic 

Regime 

• Variety of water depths to 

accommodate dabblers and divers 

[Analysis not complete] 

Security • Nesting areas management 

• Acres of sanctuary areas provided 

during hunting season 

• Food availability in sanctuary areas 

• Predation 

• Impact from diseases 

• Molting areas management 

• Nesting areas protected from 

disturbance 

• Maintain or increase in sanctuary 

areas. 

• High quality foods available in 

sanctuary areas 

• [Analysis not complete] 

• Limited or no disease 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Source: Planning Team 

E. Threats 

A formal stress/source analysis was not completed for the Waterfowl Conservation target. 

4.9 Shorebirds 

A. Description and Location 

Nearly 40 different shorebird species are known to use the Refuges, reaching their highest numbers 

during the migration in both fall and spring. Six species breed on the Refuges, including American 

avocet, black-necked stilt, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, long-billed curlew, and Wilson’s snipe. 

The Wallula Delta, located at the confluence of the Walla Walla and Columbia Rivers on McNary 

Refuge, is a major shorebird stopover site in this area of the Columbia Basin. Surveys conducted from 

the early 1990s to the present have recorded as many as 8,600 shorebirds on the Wallula Delta 

during fall migration (International Shorebird Surveys, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences). 

The species with the highest population numbers have been the western sandpiper, dunlin, killdeer, 

long-billed dowitcher, and American avocet. Many other species of shorebirds have been recorded in 

smaller numbers. Though shorebirds have been sighted at the Wallula Delta in all months of the year, 

the data shows that March through April are generally when most spring migrants are counted, and 

August through September is when most fall migrants are recorded. Migrating shorebirds also use the 

islands and shorelines of the Columbia River, and sloughs and wetlands. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-31

Long-billed curlews have been recorded using both Refuges for feeding and/or breeding during 

spring. Results from surveys done by Refuge staff and volunteers in 2005 and 2006 have recorded 

breeding curlews on Umatilla Refuge’s Boardman, McCormack, Ridge, and Whitcomb Units, with the 

greatest number, by far, recorded on the McCormack Unit. Though curlews have been sighted on 

units of McNary Refuge during the breeding season, whether they actually nest on the Refuge is 

unknown. 

B. Condition and Trends 

Over time, shorebirds generally appear to have increased on the Refuges, especially McNary, due to 

increased availability of mudflat and shallow water habitats as sediment slowly accumulates along the 

margins of the pools. 

C. Habitats Utilized 

The types of habitats that shorebirds use on the Refuges include: exposed moist and nonvegetated 

substrates; mudflats along the Columbia River; and shallow portions of wetlands and sloughs. 

Upland fields and grasslands are used by long-billed curlews. Curlew breeding habitats were studied 

by Pampush and Anthony (1993), who found that this species seems to prefer cheatgrass dominated 

grasslands over bunchgrass, dense forbs, or open low shrub habitats; however, this is likely a function 

of preference for a low vegetation structure rather than specifically selecting for cheatgrass. 

Habitat increases could possibly be created by requesting drawdown of the McNary and/or Umatilla 

pools during migration periods. The Refuges made this request in fall of 2004 and 2005. Similarly, 

habitats can be enhanced at some moist soil areas by managing for shallow water levels and exposed 

substrates during migration. Some limitations exist for this method, however, including: 1) during late 

summer, mosquito concerns have the potential to limit floodups, mainly on McNary Refuge; and 2) at 

Kathy’s Pond, little water is available for impounding during late summer and fall. 

Exposed soils and mudflats were created by excavating persistent emergent wetlands and removing 

vegetation at McCormack Slough during recent years, but there is little systematic data to know how 

well these newly exposed areas were utilized by shorebirds. Refuge staff has observed that blacknecked stilt and American avocet increase their use of excavated and or disked areas, but numbers 

soon drop without further management (pers. comm. Brian Allen). 

D. Key Ecological Attributes 

Table 4-10. Key Ecological Attributes for Shorebirds 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

Hydrologic 

Regime 

• Timing and duration of drawdown 

events 

• Water depths 

• Drawdowns coinciding with fall 

(August-September) and spring 

migration; benthic substrate flooded 

or flushed during winter 

• Foraging areas characterized by water 

depths 0 to 5 cm in areas with known 

bathymetry and overall average depth 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-32 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

(Ranked Good or Higher) 

of approximately 15 cm in areas with 

unknown or inconsistent bathymetry 

Security • Amount, availability and quality of 

undisturbed habitats in spring and 

fall 

• Frequency and duration of flushing 

events at key foraging sites 

• Key forage areas protected by 100 

foot buffer from human disturbance 

(Thomas et al. 2003); dogs, joggers, 

or recreational vehicles prohibited in 

key forage areas 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Foraging 

habitat 

• Macroinvertebrate density and 

diversity 

• Number of forage sites available at 

any one time 

• Size of exposed area 

• [Analysis not complete] 

• Alternate sites available during spring 

and fall migration 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Species 

Composition/

Dominance 

• Annual species richness 

• Annual species abundance 

• [Analysis not complete] 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Connectivity • Proximity to other available 

foraging areas 

• [Analysis not complete] 

Source: Prindle (2004). 

E. Threats 

A formal stress-source analysis was not completed for the shorebirds target. The following is a 

general discussion of threats that can cause problems for this target. Water level fluctuations in 

McNary and Umatilla pools can eliminate available shorebird foraging habitat for days at a time 

during migration season. During part of the time the shorebirds are present, the McNary pool is 

managed for high water to support boat races near Kennewick. Alternate foraging sites could be 

identified (on or off the Refuges), that are not subject to pool management decisions to alleviate this 

problem. 

People using the Delta for hunting and recreation (including ATV use) likely cause some disturbance 

but the extent of this is unknown. Population data shows a decrease in shorebird numbers in 

October, but it is not known if the drop is due primarily to hunting disturbance. 

Vegetation (especially purple loosestrife) is colonizing the soils of the Delta as they build up. 

Vegetation spread may be outpacing sediment buildup that is nonvegetated. 

4.10 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

A. State or Federally Listed Species Known to Occur on Refuges 

One goal of the Refuge System is “To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species 

of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.” In the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-33

policy clarifying the mission of the Refuge System, it is stated “We protect and manage candidate and 

proposed species to enhance their status and help preclude the need for listing.” 

In accordance with the above, the CCP team considered any species with Federal or State status in 

the planning process. Table 4-11 lists the species that are State or federally listed that are known to 

occur on the Refuges. Other State or Federally listed species may occur, but have not been 

documented. Listed species that are suspected to have occupied Refuge lands historically are also 

part of this target. Discussion on the federally listed species follows the table in section B. 

Table 4-11. Federal and State listed species known to occur or very likely to occur on McNary and 

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges. 

Species Federal Oregon Washington Current Occurrence on Refuges 

American 

white pelican 

Not Listed SensitiveVulnerable Endangered Present year round on both Refuges; nests 

on McNary 

Bald eagle Threatened Threatened Threatened Uncommon to common winter visitor 

Burrowing owl Species of 

Concern 

SensitiveCritical Candidate Nests on Umatilla Refuge 

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Species of 

Concern 

SensitiveVulnerable Candidate Summer visitor; Breeding status unknown 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Not Listed SensitiveVulnerable Monitored Nests on Umatilla Refuge 

Peregrine 

falcon 

Species of 

Concern 

Endangered Sensitive Rare migrant, nests on or near McNary 

Refuge 

Sandhill crane Not Listed SensitiveVulnerable Endangered Uncommon migrant 

Swainson’s 

hawk 

Not Listed SensitiveVulnerable Monitored Summer visitor; Breeding status unknown 

Fish 

Bull trout Threatened Candidate Candidate May occur during winter 

Snake River 

chinook 

Threatened Threatened Candidate Migrates through Refuges 

Snake River 

sockeye 

Endangered Not Listed Candidate Migrates through Refuges 

Mid-Columbia

steelhead 

Threatened SensitiveCritical, 

Vulnerable 

Candidate Migrates through Refuges 

Snake River 

steelhead 

Threatened SensitiveVulnerable Candidate Migrates through Refuges 

Upper 

Columbia 

chinook 

Endangered Not Listed Candidate Migrates through Refuges 

Upper 

Columbia 

steelhead 

Endangered Not Listed Candidate Migrates through Refuges 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-34 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Species Federal Oregon Washington Current Occurrence on Refuges 

Herptiles 

Woodhouse’s

toad 

Not Listed SensitivePeripheral Monitored Occurs on both Refuges 

Painted turtle Not Listed SensitiveCritical Not Listed Occurs on both Refuges 

Sagebrush 

lizard 

Species of 

concern 

SensitiveVulnerable Candidate Occurs on both Refuges, though probably 

not abundant 

Mammals 

Black-tailed 

jackrabbit 

Not Listed Not Listed Candidate Known to occur, abundance unknown 

Preble’s 

shrew 

Species of 

Concern 

Not Listed Monitored Likely occurs, abundance unknown 

Washington 

ground 

squirrel 

Candidate Endangered Candidate Likely extirpated 

B. Condition and Trends of Federally Listed Species and Habitats Utilized on Refuges 

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Historically, bull trout likely used the mainstem Columbia River as 

a migratory corridor. Bull trout are primarily found in colder streams, although individual fish are 

found in larger river systems throughout the Columbia River basin. All life history stages are 

associated with complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and 

pools. It is unlikely any spawning occurs in this portion of the Columbia due to changes in substrate 

and water temperatures. Any bull trout using this portion of the Columbia River are likely stranded 

due to the dams and will be found in the deepest portion of the river. No spawning tributaries are 

found on either Refuge. 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): The Columbia River, including those portions within 

Umatilla and McNary Refuges, serves as a migration corridor for adult Upper Columbia River spring, 

Snake River spring/summer, and Snake River fall Chinook spawners heading upstream; and for 

juveniles heading downstream toward the Pacific Ocean. 

Some fall chinook spawn in the mainstem Columbia River, which may include the Umatilla Refuge 

portion of the Columbia River. However, these fish are not listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Fall chinook juveniles are known to use Casey Pond and the lower portion of Burbank Slough within 

McNary Refuge, as rearing areas in the early spring. These smolts are very likely all from the Hanford 

Reach of the Columbia River, which are also not listed, though an occasional Snake River fall chinook 

juvenile may be present (John Easterbrooks, pers comm.). 

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): Critical habitat for this stock includes all Columbia River 

reaches upstream to its confluence with the Snake River. This encompasses the Columbia River 

portion of Umatilla and McNary Refuges. 

Historically, Snake River sockeye were abundant in lakes and streams in northeast Oregon and Idaho. 

The current spawning distribution has been reduced to one lake in central Idaho, Redfish Lake. Snake 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-35

River sockeye have declined to near extinction. Returning spawners have numbered less than one 

dozen annually in recent years. 

The Columbia River, including those portions within Umatilla Refuge and near McNary Refuge, serves 

as a migration corridor for adult Snake River sockeye spawners heading upstream and for smolts 

heading downstream towards the Pacific Ocean. No adult spawning or juvenile rearing occurs in the 

Columbia River. 

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Critical habitat for the Snake River and Mid-Columbia River stocks 

was proposed on February 5, 1999, and includes the Columbia River upstream to the Yakima River. 

Proposed critical habitat for the Upper Columbia River steelhead includes the Columbia River and 

tributaries upstream of the Yakima River. 

Snake River and Columbia River steelhead use the Columbia River below the confluence, with the 

Snake as a migration corridor to reach spawning areas in tributaries. No adult spawning occurs in 

the Columbia River near the Refuges. Steelheads also migrate through the Wallula Unit of McNary 

Refuge via the Walla Walla River. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Bald eagles winter on both Refuges from November to April. 

As many as 60 birds have been sighted during the winter along the Columbia River on and in the 

vicinity of both Refuges. These birds are generally seen perching in large trees adjacent to the 

Columbia River or Refuge wetlands, where they look for wounded or vulnerable waterfowl or fish on 

which to feed. They occasionally use circle pivot irrigation facilities for perching above fields. 

Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni): The historic range of the Washington 

ground squirrel encompasses portions of both Refuges. The species is likely extirpated from both 

Refuges. Some searching was conducted on Juniper Canyon, Stateline, and Wallula Units in 2003, 

but no animals were sighted. 

C. Key Ecological Attributes and Threats 

Key ecological attributes and threats differ for each listed species, and are not described here in the 

interests of space. Recovery plans and other species specific documents are the best source for in 

depth information on these species. 

4.11 Current Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts 

A number of research projects have been conducted at McNary and Umatilla Refuges since the 

Refuges were established. 

• Waterfowl research conducted has included a study of Canada Geese nesting on Umatilla Refuge 

islands (McCabe 1976), band recovery distributions and winter movements of mallards using 

several Columbia Basin sites including McNary and Umatilla Refuges (Regen 1980 and 

Rabenburg 1982). 

• Long-billed curlew nesting ecology on Umatilla Refuge was studied by Oregon State University 

researchers in 1978-79 (Pampush1980). 

• During 1997-1998, researchers from the University of Idaho studied migratory songbird use of 

Russian olive woodlots compared to native willow stands on Umatilla Refuge (Hudson 2000). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-36 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Their results indicated that while Russian olive does provide some food and cover, native willow 

stands provided more cover and insects for migrating songbirds. Though Russian olive is a 

nonnative invasive, the researchers recommended against wholesale removal of Russian olive 

stands. 

• Current research on McNary Refuge centers on the depredation of migrating salmonid juveniles 

by piscivorous colonial nesting birds. Researchers from Real Time Research, Inc. and Oregon 

State University have been studying the Crescent Island Caspian tern nesting colony since the 

mid-1990's (Collis et al. 2003). The research has largely focused on tern food habits, nesting 

ecology, and understanding colony size dynamics (Antolos 2002). Additionally, these researchers 

have also been studying the Foundation Island double-crested cormorant colony. 

References 

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, and K. Collis. 2004. Breeding ecology of Caspian terns at colonies on the 

Columbia Plateau. Northwest Science 78:303-312. 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, K. Collis, A.F. Evans, M. Hawbecker, and B.A. Ryan. .2005. 

Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 134:466-480. 

Bury R.B., and A.J. Whalen. 1984. Ecology and management of the bullfrog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Resource Publication 155. 

Braatne, J.H., and R. Jamieson. 2001. Impacts of flow regulation on riparian cottonwood forests 

along the Kootenai and Yakima Rivers. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

Collis, K., D.D. Roby, G. Dorsey, and A. Evans. 2003. Colonial waterbird research on the MidColumbia River National Wildlife Refuge in 2003. Unpublished summary report submitted to 

the Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Pasco, WA. 

Collis, K., D.D. Roby, C. Couch, G. Dorsey, K. Fischer, D.E. Lyons, A.M. Myers, S.K. Nelson, J.Y. 

Adkins, A. Evans, and M. Hawbecker. 2004. Piscivorous waterbird research on the 

Columbia River. Final 2004 season summary. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Dice, L.R. 1918. The birds of Walla Walla and Columbia Counties, southeastern Washington. Auk 

25:40-51 and 148-161. 

Dobler, F.C., J. Eby, C. Perry, S. Richardson, and M. Vander Haegen. 1996. Status of Washington’s 

shrub-steppe ecosystem: Extent, ownership, and wildlife/vegetation relationships. Research 

report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Easterbrooks, John. Personal Communications 

Evans, J.W. 1991. Powerful Rockey: The Blue Mountains and the Oregon Trail, 1811-1883. 

Eastern Oregon State College, La Grande, OR. 

Gunkel, A. 1978. Culture in conflict: A study of the contrasted interrelations and reactions between 

Euroamericans and the Walla Walla Indians of Washington State. Ph.D. Dissertation. 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 

Hudson, S.E. 2000. Avian use of riparian areas in the Mid-Columbia River basin during fall 

migration. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 4-37

Jones, S.L., and J.E. Cornely. 2002. Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 624 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA. 

Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Lavendar, D., editor. 1972. The Oregon journals of David Douglas, of his travels and adventures 

among the traders and Indians in the Columbia, Willamette and Snake River regions during 

the years 1825, 1826, and 1827. The Oregon Book Society, Ashland, OR. 

Kupferberg, S.J. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: The role of larval 

competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751. 

Lind, O.T. 1979. Handbook of common methods in limnology. Second edition. The C.V. Mosby 

Company, St. Louis, MO. 

Lloyd, T.M., R. Denney, and G. Constantino. 1983. Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan for the 

Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington. 

McCabe. T.R. 1976. Productivity and nesting habitat of Great Basin Canada Geese; Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University. 

Meinig, D.W. 1995. The great Columbia plain: A historical geography, 1805-1910. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales, 22 pp. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. Draft lower Mid-Columbia subbasin plan. 

Olson, B.E. 1999. in Sheley, R.L., and J.K. Petroff, eds. Biology and management of noxious 

rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. OR 

Pampush, G.J., and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of 

long-billed curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 95:957-967. 

Parrish, Julia K. Avian Predation on the Mid-Columbia. Summary of Research presented to 

Northwest Power Planning Council? School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of 

Washington. See website: http://www.nwcouncil.org/news/2004_09/4.pdf for summary. 

Rabenburg, M.J. 1982. Ecology and population dynamics of mallards wintering in the Columbia 

Basin. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 

Rasmussen and Wright. 1990. Wildlife impact assessment. Four reports: Bonneville, McNary, The 

Dalles, and John Day Projects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Roby, D.D. and K.K. Collis. 2003. Colonial Waterbird Research on the Mid-Columbia River 

National Wildlife Refuge in 2002. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State 

University. 

Roby, D.D. and K.K. Collis. 2003. Caspian Tern Research on the Lower Columbia River. Draft 

2003 Season Summary. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University. 

Regen, L.E. 1980. Population dynamics and band recovery distributions of wintering mallards (Anas

platyrhynchos) in the Columbia Basin, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University. 

Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelhide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components 

in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume 2. 

U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. 

Snodgrass, R.E. 1904. A list of land birds from central and southeastern Washington. Auk 21:223-

233. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

4-38 Chapter 4 – Refuges Biology and Habitat 

Tressler, R. 2004. Cliff, Talus Slope and Rock Outcroppings: Literature Review and Summary of 

Findings for the McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat 

and landscape variables in eastern Washington, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 14: 1145-

1160.

Vander Haegen, W.M., S.M. McCorquodale, C.R. Peterson, G.A. Green, and E. Yensen. 2001. 

Wildlife of eastside shrubland and grassland habitats in Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil, 

Managing Directors. Wildlife–habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and 

management implications. Pages 4-10 in E.S. McArthur, R.M. Romney, S.D.Smith, and P.T. 

Tueller, editors. Proceedings of a symposioum on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off and 

other aspects of shrub biology and management. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. 

Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington 

Press. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Caspian 

Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR. 
5-1 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Chapter 5. Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 

5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities 

The infrastructure and facilities discussed in this section include boundary fences and markers, 

entrances, roads, trails, administrative buildings, easements and rights of way, and water-related 

structures. Facilities associated with specific public use programs, such as boat launches and the 

environmental education center, are discussed in section 5.2. A map of these facilities is provided for 

each Refuge (Maps 13A and 13B). 

A. Boundary Fences and Markers 

 

McNary: The original 3,269 acres is fenced and signed. Portions of the Refuge extending along 

Hanson Loop Road are fenced, with boundary signs posted along main entrances. Some of the 

Corps lands managed under agreement are fenced but not posted. Corps land in the Juniper 

Canyon and State Line Unit are neither fenced nor posted. 

Umatilla: Barbed wire fencing delineates and protects most of the Refuge’s perimeter boundaries. 

All boundaries of the Refuge are signed. 

B. Entrances and Access Points 

McNary: There are currently five official entrances. Each Refuge unit has a marked entrance 

permitting vehicular access. In addition, there are numerous roadside pullouts along highways 12 

and 730 that allow additional access to the Wallula, Stateline, Juniper Canyon, Peninsula, and Two 

Rivers Units. The public may also access the Refuges by boat at any suitable point along the 

approximately fourteen miles of Refuge shoreline fronting the Columbia River. Boating also provides 

access to the Refuge islands although some islands are closed to public access. 

Given that much of the Refuge borders Highway 12 and Highway 730, multiple unofficial access 

points are available and used by the public. This is particularly evident along Hanson Loop Road and 

the Burbank Sloughs Unit. An access problem occurs on the Burbank Sloughs Unit and to some 

extent at Wallula, where the public seeks to cross the railroad lines (which flank the river on both 

sides) to access shoreline areas. No designated or official railroad crossings exist in these units and 

the crossings create a safety and liability problem for both the Refuge and the railroads. Fencing

along the tracks has been proposed but may not be a feasible or effective solution. 

Access to the Juniper Canyon Unit is directly off the fast moving Highway 730. A small narrow pullout maintained by the Department of Transportation is used for parking. Access to this unit needs to 

be improved to provide the public with safe access to and from this unit. 

Umatilla: The Refuge maintains three land-based entrance points on the Oregon side of the river and 

four on the Washington side, with at least one entrance in each management unit. Access to Refuge 

islands is gained by boat. The public may also access open areas of the Refuges by boat along a 

shoreline fronting the Columbia River. Like McNary, the Refuge finds that people illegally cross the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-2 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

railroad tracks to access shoreline areas, particularly on Ridge and Paterson Units. To address this 

problem, the Refuge did create a designated under track crossing on the Ridge Unit, but this has not 

completely eliminated the problem. Burlington-Northern Railroad (BNRR) has taken issue with the 

Refuge over trespass and liability issues on railroad lands on the Washington side of Umatilla Refuge. 

The Ridge Unit has no official legal public access across railroad property. Currently, the east access 

road of the Ridge Unit (near the onion plant) utilizes a private crossing over the railway and BNRR 

property. Also, although not an official public crossing, a cattle culvert is used by the public (and 

approved by BNRR law enforcement) off of the end of the mid-access road of the Ridge Unit. 

Paterson Unit has a legal public railroad crossing. The access road is partially on railroad property 

and is very long and narrow. It is in poor condition but it does provide land-based access to the east 

side of the unit. Additionally, there are also persistent problems with illegal access into the Paterson 

Unit originating from Highway 14. Some individuals illegally access the unit by crossing private and 

BNRR-owned lands and have cut or vandalized fences. 

On the Whitcomb Unit there is a public railroad crossing and good access to the Refuge. However, 

there is poor access to and frequent trespass on railroad lands by the public trying to access an area 

nearer Crow Butte. 

On the Oregon side of the Columbia River, Umatilla Refuge has not received any complaints from the 

Union-Pacific Railroad (UP) regarding trespass issues. There are, however, Refuge users that access 

the Boardman Unit-North from the I-84 rest area. These people cross the UP railroad tracks and 

land. Most Refuge visitors legally access the Unit on its west boundary through former ODFW lands. 

Unfortunately, this section of ODFW land was temporarily removed from their management and 

closed to hunting. 

The McCormack Unit does not have any railroad trespass issues. Occasionally, people cut the gates 

and trespass on the Refuge, from the old Highway 12, on the Refuge’s western boundary; however, 

this is limited to a few occasional vandals. The unit does support a very popular fee-hunt waterfowl 

program and popular auto-tour route that is used for wildlife viewing and photography. 

C. Roads and Parking Areas 

McNary: There are 19.67 miles of roads maintained for public access on the Refuge. Of these 

roads, 17 miles are unpaved, and 2.67 miles are paved. Most of the unpaved roads are graveled 

but small sections are natural dirt surfaces. Gates have been installed in certain areas to minimize 

impact and disturbance and yet allow Refuge staff access for maintenance purposes or wildfire 

suppression. On the Two Rivers Unit there are two gates. One is on the end of old Highway 12/395 

and the second is at a parking lot where people can access the river. 

On the Wallula Unit there are two gates that are opened and closed seasonally. One is at Ranger 

Road and the other is at Game Department Road. Both gates are opened during the spring and 

summer to provide access to the Walla Walla River for fishing. The gates are closed during the fall/ 

winter to reduce conflicts between cars and hunters and to reduce disturbance to waterfowl. The 

Peninsula Unit has three gates. The main entrance gate is open the majority of the year, except from 

February 1 to July 15, when it is closed to protect nesting birds. The early July closure eliminates fire 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-3

damage from illegal historic use of 4th of July fireworks. The second gate allows waterfowl hunters 

with disabilities to access an accessible hunting blind. The third gate allows access for maintenance 

and fire crews to the tip of the Peninsula. 

Mileages are based on the Refuge Road Inventory, and do not include additional dirt roads 

throughout portions of the Refuge that have been created over years of off-road vehicle use. The 

illegitimate roads exist primarily on the Burbank Sloughs Unit, upstream from the Peninsula Unit. At 

this time, the staff estimates that there are approximately 4.5 miles of illegal roads on the Peninsula 

Unit, and along Hanson Loop, and another three miles of illegal roads in the Burbank Sloughs Unit. 

The potential removal or rehabilitation of these roads will be addressed during the CCP planning 

process. By eliminating illegal roads, developing improved and marked Refuge entrance points, and 

planting the area with native plants, the Refuge hopes to restore the area to native shrub-steppe 

habitat. 

The main entrance to the Two Rivers Unit was recently relocated due to Highway 12 expansion. The 

entrance is now located across from Dodd Road. An old boat launch and unimproved parking area 

for Casey Pond has been closed. The old launch site had unsafe access onto Highway 12/395. A 

new launch and large parking area has been constructed on Casey Pond near the Bureau of 

Reclamation pump site. Access to the new launch is from Hanson Loop Road. 

There are a total of 27 parking lots on McNary Refuge. There are ten parking lots on the Burbank 

Slough Unit, ten on the Wallula Unit, five on the Two Rivers Unit, two on the Peninsula Unit (including 

a parking space for people with disabilities near the accessible hunting blind), and one pull-off area at 

Juniper Canyon. Most of these parking areas are associated with hunting and fishing visits. There are 

also several pull-outs on various Refuge units. The State Line Unit and the Burbank Slough Unit do 

not have any parking lots directly on Refuge property. 

Umatilla: Umatilla Refuge has a total of 15 miles of public use roads. These public access routes 

total 2.6 miles of paved roads, and 12.4 miles of unpaved roads. Part of this road mileage includes 

a 3.6-mile auto tour route on the McCormack Unit which is open from dawn till dusk. 

The two main entrance roads into the McCormack Unit have electronically controlled gates that allow 

public access to the areas from dawn to dusk. During waterfowl hunting season, entrance gates open 

earlier. A gate on the top of Ridge Road is open seasonally for waterfowl hunting and deer hunting by 

permit. Various other gates provide access for maintenance and fire staff into closed areas. 

There are a total of 15 parking lots on the McCormack Unit, two on the Boardman Unit, 7 on the 

Paterson Unit, 4 on the Ridge Unit, and 8 on Whitcomb Unit, for a total of 36 parking lots. There are 

also several pull-off areas on Umatilla Refuge. Most of the parking areas are associated with hunting 

and fishing visits. 

D. Trails 

McNary: A 1.9-mile interpretive trail is located at the McNary Headquarters Unit, starting at the 

McNary Environmental Education Center. The trail follows the slough’s edge, and then leads into the 

surrounding shrub-steppe, finally looping along a farm field and back to the Center. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-4 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

There are two designated horse trails. One is located on the Wallula Unit and follows the Walla 

Walla River on the north side upstream from Madam Dorion Park. The other is located on the 

Burbank Sloughs/Peninsula Unit and follows the river shoreline. Both trails are approximately 4 miles 

long. 

Refuge staff also mows seasonal trails on the Burbank Slough Unit in the fee hunt area and in the 

Peninsula Unit, to provide waterfowl hunters access to designated hunting blinds or sites. 

Umatilla: Umatilla Refuge contains a 2.6-mile public foot trail on McCormack Unit, which is part of 

the larger Morrow County Columbia River Heritage Trail. The Refuge section of the Heritage Trail 

encompasses a section of the former State Highway 730 that bisects the McCormack Unit. The 

Refuge allows foot, horse, and bicycle traffic on the trail. 

Refuge staff also mows seasonal trails on the McCormack Unit in the fee hunt area to provide 

waterfowl hunters access to designated hunting blinds or sites. 

E. Administrative Facilities

McNary: McNary Refuge headquarters is located off Maple Street in Burbank, Washington. 

Currently, the administrative facilities consist of a headquarters office, maintenance shop and pole 

barn, McNary Refuge’s fire staff office trailer (without plumbing), and an unheated storage area for 

fire equipment (fire cache). There are two houses located on the premises. One has been converted 

to an education center, and the other usually serves as seasonal staff housing, but is currently being 

used as offices for the Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

fire and maintenance staff. 

A heated outdoor restroom with running water is available to the public in the Headquarter’s parking 

lot. A hazardous materials storage building is also located at the Headquarters site. The 

Headquarters office provides four enclosed vehicle bays and the pole barn provides another four. The 

Refuge recently relocated the maintenance facilities to a new location off Gallant Road. Plans are in 

progress for new administrative offices in 2006. A new office, visitor contact station, and 

environmental education center are planned to replace existing buildings at the McNary Headquarters 

area. The planned 5,000-square-foot office will also provide space for Mid-Columbia Complex staff. 

Umatilla: Administrative facilities for the Umatilla Refuge are located within the McCormack and 

Whitcomb Units. A fenced compound on the McCormack Unit encloses several buildings, structures, 

heavy equipment, and other equipment. The buildings include a one-room manager’s office, a oneroom maintenance office with a bathroom, a maintenance shop, a fire cache, a manufactured home 

used as a fire bunkhouse, and various storage buildings. Located near the compound are two older 

government-owned residences provided for Refuge staff living quarters. On Whitcomb Island there 

are an older residence for staff (not in use), a shop, and a storage building. 

F. Easements and Rights-of-Way 

McNary: Virtually every unit on McNary Refuge is either adjacent to or bisected by railways, public 

roads, and highways. Existing and relocated rights-of-way for railways, transmission lines, gas lines, 

and access roads are located throughout the McNary Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-5

Umatilla: Abandoned rights-of-way for previously established railways, public roads, and highways 

were included into lands under cooperative agreements with the Umatilla Refuge. Former railways 

are located on both sides of the river in Oregon and Washington. The iron rails and wooden ties 

have been dismantled and removed, leaving only the grade intact. Portions of these remaining 

grades are inundated by the Umatilla Pool of the John Day Lock and Dam Project. Similarly, lengths 

of abandoned public roadways are located on the Oregon side of the Refuges, within the Boardman 

and McCormack Units. Existing and relocated rights-of-way for public roadways, railways, 

transmission lines, and various access roads are currently located throughout the Umatilla Refuge. 

G. Dikes, Irrigation, and Water Control Structures 

McNary: There are a series of earthen dikes that form the four ponds on the McNary Headquarters 

Unit (original 3,269 acre parcel). Each dike has water control structures installed to control water 

levels for waterfowl management. These structures were filled in during the 1990s for the purpose of 

carp eradication. Other dikes and water control structures were installed on the Peninsula Unit before 

the Service began managing the Unit. This created various small ponds and impoundments. These 

ponds were created to provide wildlife habitat, recreational fishing opportunities, and hunting. Two 

riparian restoration projects were completed in 2001 and 2003, on the north and south sides of the 

Walla Walla River on the Wallula Unit. Both projects consist of a series of wetlands, supplied by 

pumped river water, distributed to the various wetlands for tree and shrub irrigation and moist soil 

management. 

Agricultural crop lands on McNary Refuge are irrigated by ten center pivots and four wheel lines. 

These crop lands are irrigated by water pumped from wells and surface water. The crops are grown 

for the purpose of providing winter forage and grains for waterfowl. The South Columbia Irrigation 

District supplies water for crops. Irrigation water terminates into Refuge wetlands at Dudley Ponds, 

field 8 ponds, and the southeast end of Casey Pond. 

Umatilla: Earthen dikes were constructed within wetland areas of the McCormack and Paterson 

Sloughs, for waterfowl management during the early years of the Umatilla Refuge. A dike that was 

constructed near the mouth of McCormack Slough was subsequently equipped with a culvert and 

Waterman gate for water control. 

Portions of remnant irrigation delivery systems are located within some areas of the Umatilla Refuge. 

A small section of such a system is currently being used to deliver water from the Irrigon Fish Hatchery 

to two managed seasonal wetland units within the McCormack Unit, Blackberry Slough, and Kathy’s 

Pond. Blackberry slough is also equipped with an earthen dike and water control structure. 

There are five agricultural crop circles located on the McCormack Unit that use electrically powered 

water pumping systems and center-pivot irrigation. Another 5.5 agricultural circles on Whitcomb 

Island use an electrically powered water pumping system drawing from an enclosed lagoon on the 

Columbia River. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-6 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

5.2 Recreation Overview 

A. Open and Closed Areas 

McNary: All units of McNary Refuge are open to the public year round except the following: 

Strawberry Island, Badger Island, Crescent Island and the Wallula Delta (seasonal hunting closure 

February 1 to September 30), Sanctuary Pond (closed to hunting), McNary Headquarters Unit Pond II/ 

Dudley Pond area and the Ivarson Road area. The Peninsula Unit is closed to vehicle traffic but open 

for foot traffic from Feb 1 through July 15 to protect nesting birds and limit fires. 

Umatilla: Umatilla Refuge units are open year round to the public for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The exception to this is that the western half of the McCormack Slough Unit is only open to permit 

deer hunters and permit waterfowl hunters. Most of the river islands are also closed; three beaches 

are open for summertime use. 

B. Annual Recreation Visits 

McNary: The Tri-Cities of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland, Washington provide a population base of 

more than 140,000 people in proximity to McNary Refuge. According to 2004 RMIS data, the 

Refuge received 140,312 station visits annually, with visitors spending time in a variety of recreational 

pursuits as described below. 

Umatilla: According to 2004 RMIS data, Umatilla Refuge received an estimated 91,290 station visits 

annually. The Columbia River Unit’s open water areas attract approximately 30% of Refuge visitation, 

mostly in the form of recreational boating, fishing, and hunting. Of the Refuge units, the McCormack 

Unit with its scenic auto-tour route, wildlife viewing opportunities, and popular hunt program is 

second in visitor use numbers. The Whitcomb, Ridge, and Paterson Units in Washington State attract 

a significant amount of interest from local birders, hunters and travelers along State Highway 14. The 

Boardman Unit is a small linear area of shoreline and has very little public use aside from hunters and 

an occasional group fishing the river bank. 

C. Visitor Satisfaction Survey 2004 

During the fall of 2005, the Service conducted a survey at numerous national wildlife refuges, 

measuring visitor satisfaction. McNary Refuge was one of the Refuges surveyed. Twenty-eight visitors 

at McNary completed the survey. Eighteen of these were male, ten were female and all except one 

identified themselves as white. Some of the adults were accompanied by teens or children. In 

response to a question about their primary purpose for visiting the Refuge that day, ten visitors 

checked hunting, one checked hiking, seven indicated wildlife observation or photography, five 

indicated environmental education or interpretation, and one checked “other.” About 35 questions 

were asked to gauge visitor satisfaction with visitor information, roads and trails, visitor contacts, 

adequacy of activities, and other general perceptions. For each of these questions, a five point 

response scale was provided. Overall, the recipients of the survey indicated a relatively high level of 

satisfaction with visitor services and facilities available at McNary (most questions averaged a score of 

four or above). A few measures of satisfaction yielded scores less than 3.5, and may merit some 

consideration in the CCP. These questions are summarized in Table 5-1. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-7

Table 5-1. Aspects of Visitor Services that Rated Lower for Visitor Satisfaction at McNary 

Statements Score* 

There is adequate staffing to efficiently handle visitor’s requests. 3.33 

This Refuge provides a sufficient law enforcement presence to minimize crime. 3.43 

The fee is appropriate. 3.00 

D. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum - Characterization of Refuge Units 

In the initial stages of public use planning, the team used a tool called the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) (Clark and Stankey 1979) to understand the appropriate public uses on each unit. In 

the ROS system, public use planning is initiated through an understanding of the site itself—what site 

characteristics are present in the different planning units that lend themselves to certain kinds of 

infrastructure and public use activities? The McNary and Umatilla Refuges are well suited for such an 

analysis, because the units are discrete geographically; fairly small and somewhat homogeneous; and 

visibly distinctive from one another in their character and in the types of public uses that already occur 

there. The planning team provided a short assessment of the ROS elements for each unit in each 

Refuge (Tables 5-2 and 5-3). The definition for each element below is the team’s adaptation of the 

classic ROS definitions. Criteria for rating each element in the tables are defined below. 

• Access - type of ingress/egress, means of conveyance allowed, ease of ingress into and through 

the site. High indicates easy access to most parts of unit by vehicle. Multiple access points 

and/or road and boat access are easily available. Low indicates more difficult access–foot access 

only and/or illegal trespass over neighboring lands or railways may be required to access portions 

of the unit. Moderate is between these two. 

• Remoteness - perception of distance from human presence and developments—somewhat related 

to difficulty of access. High indicates that human presence or developments such as roads or 

buildings are not readily perceived or are perceived to be far from most of the unit. Low indicates 

nearby presence of humans or development. Moderate is between these two. 

• Visual character - scenery and beauty present at sight, presence of views, degree to which visitors 

find themselves in a natural appearing area. High indicates high scenic character with 

topographic or community diversity and/or views. Low indicates no particular scenic value and/or 

views include non-natural features or industrial facilities. Moderate is between these two. 

• Site management - visibility of management activities, especially those that might present conflicts 

with certain kinds of recreational activities. High indicates that Service management facilities and 

activities are readily apparent. Low indicates that management facilities and activities are not 

readily apparent. Moderate is between these two. 

• Social encounters - probability of interaction between parties. High indicates that the site is fairly 

heavily used or that certain facilities draw many parties. Low indicates that the site is lightly used 

and that people may readily find themselves alone on any particular day. Moderate is between 

these two. 

• Visitor Impacts - vulnerable or sensitive resources present at unit and being degraded. High 

indicates high existing impact (habitat loss or degradation, vandalism, garbage, drug labs, 

disturbance to wildlife, poaching etc.) to resources from visitors. Low indicates little or no impact 

from visitors. Moderate is between these two. 

• Regimentation - current likelihood of visitors encountering law enforcement, restraints on 

movement or activity or posted rules for visitor use and behavior at unit. High indicates that 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-8 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

visitors are quite likely to encounter signs or staff recommending or requiring certain behaviors. 

Low indicates that visitors are not likely to encounter staff or posted rules. Moderate is between 

these two. 

E. Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs for People with Disabilities 

The Refuges each contain some facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Hunt Program Accessibility: McNary Headquarters Unit hunting blinds #8 and #2, and Peninsula 

blind #11, are designated accessible blinds, but some improvements are needed. Neither #8 or #2 

have a pad as specified by the ADA, but both are covered and have platforms. Trail Access to all 

three of these blinds is not up to standard. Keeping pads maintained is time and labor intensive and 

trees tend to grow up through the pad at McNary. Accessible hunting blinds at Umatilla Refuge 

include #13 and #35 at McCormack Slough. Blind #13 needs improvements to comply with current 

ADA requirements. Bringing McNary’s #8 blind and Umatilla’s #35 blind up to code would be the 

most feasible. 

At both Refuges, the accessible blinds are allocated to hunters with disabilities by reservation before 

other hunters can reserve them. If there are no disabled hunters with reservations, all standby hunters 

(including any disabled hunters) participate in a draw on these and other blinds with disabled hunters 

getting first choice on the accessible blinds. 

Fishing Program Disabled Persons Access: The Refuge has two accessible fishing piers. One at 

Quarry Pond and another on the Wallula Unit near the boat launch. 

Other Programs Disabled Persons Access: An accessible viewing and photo blind is available at 

McNary Headquarters Unit. It is accessible from the parking lot and the Environmental Education 

Center via a 1,800 foot accessible trail. 

F. Law Enforcement 

There is one dual function officer assigned to cover McNary Refuge and one full time officer assigned 

to cover all five Refuges within the Refuge Complex. Beginning in the fall of 2006, the one full time 

officer will have to cover two more Refuges and one national monument (Conboy Refuge, Saddle 

Mountain Refuge, and Hanford Reach National Monument). This represents one officer covering 

about a 250 mile area. At one time there were eight dual function officers to cover the five Refuges 

within the Complex. At least one dual function officer was assigned to each area of the Complex 

(southern Refuges within the Complex, central Refuges within the Complex, northern Refuges within 

the Complex) to protect the resources. Although dual function officers had other duties (Refuge 

management, maintenance, interpretation, and recreation management) they could effectively patrol 

their assigned zones and concentrate law enforcement patrols at busy visitor periods (waterfowl 

hunting season, the beginning of the trout season, holiday weekends, opening days for hunting etc.). 

Because of policy changes, there is now only one dual function officer and one full time officer to 

cover the growing Complex. This represents a dramatic decrease in law enforcement in a relatively 

short period. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-9

The most common law enforcement issues encountered in the field are waterfowl hunting violations 

(lead shot, hunting in closed areas, taking birds out of season, and unplugged shotguns), vandalism 

(broken gates and defaced signs), theft (stolen gas, tools, equipment, and signs), off-road vehicle use, 

trash dumping (household and commercial), and vagrancy (squatters living in remote areas of the 

Refuge, and campers staying beyond 14 days in a 30 period at Madam Dorian Campground). 

Officers also participate in public education by presenting programs on hunting, fishing, and safety 

issues. 

In 2004, Refuge Officers were contracted by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to provide law 

enforcement for BOR properties adjacent to the Complex’s Refuge lands. This includes patrolling 

BOR reservoirs, dams, canals, and facility compounds. 

5.3 Waterfowl Hunting 

Maps of areas open to waterfowl, small game, and big game hunting are shown in Maps 14A and 

14B. In addition, the unit specific maps (“tear sheets”) are provided. See Maps 15A, B, C, and D. 

 

A. McNary Refuge 

Waterfowl hunting remains one of the most popular activities on McNary Refuge. Seventy-six percent 

of the Refuge is open to waterfowl hunting (excludes Hanford Islands from analysis). Areas currently 

closed to waterfowl hunting include the southern most Hanford Island, Strawberry Island (and adjacent 

off-Refuge portions of the Lower Snake River), Foundation Island, Badger Island, Sanctuary Pond, 

former Burbank Slough Unit—Units 3 and 4 (now McNary Headquarters units, ponds, and sloughs), 

and the Two Rivers Unit (Casey Pond/Bleachers). Seasonal closures can occur to protect nesting and 

feeding birds. The Refuge provides both a regulated fee area and free “first come-first-served” 

waterfowl hunt areas. The majority of the hunting areas fall in the second category. 

Facilities: There are approximately 20 slough hunting blinds and 8 field hunting blinds in the fee 

area. The number varies each year, and during the season, depending on weather conditions, 

farming operations, and safety considerations. Twelve posts are also located on the eastern shore of 

the Peninsula Unit, connected by a mowed footpath. 

There are three accessible waterfowl hunting blinds on the Refuge. Two are located on the McNary 

Slough fee hunting area and one is on Peninsula Unit’s free hunting area. 

The Refuge runs a hunter check station, located at the McNary Headquarters Unit fee area. The 

check station provides or sells Golden Age, Golden Access, and Golden Eagle passports, season 

passes, and federal duck stamps. The check station checks in hunters, distributes permits/harvest 

cards, and assigns hunting blinds for the fee area. More importantly, the station provides general and 

specific hunting information to the public. Only hunters hunting the fee area are required to check in, 

but many hunters visit the check station to get hunting information. 

Hunting options: There is a big public relations payoff in having a variety of hunts. This system allows 

people of different abilities and inclinations to enjoy hunting that suits their needs. In a public meeting 

a few years ago, the Refuge received the message, that generally hunters like the current level of
5-10 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Table 5-2 Umatilla Refuge Unit Characterization according to Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) elements 

Ridge Boardman Islands McCormack Whitcomb Paterson 

Whitcomb Island Crow Butte Access High Low-moderate Moderate High High Moderatelow 

Low-moderate. 

Remoteness Low Low Moderate and seasonal Low- moderate Moderate High High Visual Character Moderate Low High Moderate Low Moderate High Site Management Low Low Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Social Encounters Moderate to high. Low in summer, High 

during hunting season 

High in summer, low in winter 

High Low to high, 

depending on the season 

Low High during hunt 

season, Low all other times 

Visitor Impacts Moderate Low Currently moderate but potentially high. High. Low Low Low. Regimentation Low Low Low High Low Low Low  Table 5.3 McNary Refuge Unit Characterization according to Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) elements 

Headquarters Burbank Sloughs Two Rivers Hanford Islands State -line Juniper Canyon Peninsula Wallula Foundation, Badger, Crescent 

and Strawberry 

Islands 

Madame Dorian 

Rest of Wallula 

Access High High High High Low Moderate Highmoderate. 

Seasonal. High High 

High at Strawberry. Low at other islands. 

Remoteness Low Low Low Moderate High High Moderate Low Low Moderate Visual Character 

High Moderate Moderate High High High High Low High High 

Site Management 

High Low Moderate 

– high 

Low Low Low Moderate Very 

high 

High Low 

Social Encounters 

High High High High in summer and 

hunting season. 

Low Low Moderate Very 

high 

High Low 

Visitor Impacts Moderate- high. High High Moderate, but potentially high. Low High at bottom Low at top. High High High Low – moderate. Regimentation High Low Low – moderate Low Low Low Moderate High Mod- erate Low 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-11 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

variety. Hunters may choose from either a fee waterfowl hunt or a free hunt. Fee hunting is the most 

popular, because it eliminates the uncertainty of whether a hunter will successfully secure a spot, and 

hunters value the information they gain from direct contact with Refuge staff. A description of each 

type of hunt offered is below. Table 5-4 includes some management considerations by unit for the 

waterfowl hunting program. 

 

• Fee hunt - Open three days per week during season. Offered at McNary Headquarters Unit 

slough only. During the 2004/05 season, 1,620 hunters hunted the fee area. In the 2002/03 

waterfowl hunt season when the sloughs remained unfrozen, over 2,100 hunters used the fee 

area. Access is by land only and some blinds have long walks. There is a high amount of staff 

time commitments (half of a fulltime position per year) for running the check station. Overall 

quality considered high by staff (based on bag 

averages, popularity, hunter comments, waterfowl 

abundance, and attractiveness to hunters from 

distant locations). A computerized lottery 

reservation system is used to allocate hunting 

privileges. Before the season begins, interested 

hunters apply for up to 10 specific hunt days. On 

average, a hunter applying for 10 days receives a 

reservation for one to three days of hunting, 

because there are always more hunting 

applications than days available to hunt. Hunters 

that do not receive a computerized reservation can 

go to the Refuge on the day of the hunt and try to obtain a “stand-by” blind. All hunters check in 

at the hunter check station and receive a permit prior to hunting. After the hunters with 

reservations have selected blinds, the remaining blinds are then opened to stand-by hunters. On 

average, only 7 of the 25 hunters with reservations show up. A stand-by drawing is held each 

morning and afternoon to accommodate hunters without reservations. Availability of stand-by 

spaces varies dramatically during the season. 

• Free hunt - open seven days per week during the hunting season. No Refuge permit is required. 

Available at Peninsula, Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units. The Refuge receives 

about 10,550 visits each year from hunters using this program. Land and water access are 

available at the other units. A few posts are fixed at Peninsula; in other areas, hunters are allowed 

to freely roam, but must space themselves at least 200 yards apart. Staff time commitments in 

support of this program are about one-quarter of a fulltime position per year (mainly in 

maintenance, law enforcement, and public use management), and overall quality considered by 

staff to be fair-good (based on bag averages, popularity, hunter comments, waterfowl abundance, 

and attractiveness to hunters from distant locations). 

• Youth hunt - offered one or two days each year at McNary Headquarters Unit. Reservations are 

accepted for the youth hunt in the same manner as a regular season reservations. All youth 

hunters must show proof of completion of a state hunter safety course. Adult companions are 

allowed to hunt with the youths. Hunting is free to all participants in the Youth Hunt Day. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-12 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Table 5-4. McNary Refuge’s Waterfowl Hunt Program – Unit Management Considerations 

Unit Considerations and Comments 

McNary 

Headquarters 

Fee Hunt Unit 

Low law enforcement issues. Fee hunting is very popular (the fee area always has more 

hunters than any of the other units) at both Refuges. However, administrative costs of 

running fee hunts are relatively high. Currently, the fee only covers the cost of paying a 

check station attendant and postage for mailing permits; other costs of the hunt, including 

purchase and maintenance of blinds, trail maintenance and production of hunt leaflets, is 

not covered. It’s possible to do more of the fee hunt work with volunteers, and potentially 

to give people guaranteed blind spots, in return for a certain number of hours performing 

fee hunt administration (i.e. mowing trails, manning the check station, or doing mailings). 

In contrast, law enforcement work cannot be done with volunteers. The time it takes to 

hike to the furthest blinds is a complaint heard from some hunters. 

Peninsula Unit Hunters sometimes arrive the night before and “camp” on hunt sites. It is difficult for the 

Refuge to enforce the 5:00 a.m. start time because of multiple entrance points (river and 

roadway) and minimum law enforcement staff. The camping doesn’t involve tents, 

coolers, and camp chairs, because most campers only bring sleeping bags to stay warm. 

There are more violations here than at McNary’s fee area. Pit blinds in the middle of the 

Peninsula Unit are not being used, because the geese are not there. The Refuge spends a 

lot of time and resources trying to keep it mowed, yet this work results in very little goose 

hunting opportunity. There has been discussion to eliminate mowing and increase upland 

game bird hunting there instead. Hunting may interfere with non-hunt uses on the 

Peninsula and Wallula units. Non-hunters tend to avoid the Peninsula and Wallula Units 

during hunting season. But there may not be significant demand in winter for other uses 

at these units anyway. Because of the long walk-in time, some walk-in hunters lose out to 

hunters who access the unit by boat. 

Two Rivers Some hunters think hunting at the “two islands” is some of the best hunting in the State. 

There is sometimes fierce competition for the limited hunt sites, which may decrease hunt 

quality. Only incidental goose hunting occurs. 

Burbank 

Sloughs 

Limited access has been a problem. Some of the smaller sloughs on the former Port lands 

are well known for wood duck hunting. Only incidental goose hunting occurs. 

Wallula Millet fields and new wetland developments have the potential to attract a lot of birds, but 

Refuge staff members receive complaints about overcrowding at East and West Millet 

Ponds. Some requests have been received to provide designated fixed blinds at this Unit. 

Quality may also be limited by daily hunting which keeps the pressure on birds, and 

prevents them from using Refuge wetlands. Only incidental goose hunting occurs. 

Hunters camp overnight the night before. Hunting may interfere with non-hunt uses on 

the Wallula Unit. Non-hunters tend to avoid the Wallula Unit during hunting season. But 

there may not be significant demand in winter for other uses at this unit anyway. 

Number of hunters and harvest statistics: The Refuge maintains statistics on the number of fee 

hunters. Hunters using the other units for free-roam waterfowl hunting are estimated to be about 

10,550 annually. Table 5-5 shows the number of hunters using the McNary Slough Fee Unit in each 

of the last four years. 

Harvest records dating back to 1999 show that mallards comprise between 80% and 90% of the 

ducks harvested. American widgeon, Northern shoveler, Northern pintail, and green-winged teal 

usually comprise between 1% and 4% each, of the total harvest. Gadwall, lesser scaup, wood duck, 

bufflehead, common merganser, redhead, ring-necked duck, cinnamon teal, American coot, common 

goldeneye, blue-winged teal, and ruddy duck make up the remainder. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-13

The number of hunters using the fee area rises and falls depending on duck numbers and the amount 

of time that the sloughs are frozen over. Goose hunters and their success have varied during the 

same time period as shown in Table 5-6. 

 

Table 5-5. McNary Slough Fee Unit Hunting Statistics 

 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 

Fee Hunters 1,737 1,437 1,589 1,119 

Youth Hunters 182 115 131 131 

Adult Companion 41 35 21 29 

Season Pass Hunters 154 49 176 341 

TOTALS 2,114 1,636 1,917 1,620 

Table 5-6. Success Trends, McNary Slough Fee Unit 

 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 

Ducks Harvested 3,818 2,753 3,920 3,334 

Number of Hunters 1,919 1,601 1,872 1,519 

Ducks Harvested/Hunter 1.99 1.72 2.09 2.19 

Geese Harvested 268 406 128 149 

B. Umatilla Refuge 

Overview: Waterfowl hunting is the second most popular activity on the Refuge after fishing. Fifty-six 

percent of the Refuge is open to waterfowl hunting. Closed areas include approximately half of the 

Refuge river area, including all the water around the Umatilla Islands, a portion of the Boardman 

Unit, the Kathy’s Pond area, and a portion of Whitcomb Island. Seasonal closures can occur to 

protect nesting and feeding birds. The Refuge provides both a regulated fee area and free “first 

come-first-served” waterfowl hunt areas. The majority of the hunting areas fall in the second category. 

Facilities: The McCormack Unit currently has 22 slough blinds, 11 river blinds, and 10 agricultural 

circle blinds. The number of blinds open on any given day is dependent on weather, safety 

conditions, and water levels. A hunter check station is located at the entrance to McCormack Unit, to 

provide hunters with general and specific hunting information, and the opportunity to purchase 

Federal Duck Stamps, Golden Age and Golden Eagle Passports, seasonal hunting passes, and daily 

passes to the McCormack Unit. The station checks in hunters, distributes permits/harvest cards, and 

assigns hunting blinds for the fee area. More importantly, the station provides general and specific 

hunting information to the public. Only hunters hunting the fee area are required to check in, but 

many hunters visit the check station to get hunting information. 

Hunt Options: Like McNary Refuge, Umatilla Refuge also supports a fee hunt, free hunts, and a youth 

hunt, each of these managed under a very similar system. More details about the hunts are described 

below and in Table 5-7. Nearby off-Refuge lodging and RV camping areas are frequented by 

hunters; overnight camping on the Refuge is not allowed. A few hunters do park at entrance areas at 

midnight and sleep in their cars prior to the 5:00 a.m. opening. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-14 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

• Fee hunt - Open three days/week during hunting season. Fee hunting is offered at McCormack 

Unit only. During the 2004/05 waterfowl season, 1,788 hunters used the fee area. Access is by 

land only and most blinds are easily accessed by mowed footpaths near small parking lots. Staff 

time committed to this program totals approximately half of a fulltime position per year. Overall 

hunting quality is considered high by staff (based on bag averages, popularity, hunter comments, 

waterfowl abundance, and attractiveness to hunters from distant locations). The unit provides 

diverse hunting opportunities, including: marked sites on the river shore-line; “box-type” blinds 

located on the enclosed slough (including moist soil managed areas); and agricultural fields with 

available pit blinds. About 40% of hunters hunting the fee area had reservations and hunted with 

their guests. On average, only 9 of the 25 daily reservations showed up on each hunt day. No 

hunters were denied an opportunity to hunt due to the lack of available blinds although some 

blind sites are much more productive than other sites. 

• Free hunt - Open seven days/week during hunting season at the Ridge and Boardman Units; and 

three days/week during hunting season at the Paterson and Whitcomb Units. No Refuge permit is 

required. According to fiscal year 2003 Refuge Management Information System (RMIS) data, 

15,728 hunters hunted waterfowl and upland game using this program. Land and water access 

are available at all units (but land-based hunting only, is available at Ridge Unit). Hunting 

opportunity is diverse and includes areas of river shoreline, protected river embayments, isolated 

enclosed ponds, and upland grassland and field areas. Hunters are allowed to freely roam, but 

must space themselves at least 200 yards apart. Staff time commitment in support of this program 

is approximately one-quarter of a fulltime position per year (mainly in maintenance, law 

enforcement, and recreation management). Overall hunting quality is considered by staff to be 

fair-good (based on bag averages, popularity, hunter comments, waterfowl abundance, and 

attractiveness to hunters from distant locations). 

• Youth hunt - Offered one or two days each year at McCormack Slough. Reservations are 

accepted for the youth hunts in the same manner that a regular season reservation is made. All 

youth hunters must show proof of completion of a state hunter safety course. Adult companions 

are allowed to hunt with the youths. 

Table 5-7. Umatilla Waterfowl Hunt Program – Hunt Unit Management Considerations 

Unit Considerations and Comments 

McCormack Supports the highest numbers of hunters compared with other Umatilla units. Because 

of the check-in procedures and increased regulations, law enforcement issues are 

minimal compared to other units. At McCormack, the Heritage Trail passes very close 

to several duck blinds and there are safety issues. A concept plan for the trail calls for 

closure of the trail during the hunting season, but counties want it open all year. The 

Refuge has made some recent infrastructure improvements (bridge, openings, and 

signage) on the current trail, but safety issues remain nonetheless. Another issue 

involving the trail, is in regards to the County’s interest in creating an alternative 55-

mph highway route to fulfill evacuation needs from the nearby nerve gas depot. The 

County is looking at an old highway path (County-owned) and a road on the southern 

border of McCormack. The Federal government’s flowage easement on everything 

under an elevation of 267’ may restrict this development. The only other current 

impasse to vehicle passage on the old highway is the bridge recently built by the Refuge.

If using and staying on the old highway, two wetland areas (submerged) as well as the 

footpath bridge create “impasse to vehicle passage.” The trail could be closed 

seasonally as winter use is limited. 

Paterson Considered the best waterfowl hunting of all units on the Washington side. Much of the 

back areas of Paterson are deep and are more difficult for retrieval than the points and 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-15

Unit Considerations and Comments 

outer portions of bays. The unit has clean clear water with sandy bottoms. The long 

shorelines of the internal bays are not hunted as much as the points. The Refuge could 

color-code fixed hunt posts to diminish competition between boaters and walk-in 

hunters. The best spots are the points, which the boaters, having an advantage, 

generally get to first. A couple hunting posts for the walk-in hunters could be reserved. 

Whitcomb Considered good for shoreline ducks but the focus is more on field hunting for goose. 

The area between Crow Butte and Whitcomb Island is not very popular for hunting, as 

the boat access is average to poor. Very good land access is available to Whitcomb 

Island proper. 

Ridge Only shoreline hunting was allowed until two years ago, when the entire unit was 

opened. The unit provides river shoreline duck hunting, and goose pass shooting (from 

both river shoreline and higher rock ridges). Access is by land and boat, but hunters 

must be on the land to shoot. The area is not easily accessible by boat. Hunting quality 

is good. Few hunters use this unit, possibly because the unit used to be a designated 

sanctuary. When the unit was closed, there was a lot of pass shooting. After the unit 

was opened, waterfowl used the unit less (they use island areas more heavily now) and 

pass shooting declined. Law enforcement is disbursed and harder to do. 

Boardman The unit provides river shoreline duck (and some goose) hunting. Access is by land and 

boat. Land access is considered average and boat access very good. 

Harvest Statistics: The Refuge maintains statistics on the number of fee hunters. Hunters using the 

other units for free-roam waterfowl hunting are estimated. Table 5-8 shows the number of hunters 

using the McCormack Fee Unit in each of the last 11 hunting seasons. The number of hunters using 

the unit has approximately doubled in that time period. The number of geese harvested remained 

fairly steady, while the number of ducks harvested has shown dramatic annual fluctuations but a 

generally rising trend. 

 

Of the ducks harvested, records dating back to the last three seasons show that mallards comprise 

between 65% and 80% of all ducks taken. Green-winged teal, is the next most harvested species, 

comprising about 6%-12% of all ducks taken each year. The Northern pintail, American widgeon, 

gadwall, bufflehead, and Northern shoveler ducks usually comprise between 1% and 6% of the 

harvest each. Scaup (greater or lesser), wood duck, merganser (common or hooded), redhead, ringnecked duck, cinnamon teal, American coot, goldeneye, blue-winged teal, canvasback and ruddy 

ducks make up the remainder. 

Table 5-8. McCormack Fee Unit: Number of Ducks and Geese Taken the Last 11 Seasons 

1994/

95 

1995/

96 

1996/

97 

1997/

98 

1998/

99 

1999/

00 

2000/

01 

2001/

02 

2002/

03 

2003/

04 

2004/

05 

hunters 1,580 1,661 2,041 2,224 2,104 1,918 2,236 2,357 2,089 1,971 1,788

ducks 2,729 3,547 1,678 3,831 3,801 2,885 4,596 4,011 3,243 3,216 2,531

geese 229 207 399 232 225 226 217 204 220 319 228

C. Waterfowl Hunting Program Desired Future Conditions 

In preparation for writing objectives for the public use program, the CCP team brainstormed desired 

future conditions for each of the major public use programs at the Refuges. Following is the list of 

desired future conditions for the hunting programs. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-16 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

 

Ethical 

Kid-friendly 

No unnecessary competition for blinds 

Blinds spaced properly 

Plentiful game 

Clean area 

Simplified regulations 

Meets population management objectives 

Safe 

Range of accessibility options 

Increased appreciation for wildlife 

Adequate sanctuary 

Sufficient opportunity (chances to hunt, not 

necessarily success) 

5.4 Upland Bird/Small Game Hunting 

A. McNary Refuge 

Areas open: Upland hunting is allowed on all the units except Strawberry Island, McNary 

Headquarters Unit in wetlands 3 and 4 (formerly Burbank Slough Units 3 and 4), the Iverson area 

south of the fee hunt area, the Dudley Pond area, Sanctuary Pond, and the islands that are otherwise 

closed to hunting. 

Number of visits: Upland game hunting is a popular activity at McNary Refuge. Approximately 2,625 

visits are made to the Refuge each year for upland bird or small game hunting. 

Hunt Program: Only upland birds are permissible to take at McNary Headquarters Unit. On other 

units all upland game, including rabbits, raccoons, chukar, and turkeys are technically permissible to 

shoot. Non-toxic shot is required for all upland species. 

On the McNary fee area, the upland bird hunting starts at noon. On the other units, upland game 

hunting regulations are the same as the State’s, without additional Refuge regulations. Pheasant 

hunters are not required to check in or obtain a permit. 

Currently, pheasants are planted by WDFW on the Wallula and Peninsula Units to supplement existing 

game bird populations. Pheasant releases to support the hunt programs on these former habitat 

management units have occurred for over 20 years. There is no cost to the Refuge for the released 

birds. The program is popular, especially for parents with youth hunters. 

Management Considerations: On occasion, (typically opening weekend only) upland bird hunts can 

conflict with waterfowl hunts partly because of space (hunters competing for similar areas to shoot) 

and partly because of the disturbances created for each other. This appears to be an occasional 

problem throughout the McNary Fee Unit. Space competition with waterfowl hunters is not much of 

an issue at Two Rivers. 

Pheasant hunting is more tied to grass and forbs cover. The Peninsula Unit offers some of the best 

hunting. The Two Rivers Unit used to have good grass cover, but lost some to the construction of a 

mitigation pond, and other areas became degraded during a Highway 12 expansion project. 

Releases of nonnative animals are currently discouraged under NWRS policy. The presence of birds 

encourages more hunters and may add to overcrowding. At the same time, the pheasant release 

program can increase hunter satisfaction as more hunters harvest birds. At McNary, pheasant 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-17

releases seem to encourage more family groups to hunt the Refuge. The program receives heavy 

praise from local hunting clubs who provide hundreds of hours of volunteer service to the Refuge, and 

is also valued by the Refuge Complex because it retains a cooperative program with WDFW. 

Harvest Statistics: Data is not available. 

B. Umatilla Refuge 

Areas Open: All areas on both Refuges are open to upland game bird hunting except for the 

sanctuary area east of Paterson Ferry road on Umatilla, Umatilla’s islands, the area west of 

agricultural circle 1 at Umatilla, and a portion of the Boardman Unit 

Number of visits: Upland Game bird hunting for pheasant and quail is a popular pursuit during the 

State’s fall and early winter hunting season, with an estimated 1,400 visits per year for this activity. 

Hunt Program: Fees and permits are not required for any of the units except McCormack, where 

reservations are required for opening weekend due to its popularity. Only 25 reservations are 

allowed for opening weekend; each reservation hunter may bring one guest. On this weekend, each 

hunter is charged $5.00 each at the hunter check station. After the first weekend, 50 free permits are 

placed outside the hunter check station each day. During the 2004/05 season an average of eight 

hunters participated in upland game bird hunting on the McCormack Unit. Opening weekend was 

the most popular, followed by the next three weekends. After the first few hunting weekends, hunter 

numbers dramatically dropped, especially for the mid-week hunts. This was primarily due to most of 

the easily accessible birds being harvested. All the upland bird hunts at Umatilla Refuge start at noon. 

Facilities: No additional facilities are required to maintain this program. Pheasant hunters are 

accommodated at the same check station that waterfowl hunters use. 

Management Considerations: Space competition with waterfowl hunters is not much of an issue at 

Umatilla as upland bird hunters primarily use the edges of field circles. 

The current number of reservations allowed at McCormack appears to be too many, because there is 

not enough space to safely accommodate the number of hunters. A large turnout occurs opening 

weekend and hunters end up attempting to harvest the same birds. However, crowding is rarely a 

problem on other weekends or weekdays. 

Whitcomb Island is currently open for dove hunting as are the Ridge and Paterson Units. The 

McCormack Unit is closed to dove hunting. 

Harvest Statistics: The number of hunters and pheasants or quail taken for each of the last five 

harvest seasons are presented in Table 5-9. 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-18 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Table 5-9. Upland Bird Harvest at McCormack Fee Unit, 2000 through 2005. 

 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 

Total Hunters 261 288 296 338 285

Total Pheasants Harvested 47 41 51 65 93

Pheasants per Hunter 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.33

Total California Quail 72 179 181 205 136

Quail per Hunter 0.28 0.62 0.61 0.67 .0.48

C. Upland Hunting Program Desired Future Conditions 

The desired future conditions for the upland game hunting program are the same as those described 

for the waterfowl hunt program. 

5.5 Big Game Hunting 

A. McNary Refuge 

Areas Open: The McNary units open to deer hunting include Wallula, Stateline, and Juniper Canyon. 

On very rare occasions elk are also harvested. 

Number of Visits: Unknown. 

Hunt Program: Hunters in the three units may use shotgun slugs only during the general season. 

Archery is open as well on the Wallula Unit, but not on the Stateline or Juniper Canyon Units. 

Facilities: No facilities are maintained or managed expressly for this program. 

Management Considerations: Good deer population information is lacking although the population 

is highest at Wallula. Managers have noted considerable damage from deer browsing on planted 

trees and shrubs. 

There is a potential for conflict with anglers at Wallula because the big game hunting and steelhead 

fishing seasons overlap. The archery closure on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units may not be 

necessary. 

There is a need to make State and Refuge regulations consistent and to develop clear tear sheets for 

the deer hunt program. 

 

Harvest Statistics: Unknown. 

B. Umatilla Refuge 

The Refuge expanded the deer hunt to reduce a herd that had been largely untouched over the years, 

with the exception of some poaching and a small hunting program on the Refuge units in Washington. 

The program was expanded in 1997 to the Oregon side of the river. At that time, the population 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-19

estimate on McCormack was 400 animals. The goal was to try to reduce damage to native species of 

willows, cottonwoods, and other browse. The hunt is currently managed primarily for population 

control on both sides of the river. Formerly, deer hunting was not allowed on Refuge lands on the 

Oregon side; the Washington side was open during the general season. The Umatilla Refuge’s Public 

Uses EA (1996) opened permit-only hunting for the Refuge’s Washington and Oregon units. 

Areas Open: Umatilla units open to deer hunting include: McCormack, Paterson, and Whitcomb. 

Closed areas include the Ridge and Islands Units and portions of the Boardman Unit. 

Number of Visits: In 2004 a total of 48 permits were issued to hunt on Umatilla Refuge: 38 in 

Oregon and 10 in Washington. The number of permits issued each year may vary depending on 

deer populations and deer browse damage to native plants. 

Hunt Program: Hunters apply for the deer hunting tags through either the ODFW or WDFW. Hunters 

chosen for tags are permitted to hunt on scheduled days in a specific Refuge unit. Only shotguns or 

muzzle loaders are allowed. Archery and modern firearms are not permitted. At the McCormack 

Unit, hunters meet for an orientation on the first morning of the hunt. They are also given harvest 

cards and must report their harvests to the Refuge. 

Special youth-only hunts are offered as part of the deer hunts in Oregon and Washington. 

Facilities: No facilities are maintained or managed expressly for this program. 

Management Considerations: Since 1996, McCormack Unit had several hunts for deer, generally 

with each hunt lasting five days. Generally, there are a youth hunt and 2 adult doe seasons. Initially, 

80 permits were issued, with between 15 and 20 permits issued for each hunt. During the youth hunts 

fewer tags are issued. 

The number of tags issued per hunt has varied over the years since 1997. Early on, the number of 

tags issued was relatively high, because there were concerns about the impact deer populations were 

having on habitat. The types of hunts such as “antlerless only,” or hunts specifically for youths will not 

change. The types of deer hunts to be held include: antlerless only (for youth hunts), two additional 

antlerless only and one “any deer” hunt. 

The State has requested that the Service try to not change the type or number of hunts, however, 

changing the number of tags allowed per hunt would be acceptable to the State. The number of 

permits issued for all the hunts would be subject to change annually, depending on management 

needs. The Refuge Complex’s public use manager has requested lowering the number of hunters per 

hunt, but creating more hunts to spread hunters out more and increase hunter safety. This would 

provide more recreational opportunity. All hunts would have to be scheduled before waterfowl 

hunting season starts. 

Even though deer hunting has occurred for nine years, there’s been no limited visible improvement in 

upland shrub conditions at McCormack Unit. 

Harvest Statistics: Not summarized in this draft. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-20 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

5.6 Fishing 

With their lengthy shorelines, abundant reservoir space, and diverse river, slough, and wetland 

habitats, the Refuges provide opportunities for anglers to try their hand at catching everything from 

enormous wild Chinook salmon to stocked trout. Fishing continues to be one of the most popular 

activities for visitors at both McNary and Umatilla Refuges. In fact, more visits are made to the 

Refuges for fishing than for any other use. This diversity of fishing opportunity is a plus for the 

Refuges. 

A. McNary Refuge 

Number of Visits: Staff estimates that 16,750 fishing visits occur annually at the Refuge. Those who 

use the Refuge for fishing are more culturally diverse than any other group using the Refuge. There 

are recent refugees from a variety of countries, tourists from other parts of the State, as well as families 

born and raised in the Tri-Cities. 

Facilities: The Refuge has two accessible fishing piers. The larger and more popular of the two is 

located on the Two Rivers Unit at Quarry Pond. The second and smaller one is located on the 

Wallula Unit at the boat launch. It enables visitors with disabilities to fish the Walla Walla River. Two 

boat launches are also managed by the Refuge. One is a large launch at the southern end of the 

Peninsula Unit which allows boats to launch into Casey Pond and travel out into the Columbia River. 

The launch and parking area has capacity for approximately 30 boats with trailers or 55 cars. The 

boat launch is a main access to the river, but because the waters surrounding it are shallow, there are 

limits on the size of boats that can use this launch. The second boat launch is located at the Wallula 

Unit, and accesses the Walla Walla River. There is also a small unimproved boat launch on the Two 

Rivers Unit near the old school house. The boat launches support boating associated with the fishing 

program, boating that takes place in conjunction with hunting, and boating that occurs for 

nonwildlife-dependent recreation. 

Fishing options: Bass are the primary species sought by anglers, though many visitors fish for walleye, 

sturgeon, crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, bullheads, salmon, and steelhead. There are abundant 

bank fishing opportunities as well as opportunities for deep-water fishing from boats. 

Three to five fishing tournaments per year occur on McNary Refuge, and in off-Refuge waters near 

Casey Pond. The tournaments attract “big name” bass fishermen. The Refuge and some of its staff 

recently appeared on ESPN, a television sports channel, as part of the coverage of a bass fishing 

tournament. The Refuge also appeared in a special on ESPN on National Wildlife Refuges. 

Fishing is popular at Quarry Pond on the Two Rivers Unit, supported in this location by a stocking 

program. This is the only place on the Refuge that WDFW stocks fish. Stocking has occurred for 

many years, including during the years when the Corps managed the land. The main user groups at 

Quarry Pond are youths, families, and the elderly. The Refuge partners with the Blue Mountain Bass 

Fisherman’s Group. 

The Walla Walla River supports a popular catfish fishery, which is allowed 24 hours a day because the 

best time to fish for catfish is at night. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-21

Management Considerations: Even though anglers comprise the largest number of Refuge visitors, 

many who come to fish are probably unaware that they are even on a Refuge because the use is 

somewhat dispersed and not directly managed or regulated by the Refuge staff. There is an 

opportunity for enhancing communications with the fishing population, to disseminate greater 

information to these users about the Refuge and Refuge System in general, and to create a greater 

awareness of the good fishing spots. Fishing locations need to be defined and mapped, and this 

information made available to the public. 

Bass fishing at McNary Headquarters Unit wetland 4 presents a safety and liability issue because there 

is no easy or safe way to access the key fishing spot at that location, which is at the water control 

structure on Lake Road (county road). The Refuge and Friends have met with County Commissioners 

several times to discuss the issue. This use only occurs for one month with approximately 12 people 

using it. 

Stocking nonnative fish, such as occurs at Quarry Pond, is strongly discouraged under Service policy. 

The Refuge has made a commitment to maintain current activities pertaining to fishing and stocking 

fish at Quarry Pond, at least until the CCP is completed. The program does not currently cost the 

Refuge anything as the State does the stocking. Other factors to be considered: Quarry Pond is 1-2 

acres in size and it is isolated from the river; the program serves youth and minority communities; and 

the program has a long history and is extremely popular. 

B. Umatilla Refuge 

Number of Visits: It is estimated there are over 20,000 fishing associated visits to Umatilla Refuge 

annually. The majority of these visits occur on the Columbia River, where numerous boat launches 

give visitors access to Refuge waters. There are currently no restrictions on public use hours or types 

of water craft used on the Columbia River portion of the Refuge. 

Facilities: Of the seven boat launches in the Refuge’s vicinity, two are located on the Refuge. There 

are three nearby off-Refuge public boat launches available on the Oregon side, including launches at 

the Boardman and Irrigon marinas, and one provided by the Corps just east of the McCormack Unit. 

A total of four more boat launches are available on the Washington shoreline. There is a paved 

launching facility at Crow Butte Park near the west boundary of the Refuge, as well as primitive gravel 

launches located on both the Ridge and Paterson Units, and one more on Corps land located 

between those units. 

Fishing Options: Fishing tournaments for bass and walleye are popular events for local communities. 

Most are small club events with less than a dozen boats participating. At least two are open 

tournaments sponsored by local Chamber of Commerce groups. These bigger tournaments 

sometimes involve over 100 participants and have sizable cash prizes. 

Special Use Permits are issued for tournaments held on Refuge waters, and special provisions assist 

with minimizing wildlife disturbances. In the past two years, there has been a steady increase in the 

number of special use permits requested by outside organization. 

Management Considerations: There is a growing number of fishing tournaments. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-22 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

C. Desired Future Conditions for the Fishing Program 

Adequate sanctuary 

Minimal disturbance 

Safe 

Fun 

Adequate fish resource 

Range of accessibility 

Ample opportunity 

Meets scientific management objectives 

Partnerships/public involvement in program (help with management) 

Fish species present not detrimental 

More pristine fisheries resource 

Increased appreciation for resource 

Minimizes impact to other wildlife resources 

5.7 Wildlife Viewing and Photography 

A. McNary Refuge 

 

Number of Visits: 

Facilities: The McNary Refuge’s Environmental 

Education Center has an exterior deck with two 

permanently mounted telescopes. Even when 

the Center is closed, the public can use the 

scopes to view wildlife on nearby ponds. An 

accessible paved trail leads from the Center to 

an accessible wildlife viewing and photography 

blind located on the slough 1,800 feet from the 

Center. For the more adventurous, a 2.1-mile 

interpretive trail and several short side trails off 

the main trail are available for bird watching. 

Viewing and Photography Options: In addition to the viewing opportunities from the designated 

facilities mentioned above, informal wildlife viewing and photography is also available from all of the 

open Refuge roads and trails. Viewing is popular with Audubon Society members at the Walla Walla 

Delta where shorebirds congregate during migration. The Wallula Unit also attracts people looking 

for deer, riparian birds, and shorebirds. Bighorn sheep and raptors can be seen at the 

Stateline/Juniper Canyon Units. Professional, commercial photographers currently use the Refuge; 

and are required to obtain a Special Use Permit. 

Management Considerations: Access to the Walla Walla Delta or good viewing points for viewing 

shorebirds there is problematic; there is currently a passage under the highway but not under the 

railroad tracks. The railroad is amenable to an underpass, but this type of work is expensive. For 

example, the pass under the railroad that was created for access to the Columbia Gorge Interpretive 

Center cost approximately $1.2 million dollars. Universal design should be incorporated for all new 

visitor services projects. 

At Burbank Slough, the trail needs to be closer to the water for better viewing opportunities. Some 

professional photographers dislike the blind at McNary Slough, which was not built solely for 

photography. There is a potential to allow photographers to use the fee area (which is closed to 

public use outside of hunting season) for better photography opportunities for a fee. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-23

B. Umatilla Refuge 

Number of Visits: Over 25,000 annually 

Facilities: The designated auto tour route on McCormack Unit was designed in part to allow high 

quality viewing opportunities. The three-mile loop allows visitors to see wetlands and croplands 

maintained for waterfowl food, native shrub-steppe areas, and wildlife. Only vehicles are permitted 

on the auto tour route; pedestrians are not allowed to use it as a trail. Pedestrian visitors may use the 

Heritage Trail on McCormack Unit. Portions of the trail elevated on an earthen dike within the 

wetlands of McCormack Slough, allow for particularly good wildlife viewing. There are no existing 

photography blinds on the Refuge, but several pull-outs and overlooks along the auto tour route and 

along highway 14 provide good quality sites to see and photograph wildlife. 

Viewing and Photography Options: In addition to the viewing from the pull-outs and overlooks, 

informal wildlife viewing or photography is also available from anywhere along Umatilla Refuge’s 15 

miles of public roads. Umatilla Refuge continues to attract a lot of attention from the wildlife watching 

public. The Refuge is open from dawn to dusk every day. It is a popular destination with local and 

out-of town birders because of the great diversity of habitats and wildlife species. Walking trails, auto 

routes and special events, such as Curlew Day, are popular with wildlife watchers and photographers. 

Waterfowl concentrations and the mule deer herd on McCormack Slough account for many Refuge 

visits. On McCormack Unit, pedestrians are not allowed off trail or off the auto tour route to view 

wildlife, but on other units, pedestrians may wander at will. 

 

Management Considerations: Disabled access may be an area to improve. 

C. Experiences Provided through the Wildlife Viewing Program 

According to a recent handbook on wildlife viewing (Manfredo 2002) “people choose to participate in 

a particular recreation activity and a specific setting in order to attain certain desired psychological 

outcomes or satisfactions (experiences).” This seems particularly true in the case of wildlife viewing. 

Wildlife viewing provides a less tangible outcome to the visitor than hunting, fishing, or even 

environmental education. The benefits from the wildlife viewing program are primarily psychological, 

while the other programs also can provide a more concrete benefit in the form of food or school 

credits. To better understand how the wildlife viewing program provides these psychological 

outcomes, the Refuge staff listed some of the current reasons people come to view and photograph 

wildlife and the potential psychological outcomes. These are presented in Table 5-10. 

Table 5-10. Experiences Provided by the Wildlife Viewing Program. 

Reasons People Visit the Refuges to View Wildlife The “Experience” or “Satisfaction” Gained * 

To spend a few hours outside Easily accessible natural setting 

To see what kinds of birds they can see Experience of diversity 

Come to see how the birds change through the 

seasons 

Experience of seasonal change 

For the open space and to get out of the urban 

environment 

Experiencing a natural environment 

They come for a short retreat close to their homes Renewal, relaxation easily accessible 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-24 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Reasons People Visit the Refuges to View Wildlife The “Experience” or “Satisfaction” Gained * 

To walk, especially at Two Rivers and Burbank Slough Exercise 

For the safe environment Freedom from fear 

For the wetlands experience Experience of water and concentrated 

wildlife 

At Umatilla, some say “I just came down to see the 

deer.” 

A bond with certain species 

To scout for ducks in advance of their hunting trip. Preparation for other outdoor activities 

Some specifically to take photographs Practicing a hobby, creating memories/art 

Some because they try to visit every Refuge in the 

nation 

Refuge System loyalists 

Some use the Auto Tour Route at Umatilla specifically 

because they can’t navigate rough surfaces 

To find accessible recreation 

Frequently see couples, parents/kids or 

grandparents/kids 

Relationships and bonding/traditions 

handed down 

Many Scouts and birding groups are regular visitors. 

In addition the Refuges get lots of unscheduled class 

visits. 

Learning experiences/identification with a 

larger community 

*NOTE: most people probably come to fulfill many experiences but only one is chosen for each row to illustrate the diversity 

of experiences provided by the wildlife viewing and photography program. 

D. Desired Future Conditions for the Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Program 

Wildlife Observation 

Adequate sanctuary, minimal disturbance 

Access to quality habitats 

Increased appreciation for wildlife 

Personal life-changing experiences 

Range of accessibility 

Quality facilities 

Promotes Service messages 

Large concentrations of watchable wildlife 

Photography 

Adequate sanctuary, minimal disturbance 

Quality facility (clean, access to viewable wildlife) 

Good photo opportunities 

Range of accessibility 

Refuge photo files filled with great photos 

Educational (written materials available) 

 

5.8 Environmental Education 

A. McNary Refuge 

Number of Visitors: The environmental education program at McNary provides programs to over 

3,500 students and adults annually. 

Facilities: The key facility used is the McNary Environmental Education Center. The Center is housed 

in a former residential building. The residence has been adapted into offices and a small nature 

center. The Center is used by Refuge staff, volunteers and the Friends of Mid-Columbia River 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-25

Environmental Education Program Details: A small but very active Friends Group, supported by 

grants, runs the education program, with some assistance from the local chapter of the Audubon 

Society and Refuge staff. Students from local schools participate in nature walks, hands-on science 

activities, and educational curriculum developed by Refuge volunteers and staff. Most of the students 

are in grades 3 and 4 and the Center and surrounding lands support classes of 60 students each 

twice a week. The majority of classes visit the Refuge 

between April and June although the Center has at least 

one different class visiting each month of the year. 

The Refuge also accommodates general tours and 

assists scout groups in achieving their badge 

requirements. Hours of operation for the Center vary 

seasonally. In general, volunteers staff the Center from 

9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 

Saturdays throughout most of the year. During the busy 

spring months the Center remains open five days a week 

for school and community groups. 

Management Considerations: Strong demand for the environmental education program continues, 

and there is enough demand to offer a class four or five days per week. However, volunteers are 

limited although some volunteers devote a significant amount of their time to the program. 

Recruitment of additional volunteers to facilitate the program remains an on-going concern. Certain 

facility upgrades, including a wet lab, and improved parking are needed. Regular evaluations from 

classes are needed to understand opportunities to improve the program. Suggestions have been 

made at the Regional level to expand the program beyond the McNary Headquarters Unit proper to 

other units, but other units’ present issues with safety and access. 

B. Umatilla Refuge 

Number of Visitors: Under 150 per year. 

Facilities: There are no designated facilities for environmental education at this Refuge, but limited 

activities take place on the McCormack Unit. 

Program Descriptions: The Refuge occasionally hosts field trips and class visits by local junior and 

senior high schools. Refuge assistance is provided on request for groups with special needs or 

interests. 

Management Considerations: None identified. 

C. Desired Future Conditions for the Environmental Education Program 

Adequate sanctuary for wildlife 

Minimal disturbance to wildlife 

Quality programs that minimize staff requirement 

Professional, aimed at right target, with right message 

Hands-on experience 

Meet State requirements 

Partnerships, volunteers 

Teacher training 

Increased knowledge/understanding of 

Refuge resources 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-26 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Promote Service messages Aesthetically pleasing 

5.9 Interpretation 

Both Refuges provide brochures and signs at 

key visitor contact locations. The Refuge 

Complex also maintains a website 

(www.fws.gov/midcolumbiariver) where current 

information can be obtained at any time. 

However, except for the fee hunt areas, Refuge 

staffing is extremely limited. 

A. McNary Refuge 

Several events occur regularly that provide 

opportunities for the public to learn more 

about wildlife and the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge Day is held each 

October to celebrate the Refuge System. Volunteers and Refuge staff present programs and 

demonstrations. The annual event features a morning bird walk, slide show, native plant talks, 

falconry demonstrations, fire equipment demonstrations, and several hands-on science stations for 

children. 

 

“Second Saturdays” is a monthly event in which the Environmental Education Center hosts special 

speakers, activities, walks, and exhibits for the general public. Topics for the 2004 season included 

native plants, water insects, amphibians, Lewis and Clark history, animal bones identification, duck 

stamp collecting, hunting and fishing information/demonstrations, and duck banding. 

The Refuge also hosts a variety of popular educational programs on weekends and evenings including 

Women in the Outdoors, night time bat and owl walks, evening nature safaris, birding classes, and 

flint knapping demonstrations. Another event, Greenwing Day, included demonstrations on duck 

identification and banding, duck calling, bird identification, and a retrieving dog demonstration. 

The McNary Environmental Education Center is the main focus for Refuge interpretation, but it is not a 

staffed facility. Signed interpretive sites are located at Wallula Unit overlooking Sanctuary Pond and 

on the nature trail at the McNary Headquarters Unit. 

B. Umatilla

There is no visitor center or regularly staffed visitor contact station on Umatilla Refuge. One 

interpretive overlook is located on the Ridge Unit and two are located on the McCormack Unit. 

Each fall during National Wildlife Refuge Week, an event is held on the Refuge to celebrate the 

Refuge System. An evening hay ride is provided annually by Refuge staff and the Refuge’s cooperative 

farmer to view wildlife within areas normally closed to the public, learn about the local ecology and 

history, and learn about techniques of wildlife habitat management. The hay ride is a great 

opportunity for the public to learn about the Refuge and for the staff to meet the public. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-27

Curlew Day has been held on most years to celebrate the return of the long-billed curlew to the 

Refuge. The birds migrate to the Refuge to mate and nest each spring on or about March 15. To 

celebrate this "messenger of spring," Refuge staff members set up binoculars and information tables 

along areas of the McCormack Unit and assist the public with spotting curlews and learning more 

about these unusual birds. Walking tours are also made available. 

5.10 Nonwildlife-Dependent Recreation 

A. Recreational Boating, Waterskiing, Swimming, and Beach Use 

Pleasure boating using motor boats, jet skis (also known as personal watercraft), and canoes or 

kayaks are popular activities on the Columbia River during the warmer months. Most of the pleasure 

boating is concentrated near boat launches bordering Refuge waters. Facilities used for this activity 

are discussed under 5.6 Fishing. Waterskiing, swimming, and beach use also occur during the warm 

months, especially along some beaches located on Refuge islands. 

McNary: Boating, waterskiing, swimming and beach use is especially popular adjacent to Strawberry 

Island on the Snake River. Some activity occurs along the main stem Columbia River along Peninsula 

Unit and Two Rivers Units, however, high winds cause safety issues in this location. Nonmotorized 

boating on the Refuges has become increasingly popular especially in the last 10 years. On Wallula 

Unit, canoeing is popular from the parking area to the old rail trestle. The Refuge does not have firm 

numbers on the number of visits made to the Refuges solely for pleasure boating, waterskiing, 

swimming, or beach use. 

Strawberry Islands Management Considerations: There is a great deal of boat use and waterskiing in 

the river on either side of Strawberry Island and some of the boaters come ashore to use the beaches 

at Strawberry Island. The Service was conveyed jurisdiction over the island “both above and below 

the ordinary high water line of 339.4.” Officially, the Strawberry Islands are closed because they are 

designated as a national historic site and as a sanctuary for wildlife. However, because of fluctuating 

pool levels, beaches exposed at low water experience unregulated use. The Refuge has posted 

closure signs at the top of the beach, where the banks rise steeply. The signs and steep banks 

discourage trespassing onto the upland areas. However, the Refuge lacks the funds and law 

enforcement staff needed to adequately enforce closure of the fluctuating boundary associated with 

pool levels and boating/beach use. 

A deer herd uses the island for fawning and coyotes have been observed on the island along with 

bald eagles roosting in winter. Hawks nest on power lines on the island. It is unknown to what extent 

boat use on the river, or beach use directly on the island, causes disturbance to wildlife or habitat, 

though some direct effects have been documented. Several years ago, a campfire got out of control 

and burned a portion of the island. 

Rip-rap is placed on the north and east sides of the Strawberry Islands to protect them from erosion. 

Long ago there was interest in developing an interpretive program–there is a boardwalk that was 

constructed for the purpose. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-28 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

McNary Islands Management Considerations: Foundation and Badger Islands are closed at all times. 

Crescent Island is open to hunting but closed at other times of the year. The closure on Foundation 

and Badger extends a quarter-mile into the water during hunting season. These closures are self 

regulating partly because wind makes it hazardous to venture out to the islands, and the closures are 

well known by hunters, who police each other. Summertime use has not been an issue on the islands. 

Umatilla: The Umatilla Islands and surrounding waters are under a winter sanctuary closure during 

waterfowl hunting season. During summer, recreational boating occurs on navigable waters adjacent 

to the islands. In addition, limited parts of the islands (east end of West Blalock Island and the east 

end of Big Sand Dune Island) are managed as seasonally open to the public (July 1-September 30). 

These areas were originally mapped as “recreation use” in the General Plan for Umatilla Refuge (U.S. 

DOA et al. 1968) and the public has used these as recreational beaches since. These portions of 

Blalock and East Sand Dune Islands were transferred to the Service to manage in 1995. The tip of 

Crow Butte is open for beach use as well. All other portions of the Umatilla Islands are closed to 

public use. The total number of visits for recreational boating, waterskiing, swimming, or beach use is 

not known, but in 1996, this form of recreation was estimated to comprise 9.3% of total Refuge visits 

(US DOI 1996). The Refuge also estimated at that time that 61% of the nonfishing-oriented boating 

occurred between June 1 and September 30. 

Umatilla Islands Management Considerations: The Service and the Department of the Interior have 

both concluded that sufficient legal authority exists for the Service to regulate activities on the 

Columbia River within the Refuge (U.S. DOI 1994, USFWS 1991). The Umatilla Refuge’s Public Use 

Management Plan and Environment Assessment, signed in 1996, closed the islands and established 

buffer zones limiting use around the islands, citing local observations of disturbance to various 

waterbirds including pelicans, osprey, and broods of goose (Kronner 1989). However, since that 

time, a deliberate decision was made to designate public use sites and allow the public to continue to 

use the three beach areas. The beaches on the east end of Blalock Island are right off the deep 

channel (not under Service jurisdiction) where most of the waterskiing occurs and water-skiers are 

attracted to the beaches by virtue of their location. 

Closure signs located above the beaches need improvement, more are needed and many have been 

overcome by overgrown indigo. There are other, generally smaller, beaches on the Umatilla Islands 

that remain closed. There is less pressure from the public on these islands than on Strawberry Island; 

however, there is some trespass into the closed areas. People also walk on the sand dune used by 

swallows. The Refuge observes signs of frequent campfires and fireworks. There has been no recent 

fire but there is a potential for it, although sand could mitigate against its spread. The Refuge 

maintains cooperative agreements with neighboring county sheriffs and the State of Washington to 

assist with law enforcement, but law enforcement and outreach staff are still spread very thin. Wildlife 

uses on the Islands are detailed under the Islands conservation target in Chapter 4. 

B. Camping 

A free campground is located on the Wallula Unit on McNary Refuge. The Madam Dorion 

Campground has potable water, vault toilets, picnic tables, a trash dumpster, a grassy area for 

pitching tents, and a gravel area for recreational vehicle parking. The upper and lower areas of the 

campground can hold approximately 25 camping parties on a first come-first served basis. The 

campground is used primarily during the warm weather months and during the waterfowl hunting 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-29

season. The permanent restroom vault toilets are pumped out two to three times per year and the 

seasonal port-a-let is cleaned out weekly. Picnic tables, fire rings, and a toilet are located at the 

upper parking area near the boat ramp on the Walla Walla River. 

The McNary Master Plan land use designation for Madam Dorion Park was as an “intensive use” 

recreation area (McNary Master Plan, 1964 update). 

Management Considerations: According to the 2000 Corps/Service agreement (see Section 1.6B), 

the Service is obligated “to ensure that Madame Dorian Park and all facilities thereon shall continue 

to be operated and maintained as a day-use and overnight camping recreation area at the same level 

of service or better than currently provided. The Service shall be responsible for all costs associated 

with operations and maintenance...Reasonable fees may be charged for entrance to or use of 

facilities at Madame Dorion Park.” Camping at Madame Dorion supports fishing and hunting, but is 

not limited to support of these wildlife-dependent uses. During fishing season there are 10-15 RVs on 

the river and another 12 tents and RVs near the road. Two Scout groups of 50-60 scouts camp here 

annually. The Service currently has a cooperative agreement with the Scouts. 

A large vagrant population camps here in the summer. Vandalism and social problems affect this site 

more than all other Refuge sites combined. The Refuge would like to change this site to a day use 

area only because, alternative commercial camping areas exist close by, and day-use only would 

reduce impacts from campers to the riparian habitat, reduce constant and reoccurring law 

enforcement issues, excessive household and commercial dumping, and the abundance of illegal 

activities that occur including drug activities. 

The campground was an approved fee site under the Recreation Fee Demo program, but is not 

managed as a fee site. Managing it as a fee site would allow the Refuge to recoup some costs of 

maintenance. However, some facilities need extensive upgrading. There is concern that the amount 

of fees that could be collected would not be enough to cover the cost of maintenance. Maintenance 

costs include maintaining a dump station and filter system for campsites as well as garbage and 

janitorial services. Local Youth Conservation Corps crews have helped with maintenance. 

Desired Future Conditions for the Madame Dorian Area: 

Day use only 

Clean 

Maintain clean restroom facilities sufficient to meet 

needs (i.e. sufficiently sized boat ramp) 

Promotes Refuge message 

Riparian restoration 

Maintain boat launch facilities 

C. Horseback Riding 

McNary: Horseback riders frequent the trails that are designated for their use on Wallula and 

Peninsula units (see Trails section 5.1.D above). Horses are also permitted on open Refuge roads. 

Recently the Stateline and Juniper Canyon units have attracted horseback riders that cut through the 

property and onto private lands. Unlike the club riders that frequent the Wallula Unit and assist the 

Refuge by volunteering and picking up litter, the riders in Juniper Canyon have cut fences on adjacent 

private property and trespass onto adjacent ranches. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-30 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Umatilla: Horses are allowed on the section of the Heritage trail that passes through the 

McCormack Unit and on roadways throughout the other units. 

D. Bicycling 

Bicycling use occurs but is light. Statistics on bicycling are not kept. 

E. Dog Trials 

Dog trials have traditionally occurred on the Peninsula Unit but have not occurred with frequency in 

the last three years. Special Use Permits are issued by the Refuge for dog trials. 

5.11 Illegal Uses 

McNary: McNary Refuge has been negatively affected by vandalism, theft, garbage dumping, 

poaching, mobile drug manufacturing facilities (methamphetamine labs, and off-road vehicle use. The 

key problem areas for these illegal uses include Burbank Sloughs Unit and the Wallula Unit. Some 

problems with target shooting occur at the Stateline/Juniper Canyons unit. Wallula boat launch area 

also is origin of ORV use and horse trail at the end of the parking lot. Illegal uses persist partly 

because of the inadequacy of physical barriers (i.e. for off-road vehicles), lack of public buy-in, and 

limited law enforcement capability. Changes in Service policy that have virtually eliminated dualfunction law enforcement positions have negatively affected resource protection and visitor safety. 

Umatilla: Deer poaching, off-road vehicle use, vandalism, theft of Refuge property and after hours 

trespass continued to be problems. Changes in Service policy that have virtually eliminated dualfunction law enforcement positions have negatively affected resource protection and visitor safety. 

5.12 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

A. Nearby Recreational Opportunities 

McNary: The area near McNary Refuge is abundant with outdoor recreation activities. The Columbia 

and Snake Rivers provide ample fishing and boating opportunities. Smaller rivers such as the Walla 

Walla, Yakima, and Umatilla Rivers also provide boating and fishing opportunities. Boat launches are 

located at Port Kelly, Hood Park, Sacajawea State Park, and at Cargill Pond. 

Many local farms allow hunting on their lands provided permission from the land owner is obtained 

first. Nearby Corps properties provide visitor facilities such as picnic tables, boat launches, visitor 

centers, public campgrounds, and hunting areas. 

The Corps has several habitat management units (HMUs) on the Snake River. Until the fall of 2004, 

waterfowl hunting was prohibited on the Snake River above the Pasco to Burbank Snake River Bridge. 

That year the Corps and the State opened parts of the Snake River to waterfowl hunting. This was a 

major change to waterfowl hunting in the area. 

In addition to the Refuge opportunities, there are a number of private hunt clubs in this area. The 

clubs are expensive, so the Refuge provides free areas to hunt, in addition to a high quality fee hunt. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-31

The Tri-Cities has public and private campgrounds, boat launches, beaches, and numerous parks. 

A regional bike path has been partially completed through Kennewick, Pasco and Richland. Over 

twenty miles of trail are currently available for biking on paved and gravel pathways. There has been 

talk of extending the bike network through Burbank using the Hansen Loop road adjacent to the 

Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula units. The town of Burbank could realize expanded economic 

development (e.g. small stores, restaurants, etc.) if such a trail were to be designated. An increase in 

public use along the street side of the Refuge boundary could help self-police the area and 

discourage the illegal uses that occur at Burbank Sloughs. The project has not yet received public 

approval or funding. 

Local companies rent jet skies, motorboats, and canoes. Numerous clubs such as the Inter-Mountain 

Alpine Club and the Richland Rod and Gun Club provide outdoor oriented programs and activities. 

Three other campgrounds are available within a 15-mile radius in addition to several more along the 

Snake River. These include Hood Park, Sacagawea State Park, Sand Creek and Mill Creek. There is 

also a private campground, called Pierce’s Heavenly Valley, within 5 miles of Madame Dorian. 

Umatilla Refuge: The area near Umatilla Refuge has many outdoor oriented activities. McNary Lock 

and Dam is located 12 miles east of the Refuge. The dam is operated by the Corps. The Corps 

facility encompasses several boat launches, picnic areas and ball fields, eight miles of nature trails, a 

large visitor center, two underwater fish viewing rooms, and several habitat management areas 

(HMUs). The HMUs provide many of the same wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting opportunities as 

the Refuge. 

A state fish hatchery is located adjacent to Refuge lands. The popular spot allows visitors viewing 

access to a working hatchery. Interpretive panels near rearing pens explain the life cycle of fish. 

There is also a small visitor center with interpretive displays 

There are also several state fish and game lands near the Refuge. These areas are open seasonally 

for wildlife viewing, hunting, and fishing. 

B. Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends 

A small state agency known as the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) advises the 

State of Washington on matters of outdoor recreation. The IAC conducts inventory of outdoor 

recreation sites and opportunities, conducts studies of recreational participation and preferences, and 

periodically releases documents related to overall State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning 

(SCORP). 

Current Participation Rates: The most recently released SCORP Assessment (IAC 2002a) identified 14 

major categories of outdoor recreation, subdivided into 170 activities. Of these 14 major categories, 

walking/hiking and nature activities figure as the two most popular, with 53 percent and 43 percent of 

Washington state residents participating in these activities, respectively. The IAC also indicated that 

observing/photographing nature and wildlife have participation rates of 42 percent, and visiting 

interpretation centers has a participation rate of 7.5 percent. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

5-32 Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs

Forecast of Future Regional Recreation Demand and Key Recreation Needs Identified by IAC: 

Overall, outdoor recreation activity in most activities continues to increase at high growth rates. In a 

recent technical report (IAC 2002b), IAC projected future participation in 13 of 14 major outdoor 

recreation use categories over periods of 10 and 20 years. Nine of these activities will experience 

double digit growth (see Table 5-11). 

These most recent estimates of recreation trends were based on the National Survey on Recreation 

and the Environment Projections for the Pacific Region (NSRE), which includes Washington State. IAC 

adjusted the NRSE projections as necessary based on age group participation, estimates of resource 

and facility availability, user group organization and representation, land use and land designations; 

and “other factors” including the economy and social factors. Table 5-11 shows the percent change 

expected for Washington State by activity as reported by IAC. 

The 1995 assessment identified trails and environmental education as the two highest outdoor 

recreation needs in the state. Many outdoor activities generally permitted on Refuges are expected to 

show increases of 20 percent to 40 percent over the next 20 years. The exception is hunting, in which 

participation is expected to fall at about that same rate. 

Table 5-11. Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities 

 

Activity 

Estimated Change, 

10 years (2002-2012) 

Estimated Change, 

20 Years (2002-2022) 

Walking 23% 34% 

Hiking 10% 20% 

Nature Activities (includes outdoor photography, 

observing wildlife and fish, gathering and 

collecting, gardening, and visiting nature 

interpretive centers) 

23% 37% 

Fishing -5% -10% 

Hunting / Shooting -15% -21% 

Sightseeing (includes driving for pleasure) 10% 20% 

Camping – developed (RV style) 10% 20% 

Canoeing/kayaking 21% 30% 

Motor Boating 10% No estimate 

Equestrian 5% 8% 

Non-pool swimming 19% 29% 

Source: IAC (2002b). 

References 

Clark, R. and G. Stankey. 1979. The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum: a framework for planning, 

management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.s. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p. 

Manfredo, M. 2002. Wildlife Viewing: A Management Handbook. Corvallis,Oregon: Oregon State 

University Press. 

US DOA, US DOI, State of Oregon and State of Washington. 1968. General Plan for the Use of 

Lands. John Day Lock and Dam Project for Wildlife Conservation and Management. Signed 

and finalized May 2, 1968. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Chapter 5 – Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs 5-33

US DOI. 1996. Environmental Assessment of Public Use on Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge. US 

Dept. of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. DOI. 1994. Office of the Solicitor, letter to Director dated Oct. 20, 1994, subject National 

Wildlife Refuge Management Issues. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Kronner, K. 1989. People and wildlife interactions study, Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

(Columbia River Unit). March 6, 1989-July 22, 1989. McNary Project, Corps of Engineers. 

IAC. 2002a. An Assessment of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. A State Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Planning (SCORP) document 2002-2007. 

IAC. 2002b. Estimates of Future Participation in Outdoor Recreation in Washington State: A 

Technical Report by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 60 pp. Discussion 

Draft, November 2002. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. McNary Master Plan. Design Memorandum No. 24. 

Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-1

Chapter 6. Special Designation Lands, Cultural Resources, 

and Social/Economic Environment 

6.1 Special Designation Lands 

This section discusses sites or areas on the Refuges that have been assigned special designations by 

local, county, State, Federal or international governments, and in some cases nongovernmental 

organizations, so that these sites receive special management consideration. Sites listed under the 

National Register of Historic Places or as Important Bird Areas are discussed in detail below. Some of 

the designations that apply to refuge lands are covered in more detail in other sections of the Draft 

CCP/EA and are listed here. 

Table 6-1. Special designations discussed in other sections 

Designation Location Other Sections of Document 

Where Discussed 

Snake River Compensation Lands Cummins Property 4.4.A 

Critical Habitat for Endangered 

Salmon and Steelhead 

Columbia, Snake, Walla 

Walla, and Umatilla Rivers 

4.10 

National Natural Landmark Wallula Gap 3.4 

Immediate Response Zone Umatilla Army Depot 3.7 

A. National Register of Historic Places 

Established under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the National Register has 

identified and documented, in partnership with State, Federal, and tribal preservation programs, 

nearly 77,000 districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, 

architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The documentation on each property consists of 

photographs, maps, and a National Register registration form, which provides a physical description 

of the place, information about its history and significance, and a bibliography. Documentation is 

now available on-line at the National Register Information System at http://www.nr.nps.gov. The 

following sites have received designation under the NHPA.

Strawberry Island Village Archeological Site, Franklin County, WA 1980-08-21: The Miller Site is 

situated on Strawberry Island in the Snake River and is considered a late prehistoric settlement. The 

north end of the island is covered with visible surface depressions making it significant as one of the 

largest and least impacted Native American village sites in the Region (Cleveland 1978). 

B. Important Bird Areas (IBA) 

The Important Bird Areas program (IBA) is a global effort to identify areas that are the most important 

for maintaining bird populations, and focus conservation efforts at protecting these sites. Within the 

United States, the program has been promoted and maintained by The American Bird Conservancy 

(ABC) and The National Audubon Society (NAS). The ABC is coordinating the identification of 

nationally significant IBAs while NAS is working to identify sites in individual states. The NAS is 

working within each state to identify a network of sites across the U.S. that provide critical habitat for 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-2 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

birds. This effort recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious threats facing 

populations of birds across North America and around the world. By working through partnerships, 

principally the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, to identify those places that are critical to 

birds during some part of their life cycle (breeding, wintering, feeding, migrating), the hope is to 

minimize the effects that habitat loss and degradation have on bird populations. In the United States 

the IBA program has become a key component of many bird conservation efforts. More information 

is available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html. 

In Washington and Oregon, the goals of the IBA program are to: (1) identify the sites that are the 

most essential for long-term conservation of birds, and (2) to take action to ensure the conservation of 

these sites (Cullinan 2001). 

An IBA is a site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of birds. The IBA selection 

process examines sites based on: (1) the presence and abundance of birds, and/or (2) the condition 

and quality of habitat. The IBAs are chosen using standard biological criteria and expert 

ornithologists’ review. All sites nominated as potential IBAs are rigorously evaluated to determine 

whether they meet the necessary qualifications. The IBAs represent discrete sites, both aquatic and 

terrestrial, that are critically important to birds during their annual life cycle (e.g. breeding, migration, 

and/or wintering periods). 

Walla Walla River Delta Unit IBA: The Walla Walla River Delta was chosen as an important bird area 

based on its significance for endangered species, large concentrations of waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls 

and terns. The shallow water and deep silt mudflats at the mouth of the Walla Walla provide a 

unique and productive habitat for shorebirds. The Walla Walla River Delta is a significant shorebird 

migration areas in eastern Washington. Peregrine falcons are found during peak migration times, 

and bald eagles congregate during winter on the flats and surrounding trees. The delta also attracts 

and supports large numbers of American white pelicans, wading birds, and waterfowl, particularly 

northern pintails and canvasbacks. The delta also supports an extraordinarily high population 

(>1,500) of Vaux’s swifts during fall migration. More information is available at 

http://www.oregoniba.org/umatillanwr.htm

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge IBA: The Refuge is listed as an IBA based on large concentrations of 

migrating and wintering waterfowl and passerines. Also cited are significant number of bald eagles 

(30) spending the winter at the Refuge and nesting colonies of great blue heron and black-crowned 

night-heron. http://www.oregoniba.org/umatillanwr.htm

6.2 Archaeological and Cultural Resources 

Despite its relative small size, the area stretching from the confluence of the Snake and Columbia 

Rivers downstream to Crow Butte, presents an exceptionally diverse historical, geological, cultural and 

tribal landscape. The Umatilla Rapids, Walla Walla and Snake River confluences were all particularly 

important fishing, trading, and trade route locations that attracted early peoples from throughout the 

southern Plateau to participate in the mutual co-utilization of the resource (Anastasio 1975). Because 

the rivers afforded the principal means of transportation, they would later attract early British and 

American explorers, trappers, fur traders, missionaries, miners and eventually settlers. This section 

can, therefore, serve only to present but a brief outline of this rich history and cultural heritage. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-3

Archaeological and cultural resources are important components of our nation’s heritage. The 

Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of plant, animal, and human interactions with 

each other and the landscape over time. These may include previously recorded or yet 

undocumented historic, cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources as well as traditional 

cultural properties. Protection of cultural resources is legally mandated under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Other legally-mandated responsibilities are found in the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), and various State regulations. 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. Additionally, the Refuges seek to maintain a working 

relationship and consult on a regular basis with the various Tribes that are now, and/or were 

traditionally were tied to lands and waters within the Refuges. Those Tribes include the Palouse, 

Cayuse, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Wanapum Tribes and affiliated bands. 

Since archaeological and cultural resources encompass many elements and time periods, the 

following simple temporal divisions were used to distinguish and categorize this brief review of the 

resources: Pre-recorded History; Pre-Contact Native American Traditions; Post-Contact Early United 

States Traditions; and Recent U.S. Settlement and Economic Development Period. 

A. Pre-recorded History 

 

The Umatilla and McNary Refuges lie within what anthropologists call the Plateau Culture Area 

(Plateau) of the northwestern United States, which encompasses the Mid-Columbia area and 

adjoining regions. The period of pre-recorded history is represented by two important features 

highlighted here: presence of Paleo-Indian humans such as Kennewick Man during the Clovis/PostClovis Period prior to around 8,000 years ago; and settlements evidenced by pithouses during the 

later prehistoric period ending just 1,400 years ago. 

Presence of Paleo-Indian Humans such as Kennewick Man. Archaeological excavations and evidence 

from the surrounding region, Lind Coulee, Sunset Creek, the Marmes Rock Shelter, Hanford Reach, 

suggest that some of the earliest people to arrive and/or inhabit America, occupied the Plateau region 

during the Clovis Paleo-Indian occupations 11,500 years ago to around 5000 BC (Ames et al. 

1998). The 1996 discovery of a 9,300-year-old near-complete skeleton found along side the banks 

of the Columbia River just eight miles upstream of the McNary Refuge, is particularly significant. 

Commonly known as Kennewick Man, the skeleton is unique because it is both one of the oldest and 

most complete ancient skeletons from this time period ever found. In addition, according to scientists 

who have examined the remains, the skull appears to be unlike those of any Indian tribes now living in 

the area (Owsley in AP, Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center, Tri-City Herald, 2006). Following 

the initial discovery of the bones in 1996, the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce and Colville Tribes urged 

officials to rebury the skeleton without scientific study. The Tribes argued exclusive jurisdiction over the 

disposition of the remains they named “The Ancient One.” Scientists argued that the process should 

follow NAGPRA guidelines for demonstrating cultural affiliation, and sued for a chance to study the 

remains. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the scientists, ruling there was no link 

between the skeleton and the present-day tribes and that the Corps had violated NAGPRA. 

Kennewick Man currently resides at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington where scientists 

continue studies to learn the story of the earliest people to come to, and/or occupy, the Plateau 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-4 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

region. As a result of the controversy and legal issues surrounding disposition of Kennewick Man, a 

large body of research and publications associated with the ethnography and cultural affiliation of 

Kennewick Man to the various tribes within the Region is available. 

Late Period Settlements Evidenced By Pithouses: The final prehistoric period from 1900 BC to 1720 

AD shows increasing development of the cultural traits that culminated in the cultures and presentday tribal structures of the region (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998). Pit houses became predominant and 

reliance on salmon fishing, plant gathering and hunting of large game is evident as is use of larger pit 

houses in more concentrated winter villages. The best known site from this period is the Miller Site on 

McNary Refuge’s Strawberry Island Unit (Ames et al. 1998). Archaeologists feel there were two major 

occupations of the site beginning first 1400 years ago and later occupations which terminated prior to 

1720 AD (Schalk 1983b). Located five miles upstream from the mouth of the Snake River, the Miller 

Site has 120-133 cultural depressions in two clusters on either side of the upstream portion of the 

island. Not all are housepits; they could be storage facilities, outdoor cooking areas, sweat lodges, 

firewood caches, salmon, root caches, menstrual huts and/or communal huts, (Cleveland 1976). The 

Miller Site was added to the National Register of Historical Places in 1974. 

B. Pre-Contact Native American Traditions 

It is evident that the rivers and associated lands from the Snake River to Crow Butte were the site of a 

particularly rich grouping of early Native American settlements. There is consensus among 

anthropologists that prior to 1855 (when treaties were negotiated with the Indian tribes of the region), 

local Indian peoples were not organized into "tribes," that is, there were no political units 

encompassing multiple villages with a common identity, sense of purpose, or territorial claim. Rather, 

it is believed people were identified first of all as members of a particular village community with 

which they were associated by birth and/or by having been raised there (Hunn 2000). Many sites 

along the Snake, Columbia, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Rivers were winter village locations, but at 

different times of the year members of these tribes could be in areas beyond their territory. Even the 

winter villages would contain individuals and family groups from different tribes. 

The first written descriptions of these village communities were provided by Lewis and Clark who made 

first contact with the tribes as they descended the Snake River, arriving at the mouth of the river on 

October 16, 1805. Here they described in detail the lodges and peoples they identified as 

Chimnapums, Choppunish and Solkuks. The "Chim-nâ-pum" were the people of the village of 

Chamná, located upstream near the mouth of the Yakima River, and likely a group distinct from the 

Yakama that occupied the Yakima River Valley above Horn Rapids Dam. The Choppunish referenced 

were likely the Nez Perce of the Snake and Clearwater regions. The Solkuks were likely the Wanapum. 

However, some historians have suggested that the large encampment described by Lewis as Kw'sí, just 

a quarter mile upstream of what is now Sacagawea State Park, were Palouse (Trafzer 1999). 

Another concentration of native settlements centered downstream from the confluence of the Snake 

River to Wallula. Here, Lewis and Clark, in both October 1805 and again in April 1806, 

encountered the Walla Wallas in several settlements on both sides of the Columbia River, on three 

islands, and in small villages two miles upstream on the Walla Walla River. Figure 6.1 is a 

reproduction of Clark’s map of the area. The journals from the Corps of Discovery are a treasure 

trove of information about the first contact, including descriptions of Walla Walla Chief Yellepit and 

his village consisting of 16 lodges on the Columbia River opposite the mouth of the Walla Walla 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-5

Figure 6.1. Lewis and Clark’s map of villages in the proximity of the confluence of the Snake and 

Columbia river (Moulton 1983). Reproduced courtesy of the Yale Collection of Western Americana, 

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. 

River, and the use of fishing weirs at a lodge site two miles upstream from its mouth. The journals 

also contain interesting and memorable events such as Chief Yellepit providing Captain Clark with an 

“elegant white horse,” Clark’s gift to Chief Yellepit of a Jefferson peace medal, a communal dance 

celebration held late into the night that included both Yakamas and Walla Wallas on their return in 

April 1806, and a description of the 1806 overland route to the Clearwater taken on their return at 

the behest and cooperation of the Walla Wallas. This overland route would likely have taken the 

expedition across present day Refuge lands at Wallula and Walla Walla Delta. Wallula would also 

became the center of Indian/Fur Trader/Government relations, as Fort Nez Perce (later renamed Fort 

Walla Walla) served as a trading fort, military garrison, settler stop-off, and commercial area, and 

later a site of Indian wars and treaties. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-6 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

Lewis and Clark left Wallula, reaching the Umatilla Basin on October 19, 1805, noting villages of 

Walla Wallas, Umatillas, and further downstream near Crow Butte, the Pishquitpah. At the 

Expedition’s campsite opposite Irrigon, they had almost 200 visitors to their camp. Clark estimated the 

population in this area to be 350 “men” and remarked that they were similar in appearance and 

customs to the people around the mouth of the Snake River. However he noted differences in dress 

and the presence of head-flattening, a Chinookan trait from the lower Columbia River. He also noted 

that they did not speak precisely the same language as those above the bend in the Columbia River 

(Sahaptin), but observed that they could understand each other. The next day the explorers likely 

stopped at Blaylock Island, on what is now part of the Umatilla Refuge, where they visited and 

described a burial “vault” (Thwaites, 1904). It is also in this area that they first noticed evidence of 

European trade goods and clothing, including encountering one man with a sailor’s jacket. 

Later in their published summary report, they enumerated two populations of Indians from the 

Umatilla area. These were the Walla Wallas, who occupied both sides of the Columbia River from 

Umatilla Rapids to the Snake River and numbered 1,600 people in 46 lodges. On the north side of 

the Columbia from the Rapids to the beginning of the high country around Crow Butte (Refuge), they 

identified the Pishquitpah (a Yakama Band) with 2,600 people living in 71 lodges. 

Later travelers and explorers described similar tribal settlement patterns from Crow Butte, upstream to 

the Snake River. An 1814 gathering at Wallula, near the mouth of the Walla Walla River, consisted 

of an encampment of over 3,000 people extending over six miles (Ross 1924). Ross claimed that the 

second most important fishing location on the Columbia River, after The Dalles, was at Wallula (Ross 

1904). Other descriptions by David Thompson in July 1811, Wilson Price Hunt in 1812, Robert 

Stuart in 1812, Gabriel Franchere in1814, John Work in1824 and in1826, Peter Skene Ogden 

in1825, botanist David Douglas in1826, and later zoologist John Townsend in 1839, all provided 

varying accounts of villages and numbers of inhabitants (Ellis 1986). For instance, David Thompson 

of the North West Company visited Chief Yellepit on July 1811 and reported 80 Indian households 

between the Walla Walla River and Crowe Butte. Alexander Ross reported that almost 1,500 Walla 

Walla, Cayuse, and Sahaptins (Yakimas) had gathered at Wallula in August 1811. Gabriel 

Franchere traveled up the Columbia in April, 1814 and recorded many villagers fishing for salmon in 

the Umatilla to Wallula section of the Columbia River. But in March of 1828, Edward Ermatinger of 

the Hudson’s Bay Company reported observing many geese along the Columbia River above the 

Umatilla Rapids, but few Indians. 

This discrepancy may reflect what most historians believe, that seasonal presence of river settlements 

followed the supply and opportunity for exploiting the salmon resources. The passage of 14 years 

may also have much to do with the relative absence of Indians on the river in 1828. By that time, 

many Columbia River populations were being decimated by diseases. It is also possible they were 

being driven inland from their accustomed territories by then. 

The modern day descendents of the tribes identified in early accounts are now located on several 

reservations and off-reservation communities. These include, but are not limited to, the Yakama, 

Palouse, Wanapum, Nez Perce, Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla. These tribes are commonly 

associated with the following reservations: the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian 

Nation; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-7

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation; and the Wanapum Band of Indians, a nonfederally recognized tribe. Tribal affiliations with lands now part of the Refuges are shown in Table 6-

2. 

Table 6-2. Tribal affiliations with lands now part of McNary and Umatilla Refuges 

Reservation Tribes 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

(Yakama Treaty of 1855) 

Yakama, Palouse, Pishquitpah 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

(Walla Walla Treaty of 1855) 

Walla-Wallas, Cayuses, 

Umatilla 

Nez Perce Tribe 

(Nez Perce Treaty of 1855) 

Nez Perce 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation 

(Executive Order of 1872) 

Nez Perce, Palouse 

Wanapum Band* Wanapum 

 *Nonfederally Recognized Tribe 

C. Post-Contact Early United States Traditions 

The importance of the Columbia River area near the confluences of the Snake, Walla Walla, and 

Umatilla Rivers to native systems of trade is evidenced by the large number of historic trails. Like 

spokes of a wheel, overland routes had their beginnings from these native settlements on the 

Columbia River. From here access to the villages of the lower Yakima River and to the west was 

available; trails connecting to the Palouse, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Cayuse to the north were 

accessible; as were several trails leading east into the Blue Mountains. The "buffalo road" led to the 

east over the Continental Divide to buffalo hunting country; while another trade route led to the west 

over the Cascade Mountains. Later these trails would be developed by settlers and renamed the 

Colville, Daisy, Nez Perce, Mullan, Caribou, Old Emigrant-Naches, White Bluffs, and Oregon Trails; 

but their beginnings were the system of trails used by Native Americans for trade and travel. 

The importance of this early trail system was not lost on the early fur traders, and consequently, it was 

decided to establish a fur trading post in the vicinity of Wallula. In 1818, fur traders Alexander 

McKenzie, Tom McKay, and Alexander Ross traveled upstream to Wallula to build Fort Nez Perce, a 

trading fort for the North West Company. Later it merged with the Hudson’s Bay Company. From 

1818 to 1855, the post carried on trade with native peoples from throughout the southern Plateau. 

Superintendents like Ross and Pierre Pambrun kept extensive records of both trapping and fur trades, 

as well as recording the traffic of missionaries, settlers, and others who visited the fort to supply, resupply, or end their expedition. In September 1818, Mackenzie led the first trapping party of 55 men 

with 195 horses and 300 traps from Fort Nez Perce to the Blue Mountains to catch beaver. Later in 

1822 and 1823, the Hudson’s Bay trappers brought in 20,000 beaver and otter furs (Saul 2006). 

The interior Snake River and Columbia Basin country serviced by Fort Nez Perce proved to be a 

profitable fur producing region, although the beaver population was decimated fairly quickly, 

especially in the Walla Walla and Interior Basin. In 1830 and 1831, Fort Nez Perce recorded 39 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-8 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

badger, 19 black bear, 66 brown bear, 8 grizzly bear, 67 fisher, 72 red fox, 12 cross fox, 143 lynx, 5 

marten, 50 mink, 1525 muskrat, 165 otter, 88 raccoon, 14 wolverine, and 247 wolf furs purchased 

from Indians at Fort Nez Perce (Meinig 1995). Since the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Nez Perce 

traveled and traded widely in the regions, the origination of the furs is unknown. Other famous fur 

trade parties set out from the Fort including the Ogden, Black, L’Etang, and Pambrun fur expeditions. 

Later Kit Carson and John C. Fremont would also visit the Fort. 

The list of early explorers, expeditions, scientists and missionaries passing through the area is large 

and only highlights can be given here. One of the earliest visitors and most remarkable stories of the 

era was Madame Dorion, an Ioway Indian. As the only female member of the 1811-1812 John 

Jacob Astor exploration party led by Wilson Price Hunt that was looking for a route across the Plains 

and Rockies to the Pacific, Madame Dorion survived through incredible hardships. However, when 

she and her family returned with a trapping party to the Snake River, Bannock warriors attacked and 

killed all but Marie and her two sons when they escaped by hiding in the brush. Marie and her two 

boys survived more than 50 days in the bitter winter cold of the Blue Mountains before finally making 

it to a Walla Walla Indian village just a few miles upstream from the mouth of the Walla Walla River. 

The village site is thought to be east of the Highway 12 bridge at the Wallula Unit. A rock memorial 

celebrating Madame Dorion’s tenacious spirit is located at the entrance to Madame Dorion Park. 

Notable scientists and collectors David Douglas, Thomas Nuttal, and J.K. Townsend also came to the 

area and spent time at Fort Nez Perce. Douglas, of the London Horticulture Society, traveled up the 

Walla Walla River to collect plant samples (and take them back with him) in June of 1826. In 1834, 

ornithologist John Townsend spent part of a winter at Fort Nez Perce, from where he ventured out to 

collect local birds, including sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse which he reported were abundant 

in close proximity to the Fort. Lewis and Clark themselves had collected and described the first 

specimens for Lomatium cous (cous, cous-root, or desert parsley) and Crataegus douglasii (black 

hawthorn) on the north bank of the Walla Walla River on April 29, 1806. 

While at Fort Nez Perce in September 1835, Townsend met the first among the arrivals with intentions 

of settling, the Presbyterian missionaries Henry and Eliza Spaulding and Marcus and Narcissa 

Whitman, the first U.S. citizens to settle in the area. The Whitmans established a mission among the 

Cayuse at Waiilatpu, located some 23 miles upstream of the mouth of the Walla Walla. Father Pierre 

De Smet traveled to Fort Walla Walla in 1846 to help start a Catholic mission, but it was Bishop 

Augustin Blanchet who established a short-lived Catholic mission–Mission St. Anne. All changed with 

the Whitmans’ deaths in a massacre on November 29, 1847, which would spell the beginning of an 

era of hostilities often called the Cayuse War, and later the Yakima Wars. Fort Nez Perce itself would 

be burned during the wars, and in 1854 Walla Walla warrior Chief Peo-Peo Mox-Mox was killed near 

the Fort. Yakama/Palouse Chief Kamiakin spent time at the Fort, and later Chief Joseph, leader of 

the last war of the Nez Perce, was held in captivity at the rebuilt fort. Smohalla, spiritual shaman and 

guide to the Wanapums, left his village in the Wallula area and settled with the Wanapums near Priest 

Rapids. Smohalla became known as leader of the Prophet Dance movement in the 1870s. 

In May 1855, the chiefs of the Cayuse, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Nez Perce and Yakama agreed to 

meet with Isaac Stevens, new governor of the Washington territories, to end a period of hostilities. 

The meeting ground was in the Walla Walla Valley near Waiilatpu; while Governor Stevens and the 

army stayed at Fort Walla Walla at Wallula. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-9

D. Recent Settlement and Economic Development Period 

 

In 1860, the discovery of gold near Fort Colville in Washington as well as Idaho and Canada, 

boosted commercial interest in the area, and the need for shipment of supplies and goods began in 

earnest and heralded the beginnings of permanent development in the region. The first river steamer 

ship to make it up the Columbia to Wallula was the Colonel Wright, which established a schedule 

between The Dalles and Wallula of three times per week. By 1862, a full-scale gold rush in Idaho 

and Montana was in progress. Steamboats on the Columbia based out of Wallula played a major 

role in transporting miners and their supplies. As boat and commercial traffic increased, the towns of 

Umatilla and Wallula sprung up and became important transportation centers. Later, the Baker 

railroad would be the first in the State, serving the towns of Wallula to Walla Walla. Wallula would 

become the site where the last section of the transcontinental railroad would be completed. 

Luminaries visiting Wallula, and sometimes spending the night in the Wallula Hotel, included 

Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes and James Garfield, General William T. Sherman, and Secretary of 

State William M. Evarts. Well known authors Bill Nye and James Whitcomb Riley also visited and life 

in Wallula was even the subject of a chapter entitled “A Wallula Night” in one of Nye’s books. 

Around 1870, stockmen began moving into the area to utilize the range country of the plateau. 

Through the 1880s, farmers discovered that wheat could be grown, and a new wave of settlement 

resulted. As railroads and highways developed further, however, Umatilla and Wallula were replaced 

as transportation centers and eventually became small towns. Wallula was eventually inundated by 

Lake Wallula with the completion of the McNary Dam in 1954. 

6.3 Social/Economic Environment 

A. Population, Housing, and Income 

Table 6-3 shows the populations of each of the relevant counties, growth rates, and other social 

statistics collected by the U.S. Census. Some of the more striking differences in these counties, 

compared with the states as a whole, are highlighted. 

McNary: The Refuge is mainly situated in Walla Walla County of Washington State, though parts of 

the Refuge (Strawberry Islands) extend into Franklin County and part of the Stateline Unit and all of the 

Juniper Canyon Unit are located in Umatilla County, Oregon. The nearest communities include 

Burbank, Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland (Tri-Cities), and the towns of Umatilla and Hermiston in 

Oregon. The Refuge is adjacent to the town of Burbank and across the river from Pasco and the 

outlying areas of Kennewick (see Map 1 in Chapter 1). 

The population is growing rapidly in Benton County (above state average), but more slowly than the 

State overall in Walla Walla County. Because of the proximity of the Refuge to population centers in 

Benton County, the Refuge can expect greater pressure for recreational access. Population 

composition shows American Indian/Alaska Native persons at about 2.5 times the State level in 

Umatilla County, while Walla Walla and Umatilla Counties have populations of Hispanic or Latino 

origin at about double State averages. In both counties, the level of educational attainment is a bit 

lower than the State average. Walla Walla County has significantly more households in poverty than 

the State average and mean housing value in both counties is significantly lower than State averages. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-10 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

Umatilla: The Umatilla Refuge is situated within Morrow County, Oregon and Benton County, 

Washington. The nearest communities in Oregon are Boardman and Irrigon, and the nearest 

communities in Washington are the towns of Paterson and Plymouth. The Refuge is approximately 20 

miles west of Hermiston, Oregon, and 45 miles south from the Tri-cites area, Washington. 

Populations have been growing rapidly and growth rates are well above the State average in Morrow 

County. The local population is more racially diverse than that of Oregon as a whole: Morrow 

County shows persons reporting categories other than Caucasian at nearly five times the State level in 

Oregon, and Benton County at twice the State level in Washington. Persons of Hispanic or Latino 

origin total almost a quarter of the population in Morrow County, and nearly a quarter of Morrow 

County households also have a language other than English spoken at home. The Refuge should 

take this into account in outreach and communication materials. Morrow County also shows much 

lower educational achievements than the State average or other nearby counties, both in terms of 

high school graduation rates and percent of the population holding bachelor degrees. Finally, the 

county has a poverty rate over 14%, nearly three percentage points higher than the Oregon State 

average, and median housing values are only about half the State average. 

 

Table 6-3. Selected Population and associated Social Statistics, Local Counties 

Population Parameter 

Walla Walla 

County 

Benton 

County Washington 

Umatilla 

County 

Morrow 

County Oregon 

Population, 2004 estimate 57,354 155,991 6,203,788 73,436 11,681 3,594,586

Population, percent change, 

April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 3.9% 9.5% 5.3% 4.1% 6.2% 5.1%

Population, 2000 55,180 142,475 5,894,121 70,548 10,995 3,421,399

Population, percent change, 

1990 to 2000 13.9% 26.6% 21.1% 19.1% 44.2% 20.4%

Persons under 18 years old, 

percent, 2000 24.6% 29.7% 25.7% 27.8% 30.8% 24.7%

Persons 65 years old and over, 

percent, 2000 14.8% 10.3% 11.2% 12.3% 10.6% 12.8%

White persons, percent, 2000 85.3% 86.2% 81.8% 82.0% 76.3% 86.6%

Black or African American 

persons, percent, 2000 1.7% 0.9% 3.2% 0.8% 0.1% 1.6%

American Indian and Alaska 

Native persons, percent, 2000 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 3.4% 1.4% 1.3%

Asian persons, percent, 2000 1.1% 2.2% 5.5% 0.8% 0.4% 3.0%

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

Persons reporting some other 

race, percent, 2000 8.2% 7.0% 3.9% 10.7% 19.5% 4.2%

Persons reporting two or more 

races, percent, 2000 2.6% 2.7% 3.6% 2.2% 2.1% 3.1%
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-11

Population Parameter 

Walla Walla 

County 

Benton 

County Washington 

Umatilla 

County 

Morrow 

County Oregon 

White persons, not of Hispanic/ 

Latino origin, percent, 2000 78.8% 81.7% 78.9% 77.5% 72.0% 83.5%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino 

origin, percent, 2000 15.7% 12.5% 7.5% 16.1% 24.4% 8.0%

Living in same house in 1995 

and 2000, percent age 5+, 

2000 51.1% 51.2% 48.6% 50.9% 46.5% 46.8%

Foreign born persons, percent, 

2000 9.4% 8.5% 10.4% 8.4% 14.5% 8.5%

Language other than English 

spoken at home, percent age 

5+, 2000 16.2% 14.2% 14.0% 16.2% 23.3% 12.1%

High school graduates, percent 

of persons age 25+, 2000 81.1% 85.1% 87.1% 77.8% 74.1% 85.1%

Bachelor's degree or higher, 

percent of persons age 25+, 

2000 23.3% 26.3% 27.7% 16.0% 11.0% 25.1%

Homeownership rate, 2000 65.2% 68.7% 64.6% 64.9% 73.1% 64.3%

Housing units in multi-unit 

structures, percent, 2000 20.0% 22.6% 25.6% 17.0% 9.4% 23.1%

Median value of owneroccupied housing units, 2000 $114,300 $119,900 $168,300 $98,100 $89,000 $152,100

Households, 2000 19,647 52,866 2,271,398 25,195 3,776 1,333,723

Persons per household, 2000 2.54 2.68 2.53 2.67 2.90 2.51

Median household income 

1999 $35,900 $47,044 $45,776 $36,249 $37,521 $40,916

Per capita money income 1999 $16,509 $21,301 $22,973 $16,410 $15,802 $20,940

Persons below poverty, percent, 

1999 15.1% 10.3% 10.6% 12.7% 14.8% 11.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of 

Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing http://quickfacts.census.gov/.

B. Employment and Business 

Table 6-4 displays some pertinent business statistics for the local counties. Benton and Walla Walla 

Counties have the largest economies in the area. Morrow County is notable for its small economy 

and the fact that retail sales per capita are only about half that for the other counties and less than 

half of the average for the State of Oregon. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-12 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

Table 6-4. Business Statistics, Local Counties 

 

Business QuickFacts 

Walla 

Walla 

County 

Benton 

County Washington 

Umatilla 

County 

Morrow 

County Oregon 

Private nonfarm establishments 

with paid employees, 2001 1,278 3,325 164,072 1,608 153 101,003

Private nonfarm employment, 

2001 17,220 49,545 2,294,285 20,571 1,630 1,364,924

Private nonfarm employment, 

percent change 2000-2001 2.2% -2.0% 1.2% 3.1% -1.8% 0.7%

Nonemployer establishments, 

2000 2,386 5,974 326,397 3,229 417 212,165

Manufacturers shipments, 

1997 ($1000) 544,683 885,455 78,852,486 790,586 183,396 47,665,990

Retail sales, 1997 ($1000) 376,404 1,208,780 52,472,866 567,167 38,826 33,396,849

Retail sales per capita, 1997 $7,020 $8,940 $9,363 $8,808 $4,060 $10,297

Minority-owned firms, percent 

of total, 1997 3.5% 7.2% 9.6% 3.9% F 6.2%

Women-owned firms, percent 

of total, 1997 23.0% 31.1% 27.5% 26.8% 20.7% 27.6%

Housing units authorized by 

building permits, 2002 192 1,441 40,200 325 X 22,1861

Federal funds and grants, 

2002 ($1000) 332,486 2,822,557 40,217,592 497,847 76,649 19,839,214

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 

County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated 

Federal Funds Report, and 1997 Census of Governments http://quickfacts.census.gov/.

C. Refuge Impact on Local Economies 

In 1997, and again in 2002, a study was completed on about two dozen refuges nationally to 

estimate the economic effect refuges have on local economies. In both reports, Umatilla National 

Wildlife Refuge was featured. Data from the reports showed a significant level of expenditures within 

Morrow, Benton, and Franklin counties, stemming from recreational visits to the Refuge. The 

following table summaries the level of expenditures made within these counties to support recreational 

visits to the Refuge. Total expenditures were $3.2 million, with nonresidents accounting for almost 

66% of this expenditure. Expenditures on fishing accounted for 23 percent of the total, hunting 46 

percent, and non-consumptive uses 37 percent. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 6-13

 Table 6-5. Umatilla Refuge Visitor Recreation-related Expenditures (2002) 

Activity Resident Non-Resident Total 

Non-consumptive $430.10 $746.90 $1,177.00

Hunting 

 Big game $0.00 $0.60 $0.60 

 Small game $28.90 $57.90 $86.80 

 Migratory bird $85.80 $1,089.50 $1,175.30 

Total hunting $114.70 $1,148.00 $1,262.70 

Fishing $384.10 $351.30 $735.40 

Total $928.90 $2,246.20 $3,175.10 

Source: Laughland and Caudill (2002). All figures in thousands

Spending generates jobs and multiplier effects in the economy. The total monetary effect of economic 

activity generated in the three counties by Refuge visitors spending, totaled $853,700. This final 

demand generated 48 jobs, with a total employment income of $838,400. Based on the 2002 

Refuge budget, the planning team estimated the ratio of economic effects per dollar of Refuge 

expenditure to be 2.5. This means that for every one dollar of budget expenditures, approximately 

$2.50 of total economic effects is generated. 

Table 6-6. Umatilla Refuge Economic Effects Associated with Refuge Visitation 

Economic Effect Nonresidents Total 

Final Demand $1,433,900 $2,116,900 

Jobs 31 48

Job Income $570,300 $838,400 

Source: Laughland and Caudill (2002). 

Although “hard” data like the above is lacking, it is likely that because of its higher overall visitation, 

the economic effect of McNary Refuge on its local counties is equal to or above the effect from 

Umatilla. On the other hand, more visitors are local residents, who do not spend as much as nonresidents when visiting the Refuges. 

References 

 

Ames, K., D. Dumond, J. Galm, and R. Minor. 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In 

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., 

pp.103-119. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

Anastasio, A. 1975. The Southern Plateau: An Ecological Analysis of Intergroup Relations. Northwest 

Anthropological Research Notes 6(2) 1972. Reprinted in 1975. Originally Ph.D. Dissertation 

in Anthropology, University of Chicago, 1955.) 

Boxberger, D. and S. Rasmus. 2000. Chapter 3: Review of Traditional Historical and Ethnographic 

Information. Cited from Kennewick Man Cultural Affiliation Report, National Park Service.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/ 

Clark, William. 1770-1838. Lewis and Clark Expedition maps and receipt, ca. 1803-1810. Yale 

Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library 

Colville Tribe. 2000. Colville Tribal Statement of Traditional Belief Supporting Affiliation with the 

Ancient One. 4 February 2000. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, 

Washington. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

6-14 Chapter 6 – Special Designations, Cultural Resources, and Social/Economic Environment 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 2002. Wallula Power Project DEIS. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon. 

Cleveland, G.C. 1978. Second Annual Interim Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the 

Miller Site on Strawberry Island, A Late Prehistoric Village Near Burbank, Washington. Project 

Report 72. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 

Cleveland, G.C. 1976. Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at the Miller Site on Strawberry 

Island, A Late Prehistoric Village Near Burbank, Washington. Project Report 46. Washington 

State University, Pullman, WA. 

Cullinan, T. 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Audubon Washington, Olympia, 

Washington. 170 pp. 

Ellis, D.V. 1986. Cultural Resources of the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Report. Willamette 

Associates, Portland, Oregon. 

Hunn, E.S. 2000. Chapter 3: Review of Traditional Historical and Ethnographic Information. Cited 

from Kennewick Man Cultural Affiliation Report, National Park Service.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/ 

Ice Age Floods Institute. 2006. A Brief Introduction to the Ice Age Floods 

http://www.iceagefloodsinstitute.org 

King, Anna. 2006. Kennewick Man was buried after he died. News report, Tuesday, March 7, 2006. 

Tri-Cities Herald, Washington. 

Moulton, Gary E., ed. 1983. Atlas of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. University of Nebraska Press, 

Lincoln. 

The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Vol. 5, July 28 to November 1, 1805. (1988) 

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Vol. 7. March 23 to June 9, 1806. University of 

Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Ross, Alexander. 1956. The Fur Hunters of the Far West, edited by Kenneth A. Spaulding. University 

of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Saul, Darin. 2005. Environmental History of the Walla Walla Subbasin. 

Schalk, R.F., D.L. Olson, and R.R. Mierendorf. 1983. The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at Strawberry 

Island in the McNary Reservoir. Project Report 19. Washington State University, Center for 

Northwest Anthropology, Pullman. 

Stern, Theodore. 1993. Chiefs and Chief Traders: Indian Relations at Fort Nez Perce, 1818-1855. 

University of Oregon Press, Corvallis. (1):244-261. 

Thompson, David. 1916. David Thompson's Narrative of His Explorations in Western America, 

1784-1812. Publications of the Champlain Society, 12. The Champlain Society, Toronto. 

Trafzer, Clifford E. and Richard D. Scheuerman. 1999. Renegade Tribe: The Palouse Indians and the 

Invasion of the Inland Pacific Northwest. Washington State University Press, Pullman. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. McNary Master Plan: A Plan for Development and 

Management of the Natural and Manmade Resources of Lake Wallula. Design Memorandum 

Number 24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Native American Policy: National Policy Issuance #94-10. 
 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-1

Chapter 7. Environmental Effects 

This chapter provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. Impacts are described for the main aspects of the environments described in 

Chapters 3 through 6, including physical, biological, cultural, and socio-economic resources. The 

alternatives are compared “side by side” under each topic, to facilitate comparison. Both adverse 

and beneficial effects of implementing each alternative are described. The cumulative effects on the 

environment from implementing the various alternatives are presented in Section 7.7. 

7.1 Summary of Effects 

Table 7.1 provides an overview of the effects under each alternative by indicator. Effects are 

described in terms of the change from current conditions. Thus, Alternative 4, the no-action 

alternative (current management) has a neutral effect because no changes to management programs 

would occur under this alternative. 

Although the analysis shows that none of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant 

effects, some positive (beneficial) or negative effects are expected. The terms intermediate, minor, 

and slight, are used to describe the magnitude of the effect. To interpret these terms, intermediate is a 

higher magnitude than minor, which is of a higher magnitude than slight. The word neutral is used to 

describe a negligible or unnoticeable effect compared to the current situation. For more detail, 

please refer to the remainder of Chapter 7. 

Table 7.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

EFFECTS TO WILDLIFE AND HABITATS 

Effects to 

Waterfowl 

Intermediate 

positive effects 

from wetland 

improvements, 

increase in moist 

soil acreage, 

additional acreage 

planted to corn 

and other crops, 

and staggering of 

post-hunting crop 

knockdown. 

Minor positive effects 

from wetland habitat 

improvements, moist 

soil acreage increase, 

and staggering of posthunting crop 

knockdown. 

Overall, minor 

negative effect 

stemming from 

combination of: loss of 

crop acreage, 

decrease in moist soil 

area, lack of actions to 

maintain open water in 

wetland areas, and 

lack of late or early 

season knockdown. 

Neutral effect – 

same habitat 

actions as at 

present. 

Effects to 

Shorebirds 

Neutral effect – 

same habitat 

management as at 

present. 

Minor positive effects 

from seasonal addition 

of habitat along river, 

seasonal fall flooding of 

some moist soil areas, 

and management of 

existing habitats to 

prevent vegetation 

encroachment, uplands 

habitat improvements 

for curlews, and 

Slight positive effect 

from upland habitat 

improvements for 

curlews, and additional 

sanctuary at 

McCormack Slough. 

Neutral effect – 

same habitat 

management as at 

present. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-2 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

additional sanctuary at 

McCormack Slough. 

Effects to 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species 

Neutral effect Minor positive effect to 

bald eagles from 

improvements in 

riparian habitat and 

increase in cottonwood 

recruitment. Minor 

positive effect to 

salmonids through study 

and potential 

implementation of 

rearing habitat 

improvements. 

Slight positive effect to 

bald eagles from 

improvements in 

riparian habitat and 

increase in cottonwood 

recruitment. Minor 

positive effect to 

salmonids through 

study and potential 

implementation of 

rearing habitat 

improvements. 

Neutral effect – 

same habitat 

management as at 

present. 

Effects to 

Wetland 

Habitats and 

Associated 

Wildlife 

Intermediate 

positive effect 

stemming from 

habitat 

improvements. 

Public use 

disturbance would 

remain about the 

same as at 

present. 

Overall neutral effect 

due to minor positive 

effects from habitat 

improvements but minor 

negative effects from 

new public use facilities 

that may increase 

disturbance. 

Overall slight negative 

effect due to slight 

habitat improvement 

but minor negative 

effects from new public 

use facilities that may 

increase disturbance. 

Neutral-slight 

positive effect as 

habitat 

improvement would 

proceed at about 

the same rate as at 

present and public 

use disturbance 

would remain 

about the same as 

at present. 

Effects to 

Riparian 

Habitats and 

Associated 

Wildlife 

Neutral effect – 

approximately 

same amount of 

habitat work as at 

present and about 

same level of 

public use 

disturbance as at 

present. 

Minor positive effect 

stemming from habitat 

improvements. Public 

use disturbance would 

increase in some areas 

but these negative 

effects will be localized 

and limited to trails and 

thus are considered 

largely negligible. 

Neutral–slight negative 

effect overall stemming 

from minimal habitat 

improvement work 

done and increase in 

disturbance effects in 

some areas (these 

disturbance effects will 

be localized and 

limited to trails and 

thus are considered 

largely negligible). 

Neutral effect – 

approximately same 

amount of habitat 

work as at present 

and about same 

level of public use 

disturbance as at 

present. 

Effects to River 

Islands and 

Associated 

Wildlife 

Neutral effect–

approximately 

same amount of 

disturbance as at 

present. 

Intermediate positive 

effect–all islands closed 

to beach use and buffer 

enforced, reducing 

disturbance to island 

wildlife; a no-wake zone 

within 100 feet of 

islands and some 

restrictions on fishing 

tournament access near 

islands will reduce 

disturbance to island 

wildlife. 

Intermediate positive 

effect–all islands 

closed to beach use 

and buffer enforced, 

reducing disturbance 

to wildlife; a no-wake 

zone within 100 feet of 

islands and some 

restrictions on fishing 

tournament access 

near islands will 

reduce wildlife 

disturbance. 

Neutral effect – 

approximately same 

amount of 

disturbance as at 

present. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Effects to 

Shrub-Steppe 

Habitats and 

Associated 

Wildlife 

Mostly neutral 

effectapproximately 

same amount of 

habitat 

improvement work 

as at present. 

Public uses mostly 

similar to present 

thus neutral effect 

from these. 

Minor positive effect 

from habitat 

improvements, 

restoration of degraded 

habitats, and bitterbrush 

plantings. Public use 

disturbance would 

increase in some areas 

but these negative 

effects will be localized 

and limited to trails and 

thus are considered 

largely negligible. 

Intermediate positive 

effects from habitat 

improvements, 

restoration of 

degraded habitats, 

and bitterbrush 

plantings. Public use 

disturbance would 

increase in some areas 

but these negative 

effects will be localized 

and limited to trails, 

thus are considered 

largely negligible. 

Neutral effect –

same amount of 

habitat 

improvement work 

as at present. 

Generally about the 

same level of public 

use disturbance as 

at present. 

Effects to 

Talus, 

Outcrop, and 

Cliff Habitats 

and 

Associated 

Wildlife 

Slight positive 

effect. Additional 

inventory and law 

enforcement 

would further 

protection efforts. 

Slight positive effect. 

Additional inventory and 

law enforcement would 

further protection 

efforts. 

Minor positive effect. 

Additional inventory, 

law enforcement, and 

corridor protection 

plan would further 

protection efforts. 

Neutral effect. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS 

Effects to 

Hydrology 

Slight increase in 

water demand 

from more acres 

of croplands 

requiring 

irrigation. 

 Neutral effect Slight decrease in 

water demand from 

fewer acres croplands 

requiring irrigation. 

Neutral effect 

Effects to 

Water Quality 

Intermediate 

negative effects 

from herbicide or 

pesticide use on 

croplands, 

restored uplands, 

riparian, and 

aquatic areas.

Minor negative effects 

from herbicide or 

pesticide use on 

croplands, restored 

uplands, riparian, and 

aquatic areas. 

Minor negative effects 

from herbicide or 

pesticide use on 

croplands, restored 

uplands, riparian, and 

aquatic areas. 

Neutral effect

Effects to Air 

Quality 

Slight negative 

impact stemming 

from gains in 

wildlife control 

efforts, offset by 

additional wind 

erosion of disked 

lands. 

Slight positive impact 

stemming from gains in 

wildlife control efforts. 

Slight positive impact 

stemming from gains 

in wildlife control 

efforts and diminished 

acres of croplands 

subject to wind 

erosion. 

Neutral effect 

Effects to 

Visual Quality 

Neutral effect Very slight negative 

impact from additional 

facilities. 

Very slight negative 

impact from additional 

facilities. 

Neutral effect 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-4 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

SOCIAL EFFECTS 

Overall 

visitation 

Minor rise due to 

demographic 

trends, rising 

demand for 

outdoor 

recreation, and 

some Refuge 

actions to improve 

facilities and 

programs. 

Intermediate rise due to 

demographic trends, 

rising demand for 

outdoor recreation, and 

Refuge actions to 

improve facilities and 

programs. 

Intermediate rise due 

to demographic trends, 

rising demand for 

outdoor recreation, 

and Refuge actions to 

improve facilities and 

programs. 

Minor rise due to 

demographic trends 

and rising demand 

for outdoor 

recreation. 

Opportunities 

for Quality 

Wildlife 

Observation 

and 

Photography 

Neutral to slightly 

negative effect 

because more 

visitors would 

arrive at the 

Refuges but the 

number of facilities 

available to 

accommodate 

them would 

remain 

approximately the 

same.

Minor positive effect 

because facility 

enhancements and 

habitat management 

actions would increase 

opportunities to see 

wildlife. 

Minor positive effect 

because facility 

improvements and 

habitat management 

actions would increase 

opportunities to see 

wildlife. 

Neutral to slightly 

negative effect 

because more 

visitors would arrive 

at the Refuges but 

the number of 

facilities available 

to accommodate 

them would remain 

approximately the 

same.

Opportunities 

for Quality 

Hunting 

Neutral to minor 

positive overall 

effect stemming 

from: slight 

increase in acres 

available for 

hunting; several 

positive measures 

enhancing food 

availability and 

quality for 

waterfowl and 

gamebirds; other 

actions to reduce 

crowding and 

increase quality of 

hunt; phaseout of 

pheasant 

augmentation. 

Neutral to slight 

positive effect overall 

stemming from 

approximately equal 

area available for 

hunting; slight increase 

in the area managed for 

waterfowl food; gain in 

area restored to shrubsteppe; other 

management actions to 

increase quality of 

gamebird hunt; and 

phaseout of pheasant 

augmentation. 

Minor negative effect 

overall due to slight 

loss in acres available 

for hunting, loss in 

area available for 

waterfowl food, and 

lack of other 

management actions 

to increase quality of 

hunt; and phaseout of 

pheasant 

augmentation. 

Neutral effect due 

to hunting acres 

and habitat 

management 

remaining the same 

as present. 

Opportunities 

for Quality 

Fishing 

Minor positive 

effect because of 

facility 

improvements and 

emphasis on 

education and 

orientation for 

Minor positive effect 

because of facility 

improvements and 

emphasis on education 

and orientation for 

fishing visitors and 

because improved water 

Mostly neutral effect 

because of lack of 

actions to improve 

facilities or improve 

wetland habitats. 

Some temporary loss 

of shoreline fishing 

Neutral effect 

because of lack of 

actions to improve 

facilities or improve 

wetland habitats. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-5

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

fishing visitors and 

because improved 

water quality in 

Refuge ponds and 

sloughs through 

carp eradication 

efforts and 

vegetation 

management. 

quality in Refuge ponds 

and sloughs through 

carp eradication efforts 

and vegetation 

management. 

access areas could 

occur for habitat 

improvement projects. 

Opportunities 

for Quality 

Environmental 

Education 

Slight positive 

effect because of 

staffing strategies 

that could result in 

enhanced 

volunteer support 

for the program. 

Minor positive effect 

because of staffing 

strategies, trail 

improvements, and 

interpretation 

improvements that 

could enhance the 

program. 

Minor positive effect 

because of trail 

improvements, and 

interpretation 

improvements that 

could enhance the 

program. 

Neutral effect 

Opportunities 

for Quality 

Interpretation 

Minor beneficial 

effects due to 

inclusion of a 

consolidated 

McCormack 

facility and the 

kiosks at major 

fishing sites. 

Intermediate beneficial 

effects due to additional 

interpretive pull-outs 

and signs along 

Highway 14, additional 

interpretive areas along 

trails at McNary and 

Wallula Units, by 

establishing an 

interpretive station at a 

consolidated visitor 

contact facility at 

McCormack Unit, and 

by providing kiosks at 

fishing sites. 

Slight beneficial effect 

due to additional 

interpretive materials at 

McNary Headquarters 

Unit. 

Neutral effect - no 

changes to 

interpretive 

facilities. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Effects to 

Cultural and 

Historic 

Resources 

Intermediate 

potential for 

negative effects 

from wetland 

restoration work, 

upland restoration 

and disking 

associated with 

crops and moist 

soil management. 

Minor positive 

effects from 

various proactive 

measures taken for 

protection and 

management of 

cultural resources. 

Minor potential for 

negative effects from: 

wetland restoration 

work; upland restoration disking associated 

with crops and moist 

soil management; 

construction of owl 

burrows; and increased 

trails and public 

facilities. Minor positive 

effects from various 

proactive measures 

taken for protection and 

management of cultural 

resources including 

closure of beach use. 

Minor potential for 

negative effects from 

upland restoration and 

disking associated with 

croplands and moist 

soil work, and from 

increased trails and 

public facilities. Minor 

positive effects from 

various proactive 

measures taken for 

protection and 

management of 

cultural resources 

including closure of 

beach use. 

Neutral effect 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-6 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Amount of 

Illegal Use 

Minorintermediate 

positive effects due 

to actions to deter 

illegal uses. 

Minor-intermediate 

positive effects due to 

actions to counter 

illegal uses. 

Minor - intermediate 

positive effects due to 

actions to counter 

illegal uses. 

Neutral effect 

Effects to 

Environmental 

Justice 

Neutral to slightly 

positive effects on 

human health, 

and the social 

environment.

Neutral to slightly 

positive effects on 

human health, and the 

social environment.

Neutral to slightly 

positive effects on 

human health, and the 

social environment.

Neutral to slightly 

positive effects on 

human health, and 

the social 

environment.

Economic 

Effects 

Minorintermediate 

positive effect due 

to increased 

operational and 

visitor 

expenditures. 

Intermediate positive 

effect due to increased 

operational and visitor 

expenditures. 

Minor positive effect 

due to increased 

operational and visitor 

expenditures. 

Neutral effect. 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Improvement of 

the capability of 

the Refuges to 

provide wintering 

food for waterfowl, 

with less emphasis 

on habitat 

improvements for 

other native 

species. However, 

actions will not 

reverse or halt the 

regional trend 

towards reduced 

biological integrity 

within the 

Columbia Basin. 

Active improvement of 

shrub-steppe, riparian, 

and wetland habitats 

would increase or 

maintain the value of 

Refuge habitats for a 

wide variety of native 

fish and wildlife. 

However, actions will 

not reverse or halt the 

trend towards reduced 

biological integrity 

within the Columbia 

Basin. Biological 

diversity would probably 

remain about the same. 

Invasive species could 

become more prevalent 

on surrounding lands 

but on the Refuges, 

active efforts would be 

made to reduce their 

populations. The 

Service would improve 

the availability and 

quality of wildlifedependent recreation, 

but regionally there 

would be little 

cumulative difference in 

recreational 

opportunity. 

Active improvement of 

shrub-steppe, riparian, 

and wetland habitats, 

would increase or 

maintain the value of 

Refuge lands and 

waters for a wide 

variety of native fish 

and wildlife. However, 

actions will not reverse 

or halt the regional 

trend towards reduced 

biological integrity 

within the Columbia 

Basin. The Service 

would improve the 

availability and quality 

of wildlife-dependent 

recreation, especially 

under Alternatives 2 

and 3, but within a 

regional context, there 

would be little 

cumulative difference 

in recreational 

opportunity. 

Some improvement 

of shrub-steppe, 

riparian, and 

wetland habitats, 

would increase or 

maintain the value 

of Refuge lands and 

waters for a wide 

variety of native fish 

and wildlife. 

Invasive species 

could become 

more prevalent on 

surrounding lands 

and on the Refuges 

themselves.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-7

7.2 Effects to Species and Habitats 

Adverse effects to fish and wildlife species and habitats are considered significant if: 

• An action would result in a substantial change in the amount or quality of available habitat for a 

wildlife species. (For wintering waterfowl, other migratory birds, or native resident wildlife, a 

substantial reduction in habitat resulting in a significant adverse impact would be defined as a 

reduction of 30 percent or more of the available acreage or 50 percent of the quality of habitat for 

these species within the Refuge; a significant beneficial impact would be defined as a 30 percent or 

greater increase in the quantity or 50 percent increase in the quality of habitat for wintering 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, or native resident wildlife). 

• An action would substantially change the availability of habitat for interjurisdictional fish. 

• An action would result in a substantial adverse effect; either directly or through habitat 

modifications, on any Federal threatened, endangered, candidate, or special concern wildlife or fish 

species. Also included would be species listed threatened or endangered by either Oregon’s or 

Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

• A substantial portion of native habitat would be removed or otherwise modified as to accommodate 

a proposed action. 

A. Effects to Waterfowl 

Alternative 1: Management to benefit waterfowl would be emphasized and maximized under 

Alternative 1. Management to open persistent emergent vegetation-choked areas to make them more 

accessible to waterfowl and encourage the growth of early successional wetland plants would be 

conducted on nearly 100 wetland acres per year or a total of 1,438 acres under Alternative 1. Carp 

management would be conducted on 4 wetland units on both Refuges under Alternative 1, to improve 

the quality of aquatic bed habitats resulting in increased plant and invertebrate forage available to 

waterfowl. Also under Alternative 1, undesirable invasive species in the wetland emergent zone would 

be reduced to an average maximum cover of 20% for all wetlands. 

Though natural foods provide more balanced nutrition for waterfowl, agricultural crops can provide 

an easily accessible short-term source of high energy foods (Baldassare and Bolen 1994). The 

2,100 acres of cooperatively farmed cropland supporting corn, wheat, and alfalfa on McNary and 

Umatilla Refuges provide forage for thousands of waterfowl annually, particularly Canada, Snow, and 

White-fronted geese, mallard, American widgeon, and Northern pintail. Crop acreage under 

Alternative 1 would be increased to 2,400 acres by replanting 300 acres of currently inactive 

croplands (25% of the total crop acreage would be available for wintering birds and 75% would be 

harvested by the cooperating farmer). Increased crop production might help compensate to a small 

degree, but would not replace, the decline in corn production that has occurred in Umatilla and 

Morrow Counties, Oregon since the mid-1980’s (Figure 4.7). A minimum of 400 to a maximum of 

580 acres would be planted to corn and reserved for the birds, and a minimum of 1,000 acres would 

be planted to green feed (e.g., alfalfa or winter wheat). 

Further, Alternative 1 provides for post-hunting season knockdown of crops on 460 acres to extend 

the period of food availability into early March to benefit early spring migrants such as white-fronted 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-8 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

geese. Alternative 1 proposes increasing current moist soil acreage by 40 acres which would provide 

an additional source of more natural foods for waterfowl. Additionally, flooding 30 acres of existing 

moist soil wetlands prior to September 15 would increase the availability of natural foods for early fall 

migrants, under Alternative 1. All of these activities combined under Alternative 1, if carried out 

would create better habitat for waterfowl, thereby, possibly increasing the number of waterfowl on 

both Refuges during migration and winter. All of the habitat improvement activities described above if 

Alternative 1 is implemented would be beneficial to migrating and wintering waterfowl, however, the 

overall impact would not be significant. 

Alternative 1 also provides for additional waterfowl hunting opportunities by opening a small section 

of Columbia River shoreline in the northwest part of the McCormack Unit on Umatilla Refuge. This 

new area would add about four new blinds. This action would result in increased hunter opportunity 

and perhaps increased waterfowl harvest overall, on the McCormack Unit; however, since the number 

of blinds is small and are they only available three days per week, the potential increased harvest 

would not be considered to be significant. No additional areas would be opened to hunting on 

McNary Refuge. 

Alternative 2, which emphasizes all migratory birds, proposes to improve 1,000 acres (67 acres 

annually) of wetlands over the life of the plan. Carp management would be conducted on 250 acres. 

Further, under alternative 2, cover of undesirable invasive plants would be reduced to an average of 

20% for all emergent wetlands over the life of the CCP. 

Alternative 2, which places slightly less emphasis on providing foods for waterfowl than Alternative 1, 

would maintain cropland at the current level of 2,100 acres with 400 acres to 580 acres of corn 

reserved for the birds and at least 1,000 acres of green feed available each year. As in Alternative 1, 

post hunting season knockdown of crops on 460 acres for the benefit of late winter and early spring 

migrants, would be provided for under Alternative 2. An additional 10 acres of moist soil wetlands 

would be developed under Alternative 2. Early flooding by September 15 on 30 acres of moist soil 

wetlands would also be conducted under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 also proposes opening additional hunting on the McCormack Unit as in Alternative 1 

above. However, the East McCormack Slough would be closed to hunting, providing high quality 

sanctuary habitat for waterfowl, and perhaps offsetting any additional harvest from the new blinds. 

Overall, the implementation of Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects for waterfowl, however, 

these effects would not be expected to be significant. 

Alternative 3, which emphasizes native biodiversity and historic conditions, provides for no 

improvement of emergent wetland habitat other than a reduction in undesirable invasive plant cover 

to an average maximum cover of 20%. Moreover, cropland would be reduced to a maximum of 

1,850 acres under Alternative 3, however, this reduction is less than 30% of the total crop acreage, 

and therefore, not significant. Current inactive cropland and even some active cropland would be 

restored to shrub-steppe or short grass habitat for curlews. Moist soil acreage would be decreased by 

five acres under this alternative. Also, there would be early spring knockdown of crops and no early 

fall flood-up of wetlands under alternative 3. 

No additional waterfowl hunting areas would be opened under Alternative 3. Additional sanctuary 

would be added under this alternative by closing the East McCormack Slough to hunting, likely 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-9

resulting in fewer harvested birds. Overall implementation of Alternative 3 would result in negative 

effects to waterfowl; however, these effects would not be expected to be significant. 

Alternative 4 proposes the improvement of 500 acres of wetland habitat by opening up densely 

vegetated areas. No provision for reduction of invasive plant cover, however, is included in this 

alternative. Alternative 4 would maintain cropland at the current 2,100 acres with a minimum of 

480 acres to a maximum of 580 acres in corn and at least 1,000 acres in green feed. There would 

be no extended post-hunting season knockdown of crops. Further, under Alternative 4, there would 

be no additional moist soil wetland acreage developed and no early season flood up of existing 

wetlands. 

None of the 4 alternatives will cause any significant adverse effects to waterfowl. In fact, Alternatives 

1 and 2 will have beneficial effects for waterfowl, though not considered significant under our 

threshold definitions. 

B. Effects to Shorebirds 

Alternative 2 provides the most benefits to shorebirds and shorebird habitat on the Refuges. Shorebird 

foraging habitat on the Walla Walla River Delta could increase by approximately 20 acres at times, 

during peak migration periods in fall and spring, under Alternative 2. This would be accomplished by 

working with the Corps to establish a soft restraint, to lower the McNary pool to 336-337 feet. 

Lowering the pool would not occur every day, but perhaps several days per week. Also, under 

Alternative 2, encroachment by wetland vegetation, both native and nonnative, would be managed to 

prevent the reduction of mudflats available to shorebirds. With more mudflats available for foraging, 

the annual shorebird numbers, currently 9,000 to over 10,000 birds, could potentially be increased. 

Alternative 2 also proposes additional shorebird foraging habitat by flooding 10 acres of moist soil 

wetlands annually, during August and September, at either the Wallula or McCormack Unit. None 

of these activities would be carried out under the other three alternatives. 

Under Alternatives 2, current curlew breeding habitat would be increased by planting inactive 

cropland to short grasses, as well as converting some existing cropland to short grass habitat resulting 

in a net increase of acres. 

Closing waterfowl hunting at east McCormack Slough under Alternatives 2 and 3 could benefit late 

migrating and wintering shorebirds by providing forage and resting habitat. Though potentially 

beneficial, the overall habitat increase for shorebirds would not be considered significant. Some 

minor disturbance could still occur on East McCormack Slough in the vicinity of the auto tour route 

and Heritage Trail as they pass near the slough. 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 includes the measure described under Alternative 2 to plant inactive 

cropland to short grasses. Under Alternative 3, additional breeding habitat for curlew would also be 

created by converting existing cropland (Field 5 on Umatilla’s McCormack Unit) to short grass habitat. 

The Refuges would continue to monitor curlew populations by conducting annual spring breeding 

surveys. 

Habitat improvements enacted under Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide beneficial effects to 

shorebirds, however, the effects would not be considered significant. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-10 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Alternatives 1 and 4: Under Alternatives 1 and 4, management efforts would be directed towards 

maintaining existing curlew habitat with little to no effort put into expanding habitat. The Refuges 

would continue to monitor curlew populations by conducting annual spring breeding surveys. 

 

C. Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species 

Bald Eagle: The McNary and Umatilla Refuges riparian habitats can host as many as 60 bald eagles 

from fall through early spring. Alternative 2 would potentially provide the most benefits for bald 

eagles by improving 926 acres of existing riparian habitat, and particularly by providing for 75 acres 

of cottonwood recruitment and enhancement over the life of the plan. Alternatives 3 and 4 would 

provide minimal benefits, while Alternative 1 provides no additional habitat benefits. Alternatives 2 

and 3 propose closing the East McCormack Slough to waterfowl hunting. This would likely provide 

more foraging opportunities for eagles due to increased waterfowl present and less disturbance to the 

eagles themselves. Some of the reduced disturbance to eagles and wetland wildlife may be offset by 

changes to the auto tour route under Alternative 2; and proposed changes to the Heritage Trail under 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Overall, Alternative 2 appears to be the best alternative with respect to bald 

eagles. Any of the beneficial habitat improvements under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would not represent 

significant effects to bald eagles. None of the alternatives would have any significant adverse impacts 

to bald eagles. 

 

Salmonids: Seven stocks of anadromous salmonids migrate through McNary and Umatilla Refuges 

via the Columbia, Snake, and Walla Walla Rivers. Backwater areas along the Columbia River such 

as Casey Pond and Paterson Slough are known to be used by some of these fish, particularly 

juveniles, in early spring for feeding (Easterbrooks 2000). Under Alternatives 2 and 3, other 

backwater areas on both Refuges could potentially be enhanced for juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, 

by breaching dikes and/or removing dense persistent emergent vegetation to provide more access for 

juvenile salmonids. The feasibility of this and any potential negative consequences, such as the 

potential for increased predation, would be assessed under Alternatives 2 and 3. If pre-project 

assessment proves positive, then funding will be pursued to implement projects. The effects to 

salmonids should be beneficial, but are not considered to be significant. None of the other 

alternatives call for enhancement of potential salmon habitat. 

D. Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

 

Alternative 1 (Habitat actions): Management activities proposed under Alternative 1 would provide 

the greatest benefit for wetlands and wetland-dependent wildlife. Alternative 1 provides for opening 

up and improving 1,438 acres (approximately100 acres per year) of bulrush and cattail-choked 

marsh, providing more open water and a higher diversity of wetland vegetation. Carp management 

on four wetlands or wetlands units under Alternative 1, would further improve wetlands habitat for the 

benefit of waterbirds and other aquatic species. Also under Alternative 1, undesirable invasive species 

in the wetland emergent zone would be reduced to a maximum of 20% average cover for all 

wetlands. 

Alternative 2 (Habitat actions): This alternative proposes to improve 1,000 acres (67 acres annually) 

of wetlands over the life of the CCP. Carp management would be conducted on 2 individual 

wetlands or wetland units. Further, under Alternative 2, cover of undesirable invasive plants would be 

reduced to an average of 20% for all emergent wetlands over the life of the CCP. Effects to wetland 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-11

habitats and associated wildlife would be beneficial under both Alternative 1and 2, but not considered 

to be significant since the acreage to be improved represents less than 50% of the total wetlands 

available. 

Alternative 3, which emphasizes native biodiversity and historic conditions, does not propose 

improvement of emergent wetland habitat other than a reduction in undesirable invasive plant cover 

to an average maximum cover of 20%. Alternative 4 proposes improvement of 500 acres of 

emergent wetland habitat over the life of the CCP. No provision for reduction of invasive plant cover 

is included in Alternative 4. 

 

Effects from Public Use: Direct effects to wetland habitat from public use are hard to measure and 

would likely be minimal. Human disturbance to wetland wildlife is probably more of an issue of 

concern. Besides the obvious direct impact to game species through shooting, waterfowl hunters 

traveling to and from blinds in fee hunt areas, and moving through free roam areas, could disturb 

wintering birds of various species and other wildlife by interrupting foraging or forcing animals out of 

resting habitat or thermal cover causing an unnecessary expenditure of energy and possibly subjecting 

them to increased risk of predation or winter weather-related stresses. These disturbances will be quite 

difficult to measure, and are likely not significant, as waterfowl hunters typically will follow an 

established trail to get to a blind. Further, waterfowl hunting on many Refuge units is allowed only 

three days per week. Alternative 1 proposes opening a new area for waterfowl hunting on the 

Columbia River in the northwest part of McCormack Slough. Although new disturbance would be 

created around the new blinds on the river, it would likely not be significant. Alternative 2 proposes 

closing the East McCormack Slough portion of the fee hunt area on Umatilla Refuge, in exchange for 

a similar number of blinds on the Columbia River in the northwest portion of the McCormack Unit. 

This would likely result in a net reduction in disturbance to wetland wildlife in general, as East 

McCormack Slough probably offers better wetland habitat. Alternative 3 would close East 

McCormack Slough to hunting without opening any new areas, resulting in more undisturbed wetland 

habitat available during the hunting season for waterfowl and other waterbirds. Under Alternative 4, 

there would be no change in areas currently open to hunting. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 propose a different alignment for a portion of the Heritage Trail. Regardless 

of which alignment is selected, hikers using the trail will traverse a variety of habitats, including shrubsteppe, riparian, and wetlands. Hikers traveling near wetland areas in winter could disturb waterfowl 

and other waterbirds, including bald eagles, which could be critical in the winter as explained in the 

preceding paragraph. As long as hikers stay on the trail, this disturbance should be minimal and 

overall disturbance should not be significant. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose establishing a birding trail at Wallula around South Wetland 3. This 

area is currently open year round. Uses include hunting when the season is open, fishing access, and 

bird watching. Once the hunting season has concluded, public use likely drops off significantly. 

Creating a designated, signed trail would likely create more awareness and use of the area at other 

times, especially in the spring, potentially resulting in more wildlife disturbance. The magnitude of this 

disturbance is difficult to quantify, however, is not expected to be significant. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose expanding the existing McNary Headquarters nature trail to loop back to 

the education center as well as other trail modifications. This area is closed to hunting and therefore, 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-12 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

waterfowl and other waterbirds pack into this wetland unit by the thousands during winter. Wildlife 

disturbance could be increased by the addition of a loop around this wetland, but would likely not be 

significant if trail users stay on the trail and/or designated viewing areas. 

E. Effects to Riparian Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Alternative 2 (Habitat actions): Alternative 2, which emphasizes management for migratory birds, 

provides for more riparian habitat improvement than any of the other three alternatives. Sixty-two 

acres per year of priority riparian habitat would be improved for a total of 924 acres (30% of total 

priority habitat) improved over the life of the CCP. This improvement would involve control of 

invasives and planting of native species and would be measured by a change in condition class to the 

next higher class (e.g., from poor to fair). Cottonwood stands would be improved at the rate of five 

acres per year for a total of 75 acres under Alternative 2. Effects to riparian habitats and associated 

wildlife under Alternative 2, though beneficial, would not be considered to be significant since the 

acreage to be improved is less than 50% of the total riparian acreage. 

 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (Habitat actions): Other than protection of existing riparian areas, 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 will provide little to no improvements for riparian habitat, therefore, providing 

little to no additional benefits to wildlife species inhabiting riparian areas. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, 

Refuge management to improve riparian habitats would be limited to five acres annually or 75 acres 

over 15 years. Any larger project would likely only be carried out if specific project funds are 

acquired. Under Alternative 1, no riparian improvement would be done. 

Public Use Effects: Refuge riparian areas are used by hunters pursuing deer and upland game. 

Because these activities are basically free roam, it is difficult to quantify disturbance effects. 

Obviously deer hunting has direct impacts on the deer themselves, however, the activity is necessary 

and beneficial, in order to keep the deer populations at manageable levels which lessens excessive 

habitat damage from deer herbivory, and provides a recreational opportunity. Any other disturbance 

to wildlife from deer hunting is probably not of great concern because it is generally a well regulated 

activity and occurs early in the fall. Besides the obvious direct impact to game species through 

shooting, upland game hunters pursuing quail and pheasants in riparian habitats during the latter part 

of the hunting season could disturb wintering birds of many different species (including bald eagles), 

and other wildlife, by interrupting foraging or forcing animals out of resting habitat or thermal cover 

causing an unnecessary expenditure of energy and possibly subjecting them to an increased risk of 

predation or winter weather-related stresses. This disturbance will be dampened somewhat by the 

closure of the riparian area around east McCormack Slough to upland hunting, under Alternatives 2 

and 3. Disturbances of riparian wildlife from upland game and deer hunters will likely be not 

significant because in most Refuge units’ hunter numbers or days of use are controlled. Further, 

hunting is a wildlife-dependent compatible use that provides opportunities for recreation that would be 

considered beneficial. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 propose a different alignment for a portion of the Heritage Trail. 

Regardless of which alignment is selected, hikers using the trail will traverse a variety of habitats 

including shrub-steppe, riparian, and wetlands. Hikers traversing through riparian habitat in winter 

could potentially disturb bald eagles and other birds, mule deer, and other wildlife with effects similar 

to those listed in the preceding paragraph. As long as hikers stay on the trail, any potential habitat 

damage should not occur and disturbance to riparian birds and other animals should be minimal. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-13

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose a 0.4-mile spur trail leading off the existing McNary Headquarters 

Nature Trail, northwest to the Corps’ Hood Park campground on the Snake River. Part of this trail 

would traverse riparian habitat. Similar types of disturbance as indicated in preceding paragraphs 

could occur on this new trail, but would likely be minimized and not significant if hikers stay on the 

trail. 

F. Effects to River Islands and Associated Wildlife 

All alternatives (Habitat actions): No significant changes in the amount of island habitat are proposed 

or expected as a result of any of the alternatives. Corps management of the McNary and John Day 

pool levels for the benefit of salmon and recreational activities, which is beyond the control of the 

Refuges, will have more impact on island accretion or degradation. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 do 

provide for monitoring and documenting rates of erosion. 

Public Use Effects: Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for complete closure of the Umatilla Refuge islands. 

Therefore, potential habitat and wildlife disturbance would be eliminated under this alternative. 

Current seasonal swimming and beach use and associated other uses would be eliminated on all 

Refuge islands. Currently beach use is allowed on three designated sites within the Columbia River 

Islands: 1) a large sandy beach located on the far, east tip of West Blalock Island; 2) a large sandy 

beach located on the far, east tip of Big Sand Dune Island; and 3) a sand peninsula (sometimes a 

small sand island) located on the far, east tip of Crow Butte Island. Big Sand Dune Island supports 

great blue heron and black-crowned heron nesting colonies. Both West Blalock Island and Big Sand 

Dune Island support nesting Canada geese. All three islands support other breeding migratory birds, 

mule deer, and other wildlife. During the waterfowl hunting season both West Blalock and Big Sand 

Dune are closed to hunting, resulting in thousands of waterfowl and other waterbirds using the 

shoreline and shallow water around the islands for feeding and resting. Eliminating all beach use, 

including seasonal summer use, would eliminate any disturbance to colonial nesting birds, waterfowl 

and geese in particular, passerines including bank swallows, and shorebirds including long-billed 

curlews and large numbers of migrating shorebirds. Elimination of human disturbance during July will 

increase bird nesting activities, such as rearing of nestlings, and feeding of fledged but flightless 

juveniles which would still be occurring in July and early August. Beach users do not always stay on 

the designated use areas, so other impacts to nesting birds and the proliferation of litter and human 

waste will be eliminated. Beach use by humans brings the possibility of fire which could damage or 

destroy nesting habitat, especially the sagebrush habitat used by Canada geese and the large trees 

used by herons. Loss of either of these habitats would impact long–term future production of young. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would also include a no-wake zone within 100 feet of islands. In addition, 

special use permits (SUPs) for fishing tournaments would include no-access buffers of 0.5 miles from 

islands known to be supporting nesting colonies of American white pelicans between 15 March and 

31 August, and a no-access buffer of 900 feet from all other Refuge islands from February 15-July 

31, to prevent disturbance to nesting colonial birds. Both of these provisions would help minimize 

disturbance from boating and fishing to colonial birds and other wildlife using the islands. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-14 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

G. Effects to Shrub-Steppe Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Shrub-steppe habitat protection, restoration, and improvement would receive greater emphasis under 

Alternative 3 followed by Alternatives 2, 1, and 4 in the order of most beneficial. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (Habitat actions): Alternative 3 provides for the improvement of 288 acres 

annually in the 15 priority areas resulting in a total of 4,322 acres (45% of the 9,605 total) of shrubsteppe being improved over the life of the CCP. Thirty percent (2,881acres) of shrub-steppe habitat in 

the 15 priority areas would be improved over the life of the CCP under Alternative 2, or about 192 

acres annually. This improvement would involve control of invasive plants and planting of native 

species, and would be measured by a change in condition class to the next higher class, e.g., from 

poor to fair. Restoration of bitterbrush as an important component of shrub-steppe would be 

emphasized under Alternatives 3 and 2. Alternative 3 would be the most beneficial for shrub-steppe 

habitat by proposing the planting of 100 acres of bitterbrush over the life of the CCP. Bitterbrush 

would be planted to 50 acres under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide for the largest net gain 

of shrub-steppe habitat, by restoring 600 acres of inactive croplands, abandoned gravel pits, 

unnecessary roads, and waste sites, while Alternative 2 provides for the restoration of 350 acres of 

these types of areas. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide beneficial effects to shrub-steppe 

habitat and associated wildlife. However, the expected benefits from implementation of either 

alternative would not be considered significant because the new acreage and the acreage to be 

improved represent less than 30% and 50% of current total habitat, respectively. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 (Habitat actions): Under Alternative 1, management emphasis would be directed 

primarily towards waterfowl, waterfowl habitat, and public uses. Management and improvement of 

shrub-steppe habitats would be secondary and inconsistently conducted depending on budget and 

staff levels, as is generally the current situation (Alternative 4). While current shrub-steppe acreage 

would be maintained under both Alternatives 1 and 4, only 10% or 960 acres of priority shrub-steppe 

habitat would be improved over the life of the CCP, under either alternative. An 85-acre gravel pit 

area on McNary Refuge and approximately 25 acres of unneeded roads and trails on either Refuge 

would be restored to shrub-steppe, resulting in a net gain of 100 acres under Alternative 1, but not 

under Alternative 4. Further, no bitterbrush would be planted under Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Additionally, under Alternative 1, current inactive croplands on both Refuges could become active 

again, thus precluding these areas from being restored to shrub-steppe. None of these inactive 

croplands would be restored to shrub-steppe or reactivated as cropland under Alternative 4. 

Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 4 would provide some beneficial effects to shrub-steppe habitat 

and associated wildlife; however, these would not be significant. 

Public Use Effects: Refuge shrub-steppe areas will be used by hunters under all alternatives pursuing 

deer, upland game, and even for pass shooting waterfowl. These activities can impact shrub-steppe 

habitat and disturb shrub-steppe wildlife. Because these activities are basically free roam, it is difficult 

to quantify disturbance effects. Obviously deer hunting has direct impacts on the deer themselves, but 

the activity is provided for under all alternatives, and it is necessary and beneficial in order to keep 

deer populations at manageable levels which lessens excessive shrub habitat damage due to deer 

herbivory, and provides a recreational opportunity. Because of the short season length and low 

number of hunters, habitat damage by deer hunters is likely negligible under all alternatives. Shrubsteppe habitat could be damaged by upland hunter traffic especially in popular areas that attract 

large numbers of hunters, however, this would also be hard to quantify. Besides the obvious direct 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-15

impact to game species through shooting, upland hunters pursuing quail and pheasants in the latter 

part of the hunting season could disturb wintering birds of many different species and other wildlife by 

interrupting foraging or forcing animals out of resting habitat or thermal cover, causing an 

unnecessary expenditure of energy and possibly subjecting them to increased risk of predation or 

winter weather-related stresses. This kind of disturbance would occur not just in shrub-steppe but in 

all habitats used by upland hunters including riparian and margins of emergent wetlands. The 

magnitude of this disturbance is hard to quantify due to the free roam nature of upland hunting. Each 

year and estimated 2,625 hunters participate in upland bird or small game hunting at McNary and 

1,400 at Umatilla. The overall disturbance effect is negative, but mostly minor and not significant 

under all alternatives because: a) daily upland hunting on most of the units does not begin until noon; 

and b) on most Refuge units, upland hunting is allowed only three days per week and as the season 

progresses into the winter months, hunter participation tends to drop off. The McCormack Unit on 

Umatilla Refuge is the only upland area where the number of upland hunters is controlled by a permit 

system. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the number of daily permits would remain at the current level of 

25 per hunting day. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the maximum number of permits per hunt day 

during the first two weekends would be reduced to 15, serving to dampen the wildlife disturbance 

effects due to free roam upland hunting, while providing a better quality hunt. Any direct impacts to 

habitat would, therefore, be reduced. Also, under Alternative 3, a portion of upland hunting habitat 

adjacent to the East McCormack Slough would be closed to upland hunting as part of the shift in 

waterfowl sanctuary provided for under Objective 1d, resulting in further disturbance reduction. 

Overall, shrub-steppe wildlife and habitat disturbance effects due to hunting of upland game and deer 

are not expected to have significant adverse effects. Further, hunting is a wildlife-dependent, 

compatible use that provides opportunities for recreation that would be considered beneficial. 

Horseback riding is allowed on certain trails and roads on McNary and Umatilla Refuges under all 4 

alternatives. One such trail is on the north side of the Wallula Unit. The trail begins at the Madame 

Dorion boat launch and runs 1.3 miles to the north and east around the north side of Sanctuary Pond 

ending at Ranger Road. Direct habitat damage to the shrub-steppe habitat from trampling and 

spread of invasive plant species could result, especially if the trail is heavily used. Horseback riders in 

spring and early summer could cause disturbance to nesting bird species such as savannah sparrow, 

western meadowlark, mallards, and California quail. This disturbance could result in the loss of nests 

and eggs directly from being crushed or from abandonment of the nest by the parent birds. Riders 

going off trail would cause more physical damage to the habitat and increase the potential area of 

disturbance to nesting birds, which are probably more of a concern than any other issues. As long as 

riders stay on the trail, which they are required to do, some of these potential wildlife disturbance 

impacts would be minimized and the effects not significant. 

 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to promote bird watching by signing the Wallula horseback trail which 

may result in more use of the trail, thus increasing the frequency of disturbance, which should be 

localized and minimized, provided bird watchers stay on the trail. Bird watchers veering off the trail 

will increase the area of potential disturbance to nesting birds, and could over time cause damage to 

the habitat itself. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose a 0.4-mile spur trail leading off the existing McNary Headquarters 

Nature Trail northwest to the Corps’ Hood Park campground on the Snake River. Part of this trail 

would traverse shrub-steppe and riparian habitats. Similar types of disturbance as indicated above 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-16 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

could occur on this new trail, however, the effects are not likely to be significant. Other trail 

modifications and viewing opportunities are proposed for the McNary Headquarters Trail under 

Alternatives 2 and 3. As long as trail users stay on the trail and at designated viewing platforms, 

disturbance should be minimized. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 propose a different alignment for a portion of the Heritage Trail. Regardless 

of which alignment is selected, hikers using the trail will traverse a variety of habitats including shrubsteppe, riparian, and wetlands. As long as hikers stay on the trail any potential habitat damage 

should not occur, and disturbance to shrub-steppe and/or riparian birds and other animals should be 

minimal, and therefore, not significant. 

H. Effects to Talus, Outcrop, and Cliff Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

 

Mining and other extractive activities would be prohibited under all four alternatives; therefore, no 

change in the amount of these rocky habitats would be expected. Damage caused by recreational 

pursuits such as rock climbing and rock collecting would be minimal, because these are also 

prohibited activities under all alternatives. Though these habitats are open to hunting and hiking, 

much of the areas are inaccessible due to the steepness of the terrain, resulting in minimal habitat 

damage from these activities. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide for an inventory of plant and wildlife resources inhabiting these rocky 

habitats. Alternative 3 also proposes the development of a corridor management plan in partnership 

with neighboring landowners and other stakeholders. These activities would enhance awareness and 

management of these areas which should be beneficial in helping the public understand the fragile 

nature and importance of these habitats. Based on the analysis above, no significant impacts to talus, 

outcrop, cliff habitats and their associated wildlife are expected to result from implementing any of the 

4 alternatives. 

7.3 Effects to the Physical Environment 

Topics addressed under the physical environment section include direct and indirect effects to 

hydrology, water quality, air quality, visual quality, and geology/soils. The criteria used in this 

document to determine if a particular impact represents a significant adverse effect are present below 

for each topic: 

• Hydrology – An adverse hydrologic effect is considered significant if an action would result in a 

>1% reduction in Columbia River or tributary in-stream flows, increased flooding on- or off-site, a 

further deviation from historical hydrological patterns, or a reduction in the local groundwater 

table. 

• Water Quality – Adverse impacts to water quality would be considered significant if the action 

would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially increase 

downstream sedimentation, introduce persistent contaminants (nonpoint source pollution) into the 

watershed, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 

• Air Quality – implementation of a proposed Refuge action would have a significant direct effect on 

air quality if the action would result in: emissions equal to or in excess of the standards set in local 

implementation plans for the Clean Air Act; large areas of soil becoming routinely exposed and 

subject to wind erosion; or sensitive receptors being exposed to substantial pollutant 

concentrations, including air toxics such as diesel particulates. Significant indirect effects to air 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-17

quality would occur if a proposed Refuge action results in frequent congestion on adjacent 

roadways. Significant cumulative effects would occur if the “de minimis” (minimum) thresholds 

developed by the EPA for proposed Federal actions in a nonattainment area are exceeded. 

• Visual Quality – A proposal that would substantially alter the natural landform, or block public 

views to a public resource from designated open space areas or public roads, would be 

considered a significant adverse effect on visual quality. 

A. Effects to Hydrology 

None of the Refuges’ actions would be expected to have any significant effect on the local hydrology. 

Under all alternatives, the Service expects to make requests to the Corps for short-term pool level 

changes, to promote cottonwood regeneration in riparian areas (all alternatives), to allow for 

temporary drawdown of wetlands in order to eradicate carp (Alts. 1 and 2), and to provide additional 

mudflat habitat for shorebirds during fall and possibly spring migration. These minor changes to pool 

level would not significantly alter local hydrological patterns or the current hydrograph of the 

Columbia River within the vicinity of Lake Wallula or Lake Umatilla. 

Under Alternative 1, 300 acres of former but currently inactive cropland would be brought under 

cultivation in the cooperative farming program, requiring additional irrigation. The water source for 

the crops would be the Columbia River. The volume required would be small (about 1 acre-foot/acre 

per year, equivalent to 300 acre-feet annually). Considering that the runoff of the Columbia River 

measures approximately 139 million-acre-feet annually (Washington Department of Ecology 2004), 

this withdrawal would not significantly affect the Columbia River hydrograph or local hydrological 

patterns. Under Alternative 3, cropland acreage would be reduced by about 250 acres overall. The 

Refuges would draw less water for irrigation under this alternative, with a small beneficial but 

insignificant effect to instream flows. 

 

B. Effects to Water Quality 

Minor short-term impacts to water quality could occur under all alternatives, stemming from the 

control of invasive plant species. Control would involve mechanical removal and the periodic 

application of herbicides. Although mechanical removal has the potential to expose soils to wind and 

water erosion, this activity would be limited largely to the use of hand tools (except in cropland areas) 

and would focus on individual plant removal, rather than the removal of large areas of vegetation. 

Therefore, the continuation of this control method is not expected to introduce substantial amounts of 

additional sediments into the local wetlands or rivers. 

The use of herbicides or pesticides to control invasive plants or animals, or to control weeds or pests 

in croplands, also poses several environmental risks, including drift, volatilization, persistence in the 

environment, water contamination, and harmful effects to wildlife (Bossard et al. 2000). A larger 

number of acres would be subject to herbicide or pesticide use under Alternatives 1, the least number 

of acres would be subject under Alternative 4, and an intermediate numbers of acres under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (see Table 7-2). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-18 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Table 7-2. Area potentially subject to annual herbicide or pesticide use 

Maximum acres treated annually Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Croplands 2,400 2,100 1,850 2,100

Shrub-steppe uplands (areas restored plus areas improved) 164 542 888 64

Riparian 0 62 5 5

Carp Eradication 1,000 250 0 0

Total acres 3,564 2,954 2,743 2,169 

Although there are a large number of acres on the Refuges potentially subjected to herbicide 

treatment, the potential for such risks under this alternative are considered minimal due to the types of 

herbicides used (non-persistent), the limited number of acres that would be exposed in riparian 

habitat, the efforts taken to drain wetland areas before eradicating carp, and the precautionary 

measures taken during application. Effects would not be considered significant under any alternative. 

Some additional visitor facilities, kiosks and additional trails, would be established under Alternatives 

2 and 3, with minor and short-term potential for water quality impacts during construction. The 

Refuge Manager’s office at Umatilla Refuge would be moved under Alternatives 1 and 2, potentially 

causing minor and short-term water quality impacts. 

Mechanical soil disturbance would occur on river margins to facilitate cottonwood germination and 

also on the borders of wetlands to set back succession. This activity, mainly the shallow marsh 

improvement, would occur on more acres annually under Alternatives 1 (approximately 100 acres/ 

year) than the other alternatives. Alternative 2 (77 acres/year), and Alternative 4 (approximately 30 

acres/year) would have an intermediate number of acres disturbed mechanically, and Alternative 3 

would have none. Some sedimentation into wetlands on the Columbia, Walla Walla, or Snake Rivers 

could occur, as a result of this activity, however, compared with sediment input into these rivers that 

stems from other sources off-Refuge each year (Jay and Naik 2002), this effect would be insignificant. 

C. Effects to Air Quality 

None of the alternatives would be expected to have significant effects to air quality. Air quality 

problems stemming from wildfire smoke could decrease slightly under Alternatives 2 and 3, which call 

for devoting additional resources to reducing wildfires. Any prescribed burning for habitat 

management would occur under the guidelines laid out in the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan (U.S. 

FWS 2001). The Service would adhere to all State and local smoke regulations. 

The Refuges would experience some increases in visitation over the 15-year time horizon of the CCP 

(see Section 7.3), with a slightly higher overall increase under Alternative 2 than under the other 

alternatives. The increased visitation would generate additional traffic on local and Refuge roads. 

This increase would not degrade local air quality to any significant degree under any of the 

alternatives. 

Local air quality is also influenced by windborne particulates, with bare loose soils being most 

vulnerable to wind erosion. Under Alternative 3, approximately 250 acres of ground would be 

restored to shrub-steppe, a change from its current use as annual croplands. Although there would 

be some time lag in establishing native vegetation during the restoration, this alternative would likely 

result in the greatest long-term reduction in wind erosion stemming from cultivated ground. Under 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-19

Alternative 1, 300 additional acres would be brought under cultivation, with the potential for bare 

ground and wind erosion before planting and after harvest. Under all alternatives, the Refuges’ 

contribution to the local air shed’s particulate matter would be very minor in the context of the 

extensive acreage of plowed agricultural lands surrounding the Refuges that contribute an 

overwhelming majority of particulate matter to the local and regional air shed. 

Herbicide drift could contribute to minor localized impacts to air quality, but since these would rapidly 

dissipate, this effect is determined to be negligible under all alternatives. 

D. Effects to Visual Quality 

None of the alternatives would be expected to have more than very minor effects on visual quality (i.e. 

scenery). The Refuges’ scenic beauty will remain undisturbed under all alternatives. A few minor 

developments, such as kiosks and signs, will be placed in a few areas under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 

to a lesser extent under Alternative 1. These improvements would be designed to enhance visitors’ 

appreciation of the natural and visual resources contained within the area. 

Three hundred acres of land would be brought under cultivation in Alternative. All of these acres 

would be derived from existing inactive croplands. These modifications would not substantially alter 

the landform or block views from public roads. Except for these minor modifications, there are no 

effects to visual resources under the CCP. 

7.4 Social Effects 

This section opens with an assessment of the change in Refuge user numbers expected under each of 

the alternatives. Following this assessment, how management actions under each alternative could 

affect quality opportunities for each of the Big Six uses is evaluated. In addition, opportunities for 

non-wildlife dependent recreation are examined, as is the amount of illegal uses. 

Adverse effects to opportunities for recreational public uses would be considered significant if a 

proposed action resulted in: 

• Substantial displacement of a wildlife-dependent public use (>25% of existing activities or 

opportunities moved to a different area or terminated at the Refuge); or 

• Substantial reduction in the quality of the wildlife-dependent experience (crowding increasing by 

more than 50% or substantial anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat supporting the experience). 

Positive effects to opportunities for recreational public uses would be considered significant if a 

proposed action resulted in substantial increase in opportunity for or quality of a wildlife-dependent 

public use (>25% increase over existing opportunity or quality of experience). 

A. Projected User Numbers in 15 Years 

As an overview to assessing the social effects of Alternatives 1 through 4, it is important to understand 

the broader context of McNary and Umatilla Refuges within the region and how recreational demand 

and public use is expected to change over time. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-20 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

A growing visitor presence on the Refuges can be expected in the future. Many of the public use 

opportunities currently provided at the Refuges are very popular within the State, and are forecasted to 

attract increasing amounts of participants in the coming years 

A 2002 report by Washington State’s IAC (IAC 2002) estimated the percent of change in the number 

of people participating in recreational activities in the future compared to current levels. According to 

their study, it is estimated that “nature activities,” including outdoor photography and wildlife 

observation, will increase 30% during the next 15 years. Hunting and fishing are expected to 

decrease (18% and 8% respectively) during the next 15 years. The IAC’s estimates for future use were 

used in calculating future visitor activity numbers for McNary and Umatilla Refuges. In alternatives 

that improve or add visitor facilities, additional visitation is likely to occur and increase Refuge use 

above IAC’s estimates. 

According to statistics kept by the Friends of Mid-Columbia River Refuges, all but 150 of the 3,700 

students that participated in formal activities at the McNary Environmental Education Center in 2004 

were from within 25 miles of the Refuge. 

Hunters applying for the McNary waterfowl fee hunt area were from the following locations: 65% 

from or within 30 miles of the Tri-Cities; 25% from the Portland area; and 20% from various other 

locations. Informal tallies taken by Refuge officers checking waterfowl hunters in the field reveal 

similar numbers but suggest a slightly higher percentage of local residents hunting the Refuge. 

According to the 2002 Banking on Nature report, (Caudill and Henderson 2003) 85%-90% of 

nonconsumptive users (visitors participating in wildlife observation and wildlife photography) and 70% 

of anglers on Umatilla Refuge are residents of the area (defined as living within a 30-mile radius of 

the Refuge). Migratory waterfowl hunters are comprised of 50% nonresidents, big-game hunters are 

75% nonresidents, and small-game hunters are 25% nonresidents. Informal tallies by Refuge officers 

checking waterfowl hunters on the Washington side of Umatilla Refuge show that the vast majority 

(70%) of waterfowl hunters using these units (Paterson, Ridge, and Whitcomb) are from the Tri-Cities 

area. 

It is important to consider the significant amount of population growth forecast for the Tri-Cities, 

Portland, and Seattle areas. Population growth will occur regardless of which alternative is selected. 

Population growth and increasing recreational demand, particularly in nature activities will increase 

recreation on the Refuges. 

Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show Refuge visitation (number of Refuge visits annually) estimates for each 

Refuge, under several categories, both current and expected under the different alternatives. 

The following background information may be useful in interpreting the tables. 

• Current visitation is based on visits tallied in the year 2004, as summarized in the 2004 Refuge 

Management Information System (RMIS) data. 

• The future visitation estimates for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, represent the Refuge’s best estimate 

of the number of visits in each category during the final year of the 15-year CCP time frame. 

These estimates are based on two factors. The first factor is the percent of change in the number of 

people participating in a recreational activity in the future compared to the current levels. Future 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-21

participation rates are based on the IAC’s 2002 Estimates of Future Participation in Outdoor 

Recreation in Washington State (IAC 2002). Projected population growth is incorporated into these 

figures already. Some activities offered at the Refuges do not correspond exactly to the categories 

used in the IAC reports–the nearest equivalent was used. The second factor is that alternatives that 

emphasize or improve facilities for a type of recreational activity are given additional weight of 

10%; those that diminish opportunities are reduced. Where actual permit numbers or group 

numbers are known based on area or staffing constraints, changing growth rates were ignored. 

Table 7-3. McNary Refuge’s Projected Annual Visitation in 15 Years, by Alternative 

 

Recreational Activity 

Current 

Visitation 

IAC projected 

change1 

 

Alt. 1 

 

Alt. 2 

 

Alt. 3 

 

Alt.4 

Waterfowl Hunting 10,600 -18% 9,560 9,560 7,830 8,700

Upland Game 

Hunting2

1,400 -18% 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400

Fishing 16,800 -7% 17,2000 17,200 15,600 16,500

Environmental 

Education/ 

Interpretation 

1,500—

4,000 

+30% 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Wildlife Observation/ 

Photography 

57,000 +30% 74,100 81,500 81,500 74,100

1

 The IAC report estimated percent changes over 10 year intervals and 20 year intervals. The two intervals were averaged 

for our purposes in estimating changes over the 15- year lifetime of the CCP.

Table 7-4. Umatilla Refuge’s Projected Annual Visitation in 15 Years, by Alternative 

 

Recreational Activity 

Current 

Visitation 

IAC projected 

change, 15 years1 

 

Alt. 1 

 

Alt. 2 

 

Alt. 3 

 

Alt.4 

Waterfowl Hunting 13,000 -18% 11,700 10,660 9,600 10,660

Upland Game 

Hunting2

2,600 -18% 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600

Fishing 20,000 -7% 20,700 20,700 18,800 18,800

Environmental3

Education/ 

Interpretation 

200 +30% 260 500 500 260

Wildlife Observation/ 

Photography 

35,600 +30% 46,200 50,900 49,000 46,200

Big Game Hunting2 28 -18% 28 28 28 28

1

 The IAC report estimated percent changes over 10 year intervals and 20 year intervals. The two intervals were averaged 

for our purposes in estimating changes over the 15- year lifetime of the CCP. 

2

Although statewide decreases in hunting are expected by the IAC, the popularity and status of hunting programs at these 

refuges, together with anticipated habitat improvements led the Planning Team to anticipate that there would be no change 

in hunter visits over the next 15 years. 

3

 Environmental Education on the Refuge is primarily limited by Refuge staffing and volunteers devoted to presenting EE 

programs. The public demand for EE programs far exceeds what the Refuge can provide. When funding permitted an 

interpretative park ranger position at McNary Refuge, the EE program grew from 150 visitors a year to over 4,000 visitors. 

The additional staffing also allowed for large volunteer and Friends programs to develop. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-22 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

B. Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography 

No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of the 

alternatives would displace any wildlife observation or photography activities. Although visitation will 

increase under all alternatives, mostly due to population increases and the growing popularity of 

wildlife viewing, none of the alternatives are expected to result in increasing crowding by more than 

50% or in substantial anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat supporting the wildlife viewing or 

photography experience. 

Alternatives 2 and 3: Facilities to improve opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography (trails, photography blinds, and overlooks) would be expanded and enhanced under 

Alternative 2, and to a slightly lesser extent, under Alternative 3. These facility improvements would 

increase access to natural areas and improve wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. 

Habitat improvements under Alternative 2 emphasize migratory birds and special status species. It 

would be reasonable to assume that the habitat improvements proposed under this Alternative would 

increase wildlife viewing and photography opportunities for these target species. Habitat 

improvements under Alternative 3, which emphasizes native biodiversity, would also improve the 

chances for visitors to see and photograph a greater spectrum of native plants and animals. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the positive effects to opportunities stemming from facility enhancements 

would not be considered significant because the proposed actions are not expected to increase the 

opportunities for, or quality of, wildlife viewing or photography by 25% or more over the existing 

conditions. 

Alternatives 1 and 4: Only minor facility changes (realignment of the Heritage Trail) would occur 

under Alternative 1, and no changes to facilities would occur under Alternative 4. Effects would be 

neutral to slightly negative under Alternative 4 and Alternative 1, because growth in population and 

recreational demand means that more visitors would arrive at the Refuges, but the number of facilities 

available to accommodate the visitors under these alternatives would remain approximately the same. 

C. Opportunities for Quality Hunting 

Waterfowl and Upland Game Birds: The effects of the different alternatives on this activity were 

addressed in terms of the quantity of hunting acres available, the habitat condition, and other 

management actions that affect hunting opportunities. The chosen indicators for each alternative 

were 1) acres available for hunting; 2) overall habitat quality; and 3) other management actions that 

affect hunt quality. 

Note that, technically, all of the acres open to waterfowl hunting are also open to upland bird 

hunting, but obviously the quality of the waterfowl and upland game bird hunt depends partly on the 

habitat area chosen. 

Alternative 1 contains features to increase the number of acres available for hunting and also to 

increase habitat quality for game species. The actions outlined below would result in neutral to minor 

positive effects to opportunities for quality hunting, but the net effect would not be significant because 

there would be less than a 25% change in opportunity for or quality of hunting. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-23

Acres available for waterfowl hunting: Approximately 25,952 acres would be open to both 

upland bird and waterfowl hunting, a 47-acre addition to the current area available (see 

Alternative 4). Forty-seven acres of additional river shore habitat would be opened to 

waterfowl hunting on Umatilla’s McCormack Unit. One to five blinds would be established 

and managed under Umatilla’s reservation system. This would increase the available blinds 

from 35 to 40, and give 10 to 20 more hunters per day an opportunity to draw a blind. 

Several goose blinds occupying approximately 100 acres of upland areas on the Peninsula 

Unit would be eliminated, but because these blinds are largely unproductive (these fields are 

seldom used by geese and thus rarely hunted anymore) and hunters could still use the area for 

free roam hunting if they wish. the overall effect of this alternative is still a net increase in the 

hunting area. 

Acres available for upland game bird hunting: Upland game hunted areas would be the same 

as the acres available for waterfowl hunting. 

Habitat quality waterfowl: Habitat quality improvements for waterfowl species under 

Alternative 1 include the following: (a) the Refuges would add 300 acres of cropland for a 

total of 2,400 acres farmed (crops on 25% of this acreage would be retained by the Refuge 

for waterfowl use). Though these additional croplands would be located in areas closed to 

hunting, they would increase (by 75 acres) the amount of “hot” foods available to all wintering 

birds during the coldest months; (b) 40 acres of moist soil management units would be 

created for the production of native food. These additional 40 acres would be located on 

areas of the Refuges currently open to waterfowl hunting; and (c) efforts would be made to 

increase open shallow water marsh habitat by as much as 96 acres per year on both Refuges. 

This would be done on areas both opened and closed to hunting. This could have the effect 

of drawing more birds to Refuge waters, and potentially increasing the quality of waterfowl 

hunting. All of these changes would be expected to result in a minor increase in the quality of 

waterfowl hunting under this alternative. 

Habitat quality upland game: Habitat quality would also improve for upland game because: 

(a) Approximately 100 acres of goose hunting area on upland portions of the Peninsula Unit 

would no longer be managed (i.e. mowed or hayed) to attract geese. Instead, old fields in this 

area would be planted in native grasses. The aim here would be to replace poor quality 

goose hunting with higher quality upland bird hunting: (b) efforts would be made to restore 

old road beds, waste sites, gravel pits, and former cropland to upland shrub-steppe habitat. 

Under this alternative, Objective 7e calls for restoring as much as 100 acres. This, in 

combination with the 100 acres of former goose hunting land, would add 200 acres of 

restored upland for bird hunters. This could increase the ability for the land to support more 

birds. 

Other management actions: This alternative includes several management actions to increase 

the quality of the upland game bird hunt, as follows: (a) Standardization of hunt days and 

start times would be implemented. All units on both Refuges would follow State start times, 

except the fee hunt units, where upland bird hunting would not start until noon of each hunt 

day. (b) Crowding and pressure on the McCormack upland permit hunt would be reduced by 

requiring permits for the opening two weekends and reducing allowable permits to 15 per 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-24 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

day. (c) The present pheasant augmentation program on McNary would be phased out due to 

Service policy prohibiting non-native stocking. This initially could reduce the ability for hunters 

to bag birds since some of the lands are degraded and can’t support enough birds to sustain 

the hunting pressure. The Refuges would continue upland and riparian restoration efforts, 

which should result in higher quality upland habitat capable of supporting more birds. 

Alternative 2 strives to provide a quality hunting program in concert with other Big Six uses and habitat 

programs on the Refuge. The actions outlined below would result in neutral to slight positive effects to 

opportunities for quality hunting, but the net effect would not be significant because there would be 

less than a 25% change in opportunity for or quality of hunting. 

Acres available for waterfowl and game bird hunting: Approximately 25,739 acres would be 

open to waterfowl and upland bird hunting. This is a reduction of 166 acres from the current 

area (25,905 acres). The change would result from trading an area that is currently open 

(east McCormack hunt unit on Umatilla) with an area that is currently closed (river shoreline at 

Umatilla). The two areas would change status. No net loss of huntable area would result – 

the same number of blinds would be available as at present. The east McCormack slough 

would then function as sanctuary, but the birds using it would likely move through the hunt 

area as they moved back and forth from the river. 

Habitat quality waterfowl: Refuge cropland would be maintained at current levels (2,100 

acres) and moist soil management units would be increased by 10 acres from the current 

level. New moist soil units would provide natural foods for some of the earlier migrants like 

northern pintails. As in Alternative 1, open water shallow marsh areas would be created and 

maintained at a rate of approximately 67 acres/year. 

Habitat quality upland game birds: As compared to Alternative 1, more land would be 

restored back to native shrub-steppe. An additional 250 acres would be converted by taking 

inactive croplands which are unneeded or unsuitable for production. This would be added to 

the 100 acres gained from restoration of highly degraded uplands for an increase to 350 

acres of restored native shrub-steppe. This would result in an intermediate net gain of habitat 

and habitat quality for upland game birds. 

Other management actions: Other actions designed to increase the quality of the upland bird 

management strategies would essentially mirror those in alternative 1. The goose pit blinds 

on Peninsula would be eliminated, as well as the fall mowing. Hunt days and start times 

would be standardized, McCormack upland permits would be reduced to 15 per day on the 

opening two weekends, and the pheasant release program would be phased out. 

Alternative 3 would enact changes aimed at more aggressive restoration of natural habitats. The 

actions outlined below would result in minor negative effects to opportunities for quality hunting, but 

the net effect would not be significant because there would be less than a 25% change in opportunity 

for or quality of hunting. 

Acres available for waterfowl and upland game bird hunting: As in Alternative 2, the east 

McCormack slough hunt area would be turned into waterfowl sanctuary, thus eliminating 

three hunt blinds from the Umatilla fee unit program. No additional blinds or hunt areas 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-25

would be added on the Refuges to replace the lost hunting area. The total hunt area 

available would decrease by 207 acres, to 25,698 acres. Fall mowing would be eliminated 

on the Peninsula Unit goose blinds; however, the middle unit goose blinds would still be 

maintained. 

Habitat quality waterfowl: Under Alternative 3, the overall cropland acreages of both Refuges 

would decrease to 1,850 from the current 2,100. The conversion of 250 acres of existing 

cropland to shrub-steppe habitat (meaning a loss of about 63 acres of crops dedicated to 

wintering waterfowl) could have an adverse impact on the Refuge’s ability to attract and hold 

birds during the winter, resulting in a minor loss in habitat quality, with a minor indirect effect 

to hunting quality. 

Habitat quality upland game birds: This alternative would restore as much as 600 acres of 

native grasslands and shrub-steppe habitat restoring 250 acres of active waterfowl grain 

production croplands; 250 acres of inactive croplands and 100 acres of degraded uplands, 

old road beds, and gravel pits. This would result in a minor positive effect to game bird 

habitat quality. 

Other management actions: This alternative maintains the current program (start times, 

number of permits, etc.) for upland game birds, except the present pheasant augmentation 

program on McNary would be phased out, due to Service policy prohibiting nonnative 

stocking. Initially, this could reduce hunters’ ability to bag birds because some of the lands are 

degraded, and can’t support enough birds to sustain the hunting pressure. As described 

above, the Refuges would place additional emphasis on upland and riparian restoration 

efforts, which should eventually result in higher quality upland habitat capable of supporting 

more birds. 

Alternative 4: Under Alternative 4, no changes would be made to current management practices. 

Big game hunting. Very minor changes in the big game hunt program are proposed under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Hunting would continue to provide both recreation and deer population 

control, to prevent adverse impacts to vegetation. Umatilla would continue to conduct special permit 

hunts for the purpose of population control and habitat health on the McCormack and Paterson Units. 

The population target level for deer on McCormack would be set at 80-100 deer and the total 

number of hunting permits would increase slightly over the present level, to attain this population 

level. The Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units of McNary would continue to be managed and opened 

to hunting in accordance with State regulations. The only other unit opened to hunting on McNary 

Refuge would be the Wallula Unit, which is currently according to State regulations, with special 

regulations allowing the use of shotguns or bows and arrows only. Habitat conditions would be 

monitored to determine if any special hunts were needed for deer population control. None of the 

alternatives would result in significant effects to the big game hunting program. 

 

D. Opportunities for Quality Fishing 

A vast majority of the areas available to fishing on both Refuges are accessible by boat or by car and 

are within reasonable walking distances from available parking. These areas include open water and 

shoreline along the Columbia and Walla Walla Rivers in the Wallula and John Day pools. Other 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-26 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

areas include backwater sloughs and channels adjacent to or connected to the Columbia River. 

No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of the 

alternatives would displace fishing activity from >25% of the sites now available, nor would any of the 

alternatives be expected to result in crowding increasing by more than 50% or substantial anticipated 

losses of fish or habitat supporting the fishing experience. 

Alternatives 1 and 2: Currently there are seven developed and four undeveloped boat launches 

located on or near the Refuges that provide adequate access to Refuge fishing resources. Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2, the actual mileage of shoreline access available may not actually increase since 

most of these areas are already accessible under current conditions. The major changes under these 

alternatives are upgrading existing facilities by improving parking and boat launches at several sites 

on each Refuge. In addition, under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Refuges would install kiosks, and 

improve the availability of information at heavily used fishing sites. The anticipated result would be 

better informed and oriented fishing visitors who better understand and appreciate the Refuges and 

their resources. Other positive effects under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be improved water quality in 

Refuge ponds and sloughs, through carp eradication efforts and vegetation management. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the positive effects to fishing would not be considered significant because 

the proposed actions are not expected to increase the opportunities or quality of fishing by 25% or 

more over the existing conditions. 

Alternative 3: In Alternative 3 no efforts would be made to increase access to fishing areas or to 

provide informational kiosks at fishing sites. Under this alternative, some access to fishing resources 

could be temporarily lost due to closures for shoreline habitat restoration, threatened and endangered 

species management, or species diversity management. Low pool management for the benefit of 

migrating shorebirds could result in seasonal losses of Delta shoreline currently available to fishing. 

Rearing habitat for salmonids could be increased by enhancing backwater slough areas. This would 

slightly improve fisheries production over years to come; however, fishing opportunities for these 

species would be unlikely to shift much. 

Alternative 4: There would be no changes enacted to the current programs under Alternative 4. 

E. Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education 

No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of the 

alternatives would displace any environmental education activities. Although the environmental 

education program is geared to grow under Alternatives 2 and 3, these alternatives would 

accommodate the additional students through expanding the schedule, using teachers as facilitators, 

and expanding the volunteer base. Additional crowding would be unlikely to occur. Finally, none of 

the alternatives would result in substantial anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat supporting the 

environmental education experience. 

 

Alternative 1 focuses on consumptive public uses and would not implement any measures to change 

the environmental education (EE) programs. Alternatives 2 and 3 both include measures to offer the 

existing environmental education programs to more students, up to 3,000 at McNary, and up to 500 

at Umatilla. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-27

Alternative 1 would further enhance environmental education programs by providing interpretive 

exhibits near the McNary Environmental Education Center that could be used by teachers. In 

addition, a visitor contact station added under Alternative 1 at Umatilla Refuge would enhance EE 

opportunities by providing a meeting place for classes, visitor orientation, interpretive panels, and 

access to the Refuge Manager. 

 

Alternatives 2 and 3: Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a volunteer coordinator or park ranger would be 

hired. This person could recruit volunteers and work with the local schools (Umatilla, Hermiston, 

Boardman, Burbank, and Tri-City communities) to develop and grow the environmental education 

program. The volunteer coordinator or park ranger could tie Refuge environmental education 

programs directly into Oregon’s teaching curriculum (similar to the Washington Assessment of Student 

Learning-WASL). This would ensure Refuge programs could assist the schools with State education 

requirements. Teach-the-teacher programs would be initiated, thus reducing the amount of Refuge 

staff and volunteer time required to facilitate classes. An additional staff member could also research 

and adapt time tested programs such as the Sister Shorebird Schools program. The Refuges could 

then use these programs to provide high quality classes without investing much time in curriculum 

development. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, additional trail spurs and loops would be added and/or improved near 

the existing EE headquarters site at McNary Headquarters Unit. Trail improvements would also be 

made along the Heritage Trail site at the McCormack Unit on Umatilla Refuge. These would facilitate 

the Refuge’s education programs because most school groups use the trails while engaged in EE. Of 

the seven science stations used at McNary Refuge for teaching fourth graders, three are directly on the 

Trail. In addition, classes for scouting groups almost always include a two-mile nature hike on the 

trail. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would further enhance environmental education programs by providing 

interpretive exhibits near the McNary Environmental Education Center that could be used by teachers 

A visitor contact station at Umatilla Refuge, added under Alternative 2, would enhance EE 

opportunities by providing a meeting place for classes, visitor orientation, interpretive panels, and 

access to the Refuge Manager. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the positive effects would not be considered significant because the 

proposed actions are not expected to increase the opportunities or quality of environmental education 

by 25% or more over the existing conditions. 

 

F. Opportunities for Quality Interpretation 

All alternatives provide existing opportunities for visitors to encounter interpretative signs and 

materials. Alternative 2 would further enhance this activity by providing additional interpretive pullouts and signs along Highway 14, additional interpretive areas along trails at The McNary and 

Wallula Units, establishing an interpretive station at a consolidated visitor contact facility at 

McCormack Unit, and providing kiosks at fishing sites. Alternative 1 also includes the consolidated 

McCormack facility and the kiosks at major fishing sites. Alternative 3 includes additional interpretive 

materials at McNary Headquarters unit but not the other improvements mentioned above. In 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-28 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

summary, of the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would include the greatest number of direct 

measures to expand interpretive opportunities for Refuge visitors; Alternative 1 would include an 

intermediate amount of measures, and Alternative 3 a minor amount. No changes would occur 

under Alternative 4. 

No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of the 

alternatives would displace existing interpretive activities. Crowding at interpretive sites, already low, 

would be unlikely to occur. None of the alternatives would result in substantial anticipated losses of 

wildlife or habitat supporting the interpretation experience. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the positive effects to opportunities stemming from facility 

enhancements would not be considered significant because the proposed actions are not expected to 

increase the opportunities for or quality of interpretive experiences by 25% or more over the existing 

conditions. 

G. Opportunities for Nonwildlife-Dependent Recreation 

Potential opportunities for other public uses not considered priority or deemed non-wildlife dependent 

under the National Wildlife Improvement Act, would be contingent on the completion of Refuge 

compatibility determinations for that particular use. Hiking and biking, unrelated to wildlife viewing; 

camping, boating/watercraft use unrelated to fishing, hunting, or wildlife viewing; beach use and 

swimming; and horseback riding are all currently allowed on the Refuges, even though they are 

considered nonwildlife-dependent forms of recreation by definition. Some of these uses are restricted 

under current management rules, but a limited outreach and law enforcement capability has 

prevented the Refuges from effectively enacting and enforcing current rules. 

There would be no efforts to augment or increase these activities under any of the alternatives. For 

the most part, the nonwildlife-dependent uses would be allowed to continue, with some tightening of 

rules and law enforcement to ensure that the uses remain compatible with the Refuges’ purposes. 

A use that would be eliminated entirely would be camping at Madame Dorion Park. This would be 

eliminated under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, with the Madame Dorion site continuing to be open for Big 

Six public uses, including night fishing for catfish. 

A no-wake zone on Refuge managed waters, within 100 feet of islands, would be enacted under 

Alternative 2 to minimize noise and wake disturbance to islands and wildlife. This would diminish 

disturbance from pleasure boaters near sensitive island resources. 

Beach use and swimming from Refuge islands would be eliminated entirely under Alternatives 2 and 

3. Currently, summer beach use occurs at Strawberry Islands, and the Refuges have not effectively 

enforced an existing closure. Law enforcement would be increased under these alternatives, to 

eliminate all access from these sensitive island complexes. Beach use would also be eliminated on 

three designated beaches on the Umatilla Islands. These alternatives include the current closures on 

all other Refuge islands. 

Some benefit to non-wildlife dependent uses, especially hiking, horseback riding, and boating, would 

occur indirectly through trail improvements and boat launch and parking improvements slated to 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-29

occur under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Under alternatives 2 and 3, eight miles of designated trail 

would be available for horse back riding and 22 miles of roads would be available for hiking/biking. 

These activities would be monitored and evaluated regularly to determine their impacts. Management 

strategies aimed at upland habitat improvement or threatened and endangered species protection 

could further restrict or completely eliminate these activities in some areas. At the same time however, 

the quality of these activities could increase due to improvements in facilities, trail heads, signage, and 

information. Partnerships with user groups would be pursued and developed to help improve and 

maintain trail/road conditions. Improvements to upland habitats could increase the quality of the 

visitor experience. 

In sum, no significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of the 

activities are wildlife-dependent. Although opportunities for two non-wildlife dependent uses (camping 

and beach use) would be eliminated entirely, this effect is not considered significant under the criteria 

outlined above. In addition, there are numerous other camping areas available within 20 miles of 

McNary Refuge, and any persons wishing to camp near the Refuge should be able to find reasonable 

opportunity nearby. Beach use is also available nearby on non-refuge shorelines and non-Service 

administered islands. 

No significant positive effects are expected under any of the alternatives due to the changes cited 

above; the proposed actions are not expected to increase the opportunities or quality of wildlifedependent public uses by 25% or more over the existing conditions. 

H. Amount of Illegal Use 

Trespass into closed areas, off-road vehicle use, illegal drug activity (especially the dumping of 

methamphetamine lab materials), target shooting, dumping of household waste, and vandalism all 

occur on the Refuges. Some of the same reasons that attract legitimate Refuge visitors—solitude, 

open public spaces, quiet hidden valleys, wooded areas, and minimal human interference—also 

attract individuals seeking quiet places for their illegal activities 

All action alternatives include more aggressive measures to curb illegal activities and create a safe 

environment for visitors. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, seek to involve the town of Burbank in an outreach 

program to reduce dumping and off-road vehicle use on the Refuge units adjacent to the downtown 

area. Under these alternatives, the Service would pursue funding to survey the former Corps 

properties, to establish boundaries and to sign the Refuge appropriately. These alternatives would 

close off illegal roads and four wheel drive tracks to improve wildlife habitats and wildlife-dependent 

recreation on the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units, and establish designated roads and improved 

parking areas. Law enforcement presence would be increased under these alternatives to deal with 

illegal use problems. 

The actions outlined above would result in intermediate positive effects to opportunities for 

recreational public uses, but they would not be significant because they would likely not result in a 

substantial increase in the opportunity for quality of any wildlife-dependent public uses. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-30 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

I. Environmental Justice 

Since CCP implementation is expected to result in generally positive effects on the human 

environment, all proposed public use actions have a little risk of resulting in disproportionate adverse 

effects on human health, economics, or the social environment. 

7.5 Economic Effects 

Both McNary and Umatilla Refuges have direct economic impacts on the local economy. Both 

Refuges as well as the associated administering Refuge Complex office (now located in Richland, 

Washington) have annual budgets that support employee salaries, operations, maintenance costs, 

and various programs. The Refuges are sometimes allocated funding for capital improvements such 

as building roads or facilities. All of these activities require spending by the Service, which results in 

effects on the local economy. 

The Refuges also provide an indirect economic impact on the local economy through the many 

recreational activities that they support. These activities currently include hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, hiking, environmental education, interpretation, horseback riding, 

camping, and boating, and most of these activities would continue under each of the action 

alternatives (although the emphasis areas vary slightly). Individuals that visit the Refuges and 

participate in these activities buy goods and services in local towns and cities (e.g., food, lodging, 

fuel, equipment), and thus contribute to the health of the regional economy. 

Farming is also supported on both Refuges through contract. 

The area of economic influence is assumed to be primarily Benton, Walla Walla, Morrow, and 

Franklin Counties. These are the counties within which the Refuge offices or lands are situated; 

Refuge operation and maintenance expenditures occur primarily within these counties, and the 

majority of visitors to the Refuges live within these counties and are assumed to make most of their 

purchases near their homes or near the Refuges. 

Effects are considered significant if the gain or loss in total personal income stemming from 

expenditures associated with the Refuges exceed 5% of the total personal incomes of the counties in 

the economic influence area. 

Since Refuge operational expenditures would vary by alternative based on the staffing levels and 

programs associated with each alternative (see Appendix D), each alternative would result in a 

different degree of economic effect (Appendix D, Table D-8). Alternative 2, which would require the 

highest level of staffing and expenditure, would have a greater effect on the local economy than the 

other alternatives. This would translate into more jobs and more personal income within the analysis 

area under this alternative, compared with the other alternatives. Alternative 4 would have the least 

economic benefit locally as a direct result of Refuge expenditures, with fewer jobs and less personal 

income generated. The effects of Alternatives1and 3 are intermediate between Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Refuge recreational programs and facilities would vary by alternative. In 2002 (similar to current 

conditions), Refuge visitors were estimated to spend about $3.2 million per year to recreate at 

Umatilla Refuge (see table 6-5 in Chapter 6). The total economic effect of this visitor spending in the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-31

three-county area of influence was estimated at $2.1 million dollars (Laughland and Caudill 2003), 

with personal income estimated at $838,400. Figures are not available for McNary Refuge but could 

be similar. The authors estimated that for each $1 of Refuge expenditures, $2.50 of total economic 

effects are generated from visitor expenditures. 

In the future, the types and quantities of visitor facilities and programs are expected to influence the 

number of visitors. In addition, over the next 15 years, visitation is expected to be affected by 

demographic changes and changing cultural values that influence people’s choices for recreation. 

Estimates of annual visitation after 15 years to each Refuge under each alternative and for different 

recreational categories are presented in Tables 7-3 and 7-4. As evident from these tables, visitation is 

estimated to change by activity, with an overall increase in visitation under each alternative. The 

addition is mostly due to projected increases in wildlife observation/photography activities. Overall 

recreational visitation is expected to be slightly higher under Alternative 2 than under the other 

alternatives, because of the greater emphasis in this alternative for a wide range of recreational 

facilities and programs. As a result, Alternative 2 would result in the highest number of local jobs and 

have the highest degree of local economic effect stemming from the recreational expenditures of 

Refuge visitors. 

One aspect of the recreational activity analysis deserves explanation. The most recent Banking on 

Nature report reveals that at Umatilla Refuge, an estimated 50% of waterfowl hunters live locally, 

about 70% of anglers are local residents, and about 85% to 90% of nonconsumptive users are local 

residents (Caudill and Henderson 2003). At McNary Refuge, the staff estimates that the percentage 

of local users is higher than that of Umatilla for waterfowl hunting, and similar to Umatilla for other 

uses. Visitors from outside of the local area spend more money in the local area (motels, restaurants), 

while recreating on the Refuge than local residents do. Spending by non-residents due to choosing 

the Refuges as a recreation destination thus represents an infusion of money into the local economy 

that would not occur if the Refuges were not there. 

If the Refuges did not exist, local residents would possibly take advantage of similar recreational 

opportunities nearby, such as local wildlife areas and state parks. To the extent that nearby areas 

could replicate the recreational experiences provided at McNary and Umatilla Refuges, the 

expenditures made by these visitors represent spending that may have taken place inside the county 

regardless of the existence of the Refuge. Hence, the analysis may overestimate somewhat the 

contribution of the Refuges to the local economy. However, since nearby areas are small and don’t 

provide the spectrum of recreational activities supported by the Refuges, it is probably true that most 

of the recreational spending by Refuge visitors living locally represents an actual infusion of money 

into the local economy that would not occur if the Refuges did not exist. 

In 2004, Morrow County, Oregon had a total personal income (TPI) of $326 million dollars, Benton 

County, Washington had a TPI of $4.8 billion dollars, Walla Walla County had a TPI of $1.4 billion 

dollars and Franklin County had a TPI of $1.2 billion dollars (data from Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/countybf.cfm). 

A detailed economic analysis of the alternatives was not completed to determine multiplier effects of 

the alternative spending on the counties. However, based on the background information presented 

above and the estimated changes in Refuge spending under each alternative (see Appendix D), the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-32 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Refuges’ effect on personal income would be a maximum of 4-8 times the 2003 estimate of 

$838,000 for each Refuge. Thus, comparing this amount to the TPI for the counties above, the 

economic effect would not be significant because the effect on the TPI of the counties in question 

would not exceed 5% of the total. 

7.6 Effects to Cultural and Historical Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, establishes the Federal 

Government’s policy on historic preservation and the programs through which that policy is 

implemented. An impact to cultural resources would be considered significant if it adversely affects a 

resource listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. In general, an adverse effect may occur if a 

cultural resource would be physically damaged or altered, isolated from the context considered 

significant, affected by project elements that would be out of character with the significant property or 

its setting. Title 36 CFR Part 800 defines effects and adverse effects on historic resources. 

Table 7-5 lists those activities called for in the CCP that are most likely to affect cultural/historic 

resources and compares their effects under the four alternative scenarios. Not all activities with 

possible affects are listed, nor are all potential effects listed. However, the table does address those 

activities most likely to have an effect on cultural or historical resources and the effects most likely to 

result. 

The activities common to all alternatives are: upland restoration work including seeding using drills, 

shrub planting, soil preparation including agricultural disking, and shoreline bank stabilization for the 

protection of shoreline under objective 13d. To avoid adverse effects to cultural resources as a result 

of future upland restoration and/or shoreline protection, a cultural resource survey would be 

conducted prior to implementing any restoration activities. Any new cultural resources identified 

during the survey would be recorded and evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. If any sites are 

determined to be eligible to the NRHP, the restoration plans would need to be assessed for potential 

effects to the historic property. If effects are possible, the proposal would be reviewed to ensure that 

the effects have the least impact to original materials and are in conformance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Changes that comply with the Secretary’s 

Standards would have no adverse affect on historic properties. Once an assessment has been 

completed, the findings would be forwarded to SHPO for concurrence. The upland restoration 

enhancement and shoreline protection projects proposed under all of these alternatives would not be 

expected to have an adverse effect on historic resources. 

 

Table 7-5. Comparison of activities most likely to affect cultural/historic resources. 

Activity/ 

Objectives 

Potential Effects Alt. 1 

Severity 

Alt. 2 

Severity 

Alt. 3 

Severity 

Alt. 4 

Severity 

Upland 

restoration/ 

7a,7d,7e 

Disturbance from planting 

seed and shrubs; soil 

preparation 

Potential for 

10% of 

uplands 

Potential for 

30% of 

uplands 

Potential 

for 45% of 

uplands 

Potential 

for 10% of 

uplands 

Reduced Fire 

Starts / 7c 

Decreased fire related soil 

exposure and damage, 

vandalism, theft and erosion 

Minor 

decrease in 

fire starts and 

resulting 

effects 

Decreased 

fire starts and 

resulting 

effects 

Decreased 

fire starts 

and 

resulting 

effects 

No change 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-33

Activity/ 

Objectives 

Potential Effects Alt. 1 

Severity 

Alt. 2 

Severity 

Alt. 3 

Severity 

Alt. 4 

Severity 

Riparian 

restoration/5a, 

5b 

Disturbance from shrub/ tree 

planting and fluctuation pool 

levels for cottonwoods 

None Up to 62 

acres per 

year 

Up to 5 

acres per 

year 

Up to 5 

acres/year 

Wetland 

enhancement 

/4a 

Disturbance during wetland 

excavation and disking 

1438 acres 1000 acres None 500 acres 

Increase Island 

Law 

Enforcement/ 

6a,6b 

Reduced disturbance and/or 

vandalism 

None Decrease 

incidents and 

vandalism 

Decrease 

incidents 

and 

vandalism 

None 

Eliminate 

Beach Use at 

Strawberry 

Island and 

Umatilla 

Islands 

Eliminate potential 

disturbance, degradation, or 

vandalism/theft 

None Eliminate 

island 

access; 

protect 

resources 

Eliminate 

island 

access; 

protect 

resources 

None 

Increase crop 

production/1a, 

1c 

Ground disturbance from 

disking cropland; moist soil 

Increased 

disking on 

400 

additional 

acres and 20 

new acres 

moist soil 

10 acres new 

moist soil 

Decrease in 

disking on 

250 acres; 

5 acres 

fewer moist 

soil. 

No change 

Limit public 

uses and 

access/7a, 6b 

Reduced disturbance and/or 

vandalism with decrease in 

public use/access 

Small 

decrease in 

access and 

use at 

Headquarters

Unit 

Decrease in 

access/use at 

Headquarters 

and Stateline 

Units 

Decrease in 

access/use 

at Headquarters 

and 

Stateline 

Units 

No change 

Construct 

artificial owl 

burrows/1b 

Disturbance from digging owl 

burrows 

None Minor due to 

localize 

nature of 

project 

Minor due 

to localize 

nature of 

project 

None 

Reduce 

incidents of 

dumping /9i 

Decrease in dumping that 

diminishes integrity of sites 

Positive 

effects for 

cultural 

resources 

Positive 

effects for 

cultural 

resources 

Positive 

effects for 

cultural 

resources 

No change 

Construct trails 

and kiosk /9a9d 

Soil disturbance, construction; 

human disturbance at sites 

None Increase in 

trails and 

public use 

Increase in 

trails and 

public use 

No change 

Construct 

visitor and 

office 

facilities/9e 

Soil disturbance, construction 

activity, human disturbance 

Localized 

impact 

Localized 

impact 

Localized 

impact 

No change 

Cultural 

resource 

protection and 

Increase in cultural resource 

protection efforts will decrease 

likelihood of impacts and 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

Positive 

effect for 

maintaining 

No change 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-34 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

Activity/ 

Objectives 

Potential Effects Alt. 1 

Severity 

Alt. 2 

Severity 

Alt. 3 

Severity 

Alt. 4 

Severity 

appreciation/1

3a3b,13c 

negative effects to sites cultural 

resources 

cultural 

resources 

cultural 

resources 

Increase 

management 

of NRP sites 

/13e 

Decrease likelihood of 

disturbance and vandalism 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Positive 

effect for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

No change 

Increase 

protection of 

known 

shoreline sites 

/13d 

Decrease likelihood of 

disturbance and vandalism; 

but would involve disturbance 

to shoreline 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Positive effect 

for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Positive 

effect for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Positive 

effect for 

maintaining 

cultural 

resources 

Many of the activities listed in Table 7-5 are common to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Specifically, 

activities under the Cultural Resources Goal 13 are considered to have a positive effect on cultural 

resources. The likelihood of disturbance, vandalism, and destruction of sites would be reduced by the 

strategies listed for accomplishing the goal of a program for better managing cultural resources. 

Another positive activity is the reduction of fire starts (7c) which would reduce risk of exposure of soils 

to wind erosion and exposure of artifacts to potential vandalism. Elimination of beach use and 

associated activities at Refuge Islands (especially Strawberry Island at McNary and Blalock at Umatilla) 

will decrease the likelihood of resource degradation, damage, or vandalism incidents. So the positive 

projects listed above that are proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, would not be expected to have 

an adverse effect on historic resources. 

Under Alternative 1, effects could be possible from the earth moving work and surface disturbance 

associated with wetland restoration and enhancement work. This work often goes deeper into soil 

profiles then the disking and planting associated with upland plant restoration activities. After survey 

work prior to construction on wetland projects, activities occurring in proximity to known sites would 

be monitored because of the potential for buried cultural material in these areas. If any cultural 

materials are uncovered during excavation, the Regional Historic Preservation Officer would be 

contacted to review the materials and recommend a treatment that is consistent with applicable laws 

and policies. Implementation of the procedures described above is expected to avoid adverse effects 

to historic resources; however, additional analysis under NEPA may be required once specific details 

are known. 

Prior to major excavations and as outlined in objective 13c, the Service would work with Native 

American groups to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the inadvertent 

discovery clause of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

Development of this MOU would involve identifying the Native American Tribes, Groups, and direct 

lineal descendants that may be affiliated with these Refuge lands, initiating consultation with the 

affiliated Tribes, Groups, and/or direct lineal descendants, developing procedures to follow for 

intentional and inadvertent discoveries, and identifying the persons to contact for the purposes of 

NAGPRA. Completion of the MOU would reduce the potential for harm to occur from project work. 

Most of the potential effects to cultural resources described under Alternative 1 would also occur 

under Alternative 2. Therefore, the measures for determining and addressing adverse effects 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 7-35

described above for activities common to all alternatives and Alternative 1, would also apply to 

Alternative 2. The construction of owl burrows is an additional activity involving soil disturbance; 

cultural resource survey and evaluation procedures above would be followed. Under Alternative 2, 

public access to sites with cultural resources might increase as a result of trail, kiosk, and public use 

facility construction, with potentially minor negative consequences. Implementation of the procedures 

described above is expected to avoid adverse effects to historic resources; however, additional 

analysis under NEPA may be required once specific details are known. The construction and public 

use facilities proposed under this alternative would not be expected to have an adverse effect on 

historic resources. 

 

Potential effects to cultural resources under Alternative 3 are very similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 

3 includes no wetland restoration work and less disking for croplands and moist soil. However, this 

alternative has the greatest amount of potential upland restoration and enhancement activities of the 

four alternatives. Expanded public access into areas that include cultural resources could also result 

in minor negative effects to these resources. The upland restoration and enhancement projects 

proposed under all of these alternatives would not be expected to have an adverse effect on historic 

resources. 

Although the activities listed for Alternative 2 could affect the resource, they are relatively minor and 

would not be considered an adverse effect. Major disturbance would be avoided by the survey and 

consultation process as described in Section 106 of NHPA described above. Public access is currently 

permitted and expansion of facilities and trails under this alternative would receive the same scrutiny, 

to ensure they would not detract from cultural resources; therefore, no adverse effects to cultural 

resources as a result of human activity within the Refuges are anticipated. The minor changes that 

could occur under this alternative, like the others, would not alter the relationship, configuration, 

design, and/or function of the various known sites and would not diminish the historic character of 

known sites. Such changes would meet the criteria finding for a No Adverse Effect. 

Based on the criteria for assessing adverse effects that are provided in the NHPA, all of the alternatives 

are considered to be a “No Adverse Effect” undertaking as per 36 CFR Part 800.5(3)(b), hence none 

of the alternatives would have a significant impact to cultural resources. The Service’s determination 

of no adverse effect would be submitted to State Historic Preservation Office for concurrence. No 

mitigation would be required. 

7.7 Cumulative Effects 

The term “cumulative effects” is defined in the Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations 

in 40 CFR Part 1508.7, as: 

“the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) 

or person undertakes such other actions.” 

As described in Chapter 4, cumulatively, there has been a substantial modification to native upland 

and riverine habitats in the Interior Columbia Basin over time (Rasmussen and Wright 1990; Quigley 

and Arbelbide 1997). Although a number of natural areas have been designated and are maintained 

in the Interior Columbia Basin, modification and loss of native habitats continues at a regional scale. 

There is a clear trend of regionally increasing population growth, which, coupled with a growing 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

7-36 Chapter 7 – Environmental Effects 

economy, is bringing increased development and associated habitat loss, particularly in the Tri-Cities 

and in Morrow County. Invasive species and altered ecosystem processes are widespread within the 

area. Within this context, region-wide biological integrity may be at risk. Over time, the Refuges, 

although relatively small and isolated from other natural lands, may become increasingly valuable for 

the persistence of Columbia Basin native wildlife. All of the alternatives would maintain Refuge 

habitats valuable to wildlife. Active improvement of shrub-steppe, riparian, and wetland habitats, 

particularly under Alternatives 2 and 3, would increase or maintain the value of Refuge lands and 

waters for a wide variety of native fish and wildlife. Alternative 1, which emphasizes habitat 

improvements for waterfowl, would improve the capability of the Refuges to provide wintering food for 

waterfowl, with less emphasis on habitat improvements for other native species. However, actions 

proposed under the Draft CCP/EA will not reverse or halt the regional trend toward reduced 

biological integrity within the Columbia Basin. Under all alternatives, biological diversity (the number 

of species present on the Refuge) would probably remain about the same. Invasive species could 

become more prevalent on surrounding lands but on the Refuges, active efforts would be made to 

reduce their populations, especially under Alternative 2. The Service would improve the availability 

and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation, especially under Alternatives 2 and 3, but within a 

regional context, there would be little cumulative difference in recreational opportunity. 

References 

Baldassare, G.A, and E.G. Bolen. 1994. Waterfowl ecology and management. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. 

Bossard, C., J. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky, editors. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. 

University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B Harrington, eds. 2000. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002: The Economic Benefits to Local 

communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

Jay, D. and P. Naik. 2002. Separating Human and Climate Impacts on Columbia River Hydrology 

and Sediment Transport, pp. 38-48 in G. Gelfenbaum and G. Kaminsky, eds., Southwest 

Washington Coastal Erosion Workshop Report 2000, U.S. Geological Survey Open File 

Report, 02-229, 308 pp. http://www.ese.ogi.edu/~jaylab/public/jay_and_naik_swces02. 

pdf. Accessed Feb., 2006. 

Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelhide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components 

in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume 2. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. 

Rasmussen and Wright. 1990. Wildlife impact assessment. Four reports: Bonneville, McNary, The 

Dalles, and John Day Projects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, Columbia River Mainstem Water Management Program. 

Publication No. 04-11-031. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0411031.pdf. Accessed Feb., 

2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Wildland Fire Management Plan. Mid Columbia River Refuge 

Complex. 
 Appendix A– Public Involvement A-1

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the CCP, starting in January of 2004 

with the preparation of a Public Outreach Plan. Public involvement strategies emphasized face-to-face 

meetings with key agencies, tribal governments, federally elected officials, and local Refuge users. 

The Refuge also held open houses, sent newsletters, conducted surveys, and gave presentations at 

community organizations to inform the public, invite discussion and solicit feedback. 

A mailing list of approximately 2500 persons and organizations is maintained at the Refuge and was 

used to distribute planning updates and public meeting announcements. Below is a brief summary of 

the events, meetings, and outreach tools that were used in our public involvement efforts. 

 

Meetings with Congressional Representatives and/or their Aides 

• April 30, 2004. Met with Kristin Eby, aide to Senator Maria Cantwell, Richland, WA. 

• May 3, 2004. Met with Larry Bartee, aide to Senator Gordon Smith, Pendleton, WA. 

• May 4, 2004. Met with Scott Gruber, aide to Congressman George Nethercutt, WA 5th

District 

• May 5, 2004. Met with Judy Olsen, aide to Senator Patty Murray, Spokane, WA Office. 

• May 7, 2004. Met with Colby Marshall, aide to Representative Greg Walden, OR 2nd District 

• May 10, 2004. Met with Shawn Bills, aide to Senator Murray, Yakima WA Office. 

• May 18, 2004. Toured with Shawn Bills, aide to Senator Patty Murray. 

• May 20, 2004. Met with Joyce Olson, aide to Representative Doc Hastings, WA 4th District 

Meetings with Tribal Officials 

• April 21, 2004. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• April 29, 2004. Met with Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

• May 20, 2004. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• July 26, 2004. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• August 6, 2004. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• October 26, 2004. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• March 1, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• March 8, 2005. Met with Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

• March 24, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• May 12, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• May 23, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

• September 7, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation to sign a coordination agreement. 

• October 24, 2005. Met with the Yakama Indian Nation 

Meetings with Local Elected Officials 

• March 14, 2005. Met with Walla Walla County Mosquito District. 

• March 28, 2005. Met with Walla Walla County Mosquito District. 

• May 26, 2005. Met with Walla Walla County Mosquito District. 

• Jan. 19, 2006. Met with Walla Walla County Mosquito District. 

• Jan. 31, 2006. Met with Walla Walla County Commissioners. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

A-2 Appendix A – Public Involvment

Meetings with Local Community Organizations involving CCP Issues 

• June 1, 2004. Met with Richland Rod and Gun Club 

• June 4, 2004. Met with Richland Rod and Gun Club 

• September 7, 2004. Met with Richland Rod and Gun Club 

• October 4, 2005. Met with Richland Rod and Gun Club 

Meetings with Agency Representatives 

• February 2, 2004. Meeting with Army Corps of Engineers 

• May 25, 2004. Meeting on Columbia Basin Wintering Waterfowl Plan, Yakima, with 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Yakama Indian Nation and Army Corps of Engineers. 

• July 9, 2004. Meeting with Army Corps of Engineers. 

• August 4, 2004. Meeting with Yakama Indian Nation, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife regarding Pelican Planning. 

• September 23, 2004. Meeting with Army Corps of Engineers. 

• September 24, 2004. Meeting with Army Corps of Engineers. 

• December 1, 2004. Meeting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

• January 10, 2005. Meeting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

• February 8, 2005. Meeting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding CCP 

issues at McNary, Nisqually, and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges. 

• March 10, 2005. Meeting with Oregon Department of Fish, Wildlife and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Yakama Indian Nation regarding Columbia Basin 

Wintering Waterfowl Plan. 

• May 19, 2005. Meeting with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wintering waterfowl. 

• May 25, 2005. Meeting with Army Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife regarding avian predation. 

• July 7, 2005. Meeting with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wintering waterfowl plan. 

• September 22, 2005. Army Corps of Engineers coordination meeting. 

• November 8, 2005. Meeting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

• January 10, 2006. Meeting with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding CCP 

coordination. 

• January 11, 2006. Meeting with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at Boardman. 

• October 5, 2006. Meeting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Public Open Houses/Scoping Sessions 

• June 16, 2004. Public scoping meeting - Burbank, WA 

• June 23, 2004. Public scoping meeting - Boardman, OR 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix A– Public Involvement A-3

Other Meetings 

• June 14, 2005. Extended CCP Team meeting. 

• June 29, 2005. Regional Office CCP presentation. 

• July 21, 2005. Extended CCP Team meeting. 

• October 18, 2005. Regional Office Caspian Tern meeting. 

• June 7, 2006. Extended CCP Team meeting to review internal draft. 

• June 8, 2006. Extended CCP Team meeting to review internal draft. 

Press Coverage: 

• June 14, 2004. News Release - Tri-City Herald, East Oregonian, and Hermiston Herald. 

Planning Updates 

• June 2004. Planning Update 1 sent to approximately 2,000 persons/organizations/officials. 

Other Tools 

• June 2004. Public scoping questionnaire sent to 2,000 people. 

• Fall 2004. Refuges’ visitor satisfaction survey. 

• May 2004. Letters sent to following tribal governments introducing CCP process: Nez Pierce, 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, 

Wanapum People. 

• February 2005. Briefing Statement prepared for Service officials. 

Federal Register Notices: 

• May 24, 2004. Federal Register published Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Associated Environmental Assessment; and Notice of Public Meetings. 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-1

APPENDIX B. VERTEBRATE SPECIES OF 

MCNARY AND UMATILLA REFUGES 

The following tables display the vertebrate species known or thought to occur on the Refuges, together 

with their status (if any) on federal or state threatened and endangered or rare species lists, and 

Heritage status. Pertinent plans pertaining to the species are noted where they exist. 

Table B.1 Birds of McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Loons (Family Gaviidae) 

Pacific Loon deepwater rare WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S4S5N 

Common Loon deepwater rare WCP - HC NL WS NL G5 S2B,S4N SH 

Grebes (Podicipedidae) 

Pied-billed Grebe wetlands common WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S5 

Horned Grebe wetlands occasional WCP - LC NL WM OSPB G5 S3B,S5N S2B,S5N 

Red-necked Grebe wetlands rare WCP - LC NL WM OSCB G5 S3B,S5N S1B,S4N 

Eared Grebe wetlands occasional WCP - HC NL NL NL G5 S2B,S4N S4 

Western Grebe 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - HC NL WC NL G5 S3B,S3N 

S3B,S2S3

N 

Clark's Grebe 

wetlands/ 

deepwater rare WCP - LC NL WM NL G5 S2B S3B, S2N 

Pelicans 

(Pelecanidae) 

American White Pelican 

wetlands/ 

deepwater common WCP - HC NL WE OSV G3 S1B S2B 

Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) 

Double-crested 

Cormorant 

wetlands/ 

deepwater common WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S5 

Bitterns/Herons (Ardeidae) 

American Bittern wetlands occasional WCP - LC NL NL NL G4 S4B,S3N S4 

Great Blue Heron wetlands common WCP - NR NL WM NL G5 

S4S5B,S

5N S4 

Great Egret wetlands occasional WCP - NR NL WM NL G5 S3B S3 

Cattle egret wetlands rare NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Black-crowned NightHeron wetlands common 

WCP - 

MC NL WM NL G5 S3B,S3N S4 

Ibises (Threskiornithidae) 

White-faced ibis wetlands rare 

WCP - 

MC 

FS

C NL NL G5 SNA S3B 

Swans/Geese/Ducks (Anatidae) 

Tundra Swan wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Trumpeter Swan wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G4 S3N S1?B,S3N 

White-fronted Goose wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3S4N 

Ross's Goose wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G4 SNA 

Snow Goose wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Canada Goose wetlands abundant NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Wood Duck wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S4 

Green-winged Teal wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 

S4B, 

S3N S5 

Mallard wetlands abundant NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

B-2 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Northern Pintail wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S5 

Blue-winged Teal wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Cinnamon Teal wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Northern Shoveler wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4B,S3N S5 

Gadwall wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S5 

Eurasian Wigeon wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

American Wigeon wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S5 

Canvasback wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3B,S4N S4 

Redhead wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S5B S4 

Ring-necked Duck wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S3 

Greater Scaup wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N SU 

Lesser Scaup wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S3 

Harlequin Duck wetlands rare NAWMP FSC NL OSUB G4 S2B,S3N S2B,S3N 

Long-tailed Duck wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3S4N 

Surf Scoter wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

White-winged Scoter wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Common Goldeneye wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S5N SU 

Barrow's Goldeneye wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL OSUB G5 S3B,S4N S3B,S3N 

Bufflehead wetlands common NAWMP NL NL OSUB G5 S4N S2B, S5N 

Hooded Merganser wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3B,S4B S4 

Common Merganser wetlands occasional NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S4 

Red-breasted 

Merganser wetlands rare NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Ruddy Duck wetlands common NAWMP NL NL NL G5 S4B,S3N S4 

Vultures (Cathartidae)

Turkey Vulture various rare NL WM NL G5 S4B S5 

Kites/Eagles/Hawks (Accipitridae) 

Osprey 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional NL WM NL G5 S4B S4 

Bald Eagle riparian occasional Recovery FT WT OT G5 S4B,S4N S4B,S4N 

Northern Harrier 

shrubsteppe common NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4S

5N S5 

Sharp-shinned Hawk riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 

S3S4B,S

4N S4 

Cooper's hawk riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S4 

Northern Goshawk riparian rare ICBEMP 

FS

C WC OSC G5 S3B,S3N S3B 

Swainson's Hawk riparian occasional PIF NL WM OSV G5 S3S4B S3B 

Red-tailed Hawk riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Ferruginous Hawk 

shrubsteppe rare PIF, 

ICBEMP 

FS

C WT OSC G4 S2B S3B 

Rough-legged Hawk 

shrubsteppe occasional NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Golden Eagle 

shrubsteppe occasional PIF NL WC NL G5 S3 S4 

Falcons (Falconidae) 

American kestrel riparian common NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S5 

Merlin riparian occasional NL WC NL G5 S3B,S4N SHB 

Peregrine Falcon cliffs rare PIF 

FS

C WS OE G4 S2B,S3N S2B, S5N 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-3

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Prairie Falcon cliffs occasional PIF NL WM NL G5 S3B,S3N S4 

Gallinaceous Birds (Phasianidae) 

Gray Partridge croplands rare NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

Chukar 

shrubsteppe occasional NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

Ring-necked Pheasant croplands occasional NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

Wild Turkey riparian rare NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

California Quail various common NL NL NL G5 SNA S4SE 

Rails (Rallidae) 

Virginia Rail wetlands common WCP - LC NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S4 

Sora wetlands occasional WCP - LC NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

American Coot wetlands abundant WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S4B S5 

Cranes (Gruidae) 

Sandhill Crane wetlands rare WCP - HC NL WE OSV G5 S1B,S3N S3S4B 

Plovers (Charadriidae) 

Black-bellied Plover wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Pacific golden plover wetlands rare SCP NL NL NL G5 S2S3N 

American golden plover wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Semi-palmated Plover wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4N S1 

Killdeer wetlands abundant SCP NL NL NL G5 

S4S5B,S

4S5N S5 

Stilts/Avocets (Recurvirostridae) 

Black-necked Stilt wetlands common SCP NL WM NL G5 S3B S4 

American Avocet wetlands common SCP NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Sandpipers/Phalaropes/Allies (Scolopacidae) 

Greater Yellowlegs wetlands common SCP NL NL NL G5 S4S5N S1 

Lesser Yellowlegs wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Solitary Sandpiper wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S3S4N S1 

Spotted Sandpiper wetlands common SCP NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S4 

Long-billed Curlew wetlands occasional SCP NL WM OSV G5 

S2BS3B,

S2N S3B 

Marbled Godwit wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Sanderling wetlands rare SCP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Western Sandpiper wetlands common SCP NL NL NL G5 S4S5N 

Semi-palmated 

Sandpiper wetlands rare SCP NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Least Sandpiper wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Baird's Sandpiper wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Pectoral Sandpiper wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S3N 

Dunlin wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4S5N 

Long-billed Dowitcher wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S4S5N 

Wilson's Snipe wetlands common SCP NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S4 

Wilson's Phalarope wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G5 S3B? S4 

Red-necked Phalarope wetlands occasional SCP NL NL NL G4G5 S4N 

Jaegers/Gulls/Terns (Laridae) 

Parasitic Jaeger 

wetlands/ 

deepwater rare NL NL NL G5 S4N 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

B-4 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Franklin's Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - HC NL NL OSP G4G5 SNA S2B 

Boneparte's Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S5N 

Mew gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater rare WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S5N 

Ring-billed Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater abundant WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

California Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater common WCP - HC NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S5 

Herring Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Thayer's Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional 

WCP - 

MC NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Western Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S4 

Glaucous Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater rare NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Glaucous-winged Gull 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - NR NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S2 

Caspian Tern 

wetlands/ 

deepwater common WCP - LC NL WM NL G5 S3B? S4 

Common tern 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Forster's Tern 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional 

WCP - 

MC NL WM NL G5 S3B S3B 

Black Tern 

wetlands/ 

deepwater occasional WCP - HC 

FS

C WM NL G4 S4B S3B 

Doves (Columbidae) 

Rock Dove various common none NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

Mourning Dove various abundant none NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Barn Owls (Tytonidae) 

Common Barn Owl various common NL NL NL G5 S4 S4 

Typical Owls 

(St i id ) 

Western Screech Owl riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4 S4 

Great Horned Owl riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Snowy Owl rare NL WM NL G5 S3N 

Burrowing Owl 

shrubsteppe occasional PIF, 

ICBEMP 

FS

C WC OSC G4 S2S3B S3B 

Long-eared Owl riparian occasional ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S3B,S4N S4 

Short-eared Owl various occasional ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S3B,S4N S4 

Northern Saw-whet Owl riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S4 

Goatsuckers (Caprimulgidae) 

Common Nighthawk 

shrubsteppe occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B S5B 

Common Poorwill 

shrubsteppe rare NL NL NL G5 S3S4B 

Vaux's Swift riparian occasional NL WC NL G5 S3S4B S5 

White-throated Swift cliffs rare NL NL NL G5 S3S4B S4 

Hummingbirds (Trochilidae) 

Black-chinned 

Hummingbird riparian occasional ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Rufous Hummingbird riparian rare ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Kingfishers (Alcedinidae) 

Belted Kingfisher wetlands occasional NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-5

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Woodpeckers (Picidae) 

Lewis' woodpecker riparian rare PIF 

FS

C WC OSC G4 S3B S2S3B 

Red-naped Sapsucker riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Downy Woodpecker riparian common NL NL NL G5 S4S5 S4 

Hairy Woodpecker riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Northern Flicker riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Flycatchers (Tyrannidae) 

Olive-sided Flycatcher riparian occasional FS

C

NL OSV G4 S4B S3B 

Western Wood-Pewee riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Willow Flycatcher riparian occasional FS

C

NL OSU G5 S4S5B S3S4B 

Hammond's Flycatcher riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Dusky Flycatcher riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Gray Flycatcher riparian rare NL WM NL G5 S2S3B S4 

Western Flycatcher riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S3B S4 

Say's Phoebe 

shrubsteppe occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Western Kingbird shrubt common NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Eastern Kingbird riparian common NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Larks (Alaudidae) 

Horned Lark shrubt

occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S5 

Swallows (Hirundinidae) 

Tree Swallow various occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Violet-green Swallow various common NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Northern Rough-winged 

S ll

various common NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Bank Swallow various abundant NL NL OSU G5 S4B S4 

Cliff Swallow various abundant NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Barn Swallow various common NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S5 

Jays/Magpies/Crows (Corvidae) 

Steller's jay riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Black-billed Magpie various common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

American Crow various common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Common Raven various common NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Chickadees and Titmice (Paridae) 

Black-capped 

Chickadee riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Nuthatches (Sittidae) 

Red-breasted nuthatch riparian uncommon NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

White-breasted 

nuthatch riparian uncommon NL NL NL G5 S4 S4 

Creepers (Certhiidae) 

Brown Creeper riparian rare NL NL NL G5 

S4S5B,S

5N S4 

Wrens (Troglodytidae) 

Rock Wren basalt cliffs occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B,SZN S5 

Canyon Wren basalt cliffs occasional NL NL NL G5 S4 S4 

Bewick's Wren riparian common PIF NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

House Wren riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

B-6 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Winter Wren riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Marsh Wren wetlands abundant NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S5 

Golden-crowned Kinglet riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet riparian common NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S4 

Thrushes 

Western Bluebird riparian occasional ICBEMP NL WM NL G5 S3B S4B,S4N 

Mountain Bluebird riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Townsend's Solitaire riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Swainson's Thrush riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Hermit Thrush riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S4 

American Robin riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Varied Thrush riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S4 

Mockingbirds Thrashers (Mimidae) 

Sage Thrasher 

shrubsteppe occasional ICBEMP NL WC NL G5 S3B S4 

Wagtails/Pipits (Motacillidae) 

American Pipit mudflats occasional NL NL NL G5 S3B,S3N SU 

Waxwings 

(B b illid ) 

Bohemian Waxwing riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S5N 

Cedar Waxwing riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S2S4N S5 

Shrikes (Laniidae) 

Northern Shrike shrubt

uncommo NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Loggerhead Shrike 

shrubsteppe occasional PIF, 

ICBEMP FSC WC OSV G4 S3B S3B,S2N 

Starlings/Mynas (Sturnidae) 

European Starling riparian abundant NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 

Vireos (Vireonidae) 

Cassin's Vireo riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Warbling Vireo riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Red-eyed Vireo riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S3B S4 

Wood Warblers (Parulidae) 

Orange-crowned 

W bl riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B S5 

Nashville Warbler riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Yellow warbler riparian occasional PIF NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Yellow -rumped 

W bl riparian common NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S5 

Townsend's Warbler riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S4 

MacGillivray's Warbler riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

Common Yellowthroat riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Wilson's Warbler riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Yellow-breasted Chat riparian occasional PIF NL NL NL G5 S3S4B S4B 

Tanagers (Thraupidae) 

Western Tanager riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Towhees and Sparrows (Emerizidae) 

Spotted Towhee riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Chipping Sparrow riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

 Brewer's Sparrow 

shrubsteppe occasional PIF, 

ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S3B S4 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-7

Common name 

(Italics = breeds on 

refuges)

Primary 

Habitat 

Association Occurrence Mgmt. 

Plan 

Fed 

List 

WA 

List 

 OR 

 List 

Heritage 

Globa

l Rank 

Heritage 

WA 

State 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR State 

Rank 

Vesper Sparrow 

shrubsteppe occasional ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Lark Sparrow 

shrubsteppe occasional ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S3B S4 

Sage Sparrow 

shrubsteppe occasional PIF, 

ICBEMP NL WC OSC G5 S3B S2B 

American Tree sparrow riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4N 

Savannah Sparrow 

shrubsteppe common NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S5 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

shrubsteppe occasional ICBEMP NL WM OSV/S

P G5 S3B S2B 

Fox Sparrow riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B,S5N S4 

Song Sparrow riparian abundant NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Lincoln's Sparrow riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S4 

Golden-crowned 

Sparrow riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S5B 

White-crowned Sparrow riparian abundant NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Harris' Sparrow riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Swamp Sparrow wetlands rare NL NL NL G5 SNA 

Dark-eyed Junco riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Grosbeaks (Cardinalidae) 

Black-headed 

Grosbeak riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S5B S5 

Lazuli Bunting riparian occasional 

PIF, 

ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S5B S4 

Blackbirds and Orioles (Icteridae) 

Red-winged Blackbird wetlands abundant NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S5 

Western Meadowlark 

shrubsteppe common ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S4N,S4S

5B S4 

Yellow-headed 

Blackbird wetlands common NL NL NL G5 S3N,S4B S5 

Brewer's Blackbird various occasional NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Brown-headed Cowbird riparian common ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S4N,S5B S5 

Bullock's Oriole riparian uncommo PIF NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Finches (Fringillidae) 

Gray-crowned Rosy 

Finch various rare NL NL NL G5 S3B,S3N S3 

Purple Finch riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S4 

Cassin's Finch riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4S5B S4 

House Finch riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Red Crossbill riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S4B S4 

Common Redpoll riparian rare NL NL NL G5 S2S4N 

Pine Siskin riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4S4N S5 

American Goldfinch riparian common NL NL NL G5 S5B,S5N S4 

Evening Grosbeak riparian occasional NL NL NL G5 S4B,S4N S5 

Old World Sparrows (Passeridae) 

House Sparrow croplands common NL NL NL G5 SNA SE 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

B-8 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges

Table B.2 Amphibians and Reptiles of McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name Habitat Type 

Present on 

Refuge 

Fed 

list 

OR 

List 

Heritage 

Global 

Rank 

Heritage 

OR 

Rank 

Order Caudata 

Tiger 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

tigrinum variable habitats YES NL NL 

Long-Toed 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

macrodactylum semiarid sagebrush desert, under 

rocks near water unknown NL NL G5 S5 

Oder Anura 

Great Basin 

Spadefoot 

Spea 

intermontana 

variable habitats with sandy soil 

near water YES NL NL G5 S5 

Western 

Toad Bufo boreas variable habitats near water unknown NL OSV G4 S4 

Woodhouse's Toad Bufo 

woodhousii 

found in permenant water sources 

in arid lands YES NL OSP G5 S2 

Pacific 

Treefrog Hyla regilla 

variable habitats, can wander far 

from water YES NL NL G5 S5 

Northern 

Leopard Frog Rana pipiens prefers quiet flowing water unknown NL OSC G5 S2 

Bullfrog 

Rana 

catesbeiana 

always found in or near water in 

variable habitats YES NL NL G5 SE 

Order Testudines 

Painted 

Turtle 

Chrysemys 

picta 

shallow, quiet water w/muddy 

substate in variable YES NL OSC G5 S2 

Order Squamata 

Short-horned 

Lizard 

Phrynosoma 

douglassii sagebrush with sandy soils YES NL NL G5 S4 

Sagebrush 

Lizard 

Sceloporus 

graciosus 

sagebrush with open ground 

adjacent to cover YES FSC OSV G5 S5 

Sideblotched 

Lizard 

Uta 

stansburiana arid regions with scattered brush YES NL NL G5 S5 

Western 

Skink 

Eumeces 

skiltonianus moist places in arid lands YES NL NL G5 S5 

Rubber Boa 

Charina 

bottae variable habitats unknown NL NL G5 S4 

Western 

Racer 

Coluber 

mormon open areas in sagebrush habitat YES NL NL G5 S4 

Night Snake 

Hypsiglena 

torquata 

arid desert scrub near rocky 

outcrops unknown NL NL G5 S3 

Striped 

Whipsnake 

Masticophis 

taeniatus sagebrush flats unknown NL NL G5 S4 

Gopher 

Snake 

Pituophis 

catenifer variable habitats YES NL NL G5 S5 

Common 

Garter Snake 

Thamnophis 

sirtalis variable habitats YES NL NL G5 S5 

Western 

terrestrial 

garter snake 

Thamnopis 

elegans variable habitats, often near water unknown NL NL G5 S5 

Western 

Rattlesnake 

Crotalus 

viridis variable habitats near rocky areas YES NL NL G5 S4 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-9

Table B.3. Mammals of McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges 

 

 

Common Name

 

 

Habitat Type

Present 

on 

Refuge

 

Plan

 

Fed 

List 

 

 

WA 

List

 

 

OR 

List

Heritage 

Global 

Heritage 

WA 

Heritage 

OR

Order Insectivora 

Preble's Shrew 

near streams in 

arid lands unknown ICBEMP FSC WM NL G4 SR S3 

Vagrant Shrew wetlands unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Merriams's Shrew 

shrub-steppe 

grasslands unknown NL WC NL G5 S3 S3 

Coast Mole 

loose soil in 

varying habitats unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Order Chiroptera 

Little Brown 

Myotis riparian Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Yuma Myotis 

near water in 

desert scrub unknown ICBEMP FSC NL NL G5 S5 S3 

Long-eared Myotis 

watercourses in 

arid regions unknown ICBEMP FSC WM OSU G5 S3 S3 

Fringed Myotis 

variable, prefers 

riparian unknown ICBEMP FSC WM OSV G4G5 S3 S2 

Long-legged 

Myotis riparian forests unknown ICBEMP FSC WM OSU G5 S3 S3 

California Myotis 

crevice dweller 

near water unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Western Smallfooted Myotis cliffs in arid lands unknown ICBEMP FSC WM OSU G5 S4 S3 

Hoary Bat riparian corridors Yes ICBEMP NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Western Pipstrelle 

greasewood, sage, 

open arid unknown NL WM NL G5 S4 S4 

Big Brown Bat 

variable near 

development unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Spotted Bat 

variable, nests in 

cliff crevices unknown ICBEMP FSC WM NL G4 S3 S1 

Townsend's BigEared Bat all habitats, roosts 

in caves unknown ICBEMP FSC WC OSC G4 S2 S2 

Pallid Bat sage, arid lands unknown ICBEMP FSC WM OSV G5 S3 S3 

Order Carnivora 

Coyote variable Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Red Fox variable Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Raccoon variable Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Long-tailed 

Weasel all habitats Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Mink wetlands Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Badger 

variable open 

habitats Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Striped Skunk all habitats Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

River Otter freshwater creeks Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Mountain Lion 

variable -

occasional visitor Yes NL NL NL G5 S4S5 S4 

Bobcat arid sub-species Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Order Artiodacytla 

Elk 

variable prefer 

forest Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Mule Deer 

shrub-steppe/ 

woodlands Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

White-tailed Deer riparian thickets Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

B-10 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges

 

 

Common Name

 

 

Habitat Type

Present 

on 

Refuge

 

Plan

 

Fed 

List 

 

 

WA 

List

 

 

OR 

List

Heritage 

Global 

Heritage 

WA 

Heritage 

OR

Order Rodentia 

Least Chipmunk shrub-steppe unknown NL NL NL G5 S4 S4 

Yellow-pine 

Chipmunk shrub-steppe unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Yellow-bellied 

Marmot 

talus and rock piles 

in variable Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Townsend's 

Ground Squirrel shrub-steppe unknown NL WC NL G4 S4 

Washington 

Ground Squirrel shrub-steppe unknown ICBEMP FC WC OE G2 S2 S2 

Northern Pocket 

Gopher variable, riparian Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Great Basin 

Pocket Mouse 

sagebrush/grease

wood Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 

Ord's Kangaroo 

Rat 

sandy shrubsteppe Yes NL WM NL G5 S3S4 S4 

American Beaver wetlands Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Western Harvest 

Mouse 

grassy areas near 

water unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

Deer Mouse all habitat types Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Northern 

Grasshopper 

Mouse 

sagebrush with fine 

sandy soil unknown NL WM NL G5 S5 S4 

Bushy-tailed 

Woodrat 

 variable habitat 

types unknown NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Sagebrush Vole 

arid shrub-steppe 

w/ grass unknown ICBEMP NL WM NL G5 S2S3 S4 

Muskrat aquatic Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Porcupine riparian forests Yes NL NL NL G5 S5 S5 

Order Lagomorpha 

Pygmy Rabbit 

dense clumps, 

great basin sage unknown FE WE OSV G4 S1 S2 

Nuttall's Cottontail 

shrub-steppe, 

rocky ravines YES NL NL NL G5 S5 S4 

White-tailed 

Jackrabbit open shrub-steppe unknown NL WC OSU G5 S4 S4 

Blacktailed 

Jackrabbit open shrub-steppe YES NL WC NL G5 S4 S4 

Description of codes used on Lists 

Management Plan 

ICBEMP = Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan 

NAWMP = North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

PIF = Partners in Flight 

SCP = Shorebird Conservation Plan 

WCP = Waterbird Conservation Plan 

 LC = Low Concern 

 HC = High Concern 

 MC = Medium Concern 

 NR = Not at Risk 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix B – Vertebrate Species of the Refuges B-11

Federal List 

FE = Federal Endangered 

FT = Federal Threatened 

FC = Federal Candidate 

FSC = Federal Species of concern 

NL = Not Listed 

WA List 

WE = Washington Endangered 

WT = Washington Threatened 

WC = Washington Candidate 

WS = Washington Sensitive 

WM = Washington Monitored 

NL = Not Listed 

OR List 

OE = Oregon Endangered 

OT = Oregon Threatened 

OSC = Oregon Sensitive - Critical 

OSV = Oregon Sensitive - Vulnerable 

OSP = Oregon Sensitive - Peripheral 

OSU = Oregon Sensitive - Undetermined Status 

NL = Not Listed 

Natural Heritage 

G4 = Apparently secure globally 

G5 = Demonstrably secure globally 

S1 = Critically imperiled (5 or fewer occurrences) 

S2 = Vulnerable to extirpation (6-20 occurrences) 

S3 = Rare or uncommon (21-100 occurrences) 

S4 = Apparently secure, with many occurrences 

S5 = demonstrably secure in state 

SE = An exotic established in the state 

SH = Historical occurrences only but still expected to occur 

SU = Status uncertain: need more information 

SNA = Not applicable 

B = breeding 

N = Nonbreeding 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-1

APPENDIX C. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the CCP planning process evaluate uses as 

projected to occur under Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EA for the McNary and 

Umatilla Refuges CCP (Draft CCP/EA). The evaluation of funds needed for management and 

implementation of each use also assumes implementation as described under Alternative 2. Chapter 

7 of the Draft CCP/EA also contains analysis of the impacts of public uses to wildlife and habitats. 

That portion of the document is intended to be incorporated through reference into this set of CDs. 

Uses that occur on the Hanford Island Unit of McNary Refuge are not evaluated in these CDs. The 

Hanford Islands Unit is being planned under the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP. 

A. 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, compatibility determinations will be completed for all uses 

proposed under a CCP. 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, the 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. 

 

Refuge Use Page Compatible Year Due for 

Re-evaluation 

Wildlife Observation and Photography C-4 yes 2022 

Waterfowl Hunting; Upland game bird hunting; other 

migratory bird hunting (McNary)

C-13 yes 2022 

Waterfowl Hunting; Upland game bird hunting; other 

migratory bird hunting (Umatilla)

C-19 yes 2022 

Big Game Hunting (McNary) C-25 yes 2022 

Big Game Hunting (Umatilla) C-30 yes 2022 

Fishing C-36 yes 2022 

Environmental Education and Interpretation C-46 yes 2022 

Boating C-53 yes 2017 

Camping C-63 no n/a 

Horseback Riding C-73 yes 2017 

Swimming and Beach Use C-81 no n/a 

Farming C-88 yes 2017 

Research C-94 yes 2017 

Dog Training, including Field Trials C-102 no n/a 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-2 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

B. 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 

Refuge System 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.” 

Legally, Refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a compatibility 

determination. 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 and photography, and 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, wildlife-dependent 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-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act), were adopted by the Service in October, 2000 

(http://Refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a use must be 

compatible with both the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual Refuge. This 

standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. The Act also requires 

that compatibility determinations be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to comment on 

most use evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of primary 

consideration. The Improvement 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 Improvement 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 a use. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-3

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 McNary and Umatilla Refuges are based on the professional 

judgment of Refuge and planning personnel including observations of Refuge uses and reviews of 

appropriate scientific literature. 

In July 2006, the Service published its Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW1). Under this policy, 

most proposed uses must also undergo a review prior to compatibility. This review is appended at the 

end of this appendix. Uses excepted from the policy include Big Six uses and uses under reserved 

rights – see policy for more detail. Appropriate uses reviews are included here for boating, camping, 

horseback riding, swimming and beach use, farming, research, and dog training. Compatibility 

determinations are included for camping, swimming/beach use, and dog training, explaining why 

these uses should no longer be allowed. 

 

References 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). 11 Envtl. Rptr. Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978), p. 

873. 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on NWRSIA) - 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html

Compatibility regulations, adopted by the Service in October, 2000: 

(http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-4 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

 COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 

Uses: Wildlife Observation; Photography (wildlife) 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary NWR was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, which transferred administrative control of the original 2849 acre parcel to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Federal Register of May 1956; Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative 

Agreement between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Service in September 1963 and as 

amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service in 1969, 

under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972 another parcel was transferred to the 

Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 664). 

In 1999 the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service through the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). Additional lands were 

added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated January 2000 and as 

amended June 2000). 

 Purposes: (McNary) 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, resources 

thereof, and habitat thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources..” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953) 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between USACE and USFWS, 2000) 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, and irrigation - 

Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved 2 March 1945]. (Cooperative 

Agreement between USACE and USFWS, 2000, Stateline units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with the 

Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, according to Realty files, approximately 20 

small tracts were acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act PL 87-714, 1962. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-5

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 and the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within the said 

states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.). 

 

Description of Use: Wildlife observation and photography are allowed in the open areas of McNary 

and Umatilla Refuges. Designated areas are closed permanently or seasonally to public access and 

are appropriately signed. See Section 5.2 of the Draft CCP/EA for more information on closed areas. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-6 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

The majority of wildlife observation and photography takes place informally. The only area on 

McNary Refuge designed specifically for wildlife observation and photography is the wildlife viewing/ 

photography blind on the McNary Headquarters Unit. The blind was created specifically for bird 

watchers and photographers and includes interior black screening and special openings for 

photography equipment. Otherwise, public access roads, roadway pull-outs, interpretive overlooks 

and kiosks, interpretive trails, horse trails, and waterways enable visitors to access to the Refuge, and, 

therefore, allow wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

On Umatilla Refuge the McCormack Unit automobile tour route was designed specially to assist 

visitors see and photograph wildlife. Roadway pull-outs along state highway 14 offer visitors views of 

the Refuge, and overlooks on the McCormack Unit assist visitors in seeing wildlife. 

Prime areas for wildlife observation include the following: 

McNary Refuge - McNary Headquarters Unit 

• Wildlife Viewing/photography blind 

• Nature Trail 

• Environmental Education Center deck with permanent wildlife viewing scopes 

• Wallula Unit 

• North Shore Road Millet Pond pull-out 

• Sanctuary Pond Overlook/Kiosk 

• Walla Walla Delta (prime shorebird habitat) 

Umatilla Refuge - McCormack Unit 

• Automobile tour route with wildlife viewing and interpretive pull-outs 

• Callow’s Overlook 

• Kathy’s Pond kiosk 

• Ridge Unit 

• Highway 14 Pull-out/Columbia River Islands Overlook 

• Paterson Unit 

• Main Roadway 

When determined compatible, wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on Refuge 

System lands as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or portions of 

individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting, upon occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. See Section 5.7 of 

the Draft CCP/EA for more information on the existing wildlife viewing and photography programs. 

See Chapter 2, Goal 9, for more details on the programs under the Preferred Alternative 2. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography require minimal resources. 

Maintenance for existing facilities runs $2,500 annually excluding road maintenance costs. Estimated 

costs for operating the wildlife viewing and photography program as envisioned under Preferred 

Alternative 2 are displayed in the following tables 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-7

McNary Refuge: Wildlife observation and photography costs under Alternative 2. 

Proposed Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expenses ($/year) 

New Trail Development 35,000 2,000

Photography Blind 

Construction/maintenance 

10,000 750

Totals 45,000 2,750 

Umatilla Refuge: Wildlife observation and photography costs under Alternative 2. 

Proposed Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expenses ($/year) 

New Trail Development/maintenance 35,000 2,000

Photography Blind 

Construction/maintenance 

10,000 750

Totals 45,000 2,750 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Disturbance from People: Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a variety 

of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et al 1985; 

Freddy 1986), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al 1982), altered foraging patterns (Burger and 

Gochfeld, 1991), 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). Wildlife photographers tend to have larger disturbance impacts than those viewing 

wildlife since they tend to approach animals more closely (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). 

At McNary Refuge, people using the nature trail are generally in groups of one to three people during 

the off peak education season (July–March) and in groups of 10-15 during the peak education 

season (April–June). Disturbance to wildlife, such as flushing a nesting bird, is inherent to these 

activities; however, the disturbance is temporary and generally not malicious. Any unreasonable 

harassment would be grounds to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm. 

 

The most likely impact to the Refuges’ soil and vegetative resources from viewing and photography 

would be during spring and early summer in areas open to cross country hiking. Most cross country 

travel is limited to the area adjacent to the McNary Environmental Education Center (approximately a 

two-acre site). Beyond the center, most visitors stay on the nature trail because of the vegetation 

(abundant thistles, thick tule beds, etc.) and hidden reptiles (rattlesnakes, bull snakes). Limited 

impacts to nesting birds and flowering/growing native vegetation are expected, but should be minor 

because few visitors engage in cross-country hiking outside of the immediate education area. 

Seasonal closures may be implemented to protect sensitive areas/species. Fall and winter activities 

pose little impact to vegetation. 

Access by motorized vehicles and bicycles is limited to established trails, public roads, and parking 

lots. Parking lots and access trails have minimal impacts because they are relatively small in size and 

also allow for the safe use of these public lands. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-8 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

At Umatilla Refuge most wildlife observation occurs from within vehicles on the popular McCormack 

automobile tour route and from vehicle pull-outs. Except for Heritage Trail, there are no maintained 

footpaths on the Refuge outside the waterfowl hunting season. Because there are no maintained 

footpaths, most wildlife observation activity and associated disturbance is confined to the tour route 

and there is minimal wildlife disturbance because wildlife is frequently more sensitive to disturbance 

from people on foot than in vehicles (Skagen 1980; Grubb and King 1991; MacArthur et al. 1982). 

Wildlife observation and photography may impact threatened and endangered species, including the 

bald eagle. Disturbance impacts to the bald eagle would be expected to increase, but could be 

reduced to a certain extent through the design of public use facilities. 

Effect of disturbance intensity: Some researchers have attempted to correlate disturbance events in 

wildlife to the intensity, proximity, or loudness of human disturbance. While studying shorebirds on an 

eastern coastal Refuge, Burger (1986) found that the level of disturbance in the shorebirds increased 

(fewer remained, more flew) as the total number of disturbances and the number of children, joggers, 

people walking, dogs, aircraft, and boats increased, and the duration of the disturbance and distance 

from the disturbance decreased. 

Effect of human proximity: Other researchers have looked at the question of proximity. At what 

distance do humans on foot elicit a disturbance response? From an examination of the available 

studies, it appears that the distance varies dramatically from species to species. Burger and Gochfeld 

(1991) found that sanderlings foraged less during the day and more during the night as the number of 

people within 100m increased. Elk in Yellowstone National Park were disturbed when people were at 

average distances of 573m (Cassirer 1990). These elk temporarily left the drainage and their home 

range core areas and moved to higher elevations, steeper slopes, and closer to forested areas. 

Average return time to the drainage was two days. Erwin (1989) studied colonial wading and 

seabirds in Virginia and North Carolina. Mixed colonies of common terns-black skimmers responded 

at the greatest distances, with respective means of 142m and 130m; mixed wading bird species were 

more reluctant to flush (30-50m average). There were few statistically significant relationships 

between flushing distance and colony size. Similarly, there were few differences between responses 

during incubation compared to post-hatching periods. 

An analysis of over 4,000 human activity events near bald eagle nests in Central Arizona (Grubb and 

King 1991) found distance to disturbance to be the most important classifier of bald eagle response, 

followed in decreasing order of discriminatory value by duration of disturbance, visibility, number of 

units per event, position relative to affected eagle, and sound. 

Breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota (Fraser et al. 1985) flushed at an average distance 

of 476m at the approach of a pedestrian. A multiple regression model including number of previous 

disturbances, date, and time of day, explained 82% of the variability in flush distance and predicted a 

maximum flush distance at the first disturbance of 503m (SE=131). Skagen (1980), also studying 

bald eagles in northwest Washington, found a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of 

eagles feeding when human activity was present within 200m of the feeding area in the previous 30 

minutes. A statistically significant between-season variation occurred in the use of feeding areas 

relative to human presence, which correlated with food availability. Eagles appeared more tolerant of 

human activity in the season of low food availability. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-9

In a review of several studies of the reaction of waterfowl and other wetland birds to people on foot, 

distances greater than 100m in general did not result in a behavioral response (DeLong 2002). 

Effects on migrant birds versus resident birds: Klein (1989) studied the effect of visitation on migrant 

and resident waterbirds at Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, finding that resident birds were less 

sensitive to human disturbance than migrants. Migrant ducks were particularly sensitive when they first 

arrived on site in the fall. They usually remained more than 80m from [a visitor footpath on a dike], 

even at very low visitor-levels. Herons, egrets, brown pelicans, and anhingas were most likely to 

habituate to humans, thus exposing them to direct disturbance as they fed on or near the dike. 

Shorebirds showed intermediate sensitivity. Strauss (1990) observed piping plover chicks spent less 

time feeding (50% versus 91%) and spent more time running (33% versus 2%), fighting with other 

chicks (4% versus 0.1%), and standing alert (9% versus 0.1%) when pedestrians or moving vehicles 

were closer than 100m than when they were undisturbed. In addition, plover chicks spent less time 

out on the feeding flats (8% versus 97%) and more time up in the grass (66% versus 0.1%) during 

periods of human disturbance. 

Disturbance from Dogs: Dogs also elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone 

(MacArthur et al. 1982; Hoopes 1993). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may flush 

incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), 

disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 

1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs 

provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. Despite thousands of 

years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate 

stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs that are unleashed or not under the control of their 

owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In effect, off-leash, dogs increase 

the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of 

a dog. Dog-walkers will be required to maintain control of their animal while on the Refuge, thereby 

reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and 

ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, wild animals. In addition, dog 

waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other 

domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport 

parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). The Refuges can limit dog disturbance by enforcing 

current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) “...no unconfined domestic animals, including but not 

limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at large.....” 

Wildlife photography: Wildlife photography is likely more disturbing, per instance, than wildlife 

observation. Klein (1993) observed at Ding Darling that of all the nonconsumptive uses, 

photographers were the most likely to attempt close contact with birds. He also concluded that even 

slow approach by photographers was disruptive to waterbirds. 

Predictability of Disturbance (Habituation): Dwyer and Tanner (1992) noted that wildlife habituate best 

to disturbance that is somewhat predictable or “background.” Investigating 111 nests of sandhill 

cranes in Florida, Dwyer and Tanner found that nesting cranes seemed to habituate to certain forms 

of human disturbance and nested within 400m of highways, railroads, and mines; cranes also were 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-10 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

tolerant of helicopter flyovers. Visits to nests and development-induced alterations of surface water 

drainage were implicated in 24% of the nest failures. 

Refuge Specific Impacts: both Refuge visitation and the number of facilities devoted to wildlife 

observation and photography are projected to increase under the Preferred Alternative 2 (vehicle pulloffs, overlooks, observation blinds, trail miles). Given this, future disturbance effects are likely to be 

somewhat higher than present. Most studies cited above have demonstrated immediate, rather than 

long term responses to disturbance. Long term responses are inherently more difficult and expensive 

to determine. Given that wildlife observation is not typically a loud or intense kind of activity, the area 

of habitat within a known distance of human activity centers (public use area, trails, EE sites, 

overlooks) is considered a reasonable indicator to evaluate the disturbance effects of public uses on 

Refuge wildlife. 

Impacts from wildlife observation/photography, and the modes of transport used by visitors engaged 

in these activities, can be contained most effectively, mitigating the overall effect on Refuge wildlife by 

encouraging visitors to remain on trails, automobile tour routes, and within the areas designated for 

public use. 

Public education that informs photographers of ethical and least intrusive methods could reduce some 

impacts. Several new wildlife observation/photography areas are proposed under Preferred 

Alternative 2. The purpose of these areas is to provide a site where photographers can get close-up 

photographs without disturbing wildlife. Placement of these additional areas would likely reduce 

disturbance from wildlife photographers, because photographers would gain access to high quality 

photo shooting sites without disturbing new areas. 

Although disturbance to wildlife from these activities will be higher than at present, the overall effect to 

Refuge wildlife will still be minimal. 

Public Review and Comment: Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the 

public during the writing of the McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA. Appendix A of the Draft 

CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during development of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the Draft CCP/EA comment period. 

 

Determination (check one below 

 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Certain modes of access, such as motorized vehicle, horses and bicycles, will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots. 

• Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-11

• Pets must be kept under control (leashed) at all times. 

• Native trees and shrubs will be planted where feasible to create screening along trails and at 

observation points to reduce disturbance. 

• Elevated overlooks, trails, and boardwalks will be designed to help reduce negative visitor impacts 

to soils, vegetation, and hydrology. 

• Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

• Directional, informational, and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to educate the 

public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

• Human activity will be monitored and impacts evaluated on the increased human uses of the 

Refuge. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible because wildlife viewing and photography will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuges were established. The 

associated disturbance to wildlife is limited and minor. Wildlife observation and photography are 

priority public uses and provide visitors with the joys of abundant wildlife and wild lands. These uses 

also help fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-12 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed uses) 

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

 uses) 

References: 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: The debate behind the lens. Audubon: Jan.-Feb. 

Erwin, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colon. Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Fraser, James D., L.D. Frenzel, and John E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on 

breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harasment during winter. Pages 286 in 

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: Proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecol. Inst., Boulder, 

Colorado. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-

39. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:351-358. C.W. Servheen, eds. 1980. 

Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium; Seattle, Washington. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-

F86 in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts 

(eds.). Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement, and management in the Atlantic Flyway. 

Third Ed. Environmental Manage. Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and 

Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl., Dover, DE. 1,114pp. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-13

Waterfowl Hunting; Upland game bird hunting; Other migratory bird 

hunting (McNary) 

Compatibility Determination 

Uses: Hunting (waterfowl); Hunting (upland game); Hunting (other migratory birds) 

Refuge Name: McNary Refuge 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington. Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-14 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Uses: 

Sport hunting for waterfowl (ducks and geese), upland game birds, upland game, and other migratory 

birds is currently allowed on all units, or portions of units within the McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

Of the seven units open to hunting, four (Peninsula, Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula) are 

open daily during the respective state seasons. The Peninsula Unit has additional special regulations 

that require waterfowl hunters to hunt from established sites on the east shoreline and a noon starting 

time for upland bird hunters on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. A portion of the McNary 

Division (McNary Headquarters Unit - Units 1 and 2) is opened to waterfowl and upland bird hunting 

three days a week under a highly regulated specialized hunt. Waterfowl hunters on this division must 

pay a fee and hunt from selected sites through a reservation system. Upland hunters may only hunt 

this division on waterfowl hunt days and not before noon. The remainder of the McNary Division 

(McNary Headquarters Unit-Units 3 and 4) is closed to hunting. The Strawberry Islands are closed to 

hunting. Foundation and Badger Islands are closed. Crescent Island is open daily to waterfowl 

hunting during the State season. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2, the hunts would continue as described above, with modifications as 

included in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. Specifically, 

• Current goose pit blinds on Peninsula Unit would be removed due to the lack of productive 

hunting in this area. The area would be open to upland game hunting. Habitat management 

favoring upland birds would be undertaken to increase their abundance in this area, while the 

sporadic mowing and haying in this area would be discontinued. 

• A combination of designated posts and designated parking areas will be implemented on the 

north side of Wallula. 

• Some hunt blinds accessible to hunters with disabilities would be improved. One additional 

accessible blind would be added. 

• The current program of pheasant population augmentation practiced by the State would be 

phased out within two years of CCP completion. 

• Upland game bird hunt times and hunt days would be standardized, but a noon start time would 

be retained for the fee hunt unit. 

• The Service would continue to work in partnership with the States, Tribes and Corps to rewrite the 

Wintering Waterfowl Plan (in progess), which deals with wintering waterfowl habitats and 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-15

sanctuary areas in the middle Columbia Basin. Any additional modifications to Refuge hunting 

programs would be consistent with this plan. 

Of the 16,067 acres that comprises McNary Refuge (not including the Hanford Islands), 11,834 acres 

(76%) are open to waterfowl hunting. However, approximately 3,000 acres, consists of upland shrubsteppe habitat. Another 8,656 acres are lacustrine or open water habitat on the Columbia River. 

Many of these areas provide little or very marginal waterfowl hunting opportunities. Actual huntable 

prime waterfowl habitat that is open to hunting is closer to 3,731 acres, or 47% of Refuge lands. 

Available upland game habitat amounts to 6,331 acres, or 38% of total Refuge lands. 

Total Refuge sanctuary (lands completely closed to hunting) amounts to 4,233 acres, or 24% of 

Refuge lands. 

Although there is the potential that waterfowl, upland bird, and migratory bird hunting could pose 

conflicts to other Big Six uses, most of the other Big Six uses are separated spatially and temporally 

from hunt areas. Current and future wildlife observation and environmental education uses will be 

concentrated on McNary Headquarters Unit 4, where no hunting is allowed. The adjacent area on 

the Headquarters Unit (Unit 3), which is managed as year round sanctuary, buffers the hunt area from 

the viewing area and helps enhance viewing by providing adjacent safe haven. Fishing areas overlap 

waterfowl hunting areas to some degree but are mostly separated seasonally from the hunt use 

(fishing occurs mainly in spring, summer, and fall). Interpretation is focused near parking areas, at 

kiosks, and along pulloffs or trails. The most likely potential for conflict or safety issues would occur 

along the trail at Wallula Unit. The Refuge will mitigate possibilities for user conflicts or safety issues 

by making hunt area boundaries and seasons information available to all Refuge users via various 

venues (interpretive kiosks, website, Refuge offices). 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Costs below reflect mailing, publications, administration, staff time, preparation, and seasonal 

employees. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $68,000

Maintenance: $0 $4,500

Monitoring: $0 $

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $4,500

Totals $0 $77,000 

Offsetting revenues: $0 $16,500

The Refuge employs a seasonal biotechnical position to run the Refuge check station from October 

through January. This position is required to collect fees, assign blinds, post information, and run 

daily operations for the reservation hunt program on the McNary hunt unit. Additional costs include 

the annual printing of Refuge information and the replacement and installation of signs. Staff time is 

required from the manager, the Complex outdoor recreation planner, a full time law enforcement 

officer, and maintenance crew. The costs are reflected in the table above. Revenue collected from 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-16 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

hunter application and daily hunt fees are used to offset the costs of providing this use. The Refuge is 

currently increasing both application and hunt fees to further offset the costs of this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

Sport hunting involves the direct take of Refuge wildlife designated as huntable game species by 

Refuge regulation. In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting causes disturbances to 

feeding and resting nontarget species because of the noise (shotgun), movement, and general 

disturbance necessary for this activity. In addition, nontarget species are killed by hunters by accident 

or intent and waterfowl are often crippled or killed and not retrieved. Waterfowl are wary, seeking 

Refuge from all forms of disturbance, particularly those associated with loud noise and rapid 

movement (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Studies indicate that hunting does cause disturbance to 

hunted species as well as to nonhunted species. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright 

(obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement, or death (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Numerous studies have shown that hunting disturbance causes increased flight time in waterfowl 

species. Use of specific areas and daily flight activity by brants (Branta bernicla) were influenced by 

tidal level, food availability, time of day, and particularly by disturbance from hunters (Henry 1980). 

Flight requires considerably more energy than any other activity except egg lying. Human disturbance 

compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas 

(Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Though, as mentioned above, there are obvious impacts on waterfowl populations related to hunting 

(most notably disturbance and direct take), the proportion of waterfowl populations subject to hunting 

on Refuges is very low. Thus, hunting on Refuges as a whole, or on McNary Refuge specifically, is not 

likely to have an adverse impact on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North 

America. Several points support this contention: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest 

that occurs on Refuges is small, 2) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively 

on national wildlife refuges, 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at 

levels consistent with the current population status, 4) Refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons 

than provided for in the Federal frameworks, and 5) Refuges purchased with funds derived from the 

Federal Duck Stamp Program must limit hunting to 40% of the available area. 

There are also some indirect beneficial impacts of Refuge hunting. Refuge hunting can contribute to 

the well being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, and sociological benefits. The hunting 

community in general remains the largest support base for funding wildlife management programs. 

Refuges provide an opportunity for a high quality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens 

regardless of economic standing. Many individual Refuges have developed extensive public 

information and education programs bringing hunters into contact with Refuge activities and 

facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. 

 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during drafting of the 

Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details 

public involvement during development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment will be 

solicited during the CCP comment period. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-17

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• The hunt program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. The Refuge 

hunting plan, hunt leaflets, and section 32 of 50 CFR will be updated as necessary. All hunters 

shall comply with State hunting regulations. 

• Hunting will be subject to Refuge specific hunt regulations in effect establishing set days, areas, 

times, points of entry, and permit requirements under which to hunt. 

• The McNary Units 1 and 2 fee area will be opened to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, and 

Sundays only, during the State waterfowl season. 

• Adequate sanctuary will be established, monitored, and evaluated. 

• Adequate wintering waterfowl food supplies will be provided in closed areas of the Refuge. 

• Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with State, 

Federal, and Refuge regulations. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, future increases in fees may be necessary to sustain this 

program. 

• The Refuge will ensure safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses by providing 

information about hunting boundaries and seasons to the general public and those utilizing other 

Refuge programs. Information will be provided at interpretive kiosks, on the Refuge website, and 

in Refuge offices. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

Justification: 

Waterfowl, upland game, and other migratory bird hunting is a traditional wildlife-oriented recreation 

and is listed as a priority public use under the Refuge Wildlife Improvement Act as amended, 1997. 

Despite the direct and indirect impacts associated with sport hunting waterfowl, upland game, and 

other migratory birds’ flyway populations are not likely to be affected significantly by the hunting 

program on the Refuge. Waterfowl population objectives and allowable harvest is determined on a 

flyway basis. Changes in regional land uses (i.e., agriculture/crops) are more likely to influence 

population trends than localized hunting programs (Paveglio, pers. comm.) The Refuge has no 

control over changes in land use practices. Limited hunt days (i.e. some areas open only three 

days/week), no hunt zones, and established sanctuary in Refuge wetlands and fields, ensure that 

wintering and migrating waterfowl can find food and rest areas on the Refuges even in the midst of 

the hunting season. Hunt regulations and sanctuary should be continually monitored and evaluated 

to ascertain their value in balancing the disturbance caused by allowing hunting on the Refuge. 

Under the stipulations outlined above, this activity does not materially detract from meeting Refuge 

purposes or the Refuge System mission. Refuge specific regulations are designed to minimize impacts, 

and will be evaluated for their effectiveness annually. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-18 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 Cited: 

Henry, W.G. 1980. Populations and behavior of black brant at Humboldt Bay, California. M.S. 

thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 111 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E. and Dahlgren, R.B. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, and 

management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. 8 pp. 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-19

Waterfowl Hunting; Upland game bird hunting; Other migratory bird 

hunting (Umatilla) 

Compatibility Determination 

Uses: Hunting (waterfowl); Hunting (upland game); Hunting (other migratory birds) 

Refuge Name: Umatilla Refuge 

 

County and State: Service Region 1; Benton County, Washington, Morrow County, Oregon. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968, and the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969, in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

as amended (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within the said 

states. 

 

Refuge Purposes: 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between the Corp and Service 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1acres, and a tract of 27.6 

acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, advancement, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6-acre tract was also 

acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which authorizes the 

purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-20 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Sport hunting for waterfowl (ducks, geese), upland game birds, and other migratory birds is currently 

allowed on a limited basis on all units except the Columbia River Islands Unit which is closed to 

hunting. Of the five units open to hunting, three (McCormack, Whitcomb, and Paterson) are open 

three days a week and two (Boardman and Ridge) are open daily during the respective States’ 

waterfowl season. All units are managed as open hunts, with no restrictions on number of hunters, 

except at the McCormack Unit, where there is a highly regulated specialized hunt. Waterfowl hunters 

on the McCormack Unit must use selected blinds/sites and pay a fee for use of the blinds, facilities, 

and reservation system. Upland hunters on all units may only hunt on waterfowl hunt days and not 

before noon. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2, the hunts would continue as described above, with modifications as 

included in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA (see Goal 10). Specifically, 

• The McCormack Unit hunt area and sanctuary boundaries would be modified slightly. The 

current waterfowl and upland game hunt area on east McCormack Slough would be closed. A 

new designated hunt site (with the same number of hunting posts formerly available at East 

McCormack Slough) would be opened along the river shoreline, an area that is currently 

sanctuary. 

• Some disabled hunt blinds would be improved. One additional disabled blind would be added. 

• Available permits issued for the fee-based pheasant hunt at McCormack would decrease from 25 

to 15 permits over the first two hunt weekends. 

• Upland game bird hunt times and hunt days would be standardized, but a noon start time would 

be retained for the fee hunt unit. 

• The Service would continue to work in partnership with the States, Tribes and Corps to rewrite the 

Wintering Waterfowl Plan (in process), which deals with wintering waterfowl habitats and sanctuary 

areas in the middle Columbia Basin. Any additional modifications to Refuge hunting programs 

would be consistent with this plan. 

Of the 25,128 acres that comprise Umatilla (GIS estimate), 56% is open to waterfowl hunting. 

However, as much as 7,000 acres consists of upland shrub habitat that would provide little or very 

marginal waterfowl hunting opportunities. Available upland game habitat amounts to 11,663 acres, 

or 43% of total Refuge lands. Total Refuge sanctuary (lands completely closed to hunting) amounts to 

44% of Refuge lands. Most of this sanctuary consists of open water, Columbia River, and Refuge 

islands. 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-21

Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $68,000

Maintenance: $0 $4,000

Monitoring: $0 $0

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $7,000

Total $0 $79,000 

Offsetting revenues: $0 $16,500

The Refuge employs a seasonal biotechnical position to run the Refuge check station from October 

through January. This position is required to collect fees, assign blinds, post information, and run 

daily operations for the reservation hunt program on the McCormack hunt unit. Additional costs 

include the annual printing of Refuge information and the replacement and installation of signs. Staff 

time is required from the manager, the Complex outdoor recreation planner, a full time Law 

Enforcement officer, and maintenance crew. The costs are reflected in the table above. Revenue 

collected from hunter application and daily hunt fees is used to offset the costs of providing this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

Sport hunting involves the direct take of Refuge wildlife designated as huntable game species by 

Refuge regulation. In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting causes disturbances to 

feeding and resting nontarget species because of the noise (shotgun), movement, and general 

disturbance necessary for this activity. In addition, nontarget species are killed by hunters by accident 

or intent, and waterfowl are often crippled or killed and not retrieved. Waterfowl are wary, seeking 

Refuge from all forms of disturbance, particularly those associated with loud noise and rapid 

movement (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Studies indicate that hunting does cause disturbance to 

hunted species as well as to nonhunted species. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright 

(obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement, or death (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Numerous studies have shown that hunting disturbance causes increased flight time in waterfowl 

species. Use of specific areas and daily flight activity by brants (Branta bernicla) were influenced by 

tidal level, food availability, time of day, and particularly by disturbance from hunters (Henry 1980). 

Flight requires considerably more energy than any other activity except egg laying. Human 

disturbance compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert 

feeding areas (Korschgen and Dahlgren, 1992). 

Though, as mentioned above, there are obvious impacts on waterfowl populations related to hunting 

(most notably disturbance and direct take), the proportion of waterfowl populations subject to hunting 

on Refuges is very low. Thus, hunting on refuges as a whole, or on Umatilla Refuge specifically, is not 

likely to have an adverse impact on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North 

America. Several points support this contention: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest 

that occurs on refuges is small; 2) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively 

on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at 

levels consistent with the current population status; 4) Refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-22 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) Refuges purchased with funds derived from the 

Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40% of the available area. 

There are also some indirect beneficial impacts of Refuge hunting. Refuge hunting can contribute to 

the well being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, and sociological benefits. The hunting 

community in general remains the largest support base for funding wildlife management programs. 

Refuges provide an opportunity for a high quality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens 

regardless of economic standing. Many individual Refuges have developed extensive public 

information and education programs bringing hunters into contact with Refuge activities and 

facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. 

Under the changes recommended to the hunt program for the CCP, impacts of waterfowl hunting 

would be small. Most wintertime nonhunting users of the Refuge are on the Auto Tour Route and/or 

the Heritage Trail. Changes proposed under the CCP will reduce conflicts between trail users and 

hunters as follows. A new route alignment using the ridge road will be implemented to replace the 

current trail section that bisects the mid slough (old highway roadbed and earthen-fill). The new trail 

realignment will eliminate the need for a seasonal trail closure that has been in place to reduce user 

conflict during the waterfowl hunting season. An additional new section of trail will be developed 

within wetland habitats that will be closed to hunting at the eastern end of the slough, near public use 

facilities (parking and rest rooms) directly adjacent to Paterson Ferry Road (county road). This site will 

also serve as the official trailhead on the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the drafting of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during 

development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the Draft 

CCP/EA comment period. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. The Refuge hunting 

plan, hunt leaflets, and section 32 of 50 CFR will be updated as necessary. 

• Hunting is allowed only on public access areas of the Refuge. 

• Hunting will be subject to Refuge specific hunt regulations in affect establishing set days, areas, 

times, points of entry, and permit requirements for hunting. 

• McCormack fee area will be opened to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays only, 

during the State waterfowl season. 

• Adequate sanctuary will be established, monitored, and evaluated. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-23

• Adequate wintering waterfowl food supplies will be provided in closed areas of the Refuge. 

• Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with State, 

Federal, and Refuge regulations. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, future increases in fees may be necessary to sustain this 

program. 

• The Refuge will ensure safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses by providing 

information about hunting boundaries and seasons to the general public and those utilizing other 

Refuge programs. Information will be provided at interpretive kiosks, on the Refuge website, and 

in Refuge offices. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

Justification: 

Waterfowl, upland game, and other migratory bird hunting is a traditional wildlife-oriented recreation 

and is listed as a priority public use under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act as amended, 

1997. Despite the direct and indirect impacts associated with sport hunting waterfowl, upland game, 

and other migratory birds, flyway populations are not likely to be affected significantly by the hunting 

program on the Refuge. Waterfowl population objectives and allowable harvest is determined on a 

flyway basis. Changes in regional land uses (i.e., agriculture/crops) are more likely to influence 

population trends than localized hunting programs. The Refuge has no control over changes in land 

use practices. Limited hunt days (three days/week), no hunt zones, and established sanctuary in 

Refuge wetlands and fields, ensure that wintering and migrating waterfowl can find food and rest 

areas on the Refuges even in the midst of the hunting season. Hunt regulations and sanctuary should 

be continually monitored and evaluated to ascertain their value in balancing the disturbance caused 

by allowing hunting on the Refuge. Under the stipulations outlined above, this activity does not 

materially detract from meeting Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. Refuge specific 

regulations are designed to minimize impacts, and will be evaluated for their effectiveness annually. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-24 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

References Cited: 

Henry, W.G. 1980. Populations and behavior of black brant at Humboldt Bay, California. M.S. 

thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 111 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E. and Dahlgren, R.B. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, and 

management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. 8 pp. 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-25

Big Game Hunting (McNary) 

Draft Compatibility Determination 

Use: Hunting (big game) 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington. Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-26 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.). 

 

Description of Use: 

Big game hunting would exist and be managed as a priority public use under both the provisions of 

applicable State regulations and Refuge special use regulations. Under current conditions, big game 

hunting is allowed on portions of the Refuge that fall under GMU 149 in Washington, and GMU 44 

in Oregon. These portions include the Wallula Unit in Washington, and the State Line and Juniper 

Canyon Units in both Washington and Oregon. These three units are owned by the Corps and 

managed by the Service, under a cooperative agreement. The remainder of Refuge land, including 

fee title land, is closed to all big game hunting. 

Hunting on the Wallula Unit is managed under Refuge special use regulations that permit the pursuit 

of game with archery and shotgun only. Seasons and species limits are set by State regulation. 

Hunting is permitted on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units under seasons and provisions set by 

the State. 

Big game hunting would continue unchanged under the Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Availability of Resources: 

 

The big game hunting program on McNary does not require any additional staff time over other uses 

that are occurring during the same time period. Refuge deer hunting is only allowed during a one 

week period on Wallula, this use is not likely to detract staff resources away from the waterfowl 

program occurring at the same time. Furthermore, the Juniper Canyon and State Line Units fall under 

a highly regulated State permit program which restricts the amount of hunters and days these units 

can be hunted. It is unlikely that significant additional Refuge law enforcement presence would be 

required to manage this activity on these units. Base funding would cover the costs for administering 

this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Many of the impacts associated with big game hunting opportunities are similar to those considered 

for other public uses (e.g., waterfowl hunting, wildlife observation and photography – see those 

Compatibility Determinations). Like these uses, big game hunting also can cause direct mortality, and 

short-term changes in game species distribution and abundance. Direct mortality can impact isolated, 

resident game species populations by reducing breeding populations to a point where the isolated 

population can no longer be sustained. This can result in localized extirpation of isolated 

populations, which could occur with smaller populations on the Refuge. 

Hunting intensity can influence habitat use for a variety of wildlife species. Highly mobile species such 

as mule deer can move away from areas of heavy disturbance and/or hunting pressure while less 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-27

mobile species (e.g., California quail) retain smaller home ranges and are more subject to long-term 

exposure. For example, the largest mule deer herds on the Mid-Columbia River Refuge Complex are 

located on Umatilla Refuge adjacent to agriculture lands in closed nonhunted portions of the Refuge. 

Smaller herds have been observed along riparian units of the McNary Refuge where hunting and 

other public uses are more common. 

Currently, big game hunting pressure on the Wallula Unit is relatively low, with archery being the most 

commonly used method of pursuit. Archery season lasts the month of September when temperatures 

are still warm and deer are less likely to be moving during large portions of the day. Firearm season 

lasts only a week during October, and is relatively unpopular due to antler restrictions and the 

shotgun only requirement. Because of this, it’s unlikely that deer hunting on this Unit significantly 

impacts local deer populations. Furthermore, vegetation surveys show a noticeable level of deer 

browse on riparian shrub species. This could indicate a localized population spike or an increased 

use as sanctuary as deer move from the surrounding highway traffic and farming operations. 

Increased browsing could degrade the limited riparian habitat available to migrating/nesting song 

birds and other riparian obligate species. 

The Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units are primarily in Oregon, and exist as broken up, fragmented 

parcels surrounded and interspersed by private land. They fall under GMU 44, which is managed by 

the ODFW as a controlled hunt area. Only a specified amount of tags can be drawn to hunt this 

area during a three week period. Hunting pressure on these units is likely lower than on the 

surrounding private lands where deer use could be encouraged for hunting opportunity. 

Unrestricted travel through the hunted area(s) can have some impact on soils and vegetation. 

User conflict and safety issues do provide some areas of concern on these units. Hikers, horseback 

riders, and anglers use these areas during big game seasons. However, with the exception of fishing, 

levels of use are relatively low and peak seasons generally do not overlap. Most of the fishing activity 

is concentrated on the river banks where established parking areas are close by. These fishing areas 

are likely not preferred by deer hunters. The restrictions to archery and shotgun limit trajectory and 

lower the risk of potential third party injury. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during drafting of the 

Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details 

public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-28 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following stipulations ensure that deer hunting on the Wallula, Stateline, and Juniper Canyon 

Units of the Refuge, is compatible: 

• Only shotgun and archery are permitted on the Wallula Unit. 

• Weapons used for hunting on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units will be restricted to the 

provisions listed under the applicable State regulations. 

• Specific area closures may be implemented to improve safety and reduce user conflict in areas 

having other public uses. 

• Specific area closure may be implemented to protect Refuge buildings and personnel. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

• Over the life of the CCP, Refuge staff will monitor vegetation on Wallula and consider increasing 

the hunt if warranted based on impacts to vegetation. 

Justification: 

Big game hunting is included as a Big Six priority use. Deer hunting can be managed without 

materially detracting from meeting Refuge wildlife objectives. Therefore, the hunt supports Refuge 

purposes, goals and objectives, and the NWRS mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-29

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-30 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Big Game Hunting (Umatilla) 

Draft Compatibility Determination 

Use: Hunting (big game) 

Refuge Name: Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge (Mid-Columbia River Refuges Complex) 

 

County and State: Service Region 1; Benton County, Washington, Morrow County, Oregon. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968, and the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969, in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

as amended (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within the said 

states. 

 

Refuge Purposes: 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between the Corp and Service 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1acres, and a tract of 27.6 

acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, advancement, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6-acre tract was also 

acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which authorizes the 

purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-31

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 and the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Army Corps of Engineers on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress 

approved December 22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d) and the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and a General Plan for 

Wildlife Management approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior and the heads 

of the agencies of the States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife 

resources within the said states. 

Refuge Purposes: 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-32 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

In 1996, changes to Umatilla Refuge’s big game hunting program were implemented after release of 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) for public use on the Refuge (Environmental Assessment of Public 

Use on Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge, April 1996). Washington units were closed to general 

hunting seasons for big game, and special permit deer hunts were subsequently instituted in both 

Oregon and Washington for the McCormack, Paterson, and Whitcomb Units to control deer 

population. This compatibility determination would allow for the continuation of these hunts as 

described under Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. A description of the current program is 

in section 5.5 of the Draft CCP/EA; proposed changes under the preferred alternative are under Goal 

10, objective 10d. 

McCormack Unit—The McCormack Unit permit deer hunt is conducted per State Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) hunting regulations as a “Controlled Hunt” which is a season where the 

number or distribution of hunters is limited through a public drawing. Through prior coordination with 

Refuge personnel, ODFW sets dates of open season, type of weapon(s) allowed, bag limits, and 

number of tags issued. Harvest regulations are intended to meet population management objectives 

identified by the Refuge. Additional Refuge-specific land use regulations apply. This has included 

required hunt program orientation, required harvest success reporting, specific area closures for safety 

and other needs, limitations on guests allowed for permittees, and other general regulations such as 

allowed daily entry times onto the Refuge and no overnight camping or camp fires. 

 

Paterson and Whitcomb Units—The Paterson and Whitcomb Units permit deer hunts differ from above 

in that they are located in Washington and hunts are set by the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW). Regulations and procedures of the hunts are generally identical to those conducted 

in Oregon on the McCormack Unit. 

Availability of Resources: 

The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage big game hunting 

within the Refuge, as described above. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $1,000 

Maintenance: $0 $ 500 

Monitoring: $0 $ 500 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $ 0 

Law Enforcement $2,000 

Total $4,000 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Impacts to Wildlife and Habitats: Direct mortality to deer associated with the hunt would of course 

occur. Some wounding would occur as well. In all cases, the Refuge would seek to minimize 

needless deer mortality while providing a quality hunt experience and obtaining habitat objectives. 

Foot travel associated with deer hunting could potentially result in vegetation trampling and disruption 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-33

of soil crusts. Since deer hunting would involve small numbers of hunters, this activity would likely 

have a small impact. 

The activity of hunters pursuing deer on the Refuge could also disturb some wildlife species. Hunters 

walking in close proximity to wetlands and gunfire from hunting can result in behavioral responses by 

waterfowl and other wetland birds. Portions of the Refuge open to deer hunting would include 

wetlands. Most waterfowl use, however, occurs earlier in the year for breeding and nesting activities, 

or later in the year during fall and winter migrations. Thus, minimal impacts to waterfowl would be 

expected. 

This use is unlikely to impact threatened and endangered species. Bald eagles use the Refuge, but 

this use generally coincides with large wintering populations of waterfowl, which occurs well after the 

hunt. 

Impacts to other priority public uses: Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb 

Refuge visitors engaged in other priority public uses. To minimize this potential conflict, the Refuge 

has designated defined hunting areas that provide for a safety buffer area for the auto tour route. In 

addition, the Columbia River Heritage Trail will be realigned to the Ridge Road in place of crossing 

the slough. A new trailhead and 0.2 mile loop trail section will also be developed on the far eastern 

end of the slough where deer hunting is not allowed. The trail realignment and other new 

developments will substantially decrease user conflict with hunting from the current status. The current 

closure of the trail during the hunting season will no longer be needed. 

Big game hunting could have an effect on wildlife observation and photography quality. Although 

uncertain, it seems likely that wildlife observation/photography opportunities could be increased as 

animals move away from the hunted zones toward no hunting zones. The ultimate outcome for the 

visitor is that higher numbers of animals may be visible, but the aesthetic value of the experience may 

be diminished somewhat by the occasional sound of shots. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the drafting of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during 

development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the CCP 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-34 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Modern firearms will not be allowed. 

• Weapons used for hunting will be restricted to muzzle loading black powder rifles, and/or 

shotguns, per state regulations and per specific Refuge regulations. 

• Specific area closures will be implemented to improve safety along the auto tour route. This 

closure will include all lands east of a north-south line that extends through the unit and passes 

through parking lots C, D, and F. 

• Specific area closure will be implemented to protect Refuge buildings and personnel. This will 

include all areas north of the north tree line. 

• Public use trails will be closed during permit deer hunts on the McCormack Unit. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

Justification: 

The hunt is being conducted as a management tool to help meet population goals for deer as 

identified in the CCP, Objective 10d. 

Hunting at Umatilla Refuge as described in this CD contributes to the mission of the Refuge System by 

conserving native shrub-steppe and riparian habitats through deer management. Deer browsing of 

bitterbrush is a known concern on the Refuge. Deer hunting will reduce deer densities which can 

decrease browsing intensity on bitterbrush, and riparian tree and shrub sprouts, enough to allow 

escapement and height growth putting them beyond the reach of deer. Deer hunting also contributes 

to the mission by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. By limiting the 

numbers of hunters and days of hunting as well as always providing sanctuary from human 

disturbance in other areas of the Refuge, a deer hunting program will not interfere with the Refuge 

achieving its purposes. Hunting is also one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System as 

stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Therefore, the hunt supports 

Refuge purposes, goals and objectives of the Refuge, and the NWRS mission. 

 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-35

References 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Environmental Assessment of Public Use on Umatilla National 

Wildlfe Refuge, Morrow County, Oregon, Benton County, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Turnbull 

National Wildlife Refuge, WA, Portland, OR. Appendix E Compatibility Determinations. 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ________________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-36 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Fishing 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Fishing (general); Fishing (tournament); Fishing (special events) 

Refuge Names: McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-37

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-38 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

 

McNary: The Refuge receives over 16,700 fishing visits annually (RMIS FY2004). The vast majority of 

fishing occurs from March 1 through the end of October. Early season fishing is focused on walleye 

and trout with fishing occurring primarily in the Columbia River within the boundaries of the Peninsula, 

Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units. Fishing in the late spring and summer primarily 

focuses on bass fishing in the Columbia River, and in the ponds that make up the Burbank Sloughs. 

Fishing for catfish in the Walla Walla River on the Wallula Unit, is also popular. Late summer and fall 

is primarily salmon fishing in the Columbia River within the boundaries of the Two Rivers, Peninsula, 

Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units and in the Walla Walla River in the Wallula Unit. Quarry Pond 

receives very heavy use (300-500 anglers in a weekend) during the month of March and then tapers 

off dramatically in early April as the pond is fished out. McNary Headquarters pond IV receives a few 

fishermen, mostly children and long time local residents, fishing the bass beds during spawning in 

April or May, but the area is rarely fished the rest of the year. 

Fishing occurs at McNary Refuge in the locations listed below. 

• On the McNary Headquarters Unit, fishing occurs only in pond IV. Fishing use to occur in pond 

III but a walking trail to the pond is no longer maintained and fishing has practically ceased. Trail 

maintenance stopped because of its disturbances to wildlife and nesting birds. Fishing is not 

allowed in ponds I and II. Boats are not allowed for fishing in any of the unit’s ponds. A small but 

active group of people including many local children fish primarily for bass in the pond. 

• On the Burbank Sloughs Unit, fishing is allowed in all ponds and sloughs and in the Columbia 

River and along its banks. Boats are allowed but are only used in the Columbia River because of 

the small size of the unit’s ponds. A few anglers walk (.25 to 1.5 miles) into the Unit’s small 

ponds, but a majority use a variety of boats to fish in the Columbia River. Boat anglers gain 

access to the River from boat launches at Corps facilities at Hood Park or Cargill Pond. 

• On the Peninsula Unit, fishing is allowed in and along the banks of Casey Pond, and in and along 

the banks of the Columbia River. Motorized and nonmotorized boats are allowed in Casey Pond. 

Fishing is also allowed in several other ponds on the Unit. These ponds are relatively small and 

shallow and anglers bank fish them. Access to the small ponds is from the unit’s main entrance 

off Hanson Loop Road. A new (2004), good quality boat launch and large parking area are 

provided to anglers on the unit. Access to Casey Pond and the new boat launch is gained from a 

dirt road about one mile from the unit’s main entrance. Boaters launching from the Casey Pond 

launch can gain access to the Columbia River through a large opening in the dike. 

• On the Two Rivers Unit, fishing occurs in the Columbia River and along its banks and on the 

banks of Quarry Pond. Quarry Pond is the most popular spot on the unit to fish. It is especially 

popular with new immigrants and with families who have small children. Currently, the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stocks the pond with rainbow trout three times a year 

between March and May. The pond has no outlet to the river and is quickly fished out by the 

large numbers of anglers. Two dirt parking areas, seasonal port-a-lets, and an accessible fishing 

pier are available at the pond. Trash and litter are a significant problem. In the past five years the 

Refuge has closed a road along the pond to vehicle traffic and has also closed off several smaller 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-39

parking areas that were too close to the water’s edge. The Refuge has worked with local hunting 

and fishing organizations and other volunteers to clean up the popular site. The clean-up days 

along with litter patrols by the Refuge’s seasonal Youth Conservation Corps have helped to lessen 

the amount of debris in the area. 

 

• Boat anglers access the Columbia River adjacent to the Two Rivers Unit from the same launches 

they use when fishing the Peninsula Unit. In addition, there is a small unimproved boat launch on 

the unit. The main (and only) vehicle entrance is off State Highway 12. 

• On the Wallula Unit, fishing occurs in several places including in the Walla Walla River and along 

its banks; in the Columbia River and along its banks; in White Tail Bay and along its banks; and 

in small ponds on the south side of the Wallula Unit. Fishing is not allowed in Sanctuary Pond. 

Boats access the Walla Walla River from a boat launch near at Madam Dorian Campground. A 

dirt parking area is provided along with a small accessible fishing pier. Port-a-lets are installed in 

the parking area during busy summer months when funding permits. Year-round vault toilets 

and/or port-a-lets are located a quarter of a mile away at Madam Dorian Campground. There 

are several parking areas for anglers on the Unit, on both the north and south side of the Walla 

Walla River. 

• The most popular types of fishing in the Columbia and Snake Rivers include salmon, steelhead, 

and walleye fishing. Bass fishing is also very popular in the areas around the Burbank Slough Unit 

(McNary Headquarters), Burbank Sloughs Unit (behind downtown Burbank), and the Peninsula 

Unit. There is some sturgeon fishing in the Columbia River near McNary Refuge. A few anglers 

fish for shad and carp. Catching northern pike minnow has become somewhat popular with the 

introduction of a cash reward from the States of Oregon and Washington for catching these fish. 

• The most popular fishing occurring in the Walla Walla River is for catfish followed by steelhead. 

Many anglers come to the Wallula Unit specifically for catfish. Ponds on Refuge units are mostly 

fished for bass. 

Umatilla: Recreational fishing is the most popular “Big Six” recreation on Umatilla Refuge. The 

Refuge receives over 20,000 fishing visits annually (RMIS FY2004). The vast majority of fishing occurs 

from March 1 through the end of October. Early season fishing focuses on walleye fishing and occurs 

primarily in the Columbia River along the McCormack, Boardman, Ridge, Paterson, and Whitcomb 

Island Units. Late spring and summer fishing is focused on fishing for bass around the same units and 

in the ponds on the Paterson Units. There is also some fishing for catfish along the banks of the units. 

Late summer and fall fishing is primarily for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River along the 

Refuge units. The gravel ponds of McCormack Unit receive some fishing (two to ten people per week 

during the warmer weather months) and the ponds in the Paterson Unit are fished for bass, mostly by 

local residents of the area and the Tri-Cities. 

Fishing occurs on the Refuge in the following locations, on the Oregon side of the Columbia River: 

• On the McCormack Unit, fishing occurs at the gravel ponds. Fishing is from the banks and boats 

are not allowed. The McCormack Slough is not open to fishing. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-40 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

• On the McCormack Unit and the Boardman Unit fishing occurs in the Columbia River. Because 

the areas adjacent to the river on the McCormack Unit are closed to the public, except to permit 

hunting, bank fishing is not allowed. Bank fishing is allowed on the Boardman Unit. 

• Refuge islands (Long Walk Island, Sand Dune Islands, Straight Six Island, Blalock Islands, and 

Telegraph Island) are closed to all public use including bank fishing. 

• On the McCormack Unit, Kathy’s Pond is seasonally dry and does not contain fish. 

 

The ODFW notifies the Refuge of fishing tournaments on the John Day Pool. The Refuge then issues 

special use permits for fishing tournaments that may enter Refuge waters. In 2005, 16 special use 

permits were issued for fishing tournaments with tournaments occurring from February through 

October. Tournaments ranged in size from small club tournaments of 5 to 10 boats, to unlimited 

boat tournaments (generally 30 to 60 boats). 

Washington side of the Columbia River: 

• On the Paterson, Ridge, and Whitcomb Island (Whitcomb Island and Crow Butte) Units, fishing 

occurs in the Columbia River and from the banks of units. Fishing also occurs in several ponds on 

each unit. Only nonmotorized boats are allowed in the ponds, but boats are rarely if ever used. 

• At Umatilla Refuge, the Columbia River is primarily fished for salmon, steelhead, and walleye. 

Refuge ponds and backwaters are primarily fished for bass. A few anglers fish for shad and carp. 

A monetary reward offered seasonally by the States of Oregon and Washington, for catching 

northern pike minnows, has made catching the small fish popular. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, the fishing program will continue as described 

above with the following changes: 

McNary Refuge 

1. Installation of a fishing/Refuge/safety information kiosk at the Wallula (Madam Dorian) boat 

launch and at the Casey Pond boat launch. 

2. Build a fishing pier at McNary Headquarters pond IV. Install a fishing/Refuge/safety information 

kiosk. 

3. Stocking at Quarry Pond would be limited to rainbow trout. 

4. Improvement of parking facilities and access to river shoreline fishing sites (Two Rivers, Burbank 

Sloughs, and Wallula units). 

Umatilla Refuge 

1. Partner with ODFW to install a fishing/Refuge/safety information kiosk at the boat launch adjacent 

to the McCormack Unit. 

2. Partner with WDFW to improve the boat launch and parking area at/adjacent to the Patterson 

Unit. Project should include the installation of a fishing/Refuge/safety information kiosk. 

3. Improve parking facilities and access to river shoreline fishing sites (McCormack and Paterson 

units). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-41

Both Refuges 

1. Hire seasonal park rangers to keep information up-to-date in kiosks and provide improved law 

enforcement coverage. 

Availability of Resources: 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges are open for hunting, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife 

photography, and wildlife observation as well as fishing. Access trails, parking lots, signage and other 

facilities are often used for multiple purposes. Even though fishing is the most popular visitor activity 

on Umatilla Refuge, only a very limited number of facilities have been developed specifically for 

fishing. With increased funding, improvements could be made to the programs. Limited funding and 

staff resources negatively effects maintenance and law enforcement of current facilities. Most of the 

costs associated with carrying out the improvements described in Preferred Alternative 2 are one-time 

expenses. The Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these projects, 

including partnership efforts. 

 

Costs to Administer and Manage Fishing Programs at McNary Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense ($) 

Recurring 

Expense ($/year) 

Placement and Maintenance of Kiosks and Signs 46,000 3,000

Development/ Maintenance of Accessible fishing Pier 55,500 3,000

Law Enforcement 20,000 10,000

Monitoring (primarily of bird colonies) 10,000

Totals $121,500 $26,000 

Costs to Administer and Manage Fishing Programs atr Umatilla Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense ($) 

Recurring 

Expense ($/year) 

Placement and Maintenance of Kiosks and Signs 92,000 3,000

Boat launch development 180,000 5,000

Law Enforcement 20,000 10,000

Monitoring (primarily of bird colonies) 10,000

Totals $292,000 $28,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Fishing, when practiced as a solitary and stationary activity, tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than 

hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). Direct habitat impacts include a certain amount of 

litter and general garbage left at fishing sites. Motorized boats create noise and potentially leave oil 

and gas residue. Installation and use of parking areas and access trails will decrease impacts to 

vegetation and soil adjacent to fishing areas, by concentrating visitors on hardened surfaces. 

Fishing would cause disturbance to birds and other wildlife using open waters and backwaters of the 

Refuges. Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities, as well as distribution, 

abundance and productivity of waterbirds (Tydeman 1977; Bouffard 1982; Bell and Austin 1985; 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-42 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Bordignon 1985; Edwards and Bell 1985; and Cooke 1987). Anglers often fish in shallow, sheltered 

bays and creeks that birds prefer, negatively impacting distribution and abundance of waterfowl, 

grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated shoreline activity discouraged 

waterfowl from using otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). In Britain, anglers displaced 

waterfowl from their preferred feeding and roosting areas and caused widgeon, green-winged teal, 

pochard, and mallard to depart from a reservoir prematurely (Jahn and Hunt 1964). Anglers 

influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites in 

Washington, when compared to nonfishing days (Knight et al. 1991). Shoreline activities, such as 

human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. In addition, vegetation trampling, 

and deposition of sewage or other chemicals are expected to commonly occur (Liddle and Scorgie 

1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, and impacts to bank stability and water 

quality, may result from high levels of bank fishing activities. 

Boating, associated with fishing, can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire 

areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause 

premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). Impacts of motorized boating can occur 

even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount 

of time. 

Colonial nesting birds on river islands may be among the most sensitive of the wildlife species 

subjected to potential disturbance from fishing and fishing-associated boating. Washington State 

provided management recommendations for State priority habitats and species (WDFW 2001). In this 

document, WDFW provided management recommendations for limiting disturbance to American 

white pelican (state listed as endangered) and great blue heron. These are summarized below. 

Management Recommendations from WDFW Priority Habitats and Species 

Species Management Recommendation 

American white 

pelican 

• Establish a buffer zone of 400-800m (0.25-0.5 miles) and up to 1,600m 

(1.0 miles) from the nesting island which is closed to human activity such as 

boating (especially power boating), fishing, water skiing, discharge of fire 

arms, wildlife observation, etc. (Doran et al. 2004) 

• Close nest islands to trespass during the breeding season from 15 March 

through 31 August 

Great blue heron • Establish a protective buffer limiting human activity 820-985 feet from the 

outer edge of active colonies between February 15–July 31. 

The number of fishing tournament applications for Umatilla waters has increased in recent years. 

Refuge staff will have to develop test sites to monitor the effects of the increase in angler to wildlife 

and in particular nesting birds. 

 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-43

details public involvement during development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment 

will be solicited during the Draft CCP/EA comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

• Littering is prohibited. 

• The Service shall maintain portable toilet facilities at Service boat launches and heavily used 

fishing areas to minimize human waste problems on shorelines and island trespass. 

• All persons fishing shall be required to have a valid State license and follow applicable State 

regulations. 

• Special use permits (SUPs) for fishing tournaments shall include no-access buffers half a mile from 

islands known to be supporting nesting colonies of American white pelicans between March 15 

and August 31. In addition, a no-access buffer of 900 feet from all other Refuge islands from 

February 15-July 31, shall be included in tournament SUPs to prevent disturbance to nesting 

colonial birds. 

• The Refuge Complex shall work in partnership with the States, recreational fishing organizations, 

and other conservation partners to develop permit conditions to include as “boilerplate” for 

tournament SUPs. Consideration shall be given to addressing issues of zoning, numbers of 

participants in any one tournament, no-wake zones, and speed limits. 

• The fishing program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. The Refuge 

fishing plan, leaflets, and section 32 of 50 CFR will be updated as necessary. 

• Fishing will be subject to Refuge specific fishing regulations in effect establishing set days, areas, 

times, points of entry, and permit requirements under which to fish. 

• Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with State and 

Refuge regulations. 

Justification: 

Fishing is a “Big 6” wildlife dependent recreational activity. It brings visitors to the Refuge and often 

enhances the visitors’ appreciation of natural resources. Parts of both McNary and Umatilla Refuge 

are closed to all public use and these areas provide important undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife. 

In other areas only nonmotorized boats are allowed, this lessens the disturbances to colonial water 

birds and other wildlife. Other areas require long walks by anglers and thus receive minimal angler 

use and minimal disturbance to wildlife. Some areas receive high use and in these areas the wildlife 

is disturbed or displaced during high visitor usage. The combination of closed areas, seasonal use 

areas, minimally used areas, and seasonal high use areas, allows recreational fishing and high quality 

fish and wildlife habitat to co-exist on the Refuge. Fishing at anticipated levels will not materially 

interfere with the purposes of the Refuge. Stipulations will help reduce or eliminate any unwanted 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-44 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

impacts of the use. State regulations and monitoring help ensure that harvest levels of fish do not 

harm long-term populations. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed uses) 

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

References: 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. 

Biol. Conserv. 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.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 47:553-556. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Doran, P. J., M. Whalen, K. Riener, and L. Fitzner. 2004. American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management 

Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/amwpelic.htm 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-

21. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an Avian Scavenging Guild to 

Anglers. Biol. Conserv. 56:195-205. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: 

A review. Biol. Conserv. 17:183-206. 

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. J. 

of Environmental Management 5 :289-296. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: 

http://www. wa.gov/wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecsvert.htm#birds. 

Signatures: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-45

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-46 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

[CD Database Uses: Environmental education (teaching teachers or group leaders); 

Environmental education (teaching students); and Interpretation] 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-47

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.)). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-48 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: Environmental education (EE) and interpretation are both defined as wildlifedependent recreational uses under the Improvement Act. Environmental Education consists of 

educational activities conducted by Refuge staff, volunteers, partners, and teachers. The EE themes 

pertain to the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife and their habitats and the human 

environment. The goal of the EE program is to have students and teachers understand and value the 

Refuge System and the ecology and management of McNary and Umatilla Refuges. 

Under the Preferred Alternative 2 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 1,500 – 3,000 students 

will be served annually through McNary Refuge’s EE program, and 100-500 students will be served 

annually through the Umatilla EE program. Currently there is no formal EE program at Umatilla 

Refuge although classes do occasionally visit the Refuge as part of their science field trips. When a 

Park Ranger position existed at the Refuge Complex, several formal EE presentations were given 

annually at Umatilla Refuge. 

Interpretation occurs in less formal activities (i.e. infrequently scheduled tours or casual talks) 

conducted by Refuge staff or volunteers. Interpretive materials are also available to visitors through 

exhibits (mostly found in the McNary EE Center), interpretive panels, and brochures. 

At McNary Refuge, EE occurs primarily around the EE Center, Pond IV, the wildlife viewing/ 

photography blind and the two-mile nature trail. Seventy percent of EE use occurs during the spring 

(mid April-mid June) although programs exist throughout the rest of the year. The least active months 

are from December through February. 

Interpretive materials are available on the Refuges. A McNary Nature Trail brochure map is available 

at the trailhead along with six interpretive panels along the trail. A Refuge bird list that includes bird 

watching tips is available at the EE Center. On the North Shore Road of the Wallula Unit, an 

interpretive kiosk overlooks Sanctuary Pond. 

At Umatilla Refuge, an automobile tour route winds through the McCormack Unit. Several 

interpretive panels are installed at various pull-outs. There is an interpretive site (Callow’s Overlook) 

along the automobile tour route and an interpretive kiosk at Kathy’s Pond off Paterson Ferry Road. 

On Highway 14 in Washington, there are interpretive panels overlooking the Ridge Unit. 

Refuge general brochures and hunting information sheets are available at the entrances to most 

Refuge units at both Refuges. 

Additional information on current EE and interpretive programs and facilities can be found in sections 

5.8 and 5.9 of the Draft CCP/EA. Proposed program and facility changes or improvements can be 

found in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, Goal 12. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, the environmental education and interpretive 

programs will continue as described above with the following improvements: 

• Develop more “teach-the-teacher” programs and Refuge specific instructor training. 

• Meet annually with Educational Services District 123 to ensure that Refuge programs are helping 

the school districts meet their state educational requirements. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-49

• Use high quality established programs, such as the Shorebirds Sister Schools program and 

develop education “module” boxes to assist new volunteers and teachers. 

• Explore opportunities to gain additional teacher volunteers through the Washington State 

University teachers program. 

• Hire a volunteer coordinator and or park ranger to manage and train volunteers and support the 

EE program. 

• Utilize the Refuge Roads or other project funds to construct EE and interpretive sites (shade 

structures, orientation and interpretive panels, visitor contact area by the Refuge Manager’s new 

office, and harden surface areas at interpretive overlooks along Highway 14) at Umatilla Refuge. 

Some of these facilities could be constructed in conjunction with a parking area and trail head for 

the Refuge section of the Heritage Trail. 

 

Availability of Resources: The following is the estimated construction costs and annual costs for new 

EE and interpretive programs developed under Preferred Alternative 2: 

 

Costs to administer and manage environmental education and interpretive programs for McNary 

Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Develop and produce interpretive panels 15,000 1,000

Educational Materials 8,000 1,000

Volunteer Specialist or Park Ranger (position 

shared with Umatilla) 

40,000 25,000

Totals $63,000 $27,000 

 

Costs to administer and manage environmental education programs for Umatilla Refuge under 

Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Develop teacher and volunteer programs 2,000 700

Educational Materials 3,000 1,000

Volunteer Specialist or Park Ranger (position 

shared with McNary) 

40,000 25,000

Construct shade structure 35,000 1,500

Develop, produce, and install interpretive 

panels 

55,000 0

Construct McCormack visitor contact area 51,000 0

Maintain McCormack visitor contact area, 

Highway 14 pull-outs and interpretive panels

0 18,500

Totals $ 186,000 $ 46,700 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: Impacts from EE activities at McNary Refuge occur mostly in the area 

around the EE Center and south side of Pond IV, where school groups concentrate to take part in 

hands-on science activities. Impacts observed in this area of under two acres include: vegetation 

trampling, disturbance to nesting birds, and disturbance to feeding or resting birds or other wildlife in 

the proximate vicinity. The EE program developed under Preferred Alternative 2 at Umatilla Refuge 

would also produce impacts around the Refuge Manager’s new office and visitor contact area. This 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-50 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

area is already a disturbed site because it has been used as the waterfowl hunter check station for 

over 20 years and has a year-round parking lot and restroom facility. The nearby lawn area has been 

used in the past as a staging area for Refuge events. Additional stress to the site would be added 

during nonhunting months for education programs at the visitor contact area and along a few parts of 

the nearby Heritage Trail. 

An unpublished study (Jose, 1997) examined the effect of EE site activities at Blackhorse Lake on the 

Turnbull Refuge. The study was designed to compare waterfowl presence and behavior patterns 

between the times when EE activities were occurring and when EE classes were not on-site. The study 

results indicated that fewer waterfowl were present in the study area when EE classes were on site as 

compared to the control times. The study also found more short flights undertaken by birds when EE 

classes were on site. Redheads displayed the highest number of flight responses, followed by 

mallards. Ruddy ducks almost never flew but had the highest increase in directional swimming away 

from the EE classes. The study author recommended that sites heavily used by smaller bodied birds, 

such as ruddy ducks, buffleheads, and teals, not be used as environmental education sites. 

Participation in environmental education programs is growing throughout Oregon and Washington. 

The McNary program is limited by the number of qualified volunteers and teachers, and Refuge staff 

that can lead environmental education classes. With the growth of participation in EE programs and 

the emphasis of these programs by the Service, future effects can be expected to be higher than 

present. The EE program has a certain detrimental impact on Refuge habitats and wildlife but most 

EE activities are contained within a relatively small public use area. McNary Refuge is over 16,000 

acres and the heavily impacted area around the EE Center is less than two acres. During the primary 

season (April and May) for EE, the McNary Headquarters waterfowl fee hunt areas (ponds I and II) are 

closed to the public, and therefore, provide additional sanctuary for breeding wildlife. 

Similar conditions exist at Umatilla Refuge. The Refuge is 23,555 acres. The EE program activities 

would be concentrated in an area of approximately two acres, and would primarily occur during 

nonhunting months. During these months, over 50 % of the McCormack Unit (where EE would occur) 

is closed to the public, and therefore, supplies additional wildlife sanctuary. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the Draft CCP/EA comment period. 

Determination: 

 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-51

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

User Stipulations: 

• Require advance reservations for larger groups (over 20) participating in environmental education 

activities. 

• Instruct all groups in trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife and habitat disturbance during a 

“welcome” session. 

• Encourage students and teachers to participate in stewardship activities including habitat 

restoration or monitoring. 

• Limit EE at McNary Refuge to designated sites on pond IV. 

• Encourage groups at McNary Refuge to put all their own garbage in the Service provided 

dumpsters. 

• Encourage groups at Umatilla Refuge to bring their own water and carry out their own trash. 

Administrative stipulations: 

• During “teach the teachers” workshops, instructors will review trail etiquette and how to minimize 

wildlife disturbances. 

• An effort will be made to limit group size to no more than 60 participants per day, reducing 

disturbance to wildlife and overcrowding of Refuge facilities during times of peak demand. 

• The EE Center will be accessible to all visiting public. Special efforts will be made to 

accommodate disabled visitors. 

• Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions from Refuge staff and volunteers will promote 

appropriate use of trails, boardwalks, and platforms to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

• Periodic monitoring and evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to assess if objectives 

are being met and the resource is not being unacceptably degraded. 

• Where feasible, native trees and shrubs will be planted to create screening along trails and at 

observation points to reduce disturbance. 

• If funding permits, EE sites will be hardened and piers constructed to facilitate aquatic studies and 

to help reduce negative visitor impacts to soils, vegetation and hydrology. 

• Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

• Directional, informational, and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to help keep 

visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation contribute to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by providing wildlife-oriented educational and recreational benefits to 

Americans. Environmental Education and Interpretation are two of the six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. By limiting the size of groups and providing closed areas for 

sanctuary from human disturbance in other areas of the Refuge, these programs will limit disturbances 

to wildlife. Environmental Education and interpretation are important parts of McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges’ vision and goals. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-52 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed uses) 

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

References: 

Jose, J. 1997. Evaluation of the Effect of Environmental Education Classes on Waterfowl Behavior. 

Unpublished report. Biology 454 class, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-53

Boating 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Boating 

Refuge Names: McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-54 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 and the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969, in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within the said 

states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service). 

• Additional Land Acquisitions includes a land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1acres, and a tract 

of 27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6-acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.). 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-55

Description of Use: 

 

This CD covers “recreational” boating use on the Refuges, that is, boating that is not directly 

supporting hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, or environmental 

education. The types of recreational boating addressed in this compatibility determination includes: 

motorboats and nonmotorized boats, including kayaks and canoes, in all Refuge waters. 

Boating occurs throughout the year, but the primary recreational boating months are June through 

September. 

At McNary Refuge, boating takes place primarily in the Columbia River and is evenly divided on the 

Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units. There is some recreational boating 

(figures unknown) in the Walla Walla River in the Wallula Unit but most boating on the Walla Walla is 

related to fishing and waterfowl hunting. Some recreational canoeing and kayaking occurs in the 

Walla Walla River but user surveys have not occurred. As of spring 2006, personal watercrafts were 

not being used in McNary Refuge waters. It is estimated that McNary Refuge receives over 8,000 

recreational boating visits annually with the majority (7,000) of these visits by motorboats. 

Umatilla Refuge receives an estimated 18,500 recreational boating visits annually with the vast 

majority (18,000) if these by motorboats. Boating takes place primarily in the Columbia River on the 

McCormack, Boardman, Paterson, Ridge, and Whitcomb Island Units. Recreational boating is split 

fairly evenly amongst these units. Personal watercrafts are seen occasionally in Refuge waters. 

Preferred Alternative 2 of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft CCP/EA) would continue 

to provide recreational boating opportunities with an emphasis on use supporting priority public uses, 

including wildlife observation/photography, interpretation, environmental education, waterfowl 

hunting, and fishing. 

Currently, boating occurs in the following areas: 

McNary Refuge: On the McNary Headquarters Unit, pond III and the area around the pond are 

closed year-round, therefore, no boating occurs. Pond IV is near the Refuge headquarters office and 

environmental education center. The area around this pond receives year-round pubic visitation but 

the pond is not open to boating. The irrigation canal receives some angling, but because its size, 

shape, steep banks, and lack of launch facilities, it is not practical for boating. 

The Burbank Sloughs Unit does not have any boating because the ponds are small and vehicle access 

is limited to maintenance and emergency vehicles. The Columbia River portion of the Burbank 

Sloughs receives both recreational motor boating and nonmotorized craft. It is an especially popular 

area for nonmotorized crafts because the unit has many back sloughs and coves to explore and has 

shallow waters that favor very small crafts. 

On the Two Rivers and Peninsula Units, recreational boating occurs on Casey Pond. The pond has a 

good quality boat launch and large parking area that has ample space for boat trailers. The other 

ponds on the units are small and/or shallow and are not used for boating. Boating is popular on the 

Columbia River portion of these units. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-56 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

On the Wallula Unit, the Walla Walla River, including White Tail Bay, is open to all boating. 

Sanctuary Pond is currently open to boating when water levels permit. Sanctuary Pond is primarily 

used by a few canoes and kayakers. Boating on the Columbia River portion of the unit is not as 

popular as on other units because high winds often occur at the sharp bend in the Columbia River 

making water conditions hazardous. 

Umatilla Refuge: On the McCormack Slough Unit, recreational boats are not allowed on the slough 

and are not used in the Gravel Ponds because the ponds are too small. 

 

The Columbia River portions of the McCormack and Boardman Units are open to recreational 

boating. 

On the Paterson Unit, water depth and accessibility makes boating impractical in the unit’s ponds. 

Some of the unit’s sloughs are open to the Columbia River and recreational boating takes place in the 

Columbia River and in some sloughs when high water conditions exist. 

On the Ridge Unit, the ponds are small and often shallow. Vehicle access is limited and boating is 

not practical. 

On the Whitcomb Unit, the sloughs are open to the Columbia River and both the river and sloughs 

are open to boating. 

 

Availability of Resources: Refuge funds are not spent directly on recreational boating but recreational 

boating benefits indirectly from investments made in facilities (boat launches, parking areas, access 

roads) that support Big Six activities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, 

where boats are used. 

See fishing compatibility determination about facility improvements that would benefit both 

recreational boaters and anglers that use boats to pursue fish. 

The main expenditures of Refuge funds to support this use will be in law enforcement (to ensure 

boaters are complying with area closures and any applicable speed limits or other restrictions) and in 

monitoring of wildlife populations. 

 

Cost to Administer and Manage Boating Programs at McNary Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2 of 

the Draft CCP/EA 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Law Enforcement $0 10,000

Monitoring $0 10,000

Totals $0 $20,000 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-57

Costs to administer and manage boating programs for Umatilla Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2 

of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Law Enforcement $0 10,000

Monitoring $0 10,000

Totals $0 $20,000 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges provide crucial foraging and resting habitat for wintering and migratory 

birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Recreational boating can affect their use 

in Refuge waters. Boating is not allowed in all Refuge waters; McNary and Umatilla Refuge both have 

areas that are closed to all public use and these areas provide important undisturbed habitat for fish 

and wildlife. In other areas of the Refuges only nonmotorized boats are allowed. Some smaller water 

bodies within the Refuges are unsuitable and not practicable for boating. Some areas receive high 

use; therefore, the wildlife is disturbed or displaced during high visitor usage. 

Boating activity, both motorized and nonmotorized, can alter distribution, reduce use of particular 

habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and 

cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). More sensitive species may find it 

difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and 

recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized boats 

generally have more impact on wildlife than nonmotorized boats because motorboats produce a 

combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Cole 1995). Motorized boats can 

also cover a larger area in a relatively short time, in comparison to nonmotorized boats. 

Canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to penetrate into 

shallower marsh areas (Speight 1973, Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverway, green-backed heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes and boat use increased 

on the main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slow moving boats have also been 

observed to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that nonmotorized boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering 

waterfowl to flush between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and 

kayaks appear to have less disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964; 

Huffman 1999; DeLong 2002). 

In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to have the greatest impact on red-breasted merganser 

broods (Kahlert 1994). The presence of fast-moving boats also caused the most significant 

modifications to the amount of time animals spent feeding and resting. In England, an increased rate 

of disturbance from boats partly caused a decline in roosting numbers of shorebird species (Burton et 

al. 1996). In addition, boaters have been observed to cause massive flights of diving ducks on the 

Mississippi River (Thornburg 1973). Motorized boats within 100 meters of shore caused all wintering 

waterfowl and shorebirds to flush between the craft and shore in south San Diego Bay, regardless of 

speed (Huffman 1999). However, disturbance to birds in general was reduced when boats traveled at 

or below the five mph speed limit. Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-58 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. The total number of 

boats and people can be an inappropriate measure of recreational intensity because the presence of 

a single boat might be just as disturbing as that of many (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Knight 1984). 

Even a low level of boating activity affects the duration and pattern of use by wildlife (Bratton 1990). 

Motorized boats introduce noise and pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water, and particulates in 

the air, in estuarine and riverine habitats at the Refuge. An EPA report indicates that two-stroke 

engines, found on many motorized boats, discharge as much as 25% of unspent oil and gas directly 

into the water. Increased speeds of two-stroke engines can result in greater discharge of unspent oil 

and gas. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil released from two-stroke engines float on the surface and 

settle within shallow estuarine habitats. Hydrocarbon pollution has been found to bioaccumulate 

within the complex food web, posing a serious threat to the marine environment (Tjarnlund et al. 

1993). Hydrocarbons can also be transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds. 

Extremely small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons can be toxic to eggs and birds that may ingest 

these contaminants (Hoffman 1989). 

Of the wildlife likely most vulnerable to disturbance from boating, this CD focuses on three groups: 

wintering or nesting waterfowl, nesting colonial waterbirds, and roosting bald eagles. Typically, large 

concentrations of waterfowl are found in Sanctuary Pond during the fall and winter months. During 

the spring, waterfowl and shorebirds use the pond in lesser numbers. 

A variety of species of nesting colonial birds are found on the McNary Refuge islands and nesting 

occurs to a lesser degree on the Umatilla Islands. Great blue herons were one of the most sensitive of 

23 waterbird species, when measuring flush distances from motorized watercraft (Rodgers and 

Schwikert 2002). Bald eagles are a common to uncommon winter visitor and a regularly used winter 

roost site used by up to 32 birds (Denny, pers. comm.) is located at the southern end of the Peninsula 

Unit. 

 

According to the WDFW priority species recommendations for bald eagle (Watson and Rodrick 

2004), boating can negatively affect bald eagle behavior. Foraging eagles on the Columbia River 

estuary maintained an average distance of 400m (1,300 ft) from stationary boats, and they 

responded to boat presence by reducing feeding time and the number of foraging attempts 

(McGarigal et al. 1991). Stalmaster and Newman (1979) found that 50% of wintering eagles in open 

areas flushed at 150m (500 ft) but 98% would tolerate human activities at 300m (1,000 ft). Activities 

that disturb eagles while feeding, especially during winter, can cause them to expend more energy, 

which increases their susceptibility to disease and poor health (Stalmaster 1987). A significant 

decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was observed when motorized boating 

activity occurred within 200m of that area in the preceding 30 minutes (Skagen 1980). 

Recommendations from WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species reports (Larsen et al. 2004) to reduce 

human disturbance to priority species follow. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-59

Management Recommendations from WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species 

Species Management Recommendation 

American white 

pelican 

• Establish a buffer zone of 400-800m (0.25-0.5 miles) and up to 1,600 m 

(1.0 mi) from the nesting island, closed to human activity such as boating 

(especially power boating), fishing, water skiing, discharge of fire arms, 

wildlife observation, etc. (Doran et al. 2004) 

• Close nest islands to trespass during the breeding season from March 15 

through August 31 

Great blue heron • Establish protective buffer limiting human activity within 820-985 feet from 

the outer edge of active colonies between February 15 through July 31. 

Bald eagle • Protect core communal roost stands and staging stands with a buffer of 

approximately 120 m (400 ft) around core stands. The forest structure of 

buffer stands should include large trees and follow prescriptions to prevent 

deterioration from the effects of wind throw. 

• Activities that produce noise or visual effects within 120 m (400 ft) of the 

edges of communal roost trees or staging trees should be conducted outside 

of the critical roosting period (November 15 - March 15). 

• Leave 250-ft wide strips of perch trees and protective buffers along 

shorelines within eagle nesting territories and winter feeding areas. 

• Consider timing restrictions to avoid activities that may disturb eagles during 

critical periods. The following periods and distances may be less in 

urbanizing areas where eagles show more tolerance to human activities: 

 Wintering: November 15 through March 15 within 400-ft of roost stands 

 

On McNary Refuge islands (Foundation, Badger Island, and Crescent) some population monitoring of 

tern, cormorant, and gull colonies has been underway for several years. Additional monitoring of 

pelican and blue heron colonies is needed. On Umatilla Refuge, great blue heron and black night 

crowned heron colonies are known to occur on Big Sand Dune Island. Some limited nesting activity 

by Forster’s tern and Caspian tern have also been documented, but no true colonies are known. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the drafting of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during 

development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the CCP 

comment period. 

 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-60 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure that 

motorized and nonmotorized boating is compatible: 

• Continue to maintain areas closed year-round to boating, and areas seasonally closed, and 

waters open year-round. 

• Permit no boating that is not associated with waterfowl hunting on Ponds I and II. 

• To minimize disturbance to waterfowl on a sanctuary area, prohibit recreational boating on 

Sanctuary Pond November 1-February 15. 

• To minimize disturbance, a no-wake zone will be enforced for all watercraft on Refuge waters 

within 100 feet of islands. 

• No jet skis, personal watercraft, or waterskiing will be allowed in Refuge waters. 

• Continue periodic law enforcement to help ensure compliance with regulations and area closures. 

• Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at Refuge boat ramps. Outreach and 

education to boating groups will occur periodically. 

• Monitor boating activities by periodically assessing and estimating the level of boating activity in 

various Refuge locations. Maintain survey efforts to assess population numbers for the wintering 

bald eagle roost on the Peninusula, populations of wintering waterfowl and colonial nesting 

waterbirds. Monitoring data will be used by the Refuge Manager in the periodic re-evaluation of 

this Compatibility Determination. 

Justification: 

Recreational boating itself is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation. Although recreational 

boating has a potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the 

Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. Effects to wintering species from purely 

recreational boating is expected to be minimal except on sheltered Refuge backwaters that are 

occasionally used by kayak and nonmotorized boats, however, the listed stipulation preventing 

boating on Sanctuary pond should reduce this. Summertime use may cause disturbance to nesting 

colonial waterbirds, but with island integrity being an area of emphasis in the CCP, law enforcement 

efforts will be stepped up to prevent unauthorized access to closed portions of islands. With this effort, 

it is anticipated that fewer boaters will closely approach islands, and recreational boating disturbance 

to colonial waterbirds will decline. Overall, the combination of closed areas, seasonal use areas, 

minimally used areas, and seasonal high use areas will result in an adequate amount of habitat 

available to the majority of disturbance-sensitive wildlife. In addition, high-speed boating disturbance 

near island shorelines would be reduced. 

It is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their 

abundance and use of the Refuges will not be measurably lessened, the physiological condition and 

production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. 

Improved outreach and educational information for Refuge visitors involved in activities associated 

with boating would also help to reduce the impacts associated with boating activities. Recreational 

boating is not a Big Six wildlife dependent recreational activity but it can bring visitors to the Refuge 

and often enhances the visitors’ appreciation of natural resources. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-61

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (Provide month and year for allowed uses.) 

_______ Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

References 

 

Bauer, H.G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds 

wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91. 

Bratton, S.P. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 

13:124-128. 

Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, 

the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. 

Conserv. 77:193-201. 

Doran, P.J., M. Whalen, K. Riener, and L. Fitzner. 2004. American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management 

Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/amwpelic.htm 

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 115:41-50. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report-effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS report. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp. 

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus 

serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231. 

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 561-567. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists in Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, CA. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 48:999-1004. 

Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management Recommendations for 

Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. http://wdfw.wa.gov. 

McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the 

Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monograph 115. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126. 

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. 

Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No. 1:216-224. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Seattle, Washington. 231-241pp. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-62 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications. 1:215-225. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. 

University college London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35pp. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to 

human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

Tjarnlund U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological 

effects of 2-cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Inst. of Applied Research, University of 

Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. 

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. J. Wildl. Manage. 

37:382-389. 

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. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Watson, J. W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2004. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. 

Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority 

Species, Volume IV: Birds. Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/baldeagle.pdf 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. 

Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: ______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-63

Camping 

Compatibility Determination

Use: Camping 

 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife-Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945] (Corps/Service Cooperative Agreement 2000, Stateline and Juniper Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-64 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

McNary Refuge manages the Madam Dorion Campground located on the Wallula Habitat 

Management Unit as stipulated under an agreement between the Service and the Corps (Cooperative 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-65

Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13). The campground is currently in nonfee status and provides vault 

toilets, an RV dump station (March-Sept), and potable water (March-Sept). There are five tent sites 

with picnic tables and fire grates. Recreational Vehicle (RV) campers are provided a large gravel area 

in which to park. There are no developed sites or hook-ups for RV campers. Currently, 25 camping 

parties can be accommodated. This campground is considered largely primitive due to its lack of 

development and facilities. Potable water is provided through a domestic well with a chlorine pump. 

Irrigation water is provided through a pump house located on the Walla Walla River. Both systems 

are antiquated and require regular maintenance 

The campground is used primarily from spring through summer, but is open year round. Current 

regulations allow for a maximum stay of 14 days within 30 days. Many of the users are seasonal 

agricultural workers employed throughout the area and other transients who use the campground as 

temporary housing. The remainder of visitors will camp temporarily en route to other destinations or 

stay overnight to fish on the Walla Walla River. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Operating the campground in its present state requires the regular staff time of two Wage Grade 8s, 

one full time and two dual function law enforcement officers (LEOs), and a summer time Youth 

Conservation Corps crew member, a total staffing investment each year of $40,000.00. The vault 

toilets are serviced both under contract and by Refuge staff. Annual maintenance of the domestic 

water and irrigation systems requires $7,000.00 in equipment, in addition to the staff time costs 

above. Operating the campground as a fee unit would require a full time position for fee collection 

and operations; at minimum one full day a week of staff time for collection and counting of money; 

and increased law enforcement presence. 

Listed below are the current costs for administering the Madam Dorion Campground. 

Category and Itemization One-time Expense ($) Recurring Costs ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $40,000

Maintenance: $0 $7000

Monitoring: $0 $0

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $20,000 $0

Total $20,000 $47,000 

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Current staffing is not adequate to meet the needs of operating this campground in a compatible 

manner. Resources are not available to regularly clean facilities, pick up garbage, handle the 

disposal of garbage, or control weeds and maintain grounds. The antiquated water systems and the 

RV dump station have cost the Service $10,000.00 in repairs in 2006 alone. Even with these repairs, 

the systems still fail State certification levels, and will require additional funding to bring them up to 

standards. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-66 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Anticipated impacts of this single camping site include habitat degradation; wildlife disturbance; site 

disturbance; soil and stream bank erosion; soil compaction; litter, and human waste disposal. 

Habitat degradation: The campsite has space for 25 family units or a maximum population of 75-

100 people, but seldom exceeds 30. The most likely impact to the Refuges’ soil and vegetative 

resources from camping would start during spring and early summer in the campsite area, adjacent 

upland, and wetland and riparian areas accessed by campers in daily activities. Fall and winter 

activities pose less impact to vegetation, except for wood and small twig gathering used for campfires. 

The campsite is adjacent to riparian woodland and small wetlands which are particularly valuable for 

nesting passerine birds along the Walla Walla River. The large gravel area used by RV campers is 

devoid of tree and shrub habitat that would normally be present in this transition zone between 

riparian and upland vegetation. Both nesting birds and migrant neo-tropical birds that use woodland 

and understory vegetation are impacted by the loss of this habitat. In addition, birds and other 

animals that are disturbed by the activities associated with camping will be excluded from these areas. 

A small grassland field is kept in a mowed condition to allow occasional group camping. According 

to Sun and Walsh (1998), if not well-managed, camping can adversely affect the values of natural 

and semi-natural resources. Recreation can degrade land, water, and wildlife, by simplifying plant 

communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse 

(Boyle and Samson 1985). It may also affect wildlife through trampling of habitat (Liddle 1975) and 

animal disturbance (Ward et al. 1973). One night of camping was sufficient to cause evident impact 

in four vegetation types (Cole 1995). Camping-induced soil disturbance may provide conditions that 

favor weed infestations and serve as a source of new infestations as campers bring in weed seed from 

other locations. 

Wildlife disturbance: The peak periods of use of the campsites are late spring, summer, and fall which 

coincide with peak use of the Walla Walla River riparian corridor by nesting and migrating birds. 

Wildlife disturbance results from the presence of campers and their pets throughout the day and night, 

especially during the breeding season for nesting migratory birds. The Walla Walla River riparian 

corridor is especially important to nesting and migrating birds. In their study comparing bird use of 

campground and noncampground riparian sites, Blakesley and Reese (1988) found that differences in 

avian community composition appeared related to nesting substrate, cover, and foraging substrate. 

Bird species missing from campgrounds were ground or shrub nesting species and ground foraging 

species likely as a result of a sparsely vegetated understory. Forest bird species sensitive to human 

disturbance may avoid campgrounds while more common and widespread species favor them 

(Garton et al. 1977). In her study of land use effects on breeding birds on the Snake River, Saab 

(1996) found that overall bird abundance was significantly reduced in recreation areas while species 

richness and composition were similar among land use types. In Arizona, Aitchison (1977) found that 

breeding bird densities were similar between a campground (when closed to campers) and a relatively 

natural area; however, bird species composition differed between sites, the campground having 

relatively heavier bodied bird species. Once the campground was opened for human use, the 

breeding bird population decreased in density and diversity, while on the natural site, the bird 

population remained the same. Pets accompanying campers have the potential to chase and kill 

wildlife. Food from campsites may increase small mammal densities (Clevenger and Workman 1977 

and Foin et al. 1977) and increase mammalian predators. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-67

In Yosemite National Park, California, Garton et al. (1977) reported that the campground forest had 

less litter, grass and forb cover, log cover, and fewer trees under 25-feet than noncampground forest. 

The reduced vegetation was due primarily to campground visitors trampling vegetation, littering, and 

cutting up logs and trees for firewood. The campground forest became more like a meadow-forest 

margin favoring Brewer’s blackbirds, brownheaded cowbirds, and American robins-edge species that 

take advantage of human food sources. At Madame Dorion Campground, the presence of brownheaded cowbirds and nonnative house sparrows and starlings associated with campsites, would be 

detrimental to achieving Refuge goals to increase woodland nesting birds, such as yellow warbler and 

willow flycatcher, because of nest parasitism and/or competition. In the long term, the effects of 

continuous campground use will mean the area will support a much-reduced bird community in terms 

of species richness, diversity, and density. Only the most strongly human-attracted species, such as 

European house sparrows and starlings, and brown-headed cowbirds would likely benefit from the 

campsite (Garton et al. 1977). 

Site disturbance: Small fires have occurred as a result of camp fires set outside the permitted 

boundaries of the campground fire grates, and unattended fires have been found in grates during 

non-burn days. Irresponsible use of fire and damage to standing live or dead trees is most frequent 

near campsites. In addition, partially fire-consumed logs are occasionally found on the site in- andout of fire grates provided to campers. There have been several instances of wooden fence posts 

being torn down to be used in fire grates; and regular evidence of illegal burning of plastics, rubber, 

and cans, and other items of improperly disposed items at the campsite. 

The majority of Refuge campers seek a peaceful outdoor experience. However, there are campers 

who use camping as an opportunity to party. Loud motors, music, and uncontrolled dogs associated 

with some Refuge camping, disturb wildlife and detract from a peaceful outdoor experience for other 

Refuge users. Night time activities, including barking dogs, sounds, and lights likely disturb wildlife in 

adjacent habitats. 

Dogs associated with campers also elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone 

would (MacArthur et al. 1982; Hoopes 1993). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may flush 

incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), 

disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 

1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs 

provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. Despite thousands of 

years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate 

stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs in the campground that become unleashed or not 

under the control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In 

effect, off-leash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what 

it would be in the absence of dogs. The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. 

However, dogs host endo- and ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, 

wild animals. In addition, dog waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of 

some wildlife and other domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various 

diseases and transport parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). The Refuges can limit dog 

disturbance which can be mitigated by enforcing current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) “...no 

unconfined domestic animals, including but not limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at 

large...”). However, camping increases the likelihood of unleashed dogs and their impacts. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-68 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Soil and stream bank erosion: Camping in riparian areas may also result in increased runoff into 

streams due in part to exposed soil and reductions in vegetation (Green 1998). In the case of 

Madame Dorion camping, a large graveled RV site increases the risk of runoff into the Walla Walla 

River. Significant streambank erosion and vegetation trampling have and continue to occur along the 

shoreline of the Walla Walla River as a result of camper activities at Madame Dorion Campground. 

Even low levels of hiking or camping activity have been shown by research to cause substantial 

degradation to vegetation and soils (Cole in Farrell and Marion, 2002). Foot trails leading from the 

campground to shoreline fishing areas erode the streambank and impact shoreline vegetation, 

causing further erosion from seasonal high water levels. 

Soil compaction: Soil compaction occurs in areas used for camping, resulting in reduced vegetative 

reproduction and pioneering of invasive weed species (Liddle 1975). Use of a campsite as 

infrequently as one night per year is sufficient to cause measurable impacts in many vegetation types, 

but usually results in height reduction rather than cover loss (Cole 1995). The amount of impact 

generally increases with an increase of use, but not proportionally. Four times the amount of use did 

not result in four times the amount of cover and height reduction (Cole 1995). 

Litter and human waste disposal: In one study, water quality in streams, measured by total coliform 

bacteria counts adjacent to camps, was negatively affected by weekend campsite use that revealed 

higher coliform counts (Christensen et al. 1978). In this western Washington study, bacteria were 

rapidly transmitted to the river water, even in dry periods. The presence of the single pit-vault toilet at 

the Madame Dorion campsite reduces, but does not eliminate the risks of coliform entering the Walla 

Walla River. Campers regularly discard baitcups, trash, and other litter items at the campsite or along 

the adjacent shorelines while fishing and recreating. Use of detergent, soap, and toothpaste in 

streams and lakes harms fish and other aquatic life. Campers often leave other undesirable items 

(straw, couches, mattresses, chairs, etc.). Illegal removal of natural objects (plants, antlers, live 

animals, etc.) and cultural objects may result from camper visits. Creation of “improvements” (leantos, tables, chairs, game poles, etc.) and alteration of the site (trenching) are also byproducts of 

camping. Refuge law enforcement officers and managers report that Madam Dorion is frequently 

used as a transient stopover for people, and as a temporary residence. In many cases, these campers 

are merely using it as a free place to stay until they find somewhere else to go. Many of them will 

homestead, using the campground as a free place to live until informed by Refuge staff of the 14-day 

limit. These campers tend to leave more litter and trash, and accommodate their sites for extended 

stays by using local materials (wood, vegetation, government property like posts and split-rails) to 

erect lean-tos, tables, etc. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the development 

of the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the comment period for the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-69

Determination: (check one below) 

 X Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

N/A 

 

Justification: 

Camping is not listed as one of the Big Six wildlife dependent recreational uses under the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Furthermore, it has been determined that 

Madame Dorion campground is not necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing 

Refuge wildlife dependant recreational uses. While a certain portion of campers do participate in 

fishing activities, it’s questionable whether Madam Dorion is needed to facilitate this single activity. 

Furthermore, present evidence indicates that Madam Dorion is used primarily as a transient stopover 

for people on their way to other places. The majority of these campers don’t stay to partake in other 

Refuge related activities. In many cases, campers are merely using it as a free place to stay until they 

find somewhere else to go. Many of them will homestead, using the campground as a free place to 

live until informed by Refuge staff of the 14-day limit. Many RV users simply stop to use the RV 

dumping station and move on. This type of common use indicates that many users of Madam Dorion 

Campground are not employing camping to facilitate other wildlife-dependent uses. 

Currently, funding for the infrastructure and staff needed to develop and maintain Madam Dorion is 

not available. The weekly, monthly, and annual maintenance of this campground continues to pull 

Refuge resources and staff time away from projects designed to reach and achieve Refuge goals and 

objectives. Madam Dorion is currently a no-fee campground. Developing a fee collection program 

would require a substantial initial investment, perhaps as much as $1million to build the infrastructure 

capable of sustaining and controlling the impacts of use. It is not certain if the revenue collected 

would offset the initial costs or the annual costs of operations. Currently there is no funding available 

to develop this campsite, nor is any expected in the near or distant future. 

Camping is considered appropriate only when no reasonable (based on time, distance and expense) 

lodging opportunities are available off-refuge and when staff resources needed to manage camping 

do not detract from the quality of another priority wildlife-dependent recreational use (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2001a). There are other private and public campgrounds nearby that accommodate 

both RV and tent campers with a better level of service. During the CCP review, the team focused on 

the presence of an alternative, privately-owned campground (Pierce’s Happy Valley) directly adjacent 

to the Refuge. This well maintained fee camping site provides enhanced services over the 

government-operated campground. The team believes the public is better served by converting the 

Madame Dorion site to a day use only site, reducing law enforcement issues associated with camping, 

and allowing the Refuge to promote Big Six uses such as wildlife viewing and photography at the 

Madame Dorion site. Existing boat launch and rest area facilities would be maintained. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-70 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Based on the preceding analysis, camping has a negative impact on Refuge habitat; displaces and 

disturbs wildlife; is not necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing Refuge 

wildlife dependant recreational uses; and detracts staff and operational resources away from 

programs that contribute to the conservation and management of wildlife. It materially interferes with 

the Refuge achieving its purposes, and therefore, is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

n/a 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 Cited: 

Aitchison, S.W. 1977. Some effects of a campground on breeding birds in Arizona. Pages 175-182. 

Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium, July 9, 1977, 

Tucson, AR. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in 

riparian zones. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):399-402. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1983. Nonconsumptive outdoor recreation: An annotated bibliography 

of human-wildlife interactions. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. No.252. 

113pp. 

Christensen, H.H., R.E. Pacha, K.J. Varness, and R.F. Lapen. 1978. Human use in a dispersed 

recreation area and its effect on water quality, in Recreational Impact on Wildlands, Ittner, R., 

D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee, and S. Anschell - eds. October 27-29, 1978. Seattle, 

Washington:conference proceedings. 

Clevenger, G.A. and G.W. Workman. 1977. The effects of campgrounds on small mammals in 

Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 

42:473-484. 

Cole, David N. 1995. Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping: Experimental applications of 

low-level stress. Environmental Management 19(3):405-416. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures—prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix 

L (114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact 

statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-71

Farrell, T.A. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Camping Impact Management at Isle Royale National Park: An 

Evaluation of Visitor Activity Containment Policies From the Perspective of Social Conditions. 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. 2000. 

Foin, T.C., E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz, and B. Holton, Jr. 1977. 

Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National Park, California, 

and their implications for park management policy. Journal of Environmental Management 

5:1-22. 

Garton, E.O., B. Hall, and T.C. Foin. 1977. The impact of a campground on the bird community of 

a lodgepole pine forest. Pages 37-43 in T.C. Foin, ed. Visitor impacts on National Parks: 

The Yosemite ecological impact study. Univ. Cal. Davis, Inst. Ecol. Publ. 10. 

Green, D.M. 1998. Recreational impacts on erosion and runoff in a central Arizona riparian area. 

Soil Water Conserv. 53, 38–42. 

Hoopes E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology 

and chick survival. MS Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 106 pp. 

MacArthur, R.A., Johnston, R. and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging 

bighorn sheep: A physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 57:2010-2021. 

Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in estuarine 

habitat in Scotland. Biol. Cons. 58:213-228.

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36. 

Saab, V.A. 1996. Influences of spatial scale and land-use practices on habitat relationships of 

breeding birds in cottonwood riparian forests. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Colorado, 

Boulder,CO. 140 pp. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin, and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. 

Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Sun, D. and D. Walsh. 1998. Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism 

in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 53 (4), 323-38. 

Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R. and Daigle, J. J. 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and 

mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 9 

(3), 59-71. 

Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea et al. 1973. Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest 

recreation and traffic. North American Wildlife National Research Conference Transactions 

38:327-337. 

Yalden, P.E., and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers 

Pluvialisapricarius. Biol. Conserv. 51:243-263.

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-72 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-73

Horseback Riding 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Horseback riding 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-74 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-75

Description of Use: 

McNary: Horseback riding is currently permitted on McNary Refuge on gravel roads that are only 

open to vehicular travel, and on two designated horse trails as stipulated under a cooperative 

agreement with the Corps (CA# DACW68-4-00-13). As proposed, horseback riding would be 

allowed only on roads open to vehicular travel, and on the two previously designated horse trails on 

the Peninsula and Wallula Units of the Refuge. Both trails are approximately four miles long and 

traverse both upland and shoreline habitat in their respective units. The trails are primarily used by 

local riding clubs in groups ranging from two to eight riders at any given time. Most use occurs in the 

spring and fall months. Some groups have taken an ownership approach to the trails and have 

adopted trail etiquette rules such as single file riding and staying on the established trail, though 

evidence of alternate trail use has been documented on the Wallula Unit. Currently, the Refuge has 

no hard numbers, but annual observations from staff indicate that these trails are receiving infrequent 

and seasonal use.

 

Umatilla: Horseback riding on Umatilla Refuge is currently limited to gravel roads open to vehicular 

travel and to the newly created Morrow County Heritage Trail, which bisects the McCormick Unit. The 

Heritage Trail, as it passes through the Refuge, consists of a section of the old 730 Highway which is 

paved. This trail is also open to bicyclists and pedestrians and is well marked with route signs. As 

proposed, horseback riding would be allowed on roads open to vehicular travel and on the Heritage 

Trail section which passes through the Refuge. Currently, the most used road by horse traffic is the 

Refuge’s auto tour route, though use is infrequent. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

The initial costs to administer the designated trail portion of the horseback riding program could cost 

anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 for signing, required maintenance and rehabilitation, and parking 

lot improvements. Annual costs should be minimal after this. The direct costs for road maintenance 

would be minimal, with road maintenance and monitoring for other public use activities covering all 

costs. The annual cost to administer and monitor this use through law enforcement personnel is listed 

below. Base funding is available to cover staff costs. 

McNary Costs: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $5,000

Maintenance: $0 $1,000

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $7,000 $200

Total $7,000 $6,200 

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

 

Umatilla Costs: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $0

Maintenance: $0 $1,000
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-76 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Monitoring: $0 $0

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $2,000 $0

Total $2,000 $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Possible biological impacts of horseback riding include disturbance to wildlife and habitat 

modification. Wildlife can be affected by the sight and sound of recreationists (Boyle and Sampson 

1985). Habitat can be affected through vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and erosion (Cole 

1983, 1990). 

Some of the effects of disturbance to wildlife from recreational activities include: affecting foraging 

behavior; reducing productivity; causing abandonment or altering of breeding territories; altering 

distribution; altering flight behavior; causing energy depletion; and disrupt nest and brood rearing 

attentiveness (Klein 1989, Knight and Skagen 1988). 

Public use activities can also have adverse impacts on vegetation and soil conditions. Impacts from 

vegetation trampling can lower species richness, decrease ground cover and plant species density, 

increase weedy annuals, and induce changes in species composition (Gragherr 1983, Bright 1986, 

Bonanno 1992). 

Impacts related to horseback riding include exotic plant seed dispersal (Beck 1993, Hammitt and 

Cole 1987), soil compaction and erosion (Bainbridge 1974, Hendee et al. 1990, Hammitt and Cole 

1987), stream sedimentation (Seney and Wilson 1991), trail widening (Whitaker 1978), vegetation 

trampling (Nagy and Scotter 1974, Weaver and Dale 1978, Whitaker 1978), aesthetic concerns 

relative to horse manure (Lee 1975), direct wildlife disturbance (Owen 1973), and direct and indirect 

conflicts with other recreationists. Exotic plants can be spread to new sites through forage (e.g., hay 

brought in to feed horses, which contains seeds of exotic plants) and manure (Beck 1993). 

Exotic plant establishment is further facilitated by increased trail disturbance as many exotic plants 

gain a competitive advantage in highly disturbed sites. This soil disturbance is often created through 

soil compaction with as much as 1,500 p.s.i. exerted on the soil surface with each step (Hendee et 

al.1990). Additionally, hoof action tends to dig up and puncture the soil surface (McQuaid-Cook 

1978) which causes greater sediment loss than any other form of recreational trail use (Seney and 

Wilson 1991), and increases the potential for disturbance tolerant vegetation (e.g., exotic plant) to 

establish. Trail widening is also a consideration, as horses tend to walk on the down slope sides of 

trails (Whitson 1974). Anticipated results include a wider trail, a much wider area of disturbance, and 

ongoing trail maintenance problems. Vegetation impacts can be much more pronounced considering 

that hikers tend to flatten vegetation while horses tend to churn up soil, thus, cutting plants off at the 

rootstalk (Whitaker 1978). This can increase spread of previously established exotics by providing 

loose disturbed soil for germination and spreading reproductive plant structures. This impact initially 

increases exotic plant encroachment with light to moderate trail use and eventually lowers species 

richness values to near zero with heavy impacts (Hendee et al. 1990). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-77

Wildlife disturbance relative to horseback riding has been poorly studied, with most references using 

other activities such as hiking and cross-country skiing to infer horseback riding impacts. One study 

identified disturbance tolerance of waterfowl to horseback riders and found that horseback riders 

could approach geese up to a distance of 46 m. This is compared to suggested hiking trail distances 

of 75 m (Miller et al. 1998) and boat buffers ranging from 77 to 273 m (depending on the type of 

boat, whether or not the boat is motorized, and species impacted; Burger et al. 1999). The 46 m 

approach distance offered by Owen (1973) is consistent with observations, suggesting that horseback 

wildlife observers can approach wildlife at closer distances than through other forms of travel. Many 

wildlife species appear to be habituated to livestock, thus, are less likely to flee when approached 

through this method. Using the 46 m buffer as an example, this would translate into 144 acres of 

habitat potentially being impacted directly by horse use, though the two established trails are located 

along areas where disturbance to waterfowl is not likely. Any form of approach is expected to cause 

some disturbance, which will vary according to the species affected and the type, level, frequency, and 

duration of disturbance, as well as the time of day or year that it occurs. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public development of the Draft 

CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and comment will 

be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

At present, horseback riding on both McNary and Umatilla Refuges does not seem to be impacting 

wildlife and associated habitat any more than other permitted public use activities (i.e. fishing, hiking, 

and vehicle access). This is likely due to the relatively low level of use, most of which occurs during 

cooler months when wildlife is not as active. However, as stated in the anticipated impacts described 

in the previous section, any increased or unrestricted horseback riding could lead to significant impact 

on wildlife resources through exotic seed encroachment, vegetative trampling, erosion, and wildlife 

disturbance. These impacts would be cumulative with associated impacts from other public use 

opportunities. Therefore, in order to ensure the compatibility of this use, the following stipulations 

shall be applied. 

• Horseback riding must be restricted to those areas already designated for riding (i.e. roads open 

to vehicular travel, and previously designated trails). 

• Open roads and designated trails would be subject to seasonal closures based on presence of 

sensitive wildlife populations. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-78 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

• Horse trailers would be restricted to designated parking areas listed in the Refuge brochure and 

posted on site. 

• Horseback riding would be a day use only activity. 

• Designated horse trails would be signed at both ends and at regular intervals throughout the 

length of the trail. Riders would be required to ride single-file on these trails. Riders would be 

restricted to the designated trail. 

• A maximum number of riders per party, day, or season may be established. 

• Monitor vegetation damage and impact along roadsides, designated parking areas, and trails. 

• Monitor funds required to enforce regulations and administer use. Monitor level of use. 

• Activity could be closed upon finding of significant negative impacts to Refuge facilities or wildlife 

resources. 

• Require the use of certified weed-free hay and the washing of horses before and after rides to 

minimize weed spread. 

• All educational and interpretive materials for riders will emphasize principles of the Leave-NoTrace backcountry horse use (www.lnt.org). 

Justification: 

While not one of the six priority wildlife dependent public uses listed or identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended (1997), horseback riding is believed to be a 

compatible public use under the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination. Primary 

reasons for this determination include: 

1. Wildlife observation can be an element of horseback riding. 

2. Horseback riding allows the Refuges to reach a target audience not reached through other 

opportunities; horseback riders are potential partners and a potential source of support for the 

Refuges. 

3. Impacts associated with horseback riding would be minimized through implementation of the 

stipulations noted above. 

4. Trail use and impacts will be monitored and the use modified if necessary. 

Horseback riding, if practiced as described in the Description of Use section above, would not 

interfere with the Refuge’s achieving their purposes or contributing to the System mission. 

 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife dependent public uses) 

12/2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife dependent public uses) 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-79

References Cited: 

 

Bainbridge, D.A. 1974. Trail Management. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 55:8-10. 

Beck, K.G. 1993. How do weeds affect us all. Proc. Eighth Grazing Lands Forum. Washington, 

D.C. December 2, 1993. pp5-13. 

Bonanno, S.E. 1992. Vegetation of a Lake Ontario dune barrier, Oswego and Jefferson Counties, 

New York, under high and low recreation pressure. MS thesis. Syracuse State Univ., Syracuse, 

NY. 88pp. 

Boyle S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of noncomsumptive recreation on wildlife. A review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 

Bright, J.A. 1986. Hiker impact on herbaceous vegetation along trails in evergreen woodland of 

central Texas. Biol. Conserv. 36: 53-69 

Burger, J., B. Harrington, J.Rodgers, and H. Smith. 1999. Minimum recommended set-back (RS) 

distances for various disturbances approaching directly towards waterbirds to prevent flushing. 

Handout provided at the Watchable Wildlife Conference - Oct 18-22, Ft. Meyers, FL. 

Cole, D.N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Res. Paper INT312. U.S. Forest Service. Internt. For. Range Exp. Sta. 18pp. 

____, 1990. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. Pages 425-466. in

J.C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas, eds. Wilderness management. North American 

Press. Golden, CO. 

Grabherr, G. 1983. Damage to vegetation by recreation in the Austrian and German Alps. Pages 

74-91 in N.G. Bayfield and G.C. Barrow eds. The ecological impacts of outdoor recreation 

on mountain areas in Europe and North America, Rept. 9. 203pp. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. John Wiley 

and Sons, New York, NY. 341pp. 

Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Management. North American 

Press, Golden, CO. 

Lee, R.G. 1975. The management of human components in the Yosemite National Park ecosystem. 

Yosemite National Park, CA. 134pp. 

McQuaid-Cook, J. 1978. Effects of hikers and horses on mountain trails. J. Env. Manage. 6:209-

212. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applic. 8:162-169. 

Nagy, J.A.S. and G.W. Scotter. 1974. A quantitative assessment of the effects of human and horse 

trampling on natural areas, Waterton Lakes National Park. Can. Wildl. Serv., Edmonton, AB. 

145pp. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl 24:123-130. 

Seney et al. 1991. 

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles, and horses in meadows and 

forests. J. App. Ecol. 15:451-457. 

Whitson, P.D. 1974. The impact of human use upon the Chisos Basin and adjacent lands. USDOI, 

NPS. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-80 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-81

Swimming and Beach Use

Draft Compatibility Determination 

Use: Swimming and Beach Use 

Refuge Name: Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Benton County, Washington, and Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-82 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, current seasonal beach use and associated other uses such as swimming 

would be discontinued on all Columbia River Islands of the Refuges. These uses are currently allowed 

on three designated islands within the Umatilla Refuge: 1) a large sandy beach located on the far, 

east tip of West Blalock Island; 2) a large sandy beach located on the far, east tip of Big Sand Dune 

Island; and 3) a sand peninsula (sometimes a small sand island) located on the far, east tip of Crow 

Butte Island. Beach use including boating, sunbathing and picnicking have a long history of use in 

this area (see Anticipated Impacts for further discussion on that historic use). The season of use has 

been restricted to July 1 through September 30. 

The three beach sites are on the extreme tips of islands, directly adjacent to deep-water navigation 

channels that are not part of the Refuge. This shipping channel is within 30 meters of the beaches. 

The uses that occur on these sites and that are analyzed in this CD include non-Big Six uses such as 

picnicking, sun bathing, swimming, and boating. Waterskiing takes place almost entirely in the deep 

water shipping channel, outside of Refuge jurisdiction, rather than in the shallows within Refuge areas 

that have numerous exposed bars and other hazards to boating. Waterskiing will not be allowed on 

Refuge waters and has been determined to be not appropriate as a Refuge use. 

In recent years, beach users normally include relatively small groups of less than 10 persons per 

beach. On the 4th of July numbers sometimes reach nearly 50 per beach. In 1994, it was estimated 

that 1,219 users (Refuge-wide for a full year) engaged in boating not associated with fishing, and 

5,367 users engaged in fishing related boating (USDOI 1996). 

More recent data of this quality is lacking. Observational information by staff to date, suggests 

substantial increase in the number of beach users in recent years. This trend is expected to continue 

into the future, especially in light of developments in local communities. Most noteworthy is the 

possibility of a major motor speed way development in Boardman, Oregon, associated with NASCAR 

racing. Illegal trespass onto the closed islands, as well as overnight camping on opened beaches, is 

now occasionally encountered. 

Availability of Resources: 

Currently, staffing levels for law enforcement are inadequate for implementation of this or other 

alternate management options for allowing swimming and beach use. Current law enforcement 

staffing consists of only one full time LE Officer (LEO) covering eight refuges spread out nearly 250 

miles within the Mid-Columbia Basin. Boat patrols require a minimum of two LEOs. An ongoing 

agreement with the Morrow County Sheriff’s Department, as well as assistance by inter-tribal officers, 

has provided some additional coverage on the islands, but this effort is small and sporadic. 

Availability of dedicated funding would provide possible opportunity to expand such agreements for 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-83

improved enforcement. Current staffing levels of law enforcement are totally inadequate for 

conducting this public use. 

In 1996, a Public Use EA (USDOI, 1996) was completed which called for full closures on the 

Columbia River Islands and buffers (USDOI 1996) surrounding the islands where boating and water 

use was prohibited. Swimming and beach use were terminated as a result. Refuge efforts at 

enforcing the closure were moderately successful but hampered at that time by a shortage of law 

enforcement staff. As a result of inadequate law enforcement then, and a lack of public acceptance 

of these provisions, a compromise was made in 1998 which allowed public beach use at the three 

designated beaches described under “Description of Use.” This change provided some improvement 

in protection to wildlife resources and was practical to implement, but did not address negative wildlife 

impacts from beach use identified in the 1996 EA. 

 

 One-time Costs ($) Recurring Costs ($/year) 

Law Enforcement 18,000 

Sign maintenance 1,500 800 

Program monitoring/education 1,000 1,200 

Administration 1,500

TOTAL $2,500 $21,500 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Background: 

There is a varied past of closures to public use on the Refuge’s Columbia River Islands, however this is 

not inclusive of the larger islands such as Crow Butte or Whitcomb Island. The “Columbia River 

Islands” of the Refuge refer to relatively smaller islands of the Blalock Island Complex that are all 

portions of the former Blalock Island of the pre-dam era, as well as Telegraph Island, and Long Walk 

Island (also known as the Coyote Islands). 

Prior to 1995, a segment of the Blalock Island Complex was under the management of the Corps 

that included all lands and waters within T5N, R25E, sections13, 23, and 24, that are located 

between the north and south navigation channels of the Columbia River. The exposed land within the 

described area included portions of islands currently named East Blalock, West Block, and Big Sand 

Dune. Seasonal closures were enforced on all Refuge managed islands, with an open period from 

July 1 to Sept 30. 

 

In 1995, the 1969 cooperative agreement between the Crops and Service for management of 

Umatilla Refuge was amended “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from 

management by the Service because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and 

conditions of the Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged” (Cooperative Agreement 1995). The 

amended agreement did not include or designate any special purposes to these portions of the 

islands. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-84 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Near that same time, in 1996, the Refuge finalized an environmental assessment (EA), titled 

Environmental Assessment of Public Use on Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge. The EA “was prepared 

to partially fulfill the requirements of the Final Settlement Agreement [of Aududon et al. v. Babbitt] by 

considering and disclosing the impacts of waterborne recreation and other public uses on Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuge” (USDOI 1996). The preferred alternative from this EA included a year 

round closure of all Columbia River Islands and the establishment of buffer zones where necessary to 

minimize disturbance to breeding bird colonies. The preferred alternative was implemented and the 

islands were closed to all use in 1996. A later compromise in1998 re-opened three islands for 

seasonal beach use from July 1 to September 30. 

Impacts on Wildlife: 

Breeding Birds—We anticipate negative impacts to colonial nesting birds from direct beach use at the 

designated sites for Crow Butte, West Blalock, and Sand Dune Islands. Nesting activity by colonial 

birds currently occurs on Sand Dune Island, where up to hundreds of great blue herons, great egrets, 

and black-crowned night herons use willow trees for nesting. A human-induced fire, as a result of 

beach use activities, could totally eliminate the trees supporting the colony. In addition, nesting birds 

cannot use beach areas for foraging sites while feeding young; and young fledged birds cannot use 

beach areas being used by humans. However, the nesting location at Sand Dune Island is at a 

distance beyond the recommended buffers identified in the 1996 EA (USDOI 1996), so direct 

interference with the nesting colony is not a problem except for beach users who illegally trespass into 

the interior of the island. Although the timing of most beach use occurs in late summer (July 1-

September 30), which is generally after the nesting season, young birds and foraging adults would still 

use the beach areas well into July and early August, if they were available. Beach use is supported by 

boating, and there is a considerable body of evidence suggesting negative consequences for birds 

from boating (USDOI, 1996). (For a wealth of information on disturbance caused by boating and 

beach use see pp. 37-40; for nesting occurrences see p. 34, Table 5.) 

Preferred nesting habitat that is abundant on most islands for use by Canada geese is sage-steppe 

areas that provide large shrubs for concealment and protection, but also allow sufficient open space 

for seeing and escaping approaching threats. Other areas are also used for nesting by geese such as 

riparian trees and shrubs, and tall grasses that provide good concealment. All three designated 

beach sites are located on extreme portions of the islands on exposed sandy tips that minimize direct 

impacts to geese on active nests. However, nest sites do occur well within recommended buffer 

distances from designated beaches (USDOI, 1996). The timing of the heaviest use by humans occurs 

in the summer, which is a time of year that is well after nesting activity. However, the sandy beach 

sites are preferred for loafing by geese. The presence of human activity on beaches precludes that 

use by the birds. It should be noted though, that the designated beach sites do represent a small 

percentage of suitable loafing area that is available. Human-induced fire resulting from beach users 

is a threat to the sagebrush habitat used by nesting geese. Such a fire could totally eliminate the 

sagebrush supporting nesting geese, especially at Blalock Island (See USDOI 1996 for information on 

occurrences of nesting). 

Other breeding bird use on the islands includes bank swallows, various passerines, American avocets, 

California quail, ring-necked pheasant, and possibly long-billed curlews and burrowing owls. 

Designated and seasonal beach use would likely cause minor negative impacts for all said species. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-85

Human use directly on the islands would occur generally outside of the main breeding season; 

however, some of the species such as bank swallows and avocets could still be using beach sites for 

nesting during July. Fledged young of the year are known to use beach areas and associated 

vegetation zones for resting and feeding. Another concern is loss of beach areas for use by migrating 

shorebirds and other waterbirds including American white pelicans. Beach users displace shorebirds 

causing additional stress during the migration period. In addition, any boating activity during the 

breeding season could cause serious harm, especially to terns, avocets, and ducks (some nesting data 

is available for ducks: see USDOI 1996). 

Mammals—The Umatilla Islands represent some of the best fawning sites for mule deer on the Refuge. 

The islands have ample vegetation for food and concealment, are distant from the main shore, and 

are surrounded by deep water channels, providing a site with reduced predation and disturbance. 

Given that the location of the designated beaches are on the tips of the islands, and that the deer 

have suitable cover, disturbance from beach use sufficient to cause significant detriment to fawning 

activity would not be anticipated. Additionally, mule deer are overly abundant on the Refuge and 

there is active management in place to reduce their numbers. Negative impacts to other mammals 

would not be expected at any significant level. 

Habitat—With use restricted to designated beaches, there would be only minimal disturbance to 

habitat. The designated beaches are frequently washed over and are very dynamic. However, illegal 

activities stemming from the designated beaches pose the most serious threats to habitats on the 

island. Paper/plastic litter and human waste are expected problems, as well as some trespass onto 

the closed island areas. Wildfire resulting from beach users is the most significant threat, with fire 

ignitions potentially resulting from camp fires, fireworks or other sources. Campfires and use of 

fireworks are common violations on the beaches and pose a significant threat to habitat and wildlife 

resources. 

Cultural Resources—The islands have a rich cultural resource history and use by early Americans. The 

potential for loss or damage to important sites is increased by the presence of beach use and 

associated public uses, including the potential for fire, disturbance, and inadvertent discoveries and/or 

exposures. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

__X__ Use is Not Compatible 

_____ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-86 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

n/a 

Justification: 

Swimming and beach use is not listed as one of the Big Six wildlife dependent recreational uses under 

the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Swimming and beach use on 

the three designated island sites on Umatilla Refuge are not necessary for the safe, practical, and 

effective conduct of existing Refuge wildlife-dependant recreational uses. While a certain portion of 

beach users do participate in fishing activities, it’s obvious that beach access is not needed to facilitate 

this single activity. Furthermore, campfires and use of fireworks are common violations on the 

beaches and pose a significant threat to habitat and wildlife resources, especially trees used by 

colonial nesting birds and sagebrush used by nesting geese. Beach users displace wildlife including 

migrating shorebirds, fledged young of the year birds who use the beach vegetation zone, and adult 

colonial nesting birds foraging to feed young of the year in nests. The proposed use is also 

inconsistent with the 1996 EA which determined that beach uses should be terminated. 

Swimming and beach use does not contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, nor is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. Beach use increases the potential for damage or degradation of important cultural 

resources on the islands. 

 

Currently, the availability of resources for administration and adequate law enforcement patrols to 

implement swimming and beach use is not sufficient. Given the growing limitations of staffing and 

budget, resources are insufficient to meet the requirements for needed protection to wildlife resources 

and the public safety of Refuge visitors. Currently, there is no longer any law enforcement staff 

stationed at Umatilla Refuge and the one full-time officer for the Refuge Complex is stationed in the 

Tri-Cities. 

Based on the analysis above, swimming and beach use has a negative impact on Refuge habitat, 

displaces wildlife, and pulls staff and operational resources away from programs that contribute to the 

conservation and management of wildlife, therefore, materially interferes with the Refuge achieving its 

purposes, and is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

N/A

References: 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Environmental Assessment of Public Use on Umatilla National 

Wildlfe Refuge, Morrow County, Oregon, Benton County, Washington. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between 

Corps and Service. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-87

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-88 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

 

Farming (McNary and Umatilla)

Draft Compatibility Determination 

Use: Farming 

 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-89

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

 

Description of Use: 

Current cropland farming practices include organic and biological farming (Cropland Management 

Plan, 1996). Under organic farming practices the use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides are 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-90 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

eliminated. The use of organic fertilizers (such as manure) and crop rotation (including nitrogen fixing 

crops) are used to improve soil fertility and tilth. Control of weeds and plant pests are accomplished 

by crop rotation, mechanical techniques, and biological controls such as predatory insects. Crop 

variety is limited as some crops are unable to be successfully cultivated under organic practices in this 

area. Under biological farming practices, crops grown are selected primarily for their wildlife value. 

Use of organic fertilizer and crop rotations are used to improve soil fertility, but chemical fertilization is 

used if soil tests determine particular deficiencies, or if manure or crop rotations are found impractical 

for a particular crop. Plant pests and weeds are controlled by crop rotations, mechanical techniques, 

and bio-controls where practical, but approved low toxicity chemical agents are used as needed on a 

case by case basis. 

Production methods include cooperative agreement farming, which involves a negotiated agreement 

between the Refuge and private farmer to produce crops for both parties. The cooperator is 

responsible for all the costs of production except for maintenance of underground irrigations systems 

and pumps. In return for producing a specified amount of crops for the Refuge, the cooperator is 

allowed to harvest and sell the remaining crops. All crop selections are agreed to by the Refuge, and 

special conditions are documented in the cooperative agreement (Cropland Management Plan, 

1996). 

 

Currently, a total of 1,297 acres are in cooperative farming programs on Umatilla Refuge, with the 

Refuge obtaining 324 acres (25%) of crops for wildlife, and the cooperator(s) harvesting 973 acres 

(75%) for their share. On McNary Refuge, a total of 632 acres are in cooperative farming programs, 

with the Refuge obtaining 25% of the crop share for wildlife and the cooperator harvesting the 

remainder (75%) for their share. The 75%/25% (cooperator/Refuge) share ratio was deemed 

appropriate for this area by the Oregon State University Agricultural Extension office (Cropland 

Management Plan, 1996). Any field which is double cropped during the growing season is assessed 

the 75%/25% cooperator/Refuge split for each crop (Cropland Management Plan, 1996). 

Crops grown include cereal grains and green forage for migratory and wintering waterfowl use. 

Grain crops grown to meet the high energy demands of migratory and wintering waterfowl include 

corn, wheat and occasionally buckwheat. Green forage crops which provide for the fall, winter and 

spring Canada goose population include alfalfa, winter wheat, and occasionally grass (Cropland 

Management Plan, 1996). The Refuge shares are obtained by 1) taking a share of a crop which is 

also being harvested by the farmer or 2) having the farmer grow specific crops just for the Refuge by 

splitting a field or devoting an entire field to Refuge shares. Exceptions include involving the 

cooperator in establishing native upland grasses in former farm fields, as well as developing native 

grasses in shelterbelts on the perimeter of current farming circles for improved weed and erosion 

control and wildlife uses. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would continue this program to varying degrees and 

emphasis, depending on the selection of an alternative. 

Availability of Resources: 

The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage cooperative 

agreement farming, as described above. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-91

 One-time Costs Recurring Costs 

Underground irrigation system and pumps $10,000 

Road maintenance $1,000 

Program monitoring 

Administration $4,000 

TOTAL 0 $15,000

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The Columbia Basin and the lands of the Umatilla Refuge were once dominated by shrub-steppe 

habitat. This greater area, at present, is dominated by cropland farming. Combined with other 

development in the area, this once vast expanse of shrub-steppe habitat has been significantly 

degraded as a result of conversion, fragmentation, small patch size, lack of connectivity, introduction 

and spread of nonnative invasive weeds, livestock grazing, and fires. With a paralleled history, the 

biological integrity of the relatively small area (10,255 acres) of shrub-steppe habitat on the Refuge is 

in an overall degraded to highly degraded state. Croplands represent 9.5 percent of the total upland 

area on the Refuge. Other direct impacts of cropland management include exposure of soils to wind 

erosion, the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from pesticide usage, and 

continuance of the introduction and spread of weeds through use of manures and field to field 

movement of cultivating and harvesting equipment. 

About 100 bird species can occur in sagebrush habitats (Braun et al. 1976). Some of these species 

are sagebrush-obligates, almost entirely dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round or during the 

breeding season. These species include sage grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage 

thrasher. These sagebrush obligate birds have been reduced or most likely extirpated as breeders on 

Umatilla Refuge. Some of the songbirds may occur as migrants. When considering the conversion of 

Refuge croplands to shrub-steppe habitat the potential benefit would be negligible on a landscape 

scale for improving functional attributes of this system in support of dependant species (in particular, 

obligate nesting species). 

Many other species occur in shrub-steppe habitat but are not as dependent on sagebrush. Examples 

of these species are burrowing owl, lark sparrow, vesper sparrow, horned lark, loggerhead shrike, 

long-billed curlew, and western meadowlark. Umatilla Refuge supports many if not all of these 

species during breeding and/or migration. 

Primary invasive plants are described in Chapter 4 of the Draft CCP/EA and in the 1996 and 1999 

Cropland Management Plans.

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-92 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following stipulations ensure that Cropland Farming Management is compatible: 

• Cropland farming will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency 

policy. 

• Annual cooperative farming agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency policy. 

• Pest plants and weeds will be controlled by crop rotations, mechanical treatments and biological 

controls where practical; approved pesticides will be used only on a case by case basis. 

• Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and it must meet other State and Federal requirements. 

• Cooperators will provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and how applied. 

• Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal and agency requirements. 

• Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds. 

• Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff. 

 

Justification: 

 

Although not a Big-Six use, cropland farming management is a critical Refuge operation in meeting 

purposes of the Refuge (e.g., “for waterfowl management” Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965), as well 

as goals and objectives established in the Draft CCP/EA (e.g., Goal 1: Manage high quality food 

and sanctuary to support large concentrations of migratory waterfowl; Objective 1A: Provide Crops 

for Waterfowl). Umatilla Refuge provides mitigation for losses of waterfowl habitat caused by the John 

Day Lock and Dam Project. Options for providing a more natural means to secure food supplies for 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-93

area waterfowl do not exist (Cropland Management Plan 1996). Area wetlands do not produce 

adequate natural waterfowl foods, because of their rarity and the lack of availability of high quality, 

productive wetlands. Consequently, waterfowl have relied heavily on waste grain in area corn fields 

(Cropland Management Plan, 1996). 

The Refuge share of cropland farming, which is managed primarily for the benefit of waterfowl, 

includes cereal grains and green forage. Grain crops grown to meet the high energy needs of 

migratory/wintering waterfowl include corn, wheat, and buckwheat. Green forage crops, which 

primarily provide for the fall, winter, and spring goose populations, include alfalfa, winter wheat, and 

occasionally grass. Because of restrictions on crops grown, areas farmed by the cooperator for their 

share provide additional benefit (not included in Refuge share) to waterfowl by providing waste grains 

and/or green forage in harvested fields. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

12/2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Cropland Management Plan. Mid Columbia Refuge Complex. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Cropland Management Plan. Mid Columbia Refuge Complex. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-94 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

 

Research; Scientific Collecting; Surveys 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Research; Scientific Collecting; Surveys 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (McNary) 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s) (McNary): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property, Corps/Service Cooperative 

Agreement, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Corps/Service Cooperative Agreement 2000, Stateline and Juniper Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-95

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: (Umatilla) 

Umatilla Refuge was established in1968 when the Service entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Corps on July 3, 1969 in accordance with section 4 of the Act of Congress approved December 

22, 1944, as amended (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and a General Plan for Wildlife Management 

approved by the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the agencies of the 

States of Oregon and Washington exercising administration over wildlife resources within said states. 

Refuge Purposes: (Umatilla) 

• “for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans...” (All lands, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “those lands and waters acquired for primary purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] 

and found to have their greatest value in furthering the national migratory bird program will be 

made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service” (All lands, General Plan, Umatilla Lock and Dam, 1968). 

• “for waterfowl management” (Original fee lands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, Public Law 89-

298). 

• “to include additional lands that were originally excepted from management by the Service 

because they were classified for recreation use...All remaining terms and conditions of the 

Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.” (Portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands only, 

1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement between USACE and USFWS.) 

• Additional Land Acquisitions: A land tract of 670 acres, a tract of 27.1 acres and another tract of 

27.6 acres was acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act “development, management, 

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The 27.6 acre tract 

also was acquired under the joint authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which 

authorizes the purchase of wetlands consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan. 

• Tracts totaling 136.45 acres were acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for 

migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries and for management purposes.” 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

 

Description of Use: Fish, wildlife, and habitat research is an existing use and is conducted on Refuge 

lands and waters by independent researchers, partnering agencies, educational groups, and Refuge 

staff. Some research is used to address basic wildlife conservation questions such as survival of 

federally listed endangered and threatened juvenile salmon stocks in the Columbia River. Other 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-96 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

research is more specific to Refuge management and resources and is used in an adaptive way to 

measure the effectiveness of Refuge habitat and wildlife management programs. 

Umatilla and McNary Refuges together receive three to seven requests per year on average to 

conduct scientific research on the Refuges. Most have involved Columbia River System salmon and 

steelhead research and include studies of: piscivorous waterbirds; Caspian tern foraging; salmon/ 

steelhead PIT tag recovery; smolt radio telemetry and migration patterns; habitat use of burrowing 

owls; and wetland/groundwater hydrology. Between the years 2000 and 2005 there were between 

four and seven active special use permits issued for research and monitoring studies including those 

summarized in the following table. Under the CCP, special use permits would only be issued for 

monitoring and investigations which contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and 

management of native plant and wildlife populations and their habitats, especially as they relate to 

Refuge lands and management activities. 

 

Summary of research activities at Umatilla and McNary Refuges 2000-2005. 

Organization 

 

Research Topic 

and Description 

Location of Research 

and Habitats 

Timing of 

Research 

Equipment and 

Facilities Used 

OSU and Real 

Time Research 

(contract with 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service); Dr. 

Daniel Roby 

Avian predation of 

salmonids; mainly 

Caspian terns diet 

preferences and 

impacts to salmon 

and steelhead smolts 

Colonial nesting 

waterbird colonies 

primarily on Crescent, 

Badger, and Foundation 

Islands in Columbia River

Nesting 

season from 

April through 

June; research 

started in 

1998 

Seasonal field spy 

blind set up; access 

by boats; lowaltitude fly-over 

some years 

Oregon State 

University (contract 

with NOAA 

Fisheries Service); 

Dr. Daniel Roby 

Caspian tern feeding 

behavior and 

selective foraging; 

net-pen study on 

Refuge wetland 

Unit II wetland at 

McNary Refuge’s 

Burbank Slough 

May through 

June 

Access to shoreline/ 

wetland by vehicle 

on established 

roads/trails; netpens in Wetland II 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service; Northwest 

Fisheries Science 

Center; Brad Ryan 

Salmon/steelhead 

PIT tag recovery; 

nesting colonies are 

searched for tags 

deposited on the 

island as a result of 

predation 

Nesting islands are 

searched for PIT tags; 

both hand-held and jeep 

mounted detection 

antenna are used; 

primarily on Crescent, 

Badger, and Foundation 

Islands in Columbia River

Fall and early 

winter; annual 

and ongoing 

research effort 

Access to island by 

boat; at Crescent Is. 

a jeep is used to 

mount radio tag 

receiver and 

magnetic collector 

otherwise hand-held 

wands are used 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service: Northwest 

Fisheries Science 

Center; Brad Ryan 

Smolt radio 

telemetry; use of 

fixed-site radio 

telemetry to track 

smolt migration in 

Columbia and 

Snake Rivers 

Radio telemetry antennas 

and receivers placed on 

Refuge at Strawberry 

Island in the Snake River 

and Peninsula Unit and 

Crescent Island in the 

Columbia River 

Antennas are 

placed during 

the smolt 

migration 

period from 

April through 

August 

Access to islands by 

boat; 8-12 foot 

antenna secured by 

guy wires 

USGS-BRD and 

Arizona Coop Fish 

and Wildlife Unit 

Habitat use and 

requirements of 

burrowing owls 

Refuge uplands and 

shrub steppe areas; offRefuge sites; nest 

searches conducted and 

habitat evaluated 

Breeding 

season from 

February 

through July 

Access by vehicle on 

established roads 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-97

Research proposals are reviewed by the Refuge and conservation partners, as appropriate. If a 

proposal is approved, special use permits are issued and administered by the Refuge Manager. 

Evaluation criteria for approving studies will include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• research contributing to specific Refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other 

research requests 

• research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will 

not be granted 

• research projects that can be accomplished off-Refuge are less likely to be approved 

• level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request 

• Refuge evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize disturbance through 

study design, including considering adjusting location, timing, scope, number of permittees, study 

methods, number of study sites, etc. 

• Approvals are subject to sufficient staffing for the Refuge to monitor researcher activity in a 

sensitive area 

• the length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval 

• projects will be reviewed annually 

• These criteria will also apply to any properties acquired in the future within the approved boundary 

of the Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Under the Preferred Alternative 2, the following annual funding costs (based 

on FY 2005 costs) would be required to administer and manage research activities as described 

above. Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to 

administer this program as envisioned under Alternative 2. However, grants may be sought with the 

assistance of the Friends of Mid-Columbia River Refuges group to assist for smaller projects. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management (Refuge biologist and 

managers): 

 Evaluation of applications and permit management 

$0 $3,000

Maintenance: $0 $0

Monitoring of ongoing research projects and their effects: 

(Refuge biologist and managers) 

$0 $5,000

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $0

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Total $0 $8,000 

 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Short term impacts - Use of the Refuge to conduct research will generally benefit Refuge fish, wildlife, 

plant populations, and their habitat, and contribute to recovery of listed threatened and endangered 

species. Monitoring and research investigations are also an important component of adaptive 

management. Research investigations would be used to evaluate salmon and steelhead recovery 

efforts and assist managers in managing Refuge habitats to aid in recovery efforts. Specific restoration 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-98 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

and habitat management questions would be addressed in research investigations, such as the 

burrowing owl studies, to improve habitat and benefit wildlife populations. 

Standardized monitoring would be used to insure data compatibility for comparisons from across the 

landscape. An expected short-term effect of monitoring and research investigations is that Refuge 

management activities would be modified to improve habitat and wildlife populations, as a result of 

new information. 

Some effects would occur through disturbance which is expected with some research activities, 

especially where researchers are entering sanctuaries or sensitive islands with colonial nesting birds. 

Researcher disturbance could include altering wildlife behavior, going off designated trails, collecting 

soil and plant samples or trapping and handling wildlife. Death of animals due to the use of lethal 

collection methods as well as accidental death and injury from trapping and handling and other 

invasive procedures (Pit-tagging, force feeding, and blood collection) can occur. American white 

pelican colonies are known to be sensitive to human disturbance and will abandon nests. The 

public’s perception of lethal methods, such as the taking of cormorants to determine stomach 

contents, might be negative. 

Disturbance to breeding, resting and feeding wildlife and their habitats may occur through frequent 

contact with researchers performing data collection and monitoring activities. Results of disturbance 

could include the abandonment of nest and young resulting from frequent visitation to nest or 

breeding sites. In addition, trapping and marking of wildlife for habitat and population studies may 

result in injury and mortality; study of food habits, parasitism or disease may require the taking of 

animals; and measurement of habitat characteristics or experimental manipulation 

of habitats may result in the alteration or destruction of wildlife habitat. 

Damage or alteration to the habitat from researchers would be minor; however, some increase in 

invasive plants is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation of source seed on research 

equipment and personnel. The blinds used by tern researchers at Crescent Island are small, on the 

surface, temporary, and are removed at the end of each season. The radio antenna used for PIT tag 

monitoring is moored to the ground with stakes and wires; but they too are removed after each 

season of use and have no lasting impact. The use of vehicles on Crescent Island to collect Pit-tags 

could damage young vegetation. However, the nesting colonies are found in the cobble-stone 

substrate of the island, which is generally devoid of vegetation and/or limited by the bird colonies 

themselves. 

Most effects would be minor because only a minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, 

vegetative litter, plants, and macroinvertebrates) and required for identification and/or 

experimentation and statistical analysis would be permitted and captured, and marked wildlife would 

be released. Refuge evaluation of research proposals would insure that only proposals with adequate 

safeguards to minimize impacts would be accepted. Potential impacts associated with research 

activities would be minimized because sufficient restrictions would be included as part of the study 

design, and researcher activities would be monitored by Refuge staff. Refuge staff would ensure 

research projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native 

Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats, thereby, helping the Refuges fulfill the purposes for 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-99

which they were established, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to 

maintain ecological integrity. 

Additionally, special use permit conditions would include restrictions to further ensure impacts to 

wildlife and habitats are avoided and minimized. 

Long-term impacts Expected long-term and cumulative effects include: a growing body of sciencebased data and knowledge as new/continued monitoring and new/continued research complements 

and expands upon previous investigations; resulting in an expanded science-based body of data and 

information from which to draw upon to implement the best Refuge management possible. Natural 

resources inventory, monitoring and research are not only provisions of the Improvement Act, but they 

are necessary tools to maintain biological integrity and diversity and environmental health, which are 

also key provisions of the Act. Inventory, monitoring and research are intended to improve habitat 

and wildlife populations. This in turn could improve wildlife-dependent recreation by increasing 

encounters with wild things. 

Public Review and Comment: Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the 

public during development of the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the 

Draft CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

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 the Refuge. If proposed 

research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential adverse impacts on Refuge wildlife 

or habitat, then the Refuge will determine the utility and need of such research to conservation on 

management of the Refuge’s 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 special use permit. 

Special use permits 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 (CFR 50) must be followed unless otherwise accepted in writing by Refuge management. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility include: 

• Extremely 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 impacted by the proposed research. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-100 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

• When and where needed, some areas may be temporarily/seasonally closed to research; research 

can be permitted to resume when impacts to wildlife and habitat are no longer a concern. 

• Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when unforeseen 

impacts arise, such as a wildfire altering landscape conditions or large declines in a population. 

• At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. 

• Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for compliance with conditions outlined on the 

Special Use Permit. A Refuge manager and/or Project Leader may determine that previously 

approved research and special use permits be terminated due to observed impacts. 

• The Refuge manager and/or Project Leader will also have the ability to unilaterally cancel a 

Special Use Permit if the researcher is out of compliance with permit conditions and/or to ensure 

wildlife or habitat protection and/or visitor and public safety. 

• All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research proposal for review and 

recommendation by the Refuge biologist and approval by the Refuge Manager. The biologist will 

provide the required proposal format to researchers. 

• Agencies and entities operating stationary monitoring stations requiring utilities (air quality, 

weather) will cover maintenance and operating costs including utilities for their station. 

• All samples and specimens collected from the Refuge are Refuge property. Once research is 

complete or terminated, researchers shall check with the Refuge to ascertain whether samples and 

specimens are to be turned over to Refuge offices. Service personnel shall be provided access to 

the samples and specimens at any time at no cost (unless arrangements are made to the contrary). 

• The Refuge Biologist will review all research proposals and identify any conditions of the research 

permits that eliminate or minimize negative impacts to any one area, species, or habitat of the 

Refuge. The Refuge Biologist will make a recommendation to the Refuge Manager on whether the 

research should occur, based on weighing of benefits and impacts. 

• Research requiring the collection of animals will only be authorized after careful consideration by 

the Refuge Biologist and Refuge Manager as to the importance of Refuge populations to the 

conservation of the species, the possible adverse impacts to the Refuge populations, and the 

humaneness of the collection methodology. State and Federal collection permits are required. 

• Consultation will be conducted for any research activities that may possibly have an impact on 

threatened or endangered species. 

• The Refuge Manger will issue no more than six special use permits annually for Refuge research. 

Additional permits may be considered depending on staff workload and cumulative impacts of 

existing research projects on wildlife and habitats. The permit holder will list each person assisting 

on the research project and provide description and license number of vehicles that will be used. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-101

• Refuge staff will monitor research projects to ensure that on-going research is not causing longterm habitat damage or impacting any animal populations. 

• Additional site specific and research specific terms and conditions will be included in all SUP's. 

Justification: Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act are to “maintain 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and monitoring.” 

Refuge plans and actions based on research and monitoring provide an informed approach to habitat 

and wildlife programs. Refuge monitoring and research will directly benefit and support Refuge goals, 

objectives and management plans and activities and can contribute to recovery of endangered/ 

threatened species. Management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat will improve through the 

application of knowledge gained from monitoring and research. Biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health will benefit from scientific research conducted on natural resources at the 

Refuge. The Refuge manager and biologist will ensure that proposed monitoring and research 

investigations will contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native 

wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge, thereby helping the Refuges fulfill the purposes 

for which they were established, as well contributing to the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-102 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

 

Dog Training, including Field Trials 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Dog Training, including Field Trials 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, and Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-103

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

Field dog trials formally test dogs’ scenting, marking, and retrieving ability. At McNary Refuge, these 

events typically last one day, and use dead frozen or dummy birds. The use is confined to a small 

field area on the Two Rivers Unit, is usually attended by 20 to 25 people and 10 to 15 dogs, and 

takes place on the second weekend in March. This is in compliance with the State dog training 

season which runs from August through March. No horses are affiliated, or allowed for this use. 

Currently, this activity is administered through issuance of a special use permit with strict stipulations 

that must be followed. 

Historically, the Two Rivers Unit was listed as an official State dog trial area, and larger, more 

competitive trials, involving horses, trailers, and overnight camping, were held annually. However, no 

trials of that magnitude have been conducted within the last seven years, and future requests for such 

trials are not anticipated. 

This event is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use. The use was determined not appropriate 

under the Appropriate Uses review (Appendix K). 

Availability of Resources: 

Costs to administer the use are detailed below. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) 

Recurring Expense 

($/year) 

Site Designation and Prep $0 2,000

Maintenance (Annual Noxious Weed Control) $0 1,000

Enforcement and Oversight $0 2,000

Totals $0 5,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

This event usually takes place in the spring and may contribute to short-term disturbances of ground 

nesting birds and other wildlife. Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a 

variety of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et 

al. 1985; Freddy 1986), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al 1982), altered foraging patterns 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-104 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

(Burger and Gochfeld, 1991), and even, in some cases, diminished reproductive success (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). Based on this information, it is likely that field dog trials would have similar impacts. 

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 most likely impact to the Refuge resources would be during spring and early summer. Limited 

impacts to nesting birds could occur as described below, but would be relatively minor because the 

dog training would be limited to a confined area and would occur on only one or two days per 

season. 

The presence of dogs may flush incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt 

breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb 

roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Despite thousands of years of domestication, dogs still 

maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. 

Dogs that are unleashed or not under the control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten 

the lives of some wildlife. In effect, off-leash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence 

or disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of a dog. 

Impacts to native vegetation could occur from movement of dogs and people over the landscape. 

Noxious weeds could be spread further into shrub-steppe habitat through the additional traffic. The 

short duration, infrequency, and restricted area of these events could result in minor impacts to 

resident wildlife but may have long-term impacts such as noxious weed spread and infestation. 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and 

ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to wild animals. In addition, dog 

waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other 

domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport 

parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). 

Current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) states “...no unconfined domestic animals, including but 

not limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at large...” ). 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional public review and 

comment will be solicited during the CCP comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

__X___ Use is Not Compatible 

____ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations C-105

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: n/a 

 

Justification: 

Dog training is not listed as one of the six wildlife dependent recreational uses under the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Dog training on the Refuges is not necessary 

for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing Refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

While most waterfowl and upland game hunters do employ dogs, training areas can be found 

elsewhere. The effects of dog training pose a minor threat to habitat and wildlife resources, and 

temporarily displace wildlife. 

Dog training does not appreciably contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, nor is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. 

 

Though the additional resources needed to administer the use are small, all resources on the Refuges 

for administering uses are stretched very thin. Given the growing limitations of staffing and budget, 

resources are insufficient to meet the requirements for needed protection to wildlife resources and the 

public safety of Refuge visitors. 

 

Based on the analysis above, dog training has a negative impact on Refuge habitat, displaces wildlife, 

and detracts staff and operational resources away from programs that contribute to the conservation 

and management of wildlife, therefore, it materially interferes with the Refuge achieving its purposes 

and is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

None 

References: 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:110-116. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Erwin, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colon. Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and John E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding 

bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harasment during winter. Pages 286 in

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: Proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecol. Inst., Boulder, CO. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

C-106 Appendix C – Compatibility Determinations 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology 

and chick survival. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Keller, V. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in an 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58:213-228. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:351-358. 

Servheen, C.W. eds. 1980. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium; Seattle, 

Washington. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pp. 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. 

Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Yalden, P.E., and D. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers (Pluvialis 

apricarius). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 

Refuge Determination: 

 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(for HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA: _______________________________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
 Appendix D – Implementation D-1

APPENDIX D. IMPLEMENTATION 

Overview 

Implementation of the preferred alternative of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be 

sought from a variety of sources. This plan will depend on 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. 

Operational management of Refuge lands is accomplished by permanent and temporary staffing, 

volunteers and partnerships. Operational management includes managing public use, law 

enforcement, biology, fire, maintenance, administration, and habitat management programs on the 

Refuge. 

Many of the infrastructure and facility projects will be eligible for funding through construction or 

Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21) funds (i.e. Refuge Roads). 

The Draft CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. All of these 

projects are included in either the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) or the Service Asset 

Management System (SAMMS). Both are used to request funding from Congress. Currently, a large 

backlog of maintenance needs exists on the Refuges. In 2005, the deferred maintenance backlog for 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges was $2,901,554.00. Reduction of the backlog is an ongoing goal 

and is included here in the analysis of funding needs. The Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) 

documents proposed new projects to implement the CCP to meet Refuge goals and objectives and 

legal mandates. 

Annual revenue sharing payments to Morrow County, Oregon, Benton County, Washington and 

Walla Walla County, Washington will continue. Total revenue sharing payments made in 2005 were 

$3,709, $3,780, and $18,009 respectively. 

Monitoring activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and activities 

to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and responses to 

management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures will be detailed in step-down 

management plans. 

Costs to Implement CCP, by Alternative 

The following sections detail both one time and recurring costs for various projects, by alternative. 

One time costs reflect the initial costs associated with a project whether it is purchase of equipment, 

contracting services, or construction. Recurring costs reflect the future operational and maintenance 

costs associated with the project. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-2 Appendix D - Implementation 

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. These 

projects are usually projects that can be completed in three years or less. These projects do not 

include permanent operational costs (staff salary and support). They can, however, include the cost of 

temporary or term salary associated with a short term project. Salary for 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, grants, Refuge Roads or Transportation Equity Act (TEA3) funding, and fire funds. 

Projects listed in Table D-1, D-2, and D-3 show one time costs, such as those associated with building 

and facility needs such as offices, public use facilities, road improvements, and new signs. One time 

costs are also associated with habitat restoration and protection projects such as specific riparian and 

wetland projects or 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 

employee for the short term project. Tables D-1, D-2, and D-3 compare one time costs between the 

four alternatives. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix D – Implementation D-3

Table D-1. One Time Costs (in thousands) for Research, Monitoring, and Planning

Project – Research & 

Monitoring

Priority Unit Unit 

Cost

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Potential Fund 

Source

Prescribed Fire monitoring 

(equipment support) Obj 7c

H 0 50 50 0 RONS; Fire Base

Connectivity Planning – Obj 7f L 0 0 60 0

Corridor Plan – Obj 8c L 0 0 100 0

Monitor expansion of invasive plants 

Obj 2a

M Proj 20 0 20 RONS; 00015

Quantify curlew areas Obj 2c M Proj 10 0 10 10 10

Monitor populations & nest success 

Obj 2c

M Proj 10 10 10 10 10

Shorebirds: literary search; inventory 

invertebrates; corrolate reservoir 

levels w/abundance; assess 

connectivity

M Proj 15 0 15 0 0

Salmon: assess benefits of creating 

side channels; prep feasibiity report & 

funding request; develop strategies to 

enhance connectivity

M

Proj

0 24 24 0

Endangered/Threat. Species: 

surveys; status reports

H Proj 10 0 10 10 0

Small mammals: map soils/select 

survey acres; baseline inventory. Obj 

3c

L Proj 5 0 5 5 0

Shallow Marsh: inventory plants and 

monitor treatments. Obj 4a

M Ac 20 7 7 7 0

Aquatic Beds: inventory submerged 

plants and obtain bathymetric data. 

Obj4b

M Proj 8 0 8 0 0

Riparian: increase MAPPS 

monitoring. Obj 5a

M Proj 15 0 15 0 0

Cottonwood: select site and monitor 

plantings. Obj 5b

M Proj 3 0 3 0 0

Waterbirds: monitor size of colonies; 

facilitate and monitor research; 

monitor piscvorous bird colonies; 

monitor island erosion. Obj 6a

H Proj 10 10 10 10 0

Burrowing Owls: investigate ground 

squirrel transplants; experiment 

w/artificial burrows; identify historic 

sites; monitor. Obj 7b

M Proj 8 0 8 8 0

Inventory invasive species. Obj 7c H Proj 20 20 20 20 0

Bitterbrush research Obj 7d M Proj 10 0 10 10 0

Shrub Steppe

 - monitor treatments Obj 7e

M Proj 10 0 10 10 0

Cliff habitats: baseline resource 

inventory. Obj 8b

L Proj 30 30 30 30 0

Cliff habitats Obj 8a, 8c M $0 $0 $30 $0 

Horseback riding: assess usage and 

monitor impacts. Obj 9f

L Proj 5 0 5 5 0

Public use surveys: Fishing Obj 11b L Proj 20 20 20 0 0

Cultural Resource Surveys 

Obj 13a, 13d

H Proj 110 110 110 110 0

All Research, Monitoring, and 

Planning Projects Subtotal 

(thousands)

$207 $400 $509 $20

High Priority Research, Planning, 

and Monitoring Only (thousands)

$140 $200 $200 $0

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-4 Appendix D - Implementation 

 number of square feet 3500 3500 3500 3500

 total cost M sq. feet $275 $963 $963 $963 $963 1262 Deferred Maint. 

(funds expected to be 

allocated in FY 2007 

budget)

 number of square feet 3,600 3,600 

 total cost M sq. feet 290 $1,044 $1,044 $0 $0 1262; Deferred Maint

 number of square feet 0 2,000 2,000 0 

 total cost H sq. feet 150 $0 $300 $300 $0 

New Trails – Obj 

7g,9a,9b,9c,9d,11a,12d

M mi 20 0 $70 $70 0 Grants, RONS, TEA3

McCormack Unit Observations/Photo 

Blinds

Obj 9d

H ea 10 20 $20 $20 0 Grants; RONS; 

03006R

Interpretive Signs: Wallula, Peninsula, 

Juniper Canyon, Hwy 14 

Obj 9b,9c,9h

H ea 5 $75 $150 $50 0 Grants; RONS 

00008R, 00010R

Parking (Hunter Access) Construction 

Obj 10a

M ea 16 $48 $50 $32 0 Grants; RONS 

03007R

Interpretive Kiosks or Observation 

Platforms 

Obj 9a,9f,11b,12d

L ea 70 $70 $70 0 0 RONS 02003R

Regulatory Signs 

Obj 1d, 6a, 9c, 6b

M $20 $30 $10 $10 

Boundary Survey & signing McNary 

Obj 8b, 7e, 9i

M 30 $30 $30 0

Clean-up Illegal Dumping Sites 

Obj 7e

H $5 $20 $20 $5 

Hunter Check Station Consolidation 

Goal Obj 10a

M $10 $10 0 $5 

Camping Madame Dorian Goal Obj 

9a

M $5 $5 $5 $5 

Hunting Program Improvements Obj 

10a, 10b, 10c

M $30 $20 20 $5 

Fencing Obj 5a M $0 $30 0 $0 

Roads Obj 11a H $50 $50 

Horse Trail Signs Obj 9f L $0 $5 5 $0 

Fishing Prog Piers and Boat 

Launches Obj 11a

M $60 $60 0 $0 

Cultural Resource

 - signs overlook, exh

H $80 $80 80 $0 

Strawberry Island stabilization Obj 

13d

M $100 $100 100 $0 

All Facilities Subtotal (thousands) $2,610 $3,107 $1,705 $993 

High Priority Facilities Subtotal 

(thousands)

$230 $620 $470 $5 

Table D-2. One Time Costs (in thousands) for Facilities

Unit Alt 3 Alt 4 Fund Source

Cost

Project – Facilities Priority Alt 1 Alt 2 Unit

McCormack office w/ visitor contact area & furnishings Obj 9e

EE Bldg Replacement w/ furnishings Obj 12b

Fire Facilities (office, crew room, fire cache and engine storage Obj 7c
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix D – Implementation D-5

Table D-3. One Time Costs (in thousands) for Habitat Management.

960 2,881 2,881 960 

 total cost M ac 190 $182 $547 $547 $182 9263/9264; RONS 

00017

45 45 40 40

 total cost H ac 1000 $45 $45 $40 $40 

5000 5000 7500 4500

 total cost H ac 250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,875 $1,125 

1438 1000 0 500

 total cost H ac 200 $288 $200 $0 $100 

4000 3000 1000 3000

 total cost H ac 60 $240 $180 $60 $180 

0 50 100 5

 total cost M ac 400 $0 $20 $40 $2 

0 926 75 75

 total cost H ac 250 $0 $232 $19 $19 

400 200 0 0

 total cost H ac 250 $100 $50 $0 $0 

0 75 0 0

 total cost H ac 200 $0 $15 $0 $0 

0 45 90 0

 total cost M ac 200 $0 $9 $18 $0 

2400 2100 1850 2100

 total cost H ac 10 $24 $21 $19 $21 

396 366 348 356

 total cost H ac 10 $4 $4 $3 $4 

Salmon backwater enhancements 

Obj 3a

H $0 $200 $200 $0 

Island substrate Obj 6a L $0 $10 $10 $0 

Strawberry Island habitat 

Obj 13d

M $9 $9 $9 $0 

All Habitat Projects Subtotal (in 

thousands)

$2,142 $2,792 $2,840 $1,673 

High Priority Habitat only Subtotal 

(in thousands)

$1,951 $2,196 $2,216 $1,488 

 number of acres

Moist Soil - Obj 1c

 number of acres

 number of acres

Bitterbrush Steppe Restoration - Obj 7d

Riparian Management - Obj 5a

 number of acres

Uplands for Curlew Nesting Enhanced - Obj 2c

 number of acres

Croplands - Obj 1a

 number of acres

Carp Eradication - Obj 4b

 number of acres

Cottonwood Recruitment Obj 5b

RONS 98001

RONS 00017, 00014

RONS 98001

RONS 98001

RONS 00017

 number of acres

 number of acres

 number of acres

Prescribed Fire over 15 years

Emergent-wetland restoration (mowing/disking/shoreline work) Obj 4a

 number of acres

 number of acres

Fund Source

RONS; Special Funds

Shrub–Steppe Condition Improvement on Refuge over 15 years - Obj 7a, 7e, 7f

Wetland Restoration (Excavation) on Refuge over 15 years - Obj 4a

Pest Plant Management over 15 years

Project – Habitat Priority Unit Unit Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Cost
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-6 Appendix D - Implementation 

B. Operational and Maintenance (Recurring) Costs 

Operational and maintenance 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. Operational costs use base funding in Service fund codes 

1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 9131, 9263, and 9264. 

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. 

Alternative 4 reflects the current backlog. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 reflect the backlog and chart the 

increased maintenance need associated with new facilities and additional acquisitions. 

Table D-4 displays operating and maintenance costs by alternative. Alternative 4 is based on a 

breakdown of how FY 2005 funds were spent on day to day operations. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

reflect increased funding needs for proposed increases in public uses and facilities, increased habitat 

restoration and conservation activities, and new monitoring needs. This table includes such things as 

salary, operational expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, utilities and annual maintenance 

costs. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix D – Implementation D-7

Table D-4. Operational (Recurring) costs.

Project Action Resources 

Needed

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

1260- Biologist & Bio 

Techs and Volunteers 

1⁄2 Volunteer 

Coordinator

1.b Studies & 

Investigations

Research projects for m anaging fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats

1260 Biologist & 

Cooperators

$80 $80 $80 $60

1260, Special project 

funds

1⁄2 Maintenance 

W orker

2.b Upland/island/cliff 

Mgmt

The conversion of altered or degraded onrefuge upland habitats back to their original 

condition by such actions as replanting 

native species

1260 & special project 

funds

$100 $150 $80 $80

3.a W etland 

Management

The m anipulation of water bodies to affect 

vegetation and/or create desired wildlife 

conditions

1260 $110 $100 $40 $65

3.b Riparian Habitat 

Management

$30 $60 $60 $10

3.c Graze/M ow/Hay 

Crop Management

The m anagem ent of grasslands and other 

habitats for the benefit of wildlife by 

cropland, grazing, m owing, or haying

1260 $100 $100 $30 $30

1262-91319263

1⁄2 FMO, Eng Boss, 1 

PS Fire Fighter, 3 

Tem p FF, Crew 

Leader and 5 crew, 

special project funds

3.g Native Pest Plant 

Control

$3 $3 $9 $2

3.h Invasive Plant 

Management

The eradication, reduction, or control of 

invasive or exotic plants. Includes 

m onitoring

1260, special project 

funds

$300 $300 $200 $150

4.a Bird Banding Marking and banding of birds 1260, Volunteers $20 $15 $14

5.a Interagency 

Coordination

Interactions with other Federal, State and 

local governm ents to share inform ation, 

resolve problem s, develop cooperative 

efforts, and m anage species and habitats

1260/9131 $50 $50 $40 $37

5.b Tribal Coordination Activities associated with the developm ent 

of cooperative agreem ents, MOU’s, annual 

funding agreem ents and sim ilar 

cooperation/coordination/ com m unications 

efforts with tribes.

1260 $20 $20 $20 $16

5.c Private Lands 

Activities

Efforts to assist private land owners with 

habitat im provem ent and wildlife issues. 

(Initiate Stewardship Mgt.)

11,219,264 $50 $50 $50 $45

W ildlife Population 

Management

$80 $80 $20 $20

1260, 2 Law 

Enforcem ent Officers

6.e W ater Rights 

M anagem ents

Activities associated with com pliance with 

state and federal laws to protect and 

achieve adequate supplies of water. 

Reading, m aintaining and installing 

m easurem ent devices and gaging stations, 

preparing water m gt. plans, also m onitoring 

off-refuge water uses

1260 $45 $45 $45 $45

6.f Cultural Resource 

Management

Supporting the study and protection of 

significant prehistoric and historic sites. 

Evaluation of cultural resources and 

managem ent of museum property.

1260, 9131 $50 $50 $50 $10

6.g Land Acquisition 

Support

Staff participation in land acquisition 

activities, including developm ent of 

acquisition proposals and appraisals, 

m eetings, inventories and surveys

1260 $1 $1 $1 $1

7.a Visitor Services Providing access, facilities, and programs 

for refuge visitors. Planning, construction, 

operation and m aintenance of visitor 

facilities such as roads, trails, signs. 

Interpretation, environm ental education, 

hunting and other recreation

1260, EE Specialist, 1⁄2 

Volunteer Coordinator, 

m aintenance worker, 

tem p Park Ranger 

(EE)

$300 $300 $200 $122

7.b Outreach Off-site education of public about Service 

activities through presentations, exhibits, 

news releases, and radio/TV spots

1260 $50 $50 $30 $47

8.a Planning 1260 $30 $30 $22 $22

TOTALS Subtotals Annual Operational Costs (in 

thousands)

$2,689 $2,754 $1,816 $1,704

Operational Costs over 15 years (in 

thousands)

$40,332 $41,310 $27,240 $25,566

$50

3.f Fire Managem ent Prescribed burning and wildfire 

preparedness activities. Follow-up 

m onitoring and reporting

$900 $900 $600 $710

1.a Survey and 

Censuses

2.a W etland Restoration The conversion of altered or degraded onrefuge wetland habitats, including riparian 

zones back to their original conditions

$100

$119 $119

All m ethods of enum erating fish and wildlife 

populations, vegetative habitats, analysis, 

interpretation and reporting

$70 $70 $70 $50

$100 $50

6.a Law Enforcem ent Public Safety, Resource Protection, Hunt 

Program

$200 $200
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-8 Appendix D - Implementation 

C. Staffing 

Staff is needed to manage and enhance the quality and diversity of indigenous wildlife habitats on the 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges. With the proper staffing to implement this plan, habitat management 

practices can be implemented and monitoring of flora and fauna responses to management can be 

applied, which will allow us to apply adaptive management strategies so crucial for long term success 

in meeting the mission, goals and objectives of the Refuges. 

Staff will interact with the public for education purposes and to provide for public safety. Maintenance 

staff will maintain facilities and equipment. Training of staff and coordination among staff, volunteers 

and partners will ensure the mission and guiding principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

endure. 

The following proposed full development level staffing plan would achieve optimum Refuge outputs 

within this planning period (15 years). The rate at which this station achieves its full potential to fulfill 

the objectives and strategies contained in the plan is dependent upon receiving adequate funding and 

staffing. 

Table D-5 includes costs for permanent and seasonal staff needed each year. It does not include staff 

costs associated with special projects; these are summarized in Table D-1, D-2, or D-3. Table 

D-5 is also related to the Refuge Annual Performance Plan. Alternative 4 reflects how allocations 

were spent among management activities in FY 2005 at Mid-Columbia River Refuges. The table 

includes funds spent in 1121, 1261, 1262, 9131, 9263, and 6860. Table D-6 includes staff 

associated with the fire program only.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix D – Implementation D-9

Table D-5. Annual costs of salaries and benefits, associated w/ staff by alternative

Project Leader PFT GS-0485-14 Current X X X X

Deputy Project Leader PFT GS-0485-13 Current X X X X

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-12 Current X X X X

Wildlife Biologist TERM GS-0486-09 7C X X

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-09 2A X X

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-09 7B X X

Fishery Biologist PFT GS-11 8A X X

Fire Program 

Analyst

Outdoor Recreational 

Planner

PFT GS-0023-11 Current X X X X

Environmental Education 

Specialist

PFT GS-0025-09 12C X X

Park Ranger PFT GS-0025-09 12D X X

Volunteer Coordinator PFT GS-0023-09 12B X X X

Refuge Manager-Um PFT GS-0485-11 Current X X X X

Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-0025-09 Current X X X X

Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-0025-09 4B X X

Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-0025-09 9A X X

Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-0025-09 13A X X

Administrative Officer PFT GS-0341-09 Current X X X X

Administrative Support 

Assistant

PFT GS-0303-07 Current X X X X

Engineering Equipment 

Operator

PFT GS-5716-09 3B X X X

Engineering Equipment

Operator-McN

Engineering Equipment 

Operator-McN

PFT WG-5716-08 Current X X X X

Engineering Equipment 

Operator

PFT WG-5716-08 1,2,3,5 X X X

Engineering Equipment 

Operator-Um

PFT WG-5716-10 Current X X X X

Check Station Attendant TEMP GS-0000-04 Current X X X

Check Station Attendant TEMP GS-0000-04 Current X X X

Social Services Assistant 

(YCC)

TEMP GS-0000-05 Current X X X X

Social Services Assistant 

(YCC)

TEMP GS-0000-05 1,2,3,5 X X

Archeologist PFT GS-11 X X

GIS Coordinator PFT GS-09 X X

Total Positions 24 31 24 16

Staff – Refuge Operations Status Staff Positions Alt 1 Alt 4

PFT GS-0401-13 Current X X X X

Refuge Manager-McN GS-0485-12 Current

PFT WG-5716-8 Current X

Justifying 

Objective

XX X

XXX X

Alt 2 Alt 3
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-10 Appendix D - Implementation 

PFT: Permanent Full Time 

PS: Permanent Seasonal 

Temp: Temporary Position 

Term: Term Position 

GS: General Schedule Federal Employee 

WG: Wage Grade Scale 

Table D-6. Annual costs of salaries and benefits, associated w/ Fire Program staff by alternative 

Staff – Fire Program Status Staff Positions Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Fire Management Officer PFT GS-0401-12 x x x x 

Assistant Fire 

Management Officer North 

PFT GS-0401-09/11 x x x x 

Assistant Fire 

Management Officer 

South 

PFT GS-0401-09/3 x x x x 

Dispatcher TERM GS-0000-07 x x x x 

Supervisory Range Tech PFT GS-0462-07/08 x x x x 

Supervisory Range Tech PFT GS-0462-07/08 x x x x 

Supervisory Range Tech PFT GS-0462-07/08 x x x x 

Lead Range Tech PS GS-0455-06 x x x x 

Lead Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Lead Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech PS GS-0455-05 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Range Tech Temp GS-0455-03/04 x x x x 

Totals 706,084 706,084 706,084 706,084 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

Appendix D – Implementation D-11

D. Youth Programs 

Each year, the Refuge hires a Youth Conservation Corps crew. The YCC crew is used for light 

maintenance on the Refuge including litter pick-up, lawn cutting, painting, fence repair, and other 

light maintenance chores. 

E. Volunteer Programs 

The Complex has a varied and very active volunteer program. During 2005, individual volunteers 

donated 8,650 hours towards accomplishing Refuge programs including maintenance, public use 

assistance, biological support, environmental education, and administrative duties. This is an increase 

of about 50% in the last ten years. The total number of volunteers have quadrupled in the last ten 

years (Table D-7). 

 

Table D-7. Volunteer Numbers/Hours Contributed at Mid-Columbia River Refuges 

 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Volunteers 102 45 103 186 394 394 220 425 425 405 385 415 

Hours 5360 4287 3318 4480 8473 8472 9160 6455 6415 10890 8105 8650 

F. Partnership Opportunities 

McNary Refuge’s location next to a large metropolitan area facilitates many opportunities for 

partnerships with other agencies, interest groups and schools. Coordinated partnership efforts will 

focus on habitat restoration, land protection, environmental education, fish and wildlife monitoring, 

outreach, and quality wildlife-dependant recreation. Current and past partners include local schools, 

and non-profit groups (such as The Audubon Society, Friends of Mid-Columbia River Refuge 

Complex, Richland Rod and Gun Club, Washington State University, Washington State Parks and 

Recreation Commission, The Nature Conservancy, County Fire Districts and many others). Future 

partners will include these groups as well as state and tribal agencies. Partnerships like these will 

increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support, as well as reduce Refuge operating 

costs.

G. Budget Summary 

Table D-8 summarizes the data from the above tables and displays the overall annual funding need, 

by alternative, for Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

D-12 Appendix D - Implementation 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Research and Monitoring 207 400 509 20

Facilities 2,610 3,107 1,705 993

Habitat Management 2,142 2,792 2,840 1,673

A. Subtotal One Time 

Expenditures – All

4,958 6,298 5,054 2,685

Research and Monitoring 140 200 200 0

Facilities 230 620 470 5

Habitat Management 1,951 2,196 2,216 1,488

B. Subtotal One Time 

Expenditures high priority 

projects only

2,321 3,016 2,886 1,493

C. Recurring Costs – all 

projects / 

salaries/Maintenance

40,332 41,310 27,240 25,566

Table D-8. Summary of Refuge Annual Funding Need, by CCP Alternative

Recurring Costs – all (total costs over 15 years), in thousands

2,153 1,883

Total Annual Need – All projects. (In thousands) (A + C)/15

High Priority Projects - One time expenditures (total costs over 15 years), in 

thousands

All projects - One time expenditures (total costs over 15 years), in thousands

3,019 3,174

Total Annual Need – High Priority Projects Only (In thousands) (A + B)/15

2,844 2,955 2,008 1,804
 Appendix E – Wilderness Review E-1

APPENDIX E: WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Introduction 

A. Policy and Direction 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy (Sec 602) requires wilderness reviews to be completed as part of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. 

A wilderness review is the process we use to determine whether or not we should recommend Refuges 

lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of 

three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at the Refuge to 

identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness. All areas meeting the criteria 

are classified as wilderness study areas (WSAs). If WSAs are identified, the review moves on to the 

study phase. 

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed for all values (ecological, recreational, cultural), 

resources (wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within the 

Wilderness Study Area. The findings of the study determine whether or not the WSAs merit 

recommendation from the Service to the Secretary for inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

If it is determined during the inventory that no areas qualify as WSAs or if we conclude from the study 

that we should not recommend any areas as wilderness, we prepare a brief report that documents the 

unsuitability of the lands and waters for wilderness study or recommendation. The report is submitted 

to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

B. Previous Wilderness Reviews 

There have been no previous wilderness reviews conducted on these Refuges. 

C. Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review 

All Service-managed lands (areas under fee title or agreement) within the McNary and Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuges’ current approved boundaries were considered during the inventory of 

wilderness areas. This is consistent with current policy. 

Wilderness Inventory Process 

A. Criteria for Lands to Be Identified as for Potential Inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

E-2 Appendix E – Wilderness Review 

 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act 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...@

Criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are described further on in Section 2(c) of the Act and are 

cited here: 

• Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man's work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has an outstanding opportunity for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

• Have at least five thousand acres of land or is of a sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

B. Process of Analysis 

The following process was used to evaluate Refuge lands and waters for their suitability for wilderness 

designation: 

1. Determination of Refuge unit sizes. 

2. For any areas that met the size criterion, an assessment was made of its capacity to provide 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

3. For any areas that met the size criterion, an assessment was made of its naturalness. 

4. For any areas that met the size criterion, an assessment was made of its features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historic value. 

More detail on the actual factors considered used for each assessment step follows. 

1. Unit Size: Roadless areas met the size criteria if any one of the following standards applied. 

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making 

this acreage determination. 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by permanent 

waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by topographical or ecological 

features. 

• 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. 

• 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 the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of Land 

Management. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

 Appendix E – Wilderness Review E-3 

At both McNary and Umatilla Refuges, some of the units extend over both uplands and well into the 

Columbia River “pools.” As elaborated upon in Chapter 1 of the CCP, these pools are located 

behind dams on the Columbia River and are best characterized as reservoir habitat. Lake Wallula is a 

large reservoir on the Columbia River upriver from McNary Dam, and Lake Umatilla is a large 

reservoir that was formed by John Day Dam. For the purposes of this wilderness review, any portion 

of a unit including part of Lake Wallula or Lake Umatilla was considered to be roadless. In addition, 

in all units that include both pool and upland areas, the pool portions were separated from adjoining 

upland or riparian areas of the unit for analysis purposes. This was done because access, habitat, 

and management are so different between upland and pool portions. The unit boundaries are 

artifacts of what the landscape looked like before the dams were built and do not reflect the very real 

site differentiation between pool and upland. Thus pool portions were effectively considered as a 

separate unit. 

Both management roads and public access roads were considered as roads. Rail beds were also 

considered to comprise roads, since they are permanent structures and the railroads in this area pass 

trains at least once an hour. 

2. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: A WSA must provide outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive recreation. The area does not have to possess outstanding opportunities for 

both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and does not need to have outstanding 

opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public use and access to 

qualify under this criteria; Congress has designated a number of wilderness areas in the Refuge System 

that are closed to public access to protect resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors. 

Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed outdoor recreation that is 

compatible and does not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. Primitive recreation 

activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, self reliance, and adventure. 

These two opportunity “elements” are not well defined by the Wilderness Act but, in most cases, occur 

together. However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an area offering only 

limited primitive recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for recreation use that 

experiencing solitude is not an option. 

In the wilderness inventory for the roadless islands in the McNary and Umatilla Refuge Complex, the 

following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating the availability of outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation: 

• island size; 

• availability of vegetative screening; 

• presence of motorized boats or vehicles within the area or typically used to access the area. 

3. Naturalness: In addition to being roadless, a WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) 

defines wilderness as an area that “... generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural to 

the average visitor rather than “pristine.” The presence of historic landscape conditions is not required. 

An area may include some human impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

E-4 Appendix E – Wilderness Review 

 

a whole. Significant human-caused hazards, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from 

military activity, and the physical impacts of refuge management facilities and activities are also 

considered in evaluation of the naturalness criteria. An area may not be considered unnatural in 

appearance solely on the basis of the “sights and sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the 

boundary of the unit. 

In this wilderness inventory, the following factors were primary considerations in evaluating 

naturalness: 

• presence of buildings or facilities; 

• presence of irrigation structures and/or crops; 

• presence of water control structures or dikes; and 

• presence of motorized boats or vehicles. 

4. Features of value: Wilderness areas “may” contain other values or features, including ecological, 

geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values. These values or features are not 

required. 

Inventory Results 

Results for the Refuges are depicted in Table E-1. Following the table, a short discussion is provided 

on some of the details of analysis and consideration. 

Table E-.1 Results of Wilderness Review (only the areas that met size criterion are included in table) 

Area 

Unit 

Acres 

Meets 

Size 

Criterion 

Meets 

Solitude/ 

Primitive 

Recreation 

Criterion 

Meets 

Naturalness 

Criterion 

Meets 

Supplemental Values 

Criterion 

(optional) 

Conclusion: 

Suitable for 

further consideration as 

wilderness? 

McNary Areas 

Peninula Unit (pool 

portion only) 

6978.96 yes no no yes No 

Badger Island 49.3 yes no yes yes No

Crescent Island 8.3 yes no yes yes No

 Foundation Island 19.3 yes no yes yes No

Strawberry Island 135.7 yes no yes yes No

Umatilla Areas 

Columbia River Unit 

(aquatic portion only) 

yes no yes yes No

Blalock Islands 113.5 yes no yes yes No

Long Walk Island 201.9 yes no yes yes No

Sand Dune Islands 102.8 yes no yes yes No

Straight Six Islands 5.3 yes no yes yes No

Telegraph Islands 0.7 yes no yes yes No
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

 Appendix E – Wilderness Review E-5 

A. Size Criterion 

Which portions of the Refuges meet the size criterion? 

Both McNary and Umatilla Refuge are comprised of numerous disjunct units, separated by private 

lands, county, state, or federal roads, or connected by waters of the McNary or John Day pools, 

respectively. See maps 1, 2, and 3 in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA. A variety of islands, some 

ephemerally covered by water, exist on each Refuge. Some are natural remnants of islands that were 

much more extensive before the dams were built – others were created through the deposit of dredge 

spoil. 

McNary Refuge: As depicted on Map 2 in Chapter 1 of the Draft CCP/EA, McNary Refuge [not 

including the Hanford Islands unit, which is being evaluated under the Hanford Monument CCP] 

includes 7 separate units. These units are discontiguous, separated by roads, state highways, 

railways, or private land (most of which is in croplands and some of which is in industry). 

Only one of the units exceeds 5,000 acres (Peninsula unit). Peninula unit includes about 788 acres of 

upland, though a road runs through most of the middle of the upland. The rest of Peninsula unit is 

comprised of water (the unit overlays Lake Wallula) and islands. This pool portion of Peninsula unit is 

larger than 5,000 acres and is being carried forward for further analysis. 

Strawberry Island unit contains two roadless islands. The pool portion of Peninsula unit also contains 

three roadless islands. None of the other units contain roadless islands as defined in the size criteria 

above. Although Stateline and Juniper Canyon units abut BLM land, there are no established or 

proposed wildernesses or any areas under wilderness review in the vicinity of the Refuge (pers. comm., 

Robert Alward). 

Thus, the McNary Refuge areas that are carried on for further analysis in the wilderness review are: 

Peninsula Unit (aquatic portion only), Strawberry Islands, Badger Island, Foundation Island, and 

Crescent Island. 

 

Umatilla Refuge: As depicted on Map 3 in Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, Umatilla Refuge includes 

6 separate units. The upland portions of these units are all discontiguous, separated by private land 

and industry. The navigation channels of the Columbia River (an inholding within the Refuge 

boundary and not subject to any Refuge management authority) separate the aquatic (pool) portions 

of the Columbia River units from each other. Thus none of the units connects with any of the other 

units. 

None of the units contains upland roadless portions that exceed 5,000 acres, nor can any of the 

upland portions of any of the units be said to comprise a “roadless island.” There are no adjacent 

wildernesses. 

Based on unit sizes and road locations, only the waters of the Columbia River Unit and the islands 

located in the Columbia River are being carried forward for analysis (Blalock Islands, Long Walk 

Island, Sand Dune Islands, Straight Six Islands, and Telegraph Islands). Not all the islands are named, 

but this analysis is meant to include all the islands that exist within the Umatilla boundary. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

E-6 Appendix E – Wilderness Review 

 

B. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Criterion 

Which portions of the Refuge or the Study area Ahave outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation?A

As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft CCP/EA, fishing and boating are very popular uses at both 

Refuges. Fishing is estimated to account for 16,750 visits on McNary (based on FY 2005 estimate, 

RAPP workbook) and 20,000–25,000 visits on Umatilla, annually. Much of the fishing and almost all 

of the boating use occurs on the pool. Still others are drawn to the water for hunting or wildlife 

observation. Public use is heavy on the pool during fishing season, hunting season, and especially 

during the summer. Recreational boating occurs throughout both pool areas, including on the Refuge 

portions of the pools. Beaches, especially those at the base of Strawberry Island and on the East 

Blalock and East Sand Dune Island, attract many users to the islands directly in the summertime. In 

short, human recreational activity is widespread in the area, and motorized boats of all sizes use the 

Refuge waters and the nearby navigation channels. 

There are few places of true seclusion on any of the islands, due to their small size and generally flat 

topography. Some of the islands, especially those at Umatilla Refuge, also have virtually no vegetative 

screening. 

While solitude could be found on certain days and in certain places within the areas considered, it 

would be a stretch to classify the solitude as Aoutstanding@ or the recreational experience as Aprimitive 

and unconfined.@ In conclusion, none of the island or aquatic areas are considered to meet this 

criterion. 

C. Naturalness criterion 

Which portions of the Refuges are Aaffected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's 

work substantially unnoticeable?@ 

As described above, changes wrought by man are noticeable on the aquatic areas. The aquatic areas 

themselves consist of a dammed river. Much of the shoreline is unnatural (rip-rapped). Water levels 

can fluctuate by the hour as dam operators manage the river to meet electricity needs. Huge barges 

pass regularly through the adjacent navigation channels of the river, creating large wakes. Trains 

rumble through on both shorelines at least once an hour. 

The islands do have a largely natural appearance. Portions of some of the islands may have been 

grazed or farmed in the past, but these signs of human development are not necessarily substantial to 

the untrained eye. Although weeds are widespread, most casual observers are not familiar enough 

with native or weed species to be able to detect the difference. There are no roads, buildings or other 

structures on the islands. There are signs in some areas, but these are relatively inconspicuous and do 

not represent a permanent improvement. 

In conclusion, all of the islands on both Refuges do meet the naturalness criterion. The pool portions 

of Peninsula Unit on McNary and the Columbia River Unit on Umatilla do not meet this criterion. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – November 2006 

 Appendix E – Wilderness Review E-7 

D. Supplemental Values Criterion 

Which portions of the Refuges contain supplemental values or features of interest? 

All of the islands considered can be said to contain both ecological and scenic values. The islands 

are important to colonial nesting waterbirds and to waterfowl. Some of the plant communities are 

relatively intact. The pool portions of the Peninsula unit and the pool portion of the Columbia River 

Unit both contain some scenic value, but it is not extraordinary in either location. The historic value of 

the pool portions could possibly be rated highly, given that Lewis and Clark passed through on the 

waters. Some of the islands are known to have significant cultural resources and cultural value to the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

E. Summary 

Although there are several locations on McNary Refuge and on Umatilla Refuge that meet several of 

the above criteria for wilderness designation, none meet all the criteria. The availability of 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation is the major limiting factor. 

Given the area=s population and history of landscape modification, and the Refuges’ continuing links 

to the Columbia River hydropower system, restoration of the river or islands’ Awilderness character@ is 

not likely to occur. 

It is concluded, therefore, that there are no areas on McNary or Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges 

that qualify as wilderness study areas. 

 Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats F-1

APPENDIX F. CONDITION CLASSES for SHRUB-STEPPE 

AND RIPARIAN HABITATS 

Introduction 

This appendix describes condition classes for shrub-steppe and riparian habitat types, two broad 

habitat targets in the CCP. Condition categories are described according to two or three vegetation 

structural attributes important to species utilizing this kind of habitat. The team chose to use a 4-tier 

condition class category system to facilitate the Service’s ability to enumerate acres of habitat that 

might be in less than stellar condition. While achieving good or excellent habitat conditions as 

described by various species experts remains an important goal, realistically the Refuges will more 

likely be able to gradually improve habitats to move them closer to the type of condition favored by 

the target species. In addition, using management condition categories to track habitats over time will 

facilitate reporting of acres in Refuges Annual Performance Plan (RAPP). 

Shrub Steppe 

Fifteen priority shrub-steppe areas (Table F-3) were identified by the planning team for focusing future 

improvement over the life of the CCP. These areas were selected partly due to size and current 

condition, i.e. they were already in some form of shrub-steppe rather than agriculture or some other 

heavily degraded areas such as roads or gravel pits. 

Because “shrub-steppe” encompasses a wide variety of different plant communities and structural 

conditions, and management to promote conditions for some of the inhabitants may conflict with 

management to promote conditions for other inhabitants, the shrub-steppe target has here been 

subdivided into two sub-types: shrub-steppe and grasslands. Shrub-steppe is typified by a higher level 

of native shrub cover—areas chosen to be managed for this subtype should be able to achieve >10% 

mature sagebrush or bitterbrush component by the end of fifteen years. Grasslands are typified by few 

or no sagebrush or bitterbrush shrubs. 

Objective 7a calls for the Refuges to improve shrub-steppe condition. Approximately half of the 

priority shrub-steppe areas should be managed to improve conditions for shrub-steppe habitats (Table 

F-1). The other half should be managed to improve conditions for grassland habitats (Table F-2). 

 Table F-1. Shrub-Steppe Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class Native Shrub 

Cover * 

Understory vegetation cover percent 

native species 

Open 

Ground 

Cover 

 

Poor < 5 % <25% native species 

cover 

0 or >75% 

Fair 5-10% 25-50 % native 

species cover 

51-75% 

Good 11-20% 51-75% native 

species cover 

21-50% 

Excellent 21-30% >75% native species 

cover 

10-20% 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

F-2 Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats 

Condition Class Native Shrub 

Cover * 

Understory vegetation cover percent 

native species 

Open 

Ground 

Cover 

 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species Other species-specific 

parameters 

Sage sparrow 

(Vander Haegen 

2004) 

10-25% >10% native (exotic 

annual grasses <10%) 

>10 % Shrub height generally 

>20 inches 

Sage thrasher 

(Altman and 

Holmes 2000; 

Vander Haegen 

2004a) 

5-20% big 

sagebrush, 

clumped 

5-20% (<10% cover 

exotic annual grasses) 

>10% Sagebrush height >31 

inches; <10% cover 

other shrubs; patches of 

40 acres or greater 

 * Target composition for native shrub cover is sagebrush and/or bitterbrush predominant 

 Table F-2. Grassland Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class Grass 

Cover 

Percentage native 

species for all 

herbaceous plants 

(grasses and forbs) 

Open 

Ground 

Cover 

 

Poor 1-10% <25% native species 0 or >80% 

Fair 11-20% 25-50% native species 61-80% 

Good 21-30% 51-75% native species 50-60% 

Excellent 31-60% >75% native species 10-40% 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species Other species-specific 

parameters 

Burrowing owl 

(Altman and 

Holmes 2000) 

Native 

grass cover 

<40% and 

<16 inches 

tall 

 >40%, 

including 

bare and/or 

cryptogram

mic crust 

Burrow providers, 660 ft. 

buffer zone around nest 

burrows with no pesticide 

applications or disturbances 

allowed. 

Grasshopper 

sparrow (Altman 

and Holmes 2000) 

>15% 

(bunchgras

ses 

Species composition 

>60% of grasses present 

are native bunchgrasses 

 Bunchgrass height >10”; 

native shrubs <10%; 

patches >100 acres or 

multiple patches >20 acres 

Long-billed curlew 

(Denchant et al. 

2003) 

See also Colorado 

PIF and Monatana 

Bird Conservation 

Plan 

 Shrubs or areas of 

cheatgrass intermixed with 

patches of Sandberg's 

bluegrass (Poa sandbergii) 

Shorter vegetation (<24 

cm), nest density was 

positively correlated with 

percent cover of bare 

ground and with the 

evenness of forb height. 

Limit grasshopper or 

insecticide use 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 

Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats F-3

Table F-3. Descriptions of fifteen shrub-steppe priority areas for management under the CCP 

Refuge Area Acres Condition Area Description 

McNary Refuge 

McNary 

Headquarters Unit 3 

385 Poor Little to no sagebrush or bitterbrush present. Native 

bunchgrass cover very patchy. Undesirable invasives 

predominant in understory. 

McNary 

Headquarters Unit 2 

214 Poor Little to no sagebrush or bitterbrush present. Native 

bunchgrass cover patchy. Undesirable invasives 

predominant in understory. 

Badger Island 39 Good Island has good shrub cover. Data on understory currently 

lacking, 

Wallula Unit North 510 Fair Much of the sagebrush and bitterbrush on this area 

consumed in 2001 Port Kelly wildfire. An area of good 

sagebrush cover and some bitterbrush that was spared by 

the fire remains around Sanctuary Pond. Sagebrush and 

bitterbrush seedlings planted in fall 2001 – sagebrush has 

good survival, bitterbrush did not. Understory vegetation 

primarily nonnative grasses and forbs. Some patchy areas 

of native bunchgrasses. 

Wallula Unit South 604 Poor Much of the sagebrush and bitterbrush consumed by 2001 

Port Kelly wildfire. Some patchy areas of good native 

bunchgrass cover, otherwise nonnative plants predominant

Stateline Unit 743 Fair Scattered tracts along east bank of Columbia River 

ranging. Undisturbed areas have good bunchgrass 

and/or sagebrush/bitterbrush cover. Areas disturbed by 

fire and/or grazing have little shrub cover and a 

predominance of invasives in the understory. 

Juniper Canyon Unit 199 Fair Isolated tract around Juniper Canyon Creek and riparian 

area similar to tract on Stateline Unit. 

Total Acres 2,694 

Refuge Area Acres Condition Area Description 

Umatilla Refuge 

Paterson Unit 2,584 Fair Largest block of shrub-steppe habitat on Complex. 

Wildfire damaged about 500 acres of shrub-steppe in 

2002 taking out sagebrush and bitterbrush. Area seeded 

with native grasses and sagebrush seedlings planted in fall 

2002. Large areas still dominated by invasives. Excellent 

bunchgrass cover on a portion of unit north of RR tracks. 

Ridge Unit 208 Poor Narrow block on north side of Columbia River. Wildfire 

damaged 

Whitcomb Unit 340 Poor Area damaged by wildlife in 2000. 

Crow Butte Unit 692 Fair Damaged by wildfire. Most sagebrush burned off. 

Blalock Islands 102 Good Good sagebrush cover and native understory. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

F-4 Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats 

McCormack Unit 

Kathy’s Pond 

624 Fair East of Paterson Ferry Road. Shrub cover, mostly 

rabbitbrush with some sagebrush and bitterbrush. 

Understory dominated by non-natives. 

McCormack Unit 

South 

1,667 Fair About 1000 acres burned in wildfire in 2000. Much 

sagebrush and bitterbrush consumed. High curlew use for 

nesting in portions of area. Some burrowing owl use as 

well. Maintain as grassland in these areas. 

McCormack Unit 

Desert Area 

592 Fair Good shrub cover but mostly rabbitbrush. Patchy native 

bunchgrass cover. 

Total Acres 6,809 

Riparian 

Ten priority riparian areas were identified on McNary and Umatilla Refuges totaling 3,053 acres. 

Objective 5a under Goal 5 in the CCP proposes improving the condition of up to 30% of this 

acreage, i.e. from poor to fair. 

Table F-4 describes the structural conditions that should be achieved for riparian tree-dominated 

habitats. Riparian shrub-dominated habitats should be managed to attain the structural conditions 

described under Table F-5. Table F-6 lists the riparian areas to be managed under the CCP. 

Table F-4. Riparian Tree-Dominated Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition 

Class 

Overstory 

Canopy 

Cover* 

Overstory 

Trees Age 

Classes 

Percent of Native 

Forb and Grass 

Cover Comprised 

of Natives 

Native Understory 

Shrub Cover 

 

Poor < 5 % 1 <25% < 10% 

Fair 5-20 % 1-2 25-50% 11-20% 

Good 21-30% Several 51-75% 21-50% 

Excellent 31-60% Several > 75% 51-80% 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species Other speciesspecific 

parameters

Bullock’s 

Oriole 

(Altman 

and 

Holmes 

2000) 

30-60% Protect large 

gallery 

cottonwoods 

 

* (native and nonnative cottonwood, peachleaf willow, pacific willow, white alder, etc) 

Table F-5. Riparian Shrub-Dominated Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class Percent of Native 

Forb and Grass 

Cover 

Native Shrub 

Cover 

Shrub 

Height 

 

Poor <25%? < 10%? 

Fair 25-50%? 11-20%? 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 

Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats F-5

Condition Class Percent of Native 

Forb and Grass 

Cover 

Native Shrub 

Cover 

Shrub 

Height 

 

Good 51-75%? 21-50%? 

Excellent > 75%? 51-80? 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species Other species-specific 

parameters 

Lazuli Bunting 

(Altman and Holmes 

2000) 

>25% and <70% >25% and 

<70% 

 Interspersion of shrub 

patches and herbaceous 

openings 

Willow Flycatcher 

(Altman and Holmes 

2000) 

interspersed 40-80% 

(patches 10 

square meters 

in size) 

>3 feet 

high 

Patches exceeding 5 acres, 

preferably 20 acres or 

more. Tree cover <30%. 

Table F-6. Descriptions of riparian priority areas for management under the CCP 

Refuge Area Acres Condition Area Description 

McNary Refuge 

McNary Headquarters Unit 41 Poor Area has some large cottonwoods and willow shrubs, 

but also quite a bit of Russian olive and even a few 

salt cedar shrubs. 

Burbank Sloughs 279 Poor Woody cover a mix of willow, cottonwood, Russian 

olive, and false indigo. 

Foundation Island 19 Good The island is small but large cottonwood trees are 

present and provide nesting habitat for cormorants 

and herons. 

Peninsula Unit 125 Fair Large cottonwoods present and areas of good willow 

cover. False indigo encroaching on shoreline. 

Two Rivers Unit 128 Fair Good willow cover and a number of large 

cottonwoods. 

Wallula Unit 870 Poor Large cottonwoods and good willow coverage in 

some areas. Much of area (700 acres) burned in 

Port Kelly wildfire. 

Crescent Island 8 Fair 

Juniper Canyon Unit 27 Good Good willow cover, need more information on 

understory. Trespass cattle grazing could be a 

problem. 

Total Acres 1497 

Umatilla Refuge 

Paterson Unit 585 Good Large cottonwoods and good willow cover. Wildfire 

damaged about 100 acres in 2002. 

Whitcomb Unit 251 Fair 

McCormack Unit 553 Poor Many large cottonwoods dying or dead with little to 

no regeneration around McCormack Unit due to past 

wildfire and lowering of John Day pool. Willows 

overbrowsed by deer. Areas along river in better 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

F-6 Appendix F – Condition Classes for Priority Habitats 

Refuge Area Acres Condition Area Description 

shape but invaded by false indigo. 

Longwalk Islands 146 Fair Large cottonwoods and good willow cover. 

Boardman Unit 21 Fair Some large cottonwoods, but also large areas of 

Russian olive. 

Total Acres 1556 

References: 

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Long-billed Curlew. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lbcu/lbcu.htm 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

Vander Haegen, M. 2004. Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. 

Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume 

IV: Birds [Online]. Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/sage_sparrow.pdf 

Vander Haegen, M. 2004a. Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, 

and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, 

Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/sage_thrasher.pdf 
 Appendix G – Compliance G-1

APPENDIX G: COMPLIANCE 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for McNary and Umatilla National 

Wildlife Refuges, located in Oregon and Washington states. 

• National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The planning process has been conducted in 

accordance with National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Department of 

Interior and Service procedures, and has been performed in coordination with the affected public. 

The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. '4321 et seq.) 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 CCP 

management objectives and alternatives into the NEPA document and process. The Draft CCP 

and EA shall be released for a 30-day public comment period in December 2006. The affected 

public shall be notified of the availability of these documents through a Federal Register notice, 

news releases to local newspapers, the Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. 

Copies of the Draft CCP/EA and/or planning updates shall be distributed to an extensive mailing 

list. In addition, the Service shall host two public open houses. The CCP shall be revised based 

on public comment received on the draft documents. 

• National Historic Preservation Act (1966). The management of archaeological and cultural 

resources of the Refuge will comply with the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. No historic properties are known to be affected by the proposed action based 

on the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as an undertaking defined in 36CFR800.9 and 

Service Manual 614FW2, however, determining whether a particular action has a potential to 

affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project 

plans are developed. Should historic properties be identified or acquired in the future, the Service 

will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the 

potential to affect any these properties. 

• Endangered Species Act. 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 Act requires consultation before initiating projects which affect or 

may affect endangered species; consultation on specific projects will be conducted prior to 

implementation. 

• National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57, Improvement Act) requires the Service to develop and 

implement a comprehensive conservation plan 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 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

G-2 Appendix G – Compliance 

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 Act. 

During the CCP process the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at 

both McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) are considered 

automatically appropriate under Service policy and thus exempt from appropriate uses review. 

Uses found inappropriate included: geocaching, hang gliding/Para gliding, rock climbing, offroad use motorized, off-road use non-motorized, waterskiing, jetskiis/personal watercraft, 

camping, swimming/beach use, and dog training. The following uses were found to be 

appropriate: boating, horseback riding, farming, and research. 

Compatibility determinations have been prepared for the following uses: wildlife observation and 

photography; waterfowl hunting, upland game bird hunting and other migratory bird hunting; big 

game hunting; fishing; environmental education and interpretation; boating; camping; horseback 

riding; dog training; swimming and beach use; farming; and research. All of these uses except 

camping, dog training, and swimming/beach use were found to be compatible with Refuge 

purposes and the System mission with stipulations specified in each of the compatibility 

determinations. 

• Wilderness Act. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuges for wilderness designation 

(Appendix E) and has found there are no areas that are suitable for wilderness designation. 

• Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. Under this order Federal agencies "shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains." 

Dams effectively preclude natural flooding in the Columbia River system; still, the CCP is 

consistent with Executive Order 11988 because CCP implementation would assist in restoring 

natural ecological values in the historic Columbia River floodplain. 

• Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 

11990 because CCP implementation would potentially enhance and restore wetland resources on 

the refuge. 

• 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 Service Planners, Refuge staff, and Refuge 

Supervisors. 

• Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and LowIncome 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 Indian 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, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix G – Compliance G-3

• 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 Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of 

Conservation (Management) 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 (PIF) into agency planning. The effects of all 

alternatives to Refuge habitats used by migratory birds were assessed within the CCP and EA. 

 ____________________________________ __________________________ 

 Chief, Branch of Refuge Planning Date 

 Appendix H – Glossary H-1

APPENDIX H: GLOSSARY 

Abbreviations

Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

 (also Improvement Act or NWRSIA) 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ATV All Terrain Vehicles 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service, USFWS) 

GAP Gap Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HMU Habitat Management Unit 

IAC Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Washington State) 

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997(also Act, NWRSIA) 

LE Law Enforcement 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity System 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

NWRSIA National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

ODFW State of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

PIF Partners in Flight

PILT Payment in lieu of taxes. 

R1 Region 1 of the FWS (WA, OR, CA, HI, NV, ID) 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS, USFWS) 

TES Threatened and Endangered Species 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WDFW State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

H-2 Appendix H - Glossary

Glossary 

Alluvium. Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing water. 

 

Adaptive Management. Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of 

results help managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be 

modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative. Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to 

the System mission (draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). The no action alternative is current refuge management 

while the action alternatives are all other alternatives. 

Approved Refuge Boundary. A National Wildlife Refuge boundary approved by the National or Regional Fish 

and Wildlife Service Director. Within this boundary, the Service may negotiate with landowners to acquire lands 

not already owned by the Service. (modified from R1 Landowner guide, USFWS Division of Refuge Planning) 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and culture (Webster’s 

II). 

 

Basalt. A dark dense volcanic rock (Webster’s II). 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur 

(USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. 

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. (NWRS Biological integrity policy) 

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal 

agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

Colonial nesting birds. Birds that nest in groups. At these refuges, most of the colonial nesting birds are 

waterbirds, such as gulls, terns, cormorants, and herons. 

 

Columbia Basin. The region drained by the Columbia River system. 

Columbia Plateau. An approximately 80,000 square mile depression in the earth’s crust located east of the 

Cascades and west of the Blue Mountains in Oregon and Washington. The Plateau was formed by the 

immense weight of over 200 lava flows piling up in the broad valleys of the Columbia River Basin between 6 

and 16 million years ago. (Turnbull CCP/EA, Chapter 3, Section 3.1) 

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge 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 (Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Composition (plant). The inventory of plant species found in any particular area. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix H – Glossary H-3

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, and 

provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of 

the refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5). 

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move across the 

landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. 

The opposite of fragmentation. (Turnbull NWR Habitat Management Plan) 

Conservation Targets (also Priority Species, Species Groups, and Communities). The resources, comprised of 

ecological systems, ecological communities, species, species groups, or other natural resources, selected as the 

focus of conservation action at the Refuges over the life of the CCP. (adapted from Low, Functional Landscapes, 

2003) 

Consumptive use. Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing that involve harvest or removal of wildlife 

or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

 

Contaminants. or Environmental contaminants - Chemicals present at levels greater than those naturally 

occurring in the environment resulting form anthropogenic or natural processes that potentially result in changes 

to biota at any ecological level. (USGS, assessing EC threats to lands managed by USFWS) Pollutants that 

degrade other resources upon contact or mixing. (Adapted from Webster’s II) 

Cooperative Agreement. An official agreement between two parties. In this case, the term refers to agreements 

that provide McNary or Umatilla Refuges authority to manage lands actually owned by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Cover. The estimated percent of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, occupied by a particular plant 

species. 

 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways that connect us to 

our nation’s past. (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of 

cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve various levels, including 

background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of 

cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of 

identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 

60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Decadence. Marked by decay or decline. For plants, showing little or no new growth. Adapted from MerriamWebster online dictionary. 

 

Deciduous. Describes trees and shrubs which shed all of their leaves each year. 

 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., fire) or humancaused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment. 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

H-4 Appendix H - Glossary

Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants 

and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Embayment. A bay or a conformation resembling a bay. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary) 

 

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, 

and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental 

impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Edaphic. Resulting from or influenced by the soil rather than the climate. (yourdictionary.com) 

Endangered Species (Federal). A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

 

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in the State 

of Washington or the State of Oregon within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. 

Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. 

Environmental Education Field Sites. Outdoor locations where groups of students engage in hands-on activitites 

within an environmental education curriculum. 

 

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. (NWRS 

Biological integrity policy) 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native species. 

Extirpated. Species no longer inhabiting an area that they historically occupied. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a Federal action 

will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Fee hunt (also reservation hunt; regulated hunt). Areas containing designated blinds for waterfowl hunting, 

which are allocated via a lottery system and available for a fee. 

Fluvial processes. Referring to the physical interaction of flowing water and the natural channels of rivers and

streams. Adapted from Brittanica Online Encyclopedia. 

 

Fossorial. Adapted to digging or burrowing. Adapted from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 

 

Free roam hunt (also first come-first served hunt or free hunt). Areas open to waterfowl hunting without 

restrictions on the number or distribution of hunting sites (except that hunters must space themselves 200 yards 

apart). 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix H – Glossary H-5

GAP analysis. Analysis done to identify and map elements of biodiversity that are not adequately represented in 

the nation’s network of reserves. It provides an overview of the distribution and conservation status of several 

components of biodiversity, with an emphasis on vegetation and terrestrial vertebrates. (Cassidy et al.1997) 

 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose 

but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and reproduction. The 

place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that guides refuge activities related to the maintenance, restoration, and 

enhancement of habitats for the benefit of wildlife, fish, and plant populations. 

 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, 

and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

 

Headquarters. An administrative center. 

Herptiles. Referring to amphibians and reptiles. 

Historic Conditions. 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. (NWRS Biological integrity policy) 

Hydrograph. The annual flow pattern of a river. 

Hydrologic Regime. The normal pattern of rainfall and runoff occurring in an area. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the status of the 

key ecological attribute. 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an Approved Refuge Boundary that are not owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. These can be private lands or lands owned by city, county, state, or other federal agencies. 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating explanation. 

(yourdictionary.com) Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

Interpretive Trail. A trail with informative signs, numbered posts that refer to information in a brochure, or 

where guided talks are conducted for the purpose of providing factual information and stimulating explanations 

of what visitors see, hear, feel, or otherwise experience while on the trail. 

Invasive. Nonnative species disrupting and replacing native species (thebiotechdictionary.com) 

 

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 

 

Inversion. A reversal of the normal behaviour of temperature in the region of the atmosphere nearest the Earth's 

surface, in which a layer of cool air at the surface is overlain by a layer of warmer air. (Under normal conditions 

air temperature usually decreases with height.) (Britannica online dictionary). 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

H-6 Appendix H - Glossary

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, opportunity, resource 

management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition) (Draft Service Manual 602FW 1.5). 

Key ecological attribute. Those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or patterns of 

biological structure and composition that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of the target. These key 

ecological attributes are further divided into measurable indicators . 

Keystone species. Species who enrich ecosystem function in a unique and significant manner through their 

activities, and the effect is disproportionate to their numerical abundance. Their removal initiates changes in 

ecosystem structure and often loss of diversity. These keystones may be habitat modifiers (i.e. Cottonwoods or 

beavers), predators (ie. puma and coyote) or herbivores (i.e. prairie dog). (Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan). 

 

Lacustrine wetlands. Those areas that are generally permanently flooded and lacking trees, shrubs, or emergent 

vegetation with greater than 30% areal coverage and measuring greater than 20 acres. Smaller areas than this 

can be included if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 6.6 feet at low water. (NWI) 

Landform. A natural feature of a land surface (yourdictionary.com) 

Limnology. The scientific study of bodies of freshwater such as lakes. (yourdictionary.com) 

Lithic Debris Scatter. Flakes and fragments of cryptocrystalline silica, or sometimes basalt and obsidian, 

indicating the manufacture of projectile points, scattered about a site that probably represents a temporary 

Native American campsite. (adapted from Holstine et al.) 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structure and capitalized equipment necessary to realize the 

originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes preventative maintenance; cyclic 

maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment, periodic condition assessment; 

periodic inspections, adjustment, 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 Management System (MMS). A national database of refuge maintenance needs and deficiencies. 

It serves as a management tool for prioritizing, planning, and budgeting purposes. (RMIS descriptions) 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

 

Migratory birds. Those species of birds listed under 10.13 of 50 CFR chapter 1. USFWS, DOI. (11/23/2001 

draft policy). 

 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time. 

 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Requires all Federal agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in 

the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making 

(from 40 CFR 1500). 

 

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. (NWRS Biological integrity policy) 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix H – Glossary H-7

National Register of Historic Places. The Nation’s master inventory of known historic properties administered by 

the National Park Service. Includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, 

architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, and local levels. 

(USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the System. 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas. 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). A federal law that amended 

and updated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668). 

Nested or benefiting resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for the conservation target. 

Non-attainment areas. A geographic area that is not in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for a particular pollutant. (Turnbull Habitat Management Plan) 

Nonconsumptive recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal or consumption of fish, 

wildlife or other natural resources. 

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, according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act 

(PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his environment and 

therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health. 

Objective. A concise target statement of what will be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and where it 

will be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives are derived from goals and provide the basis 

for determining management strategies. Objectives should be attainable and time-specific and should be stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of the functions for which a facility or item of 

equipment is intended to be used. Costs such as utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, janitorial services, 

window cleaning, rodent and pest control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, waste management, and 

personnel costs for operating staff are generally included within the scope of operations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The Pacific Flyway is west 

of the Rocky Mountains. 

Palustrine Wetlands. Wetlands that may or may not be permanently flooded and typically recognized by the 

presence of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous emergent vegetation. May include non-vegetated areas measuring 

less than 20 acres in extent and with water depths shallower than 6.6 feet in the deepest part of the basin at low 

water. (Cowardin et al. 1979) 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). See Revenue Sharing. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

H-8 Appendix H - Glossary

Piscivorous. Wildlife that consume fish as part of their normal diet. 

Planning Team. The primary U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff and others who played a key role in developing and 

writing the CCP 

Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations 

under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community (e.g., ponderosa pine). 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] 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. 

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, where compatible, are identified under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 as the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government agencies; 

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the planning team. It includes those who may 

or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who may be affected by Service decisions. 

Raptor. A category of carnivorous birds, most of which have heavy, sharp beaks, strong talons, and take live 

prey (e.g., peregrine falcon, bald eagle). 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs required to 

meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal mandates. It is used as a 

planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and staffing needs of the Refuge System. 

(RMIS descriptions) 

 

Refuge Purpose(s). The purpose(s) specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 EW 1.5). 

 

Restore. To bring back to a former or original condition. (Webster’s II) 

Revenue Sharing. Service payments (government lands are exempt from taxation) made to counties in which 

national wildlife refuges reside. These payments may be used by the counties for any governmental purpose 

such as, but not limited to, roads and schools. (USFWS Revenue sharing pamphlet). 

 

Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; including 

streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils which have free water at or 

near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of water; of or 

relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and 

directly influenced by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes any and all plant life growing on the 

land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix H – Glossary H-9

Run-of-the-river reservoir. A reservoir created by a dam that is not designed for active storage of water. The 

operating range of the dam permits water depth fluctuations to vary by less than five feet. (adapted from 

Overview of Water Supply paper, Federal Caucus Website, www.salmonrecovery.gov). 

 

Shorebirds. Avian species of the order Chardrii. 

Shrub-Steppe. Arid land characterized in its native form by bunchgrasses and sagebrushes where soil and 

moisture limit the growth of trees. (modified from Franklin and Dyrness, 1973) 

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of medium to small, perching landbirds. Most are territorial singers 

and migratory. 

Source. An extraneous factor that causes a stress (the most proximate cause). (TNC 2000) 

Step-down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to implement 

management strategies identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Strategy. A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit 

objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Stress. The impairment or degradation of a key ecological attribute for a conservation target. (TNC 2000) 

Threatened Species (Federal). Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. 

 

Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in Washington within the 

near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Vegetation Type (Also Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type). A land classification system based upon the concept of 

distinct plant associations. 

Viewpoint. A designated point that provides an opportunity to see wildlife or habitats of interest. The point may 

or may not be “supported” with an interpretive sign. Usually the viewpoint is supported by a pullout or a 

parking area. (CCP Team definition, 9/10/02) 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit, based primarily upon 

the System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Watershed. The region or area drained by a river system or other body of water. (Webster’s II) See also 

subwatershed. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are 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 at some time during the growing season of 

each year. (Service Manual 660 FW 2; Cowardin 1979) Permanent wetland - a wetland basin or portion of a 

basin that is covered with water throughout the year in all years except extreme drought. Typically the basin 

bottom is vegetated with submerged aquatic plant species including milfoil, coontail, and pondweeds. Semipermanent wetland - a wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water persists throughout the growing 

season of most years. Typical vegetation is composed of cattails and bulrushes. Seasonal wetland - a wetland 

basin or portion of a basin where surface water is present in the early part of the growing season but is absent 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

H-10 Appendix H - Glossary

by the end of the season in most years. Typically vegetated with sedges, rushes, spikerushes or burreed. 

(Turnbull Habitat Management Plan) 

Wildlife-dependent recreation. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation. These are also referred to as the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
 Appendix I – Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Needs I-1

APPENDIX I. INVENTORY, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH 

 NEEDS 

Inventory, monitoring, and research are essential components of refuge management. For the 

biological program, knowledge of species occurrence, abundance, and habitat needs and availability 

is necessary to help plan, guide, and assess habitat management activities. The McNary and Umatilla 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan lists a number of proposed strategies under various biological 

goals and objectives. The table below summarizes these and lists the resources needed to complete 

the inventory or monitoring effort called for in the objective/strategy. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Objectives or Strategies in the Preferred Alternative 

Objective Strategy Resources Needed Timetable 

2a. Increase 

Available Delta 

mudflat 

Monitor expansion of invasives and 

other plants and conduct chemical and 

mechanical treatments, as needed, to 

maintain mudflats. 

(Alternative,2) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers; 

chemicals and 

applicator; 

mechanical 

equipment and 

operator 

Every two years 

following CCP 

implementation 

2c. Maintain and 

Increase Longbilled Curlew 

Habitat 

Continue to identify and quantify existing 

curlew nesting and foraging areas. 

(Alternatives 1,2,3,4) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Initiate within first 

year of CCP 

implementation 

2c. Maintain and 

Increase Longbilled Curlew 

Habitat 

Monitor populations and/or nest 

success, using transects or other 

standardized techniques. 

(Alternatives 1,2,3,4) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Initiate within first 

year of CCP 

implementation 

2d. Conduct 

shorebird studies 

Evaluate existing literature and consult 

with experts regarding 

macroinvertebrate prey items. Conduct 

inventory of macroinvertebrates at the 

primary and alternate foraging sites to 

determine and compare species present, 

densities, etc. 

(Alternative 2) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Within first 10 

years of 

implementation of 

CCP 

3a. Salmon 

backwater 

enhancements 

Assess the biological benefits (both 

waterfowl and fisheries) of restoring 

side-channel fish habitats; coordinate 

with fishery biologists. 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Within first 10 

years of 

implementation of 

CCP 

3b. Conduct 

Inventory for 

Certain Rare 

Species 

Identify potential habitat areas and 

conduct targeted inventory for several 

species/species groups. 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers; 

funding; equipment 

Within first 10 

years of 

implementation of 

CCP 

3c. Conduct 

baseline inventory 

for small 

mammals 

Conduct a one-week long baseline 

inventory in approximately 6 shrubsteppe priority areas to collect initial 

data on the presence, abundance, and 

diversity of small mammals. 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers; 

trapping equipment 

Within first 10 

years of 

implementation of 

CCP 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

I-2 Appendix I – Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Needs

Objective Strategy Resources Needed Timetable 

5a. Improve 

Condition of 

Riparian Habitat 

Monitor bird species and richness by 

expanding the current MAPS station and 

adding point counts and nest searches, 

including sampling at Wallula Delta. 

Track changes in species richness, 

abundance, and productivity over time, 

aiming for a 10% increase in species 

richness and 20% increase in passerine 

productivity from 2005 levels. 

(Alternative 2) 

Biologist & Bio Techs 

and Volunteers, 

mists nets and 

banding equipment 

Initiate within first 

5 years of CCP 

implementation 

and conduct 

throughout 

remaining life of 

the CCP 

4a. Increase 

Amount of High 

Quality Shallow 

Marsh 

Inventory plant communities and 

annually monitor effectiveness of 

management treatments. 

(Alternatives 1,2) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Initiate within first 

5 years pf CCP 

implementation. 

4b. Maintain and 

Improve Aquatic 

Bed Habitats 

Conduct inventory of submerged plants; 

obtain bathymetric data; experiment 

with water drawdowns. 

(Alternatives 1 and 2) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Within 2 years of 

CCP 

implementation 

and every 5 years 

following. 

6a. Maintain 

waterbird 

population 

Monitor size of nesting and Waterbird 

colonies; identify potential threats to 

production; coordinate with other 

agencies and interested parties. 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

7b. Protect and 

restore 

Burrowing Owls 

Investigate the possibility of 

transplanting ground squirrels into 

appropriate areas; experiment with the 

creation of artificial burrows; identify 

historic sites that may have been 

occupied by colonies on the Refuges.. 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Initiate within first 

five years of CCP 

implementation 

7d. Bitterbrush 

Improvement 

 

 

Review, consult with experts, and if 

necessary initiate research studies to 

explore causes of bitterbrush decadence 

and death at Umatilla Refuge. 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Biologist & Bio Techs 

and Volunteers; 

research funding 

Within first 5 years 

of CCP 

implementation 

8b. Conduct 

baseline inventory 

of rocky habitats 

Conduct baseline inventory of plant and 

wildlife resources (rare plants, birds, 

bats, herptiles) in rocky habitats with 

focus on species presence, abundance, 

and locations of any key functional 

areas. (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) 

Biologist, Bio Techs 

and/or Volunteers 

Initiate within first 

five years of CCP 

implementation 

11b. Fishing 

Awareness 

Conduct surveys to determine needs of 

fishing public and their demography. 

(Alternatives 1 and 2) 

Biologist, Bio Techs, 

Public Use Specialist, 

and/or Volunteers 

Within first 5 years 

of CCP 

implementation 
 Appendix J – CCP Team Members J-1

APPENDIX J. CCP TEAM MEMBERS 

The CCP was developed primarily by the core team members. The team sought expert advice and 

review from other professionals from several different agencies and organizations. Extended team 

members provided critical input during field reviews early in the process and continued to provide 

review and comment as the document evolved. Core and extended team members are listed below. 

In addition to the team members listed below, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff members Steve 

Moore, Ben Harrison, Fred Paveglio, Jane Bardolf, and Mike Marxen were of particular assistance in 

critical review of the plan. Kendra Maty developed most of the CCP maps. 

Core Team Members

Name Role 

(role on team listed first, 

actual title if different is in 

parentheses) 

 Address 

 Gary Hagedorn Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex 

3250 Port of Benton Blvd. 

Richland, WA 99532 

Dave Linehan Main Refuge contact / lead 

(Deputy Project Leader) 

same as Gary Hagedorn 

Sharon Selvaggio Team Leader 

(Conservation Planner) 

USFWS - Northwest CCP Team 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97232-4181 

Howard Browers Complex Wildlife Biologist same as Gary Hagedorn 

Art Shine Complex Outdoor Recreation Planner same as Gary Hagedorn 

Brian Allen Refuge Resources/Programs 

(Refuge Manager) 

same as Gary Hagedorn 

John Gahr Refuge Resources/Programs 

(Refuge Manager) 

same as Gary Hagedorn 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

J-2 Appendix J – CCP Team Members

Extended Team Members

Name 

 

 

Role (role on team listed first, actual 

title if different is in parentheses 

 

 

Address 

 

 

Al Sutlick Corps of Engineers 

Coordination/Historical info 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Walla Walla District Office 

201 N. 3rd St. 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

Mark Halupczok Wildlife Biologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1215 East Ainsworth 

Pasco, WA 99301 

Kye Carpenter Warm water fish same as Mark Halupczok 

Mike Livingston Wildlife biologist) Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

2620 North Commercial Ave. 

Pasco, WA 99301 

Paul Hoffarth Fish biologist Same as Mike Livingston 

Pat Fowler Wildlife biologist Wash. Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Jeff Tayer Region 3 Director WDFW Wash. Department of Fish and Wildlife 

1701 South 24th Ave. 

Yakima, WA 98902 

Tracy Hames Yakama Tribal Representative Yakama Nation 

P.O. Box 151 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

Carl Scheeler Umatilla Tribal Representative (Wildlife 

Program Manager) 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation 

Wildlife Program Manger DNR 

PO Box 638 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

Debbie Spring Consultation - Fish Resources National Marine Fisheries Service 

304 South Water Street, Suite 201 

Ellensburg, WA 98926 

Mark Plummer Fish biologist same as Mark Halupczok 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

 Appendix J – CCP Team Members J-3

Name 

 

 

Role (role on team listed first, actual 

title if different is in parentheses 

 

 

Address 

Brad Bortner Migratory Birds U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Birds 

911 NE 11th Ave. 

Portland OR 97232-4181 

Betsy Bloomfield Conservation planning The Nature Conservancy 

507 S. 5th Ave. 

Yakima, WA 98902 

Virginia Parks Cultural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

20555 SW Gerda Ln. 

Sherwood, OR 97140 

Larry Rasmussen Fisheries USFWS - Ecological Services 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100 

Portland, OR 97266 

Kevin Blakely Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife John Day Watershed District Manager 

73471 Mytinger Lane 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

Bradley Bales Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

3406 Cherry Ave. NE 

Salem, Or 97303 

Geoff Dorsey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

PO Box 2946 

Portland OR 97208 

Appendix K – Appropriate Use Determinations K-1

APPENDIX K. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction 

Under the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy, 603 FW 1, (2006) refuge managers are directed to 

determine if a new or existing public use is an appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not 

appropriate, the refuge manager is directed to modify the use to make it appropriate or terminate it, 

as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use 

without determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be appropriate, then a compatibility 

determination should be developed to determine whether the use can be allowed. 

For purposes of this CCP an “appropriate use” must meet at least one of the following three 

conditions. 

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of the policy and 

documented on FWS Form 3-2319. 

During the CCP process the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at both 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges using the following guidelines and criteria as outlined in the policy: 

• Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

• Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

• Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

• Is the use consistent with public safety? 

• Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

• Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

• Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

• Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

• 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 the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

• Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlifedependent recreation into the future? 

Using this process and these criteria, and as documented on the following pages, the refuge manager 

determined the following uses are not appropriate: 

 Geocaching 

 Hang gliding/Para gliding 

 Rock climbing 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006 

K-2 Appendix K – Appropriate Use Determinations 

 Off-road use motorized 

 Off-road use non-motorized 

 Waterskiing 

 Jetskiis/Personal Watercraft 

 Camping 

 Swimming/Beach Use 

 Dog training 

The refuge manager also determined the following refuge uses were appropriate, and directed that 

compatibility determinations be completed for each use. 

 Wildlife Observation & Photography 

 Hunting - Waterfowl, Upland game bird, Other Migratory Birds 

 Big Game Hunting 

 Fishing 

 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

 Boating 

 Horseback Riding 

 Farming 

 Research 

Compatibility determinations are included for camping, swimming/beach use, and dog training, to 

explain why these uses should no longer be allowed. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-3
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-4 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-5
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-6 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-7
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-8 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-9
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-10 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-11
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-12 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-13
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-14 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-15
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-16 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-17
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-18 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-19
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-20 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-21
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-22 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-23
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-24 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-25
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-26 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-27
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA - December 2006 Appendix K - Appropriate Use Determinations K-28