Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.1 Introduction 

Compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

planning process evaluated uses that are projected to occur under the management direction. The 

evaluation of funds needed for management and implementation of each use also assume 

implementation as described under the management direction. Chapter 6 of the draft 

CCP/environmental assessment (EA) contains an analysis of the impacts of public uses to wildlife 

and habitats. That portion of the document is incorporated through reference into this set of CDs. 

B.1.1 Uses Evaluated at This Time 

The following section includes full CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to Service policy, CDs will be completed for all uses described under a CCP that 

have been determined to be appropriate. 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 CCP management direction. 

B.1.2 Compatibility—Legal and Historical Context 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of the refuge. 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 use is found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded from 

approving it. However, a use found not compatible may be modified such that it can be found 

compatible. 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 

uses 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 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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 Refuge 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. 

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 1997). 

Evaluations of the existing uses on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 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 FW 1). Under this 

policy, most proposed uses must also undergo a review prior to compatibility. Uses excepted from 

the policy include the “Big Six” uses and uses under reserved rights—see the policy for more detail. 

B.1.3 References 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978). Environmental 

Reporter 11:873. 

House of Representatives. 1997. Report 105-106 on National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Refuges/policiesandbudget/HR1420_part1.html. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

B.2 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Wildlife 

Photography, and Interpretation at Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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: 

This compatibility determination (CD) examines wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

interpretation as described under the management direction of the Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge (refuge) comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). There is substantial overlap between 

activities associated with wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation where 

participants are engaged in self-directed learning about the natural and cultural resources on the 

refuge, and as such these uses are evaluated together in this CD. This use will foster an aware and 

involved citizenry that will take an active role in conservation. 

Visitors typically engage in wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation uses at the 

refuge Wildlife Center, along the year-round and seasonal trails, at a number of overlooks, and at the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

wildlife photography blind—all located on the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. Projections indicate that 

refuge public facilities could serve an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 visitors annually (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [Service; USFWS] 2003a). Currently, nearly 100,000 people visit the refuge 

annually. See Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the refuge CCP for a complete description of visitor use 

statistics. 

The highest visitor use generally occurs spring through fall, though there is some use throughout the 

year. The seasonal trail is open from May 1 through September 30 to minimize disturbance to 

migrating and wintering waterfowl. Visitor use is limited to developed facilities, and other areas of 

the refuge remain closed to general public use. Visitors are limited to pedestrian use only—bicycling, 

dog walking, and jogging are prohibited. Maps, brochures, kiosks, and directional and regulatory 

signs will be provided to visitors to communicate activities that are encouraged and those that are 

prohibited. 

Group size is usually small (families, individuals, and couples constitute the majority of groups) but 

occasionally larger groups use the refuge. Local nonprofit groups (e.g., Audubon Society, walking 

clubs, parent groups) as well as for-profit organizations (tour buses) frequently visit the refuge and 

lead field trips on the trails and/or visit the Wildlife Center. As is currently the case, groups of 15 

people or more must: make advance reservations; be limited to no more than 50 people; break up into 

subgroups of 15 people or less when on trails; strive to carpool or provide group transportation; 

follow all refuge regulations; and not charge any fee to their participants. Any organization that 

charges a fee to their participants will be subject to the stipulations in the commercial visitor services 

CD. Fundraising activities (including providing guided tours and hosting special events and 

meetings) conducted by Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (Friends of the 

Refuge) are not subject to the commercial visitor services CD, but are subject to refuge approval, per 

the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Service and the Friends of the Refuge. 

The CCP provides more opportunities for developing wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation programs and structured visitor experiences with enhanced facilities and improved 

access. Actions described in the management direction are as follows. 

Up to three additional wildlife photography blinds will be constructed on the Atfálat’i Unit of the 

refuge. Access trails to the blind(s) will be developed with minimal footprint and be constructed out 

of gravel or other low-impact and low-maintenance material. Use of the blind(s) will be managed on 

a reservation basis for up to two people at a time. Blinds will be available up to three days a week, 

from dawn to dusk. For both wildlife photography and observation areas, the refuge will maintain 

“viewing lanes” by selectively trimming branches, mowing tall grass, and/or occasionally removing 

vegetation. In addition, areas around these facilities may be enhanced to maximize wildlife use of the 

area. Examples of enhancements include planting vegetation for additional habitat; providing habitat 

structure such as basking logs; increasing vegetation cover to serve as a natural blind; and adding 

trees and/or shrubs to minimize “urban noise” from off-refuge sources (i.e., roads, industrial 

activities). Though no public use facilities currently exist at the Wapato Lake Unit, one or two 

additional kiosks are planned and have potential to be developed off-refuge in partnership with local 

city and county jurisdictions. 

Several regional land and water trail systems outside of the refuge being studied by local jurisdictions 

and organizations have the potential of connecting to the refuge. However, at this time, no specific 

location for connection has been proposed; therefore, additional appropriateness and CDs for new 

trails will be completed at a later date. The refuge supports providing additional wildlife observation, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

photography, and interpretation opportunities by linking to regional trail systems and plans to 

continue working with local organizations to explore this further. 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation will continue to occur primarily informally as 

self-guided activities on the refuge. Refer to Section 5.4 in Chapter 5 for a complete description of 

existing programs. In addition, regular staff-, volunteer-, or partner-led tours, workshops, and 

demonstrations will be expanded to diversify the visitor experience and opportunities for these uses. 

Increased outreach and program offerings will likely result in increased visitation to the refuge. 

Refuge-approved and guided activities may include the use of the Wildlife Center or other refuge 

public use facilities, and may occasionally occur after dark when the refuge is normally closed to the 

public. The Friends of the Refuge may also conduct similar activities in support of wildlife 

observation, photography, and interpretation. These programs will require pre-approval by the refuge 

manager and will be subject to all of the same regulations as the general public (i.e., no special access 

to closed areas will be granted) and stipulations of this CD. 

Virtual geocaching (drawing people to specific sites via electronic means) is considered a legitimate 

form of interpretation under this CD. Virtual geocaching may only be conducted on areas otherwise 

open to the public. Physical geocaching (the actual placement of objects in the landscape by the 

public) is not appropriate (see Appendix A) and is not included as a form of interpretation. 

A number of existing and new special events, hosted by the refuge or in partnership with the Friends 

of the Refuge, could occur on the refuge in support of wildlife-dependent recreation and education 

activities. Examples include, but are not limited to, Tualatin River Bird Festival, National Wildlife 

Refuge Week, Spring Break Exploration Days, native plant sales, and one-time celebratory events 

such as dedications, groundbreakings, and grand openings. Special events typically last anywhere 

from 4 hours to all day, and may include multiple back-to-back days. Past events have attracted over 

1,200 a day and may attract more, up to 2,000 people a day, in the future. Special event activities 

typically include, but are not limited to, guided nature walks; evening programs; indoor and outdoor 

temporary exhibits; self-guided tours/walks; hands-on educational activities; live animal shows; 

workshops; nature-related music (generally in the plaza area of the Wildlife Center); awards 

ceremonies for nature photography contests; and keynote speakers. Activities are limited to the areas 

of the refuge open to the public. Any special event activity occurring outside the public use areas will 

be subject to case-by-case refuge manager approval and, if necessary, a special use permit (SUP). 

In support of enhanced wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation programs described in 

the CCP, the refuge will continue to pursue additional volunteers and interns. This will include 

providing bunkhouses or recreational vehicle (RV) pads to support long-term housing on the refuge. 

These facilities will be located in areas such as the maintenance and shop facility on the Tualatin 

River Unit and/or within proximity of existing or newly acquired quarters buildings. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation programs as 

envisioned under the management direction are displayed in the following table. With assistance 

from Friends of the Refuge, grants, volunteers, and other partners, the refuge currently has sufficient 

staff and funding to support these programs at their current levels. Additional resources will be 

needed to fully implement the uses and strategies described in the CCP. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

more frequently visited by people where disturbance flushes birds away from their nests and creates 

vulnerabilities during nesting seasons. Frequency is a major factor, and songbirds have been found to 

alter behavior after repeated human disturbance, particularly red-winged blackbirds, goldfinches, and 

American robins, which became much more aggressive toward humans who repeatedly visited their 

nests (Knight and Temple 1986a, 1986b, 1986c). 

Set-back distances for public use facilities have been found to be important in limiting human 

disturbance to wildlife. In Florida, 15 species of colonial waterbirds nesting at 17 colonies were 

exposed to three different human disturbance mechanisms to determine recommended set-back 

distances for protecting mixed-species nesting assemblages (Rodgers and Smith 1995). In general, a 

recommended set-back distance of about 100 meters (m) for wading bird colonies and 180 m for 

mixed tern/skimmer colonies was found to be adequate to effectively buffer sites from human 

disturbance caused by approach of pedestrians and motor boats (Rodgers and Smith 1995). In 

Nebraska, roosting sandhill cranes avoided sites near human disturbance features at 500 m from 

nearest paved road, 400 m from nearest gravel road, and 400 m from a single dwelling structure 

(Norling et al. 1992). 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 at a distance of more than 80 m [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 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 100 m 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. 

Conversely, wildlife tends to habituate best to disturbance that is predictable, as indicated by sandhill 

cranes in Florida and in Nebraska that nested within 400 m of highways, railroads, mines, and power 

lines, which provided a predictable background disturbance (Dwyer and Tanner 1992; Norling et al. 

1992). Taylor and Knight (2003) found that for mule deer, the area of influence around off-trail areas 

was much greater than for on-trail areas, suggesting habituation to trails. However, the time it takes 

for wildlife to habituate, and what wildlife use is like compared to pre-disturbance uses, remains a 

question. 

Group size: Disturbance impact to wildlife in relation to visitor group size is not a well-documented 

research area; however, a few studies have analyzed these impacts. Most animals flee from humans, 

and large groups of people may represent greater perceived risk of predation (Geist et al. 2005). 

Remacha et al. (2011) analyzed visitor group size influences on the number and variety of birds 

observed during guided educational tours in a forested area in central Spain, with group sizes ranging 

from 7 to 20 people. The study showed that increasing visitor group sizes had an impact on wildlife, 

as large groups were associated with decreased bird numbers; additionally, the study found that birds 

may demonstrate reduced tolerance when faced with large groups of visitors, not only reducing their 

frequency of occurrence but also reducing the number of individuals. The study concluded that 

reducing the group size of visitors helps minimize the negative impacts on wildlife and also allows 

visitors to watch more wildlife (Remacha et al. 2011). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Another study by Beale and Monaghan (2004) on human disturbance effects to seabird colonies at St. 

Abbs Head National Nature Reserve in Scotland examined the variation in nesting success for two 

birds, kittiwakes and guillemots, as a function of different disturbance regimes, including varying the 

average number of people per hour and people load, which takes into consideration the number of 

visitors and their distance from the nest. Human disturbance was found to have a significant negative 

effect on nesting success in both species of birds. Increasing visitor numbers by 8.5 percent resulted 

in a 22 percent increase in the failure rate of kittiwakes and a 13 percent increase in the failure rate 

for guillemots. Beale and Monaghan concluded that perhaps the most likely explanation is that 

nesting birds perceive people to be a potential predator and show appropriate anti-predator 

physiological responses, which interferes with energy resources available for nesting. The results 

showed that safe distances, or buffer zones, depend on the numbers of people visiting an area and 

that both numbers and distance matter in determining disturbance effects. 

In addition to group size, loudness has also been found as an important variable in whether birds 

altered their behavior. A study was conducted at the Arthur B. Marshall Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge in Florida between 1992 and 1994 to observe foraging behavior of birds at the 

refuge and understand how people affect foraging birds (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). Variation in 

feeding behavior was largely explained by whether people were present, the number of people 

present, and the amount of noise made by the people (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). For all species, 

time devoted to feeding and number of strikes or pecks decreased while people were present and as 

the noise made by people increased; interestingly, loudness was found to be more important than the 

number of people present (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). Noise level is not necessarily correlated with 

number of people present, but larger groups might be more prone to producing noise than small 

groups or individuals. 

Literature suggests that organizing visitors in small numbers is recommended for groups, but also 

spreading out visits and locations of visits is recommended to mitigate disturbance across the 

landscape. 

Pedestrian (hiking) versus vehicular access: It is widely accepted that wildlife are frequently more 

sensitive to disturbance from people on foot than in vehicles (Grubb and King 1991; MacArthur et al. 

1982; Pease et al. 2005; Skagen 1980). 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; Pease et al. 2005), 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). 

A study on seven species of dabbling ducks at the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia 

found a significant difference between vehicular (diesel truck and electric passenger tram) and 

nonvehicular (pedestrian and bicyclist) treatments in the number of ducks that were flushed. In this 

study, 90 percent of the birds showed an observable response to nonvehicular treatments, of which 43 

percent flew; the proportion of ducks that flew was greatest when they were located less than 100 m 

from the disturbance (Pease et al. 2005). In a review of several studies of the reaction of waterfowl 

and other wetland birds to people on foot, it was found that distances greater than 100 m in general 

did not result in a behavioral response (DeLong 2002). Mule deer in sagebrush-grassland habitat in 

Utah showed a 96 percent probability of flushing at 100 m from the line of movement of off-trail 

recreationists, with the probability not dropping to 70 percent until the perpendicular distance 

increased to 390 m (Taylor and Knight 2003). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

These studies and others have shown that the severity of the effects depends upon the wildlife’s 

distance from the disturbance and its duration, frequency, predictability, and visibility to wildlife 

(Knight and Cole 1995). In a logistic regression analyzing mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and bison 

response to mountain biking and hiking on- and off-trail, Taylor and Knight (2003) found that the 

variables best explaining wildlife response included wildlife species, perpendicular distance of 

animals to trail (closest distance of animal to trail, regardless of recreationist position), trail position 

(on-trail or off-trail), and degree of vegetation cover. 

Wildlife photography: Wildlife photography in particular can be a more disturbing activity because 

photographers are more likely to leave vehicles and wander off-trail, approach wildlife, and remain 

close for an extended period of time to capture a detailed photograph, as observed at Ding Darling 

National Wildlife Refuge and other places (Dobb 1998; Klein 1993; Morton 1995). This may also 

apply to the experience of the user, as avid wildlife viewers tend to intentionally seek out rare or 

spectacular species and/or are more eager to see the most viewing opportunities in the limited amount 

of time (e.g., bird listing), and thus potentially pose a larger negative impact to wildlife (Knight and 

Cole 1995). People engaged in wildlife observation and photography react to the presence of birds 

and thus are generally more unpredictable on foot depending on excitement level, curiosity, and 

desire to observe closely.

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

People engaging in wildlife observation, photography, or interpretation generally access the refuge 

by motorized vehicles traveling on public roads and parking lots. Additional wildlife photography 

blinds and associated access trails of less than 0.25 mile each will be added under the CCP. Minimal 

effect as a whole will occur as a result of new wildlife observation and photography facilities 

constructed under the CCP. Interpretive signs were not included as an impact as the assumption is 

that signs do not displace habitat. 

Pedestrian access: Pedestrian use of the refuge creates the highest potential for disturbance or 

damage to natural resources. Foot travel associated with wildlife observation or photography could 

potentially result in temporary and minor vegetation trampling. Foot travel may also potentially 

create disturbance in or near any habitat. During the wintering season, pedestrian access is limited to 

the year-round trail. This limits pedestrian human disturbance during the season of highest waterbird 

activity at the vast majority of key wintertime wildlife congregation areas (primarily wetlands and 

upland fields) and allows wildlife to habituate to the few areas where humans and wildlife may both 

be regularly present. Outside the winter season, people may access the seasonal trail as well. 

Some interpretive programs are large, organized special events that differ in character from the more 

informal day-to-day observation and interpretive activities. These types of programs create more 

disturbance and can overfill parking facilities to the point where parking lots fill and off-site parking 

and shuttle service is necessary to avoid safety issues and parking off roadways. 

Both refuge visitation and the number of facilities and emphasis devoted to wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation are projected to increase under the CCP. 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, photography, 

and interpretation are not typically loud or intense kinds of activities, the area of habitat within a 

known distance of human activity centers (trails, kiosks, blinds, etc.) is considered a reasonable 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

indicator to evaluate the disturbance effects of public uses on refuge wildlife. As mentioned 

previously, in a review of several studies of the reaction of waterfowl and other wetland birds to 

people on foot, distances greater than 328 feet (100 m) generally did not result in a behavioral 

response (DeLong 2002). 

Public education that informs photographers of ethical and least intrusive methods could reduce some 

impacts. Careful placement and camouflaging of additional photography blinds will likely reduce 

disturbance from wildlife photographers. 

Although disturbance to wildlife from these activities will be higher than at present, the overall effect 

to refuge wildlife is expected to be minor. In addition, if disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat 

reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge will limit access to areas where unacceptable impacts occur 

(see stipulations). 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

No direct impact to listed species is anticipated to occur as a result of the wildlife observation, 

photography, or interpretation programs. Any unanticipated future impacts will be reduced by 

ensuring that the public avoids or severely limits activity in areas hosting rare species. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation generally result in little disturbance to other 

visitors. However, some wildlife observers may inadvertently flush animals being observed or 

photographed by others. This conflict is expected to be minimal. 

No significant effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from wildlife observation, photography, 

and interpretation programs are foreseen. Normal road, trail, and facility maintenance will continue 

to be necessary. Additional facility construction or upgrade, if needed, is addressed in the 

Availability of Resources section. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period.

 Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to designated public roads and parking lots. 

Bicycles will not be allowed outside of parking areas. 

 Registration will be required for organized groups of 15 people or more. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

 Electric wheelchairs shall be allowed on trails for persons with disabilities. 

 During special events, tours must avoid sensitive sites occupied by rare species. 

 Wintertime sanctuary closures will be maintained. The refuge will be open dawn to dusk 

daily. Evening guided activities are approved by the refuge manager on a case-by-case basis. 

 Dogs are not allowed outside of vehicles. Registered service animals are an exception. 

 Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions and other public education from refuge staff and 

volunteers will promote appropriate use of facilities to minimize wildlife and habitat 

disturbance. Examples include promoting ethical wildlife observation/photography behavior 

by sharing regulations including the prohibition of audio bird calling devices or off-trail use. 

 Periodic monitoring and evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to assess if 

objectives are being met and ensure that the resource is not being unacceptably degraded. If 

disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge will avoid 

or limit activities in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. 

Justification: 

As wildlife-dependent recreational uses, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation receive 

enhanced consideration in the CCP planning process. Given the location of wintertime sanctuary 

closed areas and the locations of wildlife viewing, photography, and interpretation facilities, these 

uses are expected to have a minor direct impact on refuge resources. The associated disturbance to 

wildlife from these activities under CCP, though larger than at present, is also expected to be minor. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing these 

activities to occur. The relatively limited number of individual animals and plants expected to be 

adversely affected will not cause populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of refuge species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not 

be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing 

wildlife photography, observation, interpretation to occur under the stipulations described above will 

not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the 

refuge mission. Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation provide visitors with the joy of 

experiencing wildlife on their public lands, and as such, help fulfill the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 2028 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

______Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

References: 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Buckley, P.A. and F.G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially 

nesting waterbirds. National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office. Boston, MA. 52 

pp. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93:259-265. 

Burger, J., C. Jeitner, K. Clark, and L.J. Niles. 2004. The effect of human activities on migrant 

shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environmental Conservation 31(4):283-288. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Appendix L: Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature 

review of impacts and mitigation measures. In: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary 

revision. Volume II. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1. 

Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon Magazine: Jan-Feb. 

Dwyer, N.C. and G.W Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson Bulletin 

104:22-31. 

Erwin, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald 

eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Page 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 Ecological Institute. Boulder, 

CO. 

Geist, C., J. Liao, S. Libby, and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Does intruder group size and orientation 

affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28(1):69-73. 

Glinski, R.L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: the need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 

30(3):655-657. 

Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:500-511. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationship between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-13 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986a. Methodological problems in studies of avian nest defense. 

Animal Behavior 34:561-566. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986b. Nest defense in the American goldfinch. Animal Behavior 

34:887-897. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986c. Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the 

nesting cycle? Auk 103:318-327. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. 

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 

edition. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council 

Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Norling, B.S., S.H. Anderson, and W.A. Hubert. 1992. Roost sites used by sandhill crane staging 

along the Platte River, Nebraska. Great Basin Naturalist 52(3):253-261. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Remacha, C., J. Pérez-Tris, and J.A. Delgado. 2011. Reducing visitors’ group size increases the 

number of birds during educational activities: implications for management of nature-based 

recreation. Journal of Environmental Management 92(6):1564-1568. 

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from 

human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9(1):89-99. 

Skagen, S.S. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 

Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium. Seattle, WA. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Strauss, E.G. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a 

population of piping plovers subjected to human disturbances. Ph.D. dissertation. Tufts 

University, Medford, MA. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

environmental assessment, Wildlife Center and visitor services facilities, Washington 

County, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 318 pp. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-15 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Document continues on the following page. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17 

B.3 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting at Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Waterfowl hunting 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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: 

The Service plans to allow hunting of ducks, geese, and coots in accordance with state and Federal 

regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. A youth waterfowl hunt will be conducted on the 

Oleson parcel of the Riverboat Unit. 

Hunting will take place during regular state seasons, which generally run from October to January, 

but dates are subject to change annually and based on evaluation of the program success. Youth hunts 

will be conducted on selected days in coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Youth hunting will be allowed using two to five blinds on the Riverboat Unit, but this may change 

depending on the quality of the hunt. A maximum of two youth and two supervising (but nonhunting) 

adults will be accommodated in each blind. Blind assignments will be conducted via lottery prior to 

each hunt date. Although dogs are generally prohibited for all other uses on the refuge, they are a 

vital part of the waterfowl hunting tradition and can reduce the loss of waterfowl, thus reducing the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

overall impact to the resource. Because of their role in retrieving waterfowl, dogs used for waterfowl 

retrieval purposes are allowed on the refuge for waterfowl hunting. 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, 

hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent public use. Public land for waterfowl hunting is in limited 

supply, especially near large metropolitan areas (U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI] et al. 

2007) such as Portland. In general, there has been a static or declining trend in hunting participation 

relative to population growth in the United States (USFWS 2004) since 1985. The trend also 

indicates a declining number of young hunters. From 1991 to 2001, the number of Americans 16 

years of age and older who hunted declined by 7 percent. However, in Oregon from 1991 to 2001, 

hunter participation increased by 2 percent (USFWS 2004). According to Raftovich et al. (2011) 

there were approximately 21,400 active waterfowl hunters in Oregon during 2010. Opportunities to 

hunt in the greater Portland area are increasingly scarce due to an ever-growing population, 

urbanization, and a relative lack of public lands open to these uses. Hunting (both for and against) 

was the subject of more letters and e-mails received during scoping for the CCP than any other topic. 

In particular, the community has expressed a very strong interest in sharing hunting traditions with 

youth. Opening the refuge to waterfowl hunting will provide the public an opportunity to hunt in 

proximity to the urban area, in uncrowded and relatively natural environments, and at a reasonable 

cost. The habitat and wildlife objectives for the Riverboat Unit are very likely to support quality 

waterfowl hunts as the refuge will be restoring habitat used by waterfowl. Refuge hunting 

opportunities will be offered consistent with state hunting regulations, and with management plans 

for applicable species and the Pacific Flyway Council’s (PFC’s) plans for cackling Canada geese 

(PFC 1999) and dusky Canada geese (PFC 2008). 

Hunters have helped buy land for the Refuge System for nearly 70 years through the purchase of 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps—also known as Duck Stamps—and continue to 

support and advocate for refuges and conservation. Hunters also participate and share in wildlife 

photography, education, and interpretation while hunting. These activities will tend to promote and 

support the mission of the Refuge System. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge was established under, or to fulfill the purpose of, the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715a-715r), or through approval of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Committee, as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” On units of the Refuge System or portions thereof 

established as an “inviolate sanctuary,” the Service may only allow hunting of migratory gamebirds 

on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless the Service finds that 

taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such an area will be beneficial to the species 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

Availability of Resources: 

Administering the refuge hunt program requires substantial staff time, equipment, and funding. To 

provide a quality hunting experience, access trails, parking lots, signs, and other facilities must be 

maintained annually. The refuge does not have a law enforcement officer on staff and must rely on 

zone officers or partnering law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with state and Federal 

regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. Funding associated with facilities maintenance 

(roads, parking areas, signs, etc.) is included in other refuge programs requiring the same support. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Although hunting directly impacts individuals, the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected to 

change or to have a measurable effect on refuge, Willamette Valley, or Pacific Flyway populations, 

as waterfowl hunting activity is not extremely high in the highly urbanized Willamette Valley. 

Hunting may be either compensatory or additive to natural mortality (Anderson 1995). 

Compensatory mortality occurs when hunting substitutes for other forms of mortality (disease, 

competition, predation, severe weather, etc.). Additive mortality occurs when hunting compounds the 

total mortality. In some cases, hunting can be used as a management tool to control populations. In 

concert with Canada, Mexico, and multi-state flyway councils, the Service and state wildlife agencies 

regulate hunting so that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels. 

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). 

Hunting can alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of 

wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; Raveling 1979; Thomas 

1983; White-Robinson 1982). In Denmark, hunting was documented to affect the diversity and 

number of birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Avian diversity changed from predominantly mute swan 

and mallard to a more even distribution of a greater number of species when a sanctuary was 

established. Hence, species diversity increased with the elimination of hunting. There also appears to 

be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 

2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that were heavily hunted 

(Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento Refuge’s non-hunt 

areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in early 

January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally 

increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. 

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other wildlife using the open waters of the refuge will 

occur as a result of hunting activity. Migratory and wintering waterfowl generally attempt to 

minimize time spent in flight and maximize foraging time because flight requires considerably more 

energy than any other activity other than egg laying. Human disturbance associated with hunting 

includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns and dogs. This 

disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food 

habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 1995; Wolder 1993). 

Disturbance levels from hunting activity outside Chincoteague Refuge were found to be high enough 

to force wintering black ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within surrounding salt marsh and 

diurnal resting within refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a, 1989b). Unhunted populations 

have been documented to behave differently from hunted ones (Wood 1993). 

The impacts noted above can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting 

does not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have 

been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera 

et al. 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave 

disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995; Paulus 1984). In Denmark, hunting 

disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over 

a five-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal 

waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased fourfold to 20-fold within the sanctuary 

(Madsen 1995). On the refuge, all units except the Atfálat’i and Riverboat Units will be closed to 

public entry, and with numerous wetlands and sloughs available, these other units act as a sanctuary 

during the waterfowl season. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21 

Cumulative Impacts: 

The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a thorough regulatory setting process 

that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and harvest monitoring data. Waterfowl 

populations throughout North America are managed through an administrative process known as 

flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). Oregon is included in 

the Pacific Flyway. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations incorporated by the Service for hunted 

migratory gamebird species are addressed by the programmatic document Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of 

Migratory Birds, which was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 9, 

1988. The Service published the record of decision for this document on August 18, 1988 (53 Federal 

Register [FR] 31341). This document is in the process of being updated; in August 2009, the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the 

Hunting of Migratory Birds was released (USDOI 2009). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl 

hunting frameworks are covered under a separate environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory gamebirds be closed 

unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior. The Service annually promulgates 

regulations establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are essentially 

permissive in that hunting of migratory birds will not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, 

Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for the 

states to select that should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon 

Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird 

populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is 

conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings 

(Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which 

information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to 

individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public 

hearings are held, and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public 

comment. 

For waterfowl, annual assessments used in establishing the frameworks include the Breeding 

Population and Habitat Survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and 

Canada. This survey is used to establish a Waterfowl Population Status Report annually. In addition, 

the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the 

Harvest Information Program and the Parts Collection Survey. Since 1995, such information has 

been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting 

regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols determine the choice (package) of 

predetermined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that constitute the framework offered to the 

states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting 

hours, and other options from the Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive but not 

more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each state depends on 

the annual status of waterfowl populations. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger 

than state regulations. In fact, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the state 

allows. Each national wildlife refuge considers the cumulative impacts to hunted migratory species 

through the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on 

migratory bird hunting. 

According to Raftovich et al. (2011) total waterfowl harvest in Oregon during 2009-2010 was 

estimated at 464,500 out of a total Pacific Flyway harvest of 3,458,700, or approximately 13 percent 

of the flyway total. It is estimated that refuge youth hunters will annually harvest approximately 144 

waterfowl. The total estimated annual harvest will be less than 1/10 of one percent of the Oregon and 

Pacific Flyway harvests. 

The cumulative effects of disturbance to nonhunted birds and other species under the CCP are 

expected to be minor. Hunting seasons will not coincide with the nesting season; thus, reproduction 

will not be reduced by hunting. Disturbance to foraging or resting migrating or resident birds might 

occur, but will be minor because of the small amount of area allowed for these hunts relative to the 

size of the refuge and the limited time parameters for hunting. Disturbance to other taxa will be 

unlikely or negligible. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall will be few and 

should not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Refuge 

regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to nonhunted wildlife. Vehicles will be 

restricted to roads, and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for 

the season will not be permitted. 

Hunting has the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other priority public uses, and 

mitigation measures to avoid user conflict will be undertaken. For example, the youth waterfowl hunt 

will be conducted on the Riverboat Unit, a location that is not open to other public uses. 

Waterfowl hunting opportunity helps to better provide a priority public “big six” use, and this use is 

currently not provided at the refuge. Providing opportunities for youth is an important initiative in the 

Service and helps address a public desire to see more hunting opportunities for youth. 

There could be some indirect beneficial impacts from implementing a hunting program on the refuge. 

Refuge hunting can contribute to wildlife and habitat conservation and provide educational and 

sociological benefits. The hunting community in general remains the largest support base for funding 

land acquisitions in the Refuge System through the purchase of Duck Stamps. 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. 

Summary of Effects: 

The Service concludes that hunting on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, as planned under 

the CCP, will not have a significant impact on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl 

populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to 

existing hunting take, will be a tiny fraction of estimated populations. In addition, overall populations 

will continue to be monitored and future harvests will be adjusted as needed under the existing 

flyway and state regulatory processes. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23 

This hunt will not add to cumulative impacts to waterfowl stemming from hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl 

harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges is only 6 percent (USDOI 2009); 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 Federal 

frameworks; and 5) refuges purchased with funds derived from Federal Duck Stamps must limit 

hunting to 40 percent of the available area. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Hunting will be conducted in accordance with all Federal, state, and refuge-specific 

regulations. 

 Only ducks, geese, and coots may be taken in accordance with state regulations. 

 Hunting will only be allowed from established blinds or blind sites. 

 The hunting program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the CCP and follow a 

step-down hunting management plan. 

 Hunting program leaflets and 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 32 will be updated as 

necessary. 

 Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to ensure compliance with 

state, Federal, and refuge regulations. 

 The refuge will ensure safety and minimize conflict with other priority public uses by 

providing information about hunting boundaries and seasons to the general public and those 

engaging in 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. 

 Habitat will be managed for the benefit of wildlife. 

Justification: 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, hunting is a 

wildlife-dependent recreational activity, which receives enhanced consideration in the CCP planning 

process and is to be encouraged on national wildlife refuges if compatible with refuge purposes. This 

refuge hunting program is designed to provide a high-quality, safe experience, with a reasonable 

opportunity to harvest waterfowl. Despite the direct and indirect impacts associated with waterfowl 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

hunting, waterfowl populations are unlikely to be affected significantly by the hunting program. 

Waterfowl population objectives and allowable harvests are determined on a flyway basis using an 

established annual regulatory process as described above. Limited hunt seasons and days, no-hunt 

zones, and established winter sanctuary on the majority of the acreage of the Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge ensure that wintering and migrating waterfowl, as well as non-target species, find 

adequate food and rest areas on the refuge even during the hunting season. 

In addition, by respecting seasons and limits, purchasing all required licenses, and paying Federal 

excise taxes on hunting equipment and ammunition, individual hunters make a big contribution 

toward ensuring the future of many species of wildlife and habitat for the future. By paying the 

Federal excise tax on hunting equipment, hunters are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars for 

conservation programs that benefit many wildlife species, both hunted and nonhunted. Each year, 

nearly $200 million in hunters’ Federal excise taxes are distributed to state agencies to support 

wildlife management programs, the purchase of lands open to hunters, and hunter education and 

safety classes. Since 1934, the Service has spent more than $1 billion Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund dollars from sales of Federal Duck Stamps (USFWS 2011d). Proceeds from the Federal Duck 

Stamp, a required purchase for adult hunters of migratory waterfowl, have purchased more than five 

million acres of important waterfowl habitat, including land in the Tualatin River NWR. These lands 

support waterfowl and many other wildlife species, and are often open to hunting (USFWS 2011e). 

Thus, allowing waterfowl hunting under the stipulations described above will not materially detract 

from or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the refuge mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses only): 

 2028 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

References Cited: 

Anderson, S.H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. Pages 157-168 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University. Logan, UT. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Appendix L: Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature 

review of impacts and mitigation measures. In: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary 

revision. Volume II. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1. 

Portland, OR. 114 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Heitmeyer, M.E. and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in 

California. Final report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La 

Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of 

California, Davis. 200 pp. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Morton, J.M., R.L. Kirkpatrick, M.R. Vaughan, and D.F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and 

movements of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:390-400. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380. 

PFC (Pacific Flyway Council). 1999. Pacific Flyway management plan for the cackling Canada 

goose. July 1999. PFC. Portland, OR. 60 pp. 

PFC. 2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the dusky Canada goose. March 2008. PFC. 

Portland, OR. 54 pp. 

Raftovich, R.V., K.A. Wilkins, S.S Williams, H.L. Spriggs, and K.D. Richkus. 2011. Migratory bird 

hunting activity and harvest during the 2009 and 2010 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Laurel, MD. 68 pp. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and 

waterbird symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, Canada. 

USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), USFWS, and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. National survey 

of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, D.C. 163 pp. 

USDOI. 2009. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement: issuance of annual regulations 

permitting the hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Migratory Bird Management. Portland, OR. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: avid, casual, and 

intermediate participation trends. Report 2001-5. Arlington, VA. 48 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

USFWS. 2011d. Hunting – What do hunters do for conservation? Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html. Accessed November 28, 2011. 

USFWS. 2011e. 2010 annual report. Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/pdf/MBCC_2010.pdf. 50 pp. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Wood, A.K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest and wildlife population management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 21:91-95. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Document continues on the following page. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-29 

B.4 Compatibility Determination for Research, Scientific Collecting, 

and Surveys at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: Research, scientific collecting, and surveys 

Research: Planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature 

Scientific collecting: Gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific purposes 

Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purposes: 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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 Uses: 

Refuge staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, state agencies, 

other Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations) to conduct research, scientific collecting, 

and surveys on refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural and cultural 

resources as well as public use management issues including basic absence/presence surveys, 

collection of new species for identification, habitat use and life history requirements for specific 

species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-31 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

Use of the refuge to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys will generally provide 

information that will benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life history needs of species and 

species groups, and identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, or refuge habitat and wildlife management programs, then 

for the project to be compatible it must be clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings 

will contribute to resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands. 

The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies necessary to minimize or eliminate potential 

impact(s) and conflict(s) in advance. If unacceptable impacts cannot be avoided, then the project will 

not be determined compatible. Projects that represent public or private economic use of natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting) must contribute to the achievement of 

the national wildlife refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission to be compatible. 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon the nature and scope 

of fieldwork. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or disturbance, 

minimal habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of nonindigenous 

species. Projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or animals) or requiring intensive 

ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. To reduce impacts, the 

minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, 

vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and statistical analysis. Where 

possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce sampling needed for multiple 

projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study and another researcher 

examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both projects with one 

collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required state and Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If projects result in long-term or cumulative 

effects to federally listed species and/or critical habitat, a Section 7 consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act will be required. Only projects that have no effect or that have “not likely to 

adversely affect” determinations will be considered compatible. 

There is potential for the spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens from ground disturbance and/or 

transportation of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by 

requiring proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary. If after all practical measures are taken, unacceptable spread of invasive species is 

still expected to occur, the project will be found not compatible. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a project (e.g., permanent transect or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigators enter areas closed to the public 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered behavior) 

will usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or unacceptable cumulative 

effects cannot be avoided, the project will not be found compatible. 

At least 3 months before initiation of fieldwork (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

refuge manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal. Project proposals will be 

reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short, long-term, and 

cumulative) relative to the benefits of the investigation to refuge management issues and 

understanding of natural systems. This assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or 

denying a specific project. Projects that result in unacceptable refuge impacts will not be found 

compatible. 

If a proposal is approved, the refuge manager will issue an SUP(s) with required stipulations (terms 

and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources as well 

as conflicts with other public use activities and refuge field management operations. After approval, 

projects will be monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within 

acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 

native fish and wildlife populations and their habitats on the refuge. As a result, these projects will 

help fulfill refuge purpose(s); contribute to the mission of the Refuge System; and maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

Projects that are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 8 [Collect scientific information—

surveys, scientific assessments, and research]) will require additional NEPA documentation. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each project will require an SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits will be for a longer period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. Renewals will be 

subject to refuge manager review and approval based on timely submission of and content in 

progress reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33 

 Investigators must possess appropriate permits and comply with conditions of state or Federal 

permits for their projects. 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by refuge 

staff, then the refuge manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an ongoing 

project already permitted by SUP(s) on the refuge. 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s). 

 Final reports are due after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise with the 

refuge manager. 

 Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the refuge manager. 

 Refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before manuscripts are submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

 Refuge staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a refuge 

project. 

 Refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database format) 

at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required for 

long-term projects) must be removed and sites must restored to the refuge manager’s 

satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical markers will be 

stipulated in the SUP(s). 

 All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. For 

samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand will be necessary. 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., all-terrain vehicles 

[ATVs], boats) will be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being 

allowed on refuge lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests.

 The Refuge System, specific refuge, names of refuge staff, and other Service personnel that 

supported or contributed to the project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all 

written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

 Refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field at any time. 

 Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all refuge-specific regulations that specify access 

and travel on the refuge. 

 There may be other permits or paperwork required in addition to the SUP. 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In addition, 

only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, 

and management of refuge fish and wildlife populations and their habitats will generally be 

authorized on refuge lands. By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is 

anticipated that fish and wildlife species will experience minimal disturbance. Additionally, it is 

anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Allowing the use as described above will not materially detract 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

from or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge 

System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2023 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Document continues on the following page. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37 

B.5 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito and Disease Vector 

Management on Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito and disease vector management 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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 1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

With the spread of mosquito-borne diseases across the country, national wildlife refuges have come 

under increasing pressure to manage mosquito populations that are bred or harbored within refuge 

boundaries. The Service has produced interim guidance for refuges (USFWS 2005b) to be used until 

the Service policy document is finalized. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge will adhere to the 

interim guidance, and our mosquito management program will follow the response matrix presented 

in the following table. The refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support this use. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39 

one reported case of human infection by western equine encephalitis in Oregon (Centers for Disease 

Control [CDC] 2012a). St. Louis encephalitis in a human was documented in Oregon in 2003, the 

first case in more than 30 years (Oregon Department of Human Services 2012). 

Although West Nile virus was first documented in the eastern United States, it has been moving west 

since that time. West Nile virus first appeared in Oregon in 2004. The first human, avian, and equine 

West Nile virus cases in Oregon were all diagnosed in August 2004. In 2010, no humans were 

diagnosed with West Nile virus infection (Oregon Health Authority Office of Disease Prevention and 

Epidemiology 2011). Moreover, less than 1 percent of humans who are exposed to and infected with 

West Nile virus become seriously ill. The fatality rate of those who do develop serious illness is 3 to 

15 percent. Most human infections of West Nile virus are asymptomatic or characterized by mild flulike symptoms. Persons over 50 years of age are more likely to develop severe illness (CDC 2012b). 

The refuge, in cooperation with Washington County Health and Human Services (HHS) and Yamhill 

County Public Health (YCPH), proposes to monitor and control larval mosquito species that have 

been determined to have a negative effect on public health adjacent to the refuge. Monitoring 

generally takes place between early April and late September. 

The HHS/YCPH staff proposes to monitor and control mosquito larvae with Bacillus thuringiensis 

var. israelensis, which is frequently referred to as B.t.i. (EPA Registration No. 73049-10), when 

established thresholds are exceeded and human health risks exist as indicated through monitoring.

Monitoring and larval treatments will be restricted to shallowly flooded (<8 inches) vegetation that 

represents mosquito breeding habitat. From 2005 through 2008, refuge staff conducted monitoring 

for mosquito larvae on the Atfálat’i, Tualatin River, and Riverboat Units of the refuge (Figure D-1), 

and the results were given to Washington County’s vector control personnel. 

To protect sensitive resources such as eagle nesting and roosting areas and listed plant species, and to 

reduce the spread of invasive plant species, sampling periods and frequency as well as type of access 

(four-wheel-drive vehicle, ATV, foot traffic only) will be determined by the refuge in late 

winter/early spring. Because the locations of sensitive resources may change over time, the refuge 

will establish sampling and treatment stipulations on an annual basis through the SUP process. 

The HHS/YCPH may also monitor adult mosquito populations from May to September using dry ice 

traps, or other approved methods, as part of the county-wide surveillance for the presence of 

mosquito-borne human health diseases. 

The protocol for mosquito control when monitoring wetlands for mosquito larvae is to treat with the 

larvicide B.t.i. when the larvae reach established threshold levels and a human health threat has been 

documented. The treatment threshold used by the HHS/YCPH will be determined and specified in 

the annual SUP. 

Mosquito larvae numbers within the refuge are affected by a number of factors such as weather 

conditions, precipitation, and time of year. The primary factor contributing to the production of 

mosquitoes, however, is the water level fluctuation along shorelines, where mosquitoes lay their 

eggs. Water level fluctuations are primarily due to precipitation and refuge water management 

activities. Due to the uncertainty of water levels resulting from the above factors, and subsequent 

mosquito hatches, the total amount of larvicide to be used and the times, dates, and exact locations of 

application (magnitude and frequency) cannot be predicted. In some cases, certain areas may need 

repeated treatments. 


Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

speed limit for HHS/YCPH staff using vehicles on service roads is 15 miles per hour and ATVs are 

restricted to 5 miles per hour. Any necessary treatments will occur as soon as possible after 

monitoring activities. These activities cause short-term and temporary disturbance to wildlife. In the 

event of an identified public human health threat or emergency by the Oregon Health Authority, the 

data from these monitoring efforts will be used by the refuge for determining an appropriate course 

of action. 

Impacts Associated with Application of Pesticides: 

Where necessary and in accordance with the response matrix (see table titled Example of Mosquitoborne Disease Health Threat and Response Matrix), pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, and 

adulticides) will only be used on refuge lands for mosquito control after approval of a Pesticide Use 

Proposal (PUP). The Service’s Pest Control Policy (7 RM 14) requires preparation and approval of a 

PUP before pesticides can be applied on refuge lands. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge 

lands will only be approved where there will likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish 

and wildlife as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed 

and non-listed species will be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality will be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

will be documented in chemical profiles. These profiles will include threshold values for quantitative 

measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental fate that represent 

minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only pesticide uses with 

appropriate best management practices on refuge lands that will potentially have minor, temporary, 

or localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

will be approved. However, pesticides may be used on refuge lands where substantial effects to 

species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health 

and safety when a documented threat exists (e.g., mosquito-borne disease). The Service does not 

anticipate any short-term effects of the use directly on non-target invertebrates or indirectly to fish. 

The refuge has developed an integrated pest management (IPM) plan (see Appendix G of refuge 

CCP) to manage mosquito populations. Based on adult mosquito control conducted in Washington 

County, pyrethroids such as Anvil are the most likely adulticides to be used to address a human 

health emergency. Pyrethroids are synthetic molecules that mimic natural pyrethrins that are 

extracted from plants in the chrysanthemum family. Pyrethroids are generally less toxic to terrestrial 

wildlife than other families of adulticides such as organophosphates. However, they are toxic to fish 

and aquatic invertebrates. The county has not used pupacides in recent years. Methoprene, a 

commonly used pupacide, is an insect growth regulator that prevents pupae from metamorphosing 

into adults. Methoprene has been found to be practically nontoxic to people and terrestrial vertebrates 

and poses minimal chronic and acute risk to fish, freshwater invertebrates (other than mosquitoes and 

closely related chironomids), and estuarine species at the doses tested (EPA 2001). Detailed mapping 

of areas where disease-carrying mosquitoes are present and the use of an ultra-low volume fogger 

will reduce the impacts to nontarget organisms. Other practices to reduce impacts to nontarget 

wildlife include application in the evening hours (when many insect pollinators are less active) and 

conducting applications when wind speeds are steady and low, and temperatures are lower. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43 

Impacts on Wildlife from Periodic Elimination of Mosquito Larvae from the Wetland Community: 

The Service does not anticipate long-term impacts to result from this use. Hershey et al. (1995) 

conducted a 6-year study on 27 wetlands in Wright County, Minnesota, consisting of 3 years of 

pretreatment sampling of aquatic invertebrates and other parameters, followed by 3 years of 

treatment with B.t.i. Insect densities and diversity were reduced by 57 to 83 percent in the second and 

third years of treatment, respectively. During this study, 179 genera of aquatic insects were 

examined, with chironomids (primarily midges) representing about half of the insect genera present 

at the beginning of the study. By the end of the study, however, only one to six genera dominated the 

treatment sites. Adverse impacts were primarily observed in the invertebrate tribes Chironomini and 

Tanytarsini. These tribes are ubiquitous and are represented in almost every wetland with 

chironomids. Although Hershey et al. (1995) found negative effects of B.t.i. on nontarget 

invertebrates; this study is not applicable in the case of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge for 

the following reasons. 

1. Entire wetlands were treated with B.t.i. multiple times within and over several 

consecutive years in the Minnesota study. In contrast, the treatment area at Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge will likely only include wetland margins where vegetation 

interfaces with open water. 

2. Because of fluctuating water levels changing the location of the shallow flooded 

shoreline, it is unlikely B.t.i. applications will occur in the same area more than three 

times in a single year, and most areas will receive a single application. Stipulations in the 

SUP will limit the number of applications in a specific location during one season. 

Recently completed invertebrate and salmonid research along the south Franz Lake shoreline (Franz 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Washington) has provided valuable information regarding the 

cumulative impacts of mosquito treatment and control measures that are applicable to the program at 

this refuge. The invertebrate study was conducted during the latter part of the application period (July 

to September). During this study, stable water levels from July to September resulted in three 

applications of B.t.i. to the same locations. No impacts to non-target invertebrates were reported as a 

result of these applications. Consequently, it is unlikely there will be negative cumulative direct 

impact on the invertebrate community or indirectly on fish and wildlife. Because there were no 

impacts to non-target invertebrates from B.t.i. treatment at Franz Lake, it is unlikely that native fish 

will be impacted from applications at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Although mosquito larvae were reduced as a result of B.t.i. treatments at Franz Lake, there were no 

significant differences in the numbers of over 40 taxa of invertebrates, with 50 percent of the taxa 

being other insects that had been represented at shallow water sites. Based on results of the 

invertebrate survey, it is expected that alternative prey will be available for native fishes (including 

salmonids), as well as other wildlife that depend on larval or adult mosquitoes as forage. 

Consequently, the Service concludes that monitoring and subsequent applications of B.t.i. will not 

have substantial short-term, long-term, or cumulative impacts on refuge fish and wildlife resources. 

Impacts to Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health: 

Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health can be simply defined as native fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as natural processes that support them. As described above, 

the impacts from larvicide application to most fish, wildlife, and plants will be temporary and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

localized. Mosquito populations that are part of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the refuge will be impacted from control actions. Although numbers of mosquitoes will be 

temporarily and locally reduced, there will likely be no long-term or cumulative effects to 

mosquitoes and the species that feed upon them at the refuge. As part of the refuge’s mosquito 

management plan, the refuge will assess the impacts of adulticide applications on biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 The HHS/YCPH must apply for and receive an SUP annually from the refuge manager. The 

permit will specify conditions including, but not limited to, access restrictions, timing of 

applications, and measures required to limit the spread of invasive plants. 

 Mosquito management will follow an IPM approach, and any compatible cultural and/or 

mechanical control methods will be identified and implemented before chemical control is 

permitted. 

 Larvae control is to be conducted only when the HHS/YCPH determines that mosquitos 

breeding in specific units is widespread and poses a documented threat to human health. 

 Only Service-approved pesticides may be applied on refuge wetlands and only after PUPs 

have been approved. 

 The HHS/YCPH will contact the refuge manager at least one day in advance of each 

application. The refuge manager has final approval over all pesticide treatments. 

 The HHS/YCPH will notify the refuge manager in the event that virus activity is detected 

within or near the refuge and will work with the refuge to determine whether additional 

surveillance or control actions are necessary. 

 The HHS/YCPH must provide the refuge manager with monthly and annual reports of all 

control activities on the refuge. 

 The refuge may rescind this CD at any time based on future Service policy determinations or 

scientific studies of the effects of pesticides on the environment or nontarget organisms. 

 This CD will be reviewed when the Service finalizes its pending policy on mosquito 

management, and a new CD will be issued if this CD is not in full compliance with the new 

policy. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45 

Justification: 

Several suburban communities exist near the refuge within the flight range of adult mosquitoes (5 to 

10 miles). Mosquito species capable of transmitting diseases to people may be present on the refuge, 

though the risk of transmission is generally low. The refuge’s mosquito control program is consistent 

with the Service’s 2005 Interim Mosquito Management Policy and will help manage mosquito 

populations that pose a threat to human health. 

The refuge will ensure that its mosquito management program is consistent with national policies for 

disease control and will work with the HHS/YCPH to continue to identify new ways to use 

compatible mechanical and cultural control methods, reduce larvicide applications, and avoid 

impacts to sensitive resources. 

In the event that compatible mechanical and cultural control methods are not effective or practicable, 

the use of the larvicide B.t.i. will help avoid ecologically significant impacts to nontarget organisms 

and help the HHS/YCPH avoid the need to apply adulticides, which are generally more toxic to 

nontarget organisms. For the following reasons, mosquito monitoring and B.t.i. treatments for control 

of mosquitoes on the refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling the Refuge 

System mission or achieving refuge purposes. 

 Under the worst-case scenario, a maximum of 18 acres or less than 1 percent of the total 

refuge acreage will be impacted by mosquito monitoring and treatment activities annually 

from April 1 through September 30. 

 The invertebrate B.t.i. study indicated that no impacts to nontarget invertebrates were 

associated with three B.t.i. treatments for control of mosquito larvae on the shallowly flooded 

south shoreline of Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

 Although mosquito larvae will be reduced from B.t.i. treatments, over 40 taxa of 

invertebrates, with 50 percent of the taxa represented by other insects, were found at shallow 

water sites (where treatments will occur) after treatment. Therefore, alternative prey is likely 

available for fish and other wildlife species. 

 Monitoring and treatment activities will likely result in only temporary and localized 

disturbance to fish and wildlife. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

________ Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2023 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 2012a. Western equine encephalitis virus neuroinvasive disease 

cases reported by state, 1964-2010. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/arbor/arbocase/wee_600px.jpg. Accessed January 3, 2012. 

CDC 2012b. West Nile Virus: questions and answers. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/who_risk.htm. Accessed July 3, 2012. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

EPA. 1998a. Re-registration eligibility document. Bacillus thuringiensis. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA738-98-004. Washington, D.C. 157 pp. 

EPA. 2001. Pesticide fact sheet—methoprene. Washington, D.C. 9 pp. 

Hershey, A.E., L. Shannon, R. Axler, C. Ernst, and P. Mickelson. 1995. Effects of methoprene and 

Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) on non-target insects. Hydrobiologia 308:219-

227. 

Oregon Department of Human Services. 2012. News release: Oregon records first St. Louis 

Encephalitis case in 30 years. Available at: 

http://www.oregonjobs.org/DHS/news/2003news/2003-0926.shtml. Accessed January 3, 

2012. 

Oregon Health Authority. 2011. Selected reportable communicable disease summary. Portland, OR. 

110 pp. 

USFWS. 2005b. Interim guidance for mosquito management on national wildlife refuges. 

FWS/ANRS-NR-WR/020301. Washington D.C. 20 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Document continues on the following page. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49 

B.6 Compatibility Determination for Fishing at Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Fishing 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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: 

Fishing is one of the priority public uses that promote traditional outdoor recreation opportunity for 

the surrounding community. Very few opportunities exist on the Tualatin River for public fishing, in 

particular for disabled anglers. Fishing in the Tualatin River will be implemented at the existing 

River Overlook on the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge—a cantilevered platform will provide access to 

fishing on the river below. 

A wide variety of fish inhabit the Tualatin River mainstem, including warm-water, cold-water, and 

anadromous species, and the river will support a fishery for these species. Fisheries in the Tualatin 

River could include cold-water species such as rainbow trout and cutthroat trout; anadromous species 

such as upper Willamette River steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon; and warm-water 

species such as white crappie, bluegill, bullhead, and large-mouthed bass (Leader 2001). Generally, 

from May to August, under current Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) regulations, 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-51 

and abundance of waterfowl, grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated 

shoreline activity have been found to discourage waterfowl from using otherwise suitable habitat 

(Jahn and Hunt 1964). When compared to non-fishing days and/or non-fishing rivers, anglers 

influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites along 

the Skagit and Toutle Rivers in Washington, disrupted feeding, and increased energy expenditure 

through avoidance flights (Knight and Knight 1984; Knight et al. 1991). 

Stream Fishing Impacts: Shoreline activities related to stream fishing, such as human noise, will 

cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. Waterbirds and waterfowl in particular use shorelines 

seasonally for resting, feeding, and nesting. Furthermore, anglers frequently show long periods of 

inactivity interspersed with short periods of rapid movements, which has the potential to disturb 

nearby wildlife (Bell and Austin 1985).

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

Anglers accessing and using the River Overlook may occasionally disturb resident mammals, but the 

impact will likely not exceed that which already occurs from other pedestrians using the trail. 

Neotropical migratory songbirds and resident birds may be disturbed, but will likely remain in the 

general area. Waterfowl and shorebirds will likely experience minimal disturbance due to the dense 

tree and shrub buffer planting that separates the trail and overlook area from seasonal wetlands. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

Upper Willamette River steelhead and Chinook salmon were both listed as threatened species in 

August and March 1999, respectively (Federal Register 1999a, Federal Register 1999b), and critical 

habitat was designated in 2005 (Federal Register 2005) in the upper Tualatin River Basin (roughly 

defined as the Tualatin River and its tributaries upstream of Highway 219 near Hillsboro, excluding 

Rock Creek). The use will not occur in designated critical habitat. No other listed species are known 

to exist in the area that will be designated for fishing. The recreational fishing program and 

associated facility are anticipated to have no effect on threatened species if anglers are held in 

compliance with ODFW and refuge regulations. The designated fishing season for trout and coho 

salmon according to ODFW regulations is generally May 31 to October 31. During the winter, listed 

species are migrating upstream to spawn, and then in late winter and early spring, the smolts would 

be outmigrating. The spring-summer-early fall period planned for fishing, especially at the refuge’s 

location on the river, is generally considered to be too warm for these species to survive. By the end 

of April the temperature in the river near the planned fishing location is reaching a lethal range for 

salmonids. Local rainbow and cutthroat trout move up into tributaries that have cooler and more 

oxygenated water for them to survive.

Impacts to Nonlisted Species: 

The majority of fish species expected to be caught are nonlisted fish such as small-mouth bass and 

bluegill. For fish that are released it is anticipated that there will be some mortality of these nonnative species as a result from handling. However, with proper care and quick releases, these impacts 

are expected to be minimal. Some fish will be killed and kept in accordance with regulations. These 

direct impacts will likely be minimal and will not have a significant impact on overall populations of 

these species. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Fishing is expected to result in occasional disturbance to other visitors. In addition, anglers may 

inadvertently flush wildlife that are being observed by other visitors. Occasional crowding may occur 

on the overlook due to multiple public uses occurring simultaneously. No significant effects to roads, 

trails, and other infrastructure from the fishing program are foreseen. Normal facility maintenance 

will continue to be necessary. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Fishing will be opened only after a fishing package is completed in coordination with ODFW 

and draft and final regulations are published in the Federal Register. 

 Fishing will be allowed only during daylight hours. 

 Fires, off-trail use, and littering are prohibited. 

 Information signs and/or publications will be provided to ensure anglers have access to all 

regulations that apply to the refuge and to fishing activities. 

 All persons fishing shall be required to have a valid Oregon State fishing license and follow 

all applicable state regulations. 

 Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with 

state and refuge regulations. 

 Access to fishing will be limited to foot traffic along the existing trail. Persons with 

disabilities who are unable to access the River Overlook to fish will be accommodated on a 

case-by-case basis. This will require prior notification to the refuge. 

 If disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat results in unacceptable levels, the refuge will 

limit fishing access to reduce impacts. 

 If conflict with other priority public uses, or overcrowding by anglers occurs, the refuge may 

institute techniques to reduce negative impacts to visitor experience. These may include 

limiting fishing to specific days and/or times; developing signage to inform visitors of fishing 

program opportunities; developing a permit system for anglers; and/or other methods as 

appropriate to the situation. 

Justification: 

As a wildlife-dependent recreational use, fishing receives enhanced consideration in the CCP 

planning process. Despite direct and indirect impacts associated with fishing, refuge riparian and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53 

riverine species and their habitats are unlikely to be affected significantly by the fishing program on 

the refuge at the levels of use anticipated in the CCP. Other riparian and stream areas not subject to 

fishing disturbance will be maintained on other portions of the refuge. State regulations, including 

bag limits, ensure that harvesting of fish does not harm long-term populations. It is anticipated that 

wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places, and their abundance and 

use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened from disturbance by fishing. The relatively limited 

number of individual animals and plants expected to be adversely affected will not cause wildlife 

populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of refuge species will 

not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing fishing to occur under the 

stipulations described above will not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for which 

the refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 2028 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturb antropico su una popolazinoe di germane reale Anas 

platyrhynchos (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas 

platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Bouffard, S. and M.A. Hanson. 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:146-157. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Graftham Water. In P.S. Maitland and A.K. 

Turner, eds. Angling and wildlife in fresh waters. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Symposium 

19:15-22. 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446 (7 March):19-21. 

Federal Register. 2005. Endangered and Threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 12 

evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, 

and Idaho. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2005/09/02/05-

16391/endangered-and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-12-

evolutionarily-significant. Accessed July 10, 2012. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Federal Register 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing of nine evolutionarily 

significant units of Chinook salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead. Available 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-08-02/pdf/99-19712.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Federal Register. 1999b. Endangered and threatened species; threatened status for three Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and endangered 

status for one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-03-24/pdf/99-6815.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 33. 212 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48(3):999-1004. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of avian scavenging guild to anglers. 

Biological Conservation 56:195-205. 

Leader, K.A. 2001. Distribution and abundance of fish, and measurement of available habitat in the 

Tualatin River Basin outside of the urban growth boundary. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 63 pp. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011d. Oregon sport fishing regulations. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us Salem, OR. 110pp. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Document continues on the following page. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57 

B.7 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education at 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Environmental education 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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: 

Environmental education refers to formal, curriculum-based education opportunities primarily for 

students and organizations. Environmental education fosters an aware and involved citizenry that 

takes an active role in conservation. The environmental education program at the refuge will be 

administered as described in Goal 13 of the CCP. Environmental education could occur in any season 

at the refuge. In practice, most environmental education will occur between September and June, 

during the school year. The total number of people served by the environmental education program is 

expected to grow to 10,000 over the 15-year life of the CCP. The program will continue to rely on 

volunteers for full implementation. 

Environmental education activities will take place primarily within designated facilities designed to 

support the program. These include the year-round and seasonal trails, including overlooks; five 

trailside environmental education study sites; the environmental education shelter; an environmental 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

education classroom, and the Wildlife Center. Refer to Section 5.2 of the CCP for a complete 

description of current facilities. An off-trail study area described in the CCP management direction 

will only be used by students who are participating in refuge lesson plans that include off-trail 

activities. This area will be clearly marked for student use only, and the use will be overseen by 

trained refuge staff and/or volunteers. Additional off-trail use may include occasional refuge-led field 

trips to areas generally closed to the public that will provide educational value not available in the 

designated public use areas. Examples include activities such as, but not limited to, access for 

secondary or collegiate-level students studying hydric soils along wetland edges, students 

accompanying refuge staff on biological monitoring activities such as bird banding, and habitat 

surveys such as conducting vegetation transects. A nature explore area for young children described 

in the CCP management direction will be limited to less than 1 acre, be located adjacent to the yearround trail in an area where limited additional wildlife disturbance will occur, be bound by a barrier 

to contain the use, be primarily constructed with natural and/or sustainable materials, and be signed 

appropriately to guide the use. 

Students and educators of all ages and grade levels will participate in curriculum-based education on 

the refuge. In addition to formal classroom participants, the environmental education program will 

serve home-school groups/families, pre-school groups, youth groups such as scouts, after-school 

clubs, and other informal organized groups such as summer youth programs. Generally, no more than 

100 students (plus teachers and chaperones) will be visiting any given unit of the refuge at any given 

time, and advance reservations will be required. Educators wishing to bring K-8 students will be 

required to attend a teacher workshop prior to the field trip or have trained volunteers and/or refuge 

staff accompanying the group. Educators bringing high school and college students will be required 

to consult with refuge staff prior to their visit to both register and to obtain approval for planned 

activities. In all cases, educators will be instructed in how to teach and are expected to enforce “field 

trip etiquette” that is designed to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. To the greatest extent 

possible, the refuge will provide staff and/or volunteers to welcome and accompany field trips to the 

refuge. 

The refuge will provide approved curricula and guidance to all teachers conducting education on the 

refuge. Activities generally fall into the same guidelines that are expected of all other visitors (refer 

to CD for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation). However, additional activities may 

occur as part of refuge-approved lesson plans and when conducted by a trained volunteer or refuge 

staff. These may include, but are not limited to, capture, study, and release of small animals such as 

macroinvertebrates, frogs, snakes, insects, worms, etc; handling and return of features such as leaves, 

scat, and feathers; and collection of water, seeds, and soil taken either to the classroom or off-site for 

further study and analysis. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the environmental education program as envisioned under the CCP are 

displayed in the following table. With assistance from Friends of the Refuge, grants, volunteers, and 

other partners, the refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support these programs at their 

current levels. Additional resources will be needed to fully implement the uses and strategies 

described in the CCP. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

classes. The study recommended that sites heavily used by smaller bodied birds, such as ruddy 

ducks, buffleheads, and teal, not be used as environmental education sites. 

Conservation Benefits: Environmental education provides indirect beneficial impacts for visitors 

engaged in environmental education programs and activities. One study found that animal-oriented 

activities have an impact on the knowledge and attitudes of students involved in environmental 

education. Direct instruction methods in which children examined the anatomical and behavioral 

characteristics of live spiders and snakes promoted a positive attitude toward these animals (Kellert 

and Westervelt 1983; Kress 1975). Eighth graders engaged in wildlife-oriented activities were found 

to be more likely to recognize the importance of lower forms of animal life and preserving 

endangered species and to have greater tolerance for predators (LaHart 1974). Another study 

concluded, “if one were to try to change attitudes, education without an experiential component 

might not be very effective” (Baird and Tolman 1982:12). 

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

Environmental education activities will be more localized and will occur less frequently than general 

wildlife observation. Larger group sizes will likely result in greater magnitude of disturbance to 

feeding, resting, or nesting birds or other wildlife in the vicinity; however, having groups 

accompanied by staff or trained naturalists will help mitigate this disturbance. Most of the sites to be 

used by environmental education groups are already regularly used by other wildlife viewers, so the 

additional impact by the environmental education program will likely be small. However, to the 

extent that students are encouraged to conduct hands-on studies of vegetation, insects, water, or less 

mobile wildlife, more off-trail use will be expected for this activity than for any other nonconsumptive use, with attendant impacts that could be higher than for more typical wildlife 

observation activity. 

Participation in environmental education programs is growing throughout Oregon and Washington. 

With the growth of participation in environmental education programs and the emphasis on these 

programs under the CCP, future effects can be expected to be higher than present. Nonetheless, 

environmental education activities will occur outside of wintertime sanctuary areas and outside of 

fragile habitats. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

No direct impact to listed species is anticipated to occur as a result of the environmental education 

program. Any unanticipated future impacts will be reduced by ensuring that environmental education 

groups avoid or severely limit activity in areas hosting rare species. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Environmental education may result in disturbance to other visitors. School groups, especially those 

dominated by younger primary school children, may be loud and may flush wildlife being enjoyed by 

other visitors. This effect is expected to be fairly minimal, since the majority of other visitors use the 

refuge on weekends and school groups will generally be present on weekdays. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Environmental education facilities and activity areas shall be designated and/or constructed 

in locations that consider the site’s potential for contributing to a diverse and rich curriculum 

and minimizing impacts to sensitive resources, including listed species and wintering 

waterfowl. 

 Advance reservations will be required for all groups participating in environmental education 

activities. 

 Educators will be required to use refuge-approved curricula and/or lesson plans. 

 Adult supervision will be required for students up to twelfth grade. 

 All groups will be instructed in trail and off-trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife and 

habitat disturbance during a “welcome” session. During “teach the teachers” workshops, 

instructors will review trail etiquette and how to minimize wildlife disturbances. 

 Generally, no more than 100 students (plus teachers and chaperones) will be allowed on any 

given unit of the refuge at any given time. Classes will be asked to break up into smaller 

groups averaging 15 students. 

 Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions from refuge staff and volunteers will promote 

appropriate use of facilities 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 ensure the resource is not being unacceptably degraded. If 

disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge will avoid 

or limit environmental education activities in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. 

Justification: 

As a wildlife-dependent recreational use, environmental education receives enhanced consideration 

in the CCP planning process. Environmental education can provide students with the joy of 

experiencing wildlife on their public lands, and as such, helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System. Based on the analysis presented above, this use will be expected to have a minor direct 

negative impact on refuge resources. By limiting the size of groups and locating environmental 

education activities in areas that are already regularly used, the additional disturbance to wildlife, 

though larger than at present, is also expected to be minor. It is anticipated that wildlife populations 

will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge 

will not be measurably lessened from education activities. The relatively limited number of 

individual animals and plants expected to be adversely affected will not cause wildlife populations to 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of refuge species will not be impaired, 

their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare 

will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing environmental education activities to occur on 

selected areas of the refuge under the stipulations described above will not materially detract from or 

interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 2028 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

Baird, D.D. and R.R. Tolman. 1982. Attitudes of high school students and biology teachers towards 

animals. Unpublished manuscript. Field Museum of Natural History, Division of Mammals. 

Chicago, IL. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93:259-265. 

Jose, J. 1997. Evaluation of the effect of environmental education classes on waterfowl behavior. 

Unpublished report. Biology 454 class, Eastern Washington University. Cheney, WA. 

Kellert, S.R. and M.O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors towards 

animals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office 1983 0-405-

522/1101. 

Kress, S.W. 1975. A study of the modification of children’s negative attitudes towards animals. 

Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 

LaHart, D.E. 1974. The influence of knowledge on young people’s perceptions about wildlife. Final 

project report to the National Wildlife Federation. College of Education, Florida State 

University. Tallahassee, FL. 

Remacha, C., J. Pérez-Tris, and J.A. Delgado. 2011. Reducing visitors’ group size increases the 

number of birds during educational activities: implications for management of nature-based 

recreation. Journal of Environmental Management 92(6):1564-1568. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Document continues on the following page. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65 

B.8 Compatibility Determination for Cooperative Farming at 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative farming 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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: 

Cooperative farming is an interim tool, and an effective one, that allows the refuge to manage 

invasive species while at the same time providing forage for wildlife. Prior to and during restoration 

of native habitats, invasive species can outcompete native plants, therefore reducing the success of 

native plants to become established. Cooperative farming will allow the refuge to control invasive 

plants, which will give native plants a greater chance of success when restoration occurs. 

The refuge manages small grain croplands and pastures to: 

 Provide wildlife habitat for migratory birds and other resident wildlife, and 

 Prevent invasive plants from dominating the landscape prior to restoration of the land to 

native habitats. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67 

General Impacts: 

Direct impacts of cropland management include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from 

farm machinery. During tillage, the soil is left bare prior to planting. The bare soil is exposed for 

much of the year to environmental factors that may alter its quality. Wind, heat, and precipitation are 

the most damaging factors that may affect the soil. Wind and precipitation can both lead to 

displacement of soil, increasing the rate of erosion, and heat can effectively bake the soil, causing it 

to become inhospitable to seed banks; it may even cause the soil to become dry and compacted, 

making it impossible for any vegetation to grow if tillage is not performed. 

Compaction of the soil can also result from the use of farming equipment for seeding, causing 

undesirable increases in bulk density, while tilling may prevent the accumulation or accelerate the 

decomposition of organic matter and diminish earthworm populations. 

Farming may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from 

pesticide use. Weed issues may greatly increase from ground disturbance and from movement of 

cultivating and harvesting equipment from field to field, therefore spreading invasive species’ seeds. 

In addition, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians may be subject to mortality from farm 

equipment, and nesting birds may be disrupted and have nests destroyed. 

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

There will be no loss of native habitats due to farming since areas proposed for farming were already 

in production prior to refuge acquisition. There will be some continued impact to soil quality, but the 

CCP management direction will reduce the acreage under cultivation; thus, there will be a minor 

beneficial impact on soil and water quality, compared to the present. There will be a minor negative 

impact on farming as the amount of land under cultivation will decrease. 

The introduction and spread of weeds is expected to be minimal through proper decontamination 

practices such as equipment cleaning, mowing to prevent seed set and dispersal, and treatments to 

any source populations that have the potential to infect a field. Early detection and rapid response 

methods will be employed to ensure any new populations are treated and eradicated immediately. 

Cooperators will be required to clean their equipment prior to moving it both on to the refuge and 

across units of the refuge. This will help minimize the spread of undesirable plants. The refuge will 

continue to monitor farming sites for invasive weeds and will maintain an aggressive approach to 

invasive species control. In addition, the refuge will work with the County Weed Board to prevent, 

identify, and eradicate new infestations. 

For weed species that are or become established, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls will be 

evaluated as methods of treatment. If these methods are not expected to be effective, then herbicidal 

applications may be necessary. Chemical applications will be subject to the provisions of the IPM 

plan. This plan directs the refuge to select the most effective herbicide that will have the least 

environmental degradation to soils, surface water, and groundwater, and the least impact to native 

wildlife and vegetation. Each approved herbicide used will undergo a chemical profile analysis; 

active ingredients will be analyzed for their risk quotient and this value compared to a Level of 

Concern for surrogate species, as established by the EPA. All applications of herbicides will conform 

to the specific pesticide label requirements. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Employment of this approach will provide for a moderate to minor risk from chemical exposure. 

However, some risks may still occur from factors not assessed under current protocols, such as 

intermingling of unlike chemicals in the field; species-specific sensitivity that differs from surrogate 

species; exposure through inhalation; exposure through ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil; and 

other factors as described in the IPM plan. 

Positive short-term effects are also anticipated. In addition to providing high-carbohydrate forage for 

wintering waterfowl, crop fields can benefit other bird species by providing some foraging habitat for 

a variety of seed-eating migratory bird species. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

Currently there are no known listed species inhabiting farm fields. Should conflicts occur in the 

future, measures such as erecting protective barriers and/or transplanting listed populations out of 

harm’s way will be enacted. Additionally, if deemed necessary, the cooperative farming program will 

be halted until all protective measures can be evaluated and implemented as necessary. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Farming on the refuge does not occur in areas that are open to the public; therefore, there are no 

impacts to public uses. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Written comments on the 

draft CCP/EA, which included this compatibility determination, were collected during the public 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Cooperative farming agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency policy.

 Genetically modified seeds and other organisms will not be permitted for use in the farming 

program.

 Weeds will be controlled in accordance with the refuge’s IPM program using methods such 

as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, biological controls, and approved pesticides.

 Herbicide applications may only be applied with prior refuge approval, and applicators must 

meet all state, Federal, and agency requirements. 

 Equipment of cooperating farmers will be cleaned prior to being moved onto the refuge and 

between fields when working in areas with weed infestations.

 Cooperators will provide a record of herbicides used, including chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and method of application.

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69 

 Best management practices will be used to avoid fertilizer runoff into wetlands or leaching 

into groundwater and to minimize sedimentation of streams and water bodies. For example, 

nitrogen fertilizer applications will be avoided in the fall to help avoid waste and prevent 

fertilizer from leaching into groundwater, and buffer strips of dense vegetation will be left 

between farmland and wetlands to filter runoff and prevent sedimentation. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified refuge staff.

Justification: 

Cropland farming has been shown to be an effective habitat management practice performed to 

prevent invasive species from infesting a highly disturbed area until restoration of native vegetation 

can occur. Additionally, cropland farming provides high-quality food for wildlife species at the 

refuge. Wintering and migratory birds readily use agricultural crop fields to help meet their energy 

needs. 

Although these large monocultures of planted grasses are not native, and do not support the diversity 

of species that native habitats do, it is critical to maintain these areas in production to keep them from 

becoming infested with noxious weeds. By conducting the farming program under the practices and 

stipulations above, it is anticipated that the program will contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the refuge. As a 

result, cooperative farming contributes to achieving refuge purpose(s), contributes to the mission of 

the Refuge System, and helps maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the refuge. Allowing the use as described above will not materially detract from or interfere with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2023 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses)
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71 

B.9 Compatibility Determination for Commercial Visitor Services at 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial visitor services 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

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 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C 668dd et seq.] 

Description of Use: 

This CD addresses nonconsumptive commercial uses related to wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education. This CD does not address consumptive 

uses such as commercial guiding for hunting and fishing, nor activities that are not related to natural, 

historical, or cultural subjects. Additionally, a variety of nonprofit and for-profit organizations, 

educational institutions, and individuals engage in leading natural resource- and environmental 

education-based activities on the refuge. Some of these organizations may request to charge fees for 

services they intend to provide. This CD covers the fee collection and program quality aspects of 

commercial visitor services. Refer to the CDs for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

interpretation and for environmental education for a complete compatibility examination of the 

wildlife-dependent activities that apply to commercial visitor services. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

By regulation, the Service may only authorize public or private economic use of natural resources on 

any national wildlife refuge, where it is determined that the use contributes to the achievement of the 

refuge’s purpose or the Refuge System mission. Refuge System policy on management of specialized 

uses states that when monetary gain (profit) is the objective of a refuge recreational use, the use is to 

be managed as an economic and commercial use. 

Commercial visitor services on the refuge cover a broad range of wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education activities that are led by any organization or individual that charges a fee to participate in 

the activity. Activities could include, but are not limited to, birding tours, plant identification, 

wildlife photography, art, interpretive programs, guided trail walks, training workshops, summer 

youth camp, nature classes, and other similar nonconsumptive uses. These uses will occur in areas 

and facilities that are open to the public and will support the identified wildlife-dependent public uses 

of the refuge. Organizations conducting commercial visitor services will require an SUP, except for 

the Friends of the Refuge commercial activities, which are governed by statute under an existing 

MOU. 

Commercial visitor services most often will be expected to occur in groups. These uses may occur 

year-round on the refuge. They may be conducted on existing public use trails and overlooks and at 

times inside the Wildlife Center. It is not expected that uses will occur on closed areas of the refuge, 

unless specifically authorized and approved by the refuge manager. 

An SUP will be required for all uses by organizations and/or individuals wishing to collect fees for 

services, regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status, with the exception of Friends of the Refuge. 

Friends of the Refuge fundraising and/or fee collection for providing programs will be governed by 

existing the MOU and/or partnership agreements between the Service and the Friends of the Refuge, 

except when the refuge manager determines that a proposed use falls outside the scope of any 

agreement. In such a case, an SUP will be required. In all cases, the refuge manager will require that 

any organization (including Friends of the Refuge) and/or individual requesting to charge a fee for 

visitor services complete a written request that includes the activity type, date(s) and time(s) 

requested, group size, purpose of visit, proposed fee structure, where the activity will occur, and 

other details determined necessary by the refuge manager. 

The refuge will have the option to accompany any group on their activity to assess program quality, 

adherence to refuge regulations and SUP stipulations, and safety guidelines. The refuge may also 

provide training and/or materials to requestors to ensure that program participants and visitors are 

receiving high-quality information and services. 

Refer to the Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility section in this document for more 

information. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the commercial visitor services program as envisioned under the CCP 

are displayed in the following table. These costs are to perform, review, and administer proposals and 

SUPs, and monitor those SUPs during the proposed action. With assistance from Friends of the 

Refuge, volunteers, and other partners, the refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support 

this use. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

General Stipulations 

 Stipulations in the CDs for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation and 

for environmental education apply to commercial visitor services. 

 Visitors are restricted to designated trails, sites, or facilities as determined by refuge staff. 

Use is open daily from dawn to dusk. 

 All refuge rules and regulations apply, including group size and management, and safety 

guidelines. 

 Commercial photographers/videographers should ensure proper credit is given to the refuge 

and the Service. 

 Collection of natural objects such as plants, animals, minerals, antlers, and cultural resources 

is prohibited. 

 If disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge will 

limit uses in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure 

that high-quality habitat for wildlife feeding, resting, and breeding is maintained. 

 The refuge may provide training and/or materials to requestors to ensure that program 

participants and visitors are receiving high-quality information and services. 

Special Use Permit 

 An SUP will be required for all commercial visitor services. Guiding for hunting and fishing 

is not allowed on the refuge. 

 Fee-based activities conducted by Friends of the Refuge will require approval by the refuge 

manager as governed by MOUs and/or partnership agreements. 

 A standard permit form stipulating dates, times, and locations of use will be made available 

prior to the visit. 

 SUPs for areas open to the public may be granted on a case-by-case basis or for up to 1 year, 

at the refuge manager’s discretion. 

 Special permission requests to closed habitat/wildlife sanctuary areas or other special 

considerations (e.g., access to the refuge after normal public visitation hours, setting up 

temporary equipment, requiring additional resources or staff) will require an SUP and permit 

fee, and may be granted on a case-by-case basis with no renewal. 

 The SUP will be required to be readily available while conducting the permitted use on the 

refuge. 

 Requests must demonstrate a means to enhance education, appreciation, and/or understanding 

of the refuge and the Refuge System. Failure to abide by any part of the SUP or regulations 

will be considered grounds for immediate revocation of the permit and could result in denial 

of future permit requests. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-75 

 Refuge can deny use for any reason such as to minimize crowding, avert conflict with other 

activities/visitors, and, if disturbance is excessive, the refuge reserves the right to scale the 

use appropriately. 

 The refuge will have the option of accompany any group on their activity to assess program 

quality, adherence to refuge regulations and SUP stipulations, and safety guidelines. 

Justification: 

By allowing commercial visitor services as an economic use to occur under the stipulations described 

above, it is anticipated that wildlife species, which could be disturbed during the use, will find 

sufficient resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge will not be 

measurably lessened. Additionally, it is anticipated that use of SUPs will provide the refuge a tool for 

managing uses; protecting natural and cultural resources; reducing user conflicts; and mitigating 

disturbance impacts. The SUPs will also create an opportunity for communication and outreach 

between the refuge staff and users to increase knowledge and awareness of refuge regulations and 

ethical behavior. Commercial visitor services will provide visitors an organized and educational 

opportunity to view wildlife safely under the use stipulations. Additionally, providers of commercial 

visitor services may create end products that will provide an educational opportunity to a much 

broader distribution of people. Thus, the use will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

Refuge System mission, or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

______Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2023 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations