Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1), finalized in 2006, outlines the process that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; Service) uses to determine when general public uses on refuges 

may be considered. Priority public uses, previously defined as wildlife-dependent uses under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation), are generally exempt from 

appropriate use review. Other exempt uses include situations where the Service does not have 

adequate jurisdiction to control the activity and refuge management activities. Other existing, 

proposed, or requested public uses are required to undergo the appropriateness screening. 

The policy provides refuge managers with a consistent procedure to screen and document decisions 

concerning public uses, with the use of the following questions: 

a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? 

c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

Uses marked “no” for questions (a) or (b) are not evaluated further. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent 

with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. When a use is 

determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then decide if the use is compatible before 

allowing it on a refuge. 

The following forms show which uses have been determined appropriate and which determined not 

appropriate. Narrative answers for negative findings follow the forms. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Appropriate Use Justification, Attachment 1 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-3 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) 

Use: Bicycling/jogging on the refuge 

Summary: Jogging and bicycling are currently not allowed on the refuge. However, the refuge gets 

occasional requests to allow these uses, including opportunities to connect the refuge with regional 

trail systems. These uses have been determined to be not appropriate at the current time. 

Further explanation of the answers from US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Form 

3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) These uses are not consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) due to the potential for joggers and bicyclists to disturb wildlife or interfer with other 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses. 

(f) While the 2003 refuge environmental assessment (EA) (USFWS 2003a) for the Wildlife Center 

and visitor services facilities addressed several activities and limited trail use to foot traffic only, it 

did not specifically address jogging or bicycling. 

(g) and (h) Due to the urban nature of the refuge, the potential demand for these uses would be very 

high. The amount of oversight needed to adequately carry out this activity would require additional 

resources that are not available with current resources. 

(i) The uses present no benefits to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources and are not thought to 

contribute to the public’s understanding or appreciation of those resources. 

(j) Currently, these uses cannot be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. Animals show greater flight response to humans moving unpredictably than to 

humans following a distinct path. Also, rapid movements by joggers and cyclists are more disturbing 

to wildlife than slower moving hikers. Burger (1981) examined the effects of human activity on 

roosting and migrating birds at a coastal bay refuge along the Atlantic coast. Human activities that 

involved rapid movements or close proximity to roosting birds, such as jogging, even on pathways, 

caused the birds to flush; in comparison, slow-walking bird watchers and people walking on paths 

around ponds did not usually cause birds to flush. 

However, as stated under Objective 10.4 of this CCP (Chapter 2), we will explore opportunities with 

partners to connect with regional trails while ensuring the uses minimize disturbance. At that time, 

we would re-evaluate the appropriateness of the uses. 

References 

Burger, J. 1981. The effects of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

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 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 2 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-5 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Boat access 

Summary: Access to or from the refuge by boat is currently not allowed. However, the refuge 

receives occasional requests to allow this use, including opportunities to connect the refuge with 

future planned water trail systems. This use has been determined to be not appropriate at the current 

time. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(d) No safe facilities currently exist for providing boat access to and/or from the refuge. River banks 

are steep and slippery and create a significant safety risk, especially when rainy or when river levels 

are running high. 

(f) An assessment for provision of a boat launch facility off of Roy Rogers Road was conducted in 

the refuge environmental assessment for the Wildlife Center and visitor services facilities (USFWS 

2003a). This use was examined but eliminated from further study for a number of reasons, including 

considerable resource damage that would occur to construct a boat launch that was safe and 

accessible; impacts to fish and riparian species; and the potential of other jurisdictions to provide 

nearby river access points. 

(g) and (h) Due to the urban nature of the refuge, the potential demand for this use would be very 

high. The amount of oversight needed to adequately carry out this activity would require additional 

resources that are not available now or in future budget and staff projections. Also, construction 

would need to occur to develop a boat launch and this most likely would cause direct resource 

damage. 

(j) Currently the use cannot be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. However, as stated under Objective 10.4 in this CCP, the refuge will “partner with 

interested parties/organizations to identify potential locations for one public river access for 

nonmotorized boats in or near the refuge.” At that time, if a location is identified on the refuge, 

refuge staff would re-evaluate the appropriateness of the use. 

References 

USFWS. 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 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 3 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-7 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial or recreational trapping 

Summary: Commercial and/or recreational trapping does not contribute to the goals of the refuge 

and would require more oversight from staff than is currently available. This use was determined to 

be not appropriate. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) There are no refuge management plans that address commercial or recreational trapping. This use 

is not consistent with the goals and objectives as written in the CCP. The use would significantly 

conflict with wildlife. 

(g) and (h) Current limited budget and staff time would be diverted from priority wildlife-dependent 

public use and management activities to administer commercial or recreational trapping activities. 

Future management of commercial or recreational trapping would not be achievable with existing 

resources. Providing appropriate oversight of the use would exceed existing and future projections of 

budget and staff. 

(i) Commercial or recreational trapping would not contribute to the public’s understanding and 

appreciation of cultural or natural resources. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 4 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-9 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial visitor services 

Summary: 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 non-consumptive uses. These uses 

will occur in areas and facilities that are open to the public and will support the identified wildlifedependent public uses of the refuge. Organizations conducting commercial visitor services will 

require a Special Use Permit (SUP), except for the Friends of Tualatin River Refuge (Friends) for 

which commercial activities are governed by statute under an existing Memorandum of 

Understanding. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below:

(c) As defined in federal regulations (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 29.1), a commercial 

recreational use is a use that generates revenue or that results in a commodity that is or can be sold 

for income or revenue. 

The Appropriate Use policy (603 FW 1) specifically references commercial uses of this kind. The 

policy states that “Commercial uses of a refuge may be considered appropriate if they are a refuge 

management economic activity (see 50 CFR 25.12), if they directly support a priority general public 

use, or if they are specifically authorized by statute.” 

(d) Through SUP review and/or coordination with the Friends of the Refuge group, the refuge will 

ensure that each approved activity is consistent with public safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure 

public safety will be included in the project’s SUP. 

(e) The use is consistent with Goals 10, 11, and 12 of the CCP. Requests will be approved in 

instances where they can provide meaningful public appreciation of natural resources in support of 

the refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation and education programs. 

(j) The refuge will ensure that the activities do not impair existing or future wildlife-dependent 

recreational use of the refuge during individual project review, prior to issuing SUPs and/or 

approvals. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 5 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-11 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative farming on the refuge 

Summary: Cooperative farming is currently allowed on the refuge. Seventy percent of small grain 

croplands (corn, wheat, barley, and oats) are harvested, while 30 percent are left standing, and green 

pastures (clover and hay grass) are harvested and mowed at less than 4 inches in the fall for grazing 

waterfowl. Cooperative farming is an interim management tool used to control invasive plant species. 

This use has been determined to be appropriate. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) Cooperative farming is consistent with Goal 7 in Chapter 2 of the CCP. Cultivating and 

maintaining small croplands helps control non-native invasive species such as reed canarygrass and 

Himalayan blackberry prior to restoration of native habitats. 

(f) The use is ongoing on the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units of the refuge as an interim 

management tool prior to restoring acquired lands. 

(g) Cooperative farming is conducted by local growers who incur all costs associated with growing 

and harvesting crops. The cooperator is responsible for all aspects of farming including site 

preparation, seeding, application of any fertilizers or herbicides, harvesting, and any follow-up work 

necessary to remove the crop or prepare the field for the following year. Cooperators are required to 

leave a share of crops as determined by a cooperative agreement. 

(i) As mentioned in the description of the management direction in Chapter 2 of this CCP, 

cooperative farming contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

resources by providing public use and focus on habitat restoration. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 6 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-13 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Dog walking and training 

Summary: Dog walking and training have been determined to be not appropriate due to wildlife 

disturbance and lack of a contribution to the refuge’s cultural or natural resources. This use is not 

considered a wildlife-dependent use. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) The amount of disturbance that would be created by these uses is considered inconsistent with 

other goals and objectives in the CCP. 

(i) These uses are not likely to contribute to public understanding of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. The uses are not likely to be beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, and 

could be detrimental to those resources. 

(j) It is likely that these uses would degrade the quality of the visitor experience and would impair 

existing wildlife-dependent uses. Dogs elicit a greater response from wildlife than people on foot 

alone (Hoopes 1993; MacArthur et al. 1982). The presence of dogs may flush incubating birds from 

nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity 

in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). For mule deer in 

Colorado, the presence of a dog resulted in a greater area of influence, alert and flush distance, and 

distance moved than when a pedestrian was alone (Miller et al. 2001). Many of these authors 

indicated that dogs with people, dogs on leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced 

disturbance reactions from their study animals. Indirectly, domestic dogs can also potentially 

introduce diseases and transport parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). 

References 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

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

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 

Keller, V. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in an 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58:213-228. 

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. Clinton. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Joslin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana chapter, Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Yalden, P.E. and D. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers (Pluvialis 

apricarious). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-15 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 7 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Geocaching 

Summary: Geocaching, also known as letterboxing, is an outdoor activity in which participants use 

a global positioning system (GPS) device or other navigational technique to hide and seek containers 

called “geocaches” or “caches.” When physical placement is not involved and instead participants 

take a photograph of themselves in front of the defined feature or record some information about 

such a feature, the use is known as “virtual geocaching.” This appropriate use determination covers 

only physical geocaching. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below:

(b) According to 50 CFR 27.93, abandoning, discarding, or otherwise leaving any personal property 

in any national wildlife refuge is prohibited. 

Due to the negative finding on (b), the use was not evaluated further and is considered inappropriate. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-17 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 8 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito and disease vector management 

Summary: In the interest of human health and public safety, mosquito and disease vector 

management has been determined to be an appropriate use to help control the spread of mosquitoborne diseases. 

Further explanation of the answers from USFWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) Mosquito and disease vector management is consistent with the management direction described 

in Chapter 2 of this CCP. With the spread of mosquito-borne diseases across the country, refuges 

have come under increasing pressure to manage mosquito populations that are bred or harbored 

within refuge boundaries. The refuge will refer to the interim guidance for refuges that the Director 

of the Service has produced until the Service policy document is finalized. 

(f) This is the first time the use has been formally proposed. 

(g) The use will be manageable within available budget and staff. Monitoring and control of target 

mosquito larvae will be conducted by the Washington County Mosquito Control District (District). 

The District will be responsible for staffing and expenditures for sampling and pesticide applications. 

Refuge staff resources will be needed to review annual proposals, prepare SUPs, and monitor District 

personnel to ensure compliance. 

(h) Future mosquito and disease vector management will be conducted by non-refuge staff with 

minimal refuge staff oversight. 

(i) Providing information on mosquito-borne diseases is beneficial to the public. Arboviral 

(arthropod-borne viral) diseases are a potential concern. These include West Nile virus, western 

equine encephalitis, and St. Louis encephalitis. 

(j) The impacts of mosquito monitoring and treatment would be localized and temporary. The 

treatments and monitoring will be conducted in areas closed to public use, meaning they would likely 

not conflict with any wildlife-dependent public uses in the future. Any mosquito control undertaken 

will have minimal impact on any priority wildlife-dependent public use program. The disturbance of 

wildlife by District staff is minimized to the extent practicable by restricting access to sensitive areas 

and by controlling the type of access. The impacts anticipated from the logistical activities resulting 

from the proposed monitoring and treatment actions on wildlife are minimal. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-19 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 9 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-20 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research and monitoring 

Summary: Research and monitoring on refuge lands are fundamentally valuable as they make 

available scientific information for resource management decisions. The refuge receives requests 

from universities and other organizations to conduct scientific research and monitoring efforts within 

the refuge. These uses have been ongoing on the refuge for many years, and are consistent with the 

CCP goals. Research and monitoring are determined to be appropriate uses. 

Further explanation of the answers from FWS Form 3-2319 is provided below: 

(e) Research and monitoring are consistent with Goal 8 of this CCP. Conducting research and 

monitoring studies will provide the refuge with the best science with which to conduct refuge 

operations. Determining resource status and evaluating progress toward achieving objectives is 

essential to implementing adaptive management on the refuge. Research projects on refuge lands 

would address a wide range of natural and public use management issues. Examples of research 

projects include habitat use and life history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical 

methods for habitat management and restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, 

techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions 

and associated habitat/wildlife response, modeling of wildlife populations, and assessing response of 

habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. 

(f) This is the first time these uses have been formally proposed. 

(g) The use will be manageable within available budget and staff. Proposed research and monitoring 

will be conducted by outside entities, not refuge staff. Minimal refuge staff time is anticipated for 

project oversight. 

(h) Future use will not be conducted by refuge staff, but by outside personnel, with minimal refuge 

staff oversight. 

(i) Providing information on current status and trends of fish and wildlife populations is beneficial for 

public education and interpretation. 

(j) Any research or monitoring project would be undertaken such that it would have minimal 

interference with any priority wildlife-dependent public use program.