Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex

64 Maple Street

Burbank, WA 99323

Phone 509/546 8300

Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 2008

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

All photos ©C and G Bartlett Photography
 Vision for the McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Stretching along the bend in the middle Columbia River where the waters of the Snake and 

Walla Walla Rivers join the Columbia, the McNary National Wildlife Refuge links a network of 

diverse habitats stretching dozens of miles from Richland, Washington, to the Wallula Gap and 

beyond. The Refuge’s shrub-steppe, basalt cliff, riparian, river islands and aquatic habitats will 

be managed to fulfill the needs of native fish, wildlife, and plants. By actively restoring habitat, 

controlling exotic species, and enhancing existing habitats and resources, the Refuge will serve 

as an anchor for biodiversity and a model for habitat restoration and land management. 

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

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

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

migratory and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds using the Refuges each year. Extensive 

corridors of riparian and floodplain habitat will be restored and enhanced for nesting and 

migrating neo-tropical songbirds. Management and enhancement of the Refuge’s waters, 

shorelines, channels and bays will contribute to the needs and recovery of endangered salmon 

and steelhead passing through and rearing in Refuge waters. By reaching out to neighbors and 

building strategic partnerships, the Refuge will seek new and innovative ways to conserve 

and protect fish and wildlife resources along the entire stretch of river. 

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

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

range of high quality recreational and environmental education programs, build Refuge support, 

and attract visitors. Encouraging an understanding of and appreciation for the Refuge and the 

mid-Columbia River environment will be a focus of the McNary Refuge for generations to come.

Disclaimer 

CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, 

and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service's best estimate 

of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially 

above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and 

program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing 

increases, operational and maintenance increases or funding for future land acquisition.
McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Prepared by: 

Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

64 Maple Street 

Burbank, Washington 99323 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Planning, Visitor Services, and Transportation 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

Northern pintail – Dave Menke/USFWS 

McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

i

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

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

1.2 Summary of Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 1-1 

1.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives.......................................................... 1-3 

1.4 Establishment History and Purposes of McNary Refuge ..................................................... 1-7 

1.5 Future Refuge Plans.................................................................................................................... 1-12 

1.6 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities......................................................................................... 1-12 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.1 Considerations in Refuge Planning ........................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 General Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................................... 2-4 

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

migratory waterfowl ................................................................................................... 2-6 

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

shorebirds..................................................................................................................... 2-9 

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

by protecting, maintaining, or increasing suitable habitats.................................. 2-12 

Goal 4. Provide a diversity of high quality wetland habitats for the benefit of 

migratory birds and other wetland plants and animals......................................... 2-15 

Goal 5. Provide high quality riparian habitats for the benefit of nesting and 

migrating birds, fish, riparian plants, and other riparian wildlife ....................... 2-18 

Goal 6. Protect the integrity of the biological resources of the river islands .................. 2-21 

Goal 7. Conserve and restore the plants, animals and shrub-steppe community 

representative of historic Columbia Basin habitats............................................... 2-23 

Goal 8. Protect and maintain the ecological integrity of talus, outcropping, and cliff 

habitats for natural levels of species diversity........................................................ 2-28 

Goal 9. Visitors and local residents enjoy, value, learn about, and support the Refuge 2-30 

Goal 10. Hunters appreciate and experience a variety of quality hunting opportunities 2-34 

Goal 11. Anglers experience abundant opportunities to catch fish while appreciating 

the Refuge .................................................................................................................... 2-37 

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

ecology and management of McNary National Wildlife Refuge.......................... 2-39 

Goal 13. Manage cultural resources for their educational, scientific, and cultural 

values for the benefit of present and future generations of Refuge users and 

communities ................................................................................................................. 2-41 

Appendices 

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

Maps

Map 1 Vicinity Map 

Map 2 Refuge Boundary and Land Status 

Map 3 Habitat Management Actions under Final CCP 

Map 4 Public Use Features under Final CCP 

Map 5 Overall Hunt Area 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii

Map 6 Main Habitats and Ecotypes 

Map 7 Key Waterfowl Use Areas 

Tables

Table 1-1. McNary Refuge Units – Status and Acreage .............................................................. 1-11 

Table 2-1. Summary of CCP Actions ............................................................................................... 2-4 

 Great blue heron / USFWS 

Great blue heron, USFWS 
CHAPTER 1. Introduction 

 

 

Three American Avocets Landing - © Tim Bush 

McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-1

1.1 Introduction 

When first encountered by Lewis and Clark and early settlers in the Pacific Northwest, the 

Columbia River was enormous, wild, and seemingly uncontrollable. Yet for all its enormous flows, 

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

found that agriculture was nearly impossible in most of the hot, arid Columbia Plateau (Dietrich 

1995). 

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

Grand Coulee Dam. When it was completed in 1941, it was–at that time–the largest concrete 

structure ever built anywhere in the world. Successful construction of it and the other initial 

Columbia River dams led to increased confidence and enhanced expectations for development of 

the water and hydroelectric resources in the basin. Within a few decades, more than 400 dams 

had been constructed, including 11 run-of-the-river dams on the mainstem, and hundreds of major 

and modest structures on tributaries. These dams tapped into a large portion—21 million 

kilowatts—of the Columbia's generating capacity. The Columbia River is now considered the 

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

McNary National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established subsequent to the authorization of 

McNary Lock and Dam on the mainstem of the middle Columbia River, as part of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System. McNary Refuge is located upstream of the McNary Lock and 

Dam, on waters of the impounded Columbia River known as Lake Wallula, and on adjoining 

uplands, near the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland (together known as the Tri-Cities). 

Map 1, the Vicinity Map, shows the major features within the vicinity of the Refuge. Map 2 shows 

the Refuge’s boundary and units. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes land to be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for 

wildlife protection purposes. McNary Refuge was established directly as a consequence of the 

Coordination Act requirements for dams, and as such is often spoken of as a “mitigation” refuge. 

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

1.2 Summary of Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for McNary National Wildlife Refuge sets forth 

management guidance for the Refuge for the years 2007-2022, as required by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This document is based on the McNary and 

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (US FWS 2007), hereon referred to as the CCP/EA or the final CCP/EA. The final 

CCP/EA revises a Draft CCP/EA (US FWS 2006) that was made available to the public 

(approximately 700 persons and organizations), and members of partner agencies and other 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

governments including States and Tribes, in January, 2007. The document was posted on the 

Refuge’s website and local media were notified. Public open house meetings were held to allow 

members of the public to review the draft and talk with members of the staff and planning team 

about the preferred and other alternatives. Comments received were analyzed and are presented 

in Appendix L of the final CCP/EA, together with Service responses. 

The McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (US FWS 2007) was signed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Pacific Region Regional Director in May 2007. The CCP will implement Alternative 2, which, as 

modified after public comment, was approved as the preferred alternative under a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), also signed by the Regional Director in May 2007. The FONSI 

noted that this alternative best achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

the purposes, vision, and goals for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges; maintains and restores the 

ecological integrity of habitats and populations on the Refuges; addresses the important issues 

identified during the scoping process; addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the 

Refuges; is consistent with scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered 

species recovery; and facilitates appropriate priority public uses compatible with the Refuges’ 

purposes and the Refuge System’s mission. 

This CCP provides reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving the Refuge’s shrubsteppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats, for the long-term conservation of native plants 

and animals and migratory birds. The Refuge will emphasize control and reduction of weeds and 

improvement of riparian, shrub-steppe, island, and cliff habitats. It identifies appropriate actions 

for protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of the river islands, the Refuge’s 

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

use the Refuge, and threatened, endangered, or rare species. The CCP also provides guidance for 

maintaining or improving high quality public use programs in wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). Finally, 

the CCP provides guidance for non-wildlife dependent uses, including horseback riding, beach 

use, and boating; addresses strategies for illegal uses on Refuge lands, including off road use and 

trash dumping; and provides goals and strategies for better protecting cultural resources. A 

Washington State pheasant augmentation/ release program will be phased out in two years. 

Disturbance to island resources will be reduced through closure of all beach use on Refuge 

islands. 

In July 2007, after the FONSI was signed and the Final CCP/EA approved, the Service and the 

Corps signed Amendment No. 2 to their Cooperative Agreement DACW68-4-00-13. The 

amendment revised the premises under the agreement by removing Madame Dorion Memorial 

Park (Madame Dorion Park), Crescent Island, Badger Island, Foundation Island, lands and 

waters in the area known as the Villard Ponds, the delta at the mouth of the Walla Walla River 

and nearby associated lands, and the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan 

lands known as the Cummins property including south shore fisherman access and shallow water 

areas of the Columbia River up to an elevation of 340.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) except 

lands and waters within the Cooperative Agreement boundaries. The agreement returned these 

areas to Corps management, substantially shrinking the boundary of McNary Refuge (see Section 

1.4 (E)). 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-3

In November 2007, the Congress passed P.L. 110-114, the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007 (WRDA). Section 3164 of WRDA included a directive for transfer of administrative 

jurisdiction for lands managed under the cooperative agreement DACW68-4-00-13 from the 

Secretary of the Army (Corps) to the Secretary of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

In addition, the WRDA bill included specific direction to the Service for the Cummins property 

and Madame Dorion Park. These areas had been administratively removed from the McNary 

Refuge under Amendment 2, but the WRDA did not acknowledge this, instead, the WRDA 

specified that: 

• Retention of credits under the Compensation Plan for the “Cummins property” shall be 

retained by the Secretary of the Army, and any future management change at that 

property shall require approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

• The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall continue operation of the Madame 

Dorion Park for public use and boater access. 

In discussion with refuge staff, Service management, and Department of the Interior solicitors, it 

became clear that the Congress likely did not possess the updated language of Amendment 2 to 

the cooperative agreement prior to the House and Senate conference on the final version of the 

WRDA on August 1, 2007. Therefore, the management changes that had occurred between the 

agencies in July 2007 were not acknowledged in the WRDA. 

Discussions between the agencies are ongoing as to what this means for future management of 

McNary Refuge. In the meantime, this stand-alone CCP is being presented for the same McNary 

Refuge boundary area as was analyzed in the Final CCP/EA. In other words, all lands and waters 

that were being managed by the Service as McNary Refuge through May 2007, including the 

Cummins property, Madame Dorion Memorial Park, the Wallula Delta, Villard Ponds, and the 

Islands, are still included in the scope of this CCP. 

1.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives 

 

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

principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages 

the 96 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 548 national wildlife 

refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. More than 36 million 

visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental 

education and interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges. 

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

international treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS or Refuge System) and the designated purposes of a refuge as described in 

establishing legislation, executive orders, or other documents authorizing, establishing, or 

expanding a refuge. The hierarchical relationship of these documents in regards to refuge-specific 

planning and management are illustrated in Figure 1. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-4 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

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

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

Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k4) as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and 

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

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

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

the Refuge System. 

A. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

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

Administration Act undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) amended the Refuge System Administration Act in 

1977, by including a unifying mission for all refuges to be managed as a system, identifying a new 

process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and requiring each refuge to be managed 

under a comprehensive conservation plan, developed in an open public process. 

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

Applicable Federal laws and executive orders 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

Refuge Purposes 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission*/Goals/Policies 

Ecosystem Vision/Goals/Objectives 

Refuge Vision 

Refuge Goals 

Refuge Objectives 

Refuge Strategies 

Developed or revised 

as part of the CCP 

process

 

 Projects Developed as part of 

a CCP or in Stepdown Management 

Plans.

* Established by law 

As amended, the Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the 

conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as 

ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are 

maintained. House Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘...the 

fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-5

come first.’’ Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health are critical components of 

wildlife conservation. As explained in section 1.5B of the Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy, “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and 

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

that existed during historic conditions.” 

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Act requires the Service 

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

Additionally, the Act identifies six wildlifedependent recreational uses (these are 

commonly referred to as the “Big Six”). These 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. Under the Act, the Service is to 

grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses 

special consideration in the planning for, 

management of, and establishment and 

expansion of units of the Refuge System. In 

addition, when determined compatible on a 

refuge-specific basis these six uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or 

occurring on a refuge. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent 

public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, Refuge Managers must evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

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

occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or 

continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use 

is one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. The authority to 

make the determination is delegated to the Refuge Manager. Updated compatibility 

determinations for existing and proposed uses for McNary Refuge are in Appendix B of this CCP. 

The Refuge Administration Act also requires that the CCP must be developed with the 

participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public play a role in guiding 

alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and can play a role in selection of the 

preferred alternative. 

B. Other Laws, Policies, and Orders 

Many other laws govern the Service and management of Refuge System lands. A list and brief 

description of each can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. In addition, over the last few years, the 

Service has developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s Orders to reflect the mandates 

and intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the Biological Integrity, 

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

“Big Six” 

The six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses identified under the Refuge System 

Improvement Act: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation. These uses receive 

enhanced consideration over other uses 

in planning and management. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-6 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

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

Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses (605 FW 1); and the Director’s Order for Coordination and 

Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. These and other policies can be found at: 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/ nwrpolicies.html. During CCP development, these broader 

laws and policies and Refuge System and ecosystem goals and visions must be considered. 

C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

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

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” 

National natural resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include 

migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and 

certain marine mammals. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces federal 

wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish 

and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs. 

D. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: 

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

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

the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). 

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and 

Purposes Policy (601 FW1), are: 

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

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

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

ranges. 

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

significance and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

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

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

education and interpretation). 

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

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-7

E. Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose 

The purpose(s) for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge 

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

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

land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding the refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

purpose(s) of the addition. 

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

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

supersede the Refuge System mission. 

1.4 Establishment History and Purposes of McNary Refuge 

A. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

McNary Refuge was originally established under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667e, March 10, 1934, as amended 1946, 1958, 1978 and 1995). 

This Act requires consultation with the Service and the States’ fish and wildlife agencies where 

the “waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under a 

Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of “preventing loss of 

and damage to wildlife resources.” In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes 

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

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

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

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

regulations adopted by the Secretary for the conservation, maintenance and management of 

wildlife resources thereof, and habitat thereon, under plans” approved jointly by the Secretary 

and the head of the agency exercising primary administration of the areas. General plans may 

also include the transfer of project lands to a state for management. Lands having value to the 

National Migratory Bird Management Program may be made available without cost directly to 

the state agency having control over wildlife resources. 

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

other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-8 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

dependent.” The Cooperative Agreement/General Plan associated with the McNary and Umatilla 

Refuges provides more detail about the Refuges resource values. 

B. McNary Dam Authorization 

 

Congress authorized the construction of McNary Dam at River Mile 292 in 1946, under Public 

Law 14, 79th Congress, 59 Statute 10, for the primary purposes of navigation, power development, 

and irrigation. The purpose “conservation of wildlife” was added to McNary’s project purposes by 

Public Law 732, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 1080, 16 USC 661 et seq. 

 

C. 1953 General Plan 

The McNary Dam flooded about 39,000 acres of river 

bottomlands for 61 miles upstream of the dam. As part of 

the responsibilities identified in the Coordination Act, the 

Secretary of the Army, with the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Directors of the Fish and Game Departments for 

the States of Oregon and Washington, signed a General Plan in 1953 which set aside various 

wildlife lands as encouraged under the Coordination Act, including the original McNary Refuge, 

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

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

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

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

are referenced in this document. Specific language relative to wildlife management and public 

uses was included for each of the seven areas. With a few exceptions, the language is open-ended 

enough to be interpreted as recommended strategies to be pursued in perpetuity, but not 

mandated. The specific details follow. 

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

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

Island, and Hanford Islands Units, formed the original McNary National Wildlife Refuge. The 

plan noted that both areas “have particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird 

Management Program.” 

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

includes the following statements: 

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

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

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

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

enhancing waterfowl habitat. 

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

accordance with state laws and regulations. 

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

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

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

The 1953 General Plan identified 

seven areas of land “for the 

conservation, maintenance, 

and management of wildlife, 

resources thereof, and its 

habitat thereon.” 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-9

fishlife, waterfowl and upland game birds” and were initially placed under the State of 

Washington’s management through a cooperative agreement. It is important to note the term 

“multiple use” was used at the time for describing different fish and wildlife values, not recreation 

or commodity use. Two of these five areas are now managed by the Service as part of McNary 

Refuge. 

Wallula Unit: This unit, originally identified in the General Plan as Area Number 3—Walla 

Walla River Wildlife Area, was noted for having extensive shallow water areas well adapted for 

waterfowl habitat development. Specific statements from the General Plan follow: 

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

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

waterfowl production and stimulate production of upland game birds. 

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

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

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

• Peculiar value as a wildlife demonstration and educational area. 

Two Rivers, Peninsula, and Burbank Sloughs Units: These units were identified as Area 

Number 4—Columbia River Wildlife Area—in the General Plan. Specific language from the 

General Plan includes the following statements. 

• Emergent aquatic vegetation may develop. 

• There are several excellent locations for creation of sub-impounded or isolated water areas 

suitable for fish production. 

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

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

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

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

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

1955 Cooperative Agreement: After the General Plan was finalized, a cooperative agreement 

among the same parties was signed in July of 1955. It transferred administrative control of 2,849 

acres of land to the Service under the terms of the General Plan. Minor supplements and 

modifications were made to the cooperative agreement in August 1963 and May 1965. In 1969, the 

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

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

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

public use management. 

D. McNary Master Plan 

As mentioned above, the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units were not included in the General 

Plan. These lands were withdrawn for dam project purposes, which are navigation, power 

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

section above. The only other details available for these lands are found in the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineer’s (Corps) Reservoir Master Plan for dam project areas. The Reservoir Master Plan 

was first published in July 1952, revised in 1964, with a comprehensive revision published in 1982. 

It is not an original establishing or authorizing document and cannot be interpreted as being at 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-10 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

the level of a “purpose” as defined under Refuge System policy; however, the 1982 plan did 

provide land use allocations which help provide insight into the intent for the various project 

lands. The Stateline, Juniper Canyon, and Wallula Unit lands west of Highway 12 were 

designated as “Moderate Wildlife Management,” defined as “lands that are valued for fish and 

wildlife management, but will not sustain intensive management practices . . . Moderate 

management lands should be continuously available for low-density recreation activities such as 

hiking, primitive camping, hunting, fishing, nature study, nature photography, bird watching, and 

other related activities.” (McNary Master Plan 1982) 

E. 2000 Cooperative Agreement (as updated by 2007 Cooperative Agreement extension) 

Two areas fronting the Columbia River south of the city of Burbank were originally set aside 

under the General Plan of 1953 and were known as the Walla Walla River Unit (now called the 

Wallula Unit) and Columbia River Unit (now known as the Two Rivers and Peninsula Units). 

These units were managed by the State of Washington until 1987, at which time the State 

relinquished its management control to the Corps, who managed the areas from 1987-2000. In 

2000, a cooperative agreement was signed by the Service and the Corps which permitted the 

Service to assume management authority of these areas and additional Corps lands, including the 

areas known as Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, Wallula, Juniper Canyon, and Stateline 

Units (US DOA and US DOI, 2000). 

Items of particular interest in the 2000 cooperative agreement, and relevant to lands managed as 

part of the McNary Refuge today, include the following clauses: 

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

areas...hereinafter referred to as the Premises, for the purpose of development, 

conservation and management of recreation and wildlife resources thereon in accordance 

with the General Plan and under the authority of the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended.” 

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

Cooperative Agreement in accordance with its Comprehensive Conservation Plan...” 

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

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

agreement: 

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

legislation be sought to authorize transfer of these Premises to the Service by fiscal year 

2002, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. This interim agreement will terminate 

when primary ownership is transferred to the Service.” 

In 2007, this cooperative agreement was amended for a period of 15 years, to expire January 13, 

2022. Amendment No 2 removed some of the areas from Service jurisdiction that had been 

included in the 2000 cooperative agreement, specifically, Madame Dorion Park; Crescent, Badger, 

and Foundation Islands; lands and waters in the area known as the Villard Ponds; the Wallula 

delta and nearby associated lands; the Cummins property including south shore access and the 

Columbia River up to an elevation of 340.5 feet above MSL. Negotiations and signing of 

Amendment No. 2 occurred subsequent to the completion of the final CCP/EA. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-11

As described above in Section 1.2, the Congress then passed the WRDA. Section 3164 of WRDA 

included a directive for transfer of administrative jurisdiction for lands managed under the 

cooperative agreement DACW68-4-00-13 from the Secretary of the Army (Corps) to the Secretary 

of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service). 

In addition, the WRDA included specific direction to the Service for two sites (Cummins property 

and Madame Dorion Park). These areas had been administratively removed from the McNary 

Refuge under Amendment 2, but the WRDA did not acknowledge this, instead it specified: 

• Retention of credits under the Compensation Plan for the “Cummins property” shall be 

retained by the Secretary of the Army, and any future management change at that 

property shall require approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

• The Director (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) shall continue operation of the Madame 

Dorion Park for public use and boater access. 

Other than these specifications, the WRDA bill did not include any other language pertinent to 

Refuge management direction. Hence all transferred lands with the exception of Madame Dorion 

Park are interpreted as assuming the original purpose of McNary Refuge as specified under the 

General Plan of 1967. 

F. Other parcels 

Small pieces of McNary Refuge were also added by purchase under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

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

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

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

G. Unit Sizes 

As depicted on Map 2, McNary Refuge includes seven separate units (not including the Hanford 

Islands Unit, which is evaluated under the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP). These 

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

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

Unit Name Management Authority Unit Acres 

McNary Headquarters Fee title/Lease 2,960.40 

Burbank Sloughs Administrative Jurisdiction 430.63 

Juniper Canyon/Stateline Administrative Jurisdiction 1,692.38 

Peninsula original (all land and water includes 

Badger, Foundation, and Crescent islands) 

Administrative Jurisdiction 

7,838.80 

Strawberry Island Administrative Jurisdiction 135.74 

Two Rivers Administrative Jurisdiction 344.01 

Wallula Administrative Jurisdiction 2,264.04 

Total Acreage (excluding Hanford Islands Unit) 15,666.00 

 *Acreages calculated from GIS analysis of the mcn_bnd coverage, modified as necessary to divide units.
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-12 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

1.5 Future Refuge Plans 

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

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

provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for Refuge program areas but 

may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will be 

developed for individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down 

plans require appropriate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Action of 1969 

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

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

develop and/or update following completion of this CCP. The step-down plans should be founded 

on the management goals, objectives and strategies outlined in the CCP. The Integrated Pest 

Management Plan should address coordination with all other Federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies, and neighboring private landowners, to effectively combat the spread of invasive species. 

1.6 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

A. Issues Addressed in the CCP 

The following issues were addressed in the planning process. 

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

the Refuge’s shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff/talus habitats, many of which are highly 

degraded by invasive plants and animals? How can the Refuge best prevent wildfires, particularly 

those that arise regularly from trains that cross many miles of the Refuge numerous times each 

day? What are the best methods for maintaining productivity and diversity in wetlands, when 

natural hydrologic fluctuations no longer exist? What other actions should the Refuge take to 

sustain and restore priority species and habitats over the next 15 years? 

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

including provision of cropping areas and sanctuary areas, be utilized at the Refuge? What role 

shall the Refuge play in providing wintering waterfowl habitat and hunting areas within the MidColumbia basin? 

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

How shall the Refuge best manage habitat for long-billed curlews? 

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

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

steelhead? Should backwater areas be restored? What actions can be taken to protect and 

restore habitat values for other declining species? 

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

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

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

managed to prevent their increase? 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-13

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

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

ensure a quality experiences for Refuge visitors? 

Camping and other Non-wildlife Dependent Uses: Shall the Refuge continue to offer additional 

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

and beach use, and horseback riding? What facilities and program support should be offered? 

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

resources? 

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

2006, the Refuge Complex managing McNary Refuge lost 75% of its law enforcement capacity. 

How can the Refuge better prevent a variety of illegal uses on Refuge lands, including dumping, 

ATVs, target shooting, and vandalism? 

B. Issues outside the scope of the CCP 

Hanford Islands: Many comments were received on the Hanford Islands, with public opinions 

regarding summer beach use on the islands varying greatly. The issues and management of the 

Hanford Islands Unit is addressed as part of the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP (2008). 

Columbia River Hydropower Operations: Operations of the Columbia River hydropower 

system are not within the scope of this CCP. Minor changes in pool level may be recommended 

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

modifications of operations at McNary Dam are outside the scope of this CCP. Ongoing litigation 

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

this occurs, many CCP actions may require review, analysis, and amendment. 

References 

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

York, NY. 

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

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

Project No. 88-12, Portland, OR.. 

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

Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation Success. Second 

Edition, June 2000. 

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

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

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

Development, Conservation and Management of Wildlife Resources within the Reservoir 

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

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

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

September 25, 1969. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-14 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

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

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

Signed and finalized July 3, 1969. 

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

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

and finalized January 13, 2000. 

US DOA and US DOI. 2007. Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement between the 

Department of Army and the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

No. DACW68-4-00-13. Signed and finalized July 13, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges: 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges: Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Portland, OR. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 2. Management Direction 

Columbia River Sunset - © Lyn Topinka 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-1

2.1 Considerations in Refuge Planning 

In drafting the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), the planning team reviewed and 

considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for 

managing the Refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 

and 6 of the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). As is appropriate for a National Wildlife Refuge, 

resource considerations were fundamental. House Report 105-106 accompanying the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states "...the fundamental mission of our 

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first." The team also 

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

scientific recommendations for species and habitats. 

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

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

nonprofit groups, and community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were 

considered during CCP development. Details of public involvement are located in Appendix A of 

the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). Appendix L of the final CCP/EA contains public comments on 

the Draft CCP/EA and the Service’s responses (US FWS 2007). 

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

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

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

passage. In 2005, a court injunction directed the Corps to spill water at several Columbia and 

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

several Snake River dams and “all flow above 50,000 cubic feet per second” from July 1– August 

31 at the McNary Dam. In practice, this meant that the reservoir level was reduced close to the 

minimum operating level of 335 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at McNary Dam, dramatically 

lowering flooded wetland acres on McNary Refuge. The final biological opinion may contain a 

provision to make summer spill an annual event. This could dramatically change summer habitats 

and recreational opportunities on McNary Refuge. However, management direction does not 

assume that summer spill will be an annual event, because it is unknown at this time if such a 

strategy will become part of normal dam and fish management along the Columbia River. 

The planning team considered allowing hunting of wildlife species other than deer, waterfowl, 

migratory birds, and upland game birds; such as cottontail rabbit, cougar, bobcat, coyote, fox, 

raccoon, turkey, and crow, which is permitted by State law in other areas of Washington. These 

activities were not included in the CCP due to conflicts with year-round public safety, resource 

protection, inconsequential populations, and/or seasons outside of existing waterfowl seasons. 

The planning team considered the appropriateness of providing opportunities for various 

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

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

camping, beach use, and personal watercraft. Based on the Service’s Appropriate Refuge Uses 

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

FWS Form 3-2319 in Appendix K of the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-2 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

2.2 General Guidelines 

 

A summary table is presented on page 2-4. This table summarizes the key elements of the CCP. 

Following the summary table, detailed descriptions of the goals, objectives, and strategies are 

presented. Map 3 displays the Habitat Management actions under the final CCP/EA. Map 4 

displays the Public Use facilities under the final CCP, and Map 5 shows the overall Hunting and 

Sanctuary areas under the final CCP. 

In addition to the specific actions listed in the objectives and strategies, the CCP will be 

implemented under the following general guidelines. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability: 

Actions will be implemented over a period of 15 years as 

funding becomes available. Project priorities are in 

Appendix D of the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). 

Refuge Fire Management: Fire Management Plans (FMP), and accompanying NEPA 

documents and Endangered Species Act consultations, were finalized for the Refuge in 2001. Fire 

management actions will continue to be guided by the direction set forth in the FMPs. 

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

interest in the Refuge will continue. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

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

coordinate and consult with on a regular basis regarding issues of shared interest. However, 

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

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

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

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

seeks assistance from Tribes in both Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) related issues. 

State Coordination: Similarly, the Service will continue to maintain regular discussions with 

the Washington and Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife. Key topics for discussion will be 

the Columbia Basin Waterfowl Management Plan, colonial nesting birds, wildlife monitoring, big 

game management, hunting and fishing seasons and regulations, and endangered species 

management. 

Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships: Volunteer opportunities and partnerships will 

continue to be supported and are recognized as key components of the successful management of 

public lands and vital to implementation of Refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in 

times of declining budgets. 

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

Revenue Sharing Program will continue according to the established formula and subject to 

payments authorized by Congress. Payments made to local counties in 2005 are listed in 

Appendix D of the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). 

Actions will be implemented 

over a period of 15 years as 

funding becomes available. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-3 

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

Refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for 

safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs and is incorporated in the 

Service Asset Management System. 

Management of Minor Recreational Uses: Minor recreational activities are occasionally 

pursued on the Refuge. Such recreational activities not specifically addressed in this CCP may be 

allowed on Refuge lands if the Refuge Manager finds the activity does not conflict with wildlife or 

habitat objectives. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities: The 

Service will actively participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future industrial and 

urban development, contamination, and other potential concerns that may adversely affect Refuge 

and wildlife resources, and habitats. The Service will cultivate working relationships with 

pertinent county, State, and Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential 

developments; and will utilize outreach and education as needed to raise awareness of Refuge 

resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Maintain the Refuge’s Waterfowl Sanctuary in Support of Mid-Columbia Basin 

Planning Efforts: Waterfowl sanctuary is an area that is closed to hunting and significant 

disturbance from other public uses to provide important resting and/or feeding areas for 

waterfowl during the hunting season. Security, indicated partly by the acres of sanctuary area 

provided during hunting season, was listed as a key ecological attribute supporting waterfowl. 

There is public support for maintaining “large concentrations” of waterfowl, as they have been 

important for hunting and viewing users. However, Refuge sanctuary must be considered within 

the wider scope of Pacific Flyway and/or Region-wide area closures and numbers of birds 

wintering in the Lower Columbia Basin. Defining the role and extent of such sanctuary areas is a 

major component of the Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan for the Columbia Basin of 

Oregon and Washington (Lloyd 1983). It is presently being re-written and updated through a 

partnership that includes WDFW, ODFW, Yakama Indian Nation, the Corps, and the Service. 

McNary Refuge will continue to manage waterfowl sanctuary in accordance with open and closed 

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

will make adjustments if needed, in accordance with the waterfowl plan being developed. 

Vegetation Inventory and Condition Ranking: A vegetation inventory was begun during 

the summer of 2005. Map 6 displays the preliminary results from the vegetation inventory. 

Ground-truthing from randomly-selected sites is still incomplete. When finished, it will be used to 

complete an inventory map to the Alliance level (as defined by the National Vegetation 

Classification System) for all vegetation polygons. In addition, the data can be used to rank 

habitat conditions according to criteria outlined in the objectives. Further refinement of the 

condition classes may occur. 

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

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-4 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify 

and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and 

the Refuge System Mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision 

broadly reflects a refuge’s purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory 

requirements, and larger-scale plans. Goals define general targets in support of the vision, 

followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving 

the goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools/actions to accomplish objectives (USDI 2002). 

The goals, objectives, and strategies for McNary Refuge over the next 15 years under the CCP 

are described in detail below. The goal order does not imply priority; priorities are assigned in 

Appendix D of the final CCP/EA (US FWS 2007). Some objectives will help achieve multiple goals 

but are listed only once, for brevity’s sake. Table 2-1 summarizes the main CCP actions by topic. 

Table 2-1. Summary of CCP Actions 

Key Themes/Issues Summary of CCP Actions and Outcomes over next 15 Years 

Waterfowl 

Croplands: 

 Total Acreage 

 Share to Refuge

600 acres 

25% 

Grain Availability over Season 

and During Emergency 

Weather Conditions 

120 acres scheduled for staged mid-winter (post-hunting season) 

knockdown, and 35 acres for late season knockdown. Emergency 

knockdown under severe weather conditions. 

Moist Soil Management: 

 Total Acreage 

 Floodup for Early Migrants

203 acres 

10-20 acres flooded by 9/15 

Shorebirds 

Foraging Area: 

 Mudflats on Columbia River 

 Alternate Foraging Sites

20-acre increase for migration. 

Alternate sites at moist soil units. 

Curlew Upland Habitats Existing habitat maintained and suitable nesting and foraging 

habitat increased by 25% on inactive former croplands. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Salmon Rearing Habitats Protect and where feasible enhance backwater and side-channel 

habitats. 

Inventory Rare Species not 

Monitored by Other Agencies 

Undertake inventory. Specific habitat or population management 

strategies determined in step down plan. 

Wetland and Deepwater Habitats 

Shallow Marsh Management: 

 Open Water Areas Created 

 Emergent Invasives Cover

43 acres/year 

<20% 

Elimination of Carp Eliminated at least 1 wetland 

 Riparian Habitats 

Nesting Habitats Improved 31 acres/year 

Cottonwood Developed 5 acres/year 

Islands and Cliffs 

Waterbird Populations and Habitat maintained to support a diversity of island-nesting birds and 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-5 

Coordination colonies. Continue coordination with partners on monitoring, 

research, and management of Refuge colonies of salmonid- and 

smolt-eating birds. 

Reduce Disturbance to Island 

Wildlife to Protect Nesting and 

Breeding Areas 

Existing island closures to be enforced. No beach use on Refuge 

islands. 

Protection of Rocky Habitats No mining, collection or extractive activities are permitted on any 

natural rocky features. Conduct baseline plant and animal inventory. Protect raptor nesting sites and provide “Big Six” uses only.

Shrub-Steppe Habitats 

Improve Existing Habitats 59 acres/year 

Restore Habitats Restore up to 300 acres of shrub-steppe habitat currently occupied 

by unnecessary roads, mining sites, and inactive croplands. 

Protection from Fire and 

Ground Disturbance 

Active measures taken with partners, public, and contractors to 

reduce fire damage and soil disturbances. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Trails 

Improve Facilities Trail/interpretive improvements at Headquarters and Wallula Units. 

Hunting 

Provide Waterfowl Hunt Types Reservation fee hunting, posts/free roam, and youth hunts. 

Provide Waterfowl Hunt Areas Up to 8,934 acres 

Maintain Sanctuary Areas Maintain existing sanctuary areas 

Upland Bird Hunt Schedule Hunt start time standardized to noon 

Pheasant Releases (McNary) Pheasant augmentation phased out by May 2009 (Service policy 

prohibits nonnative stocking). 

Fishing 

Provide a Diversity of Fishing 

Opportunities 

Maintain diverse opportunities, including State seasonal stocking of 

rainbow trout at Quarry Pond for youth and family fishing. Improve 

parking facilities and access. 

Tournament Fishing Work in partnership with States and others to develop standard 

tournament permit conditions. No tournament access within 1⁄2 mile 

of pelican nest colonies. 

Fishing Outreach and 

Information 

Develop fishing brochure or tear sheets. Install kiosks at one onRefuge and one off-Refuge boat launches. 

Environmental Education 

Number of Students Served Serve 1,500–3,000 students 

Teacher Led Program At least 75% of the classes will be teacher-led. 

Maintain EE Facilities Continue EE program at McNary Environmental Education Center. 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Uses 

Horseback Riding Improve signing, outreach, and interpretive materials. Riders 

allowed on public roads and horseback designated trails. 

Swimming and Beach Use Island beaches closed to all use. 

Law Enforcement 

Illegal Shooting and Dumping Reduce dumping at Burbank Sloughs Unit by 80%. Eliminate target 

shooting. 

Cultural Resources 

Monitoring and Protection Increase with greater survey effort, law enforcement, training, and 

consultation with Tribes. 

Interpretation Programs Develop program in partnership with Tribes and historical societies. 

Bank Stabilization Seek funds to stabilize banks protecting buried resources. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-6 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 1: Manage high quality food 

and sanctuary to support large 

concentrations of migratory 

waterfowl. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective 1a: Provide Crops for Waterfowl 

Maintain 600 acres at McNary for crop production, with 120 acres at a minimum to 170 acres at 

maximum of 170 acres grown as grain (corn preferred), and left standing to benefit trust species 

of waterfowl (mainly mallard, northern pintail, Canada geese, and greater white-fronted geese). 

As part of this acreage, provide a minimum of 300 acres in green feed for waterfowl use during 

winter. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

• Conduct cooperative farming in accordance with guidelines, best practices and acreages 

outlined in the existing McNary Cropland Management Plan. 

• Consider force account farming to increase net food availability if and when appropriate. 

To do so, increase Refuge funding $30,000 annually for force account equipment, supplies 

and staffing and submit a request for $90,000 to develop new irrigation circles. 

• Develop partnership programs to provide incentives and funding to private landowners 

to provide standing corn and other grains off-Refuge. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Farming Compatibility Determination for McNary Refuge.

Rationale: Upland food availability, including the amount of land in corn and available as green 

feed, was identified as a key ecological attribute for waterfowl by the planning team. 

Approximately 600 acres of Refuge lands are currently farmed under cooperative agreements. 

Under the Cropland Management Plans for McNary Refuge (USDI, 1999), croplands are 

managed for the benefit of waterfowl, but many other species benefit (i.e. bald eagles which rely 

on Refuge waterfowl concentrations). Refuge crop shares are generally 25% of what is grown and

are limited to cereal grains, preferably corn, to meet the high energy demands of migrating and 

wintering waterfowl; and green winter forage and cover crops which provide for Canada geese. In

addition, harvested areas provide foods for waterfowl, including waste grains and green forage 

such as alfalfa and grasses. Opportunities to provide natural foods on the Refuge are limited, 

especially for the large concentrations of waterfowl (peaks of nearly 250,000 to 500,000 birds for 

both McNary and Umatilla Refuges combined). The 2003 Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Review of McNary and Umatilla Refuges recommended providing additional corn for wintering 

waterfowl. Increasing corn is limited by the cost of installing irrigation systems, the need to 

rotate crops, and the use of negotiated cooperative agreements with farming cooperators versus 

force account. Substantial increases in funding to both develop and maintain force account 

irrigation circles for corn would provide the best scenario for corn production. Partnerships and 

incentives to area farmers to grow grains is another possibility. 

Waterfowl / USFWS 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-7 

Objective 1b: Extend Time Period Grain is Made Available to Birds. 

• Extend time period grain is made available to waterfowl and provide grains during 

emergency weather conditions. Provide for mid-season and late-season nutritional 

needs of migrating and wintering waterfowl, especially mallard, northern pintail and 

greater white-fronted geese, by scheduling both the cooperative farmer harvest and 

“knockdown” of 155 acres of refuge shares of agricultural grain crops. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Expand knockdown of refuge crop shares both earlier and later in the post-hunting 

season. 

- Post-hunting season (approximately January 18 – March 1): 120 acres total, staged 

knockdown over this time period, if possible. 

- Late season (week of March 1): 35 acres 

• Coordinate with cooperators and/or increase force account crop knockdowns to achieve 

the expanded knockdown schedule. 

• Explore possibility of staging cooperator harvests to provide grains for waterfowl from 

September through December and work with farm cooperators to stage corn harvest 

dates throughout the fall/winter season 

• Consider locating any new crop development in areas where grains could be made 

available throughout the fall/winter season 

• Allow for emergency knockdown during the hunting season if severe weather causes a 

documented need. This action may require closure of hunting due to baiting regulations; 

therefore coordinate with law enforcement and the public. Severe weather is snow or ice 

covering of most local fields and or weather below zero degrees F for an extended time 

leading to generally inaccessible food on surrounding farms and agricultural fields. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Farming Compatibility Determination for McNary Refuge. 

Rationale: Providing grain crops in a staged way throughout the fall/winter season will help 

provide for fall and spring migrants as well as the wintering population of ducks and geese. 

Farm cooperators have traditionally harvested their grain shares as they became available, 

versus staging the harvest to increase waste grain availability throughout the fall/winter season. 

Traditionally the Refuge reserved the majority (85%) of its. share of standing grains to be 

knocked down immediately after the close of hunting season in late January to mid February. 

McNary staff members have noted that in years when the corn crop was knocked down late 

(February-March), more white-fronted geese (early spring migrants) were attracted. Whitefronted geese have increased significantly in recent years, presumably in response to this late 

food availability. The Refuge has occasionally allowed the knockdown of Refuge shares during 

the hunting season when severe weather has threatened waterfowl populations. Refuge 

managers have documented extreme winter weather events covering area fields with ice and 

snow; in such times Refuge corn fields have been mowed to supply the nutritional need for a 

large percentage of Columbia Basin wintering waterfowl and have likely prevented die-off 

events. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-8 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Objective 1c: Increase Size and Availability of Moist Soil Areas 

Add 5 acres to the existing 198 acres of managed moist soil units for the Refuge, and increase 

efforts to provide high production of natural foods favored by mallards and northern pintails, 

such as smartweed (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa spp.) and swamp timothy 

(Crypsis schoenoides). Provide early flood-up, by September 15, on 5 acres of existing moist soil 

units to support early migrants such as northern pintail. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Flood units in fall and follow with a late spring drawdown, properly timed to maximize 

germination and growth of the desired species. 

• Where water and precise water control is available, utilize summer irrigations to keep 

vegetation actively growing (timed to minimize standing water since mosquito larvae 

production period is 5-7 days). 

• Develop 10-40 acres of new moist soil units potentially from the following units: 

McNary’s Unit 3, Two Rivers, and Peninsula. Utilize irrigation water and manage 

piping/pumps as needed. 

• Coordinate irrigations and new moist soil development with local mosquito control 

districts (see West Nile Virus Contingency Plans for the Refuge). 

• Annually provide water for early flood up (by September 15) of 20-30 acres of moist soil 

from the McNary-Dudley wetlands, Wallula Unit wetlands; and any new sites to be 

developed (see above objective 4a). 

• Coordinate timing and treatment of early fall flood-ups with local mosquito control 

districts to reduce risks of mosquito-borne diseases (see West Nile Virus Contingency 

Plan). 

Rationale: Wetland food availability was identified as a key ecological attribute supporting 

waterfowl. Moist soil wetlands use annual water control regimes to promote production of 

annual plants preferred by waterfowl, such as wild millet, smartweeds, swamp timothy and 

goosefoot. Typically this includes a spring drawdown, one to two summer irrigations, and a 

fall/winter flood-up. These wetlands also provide a variety of water depths that support a wide 

variety of waterbird species including shorebirds and wading birds and serve as important 

feeding areas for young waterfowl broods. 

Although not considered typical moist soil management units (due to a lack of direct water 

control), some Refuge areas are already being managed for moist soil plant production. These 

include several wetlands at Wallula Unit. New moist soil areas that could be developed and/or 

managed for moist soil include small wetlands associated with Dudley wetlands irrigation water. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004) lists the long-term trend for northern 

pintail populations as declining. The Refuge could distribute the benefits of moist soil 

management to a greater diversity of waterfowl, including northern pintail, by flooding units 

earlier in the fall. Pintail generally arrive earliest of the waterfowl, with peak concentrations 

sometimes occurring in September. The Refuge has limited ability to control flood-up timing at 

some of the moist soil units. Dudley and other irrigation-dependent wetlands generally have 

irrigation water through mid-October, and could provide smartweed beds to early migrants if 

managed and flooded early. In the past, mosquito breeding and the potential for mosquito-borne 

diseases have limited use of early flood ups. In close coordination and cooperation with local 

mosquito control districts, early flood-up could occur.
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-9 

GOAL 2: Provide secure and productive 

foraging and nesting habitats for a diversity of 

shorebirds. 

 

Objective 2a: Increase Available Delta Mudflat 

Increase the acres of mudflat available for migratory shorebird 

foraging by 20 acres during peak migration periods at McNary 

Refuge’s Walla Walla Delta to benefit shorebird species such as 

black-necked stilt, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, 

dunlin, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Coordinate with the Corps for McNary Reservoir draw downs between 336 and 337 feet 

above mean sea level (MSL) from mid-July to October, and from mid-March to late 

April migration peaks, to expose an additional 20 acres of mudflats for shorebirds at the 

Walla Walla Delta. 

• Monitor and control expansion of invasive plant species and other upland plants onto 

mudflats by increasing chemical and mechanical treatments to maintain and/or increase 

mudflat habitat. 

• Increase use of signing, education, and law enforcement to eliminate illegal trespass on 

the Delta. 

Rationale: Foraging habitat and security were both identified as key ecological attributes for 

shorebirds by the planning team. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation 

Plan (Oring 2004) lists black-necked stilt, American avocet, dunlin, long-billed dowitcher, and 

Wilson’s phalarope as “critically important” species. The Walla Walla Delta is a major 

shorebird migration feeding area for these and other shorebird species, with documented 

annual populations numbering up to 8,600, representing nearly 40 species (International 

Shorebird Surveys, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences). Careful management of this 

area will help enhance and increase the habitat value of this site, supporting goals of the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). Spring and fall drawdowns of the McNary 

pool will create more exposed mudflat during the shorebird migration. Vegetation, including 

purple loosestrife, phragmites, and false indigo, is encroaching onto Delta mudflats. Available 

biocontrols for purple loosestrife may be limited by reservoir fluctuations and wintertime 

inundation. Public use planning can help eliminate illegal uses and trespass. 

 

Objective 2b: Provide Alternate Shorebird Foraging Areas 

Annually provide 8 acres of alternative shorebird foraging areas within moist soil units at 

McNary (Wallula Unit) during the peak of the migration period (August/September) and/or 

when the Walla Walla Delta is unavailable to shorebirds due to high reservoir levels (e.g., 

during boat race week). Objective will benefit up to 40 species of shorebirds documented to use 

the Delta, including species identified as “critically important” such as black-necked stilt, 

American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Long-Billed Curlew - Gary Kramer/ USFWS 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-10 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Determine best time periods for providing alternative foraging sites based on the Corps’ 

projected reservoir levels and peak migration periods. Annually select and prepare 8 

acres of moist soil needing treatment (i.e., disking and invasive plant removal), and 

flood/drawdown these units just prior to projected periods of high reservoir levels. 

Potential sites at McNary include Wallula and Dudley ponds. 

• After disking and where water control is available, flood to a maximum depth of one to 

three inches over the disked area for approximately one week, allowing water to drop 

naturally and provide habitat. 

Rationale: Large numbers of migratory shorebirds often find themselves without adequate 

foraging habitat when the Corps suddenly increases and maintains reservoir levels for an 

extended period. Examples include boat race week and 2- to 4-day increases for special 

shipping/barging requests. Alternative foraging sites nearby could be valuable during such 

events. The availability of alternate sites was identified in a literature review as a key 

consideration for managing shorebird populations effectively (Prindle 2004). Properly timed 

draw downs, disking treatments, and/or irrigations of existing moist soil units will help provide 

more habitats for shorebirds on the Refuge if the Delta becomes unavailable. Potential locations 

include the Wallula moist soil units adjacent to Walla Walla Delta. These alternative mudflat 

shorebird foraging sites will have the side benefit of providing irrigation for the surrounding 

moist soil vegetation that remains untreated. Weedy areas and canary grass portions needing a 

treatment (disking) will be chosen, not good moist soil sections. Remaining moist soil plants will 

be allowed to continue to grow productively, and could produce larger seed heads irrigated. 

Many shorebird experts have recognized the importance of providing alternate sites, especially 

along river systems (EDAW 2004). The timing will have to be precise to provide habitat during 

the projected high water periods, requiring close coordination with the Corps. Irrigations will 

also have to be conducted with shallow water and short time periods to prevent mosquito 

breeding. Under current operations, the Delta should continue to expand, and if properly 

managed, may someday qualify as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Regional 

Site (supporting greater than 20,000 shorebirds per year). 

Objective 2c: Maintain or Increase Long-billed Curlew Habitat 

Maintain long-billed curlew nesting and foraging habitat, and increase existing curlew nesting 

habitat by 25% on appropriate sites at McNary Refuge to benefit this species. Restored 

habitats should be characterized by shorter vegetation (<24 cm), preferably dominated by a 

mixture of downy brome and Sandberg's bluegrass, intermixed with bare ground and even forb 

height (Denchant et al. 2003; Pampush and Anthony 1993). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Continue to identify and quantify existing curlew nesting and foraging areas to 

determine location and amount of habitat on the Refuge. 

• After habitat has been quantified, increase existing acreage at the Refuge by 25% by 

restoring inactive, formerly cultivated lands, to curlew foraging and nesting habitat. 

Potential areas include: McNary Fields #9 and #4; and the Kohler Field. 

• Focus management in curlew use areas toward maintaining and restoring native 

shortgrass habitats, using planting, burning, and mowing methods. In native shortgrass 

areas, management may include removing encroaching shrubs or weeds that are not 

contributing to curlew preferred habitat features. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-11 

• Monitor populations and/or nest success using transects or other standard techniques. 

• When conducting restoration efforts under objectives 7a and 7c, avoid planting shrubs in 

curlew focal areas. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan’s list of High Priority Shorebirds (US FWS 

2004) lists the long-billed curlew as a “globally highly imperiled” species in need off protection 

measures. Long–billed curlews have been assigned the highest score (5 on a 1-5 scale) for 

conservation efforts under criteria established by the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird 

Plan (Oring et al. 2004). The Intermountain West Region is considered an area of critical 

importance (compared to other regions globally) for their conservation. The Umatilla Refuge 

and surrounding lands serve as a key breeding area for long-billed curlews. An accurate 

estimate of the curlew’s current abundance on Umatilla Refuge is not available, but range-wide 

survey efforts completed in 2004 showed curlew numbers on Umatilla Refuge to be higher than 

all other sites surveyed that year. There is likely an opportunity to increase the number of 

breeding curlews. McNary has limited curlew habitat with small numbers at the following 

locations: Dudley Wetlands, Kohler Unit, and Wallula South Unit. Because curlews tend to avoid

habitats with dense vegetation cover (both vertical height and horizontal density), the Refuge 

could manage for short vegetation during the curlew nesting season (mid-March to mid-May). 

Curlews favor areas with a mosaic of shortgrass and downy brome, typically within one mile of a 

water source (Pampush 1980; Pampush and Anthony 1993). 

Objective 2d: Conduct Shorebird Studies 

Conduct or facilitate research studies to better understand Refuge shorebird ecology and 

management to benefit high priority species including the American avocet, black-necked stilt, 

long-billed curlew, western sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, and dunlin. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Evaluate existing literature and consult with experts regarding macro invertebrate prey 

for shorebird species breeding and migrating at the Refuge. Conduct inventory of 

macroinvertebrates at the primary and alternate foraging sites to determine and 

compare species presence and densities. 

• Correlate 1990-present reservoir levels (Corps) with shorebird abundance data 

(Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences), with a focus on the peak migration 

periods and presence of high priority species. 

• Assess connectivity between known shorebird migration sites in the lower and midColumbia basins. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan’s list of High Priority Shorebirds (US FWS 

2004) lists the western sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, and dunlin as a 

“high concern” species in need off protection measures. Further, long-billed Curlew, American 

avocet, and black-necked stilt nest on the McNary and Umatilla Refuges and are considered 

species of critical importance according to the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan 

(Oring et al. 2004). All of these species use the Walla Walla Delta and other Refuge sites during 

migration. More data is needed to document forage base available to shorebirds using Refuge 

habitats, especially the Walla Walla Delta. A greater understanding of the area’s shorebird 

ecology will help support goals in the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan and will help 

the Refuge establish baseline information on shorebird use and ecology at these sites. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-12 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 3: Contribute to the 

recovery of endangered, 

threatened, and sensitive species 

by protecting, maintaining or 

increasing suitable habitats. 

Objective 3a: Salmon Backwater Enhancements 

Protect, and where feasible restore or enhance backwater sloughs, side channel connections, 

shallow water marshes, or embayments that support juvenile salmon, to benefit federally listed 

species/stocks, including Snake River Chinook, sockeye, and steelhead; Mid-Columbia 

steelhead; and Upper Columbia Chinook and steelhead. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Assess the biological benefits (both waterfowl and fisheries) of restoring side-channel 

fish habitats at Burbank Sloughs, Casey Pond, and the Peninsula Unit at McNary 

Refuge, and coordinate with State/Federal/Tribal fishery biologists. 

• If deemed likely to provide biological benefits to listed salmon, prepare technical 

feasibility report and funding requests for salmon backwater enhancement projects. 

• Evaluate and develop strategies to maintain and/or enhance connectivity between 

Columbia River and backwater slough areas. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Seven federally-listed species/stocks of anadromous fish, including Snake River 

Chinook, sockeye, and steelhead; Mid Columbia steelhead; Bull trout; and Upper Columbia 

Chinook and steelhead, spend portions of their life history either in, or adjacent to, Refuge 

waters and shorelines on the Snake, Columbia, and Walla Walla Rivers. The Hanford Reach 

contains the last major mainstem spawning habitat in the Columbia River System for fall 

Chinook salmon, and up to 80% of the total run of adult fall Chinook salmon returning to the 

Columbia River to spawn in the Hanford Reach (Dauble and Watson 1990). The Casey Pond 

area and other shorelines and embayments on the Refuge, serve as nurseries for young 

developing fall Chinook (John Easterbrooks 1999, pers. comm.). Conserving and restoring 

salmon and steelhead populations is an important regional goal, because of their cultural, 

historical, and ecological values. Salmon are an important food source for numerous other 

wildlife species. Sixty-seven wildlife species of the Pacific Northwest, including many known to 

inhabit the Refuge, have been shown to have a “strong” or “recurrent” relationship with salmon 

(Cedarholm et al. 2000). Protection and/or restoration of these shallow habitats may also benefit 

waterfowl as embayments and backwater areas are now less common than historically. A 

previous project proposal to Bonneville Power Administration for a restoration project at 

Peninsula received high scores but went unfunded. 

Salmon - © Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-13 

Objective 3b: Conduct Inventory and Establish Habitat/Population Management 

Strategies for Certain Rare Species 

Identify potential habitat areas and conduct a targeted inventory (primarily focused on 

determining presence/absence and indication of breeding) for the following species or species 

groups. If species are present, document population information. After determining status, 

determine which, if any, habitat or population management strategies should be undertaken for 

the benefit of rare species. This determination may be made in a step-down plan. 

• Washington ground squirrel (OR–Endangered. WA–candidate. Federal–Candidate). 

• Burrowing owl (WA–Candidate. Federal–Species of Concern). 

• Peregrine falcon (Federal–Species of Concern). 

• Golden eagle (WA–Candidate. Federal–No Status). 

• Swainson’s hawk (OR–Sensitive. Federal–No Status) 

• Ferruginous hawk (WA–Threatened. Federal–No Status). 

• Native Amphibians and reptiles (Varied status). 

• Bats (Varied status). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Follow established and current protocols for surveys of rare species/species groups. 

When and where possible, participate in regional partnerships and conform to 

recommended timeframes. 

• Alert heritage programs and key State biologists of any new or expanded locations as 

well as the results of any negative searches. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Rare species were selected for inventory primarily due to their sensitive status 

(threatened, endangered, etc), and because they may occur on either McNary or Umatilla 

Refuge, possibly providing opportunities for habitat restoration or enhancement that could help 

to further their recovery. Specific information is summarized below. 

• Washington ground squirrel. McNary Refuge lies within the historic range of the 

Washington ground squirrel. The species is likely extirpated from the Refuge and its 

historical occurrence is unknown, however, the Refuge could possibly provide habitat for 

any proposed future re-introductions. 

• Burrowing owl. This species has seen a dramatic loss of habitat in the local area due to 

agriculture or urban development. No Refuge nesting areas are currently known. 

• Peregrine falcon. At least one pair is known to nest on or near McNary Refuge at the 

Stateline Unit. The Refuge provides foraging habitat. 

• Golden eagle. Golden eagles are reported to have nested in the cliff habitat on the 

Stateline Unit of McNary Refuge. 

• Swainson’s hawk. This species nests in the local area and has historically nested at 

McNary Refuge, but current status on the Refuge is unknown. 

• Ferruginous hawk. Nests locally, though status is unknown on the Refuge. Basalt cliffs 

on McNary’s Stateline Unit may provide nesting habitat. 

• Native amphibians and reptiles. Little information exists on the occurrence and 

abundance of native amphibians and reptiles both historically and following Refuge 

creation. Paralleling a global decline by at least a third of the world’s amphibians 

(Stuart et al. 2004), many of the Refuge’s native amphibian populations thought to be 

present at Refuge establishment appear to be dwindling or absent. The causes of 

declines at the Refuge (and elsewhere for other amphibians) are not fully known, but 

may be related to loss of habitat, changes in hydrology, habitat fragmentation, nonnative 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-14 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

predatory fish and bullfrog introduction into historic habitats, drought, mortalities on 

roads, environmental contaminants, disease, and other factors (McAllister et al. 1999). 

The Refuge needs to improve its knowledge of potential and occupied habitats for native 

amphibians and may be able to play a role in reestablishing of declining populations. 

• Bats. Virtually no information exists on bats occurring on either Refuge. Further 

information will help Refuge staff understand species richness and diversity. 

We did not include here other species such as the bald eagle, American white pelican, and 

salmonids, for the following reasons. 

• The Corps already collects winter population information on bald eagles at McNary 

Refuge. The Refuge also tallies bald eagles observed during aerial waterfowl surveys 

and contributes data to the annual Oregon Winter Eagle Survey. American white 

pelican: Population numbers are “rough” but data is collected by researchers as part of 

their work on the piscivorous fish research. 

• American white pelican counts are estimated by researchers from aquatic and aerial 

counts. Once additional information is available on each of these species or groups 

population status on the Refuge, the staff can better determine appropriate habitat or 

population management objectives and strategies. Such detail may best be developed in 

a step down Habitat Management Plan. 

• Endangered salmon stocks and other Columbia River System salmon are regularly 

monitored and studied by the WDFW, Corps, Tribes, Service, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries program. Data is available for Refuge use. 

Objective 3c: Conduct Baseline Inventory for Small Mammals 

Conduct a one-week long baseline inventory in approximately three shrub-steppe priority areas 

to collect initial data on the presence, abundance, and diversity of small mammals. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Map Quincy and Warden soil types, and an overlay with areas of less-disturbed 

vegetation cover likely to be suitable for the Washington ground squirrel, to prioritize, 

search areas for this species. 

• Select other areas for survey based on State records and historic reports. 

• Alert heritage programs and key State biologists of any new or expanded locations as 

well as the results of any negative searches. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Small mammals are an important food source for higher level predators, including 

several migratory birds, such as the golden eagle and Swainson’s hawk. In addition, structures 

made by some small burrowing mammals are important nest sites for the burrowing owl. The 

Refuge needs data on the diversity of small mammal species inhabiting Refuge habitats, their 

relative abundances, and locations of highest habitat value. An abundance rating for certain 

small mammals was provided in the McNary Habitat Management Assessment baseline 

inventory (WADFG 1980). Some of the data presented in that report originated in the Columbia 

River System inventory. The Washington ground squirrel, listed as endangered by the State of 

Oregon, is currently thought to be restricted to three populations in Oregon and Washington. 

Suitable soil types may exist on the Refuge. Restoration of shrub-steppe and grassland habitats 

as described in shrub-steppe objectives should also aid in supporting native small mammals. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-15 

GOAL 4: Provide a diversity of highquality wetland habitats for the benefit 

of migratory birds and other wetland 

plants and animals.

Objective 4a: Increase Amount of High Quality Shallow Marsh 

Conduct needed management on 650 acres at McNary Refuge, resulting in an increase in high 

quality shallow marsh acreage available for use by waterfowl and other waterbirds. High quality 

marsh will consist of open shallow marsh habitat with less than a 50% cover of tall persistent 

emergent vegetation (bulrush, cattail) at full pool level, with persistent emergent vegetation 

patches smaller than 10 acres, and no unbroken shoreline patches longer than 300 yards. In 

addition, in managed areas, no more than 20% plant cover in the wetland emergent plant zone 

shall be comprised of the following non-native invasive wetland plants: purple loosestrife, 

phragmites, cocklebur, and false indigo. Conduct needed management at an average rate of 

about 43 acres per year over the life of the CCP. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Mechanically re-open areas that have become vegetated with persistent emergent 

vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, shallow water areas. 

• Mechanically remove longer term mineral and organic deposits that lead to filling and 

wetland loss. 

• Utilize mowing, disking and burning to eliminate vegetation mats and organic material. 

• Utilize surface excavation and shoreline recontouring where appropriate to open 

marshes. 

• Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan (use mechanical, 

cultural, biological, hydro management and chemical methods) to aggressively reduce the 

presence of the five nonnative plants in the wetland emergent plant zone. 

• Inventory plant communities and annually monitor effectiveness of treatments. Control 

any reinvasion by nonnatives; and plant native emergents as needed. 

• Partner with counties for education/weed control along Refuge borders and reduce 

sources. 

• Increase annual funding by $60,000 to address costs of monitoring, biological controls, 

equipment and chemicals used under an Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Rationale: The Refuge was established to mitigate losses of habitat, including wetlands, caused 

by dam building in the Columbia River. Providing a diversity of wetlands is vital to the purposes 

of the Refuge. Yet because of the numerous dams along the length of the Columbia River, and the

specific dam and lock operations encompassing river sections within the Refuge, the natural 

fluvial processes of a free-flowing riverine system have been eliminated. Refuge waters, which 

are now human-managed and relatively constant-elevation reservoirs, alternately support 

lacustrine and palustrine systems, but lack necessary disturbance mechanisms to provide and 

maintain the cyclical aging and renewal processes of wetlands over time. Non-persistent wetlands

and mudflats, for example, are vital to a variety of migratory birds and other wetland animals. 

Heron at Burbank Slough – © Lyn Topinka 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-16 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Both habitat types are mostly nonexistent on the Refuge because of the absence of natural 

disturbance mechanisms. By increasing the number of acres of open shallow marsh through 

artificial means such as mechanical operations or prescribed fire, the Refuge will mimic natural 

processes and provide a diversity of successional stages that increase overall biodiversity and 

prevent wetland loss over time. Benefitting species could include shorebirds, wading birds, rails, 

waterfowl and muskrats. 

Invasive plants (primarily purple loosestrife, phragmites, cocklebur, and false indigo) are 

widespread in the emergent plant zone of most Refuge wetlands, and may currently be as high as 

30-50% of plant cover in certain areas. Altered plant and animal community composition was 

identified as a very high stress to wetland systems. Invasive plants limit native plant production 

and cause impacts to food, nesting, and cover for wildlife. Invasive plants in wetlands reduce 

waterfowl food availability during the migration and wintering periods. Limiting invasive species 

will help the Refuge to comply with county and state ordinances, as well as improve habitat 

values. However, the task is immense, thus a threshold value for invasive plant species was 

established as a reasonable objective over the next 15 years as opposed to a zero-tolerance level. 

Objective 4b: Maintain and Improve Aquatic Bed Habitats. 

Manage wetlands to increase submerged aquatic vegetation cover by eliminating rough fish 

(carp and bullhead). By the end of 15 years, maintain carp-free conditions in at least one of the 

Headquarter’s Wetland Units—2, 3, or 4,—and determine the most effective control methods for 

reducing carp numbers from present level in areas open to the Columbia River (Casey Pond and 

Burbank Sloughs). This will benefit migratory waterfowl (mallard, pintail, lesser scaup, and 

tundra swan), waterbirds (pied-billed grebe), and other native aquatic species. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Conduct initial inventory for submerged plants within two years after CCP is finalized; 

and monitor every five years after that. 

• Obtain bathymetric data for Burbank Slough and Peninsula wetlands on the Refuge. 

• Eradicate carp and bullhead at one or more of the following wetland locations: McNary 

Headquarters Wetland Units 2, 3, or 4 by the end of 15 years. Drawdown these wetland 

areas and if needed utilize rotenone to kill carp and bullhead populations. For effective 

use of rotenone, and facilitation of equipment needs, burn residual vegetation when 

appropriate. Coordinate with WDFW and ODFW on rotenone projects, funding 

initiatives, and partnerships. 

• Experiment with water drawdowns in advance (schedule with the Corps) to determine 

how low water can get, and make any needed changes in water control structures to 

facilitate carp removal and growth of submergent vegetation used by waterfowl. 

• Consider permitting commercial carp and bullhead fishing in areas open to the Columbia 

River (Casey Pond or Burbank Sloughs). 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: McNary Refuge has significant wetland resources that provide habitat for wildlife. 

However, outside of extensive use by waterfowl and other migratory birds, little is known about 

submerged vegetation and other aquatic species inhabiting Refuge wetlands. Carp, which are 

widespread in permanently flooded wetland habitats on the Refuge, are thought to represent a 

high threat to the functioning of the wetland system, due to their impacts on submergent 

vegetation and water quality. Carp uproot and eliminate submerged vegetation, increase 

turbidity (see stress source analysis), and decrease the overall abundance and diversity of the 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-17 

invertebrate community (Miller 2006). Treatments using the natural plant chemical rotenone are 

expensive, but can be more effective if the amount of water to be treated is minimal and carp and 

bullhead are concentrated in a small area. Past rotenone treatments have generally been 

effective, but reintroduction and infestation have occurred at varying rates. This may have 

occurred because adequate water drawdowns did not occur, and/or, all connected pools/sloughs 

were not treated at the same time. Partnering with experienced State fishery program managers 

should increase success rates.
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-18 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 5: Provide high quality riparian 

habitats for the benefit of nesting and 

migrating birds, fish, riparian plants, and 

other riparian wildlife.

Objective 5a: Improve Condition of Riparian Habitat for Nesting and Migrating Native 

Passerines 

Conduct needed management on at least 30% (463 acres) of the total 1,497 acres of priority 

riparian habitat on the Refuge, over the next 15 years, to improve nesting success for native 

riparian passerines such as the Lazuli bunting, yellow warbler, yellow breasted chat, and other 

riparian species identified as Partners In Flight focal species. Needed management is defined as 

a combination of treatments and re-treatments that successfully improve the overall condition 

rating, resulting in a rise to the next highest condition class (poor, fair, good). Conduct needed 

management at an average rate of about 31 new acres per year over the life of the CCP. See 

condition definition ratings below. 

Riparian Tree-Dominated Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class 

Overstory 

Canopy 

Cover* 

Overstory Trees 

Age Classes 

Percent of Native 

Forb and Grass Cover 

Comprised of Natives 

Native 

Understory 

Shrub Cover 

Poor <5 % 1 <25% <10% 

Fair 5-20 % 1-2 25-50% 11-20% 

Good 21-30% Several 51-75% 21-50% 

Excellent 31-60% Several >75% 51-80% 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species 

Bullock’s Oriole (Altman 

and Holmes 2000) 

30-60% Protect large 

gallery cottonwoods 

 

* Native and nonnative cottonwood, peachleaf willow, pacific willow, white alder, etc. 

Riparian Shrub-Dominated Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class 

Percent of Native Forb 

and Grass Cover 

Native Shrub 

Cover 

Shrub 

Height 

Poor <25% <10% 

Fair 25-50% 11-20% 

Good 51-75% 21-50% 

Excellent >75% 51-80 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species 

Other species-specific 

parameters 

Lazuli Bunting 

(Altman and 

Holmes 2000) 

>25% and <70% >25% and 

<70% 

 Interspersion of shrub 

patches and herbaceous 

openings 

Willow Flycatcher 

(Altman and 

Holmes 2000) 

Interspersed 40-80% (patches 

10 square 

meters in size) 

>3 feet 

high 

Patches exceeding 5 acres, 

preferably 20 acres or 

more. Tree cover <30%. 

Banding a Yellow-breasted Chat 

Howard Browers/USFWS 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-19 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Each year, improve native plant cover and distribution within one or more of the seven priority 

areas. While implementing strategies to move blocks into the next higher condition rating, 

consider specific habitat requirements of both tree-dominated and shrub-dominated species. 

The seven blocks follow: 

Area Acres Condition Area Description 

McNary Headquarters Unit 41 Poor Area has some large cottonwoods and willow shrubs, but also 

quite a bit of Russian olive and even a few salt cedar shrubs. 

Burbank Sloughs 279 Poor Woody cover a mix of willow, cottonwood, Russian olive, and 

false indigo. 

Foundation Island 19 Good The island is small but large cottonwood trees are present 

and provide nesting habitat for cormorants and herons. 

Peninsula Unit 125 Fair Large cottonwoods are present and areas of good willow 

cover. False indigo encroaching on shoreline. 

Two Rivers Unit 128 Fair Good willow cover and a number of large cottonwoods. 

Wallula Unit 870 Poor Large cottonwoods and good willow coverage in some areas. 

Much of area (700 acres) burned in Port Kelly wildfire. 

Crescent Island 8 Fair 

Juniper Canyon 

Unit 

27 Good Good willow cover, need more information on understory. 

Trespass cattle grazing could be a problem. 

Total Acres 1497 

• Develop IPM Plan within one year of CCP completion and address control of invasive 

species in riparian understory (reed canarygrass, poison hemlock, false indigo, and 

Russian olive seedlings) and overstory (Russian olive). Existing stands of large Russian 

olive trees will not be targeted unless other multi-layered woody stands exist in close 

proximity. 

• Enhance nesting opportunities within riparian areas by decreasing invasive species using 

weed control techniques (chemical, mechanical, biocontrols) on 5-31 acres of riparian 

habitat per year. 

• Enhance shrub and tree layers within existing blocks of habitat by selective planting of 

native shrubs and cuttings on 5-31 acres per year. 

• Monitor species richness, abundance, and productivity by expanding McNary’s 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival Station (MAPS) to include the Walla Walla 

Delta, and adding point counts and nest searches. Track changes in species richness, 

abundance, and productivity over time, aiming for a 10% increase in species richness and; 

20% increase in passerine productivity from 2005 levels. Implement point counts or area 

searches before and after habitat restoration efforts to document changes in relative 

abundance. Implement migration monitoring in fall and spring in some riparian areas. 

• Reduce browse damage to trees and shrubs using fencing, a hunt program, and tree 

guards. 

• Construct one exclosure in each key riparian area and monitor effects on the herbivory. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Refuge riparian habitats are threatened and/or degraded by the presence and 

dominance of invasive weeds, lack of native shrub components, and altered hydrology. 

Restoration and enhancement efforts are needed to improve overall habitat conditions for 

migratory birds. Photographs dating from the early 1900s suggest that cottonwood dominated 

riparian was not common, and willow dominated riparian shrub communities were present along 

narrow corridors of the river. Ninety-seven native bird species are highly associated with riparian
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-20 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

habitat (Altman and Holmes 2000) and six of these are “focal species.” Data from the MAPS 

station at Wallula show the Lazuli bunting, yellow warbler, and yellow breasted chat (three of the 

focal species) present, but as uncommon nesters on McNary Refuge. Small riparian acreages in 

the arid west provide food and shelter and thus are critical for thousands of birds needing to 

refuel during migration. Migration monitoring could be implemented to document this benefit to 

migrants passing through McNary Refuge. 

Objective 5b: Enhanced Cottonwood Recruitment 

Promote enhanced recruitment (at least 300 stems per acre) and development of cottonwood 

stands on five acres per year at McNary Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Select sites and use managed pool and wetland water levels in concert with soil 

disturbance (disking) to promote more favorable conditions to induce germination of the 

available cottonwood seed source on exposed soils. 

• Request that dam operations make short duration increases in pool levels during the 

summer to irrigate and enhance young cottonwood survival and recruitment at sites. 

• Provide weed control in newly developing cottonwood riparian sites using 

techniques/treatments identified in the IPM Plan. 

• Undertake supplemental plantings of cottonwoods in riparian areas to increase tree 

diversity and density.

Rationale: As the dominant native overstory tree species of mainstem and low elevation 

tributary riparian zones, cottonwood is recognized as a “keystone” species in riparian areas. 

These stands provide important nesting and migrating habitat for migratory birds. Reliable 

cottonwood recruitment is necessary for the perpetuation of cottonwood dominated riparian 

stands. The altered water regime of the Columbia River was identified by the planning team as a

high source of stress, leading to low or altered recruitment of native plants and an altered plant 

community composition in most Refuge riparian zones. Major losses to riparian vegetation and 

ecological function have occurred in response to regulated flows in river systems (Jamieson and 

Braatne 2001). Cottonwood recruitment may be improved, however, by using managed 

pool/wetland levels which mimic natural timing of cottonwood seed dispersal and germination 

(Jamieson and Braatne 2001). Managers have noted extensive cottonwood regeneration after soil

disturbance in managed moist soil units at the Wallula Unit. Recruitment density of about 300 

stems per acre would achieve approximately 12’ by 12’ spacing at the mature stage, assuming no 

mortality. The cottonwood species that is currently regenerating most naturally in the system is 

the plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides). However, when constructing restoration and planting

using cuttings/rootstock, the Refuge will try to use the native black cottonwood (Populus 

balsamifera spp. tricarpa). 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-21 

GOAL 6: Protect the 

integrity of the biological 

resources of the river 

islands. 

Objective 6a: Maintain Waterbird Populations 

Manage river island habitats at McNary Refuge to benefit a diversity of nesting birds (ducks, 

geese, songbirds and shorebirds) and waterbird colonies (gulls, terns, herons, and cormorants) 

at their current population levels. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Increase law enforcement patrols, news releases, and signage to protect island nesting 

birds from disturbance. 

• Manage island substrate and vegetation to ensure that a diversity of nesting habitats for 

colonial waterbirds is available. 

• Monitor size of nesting and waterbird colonies, including Canada geese, mallard, 

American white pelican, Forster’s tern, Caspian tern, and great blue herons; and 

identify potential threats to production. 

• Increase coordination with various agencies, scientists, and others studying island 

resources, and assist their efforts by seeking funding, issuing special use permits, 

helping design study protocols, and monitoring research progress. 

• In response to Endangered Species Act requirements for federally listed salmon stocks, 

consider a range of options to limit piscivorous waterbird depredation, if scientifically 

sound data demonstrates a critical need to limit depredation due to significant impacts 

on salmon survival. If controls are deemed appropriate, a written step-down plan and 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation shall be developed with 

evaluation of the effects to fish and waterbird populations. Actions shall be planned and 

implemented using a multi-agency approach and multiple funding sources. 

• Continue to monitor, measure, and document rates of erosion on all islands. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Canada geese nest on all Refuge islands, as do lesser numbers of mallards and other 

migratory birds. The American white pelican colony (listed as endangered by the State of 

Washington) at McNary Refuge’s Badger Island is the only successful breeding colony in the 

State. Foundation Island provides nesting habitat for great blue heron, double-crested 

cormorant, and black-crowned night heron colonies. Piscivorous colonial nesting birds, especially

Caspian terns, have been identified as having negative effects on salmon smolt survival (US FWS

2005). Double-crested cormorants can consume relatively large numbers of salmonids at certain 

times of the year. Caspian terns nesting on McNary’s Crescent Island number only about 500 

pairs, however, as much as 70% of their diet consists of salmon or steelhead smolts (Antolos et al. 

2005 and Collis et al. 2004). This colony inhabits only a small area of Crescent Island and will 

likely not grow larger as it is surrounded by a gull colony and vegetation. Nesting gull colonies, 

mainly ring-billed and California gulls have increased significantly in the last 20 years. Forster’s 

American pelicans – Art Shine/USFWS 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-22 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

terns have declined as a nesting species, while great egrets have recently expanded into the area.

As conditions continue to change in the larger Basin-wide area due to prey species, human 

recreation/disturbance, management of water/hydropower, and animal and human population 

changes, waterbird populations will continue to change and provide a good barometer of island 

integrity. Erosion of Refuge islands has been documented in the past; however, more recent 

changes in reservoir elevations and pool operations have likely reduced the rate. Any erosion 

that does occur means remaining island acreage becomes more important to wildlife. It is 

important to monitor measure and document changes in island erosion rates. 

Objective 6b: Limit Island Disturbance

Limit disturbance to island habitats, wildlife, and other island resources by enforcing existing 

and new island closures as follows: 

• Strawberry Islands: Existing total closure of Strawberry Islands to public use, including 

beach areas, will be enforced. 

• McNary Islands: Existing total closures of Foundation and Badger islands will be 

enforced. However, Crescent Island will continue to be open to waterfowl hunting. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Increase public education and outreach to notify and inform public about the sensitivity 

of biological resources on the islands and the need for closures to protect birds. 

• Improve and increase island signs as needed. 

• Prohibit fishing tournament access within a 1⁄2 mile of pelican nest colonies. 

• Increase law enforcement patrols, enforce beach closures, and deter use in unauthorized 

areas. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Boating and Fishing Compatibility Determinations as well 

as the Waterfowl Hunting Compatibility Determination for McNary Refuge. 

Rationale: The river islands on McNary Refuge support breeding habitat for several groups of 

species, including colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, geese, ducks, swallows and deer. Wildlife 

species seek out the islands for breeding habitat because of the islands’ relative isolation, 

security, and general lack of mammalian predators. Security was identified as a key ecological 

attribute supporting the islands’ wildlife communities. The islands also have important cultural 

resources; especially Strawberry Island which contains a site in the National Register of Historic

Places. Because of these unique traits, recreational disturbance and recreation-induced habitat 

modification such as accidental fire, has long been a concern. Human use causes direct impact on

the beaches themselves, including direct displacement of geese, shorebirds, and bank nesting 

swallows from potential foraging and nesting habitat. Garbage and human waste present 

ongoing problems. Island closures are necessary to protect biological and cultural resources from

adverse modification. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-23 

GOAL 7: Conserve and 

restore the plants, 

animals and shrubsteppe community 

representative of historic 

Columbia Basin habitats. 

Objective 7a: Improve Shrub-Steppe Condition 

Conduct needed management on approximately 881 acres (or 30% of the 2,694 acres) 

encompassed by seven priority shrub-steppe areas. Needed management is defined as that 

combination of treatments and re-treatments which successfully improve the overall condition 

rating resulting in a rise into the next highest condition class (poor, fair, and good) as outlined 

below. Conduct needed management at the rate of about 59 new acres per year over the life of 

the CCP. See the definitions and habitat condition class ratings below. 

Shrub-Steppe Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition Class Native Shrub 

Cover * 

Understory vegetation 

cover percent native species 

Open Ground Cover 

Poor <5 % <25% native species cover 0 or >75% 

Fair 5-10% 25-50 % native species cover 51-75% 

Good 11-20% 51-75% native species cover 21-50% 

Excellent 21-30% >75% native species cover 10-20% 

Recommended Conditions for Various Target Species 

Other speciesspecific parameters 

Sage sparrow 

(Vander Haegen 

2004) 

10-25% >10% native (exotic annual 

grasses <10%) 

>10 % Shrub height 

generally >20 inches 

Sage thrasher 

(Altman and Holmes 

2000; Vander 

Haegen 2004a) 

5-20% big 

sagebrush, 

clumped 

5-20% (<10% cover exotic 

annual grasses) 

>10% Sagebrush height >31 

inches; <10% cover 

other shrubs; patches 

of 40 acres or greater 

*Target composition for native shrub cover is sagebrush and/or bitterbrush predominant 

Grassland Habitats: Condition Class Categories 

Condition 

Class 

 Grass 

Cover 

Percentage native 

species for all 

herbaceous plants 

(grasses and forbs) 

Open Ground Cover 

Poor 1-10% <25% native species 0 or >80% 

Fair 11-20% 25-50% native species 61-80% 

Good 21-30% 51-75% native species 50-60% 

Excellent 31-60% >75% native species 10-40% 

Sand dock – Howard Browers/USFWS 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-24 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Based on the Following Recommended Conditions for Various 

Target Species 

Other species-specific 

parameters 

Burrowing 

owl (Altman 

and Holmes 

2000) 

Native grass 

cover <40% 

and <16 

inches tall 

 >40% 

including bare 

and/or cryptogrammic crust 

Burrow providers, 660 ft. buffer 

zone around nest burrows with 

no pesticide applications or 

disturbances allowed. 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

(Altman and 

Holmes 2000) 

>15% 

(bunchgrasses) 

Species composition 

>60% of grasses 

present are native 

bunchgrasses 

 Bunchgrass height >10”; native 

shrubs <10%; patches >100 

acres or multiple patches >20 

acres 

Long-billed 

curlew 

(Denchant et 

al. 2003) 

See also 

Colorado PIF 

and Montana 

Bird 

Conservation 

Plan 

 Shrubs or areas of cheatgrass 

intermixed with patches of 

Sandberg's bluegrass.

Shorter vegetation (<24 cm), 

nest density was positively 

correlated with percent cover of 

bare ground and with the 

evenness of forb height. 

Limit grasshopper or insecticide 

use 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

• Each year, improve native plant cover and distribution within one or more of the seven 

priority areas by active planting or seeding appropriate native species. Consider specific 

habitat requirements of both shrub-associated and grass-associated species. Seven blocks 

are as follows: 

Seven priority areas for treatment 

Area Acres Condition Area Description 

McNary 

Headquarters 

Unit 3 

385 Poor Little to no sagebrush or bitterbrush present. Native 

bunchgrass cover very patchy. Undesirable invasives 

predominant in understory. 

McNary 

Headquarters 

Unit 2 

214 Poor Little to no sagebrush or bitterbrush present. Native bunchgrass cover patchy. Undesirable invasives predominant in 

understory. 

Badger Island 39 Good Island has good shrub cover. Data on understory lacking. 

Wallula Unit 

North 

510 Fair Much of the sagebrush and bitterbrush on this area consumed in 

2001 Port Kelly wildfire. An area of good sagebrush cover and 

some bitterbrush that was spared by the fire remains around 

Sanctuary Pond. Sagebrush and bitterbrush seedlings planted 

in fall 2001–sagebrush has good survival, bitterbrush did not. 

Understory vegetation primarily nonnative grasses and forbs. 

Some patchy areas of native bunchgrasses. 

Wallula Unit 

South 

604 Poor Much of the sagebrush and bitterbrush consumed by 2001 Port 

Kelly wildfire. Some patchy areas of good native bunchgrass 

cover, otherwise nonnative plants predominant 

Stateline Unit 743 Fair Scattered tracts along east bank of Columbia River ranging. 

Undisturbed areas have good bunchgrass and/or sagebrush/ 

bitterbrush cover. Areas disturbed by fire and/or grazing have 

little shrub cover and predominantly invasives in the understory. 

Juniper 199 Fair Isolated tract around Juniper Canyon Creek and riparian area 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-25 

Canyon Unit similar to tract on Stateline Unit. 

Total Acres 2,694 

• Conduct follow up weed treatments and/or additional plantings on managed blocks as 

needed. 

• Conduct chemical weed control to reduce cheatgrass and other targeted weeds annually. 

• Initiate integrated pest management by writing an IPM step-down plan by 2008.

Rationale: An estimated 10.4 million acres of shrub-steppe habitat occurred in the state of 

Washington during European settlement (Dobler et al. 1996). By the late 1980s only about 40% 

remained. Locally, Walla Walla County had 33% of the original shrub-steppe habitat remaining 

(Dobler et al. 1996). Most shrub-steppe areas on the Refuge are threatened and/or remain in a 

degraded condition due to invasive plants, wildfire, and poor native plant recruitment/recovery. 

Seven of the larger blocks of shrub-steppe habitat totaling 6,809 acres were selected for the focus 

of shrub-steppe restoration and enhancement activities based on their size and connectivity onand-off the Refuge. These areas were selected partly due to size and current condition, i.e. they 

were already in some form of shrub-steppe rather than in agriculture, roads, or gravel pits. 

Because “shrub-steppe” encompasses a wide variety of different plant communities and structural 

conditions, and management to promote conditions for some of the inhabitants may conflict with 

conditions for other inhabitants, the shrub-steppe target has been subdivided into two sub-types: 

shrub-steppe and grasslands. Shrub-steppe is typified by a higher level of native shrub cover—

areas chosen to be managed for this subtype should be able to achieve >10% mature sagebrush or 

bitterbrush component by the end of 15 years. Grasslands are typified by few or no sagebrush or 

bitterbrush shrubs. Approximately half of the priority shrub-steppe areas should be managed to 

improve conditions for shrub-steppe habitats. The other half should be managed to improve 

conditions for grassland habitats. Though these acreages are relatively small, restoration efforts 

may provide valuable habitat for some shrub-steppe dependent species. 

The team chose to use a 4-tier condition class category system to facilitate the Service’s ability to 

enumerate acres of habitat that might be in less than stellar condition. While achieving good or 

excellent habitat conditions, as described by various species experts, remains an important goal, 

realistically the Refuges will more likely be able to gradually improve habitats to move them 

closer to the type of condition favored by the target species. In addition, using management 

condition categories to track habitats over time will enable more fine-tuned monitoring of Refuge 

habitats and facilitate acreage reporting in the Refuge’s Annual Performance Plan (RAPP). 

The condition classes described were defined by the team after examining the habitat 

requirements of several selected species closely tied to shrub-steppe and riparian habitat types in 

this area. (Each table includes the selected species habitat requirements below the condition class 

categories). Because scientific reports often show slight differences in the habitat requirements of 

different species, the team chose to integrate the main structural habitat requirements of these 

selected species. Finer details, such as proximity to water or patch size, may be described in the 

specific habitat requirement for a selected species, but was not necessarily carried through to the 

broader condition class descriptions, because these often differ species by species. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-26 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Objective 7b:  Protect and Restore Burrowing Owls  

Pending the results of inventories listed above in 3b, protect and restore suitable habitats for 

the benefit of burrowing owls. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Investigate the possibility of transplanting ground squirrels in appropriate areas on the 

Refuge. 

• Experiment with the creation of artificial burrows adjacent to existing nesting areas. 

• Identify historic sites that may have been occupied by colonies on the Refuge. 

• Restrict public access to known and historic breeding sites. 

• Prepare materials and messages for public outreach and education efforts to raise 

awareness of burrowing owls and the threats posed by urban development, including 

shooting/poisoning/control of burrowing mammals. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Burrowing owls are declining within the states of Oregon and Washington and may 

be at risk on the Refuge. Small numbers have historically nested on the Refuge, but there has 

not been an extensive inventory.

Objective 7c: Protect Shrub-Steppe Habitats 

Over the life of the CCP, protect and/or maintain 2,796 acres at McNary Refuge encompassed 

by the seven priority shrub-steppe interest areas, by minimizing ground disturbance, reducing 

fire starts, and implementing emergency stabilization and rehabilitation of wildfire impacts. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Incorporate standards and procedures for maintenance and management activities to 

minimize activities that disturb soil surfaces. 

• Increase fire crew availability and readiness for initial attack by maintaining three fire 

engine crews at McNary. 

• Reduce likelihood of fire ignitions from recreational activities in priority shrub-steppe 

areas through education, interpretation, and careful planning of recreational facilities. 

• Increase coordination and cooperation with rural fire districts and expand mutual aid 

agreements. Provide education and assistance to rural fire district staffs. 

• Coordinate with railroad companies to alter train operations, if possible, to reduce fire 

ignitions. Investigate and document fire starts and seek compensation from railroads 

for restoration needs where ignitions can be tied to train operations. 

• Implement emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions following wildfires; 

including soil stabilization, cultural resource protection, nonnative invasive species 

control, native grass/shrub seeding and planting, and effectiveness monitoring 

• Continue to inventory and control nonnative invasive plant species (cheatgrass, 

starthistle, knapweed) based on IPM plans and procedures. 

Rationale: Remaining shrub-steppe habitats are threatened and/or remain in a degraded 

condition due to an extensive history of wildfires, poor native plant recruitment/recovery 

following fires, and ground disturbance activities (roads, trails, heavy equipment). 

Limiting/eliminating ground disturbing activities and reducing fire starts and/or decreasing fire 

sizes through fire suppression and aggressive initial attacks, will benefit habitats. Fire regime is 

one of the key ecological attributes affecting the viability of the shrub-steppe system. A less 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-27 

intense and less frequent fire regime was present historically. The current more intense and 

frequent fires create a cycle of habitat modification and degradation that needs to be reversed. 

In addition, better post-fire rehabilitation and stabilization project planning and on-the-ground 

success is needed. 

Objective 7d. Restore Shrub-Steppe Habitats by Decreasing Roads and Development 

Restore native shrub-steppe habitats on suitable lands such as those occupied by unnecessary 

roads, waste sites, gravel pits and cropland no longer suitable or needed for crop production. 

Restore up to 300 acres on the Refuge during the life of the CCP. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Close all remaining unnecessary and unauthorized roads or trails in the Burbank 

Sloughs and Peninsula Units, as well as other Refuge sites as needed. Restore up to 25 

acres of shrub-steppe on these areas. 

• Restore to native shrub-steppe habitat 75 acres of former mining and gravel sites 

adjacent to Humorist Road, and other minor sites as needed. Remove large rock piles, 

level all areas, and restore native shrub-steppe habitat by controlling nonnative plants 

(i.e. cheatgrass and kochia) prior to seeding areas with site-appropriate native grass 

seed or planting native shrubs. 

• Restore native shrub-steppe plant communities on approximately 200 acres of fallow 

croplands which are not needed or are unsuitable for crop production as identified on 

Map 3. 

• Use chemical weed control treatments and fall native grass seed drilling when possible. 

• Use site monitoring, multiyear follow-up treatments, and selective planting of shrubs 

and forbs in all restoration treatments. 

• Consider needs of high priority wildlife species including: burrowing owl, long-billed 

curlew, and ground squirrels in site plans. 

Rationale: Shrub-steppe habitats can be restored on many areas, including areas occupied by 

unnecessary and unauthorized roads, especially in the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units. 

The existing spider-like web of trails is the result of illegal and/or unfettered public access over 

many years of management with little enforcement presence. Public use of these illegal roads 

and trails increases the potential for wildfire, garbage dumping, and further fragmentation of 

shrub-steppe habitat. Once access is restricted to designated roads, all unnecessary roads can be

restored to shrub-steppe habitat. It is estimated that 25 acres of roads, trails, and waste sites 

could be closed and restored. In addition, there are approximately 200 acres of abandoned 

former agricultural lands in weedy conditions absent of native grasses or shrubs. These lands 

can also be restored using chemical weed control, fall native grass drilling, and selective 

plantings of shrubs and forbs. Former gravel and rock operations off of Hansen Loop Road at 

McNary account for another 75 acres of land for potential shrub-steppe restoration. Because 

much of the restoration will occur on smaller habitat fragments, it is important to carefully 

consider the needs of high priority wildlife species including: burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, 

and ground squirrels in all site plans prior to initiating restoration projects. 

 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-28 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 8: Protect and maintain 

the ecological integrity of talus, 

outcropping, and cliff habitats for 

natural levels of species diversity. 

Objective 8a: Maintain Intact Rock Structures 

Protect and maintain all cliffs, talus slopes, and outcroppings in intact structural condition to 

benefit cliff nesting birds (peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and white-throated swift) and other 

unique species (common night snake, and rattlesnake hibernacula). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Prevent illegal mining or extractive activities on the Refuge’s natural rocky features and 

basalt columns, including collection for home landscaping, through proper signing and 

education. Photograph/document significant areas most threatened by illegal activities. 

• Provide adequate sanctuary for raptor nesting sites, and limit public uses to the Big Six 

uses only, in areas without significant nesting bird populations. 

Rationale: Maintaining the size and composition of rocky habitats was identified as a key 

ecological attribute of the cliff/rimrock/talus and outcroppings target as indicated by cliff 

dominance (high cliffs), the variety of rock features, and the amount of talus with larger rocks and 

deeper masses. The Refuge has received requests for rip-rap and basalt columns, increasingly 

being used in home landscaping, and at least one incidence of theft/vandalism occurred at a 

neighboring Refuge. Signing, law enforcement, and education may help prevent illegal activities 

and theft. The rock outcroppings represent a small portion of Refuge lands, but they provide 

habitat for cliff nesting birds (peregrine and prairie falcons, white-throated swift, and golden 

eagle) and other unique species (common night snake, rattlesnake hibernacula, big-horned sheep, 

and mule deer). 

Objective 8b: Conduct Baseline Inventory of Rocky Habitats

Conduct baseline inventory of plant and wildlife resources inhabiting rocky habitats, with 

particular emphasis on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units. Inventories should focus on 

determining the presence and abundance of birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians, rare plants, and 

any key functional areas such as nest sites or hibernacula. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Pursue cooperative funding and partner contributions for the inventory. 

• Survey and mark the boundary of the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units and fence 

cattle out of protected areas. 

Rationale: The wildlife and plant resources utilizing the Refuge’s rocky habitats have not been 

systematically inventoried. Experts present during the wildlife and habitat management review 

Cliffs – © Lyn Topinka 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-29 

stated that the Juniper Canyon/Stateline cliffs and talus areas are known to provide habitat for 

big herds of mule deer, prairie falcons, white-throated swift, common night snake, big-horned 

sheep, black-tailed jackrabbit, and golden eagle. In addition, there is a known peregrine falcon 

eyrie on McNary Refuge and there may be a hibernaculum at Wallula. There is the potential for 

several species of bats and various reptile, and amphibian species to be present as well. An 

inventory is needed. It is also important to mark the boundary since the zigzag ownership pattern

makes it difficult to discern property lines, and to fence cattle out of protected resource areas. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-30 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 9: Visitors and local residents 

enjoy, value, learn about, and support the 

Refuge. 

Objective 9a: Expand and Enhance Viewing and Trail Opportunities at Headquarters 

Unit 

Enhance and improve wildlife viewing, interpretive, and trail opportunities and facilities at 

McNary Refuge’s Headquarters Unit. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Developing a safe pathway or boardwalk parallel to Lake Road, or develop a new loop 

trail allowing visitors to begin and end their walk at the Education Center. 

• Provide a spur off the north side of the Wetland 4 leading to a new overlook/ interpretive 

point and continuing on to connect to the Walla Walla District Library. 

• Develop a new kiosk/overlook on the north side of the Headquarters overlooking 

Wetland 4. 

• Evaluate connection to Hood Park hiking trail via a proposed underpass at SR 124 if 

WDOT constructs a new cloverleaf access from State Highway 12 

• Expand bird list to include all wildlife species, and make it available at the Education 

Center. 

• Enhance viewing opportunities along the south, west and northwest shorelines of Unit 4 

by opening vegetation (i.e. reduce the density of emergent vegetation). 

• Follow all stipulations in the Wildlife Observation and Photography Compatibility 

Determination and Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility 

Determination. 

Rationale: The Headquarters Unit is the most heavily used unit for wildlife viewing, 

photography, and interpretation, and is the centerpoint of the Refuge’s Environmental 

Education program. The current wildlife viewing trail serves all these uses, providing a 

relatively flat two-mile nature walk through native shrub-steppe habitat, along the shores of two 

wetlands, and near the edge of Refuge agricultural fields. However, the trail could be much 

improved with certain modifications. Most pressing is the completion of a loop offering a safe 

return along Lake Road (currently users who wish to loop back to the headquarters must share 

the narrow Lake Road crossing with cars and trucks). A boardwalk could be constructed parallel

to the roadway or through the east side of the slough. Users have also requested enhancement of 

viewing areas along the south side of the slough, which can be provided by opening the dense 

vegetation along the shoreline area. There is an intriguing potential to connect the McNary 

Headquarters trail directly to the Corps Hood Park nature trail and possibly to a regional bike 

trail system through the creation of a SR-124 underpass, as part of a Washington Dept. of 

Transportation Highway 12 improvement project. Doing so could conceivably attract new 

Refuge visitors; however, impacts need to be evaluated. Local connectivity of the Refuge with 

the town will be enhanced by connecting the north end of the trail to the library via a new spur. 

Refuge Birders - © Brenda Shine 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-31 

Objective 9b: Promote Bird Watching at the Wallula Unit

Provide new bird watching opportunities and facilities at the Wallula Unit of McNary Refuge 

with a focus on expanding visitors’ awareness of riparian passerine birds and their habitats. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Sign and develop the Wallula South Wetland 3 trail for bird watching use. Improve and 

expand trail from existing parking area using the old road bed and new dike; add footbridge. The old roadbed has holes and other obstacles, making it user “unfriendly.” 

• Develop interpretive signs for the area focusing on passerine birds and riparian habitat. 

• Sign the Horse Trail on north side of Wallula Unit for use by birdwatchers. 

• Develop a brochure for a new “birding-canoe” trail along the Walla Walla River, 

describing the birds that can be observed along the route. Partner for an off-Refuge 

canoe trail connection to either Pierce Campground or upstream to Nine Mile Ranch for 

canoe put-in, and to the existing boat launch at Madame Dorion Park for take-out. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Wildlife Observation and Photography Compatibility 

Determination and Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility 

Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The Wallula Unit is currently open for public use but is not promoted by the Refuge 

for one of its prime assets–riparian bird habitat. Encouraging existing Refuge wildlife viewers 

(who primarily utilize Headquarters Unit) to use the trails in the Wallula Unit for birding will 

expand Refuge visitor awareness of migratory passerine birds and their habitats and diversify 

visitor experiences. Similarly, defining and advertising a canoe trail along the lower Walla Walla 

River will expand visitor awareness of safe boating opportunities and enhance users’ ability to 

sight and enjoy riparian and aquatic birds and other wildlife. 

Objective 9c: Maintain Certain Areas available to Horseback Riding and Improve 

Horseback Riders’ Awareness of Refuge Riding Areas and Policies 

Maintain two trails as designated for horseback riding and allow horseback riding on open 

Refuge roads. Prohibit cross-country riding. Ensure that horseback riders are provided with 

information to know and understand the reasoning behind horseback riding rules at the Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Continue to allow riding on the Wallula Unit Horse Trail and Peninsula Trail. Assess 

usage of trails by horseback riders. 

• Develop new signs and/or improve existing signs, brochures, or kiosks to inform users 

that horseback riding on the Refuge is limited to public roads and horseback riding trails 

and to explain the reasons for restricting riding to these areas (non-Big Six use, 

nonnative seeds are spread by hoof and through manure). 

• Work with local horseback riding clubs to improve relationships, develop partnerships, 

and promote the “Adopt a Trail” program. 

• Increase patrols and continue using law enforcement to educate and/or cite offenders. 

• Use Friends Newsletters to get the message out to the riding public (Friends Group 

members have a large positive impact in spreading the Refuge message). 

• Follow all stipulations in the Refuge’s Horseback Riding Compatibility Determination. 

Rationale: Horseback riding is popular with local and surrounding riding clubs and horse 

owners. Currently, horseback riding is allowed on existing roads and two designated trails at 

McNary Refuge. Use is seasonal, mostly during the fall and spring. This contingency has 

historically been very supportive of the Refuge and has advocated an “Adopt a Trail” program. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-32 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Objective 9d: Manage Madame Dorion Park as a Day-use Only Site. 

Limit public uses at McNary Refuge’s Madame Dorion Park to day use only with an emphasis on 

the Big Six uses and eliminate public camping. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• After publication of this CCP and in coordination with and review by the Corps, Walla 

Walla County, and owners of the campsite and park at the Pierce Happy Valley 

Campsite, close the campsite at Madame Dorion Park and provide public access as a day 

use area only. 

Rationale: The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114) specified that the 

Director (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) shall continue operation of the Madame Dorion Park for 

public use and boater access. The campground historically present at the site has created 

conflicts with other Refuge goals and objectives. In compliance with Service policies, camping at 

the site was determined to be Not Appropriate during the CCP appropriateness review, and Not 

Compatible in the Compatibility Determination required during the CCP process. During the 

CCP review, the team focused on the presence of an alternative, the privately-owned campground 

(Pierce Happy Valley) located just 4 miles upstream from the Refuge. This well maintained fee 

camping site provides enhanced services over the government-operated campground. The public 

will be better served by converting Madame Dorion Park to a day use only site, reducing law 

enforcement issues associated with camping, and allowing the Refuge to promote wildlife viewing 

and photography at the Park. The existing boat launch will remain open 24 hours a day, and rest 

area facilities will be maintained. 

Objective 9e: Eliminate Illegal Shooting 

Eliminate illegal target shooting in gravel pits at the Juniper Canyon and Peninsula Units. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Install entrance signs on each Refuge unit and clearly sign illegal target shooting areas 

with “No Target Shooting” signs. 

• Clean up debris in target shooting areas, especially at Juniper Canyon. 

• Increase patrols and use law enforcement to educate and deter illegal usage. 

• Coordinate with the Friends Group, the Richland Rod and Gun Club, and other news 

outlets to get the message out to the public. 

Rationale: As an illegal activity that causes disturbance, trash issues, and safety concerns, 

illegal shooting needs to be eliminated. 

Objective 9f: Drastically Reduce Dumping at the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units 

and Involve the Community and Other Refuge Users in Maintaining a Clean Environment 

Reduce the tonnage of dumped material at the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units to <1 ton 

per year, within five years, to increase value of habitat and reduce pollutants. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-33 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Increase present efforts to involve and inform the Burbank community and other 

Refuge users about to reducing dumping. Begin outreach during initial cleanup project 

so the that area is less likely to revert to its former condition, and consider workshops, 

posters, direct letters, contests, school and youth involvement. 

• Research title history to accurately establish boundary at the Burbank Sloughs and 

Peninsula Units. Survey and post the boundary. 

• Define and mark access points and routes, closing and restoring other unauthorized 

routes and access points. Develop one or two main entrance points and sign them 

appropriately as entrances of a National Wildlife Refuge unit. (Also see Objective 7d) 

• Increase law enforcement, signing, and education, to cut down on illegal activity, 

especially dumping. 

• Increase both law enforcement patrols and regular (scheduled) presence on the site by 

all Refuge staff and/or volunteer representatives. 

Rationale: With its complex shoreline fronting the Columbia River behind the small community 

of Burbank, the Burbank Sloughs and Peninsula Units possess a great deal of wildlife habitat 

potential and represent the Refuge’s finest potential bank fishing areas. Currently, the area is 

severely degraded and resources have not been available to improve the site. With its varied 

topography and dense riparian habitat, it has traditionally attracted a variety of illegal uses, 

including dumping, methamphetamine labs, illegal road cutting, off road vehicle usage, etc. 

Because of these illegal uses, many Refuge visitors and staff do not feel safe using these units. 

Eliminating illegal uses, defining access routes, restoring habitat, and creating a sense of 

community pride in the Refuge will all be necessary for this unit to serve as high quality habitat 

for wildlife, for the public to feel safe using the site, and for priority public uses to be the 

dominant uses on the site.

Objective 9g: Increase law enforcement patrols. 

Increase law enforcement patrols to provide increased resource protection and public safety. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Add one new law enforcement officer to provide expanded law enforcement patrols 

throughout the year on the Refuge. 

• Use increased patrols, brochures, leaflets, signing, and news releases to educate refuge 

users and deter illegal public uses. 

• Increase patrols during the hunt season to increase hunter compliance with resource 

and special refuge regulations. 

Rationale: Limited law enforcement capacity during the hunt season was identified by the 

public as a concern. The loss of collateral duty officers in recent years has significantly reduced 

field patrols and officer presence on the Refuge. Hiring a new officer and increasing efforts to 

notify the public of resource and special refuge regulations will help increase resource 

protection and public safety. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-34 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

GOAL 10: Hunters appreciate and 

experience a variety of quality 

hunting opportunities. 

Objective 10a: Provide a Variety of Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities 

Provide a wide variety of waterfowl hunting opportunities at McNary Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Maintain current fee reservation hunting at the McNary Headquarters Fee Area and 

evaluate the need for additional areas. 

• Establish a combination of designated hunting sites (posts) and parking on the north 

side of the Wallula Unit at McNary. 

• Coordinate with law enforcement and the public through news releases and signing if an 

emergency knockdown of cornfields (see objective 1b) is needed during the hunting 

season due to severe weather. Knockdown may require closure of hunting due to baiting 

regulations. Severe weather is snow or ice covering most local fields, and/or weather 

below zero degrees F for an extended time, leading to an inaccessible food supply on 

surrounding farms and agricultural fields. See Objective 1b. 

• Maintain pit blinds on the Peninsula Unit and manage surrounding uplands to promote 

goose use, using mowing and burning. As warranted, address weeds to ensure a more 

palatable browse. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Waterfowl Hunting, Upland Gamebird Hunting, and Other 

Migratory Bird Hunting Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The variety of waterfowl hunting opportunities that are currently offered at the 

Refuge are quite popular and allow people of all abilities to enjoy hunting that suits their needs. 

Fee hunting is very popular at the Refuge (the Refuge has more hunters using fee units than any

of the other units); however, many hunters prefer less regulated opportunities. Fee hunts allow 

hunters to be guaranteed a spot in advance which provides hunters traveling from a long 

distance some security. Fee hunting can also reduce law enforcement needs. However, the 

administrative costs of fee hunts are relatively high, and despite the fee, fee hunts generally don’t

pay for themselves. There’s also a certain loss of freedom for the user–there is a higher 

likelihood of encountering regulation, law enforcement etc. Fee hunts were considered but not 

adopted for the Peninsula area. At some point in the future, if competition for hunting increases, 

other areas may need to be managed as fee hunt units. However, fee hunting is neither 

necessary nor desirable for all units, currently, or in the future. Other methods to reduce 

competition include designated blind sites, which will be available at the Peninsula Unit and at 

the Wallula Unit. Requiring hunters to park at designated posts corresponding to hunting posts 

will reduce conflict over hunt sites, which has been a problem at Wallula Unit. Free roam hunts 

are popular with many hunters and will be maintained at part of Peninsula, Two Rivers, and 

Burbank Sloughs Units. 

Hunter - © Bill Cleghorn 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-35 

Objective 10b: Improve Access for Disabled Hunters 

At the McNary fee hunt area, improve existing access programs for disabled waterfowl hunters 

at designated blinds. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Bring blind sites #2 and #8 at the McNary Headquarters fee hunt area, and blind site 

#11 on the Peninsula Unit up to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) standards for accessibility. 

• Add 1 additional ADAAG compliant blind sites at Wallula. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Waterfowl Hunting, Upland Gamebird Hunting, and Other 

Migratory Bird Hunting Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The number of blinds designated for disabled hunters is reasonable and meets the 

current needs. At least one more accessible site may be needed at each unit over the next 15 

years to meet the needs of a growing and aging population. However, the current designated 

blinds and access routes are not up to ADAAG standards. Implementing this objective will 

improve the Refuge’s compliance with ADA and will provide better opportunities for hunters with 

disabilities. 

Objective 10c: Enhance Upland Game Bird Hunt 

Enhance the quality of upland game bird hunts for the Refuge; promote consistency in hunting 

regulations among all Refuge units and increase hunt opportunities. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Within two years of CCP completion phase out current program that allows WDFW to 

augment pheasant populations for take by hunters at traditional sites, during the upland 

bird hunting season at McNary Refuge. 

• Standardize hunt times and hunt days; change to noon starting times on all units. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Waterfowl Hunting, Upland Gamebird Hunting, and Other 

Migratory Bird Hunting Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: There is inconsistency between the management of upland hunts on the former 

Corps lands and other McNary Units. Regulations (entry times, permits, fees, days open, etc.) 

should be consistent between units unless special conditions exist. Current inconsistencies make 

it difficult for hunters to abide by the regulations. In addition, upland bird hunts can conflict 

with waterfowl hunts partly through space issues (hunters competing for similar areas to shoot) 

and partly through creating disturbance for each other. Changing the start time to noon on all 

units except fee areas (after most of the best waterfowl hunting is usually over) will help hunters 

understand and remember the regulations and will also reduce bird disturbance and conflicts 

between the different hunting programs. 

Because stocking a nonnative species such as ring-necked pheasant is a violation of NWRS 

policy (601 FW 3.14 F), operation of a put-and-take hunting program will be phased out. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-36 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Objective 10d: Provide Quality Deer Hunting Opportunities 

Provide quality deer hunting opportunities at McNary Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Annually monitor deer population dynamics and their impacts to vegetation; conduct a 

post-hunting season November survey; adjust the number of hunt permits for upcoming 

seasons, considering vegetation conditions and other relevant factors. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Deer Hunting Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Better estimates of deer populations are needed, as are more regular assessments 

of vegetation. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-37 

GOAL 11: Anglers experience abundant 

opportunities to catch fish while 

appreciating the Refuge. 

Fishing on the Walla Walla River - © Lyn Topinka 

Objective 11a: Provide for Diverse Fishing Opportunities 

Maintain diverse fishing opportunities on the Refuge and improve fishing facilities and access. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Continue to allow WDFW to operate youth and family fishing augmentation/stocking at 

McNary Refuge’s Quarry Pond (a small isolated pond) each spring; however, limit 

stocking to rainbow trout populations. 

• Maintain accessible sites for disabled fishing at Quarry Pond and on the Walla Walla 

River at McNary Refuge’s Wallula Unit. 

• Improve parking facilities and access to river shoreline fishing sites: upgrade fishing 

access at the Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Fishing Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The Refuge has lengthy shorelines, abundant reservoir space, and diverse river, 

slough, and wetland habitats which provide opportunities for anglers to fish for everything from 

large Chinook salmon to small perch and trout. Warmwater fish are abundant and anglers can 

take home smallmouth bass, walleye, and other fish. At Umatilla, warm water fishing is the most

popular kind of fishing and has won regional and national acclaim. Fishing for sturgeon is 

popular, as is fishing for salmon, steelhead, shad, and catfish. Similarly, there are abundant bank

fishing opportunities as well as river fishing from boats. This diversity of fishing opportunities is 

a plus for the Refuge. The Refuge can provide a satisfying recreational experience to many 

people each year from a great diversity of backgrounds. There is an opportunity to upgrade 

fishing facilities. Although stocking of a nonnative species is a violation of NWRS policy (601 FW

3.14 F.), the current State funded and operated program at Quarry Pond is allowable because it 

only includes seasonal stocking of rainbow trout, a species that is part of the historic fish 

assemblage of local streams.

Objective 11b: Promote Fishing Awareness 

Improve public knowledge and awareness of quality fishing locations on the Refuge and 

disseminate public knowledge about the Refuge System at fishing and boating areas. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Continue to define and map fishing locations. Develop a fishing brochure or set of tear 

sheets for the public, including information such as parking, roads, boat launches, and 

accessibility for people with disabilities. Seek partnerships with State and private 

groups for funding and publication. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-38 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

• Improve Refuge fishing and related information by installing kiosks at Casey Pond, and 

Wallula Unit boat launch. Include information about the Refuge, good fishing practices, 

fish identification and other interpretive information. Seek partnerships with State and 

private groups for funding and construction projects. 

• Conduct surveys to determine needs of the fishing public; and provide a Spanish 

language informational brochure. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Fishing Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Fishing on the Refuge is dispersed and managing fishing has been more low-key 

than other Refuge recreational programs. Yet more visits are made to the Refuge for fishing 

than for any other use. The Refuge’s fishing public is more culturally diverse than any other 

Refuge user group and includes recent immigrants from a variety of countries and tourists from 

other parts of the State. Still, many who come to fish are probably unaware that they are on a 

Refuge. There is an opportunity for enhancing communications with the fishing population, to 

provide greater information to these users about the Refuge and Refuge System, and to create 

greater awareness of good fishing practices. Results from surveys will help the Refuge deliver 

the Service’s message. To more effectively reach the immigrant population, it is desirable to 

provide some brochures and information panels in Spanish and other languages as appropriate. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-39 

GOAL 12: Students and teachers 

understand and value the Refuge 

System, and the ecology and 

management of McNary National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Objective 12a: Provide Environmental Education for Students 

Provide environmental education (EE) for 1,500-3,000 students at McNary and 100-500 students 

at Umatilla annually. Ensure that the program helps fulfill Washington Assessment of Student 

Learning (WASL) curriculum requirements. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Maintain total students served, but concentrate on programs for 4th graders. 

• Develop more “teach the teacher” programs and Refuge specific instructor training 

• Meet annually with Educational Service District 123 to ensure programs are helping the 

school meet State requirements. 

• Make use of existing high quality programs, such as the Shorebirds Sister Schools 

Program, that have been developed and tested throughout the northwest. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility 

Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: Currently, the Refuges provide EE to 1,500-3,000 students, the majority at the 4th 

grade level. About 15% of the EE classes hosted are off-Refuge (a staff member or volunteer 

visits the school). The rest of the classes are held at the McNary Environmental Education 

Center. By using high quality and time tested programs, such as the Shorebird Sister Schools 

Program, the Refuge can deliver high quality “teach the teacher” programs with a minimum 

commitment of resources. 

Objective 12b: Provide Environmental Education Support 

Foster long-term support for the Environmental Education program by ensuring that McNary 

Refuge always has a minimum of 25 committed teachers and 30 committed volunteers available 

for the program. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Continue to support the Friends partnership at McNary Refuge with supplies and 

facility space. 

• Explore opportunities to gain additional teacher volunteers through the Washington 

State University teaching program. 

• Provide leadership and resources to manage and train volunteers. 

Rationale: The Friends group has played a critical role in supporting the McNary 

Environmental Education program, with an estimated 10,000 hours per year of volunteer 

Class Learning about Fire Management 

Art Shine/USFWS
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-40 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

support. This is equivalent to about five full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). Supporting the 

Friends with needed office space, supplies, and an available staff partnership is vital to allow the 

Friends to continue to provide this critical service. In addition, the Friends group is comprised 

mainly of retired citizens in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, therefore, for the long-term health of the EE 

program it is essential to recruit and maintain additional volunteers. 

Objective 12c: Promote Teacher-led Classes 

By the end of 15 years, ensure that at least 75% of the environmental education classes visiting 

the McNary Refuge are teacher-led. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Offer teacher training workshops and establish a program to encourage and select 

trained teachers to use the Refuge’s facilities and programs for teacher led EE. 

• Conduct outreach to build the base of knowledgeable and enthusiastic teachers. 

• Develop lesson plans and supply education module boxes for use by teachers and 

volunteers 

• Develop curricula for the EE program and provide support and resources for the 

Friends group and volunteers. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility 

Determination for McNary Refuge. 

Rationale: An EE program that focuses on teaching the teacher has the potential to both 

expand the number of potential students participating in EE and to broaden the base of 

knowledgeable EE instructors in the community. Indirectly, this will have the effect of 

broadening support for the Refuge within the communities. Currently, the Outdoor Recreation 

Planner and Refuge Manager spend approximately 200 hours per year total supporting the EE 

program. The support needs of the program will be better served by an EE Specialist and/or 

Volunteer Coordinator. 

Objective 12d: Maintain and Improve Environmental Education Facilities 

Continue to focus McNary Refuge’s environmental education efforts in and around Burbank 

Slough and the McNary Environmental Education Center (MEEC). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Provide support and resources to support EE facilities and programs, and to maintain 

enthusiastic EE volunteers at McNary Refuge. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility 

Determination for McNary Refuge. 

Rationale: The EE program at the McNary Refuge has developed a large volunteer program to

support activities. This program benefits the Refuge, community, schools, and children. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-41 

GOAL 13: Manage cultural resources 

for their educational, scientific, and 

cultural values for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Refuge users and communities. 

 

Objective 13a: Protect Cultural Resources

Increase monitoring and protection of all cultural resources and historical sites on the Refuge 

while increasing public and staff support and appreciation. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Using guidance and assistance from the Regional Cultural Resources Team and Tribal 

programs assemble Regional/National/Tribal databases, reports, and site information to 

provide Refuge managers with specific access-protected data, site information and 

guidance. 

• Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when 

conducting ground disturbing activities or modifying historic structures. 

• Complete a comprehensive cultural survey of the Refuge as called for in Section 110 of 

the NHPA, and pull together all previous site surveys, work requests and reports for 

easy access by managers 

• Develop a Refuge GIS layer for cultural resource sites and resources that contains 

barriers to protect sensitive information. 

• All Refuge law enforcement officers will receive training in the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA), Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and other State and Federal cultural resource regulations 

no later than March 2008. 

• Develop law enforcement monitoring protocols and schedules for patrolling cultural 

sites as part of a Law Enforcement Management Plan, to be completed no later than 

2008. Hire one additional Law Enforcement Officer. 

• Identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources associated with rocky 

features; coordinate with the Umatilla Tribe’s Cultural Resources Program to identify 

significant sites; and plan for the protection at rocky sites, especially on the Stateline, 

Juniper Canyon, and Columbia River Island areas. 

• Follow all stipulations in the Research Compatibility Determination for the Refuge. 

Rationale: The key to protecting cultural resources is promoting knowledge of and appreciation

for the resources. Currently, information on known cultural sites is fragmented and not easily 

accessible to the Refuge Managers responsible for the Refuge’s management and operations. 

There are several major surveys and project-specific survey work and reports that include 

portions of the Refuge; however, a comprehensive access-protected GIS-based database is 

needed. Law enforcement officers have received training in cultural resource law, but continuing

education and coordination, with Tribal and State officers, is needed. Rocky sites are specified 

because Refuge managers do not know enough about the cultural resources of these sites. 

Making Tule Mats – © Jim Mock
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-42 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Objective 13b: Increase Awareness and Appreciation for Cultural Resources 

Increase awareness of and appreciation for historic, archaeological, and cultural resources 

among Refuge staff and the public. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Bi-annually, provide all Refuge staff with 2-4 hours of training on managing historic, 

archaeological, and cultural resources. 

• Consult with Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify 

types of cultural resource information appropriate for public interpretation. 

• Partner with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and 

other interested groups to tell the history of the Stateline-Wallula area, and prepare 

media (pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that portray the American Indians’ and early settlers’ 

cultural resources and history on the Refuge, with emphasis on the fish and wildlife 

resources and their uses during these periods. 

• Partner with Tribes, historical societies, interested groups, and government agencies, to 

develop an overlook site at Wallula to interpret the rich history and importance of the 

area to Tribes and early Washington settlement. 

Rationale: Little interpretation of cultural resources has occurred to date on the Refuge. The 

rich history and cultural sites within the Refuge needs to be told. The Refuge, however, needs 

assistance and could achieve a higher level of interpretation by partnering with tribes and 

groups interested in history. 

Objective 13c: Coordination on Cultural Resources 

Increase coordination and consultation with Tribes. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• In partnership with Tribes and the Regional Cultural Resources Team, establish 

"protocol for consultation" to help managers meet NHPA and ARPA requirements 

including consultation, identification, inventory and evaluation of projects and sites. 

• Establish NAGPRA protocol and procedures for handling inadvertent discoveries of 

human remains, burial objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. 

• Meet at least semiannually to discuss programs and projects with staffs of each of the 

following: Tribal Cultural Resources Programs; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Indian Nation; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation; the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation; and the 

Wanapum Band of Indians. 

Rationale: Research conducted for this CCP has confirmed the historical presence of the 

following tribes within the lands encompassed by Refuge lands: Palouse, Cayuse, Yakama, Walla 

Walla, Umatilla, Nez Perce and Wanapum Tribes and affiliated bands. Although the Refuge has 

had consultations and meetings in the past, it is important that communication and consultation 

become more regular and systematic. Since the 2004 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 

on the Kennewick Man case, it has become incumbent on agencies to ensure that special and 

significant genetic or cultural relationship to a presently existing indigenous Tribe has been 

demonstrated, before any objects and remains can be repatriated. How the Refuge can 

accomplish this, in order to comply with NAGPRA, needs to be addressed. 

 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Management Direction 2-43 

Objective 13d: Shoreline Bank Stabilization 

Explore the potential for shoreline bank stabilization, and bio-engineering, at eroding areas on 

Strawberry Island’s shoreline to protect cultural resources listed on and eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Apply for Corps and BPA funding for protection of shorelines threatened with erosion 

as a result of dam/reservoir operations. 

Rationale: Some bank restoration was completed by the Corps at Strawberry Island. Erosion 

from operation of the reservoirs may threaten cultural resources at Strawberry Island, and 

should be considered effects under the Corps/BPA Systems Operation program. 

Objective 13e: Increase Management Efforts for Archaeological Features at Two Sites on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources associated with the Miller Site, listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

• Adopt and accomplish recommendations from the 1983 Strawberry Island Excavation 

Report (Schalk 1983), including removing sage and basin wildrye and replacing it with 

bluebunch wheatgrass and other forbs better representing historic conditions. 

• Increase law enforcement efforts to protect cultural resources at this site. 

• Conduct annual site visits and maintain written records and photo documentation. 

Rationale: The final report by archeologists conducting the 1978-1979 Strawberry Island 

excavation (Schalk 1983), recommended five management actions to improve protection of the 

Miller Site, which is on the Register of National Historic Places. One of the recommendations 

was to maintain vegetation at an early stage of succession. Researchers were worried that both 

big sagebrush and basin wildrye, which were just beginning to colonize the previously bluebunch 

wheatgrass dominated site in the 1970s, could damage buried sites because of their extensive 

root systems. Since then, both species have come to dominate the surface of the archeological 

site. 

References

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Unpublished Report. [Available in html, version 1.0, at 

http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/columbia_basin.pdf] 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, and K. Collis. 2004. Breeding ecology of Caspian terns at colonies on the 

Columbia Plateau. Northwest Science 787:303-312. 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, K. Collis, A.F. Evans, M. Hawbecker, and B.A. Ryan. 2005. 

Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 134:466-480. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill (editors). 2001. U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan, 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Buchanan, J.B. 2005. Priorities for Implementation of the Northern Pacific Coast Regional 

Shorebird Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 
McNary Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-44 Chapter 2 – Management Direction

Dauble, D.D. and D.G. Watson. 1990. Spawning and Abundance of Fall Chinook Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, 1948-1988. PNbill L-7289, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Dobler, F.C., et al. 1996. Status of Washington’s shrub-steppe ecosystem: extent, ownership, and 

wildlife/vegetation relationships. Research Report. Washington Department of Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 

Easterbrooks, J. 1999. Letter of correspondence to Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Work 

group for Yakima Basin Fish Passage. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Ellis, D.V. 1986. Cultual Resources of the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Report. Willamette 

Associates, Portland, OR. 

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

Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 

Miller, S. and T. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and 

invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51 (1), 85-94. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan – Strengthening the biological 

foundation. Washington, DC. 

Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. 2004. Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan. 

Unpublished manuscript. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Pampush, G. 1981. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest site selection of the Longed 

Curlew in north central Oregon. Master’s thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 

Pampush, G and G. Anthony. 1983. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of 

long-billed curlews in the Columbia Basin, OR. Condor 95:957-967. 

Schalk, R.F., D.L. Olson, and R.R. Mierendorfy. 1983. The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at 

Strawberry Island in the McNary Reservoir. Project Report 19. Washington State 

University, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Pullman, WA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Environmental Impact Statement: Caspian Tern 

Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. 

Portland, OR. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2004. High Priority Shorebirds–2004. Unpublished Report, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1980. McNary HMA Baseline Inventory. 

Washington Department of Wildlife, Yakima, WA. 
APPENDIX B. 

Compatibility Determinations 

Wintering Waterfowl– Molly Linville//USFWS 
 

Please note: 

Appendix B is reprinted in this CCP without change from 

the final CCP/EA signed in May 2007. All appendices, A 

through N, are available in the final CCP/EIS. 
Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-1

APPENDIX B. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS – 

McNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the CCP planning process evaluate uses as 

projected to occur under Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative in the CCP/EA for the McNary and 

Umatilla Refuges CCP (CCP/EA). The evaluation of funds needed for management and 

implementation of each use also assumes implementation as described under Alternative 2. Chapter 

7 of the CCP/EA also contains analysis of the impacts of public uses to wildlife and habitats. That 

portion of the document is intended to be incorporated through reference into this set of CDs. Uses 

that occur on the Hanford Island Unit of McNary Refuge are not evaluated in these CDs. The 

Hanford Islands Unit is being planned under the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP. 

A. Uses evaluated at this time 

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

time. According to Service policy, compatibility determinations will be completed for all uses 

proposed under a CCP. Existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses must also be reevaluated and 

new CDs prepared during development of a CCP. According to the Service’s compatibility policy, 

uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not explicitly required to be reevaluated in 

concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the use have changed or unless significant 

new information relative to the use and its effects have become available or the existing CDs are more 

than 10 years old. However, the Service planning policy recommends preparing CDs for all 

individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document for public review. 

 

Refuge Use Page Compatible Year Due for 

Re-evaluation 

Wildlife Observation and Photography B-4 yes 2022 

Waterfowl Hunting, Upland game bird hunting, Other 

migratory bird hunting 

B-12 yes 2022 

Deer Hunting B-20 yes 2022 

Fishing B-26 yes 2022 

Environmental Education and Interpretation B-34 yes 2022 

Boating B-40 yes 2017 

Camping B-49 no n/a 

Horseback Riding B-58 yes 2017 

Swimming and Beach Use B-65 no n/a 

Farming B-71 yes 2017 

Research B-77 yes 2017 

Dog Training, including Field Trials B-85 no n/a 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-2 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

B. Compatibility - Legal and Historical Context 

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

interfere with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of Refuges. Compatibility is not new to the 

Refuge System and dates back to 1918, as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of 

Refuge lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” 

Legally, Refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a compatibility 

determination. Regulations require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection 

of Refuges before opening them to any public uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

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

interpretation) are to receive enhanced consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of 

funding resources unless the Refuge has made a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential 

partners. Once found compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public 

uses at the Refuge. If a proposed use is found not compatible, the Refuge manager is legally 

precluded from approving it. Economic uses that are conducted by or authorized by the Refuge also 

require compatibility determinations. 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas 

where property rights are vested by others; where legally binding agreements exist; or where there are 

treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, aircraft overflights, emergency actions, some activities on 

navigable waters, and activities by other Federal agencies on “overlay Refuges” are exempt from the 

compatibility review process. 

 

New compatibility regulations, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act), were adopted by the Service in October, 2000 

(http://Refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a use must be 

compatible with both the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual Refuge. This 

standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. The Act also requires 

that compatibility determinations be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to comment on 

most use evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of primary 

consideration. The Improvement Act defined a compatible use as one that “. . . in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.” Sound professional judgment is defined 

under the Improvement Act as “. . . a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources 

. . .” Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent of a use. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-3

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests 

against the primary purpose of the Refuge (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus [Ruby Lake Refuge]). 

The Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge 

managers are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best 

available science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). 

Evaluations of the existing uses on McNary and Umatilla Refuges are based on the professional 

judgment of Refuge and planning personnel including observations of Refuge uses and reviews of 

appropriate scientific literature. 

In July 2006, the Service published its Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW1). Under this policy, 

most proposed uses must also undergo a review prior to compatibility. This review is appended at the 

end of this appendix. Uses excepted from the policy include Big Six uses and uses under reserved 

rights – see policy for more detail. Appropriate uses reviews are included here for boating, camping, 

horseback riding, swimming and beach use, farming, research, and dog training. Compatibility 

determinations are included for camping, swimming/beach use, and dog training, explaining why 

these uses should no longer be allowed. 

 

References 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). 11 Envtl. Rptr. Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978), p. 

873. 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on NWRSIA) - 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html

Compatibility regulations, adopted by the Service in October, 2000: 

(http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html) 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-4 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Compatibility Determination 

 

RMIS Database Uses: Wildlife Observation; Photography (wildlife) 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary NWR was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, which transferred administrative control of the original 2849 acre parcel to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Federal Register of May 1956; Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative 

Agreement between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Service in September 1963 and as 

amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service in 1969, 

under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972 another parcel was transferred to the 

Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 664). 

In 1999 the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service through the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). Additional lands were 

added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated January 2000 and as 

amended June 2000). 

 Purposes: 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, resources 

thereof, and habitat thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources..” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953) 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between USACE and USFWS, 2000) 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, and irrigation - 

Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved 2 March 1945]. (Cooperative 

Agreement between USACE and USFWS, 2000, Stateline units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with the 

Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, according to Realty files, approximately 20 

small tracts were acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act PL 87-714, 1962. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-5

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.). 

 

Description of Use: Wildlife observation and photography are allowed in the open areas of McNary 

Refuge. Designated areas are closed permanently or seasonally to public access and are 

appropriately signed. See Section 5.2 of the CCP/EA for more information on closed areas. 

The majority of wildlife observation and photography takes place informally. The only area on 

McNary Refuge designed specifically for wildlife observation and photography is the wildlife viewing/ 

photography blind on the McNary Headquarters Unit. The blind was created specifically for bird 

watchers and photographers and includes interior black screening and special openings for 

photography equipment. Otherwise, public access roads, roadway pull-outs, interpretive overlooks 

and kiosks, interpretive trails, horse trails, and waterways enable visitors to access to the Refuge, and, 

therefore, allow wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

Prime areas for wildlife observation include the following: 

McNary Refuge - McNary Headquarters Unit 

• Wildlife Viewing/photography blind 

• Nature Trail 

• Environmental Education Center deck with permanent wildlife viewing scopes 

• Wallula Unit 

• North Shore Road Millet Pond pull-out 

• Sanctuary Pond Overlook/Kiosk 

• Walla Walla Delta (prime shorebird habitat) 

When determined compatible, wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on Refuge 

System lands as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or portions of 

individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting, upon occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. See Section 5.7 of 

the CCP/EA for more information on the existing wildlife viewing and photography programs. See 

Chapter 2, Goal 9, for more details on the programs under the Preferred Alternative 2. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography require minimal resources. 

Maintenance for existing facilities runs $2,500 annually excluding road maintenance costs. Estimated 

costs for operating the wildlife viewing and photography program as envisioned under Preferred 

Alternative 2 are displayed in the following tables. 

 

McNary Refuge: Wildlife observation and photography costs under Alternative 2. 

Proposed Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expenses ($/year) 

New Trail Development 35,000 2,000
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-6 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Photography Blind 

Construction/maintenance 

10,000 750

Totals 45,000 2,750

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Disturbance from People: Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a variety 

of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et al 1985; 

Freddy 1986), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al 1982), altered foraging patterns (Burger and 

Gochfeld, 1991), and even, in some cases, diminished reproductive success (Boyle and Samson 

1985). These studies and others have shown that the severity of the effects depends upon the 

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

and Cole 1991). Wildlife photographers tend to have larger disturbance impacts than those viewing 

wildlife since they tend to approach animals more closely (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). 

At McNary Refuge, people using the nature trail are generally in groups of one to three people during 

the off peak education season (July–March) and in groups of 10-15 during the peak education 

season (April–June). Disturbance to wildlife, such as flushing a nesting bird, is inherent to these 

activities; however, the disturbance is temporary and generally not malicious. Any unreasonable 

harassment would be grounds to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm. 

 

The most likely impact to the Refuges’ soil and vegetative resources from viewing and photography 

would be during spring and early summer in areas open to cross country hiking. Most cross country 

travel is limited to the area adjacent to the McNary Environmental Education Center (approximately a 

two-acre site). Beyond the center, most visitors stay on the nature trail because of the vegetation 

(abundant thistles, thick tule beds, etc.) and hidden reptiles (rattlesnakes, bull snakes). Limited 

impacts to nesting birds and flowering/growing native vegetation are expected, but should be minor 

because few visitors engage in cross-country hiking outside of the immediate education area. 

Seasonal closures may be implemented to protect sensitive areas/species. Fall and winter activities 

pose little impact to vegetation. 

Access by motorized vehicles and bicycles is limited to established trails, public roads, and parking 

lots. Parking lots and access trails have minimal impacts because they are relatively small in size and 

also allow for the safe use of these public lands. 

Wildlife observation and photography may impact threatened and endangered species, including the 

bald eagle. Disturbance impacts to the bald eagle would be expected to increase, but could be 

reduced to a certain extent through the design of public use facilities. 

Effect of disturbance intensity: Some researchers have attempted to correlate disturbance events in 

wildlife to the intensity, proximity, or loudness of human disturbance. While studying shorebirds on an 

eastern coastal Refuge, Burger (1986) found that the level of disturbance in the shorebirds increased 

(fewer remained, more flew) as the total number of disturbances and the number of children, joggers, 

people walking, dogs, aircraft, and boats increased, and the duration of the disturbance and distance 

from the disturbance decreased. 

Effect of human proximity: Other researchers have looked at the question of proximity. At what 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-7

distance do humans on foot elicit a disturbance response? From an examination of the available 

studies, it appears that the distance varies dramatically from species to species. Burger and Gochfeld 

(1991) found that sanderlings foraged less during the day and more during the night as the number of 

people within 100m increased. Elk in Yellowstone National Park were disturbed when people were at 

average distances of 573m (Cassirer 1990). These elk temporarily left the drainage and their home 

range core areas and moved to higher elevations, steeper slopes, and closer to forested areas. 

Average return time to the drainage was two days. Erwin (1989) studied colonial wading and 

seabirds in Virginia and North Carolina. Mixed colonies of common terns-black skimmers responded 

at the greatest distances, with respective means of 142m and 130m; mixed wading bird species were 

more reluctant to flush (30-50m average). There were few statistically significant relationships 

between flushing distance and colony size. Similarly, there were few differences between responses 

during incubation compared to post-hatching periods. 

An analysis of over 4,000 human activity events near bald eagle nests in Central Arizona (Grubb and 

King 1991) found distance to disturbance to be the most important classifier of bald eagle response, 

followed in decreasing order of discriminatory value by duration of disturbance, visibility, number of 

units per event, position relative to affected eagle, and sound. 

Breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota (Fraser et al. 1985) flushed at an average distance 

of 476m at the approach of a pedestrian. A multiple regression model including number of previous 

disturbances, date, and time of day, explained 82% of the variability in flush distance and predicted a 

maximum flush distance at the first disturbance of 503m (SE=131). Skagen (1980), also studying 

bald eagles in northwest Washington, found a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of 

eagles feeding when human activity was present within 200m of the feeding area in the previous 30 

minutes. A statistically significant between-season variation occurred in the use of feeding areas 

relative to human presence, which correlated with food availability. Eagles appeared more tolerant of 

human activity in the season of low food availability. 

In a review of several studies of the reaction of waterfowl and other wetland birds to people on foot, 

distances greater than 100m in general did not result in a behavioral response (DeLong 2002). 

Effects on migrant birds versus resident birds: Klein (1989) studied the effect of visitation on migrant 

and resident waterbirds at Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, finding that resident birds were less 

sensitive to human disturbance than migrants. Migrant ducks were particularly sensitive when they first 

arrived on site in the fall. They usually remained more than 80m from [a visitor footpath on a dike], 

even at very low visitor-levels. Herons, egrets, brown pelicans, and anhingas were most likely to 

habituate to humans, thus exposing them to direct disturbance as they fed on or near the dike. 

Shorebirds showed intermediate sensitivity. Strauss (1990) observed piping plover chicks spent less 

time feeding (50% versus 91%) and spent more time running (33% versus 2%), fighting with other 

chicks (4% versus 0.1%), and standing alert (9% versus 0.1%) when pedestrians or moving vehicles 

were closer than 100m than when they were undisturbed. In addition, plover chicks spent less time 

out on the feeding flats (8% versus 97%) and more time up in the grass (66% versus 0.1%) during 

periods of human disturbance. 

Disturbance from Dogs: Dogs also elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone 

(MacArthur et al. 1982; Hoopes 1993). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may flush 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-8 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), 

disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 

1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs 

provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. Despite thousands of 

years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate 

stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs that are unleashed or not under the control of their 

owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In effect, off-leash, dogs increase 

the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of 

a dog. Dog-walkers will be required to maintain control of their animal while on the Refuge, thereby 

reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and 

ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, wild animals. In addition, dog 

waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other 

domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport 

parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). The Refuges can limit dog disturbance by enforcing 

current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) “...no unconfined domestic animals, including but not 

limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at large.....” 

Wildlife photography: Wildlife photography is likely more disturbing, per instance, than wildlife 

observation. Klein (1993) observed at Ding Darling that of all the nonconsumptive uses, 

photographers were the most likely to attempt close contact with birds. He also concluded that even 

slow approach by photographers was disruptive to waterbirds. 

Predictability of Disturbance (Habituation): Dwyer and Tanner (1992) noted that wildlife habituate best 

to disturbance that is somewhat predictable or “background.” Investigating 111 nests of sandhill 

cranes in Florida, Dwyer and Tanner found that nesting cranes seemed to habituate to certain forms 

of human disturbance and nested within 400m of highways, railroads, and mines; cranes also were 

tolerant of helicopter flyovers. Visits to nests and development-induced alterations of surface water 

drainage were implicated in 24% of the nest failures. 

Refuge Specific Impacts: Both Refuge visitation and the number of facilities devoted to wildlife 

observation and photography are projected to increase under the Preferred Alternative 2 (vehicle pulloffs, overlooks, observation blinds, trail miles). Given this, future disturbance effects are likely to be 

somewhat higher than present. Most studies cited above have demonstrated immediate, rather than 

long term responses to disturbance. Long term responses are inherently more difficult and expensive 

to determine. Given that wildlife observation is not typically a loud or intense kind of activity, the area 

of habitat within a known distance of human activity centers (public use area, trails, EE sites, 

overlooks) is considered a reasonable indicator to evaluate the disturbance effects of public uses on 

Refuge wildlife. 

Impacts from wildlife observation/photography, and the modes of transport used by visitors engaged 

in these activities, can be contained most effectively, mitigating the overall effect on Refuge wildlife by 

encouraging visitors to remain on trails, automobile tour routes, and within the areas designated for 

public use. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-9

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

impacts. Several new wildlife observation/photography areas are proposed under Preferred 

Alternative 2. The purpose of these areas is to provide a site where photographers can get close-up 

photographs without disturbing wildlife. Placement of these additional areas would likely reduce 

disturbance from wildlife photographers, because photographers would gain access to high quality 

photo shooting sites without disturbing new areas. 

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

Refuge wildlife will still be minimal. 

Public Review and Comment: Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the 

public during the writing of the McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA. Appendix A of the CCP/EA 

further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. 

 

Determination (check one below 

 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Certain modes of access, such as motorized vehicle, horses and bicycles, will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots. 

• Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

• Pets must be kept under control (leashed) at all times. 

• Native trees and shrubs will be planted where feasible to create screening along trails and at 

observation points to reduce disturbance. 

• Elevated overlooks, trails, and boardwalks will be designed to help reduce negative visitor impacts 

to soils, vegetation, and hydrology. 

• Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

• Directional, informational, and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to educate the 

public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

• Human activity will be monitored and impacts evaluated on increased human uses of the Refuge. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible because wildlife viewing and photography will not 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-10 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The 

associated disturbance to wildlife is limited and minor. Wildlife observation and photography are 

priority public uses and provide visitors with the joys of experiencing abundant wildlife and wild lands. 

These uses also help fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 

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

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

 uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

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

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 

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

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

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

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

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

Fraser, James D., L.D. Frenzel, and John E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on 

breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harasment during winter. Pages 286 in 

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: Proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecol. Inst., Boulder, 

Colorado. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-

39. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

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

sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:351-358. C.W. Servheen, eds. 1980. 

Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium; Seattle, Washington. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-

F86 in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts 

(eds.). Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement, and management in the Atlantic Flyway. 

Third Ed. Environmental Manage. Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and 

Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl., Dover, DE. 1,114pp. 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-12 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Waterfowl Hunting, Upland Game Bird Hunting, and Other Migratory Bird 

Hunting Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Uses: Hunting (waterfowl); Hunting (upland game); Hunting (other migratory birds) 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington. Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-13

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Uses: 

Sport hunting for waterfowl (ducks and geese), upland game birds, upland game, and other migratory 

birds is currently allowed on all units, or portions of units within the McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge hunt regulations are published annually by state in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 

Ch. 1. For Oregon, the CFR lists only “migratory birds” and “upland game birds” as allowable to 

hunt. The Washington CFRs list goose, duck, coot, dove, and common snipe as the migratory game 

birds allowable to hunt; the Washington CFR additionally allows dove hunting on the Washington 

refuge units. For both states, the CFRs allow “upland game birds” (50 CFR 32.56 and 32.67, Oct 1, 

2006). Of the seven units open to hunting, four (Peninsula, Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and 

Wallula) are open daily during the respective state seasons. The Peninsula Unit has additional special 

regulations that require waterfowl hunters to hunt from established sites on the east shoreline and a 

noon starting time for upland bird hunters on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. A portion of the 

McNary Division (McNary Headquarters Unit - Units 1 and 2) is opened to waterfowl and upland bird 

hunting three days a week under a highly regulated specialized hunt. Waterfowl hunters on this 

division must pay a fee and hunt from selected sites through a reservation system. Upland hunters 

may only hunt this division on waterfowl hunt days and not before noon. The remainder of the 

McNary Division (McNary Headquarters Unit-Units 3 and 4) is closed to hunting. The Strawberry 

Islands are closed to hunting. Foundation and Badger Islands are closed. Crescent Island is open 

daily to waterfowl hunting during the State season. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2, the hunts would continue as described above, with modifications as 

included in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA. Specifically, 

• A combination of designated posts and designated parking areas will be implemented on the 

north side of Wallula. 

• Some hunt blinds accessible to hunters with disabilities would be improved. One additional 

accessible blind would be added. 

• The current program of pheasant population augmentation practiced by the State would be 

phased out within two years of CCP completion. 

• Upland game bird hunt times and hunt days would be standardized to noon start on all units. 

• The Service would continue to work in partnership with the States, Tribes and Corps to rewrite the 

Columbia Basin Waterfowl Management Plan (in progess), which deals with wintering waterfowl 

habitats and sanctuary areas in the middle Columbia Basin. Any additional modifications to 

Refuge hunting programs would be consistent with this plan. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-14 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Of the 16,067 acres that comprises McNary Refuge (not including the Hanford Islands), 11,834 acres 

(76%) are open to waterfowl, upland game, or migratory bird hunting. However, approximately 

3,000 acres, consists of upland shrub-steppe habitat. Another 8,656 acres are lacustrine or open 

water habitat on the Columbia River. Many of these areas provide little or very marginal waterfowl 

hunting opportunities. Actual huntable prime waterfowl habitat that is open to hunting is closer to 

3,731 acres, or 47% of Refuge lands. Available upland game habitat amounts to 6,331 acres, or 

38% of total Refuge lands. 

Total Refuge sanctuary (lands completely closed to hunting) amounts to 4,233 acres, or 24% of 

Refuge lands. 

Although there is the potential that waterfowl, upland bird, and migratory bird hunting could pose 

conflicts to other Big Six uses, most of the other Big Six uses are separated spatially and temporally 

from hunt areas. Current and future wildlife observation and environmental education uses will be 

concentrated on McNary Headquarters Unit 4, where no hunting is allowed. The adjacent area on 

the Headquarters Unit (Unit 3), which is managed as year round sanctuary, buffers the hunt area from 

the viewing area and helps enhance viewing by providing adjacent safe haven. Fishing areas overlap 

waterfowl hunting areas to some degree but are mostly separated seasonally from the hunt use 

(fishing occurs mainly in spring, summer, and fall). Interpretation is focused near parking areas, at 

kiosks, and along pulloffs or trails. The most likely potential for conflict or safety issues would occur 

along the trail at Wallula Unit. The Refuge will mitigate possibilities for user conflicts or safety issues 

by making hunt area boundaries and seasons information available to all Refuge users via various 

venues (interpretive kiosks, website, Refuge offices). 

No significant effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. 

Normal road, trail, and facility upkeep and maintenance will continue to be necessary. Additional 

facility construction or upgrade, if needed, is addressed in the Availability of Resources section. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Costs below reflect mailing, publications, administration, staff time, preparation, and seasonal 

employees. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $68,000

Maintenance: $0 $4,500

Monitoring: $0 $

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $4,500

Totals $0 $77,000

Offsetting revenues: $0 $16,500

The Refuge employs a seasonal biotechnical position to run the Refuge check station from October 

through January. This position is required to collect fees, assign blinds, post information, and run 

daily operations for the reservation hunt program on the McNary hunt unit. Additional costs include 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-15

the annual printing of Refuge information and the replacement and installation of signs. Staff time is 

required from the manager, the Complex outdoor recreation planner, a full time law enforcement 

officer, and maintenance crew. The costs are reflected in the table above. Revenue collected from 

hunter application and daily hunt fees are used to offset the costs of providing this use. The Refuge is 

currently increasing both application and hunt fees to further offset the costs of this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

 

Some effects are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of the CCP/EA. 

Direct impacts to hunted wildlife - Sport hunting involves the direct take of Refuge wildlife designated 

as huntable game species by Refuge regulation. In addition to loss of individual target species, 

hunting causes disturbances to feeding and resting nontarget species because of the noise (shotgun), 

movement, and general disturbance necessary for this activity. In addition, nontarget species are 

killed by hunters by accident or intent and waterfowl are often crippled or killed and not retrieved. 

Waterfowl are wary, seeking Refuge from all forms of disturbance, particularly those associated with 

loud noise and rapid movement (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Studies indicate that hunting does 

cause disturbance to hunted species as well as to nonhunted species. These disturbances are 

manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement, or death 

(Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Numerous studies have shown that hunting disturbance causes 

increased flight time in waterfowl species. Use of specific areas and daily flight activity by brants 

(Branta bernicla) were influenced by tidal level, food availability, time of day, and particularly by 

disturbance from hunters (Henry 1980). Flight requires considerably more energy than any other 

activity except egg lying. Human disturbance compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at 

night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Though, as mentioned above, there are obvious impacts on waterfowl populations related to hunting 

(most notably disturbance and direct take), the proportion of waterfowl populations subject to hunting 

on Refuges is very low. Thus, hunting on Refuges as a whole, or on McNary Refuge specifically, is not 

likely to have an adverse impact on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North 

America. Several points support this contention: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest 

that occurs on Refuges is small, 2) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively 

on national wildlife refuges, 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at 

levels consistent with the current population status, 4) Refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons 

than provided for in the Federal frameworks, and 5) Refuges purchased with funds derived from the 

Federal Duck Stamp Program must limit hunting to 40% of the available area. 

Impacts to Non-hunted Wildlife: (See also Chapter 7, section 7.2) Non-hunted wildlife would include 

non-hunted migratory birds such as songbirds, wading birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small 

mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; medium sized mammals such as skunks and 

coyotes; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and 

toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. 

Except for a competitive effect, which is estimated to be small, the potential effect to non-hunted 

wildlife is largely in the realm of disturbance. The cumulative effects of disturbance to non-hunted 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-16 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

migratory birds under the proposed action are expected to be negligible for the following reasons. 

Hunting seasons do not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future impacts that could occur 

if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this reason. Disturbance to the daily 

wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering non-hunted birds might occur. Because 

both Refuges maintain sanctuary areas where no hunting is permitted, this effect is likely a minor 

negative effect. 

However, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small mammals, including bats, 

are inactive during winter when hunting season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of 

these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. Hibernation or torpor by coldblood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures 

are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season. 

Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and should not have cumulative 

negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active during cold 

weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. Refuge regulations 

further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads 

and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season is not 

permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead-shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not relevant 

to McNary Refuge because the use of lead shot would not be permitted on the Refuge for any type of 

hunting. 

Some species of bats, butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the 

“flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed through 

the area by peak hunting season in Nov-Jan. Some hunting occurs during September and October 

when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would be commensurate with that of 

non-consumptive users. 

Other Effects - There are also some indirect beneficial impacts of Refuge hunting. Refuge hunting can 

contribute to the well being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, and sociological benefits. 

The hunting community in general remains the largest support base at a national level for funding 

wildlife management programs. Refuges provide an opportunity for a high quality waterfowl hunting 

experience to all citizens regardless of economic standing. Many individual Refuges have developed 

extensive public information and education programs bringing hunters into contact with Refuge 

activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. 

 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during drafting of the 

CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement during development of the CCP. 

 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-17

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• The hunt program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA. The Refuge hunting 

plan, hunt leaflets, and section 32 of 50 CFR will be updated as necessary. All hunters shall 

comply with State hunting regulations. 

• Hunting will be subject to Refuge specific hunt regulations in effect establishing set days, areas, 

times, points of entry, and permit requirements under which to hunt. 

• The McNary Units 1 and 2 fee area will be opened to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, and 

Sundays only, during the State waterfowl season. 

• Adequate sanctuary will be established, monitored, and evaluated. 

• Adequate wintering waterfowl food supplies will be provided in closed areas of the Refuge. 

• Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with State, 

Federal, and Refuge regulations. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, future increases in fees may be necessary to sustain this 

program. 

• The Refuge will ensure safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses by providing 

information about hunting boundaries and seasons to the general public and those utilizing other 

Refuge programs. Information will be provided at interpretive kiosks, on the Refuge website, and 

in Refuge offices. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

Justification: 

Waterfowl, upland game, and other migratory bird hunting is a traditional wildlife-oriented recreation 

and is listed as a priority public use under the Refuge Wildlife Improvement Act as amended, 1997. 

Despite the direct and indirect impacts associated with sport hunting waterfowl, upland game, and 

other migratory birds’ flyway populations are not likely to be affected significantly by the hunting 

program on the Refuge. Waterfowl population objectives and allowable harvest is determined on a 

flyway basis. Changes in regional land uses (i.e., agriculture/crops) are more likely to influence 

population trends than localized hunting programs (Paveglio, pers. comm.) The Refuge has no 

control over changes in land use practices. Limited hunt days (i.e. some areas open only three 

days/week), no hunt zones, and established sanctuary in Refuge wetlands and fields, ensure that 

wintering and migrating waterfowl, upland game birds, and other migratory birds, as well as nontarget species can find food and rest areas on the Refuges even in the midst of the hunting season. 

Hunt regulations and sanctuary should be continually monitored and evaluated to ascertain their 

value in balancing the disturbance caused by allowing hunting on the Refuge. Under the stipulations 

outlined above, this activity does not materially detract from meeting Refuge purposes or the Refuge 

System mission. Refuge specific regulations are designed to minimize impacts, and will be evaluated 

for their effectiveness annually. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-18 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

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

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited: 

Henry, W.G. 1980. Populations and behavior of black brant at Humboldt Bay, California. M.S. 

thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 111 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E. and Dahlgren, R.B. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, and 

management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. 8 pp. 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-20 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Deer Hunting Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Hunting (big game) 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington. Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-21

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: 

Refuge hunt regulations are published annually by state in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 

Ch. 1. Deer hunting under both the provisions of applicable State regulations and Refuge special 

use regulations, is allowed on portions of the Refuge that fall under GMU 149 in Washington, and 

GMU 44 in Oregon. These portions include the Wallula Unit in Washington, and the State Line and 

Juniper Canyon Units in both Washington and Oregon. These three units are owned by the Corps 

and managed by the Service under a cooperative agreement. The remainder of Refuge land, 

including fee title land, is closed to all big game hunting. 

Hunting on the Wallula Unit is managed under Refuge special use regulations that permit the pursuit 

of game with archery and shotgun only. Seasons and species limits are set by State regulation. 

Hunting is permitted on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units under seasons and provisions set by 

the State. 

Big game hunting would continue unchanged under the Preferred Alternative 2 of the CCP/EA. 

Availability of Resources: 

 

The big game hunting program on McNary does not require any additional staff time over other uses 

that are occurring during the same time period. As Refuge deer hunting is only allowed during a one 

week period on Wallula, this use is not likely to detract staff resources away from the waterfowl 

program occurring at the same time. Furthermore, the Juniper Canyon and State Line Units fall under 

a highly regulated State permit program which restricts the amount of hunters and days these units 

can be hunted. It is unlikely that significant additional Refuge law enforcement presence would be 

required to manage this activity on these units. Base funding would cover the costs for administering 

this program. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $3,000

Maintenance: $0 $0

Monitoring: $0 $1,000

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $0

Totals $0 $4,000

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Some effects are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of the CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-22 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Direct Effects to Hunted Wildlife: Many of the disturbance impacts associated with big game hunting 

opportunities are similar to those considered for other public uses (e.g., waterfowl hunting, wildlife 

observation and photography – see those Compatibility Determinations). Like these uses, big game 

hunting also can cause disturbance as well as direct mortality, and short-term changes in game 

species distribution and abundance. 

Hunting intensity can influence habitat use for a variety of wildlife species. Highly mobile species such 

as mule deer can move away from areas of heavy disturbance and/or hunting pressure while less 

mobile species (e.g., California quail) or species tied to specific habitats, such as wetlands, retain 

smaller home ranges and are more subject to long-term exposure. For example, the largest mule 

deer herds on the Mid-Columbia River Refuge Complex are located on Umatilla Refuge adjacent to 

agriculture lands in closed nonhunted portions of the Refuge. Smaller herds have been observed 

along riparian units of the McNary Refuge where hunting and other public uses are more common. 

Portions of the Refuge open to deer hunting would include wetlands. Most waterfowl use, however, 

occurs earlier in the year for breeding and nesting activities, or later in the year during fall and winter 

migrations. Thus minimal disturbance impact to waterfowl would be expected. 

Currently, big game hunting pressure on the Wallula Unit is relatively low, with archery being the most 

commonly used method of pursuit. Archery season lasts the month of September when temperatures 

are still warm and deer are less likely to be moving during large portions of the day. Firearm season 

lasts only a week during October, and is relatively unpopular due to antler restrictions and the 

shotgun only requirement. Because of this, it’s unlikely that deer hunting on this Unit significantly 

impacts local deer populations. Furthermore, vegetation surveys show a noticeable level of deer 

browse on riparian shrub species. This could indicate a localized population spike or an increased 

use as sanctuary as deer move from the surrounding highway traffic and farming operations. 

Increased browsing could degrade the limited riparian habitat available to migrating/nesting song 

birds and other riparian obligate species. 

The Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units are primarily in Oregon, and exist as broken up, fragmented 

parcels surrounded and interspersed by private land. They fall under GMU 44, which is managed by 

the ODFW as a controlled hunt area. Only a specified amount of tags can be drawn to hunt this 

area during a three week period. Hunting pressure on these units is likely lower than on the 

surrounding private lands where deer use could be encouraged for hunting opportunity. 

Impacts to Non-hunted Wildlife: (See also Chapter 7, section 7.2) Non-hunted wildlife would include 

non-hunted migratory birds such as songbirds, wading birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small 

mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; medium sized mammals such as skunks and 

coyotes; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and 

toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. 

Deer hunting removes a small amount of prey from the prey base for predators. Due to the low 

number of deer harvested on the Refuge and the low population of predators, this effect is estimated 

to be minor. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-23

The other potential effect to non-hunted wildlife is largely in the realm of disturbance. The cumulative 

effects of disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the proposed action are expected to be 

negligible for the following reasons. Hunting seasons do not coincide with the nesting season. Longterm future impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this 

reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering nonhunted birds might occur. Because both Refuges maintain sanctuary areas where no hunting is 

permitted, this effect is likely a minor negative effect. 

However, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small mammals, including bats, 

are inactive during winter when hunting season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of 

these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. Hibernation or torpor by coldblood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures 

are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season. 

Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and should not have cumulative 

negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active during cold 

weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. Refuge regulations 

further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads 

and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season is not 

permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead-shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not relevant 

to McNary Refuge because the use of lead shot would not be permitted on the Refuge for any type of 

hunting. 

Some species of bats, butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the 

“flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed through 

the area by peak hunting season in Nov-Jan. Some hunting occurs during September and October 

when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would be commensurate with that of 

non-consumptive users. 

Other Effects - Unrestricted travel through the hunted area(s) can have some impact on soils and 

vegetation. 

User conflict and safety issues do provide some areas of concern on these units. Hikers, horseback 

riders, and anglers use these areas during big game seasons. However, with the exception of fishing, 

levels of use are relatively low and peak seasons generally do not overlap. Most of the fishing activity 

is concentrated on the river banks where established parking areas are close by. These fishing areas 

are likely not preferred by deer hunters. The restrictions to archery and shotgun limit trajectory and 

lower the risk of potential third party injury. 

No significant effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. 

Normal road, trail, and facility upkeep and maintenance will continue to be necessary. Additional 

facility construction or upgrade, if needed, is addressed in the Availability of Resources section. 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-24 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during drafting of the 

CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following stipulations ensure that deer hunting on the Wallula, Stateline, and Juniper Canyon 

Units of the Refuge, is compatible: 

• Only shotgun and archery are permitted on the Wallula Unit. 

• Weapons used for hunting on the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units will be restricted to the 

provisions listed under the applicable State regulations. 

• Specific area closures may be implemented to improve safety and reduce user conflict in areas 

having other public uses. 

• Specific area closure may be implemented to protect Refuge buildings and personnel. 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited. 

• Over the life of the CCP, Refuge staff will monitor vegetation on Wallula and consider increasing 

the hunt if warranted based on impacts to vegetation. 

Justification: 

Big game hunting is included as a Big Six priority use. Deer hunting can be managed without 

materially detracting from meeting Refuge wildlife objectives. Therefore, the hunt supports Refuge 

purposes, goals and objectives, and the NWRS mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-26 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Fishing Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Fishing (general); Fishing (tournament); Fishing (special events) 

Refuge Names: McNary National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, Franklin, and Benton Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, 

Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-27

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]. 

 

Description of Use: 

 

McNary: The Refuge receives over thousands of fishing visits annually (RMIS FY2004). The vast 

majority of fishing occurs from March 1 through the end of October. Early season fishing is focused 

on walleye and trout with fishing occurring primarily in the Columbia River within the boundaries of 

the Peninsula, Two Rivers, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units. Fishing in the late spring and summer 

primarily focuses on bass fishing in the Columbia River, and in the ponds that make up the Burbank 

Sloughs. Fishing for catfish in the Walla Walla River on the Wallula Unit, is also popular. Late 

summer and fall is primarily salmon fishing in the Columbia River within the boundaries of the Two 

Rivers, Peninsula, Burbank Sloughs, and Wallula Units and in the Walla Walla River in the Wallula 

Unit. Quarry Pond receives very heavy use (300-500 anglers in a weekend) during the month of 

March and then tapers off dramatically in early April as the pond is fished out. McNary Headquarters 

pond IV receives a few fishermen, mostly children and long time local residents, fishing the bass beds 

during spawning in April or May, but the area is rarely fished the rest of the year. 

Fishing occurs at McNary Refuge in the locations listed below. 

• On the McNary Headquarters Unit, fishing occurs only in pond IV. Fishing use to occur in pond 

III but a walking trail to the pond is no longer maintained and fishing has practically ceased. Trail 

maintenance stopped because of its disturbances to wildlife and nesting birds. Fishing is not 

allowed in ponds I and II. Boats are not allowed for fishing in any of the unit’s ponds. A small but 

active group of people including many local children fish primarily for bass in the pond. 

• On the Burbank Sloughs Unit, fishing is allowed in all ponds and sloughs and in the Columbia 

River and along its banks. Boats are allowed but are only used in the Columbia River because of 

the small size of the unit’s ponds. A few anglers walk (.25 to 1.5 miles) into the Unit’s small 

ponds, but a majority use a variety of boats to fish in the Columbia River. Boat anglers gain 

access to the River from boat launches at Corps facilities at Hood Park or Cargill Pond. 

• On the Peninsula Unit, fishing is allowed in and along the banks of Casey Pond, and in and along 

the banks of the Columbia River. Motorized and nonmotorized boats are allowed in Casey Pond. 

Fishing is also allowed in several other ponds on the Unit. These ponds are relatively small and 

shallow and anglers bank fish them. Access to the small ponds is from the unit’s main entrance 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-28 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

off Hanson Loop Road. A new (2004), good quality boat launch and large parking area are 

provided to anglers on the unit. Access to Casey Pond and the new boat launch is gained from a 

dirt road about one mile from the unit’s main entrance. Boaters launching from the Casey Pond 

launch can gain access to the Columbia River through a large opening in the dike. 

• On the Two Rivers Unit, fishing occurs in the Columbia River and along its banks and on the 

banks of Quarry Pond. Quarry Pond is the most popular spot on the unit to fish. It is especially 

popular with new immigrants and with families who have small children. Currently, the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stocks the pond with rainbow trout three times a year 

between March and May. The pond has no outlet to the river and is quickly fished out by the 

large numbers of anglers. Two dirt parking areas, seasonal port-a-lets, and an accessible fishing 

pier are available at the pond. Trash and litter are a significant problem. In the past five years the 

Refuge has closed a road along the pond to vehicle traffic and has also closed off several smaller 

parking areas that were too close to the water’s edge. The Refuge has worked with local hunting 

and fishing organizations and other volunteers to clean up the popular site. The clean-up days 

along with litter patrols by the Refuge’s seasonal Youth Conservation Corps have helped to lessen 

the amount of debris in the area. 

 

• Boat anglers access the Columbia River adjacent to the Two Rivers Unit from the same launches 

they use when fishing the Peninsula Unit. In addition, there is a small unimproved boat launch on 

the unit. The main (and only) vehicle entrance is off State Highway 12. 

• On the Wallula Unit, fishing occurs in several places including in the Walla Walla River and along 

its banks; in the Columbia River and along its banks; in White Tail Bay and along its banks; and 

in small ponds on the south side of the Wallula Unit. Fishing is not allowed in Sanctuary Pond. 

Boats access the Walla Walla River from a boat launch near at Madam Dorian Campground. A 

dirt parking area is provided along with a small accessible fishing pier. Port-a-lets are installed in 

the parking area during busy summer months when funding permits. Year-round vault toilets 

and/or port-a-lets are located a quarter of a mile away at Madam Dorian Campground. There 

are several parking areas for anglers on the Unit, on both the north and south side of the Walla 

Walla River. 

• The most popular types of fishing in the Columbia and Snake Rivers include salmon, steelhead, 

and walleye fishing. Bass fishing is also very popular in the areas around the Burbank Slough Unit 

(McNary Headquarters), Burbank Sloughs Unit (behind downtown Burbank), and the Peninsula 

Unit. There is some sturgeon fishing in the Columbia River near McNary Refuge. A few anglers 

fish for shad and carp. Catching northern pike minnow has become somewhat popular with the 

introduction of a cash reward from the States of Oregon and Washington for catching these fish. 

• The most popular fishing occurring in the Walla Walla River is for catfish followed by steelhead. 

Many anglers come to the Wallula Unit specifically for catfish. Ponds on Refuge units are mostly 

fished for bass. 

 

 

Under Preferred Alternative 2 of the CCP/EA, the fishing program will continue as described above 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-29

with the following changes: 

1. Installation of a fishing/Refuge/safety information kiosk at the Wallula (Madam Dorian) boat 

launch and at the Casey Pond boat launch. 

2. Build a fishing pier at McNary Headquarters pond IV. Install a fishing/Refuge/safety information 

kiosk. 

3. Stocking at Quarry Pond would be limited to rainbow trout. 

4. Improvement of parking facilities and access to river shoreline fishing sites (Two Rivers, Burbank 

Sloughs, and Wallula units). 

5. Hire seasonal park rangers to keep information up-to-date in kiosks and provide improved law 

enforcement coverage. 

Availability of Resources: 

McNary Refuge is open for hunting, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife photography, 

and wildlife observation as well as fishing. Access trails, parking lots, signage and other facilities are 

often used for multiple purposes. Even though fishing is the most popular visitor activity, only a very 

limited number of facilities have been developed specifically for fishing. With increased funding, 

improvements could be made to the programs. Limited funding and staff resources negatively effects 

maintenance and law enforcement of current facilities. Most of the costs associated with carrying out 

the improvements described in Preferred Alternative 2 are one-time expenses. The Service will explore 

all available options to obtain funding to implement these projects, including partnership efforts. 

 

Costs to Administer and Manage Fishing Programs at McNary Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense ($) 

Recurring 

Expense ($/year) 

Placement and Maintenance of Kiosks and Signs 46,000 3,000

Development/ Maintenance of Accessible fishing Pier 55,500 3,000

Law Enforcement 20,000 10,000

Monitoring (primarily of bird colonies) 10,000

Totals $121,500 $26,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Fishing, when practiced as a solitary and stationary activity, tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than 

hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). Direct habitat impacts include a certain amount of 

litter and general garbage left at fishing sites. Motorized boats create noise and potentially leave oil 

and gas residue. Installation and use of parking areas and access trails will decrease impacts to 

vegetation and soil adjacent to fishing areas, by concentrating visitors on hardened surfaces. 

Fishing would cause disturbance to birds and other wildlife using open waters and backwaters of the 

Refuges. Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities, as well as distribution, 

abundance and productivity of waterbirds (Tydeman 1977; Bouffard 1982; Bell and Austin 1985; 

Bordignon 1985; Edwards and Bell 1985; and Cooke 1987). Anglers often fish in shallow, sheltered 

bays and creeks that birds prefer, negatively impacting distribution and abundance of waterfowl, 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-30 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated shoreline activity discouraged 

waterfowl from using otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). In Britain, anglers displaced 

waterfowl from their preferred feeding and roosting areas and caused widgeon, green-winged teal, 

pochard, and mallard to depart from a reservoir prematurely (Jahn and Hunt 1964). Anglers 

influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites in 

Washington, when compared to nonfishing days (Knight et al. 1991). Shoreline activities, such as 

human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. In addition, vegetation trampling, 

and deposition of sewage or other chemicals are expected to commonly occur (Liddle and Scorgie 

1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, and impacts to bank stability and water 

quality, may result from high levels of bank fishing activities. 

Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire 

areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause 

premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). Impacts of motorized boating can occur 

even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount 

of time. 

Colonial nesting birds on river islands may be among the most sensitive of the wildlife species 

subjected to potential disturbance from fishing and fishing-associated boating. Washington State 

provided management recommendations for State priority habitats and species (WDFW 2001). In this 

document, WDFW provided management recommendations for limiting disturbance to American 

white pelican (state listed as endangered) and great blue heron. These are summarized below. 

Management Recommendations from WDFW Priority Habitats and Species 

Species Management Recommendation 

American white 

pelican 

• Establish a buffer zone of 400-800m (0.25-0.5 miles) and up to 1,600m 

(1.0 miles) from the nesting island which is closed to human activity such as 

boating (especially power boating), fishing, water skiing, discharge of fire 

arms, wildlife observation, etc. (Doran et al. 2004) 

• Close nest islands to trespass during the breeding season from 15 March 

through 31 August 

Great blue heron • Establish a protective buffer limiting human activity 820-985 feet from the 

outer edge of active colonies between February 15–July 31. 

Refuge staff will have to develop test sites to monitor the effects of the increase in angler to wildlife 

and in particular nesting birds. 

 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further 

details public involvement during development of the CCP. 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-31

Determination (check one below): 

 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

• Littering is prohibited. 

• The Service shall maintain portable toilet facilities at Service boat launches and heavily used 

fishing areas to minimize human waste problems on shorelines and island trespass. 

• All persons fishing shall be required to have a valid State license and follow applicable State 

regulations. 

• Special use permits (SUPs) for fishing tournaments shall include no-access buffers within Refuge 

waters one-half a mile from Refuge islands known to be supporting nesting colonies of American 

white pelicans between March 15 and August 31. In addition, a no-access buffer of 900 feet 

within Refuge waters from all other Refuge islands from February 15-July 31, shall be included in 

tournament SUPs to prevent disturbance to nesting colonial birds. 

• The Refuge Complex shall work in partnership with the States, recreational fishing organizations, 

and other conservation partners to develop permit conditions to include as “boilerplate” for 

tournament SUPs. Consideration shall be given to addressing issues of zoning, numbers of 

participants in any one tournament, and speed limits. 

• The fishing program will be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA. The Refuge 

fishing plan, leaflets, and section 32 of 50 CFR will be updated as necessary. 

• Fishing will be subject to Refuge specific fishing regulations in effect establishing set days, areas, 

times, points of entry, and permit requirements under which to fish. 

• Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with State and 

Refuge regulations. 

Justification: 

Fishing is a “Big 6” wildlife dependent recreational activity. It brings visitors to the Refuge and often 

enhances the visitors’ appreciation of natural resources. Parts of McNary Refuge are closed to all 

public use and these areas provide important undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife. In other areas 

only nonmotorized boats are allowed. This lessens the disturbances to colonial water birds and other 

wildlife. Other areas require long walks by anglers and thus receive minimal angler use and minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. Some areas receive high use and in these areas the wildlife is disturbed or 

displaced during high visitor usage. The combination of closed areas, seasonal use areas, minimally 

used areas, and seasonal high use areas, allows recreational fishing and high quality fish and wildlife 

habitat to co-exist on the Refuge. Fishing at anticipated levels will not materially interfere with the 

purposes of the Refuge. Stipulations will help reduce or eliminate any unwanted impacts of the use. 

State regulations and monitoring help ensure that harvest levels of fish do not harm long-term 

populations. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-32 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed uses) 

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. 

Biol. Conserv. 33:65-80. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas 

platyrhynchos. (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). 

Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 47:553-556. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Doran, P. J., M. Whalen, K. Riener, and L. Fitzner. 2004. American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management 

Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/amwpelic.htm 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-

21. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an Avian Scavenging Guild to 

Anglers. Biol. Conserv. 56:195-205. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: 

A review. Biol. Conserv. 17:183-206. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. J. 

of Environmental Management 5 :289-296. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: 

http://www. wa.gov/wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecsvert.htm#birds. 

 

 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-34 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Compatibility Determination

RMIS Database Use: Environmental education (teaching teachers or group leaders); Environmental 

education (teaching students); and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 

County and State: Walla Walla, and Franklin Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-35

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

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

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

of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.)). 

Description of Use: Environmental education (EE) and interpretation are both defined as wildlifedependent recreational uses under the Improvement Act. Environmental Education consists of 

educational activities conducted by Refuge staff, volunteers, partners, and teachers. The EE themes 

pertain to the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife and their habitats and the human 

environment. The goal of the EE program is to have students and teachers understand and value the 

Refuge System and the ecology and management of McNary Refuge. 

Under the Preferred Alternative 2 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 1,500 – 3,000 students 

will be served annually through McNary Refuge’s EE program. 

Interpretation occurs in less formal activities (i.e. infrequently scheduled tours or casual talks) 

conducted by Refuge staff or volunteers. Interpretive materials are also available to visitors through 

exhibits (mostly found in the McNary EE Center), interpretive panels, and brochures. 

At McNary Refuge, EE occurs primarily around the EE Center, Pond IV, the wildlife viewing/ 

photography blind and the two-mile nature trail. Seventy percent of EE use occurs during the spring 

(mid April-mid June) although programs exist throughout the rest of the year. The least active months 

are from December through February. 

Interpretive materials are available on the Refuges. A McNary Nature Trail brochure map is available 

at the trailhead along with six interpretive panels along the trail. A Refuge bird list that includes bird 

watching tips is available at the EE Center. On the North Shore Road of the Wallula Unit, an 

interpretive kiosk overlooks Sanctuary Pond. 

Refuge general brochures and hunting information sheets are available at the entrances to most 

Refuge units. 

Additional information on current EE and interpretive programs and facilities can be found in sections 

5.8 and 5.9 of the CCP/EA. Proposed program and facility changes or improvements can be found 

in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA, Goal 12. 

Under Preferred Alternative 2 of the CCP/EA, the environmental education and interpretive programs 

will continue as described above with the following improvements: 

• Develop more “teach-the-teacher” programs and Refuge specific instructor training. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-36 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

• Meet annually with Educational Services District 123 to ensure that Refuge programs are helping 

the school districts meet their state educational requirements. 

• Use high quality established programs, such as the Shorebirds Sister Schools program and 

develop education “module” boxes to assist new volunteers and teachers. 

• Explore opportunities to gain additional teacher volunteers through the Washington State 

University teachers program. 

• Hire a volunteer coordinator and or park ranger to manage and train volunteers and support the 

EE program. 

Availability of Resources: The following is the estimated construction costs and annual costs for new 

EE and interpretive programs developed under Preferred Alternative 2: 

 

Costs to administer and manage environmental education and interpretive programs for McNary 

Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2 of the CCP/EA. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Develop and produce interpretive panels 15,000 1,000

Educational Materials 8,000 1,000

Volunteer Specialist or Park Ranger (position 

shared with Umatilla) 

40,000 25,000

Totals $63,000 $27,000

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: Impacts from EE activities at McNary Refuge occur mostly in the area 

around the EE Center and south side of Pond IV, where school groups concentrate to take part in 

hands-on science activities. Impacts observed in this area of under two acres include: vegetation 

trampling, disturbance to nesting birds, and disturbance to feeding or resting birds or other wildlife in 

the proximate vicinity. 

An unpublished study (Jose, 1997) examined the effect of EE site activities at Blackhorse Lake on the 

Turnbull Refuge. The study was designed to compare waterfowl presence and behavior patterns 

between the times when EE activities were occurring and when EE classes were not on-site. The study 

results indicated that fewer waterfowl were present in the study area when EE classes were on site as 

compared to the control times. The study also found more short flights undertaken by birds when EE 

classes were on site. Redheads displayed the highest number of flight responses, followed by 

mallards. Ruddy ducks almost never flew but had the highest increase in directional swimming away 

from the EE classes. The study author recommended that sites heavily used by smaller bodied birds, 

such as ruddy ducks, buffleheads, and teals, not be used as environmental education sites. 

Participation in environmental education programs is growing throughout Oregon and Washington. 

The McNary program is limited by the number of qualified volunteers and teachers, and Refuge staff 

that can lead environmental education classes. With the growth of participation in EE programs and 

the emphasis of these programs by the Service, future effects can be expected to be higher than 

present. The EE program has a certain detrimental impact on Refuge habitats and wildlife but most 

EE activities are contained within a relatively small public use area. McNary Refuge is over 16,000 

acres and the heavily impacted area around the EE Center is less than two acres. During the primary 

season (April and May) for EE, the McNary Headquarters waterfowl fee hunt areas (ponds I and II) are 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-37

closed to the public, and therefore, provide additional sanctuary for breeding wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination: 

 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

User Stipulations: 

• Require advance reservations for larger groups (over 20) participating in environmental education 

activities. 

• Instruct all groups in trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife and habitat disturbance during a 

“welcome” session. 

• Encourage students and teachers to participate in stewardship activities including habitat 

restoration or monitoring. 

• Limit EE at McNary Refuge to designated sites on pond IV. 

• Encourage groups at McNary Refuge to put all their own garbage in the Service provided 

dumpsters. 

Administrative stipulations: 

• During “teach the teachers” workshops, instructors will review trail etiquette and how to minimize 

wildlife disturbances. 

• An effort will be made to limit group size to no more than 60 participants per day, reducing 

disturbance to wildlife and overcrowding of Refuge facilities during times of peak demand. 

• The EE Center will be accessible to all visiting public. Special efforts will be made to 

accommodate disabled visitors. 

• Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions from Refuge staff and volunteers will promote 

appropriate use of trails, boardwalks, and platforms to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

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

are being met and the resource is not being unacceptably degraded. 

• Where feasible, native trees and shrubs will be planted to create screening along trails and at 

observation points to reduce disturbance. 

• If funding permits, EE sites will be hardened and piers constructed to facilitate aquatic studies and 

to help reduce negative visitor impacts to soils, vegetation and hydrology. 

• Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

• Directional, informational, and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to help keep 

visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-38 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation contribute to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by providing wildlife-oriented educational and recreational benefits to 

Americans. Environmental Education and interpretation are two of the six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. By limiting the size of groups and providing closed areas for 

sanctuary from human disturbance in other areas of the Refuge, these programs will limit disturbances 

to wildlife. Environmental Education and interpretation are important parts of McNary Refuge’s vision 

and goals. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed uses) 

12/2022 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Jose, J. 1997. Evaluation of the Effect of Environmental Education Classes on Waterfowl Behavior. 

Unpublished report. Biology 454 class, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. 

 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-40 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Boating Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Boating 

Refuge Names: McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, Oregon. 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-41

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 CD covers “recreational” boating use on the Refuges, that is, boating that is not directly 

supporting hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, or environmental 

education. The types of recreational boating addressed in this compatibility determination includes: 

motorboats and nonmotorized boats, including kayaks and canoes, in all Refuge waters. 

Boating occurs throughout the year, but the primary recreational boating months are June through 

September. 

At McNary Refuge, boating takes place primarily in the Columbia River and is evenly divided on the 

Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units. There is some recreational boating 

(figures unknown) in the Walla Walla River in the Wallula Unit but most boating on the Walla Walla is 

related to fishing and waterfowl hunting. Some recreational canoeing and kayaking occurs in the 

Walla Walla River but user surveys have not occurred. As of spring 2006, personal watercrafts were 

not being used in McNary Refuge waters. It is estimated that McNary Refuge receives over 8,000 

recreational boating visits annually with the majority (7,000) of these visits by motorboats. 

Preferred Alternative 2 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP/EA) would continue to provide 

recreational boating opportunities with an emphasis on use supporting priority public uses, including 

wildlife observation/photography, interpretation, environmental education, waterfowl hunting, and 

fishing. 

Currently, boating occurs in the following areas: 

McNary Refuge: On the McNary Headquarters Unit, pond III and the area around the pond are 

closed year-round, therefore, no boating occurs. Pond IV is near the Refuge headquarters office and 

environmental education center. The area around this pond receives year-round pubic visitation but 

the pond is not open to boating. The irrigation canal receives some angling, but because its size, 

shape, steep banks, and lack of launch facilities, it is not practical for boating. 

The Burbank Sloughs Unit does not have any boating because the ponds are small and vehicle access 

is limited to maintenance and emergency vehicles. The Columbia River portion of the Burbank 

Sloughs receives both recreational motor boating and nonmotorized craft. It is an especially popular 

area for nonmotorized crafts because the unit has many back sloughs and coves to explore and has 

shallow waters that favor very small crafts. 

On the Two Rivers and Peninsula Units, recreational boating occurs on Casey Pond. The pond has a 

good quality boat launch and large parking area that has ample space for boat trailers. The other 

ponds on the units are small and/or shallow and are not used for boating. Boating is popular on the 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-42 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Columbia River portion of these units. 

On the Wallula Unit, the Walla Walla River, including White Tail Bay, is open to all boating. 

Sanctuary Pond is currently open to boating when water levels permit. Sanctuary Pond is primarily 

used by a few canoes and kayakers. Boating on the Columbia River portion of the unit is not as 

popular as on other units because high winds often occur at the sharp bend in the Columbia River 

making water conditions hazardous. 

Availability of Resources: Refuge funds are not spent directly on recreational boating but recreational 

boating benefits indirectly from investments made in facilities (boat launches, parking areas, access 

roads) that support Big Six activities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, 

where boats are used. 

See fishing compatibility determination about facility improvements that would benefit both 

recreational boaters and anglers that use boats to pursue fish. 

The main expenditures of Refuge funds to support this use will be in law enforcement (to ensure 

boaters are complying with area closures and any applicable speed limits or other restrictions) and in 

monitoring of wildlife populations. 

 

Cost to Administer and Manage Boating Programs at McNary Refuge under Preferred Alternative 2 of 

the CCP/EA 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) Recurring Expense ($/year) 

Law Enforcement $0 10,000

Monitoring $0 10,000

Totals $0 $20,000

 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

McNary Refuge provide crucial foraging and resting habitat for wintering and migratory birds, 

including waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Recreational boating can affect their use in 

Refuge waters. Boating is not allowed in all Refuge waters; McNary Refuge has areas that are closed 

to all public use and these areas provide important undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife. In other 

areas of the Refuges only nonmotorized boats are allowed. Some smaller water bodies within the 

Refuges are unsuitable and not practicable for boating. Some areas receive high use; therefore, the 

wildlife is disturbed or displaced during high visitor usage. 

Boating activity, both motorized and nonmotorized, can alter distribution, reduce use of particular 

habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and 

cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). More sensitive species may find it 

difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and 

recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized boats 

generally have more impact on wildlife than nonmotorized boats because motorboats produce a 

combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Cole 1995). Motorized boats can 

also cover a larger area in a relatively short time, in comparison to nonmotorized boats. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-43

Canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to penetrate into 

shallower marsh areas (Speight 1973, Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverway, green-backed heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes and boat use increased 

on the main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slow moving boats have also been 

observed to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that nonmotorized boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering 

waterfowl to flush between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and 

kayaks appear to have less disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964; 

Huffman 1999; DeLong 2002). 

In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to have the greatest impact on red-breasted merganser 

broods (Kahlert 1994). The presence of fast-moving boats also caused the most significant 

modifications to the amount of time animals spent feeding and resting. In England, an increased rate 

of disturbance from boats partly caused a decline in roosting numbers of shorebird species (Burton et 

al. 1996). In addition, boaters have been observed to cause massive flights of diving ducks on the 

Mississippi River (Thornburg 1973). Motorized boats within 100 meters of shore caused all wintering 

waterfowl and shorebirds to flush between the craft and shore in south San Diego Bay, regardless of 

speed (Huffman 1999). However, disturbance to birds in general was reduced when boats traveled at 

or below the five mph speed limit. Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their 

noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. The total number of 

boats and people can be an inappropriate measure of recreational intensity because the presence of 

a single boat might be just as disturbing as that of many (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Knight 1984). 

Even a low level of boating activity affects the duration and pattern of use by wildlife (Bratton 1990). 

Motorized boats introduce noise and pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water, and particulates in 

the air, in estuarine and riverine habitats at the Refuge. An EPA report indicates that two-stroke 

engines, found on many motorized boats, discharge as much as 25% of unspent oil and gas directly 

into the water. Increased speeds of two-stroke engines can result in greater discharge of unspent oil 

and gas. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil released from two-stroke engines float on the surface and 

settle within shallow estuarine habitats. Hydrocarbon pollution has been found to bioaccumulate 

within the complex food web, posing a serious threat to the marine environment (Tjarnlund et al. 

1993). Hydrocarbons can also be transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds. 

Extremely small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons can be toxic to eggs and birds that may ingest 

these contaminants (Hoffman 1989). 

Of the wildlife likely most vulnerable to disturbance from boating, this CD focuses on three groups: 

wintering or nesting waterfowl, nesting colonial waterbirds, and roosting bald eagles. Typically, large 

concentrations of waterfowl are found in Sanctuary Pond during the fall and winter months. During 

the spring, waterfowl and shorebirds use the pond in lesser numbers. 

A variety of species of nesting colonial birds are found on the McNary Refuge islands. Great blue 

herons were one of the most sensitive of 23 waterbird species, when measuring flush distances from 

motorized watercraft (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Bald eagles are a common to uncommon winter 

visitor and up to 32 birds regularly use a winter roost site (Denny, pers. comm.) located at the 

southern end of the Peninsula Unit. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-44 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

 

According to the WDFW priority species recommendations for bald eagle (Watson and Rodrick 

2004), boating can negatively affect bald eagle behavior. Foraging eagles on the Columbia River 

estuary maintained an average distance of 400m (1,300 ft) from stationary boats, and they 

responded to boat presence by reducing feeding time and the number of foraging attempts 

(McGarigal et al. 1991). Stalmaster and Newman (1979) found that 50% of wintering eagles in open 

areas flushed at 150m (500 ft) but 98% would tolerate human activities at 300m (1,000 ft). Activities 

that disturb eagles while feeding, especially during winter, can cause them to expend more energy, 

which increases their susceptibility to disease and poor health (Stalmaster 1987). A significant 

decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was observed when motorized boating 

activity occurred within 200m of that area in the preceding 30 minutes (Skagen 1980). 

Recommendations from WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species reports (Larsen et al. 2004) to reduce 

human disturbance to priority species follow. 

Management Recommendations from WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species 

Species Management Recommendation 

American 

white 

pelican 

• Establish a buffer zone of 400-800m (0.25-0.5 miles) and up to 1,600 m (1.0 mi) 

from the nesting island, closed to human activity such as boating (especially power 

boating), fishing, water skiing, discharge of fire arms, wildlife observation, etc. 

(Doran et al. 2004) 

• Close nest islands to trespass during the breeding season from March 15 through 

August 31 

Great blue 

heron 

• Establish protective buffer limiting human activity within 820-985 feet from the outer 

edge of active colonies between February 15 through July 31. 

Bald eagle • Protect core communal roost stands and staging stands with a buffer of 

approximately 120 m (400 ft) around core stands. The forest structure of buffer 

stands should include large trees and follow prescriptions to prevent deterioration 

from the effects of wind throw. 

• Activities that produce noise or visual effects within 120 m (400 ft) of the edges of 

communal roost trees or staging trees should be conducted outside of the critical 

roosting period (November 15 - March 15). 

• Leave 250-ft wide strips of perch trees and protective buffers along shorelines within 

eagle nesting territories and winter feeding areas. 

• Consider timing restrictions to avoid activities that may disturb eagles during critical 

periods. The following periods and distances may be less in urbanizing areas where 

eagles show more tolerance to human activities: 

 Wintering: November 15 through March 15 within 400-ft of roost stands 

 

On McNary Refuge islands (Foundation, Badger Island, and Crescent) some population monitoring of 

tern, cormorant, and gull colonies has been underway for several years. Additional monitoring of 

pelican and blue heron colonies is needed. 

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-45

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the drafting of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure that 

motorized and nonmotorized boating is compatible: 

• Continue to maintain areas closed year-round to boating, and areas seasonally closed, and 

waters open year-round. 

• Permit no boating that is not associated with waterfowl hunting on Ponds I and II. 

• To minimize disturbance to waterfowl on a sanctuary area, prohibit recreational boating on 

Sanctuary Pond November 1-February 15. 

• No air-thrust or inboard water-thrust watercraft or waterskiing will be allowed in Refuge waters. 

• Continue periodic law enforcement to help ensure compliance with regulations and area closures. 

• Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at Refuge boat ramps. Outreach and 

education to boating groups will occur periodically. 

• Monitor boating activities by periodically assessing and estimating the level of boating activity in 

various Refuge locations. Maintain survey efforts to assess population numbers for the wintering 

bald eagle roost on the Peninsula Unit, and Refuge populations of wintering waterfowl and 

colonial nesting waterbirds. Monitoring data will be used by the Refuge Manager in the periodic 

re-evaluation of this Compatibility Determination. 

Justification: 

Recreational boating itself is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation. Although recreational 

boating has a potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the 

Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. Effects to wintering species from purely 

recreational boating is expected to be minimal except on sheltered Refuge backwaters that are 

occasionally used by kayak and nonmotorized boats, however, the listed stipulation preventing 

boating on Sanctuary pond should reduce this. Summertime use may cause disturbance to nesting 

colonial waterbirds, but with island integrity being an area of emphasis in the CCP, law enforcement 

efforts will be stepped up to prevent unauthorized access to closed portions of islands. With this effort, 

it is anticipated that fewer boaters will closely approach islands, and recreational boating disturbance 

to colonial waterbirds will decline. Overall, the combination of closed areas, seasonal use areas, 

minimally used areas, and seasonal high use areas will result in an adequate amount of habitat 

available to the majority of disturbance-sensitive wildlife. In addition, high-speed boating disturbance 

near island shorelines would be reduced. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-46 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

It is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their 

abundance and use of the Refuges will not be measurably lessened, the physiological condition and 

production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. 

Improved outreach and educational information for Refuge visitors involved in activities associated 

with boating would also help to reduce the impacts associated with boating activities. Recreational 

boating is not a Big Six wildlife dependent recreational activity but it can bring visitors to the Refuge 

and often enhances the visitors’ appreciation of natural resources. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: (Provide month and year for allowed uses.) 

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

2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

 

Bauer, H.G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds 

wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91. 

Bratton, S.P. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 

13:124-128. 

Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, 

the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. 

Conserv. 77:193-201. 

Doran, P.J., M. Whalen, K. Riener, and L. Fitzner. 2004. American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management 

Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/amwpelic.htm 

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 115:41-50. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report-effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS report. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp. 

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus 

serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-47

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 561-567. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists in Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, CA. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 48:999-1004. 

Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management Recommendations for 

Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. http://wdfw.wa.gov. 

McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the 

Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monograph 115. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126. 

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. 

Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No. 1:216-224. 

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

River, Washington. Seattle, Washington. 231-241pp. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications. 1:215-225. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. 

University college London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35pp. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to 

human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

Tjarnlund U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological 

effects of 2-cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Inst. of Applied Research, University of 

Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. 

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. J. Wildl. Manage. 

37:382-389. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Watson, J. W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2004. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. 

Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority 

Species, Volume IV: Birds. Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/baldeagle.pdf 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. 

Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

 

 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-49

Camping Compatibility Determination 

Compatibility Determination

RMIS Database Use: Camping 

 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife-Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945] (Corps/Service Cooperative Agreement 2000, Stateline and Juniper Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-50 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

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

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

McNary Refuge manages the Madam Dorion Campground located on the Wallula Habitat 

Management Unit as stipulated under an agreement between the Service and the Corps (Cooperative 

Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13). The campground is currently in nonfee status and provides vault 

toilets, an RV dump station (March-Sept), and potable water (March-Sept). There are five tent sites 

with picnic tables and fire grates. Recreational Vehicle (RV) campers are provided a large gravel area 

in which to park. There are no developed sites or hook-ups for RV campers. Currently, 25 camping 

parties can be accommodated. This campground is considered largely primitive due to its lack of 

development and facilities. Potable water is provided through a domestic well with a chlorine pump. 

Irrigation water is provided through a pump house located on the Walla Walla River. Both systems 

are antiquated and require regular maintenance 

The campground is used primarily from spring through summer, but is open year round. Current 

regulations allow for a maximum stay of 14 days within 30 days. Many of the users are seasonal 

agricultural workers employed throughout the area and other transients who use the campground as 

temporary housing. The remainder of visitors will camp temporarily en route to other destinations or 

stay overnight to fish on the Walla Walla River. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Operating the campground in its present state requires the regular staff time of two Wage Grade 8s, 

one full time and two dual function law enforcement officers (LEOs), and a summer time Youth 

Conservation Corps crew member, a total staffing investment each year of $40,000.00. The vault 

toilets are serviced both under contract and by Refuge staff. Annual maintenance of the domestic 

water and irrigation systems requires $7,000.00 in equipment, in addition to the staff time costs 

above. Operating the campground as a fee unit would require a full time position for fee collection 

and operations; at minimum one full day a week of staff time for collection and counting of money; 

and increased law enforcement presence. 

Listed below are the current costs for administering the Madam Dorion Campground. 

Category and Itemization One-time Expense ($) Recurring Costs ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $40,000

Maintenance: $0 $7000

Monitoring: $0 $0

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $20,000 $0

Total $20,000 $47,000
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-51

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Current staffing is not adequate to meet the needs of operating this campground in a compatible 

manner. Resources are not available to regularly clean facilities, pick up garbage, handle the 

disposal of garbage, or control weeds and maintain grounds. The antiquated water systems and the 

RV dump station have cost the Service $10,000.00 in repairs in 2006 alone. Even with these repairs, 

the systems still fail State certification levels, and will require additional funding to bring them up to 

standards. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Anticipated impacts of this single camping site include habitat degradation; wildlife disturbance; site 

disturbance; soil and stream bank erosion; soil compaction; litter, and human waste disposal. 

Habitat degradation: The campsite has space for 25 family units or a maximum population of 75-

100 people, but seldom exceeds 30. The most likely impact to the Refuges’ soil and vegetative 

resources from camping would start during spring and early summer in the campsite area, adjacent 

upland, and wetland and riparian areas accessed by campers in daily activities. Fall and winter 

activities pose less impact to vegetation, except for wood and small twig gathering used for campfires. 

The campsite is adjacent to riparian woodland and small wetlands which are particularly valuable for 

nesting passerine birds along the Walla Walla River. The large gravel area used by RV campers is 

devoid of tree and shrub habitat that would normally be present in this transition zone between 

riparian and upland vegetation. Both nesting birds and migrant neo-tropical birds that use woodland 

and understory vegetation are impacted by the loss of this habitat. In addition, birds and other 

animals that are disturbed by the activities associated with camping will be excluded from these areas. 

A small grassland field is kept in a mowed condition to allow occasional group camping. According 

to Sun and Walsh (1998), if not well-managed, camping can adversely affect the values of natural 

and semi-natural resources. Recreation can degrade land, water, and wildlife, by simplifying plant 

communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse 

(Boyle and Samson 1985). It may also affect wildlife through trampling of habitat (Liddle 1975) and 

animal disturbance (Ward et al. 1973). One night of camping was sufficient to cause evident impact 

in four vegetation types (Cole 1995). Camping-induced soil disturbance may provide conditions that 

favor weed infestations and serve as a source of new infestations as campers bring in weed seed from 

other locations. 

Wildlife disturbance: The peak periods of use of the campsites are late spring, summer, and fall which 

coincide with peak use of the Walla Walla River riparian corridor by nesting and migrating birds. 

Wildlife disturbance results from the presence of campers and their pets throughout the day and night, 

especially during the breeding season for nesting migratory birds. The Walla Walla River riparian 

corridor is especially important to nesting and migrating birds. In their study comparing bird use of 

campground and noncampground riparian sites, Blakesley and Reese (1988) found that differences in 

avian community composition appeared related to nesting substrate, cover, and foraging substrate. 

Bird species missing from campgrounds were ground or shrub nesting species and ground foraging 

species likely as a result of a sparsely vegetated understory. Forest bird species sensitive to human 

disturbance may avoid campgrounds while more common and widespread species favor them 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-52 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

(Garton et al. 1977). In her study of land use effects on breeding birds on the Snake River, Saab 

(1996) found that overall bird abundance was significantly reduced in recreation areas while species 

richness and composition were similar among land use types. In Arizona, Aitchison (1977) found that 

breeding bird densities were similar between a campground (when closed to campers) and a relatively 

natural area; however, bird species composition differed between sites, the campground having 

relatively heavier bodied bird species. Once the campground was opened for human use, the 

breeding bird population decreased in density and diversity, while on the natural site, the bird 

population remained the same. Pets accompanying campers have the potential to chase and kill 

wildlife. Food from campsites may increase small mammal densities (Clevenger and Workman 1977 

and Foin et al. 1977) and increase mammalian predators. 

In Yosemite National Park, California, Garton et al. (1977) reported that the campground forest had 

less litter, grass and forb cover, log cover, and fewer trees under 25-feet than noncampground forest. 

The reduced vegetation was due primarily to campground visitors trampling vegetation, littering, and 

cutting up logs and trees for firewood. The campground forest became more like a meadow-forest 

margin favoring Brewer’s blackbirds, brownheaded cowbirds, and American robins-edge species that 

take advantage of human food sources. At Madame Dorion Campground, the presence of brownheaded cowbirds and nonnative house sparrows and starlings associated with campsites, would be 

detrimental to achieving Refuge goals to increase woodland nesting birds, such as yellow warbler and 

willow flycatcher, because of nest parasitism and/or competition. In the long term, the effects of 

continuous campground use will mean the area will support a much-reduced bird community in terms 

of species richness, diversity, and density. Only the most strongly human-attracted species, such as 

European house sparrows and starlings, and brown-headed cowbirds would likely benefit from the 

campsite (Garton et al. 1977). 

Site disturbance: Small fires have occurred as a result of camp fires set outside the permitted 

boundaries of the campground fire grates, and unattended fires have been found in grates during 

non-burn days. Irresponsible use of fire and damage to standing live or dead trees is most frequent 

near campsites. In addition, partially fire-consumed logs are occasionally found on the site in- andout of fire grates provided to campers. There have been several instances of wooden fence posts 

being torn down to be used in fire grates; and regular evidence of illegal burning of plastics, rubber, 

and cans, and other items of improperly disposed items at the campsite. 

The majority of Refuge campers seek a peaceful outdoor experience. However, there are campers 

who use camping as an opportunity to party. Loud motors, music, and uncontrolled dogs associated 

with some Refuge camping, disturb wildlife and detract from a peaceful outdoor experience for other 

Refuge users. Night time activities, including barking dogs, sounds, and lights likely disturb wildlife in 

adjacent habitats. 

Dogs associated with campers also elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone 

would (MacArthur et al. 1982; Hoopes 1993). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may flush 

incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), 

disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 

1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs 

provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. Despite thousands of 

years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-53

stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs in the campground that become unleashed or not 

under the control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In 

effect, off-leash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what 

it would be in the absence of dogs. The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. 

However, dogs host endo- and ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, 

wild animals. In addition, dog waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of 

some wildlife and other domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various 

diseases and transport parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). The Refuges can limit dog 

disturbance which can be mitigated by enforcing current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) “...no 

unconfined domestic animals, including but not limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at 

large...”). However, camping increases the likelihood of unleashed dogs and their impacts. 

Soil and stream bank erosion: Camping in riparian areas may also result in increased runoff into 

streams due in part to exposed soil and reductions in vegetation (Green 1998). In the case of 

Madame Dorion camping, a large graveled RV site increases the risk of runoff into the Walla Walla 

River. Significant streambank erosion and vegetation trampling have and continue to occur along the 

shoreline of the Walla Walla River as a result of camper activities at Madame Dorion Campground. 

Even low levels of hiking or camping activity have been shown by research to cause substantial 

degradation to vegetation and soils (Cole in Farrell and Marion, 2002). Foot trails leading from the 

campground to shoreline fishing areas erode the streambank and impact shoreline vegetation, 

causing further erosion from seasonal high water levels. 

Soil compaction: Soil compaction occurs in areas used for camping, resulting in reduced vegetative 

reproduction and pioneering of invasive weed species (Liddle 1975). Use of a campsite as 

infrequently as one night per year is sufficient to cause measurable impacts in many vegetation types, 

but usually results in height reduction rather than cover loss (Cole 1995). The amount of impact 

generally increases with an increase of use, but not proportionally. Four times the amount of use did 

not result in four times the amount of cover and height reduction (Cole 1995). 

Litter and human waste disposal: In one study, water quality in streams, measured by total coliform 

bacteria counts adjacent to camps, was negatively affected by weekend campsite use that revealed 

higher coliform counts (Christensen et al. 1978). In this western Washington study, bacteria were 

rapidly transmitted to the river water, even in dry periods. The presence of the single pit-vault toilet at 

the Madame Dorion campsite reduces, but does not eliminate the risks of coliform entering the Walla 

Walla River. Campers regularly discard baitcups, trash, and other litter items at the campsite or along 

the adjacent shorelines while fishing and recreating. Use of detergent, soap, and toothpaste in 

streams and lakes harms fish and other aquatic life. Campers often leave other undesirable items 

(straw, couches, mattresses, chairs, etc.). Illegal removal of natural objects (plants, antlers, live 

animals, etc.) and cultural objects may result from camper visits. Creation of “improvements” (leantos, tables, chairs, game poles, etc.) and alteration of the site (trenching) are also byproducts of 

camping. Refuge law enforcement officers and managers report that Madam Dorion is frequently 

used as a transient stopover for people, and as a temporary residence. In many cases, these campers 

are merely using it as a free place to stay until they find somewhere else to go. Many of them will 

homestead, using the campground as a free place to live until informed by Refuge staff of the 14-day 

limit. These campers tend to leave more litter and trash, and accommodate their sites for extended 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-54 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

stays by using local materials (wood, vegetation, government property like posts and split-rails) to 

erect lean-tos, tables, etc. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the development 

of the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details 

public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

 

Determination: (check one below) 

 X Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

N/A 

 

Justification: 

Camping is not listed as one of the Big Six wildlife dependent recreational uses under the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Furthermore, it has been determined that 

Madame Dorion campground is not necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing 

Refuge wildlife dependant recreational uses. While a certain portion of campers do participate in 

fishing activities, it’s questionable whether Madam Dorion is needed to facilitate this single activity. 

Furthermore, present evidence indicates that Madam Dorion is used primarily as a transient stopover 

for people on their way to other places. The majority of these campers don’t stay to partake in other 

Refuge related activities. In many cases, campers are merely using it as a free place to stay until they 

find somewhere else to go. Many of them will homestead, using the campground as a free place to 

live until informed by Refuge staff of the 14-day limit. Many RV users simply stop to use the RV 

dumping station and move on. This type of common use indicates that many users of Madam Dorion 

Campground are not employing camping to facilitate other wildlife-dependent uses. 

Currently, funding for the infrastructure and staff needed to develop and maintain Madam Dorion is 

not available. The weekly, monthly, and annual maintenance of this campground continues to pull 

Refuge resources and staff time away from projects designed to reach and achieve Refuge goals and 

objectives. Madam Dorion is currently a no-fee campground. Developing a fee collection program 

would require a substantial initial investment, perhaps as much as $1million to build the infrastructure 

capable of sustaining and controlling the impacts of use. It is not certain if the revenue collected 

would offset the initial costs or the annual costs of operations. Currently there is no funding available 

to develop this campsite, nor is any expected in the near or distant future. 

Camping is considered appropriate only when no reasonable (based on time, distance and expense) 

lodging opportunities are available off-refuge and when staff resources needed to manage camping 

do not detract from the quality of another priority wildlife-dependent recreational use (U.S. Fish and 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-55

Wildlife Service 2001a). There are other private and public campgrounds nearby that accommodate 

both RV and tent campers with a better level of service. During the CCP review, the team focused on 

the presence of an alternative, privately-owned campground (Pierce’s Happy Valley) directly adjacent 

to the Refuge. This well maintained fee camping site provides enhanced services over the 

government-operated campground. The team believes the public is better served by converting the 

Madame Dorion site to a day use only site, reducing law enforcement issues associated with camping, 

and allowing the Refuge to promote Big Six uses such as wildlife viewing and photography at the 

Madame Dorion site. Existing boat launch and rest area facilities would be maintained. 

Based on the preceding analysis, camping has a negative impact on Refuge habitat; displaces and 

disturbs wildlife; is not necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing Refuge 

wildlife dependant recreational uses; and detracts staff and operational resources away from 

programs that contribute to the conservation and management of wildlife. It materially interferes with 

the Refuge achieving its purposes, and therefore, is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

n/a 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited: 

Aitchison, S.W. 1977. Some effects of a campground on breeding birds in Arizona. Pages 175-182. 

Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium, July 9, 1977, 

Tucson, AR. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. 

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

Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in 

riparian zones. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):399-402. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1983. Nonconsumptive outdoor recreation: An annotated bibliography 

of human-wildlife interactions. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. No.252. 

113pp. 

Christensen, H.H., R.E. Pacha, K.J. Varness, and R.F. Lapen. 1978. Human use in a dispersed 

recreation area and its effect on water quality, in Recreational Impact on Wildlands, Ittner, R., 

D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee, and S. Anschell - eds. October 27-29, 1978. Seattle, 

Washington:conference proceedings. 

Clevenger, G.A. and G.W. Workman. 1977. The effects of campgrounds on small mammals in 

Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 

42:473-484. 

Cole, David N. 1995. Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping: Experimental applications of 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-56 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

low-level stress. Environmental Management 19(3):405-416. 

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

impacts and mitigation measures—prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix 

L (114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact 

statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Farrell, T.A. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Camping Impact Management at Isle Royale National Park: An 

Evaluation of Visitor Activity Containment Policies From the Perspective of Social Conditions. 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. 2000. 

Foin, T.C., E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz, and B. Holton, Jr. 1977. 

Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National Park, California, 

and their implications for park management policy. Journal of Environmental Management 

5:1-22. 

Garton, E.O., B. Hall, and T.C. Foin. 1977. The impact of a campground on the bird community of 

a lodgepole pine forest. Pages 37-43 in T.C. Foin, ed. Visitor impacts on National Parks: 

The Yosemite ecological impact study. Univ. Cal. Davis, Inst. Ecol. Publ. 10. 

Green, D.M. 1998. Recreational impacts on erosion and runoff in a central Arizona riparian area. 

Soil Water Conserv. 53, 38–42. 

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

and chick survival. MS Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 106 pp. 

MacArthur, R.A., Johnston, R. and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging 

bighorn sheep: A physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 57:2010-2021. 

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

habitat in Scotland. Biol. Cons. 58:213-228.

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36. 

Saab, V.A. 1996. Influences of spatial scale and land-use practices on habitat relationships of 

breeding birds in cottonwood riparian forests. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Colorado, 

Boulder,CO. 140 pp. 

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

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

Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Sun, D. and D. Walsh. 1998. Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism 

in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 53 (4), 323-38. 

Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R. and Daigle, J. J. 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and 

mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 9 

(3), 59-71. 

Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea et al. 1973. Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest 

recreation and traffic. North American Wildlife National Research Conference Transactions 

38:327-337. 

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

Pluvialisapricarius. Biol. Conserv. 51:243-263.

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-58 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Horseback Riding Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Horseback riding 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington, Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-59

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

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

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

 

Description of Use: 

Horseback riding is currently permitted on McNary Refuge on gravel roads that are only open to 

vehicular travel, and on two designated horse trails as stipulated under a cooperative agreement with 

the Corps (CA# DACW68-4-00-13). As proposed, horseback riding would be allowed only on roads 

open to vehicular travel, and on the two previously designated horse trails on the Peninsula and 

Wallula Units of the Refuge. Both trails are approximately four miles long and traverse both upland 

and shoreline habitat in their respective units. The trails are primarily used by local riding clubs in 

groups ranging from two to eight riders at any given time. Most use occurs in the spring and fall 

months. Some groups have taken an ownership approach to the trails and have adopted trail 

etiquette rules such as single file riding and staying on the established trail, though evidence of 

alternate trail use has been documented on the Wallula Unit. Currently, the Refuge has no hard 

numbers, but annual observations from staff indicate that these trails are receiving infrequent and 

seasonal use.

 

Availability of Resources: 

The initial costs to administer the designated trail portion of the horseback riding program could cost 

anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 for signing, required maintenance and rehabilitation, and parking 

lot improvements. Annual costs should be minimal after this. The direct costs for road maintenance 

would be minimal, with road maintenance and monitoring for other public use activities covering all 

costs. The annual cost to administer and monitor this use through law enforcement personnel is listed 

below. Base funding is available to cover staff costs. 

McNary Costs: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $5,000

Maintenance: $0 $1,000

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $7,000 $200

Total $7,000 $6,200

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-60 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Possible biological impacts of horseback riding include disturbance to wildlife and habitat 

modification. Wildlife can be affected by the sight and sound of recreationists (Boyle and Sampson 

1985). Habitat can be affected through vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and erosion (Cole 

1983, 1990). 

Some of the effects of disturbance to wildlife from recreational activities include: affecting foraging 

behavior; reducing productivity; causing abandonment or altering of breeding territories; altering 

distribution; altering flight behavior; causing energy depletion; and disrupt nest and brood rearing 

attentiveness (Klein 1989, Knight and Skagen 1988). 

Public use activities can also have adverse impacts on vegetation and soil conditions. Impacts from 

vegetation trampling can lower species richness, decrease ground cover and plant species density, 

increase weedy annuals, and induce changes in species composition (Gragherr 1983, Bright 1986, 

Bonanno 1992). 

Impacts related to horseback riding include exotic plant seed dispersal (Beck 1993, Hammitt and 

Cole 1987), soil compaction and erosion (Bainbridge 1974, Hendee et al. 1990, Hammitt and Cole 

1987), stream sedimentation (Seney and Wilson 1991), trail widening (Whitaker 1978), vegetation 

trampling (Nagy and Scotter 1974, Weaver and Dale 1978, Whitaker 1978), aesthetic concerns 

relative to horse manure (Lee 1975), direct wildlife disturbance (Owen 1973), and direct and indirect 

conflicts with other recreationists. Exotic plants can be spread to new sites through forage (e.g., hay 

brought in to feed horses, which contains seeds of exotic plants) and manure (Beck 1993). 

Exotic plant establishment is further facilitated by increased trail disturbance as many exotic plants 

gain a competitive advantage in highly disturbed sites. This soil disturbance is often created through 

soil compaction with as much as 1,500 p.s.i. exerted on the soil surface with each step (Hendee et 

al.1990). Additionally, hoof action tends to dig up and puncture the soil surface (McQuaid-Cook 

1978) which causes greater sediment loss than any other form of recreational trail use (Seney and 

Wilson 1991), and increases the potential for disturbance tolerant vegetation (e.g., exotic plant) to 

establish. Trail widening is also a consideration, as horses tend to walk on the down slope sides of 

trails (Whitson 1974). Anticipated results include a wider trail, a much wider area of disturbance, and 

ongoing trail maintenance problems. Vegetation impacts can be much more pronounced considering 

that hikers tend to flatten vegetation while horses tend to churn up soil, thus, cutting plants off at the 

rootstalk (Whitaker 1978). This can increase spread of previously established exotics by providing 

loose disturbed soil for germination and spreading reproductive plant structures. This impact initially 

increases exotic plant encroachment with light to moderate trail use and eventually lowers species 

richness values to near zero with heavy impacts (Hendee et al. 1990). 

Wildlife disturbance relative to horseback riding has been poorly studied, with most references using 

other activities such as hiking and cross-country skiing to infer horseback riding impacts. One study 

identified disturbance tolerance of waterfowl to horseback riders and found that horseback riders 

could approach geese up to a distance of 46 m. This is compared to suggested hiking trail distances 

of 75 m (Miller et al. 1998) and boat buffers ranging from 77 to 273 m (depending on the type of 

boat, whether or not the boat is motorized, and species impacted; Burger et al. 1999). The 46 m 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-61

approach distance offered by Owen (1973) is consistent with observations, suggesting that horseback 

wildlife observers can approach wildlife at closer distances than through other forms of travel. Many 

wildlife species appear to be habituated to livestock, thus, are less likely to flee when approached 

through this method. Using the 46 m buffer as an example, this would translate into 144 acres of 

habitat potentially being impacted directly by horse use, though the two established trails are located 

along areas where disturbance to waterfowl is not likely. Any form of approach is expected to cause 

some disturbance, which will vary according to the species affected and the type, level, frequency, and 

duration of disturbance, as well as the time of day or year that it occurs. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public development of the 

CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

At present, horseback riding on McNary Refuge does not seem to be impacting wildlife and 

associated habitat any more than other permitted public use activities (i.e. fishing, hiking, and vehicle 

access). This is likely due to the relatively low level of use, most of which occurs during cooler months 

when wildlife is not as active. However, as stated in the anticipated impacts described in the previous 

section, any increased or unrestricted horseback riding could lead to significant impact on wildlife 

resources through exotic seed encroachment, vegetative trampling, erosion, and wildlife disturbance. 

These impacts would be cumulative with associated impacts from other public use opportunities. 

Therefore, in order to ensure the compatibility of this use, the following stipulations shall be applied. 

• Horseback riding must be restricted to those areas already designated for riding (i.e. roads open 

to vehicular travel, and previously designated trails). 

• Open roads and designated trails would be subject to seasonal closures based on presence of 

sensitive wildlife populations. 

• Horse trailers would be restricted to designated parking areas listed in the Refuge brochure and 

posted on site. 

• Horseback riding would be a day use only activity. 

• Designated horse trails would be signed at both ends and at regular intervals throughout the 

length of the trail. Riders would be required to ride single-file on these trails. Riders would be 

restricted to the designated trail. 

• A maximum number of riders per party, day, or season may be established. 

• Monitor vegetation damage and impact along roadsides, designated parking areas, and trails. 

• Monitor funds required to enforce regulations and administer use. Monitor level of use. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-62 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

• Activity could be closed upon finding of significant negative impacts to Refuge facilities or wildlife 

resources. 

• Require the use of certified weed-free hay and the washing of horses before and after rides to 

minimize weed spread. 

• All educational and interpretive materials for riders will emphasize principles of the Leave-NoTrace backcountry horse use (www.lnt.org). 

Justification: 

While not one of the six priority wildlife dependent public uses listed or identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended (1997), horseback riding is believed to be a 

compatible public use under the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination. Primary 

reasons for this determination include: 

1. Wildlife observation can be an element of horseback riding. 

2. Horseback riding allows the Refuges to reach a target audience not reached through other 

opportunities; horseback riders are potential partners and a potential source of support for the 

Refuges. 

3. Impacts associated with horseback riding would be minimized through implementation of the 

stipulations noted above. 

4. Trail use and impacts will be monitored and the use modified if necessary. 

Horseback riding, if practiced as described in the Description of Use section above, would not 

interfere with the Refuge’s achieving their purposes or contributing to the System mission. 

 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

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

12/2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife dependent public uses) 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

 

Bainbridge, D.A. 1974. Trail Management. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 55:8-10. 

Beck, K.G. 1993. How do weeds affect us all. Proc. Eighth Grazing Lands Forum. Washington, 

D.C. December 2, 1993. pp5-13. 

Bonanno, S.E. 1992. Vegetation of a Lake Ontario dune barrier, Oswego and Jefferson Counties, 

New York, under high and low recreation pressure. MS thesis. Syracuse State Univ., Syracuse, 

NY. 88pp. 

Boyle S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of noncomsumptive recreation on wildlife. A review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-63

Bright, J.A. 1986. Hiker impact on herbaceous vegetation along trails in evergreen woodland of 

central Texas. Biol. Conserv. 36: 53-69 

Burger, J., B. Harrington, J.Rodgers, and H. Smith. 1999. Minimum recommended set-back (RS) 

distances for various disturbances approaching directly towards waterbirds to prevent flushing. 

Handout provided at the Watchable Wildlife Conference - Oct 18-22, Ft. Meyers, FL. 

Cole, D.N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Res. Paper INT312. U.S. Forest Service. Internt. For. Range Exp. Sta. 18pp. 

____, 1990. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. Pages 425-466. in

J.C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas, eds. Wilderness management. North American 

Press. Golden, CO. 

Grabherr, G. 1983. Damage to vegetation by recreation in the Austrian and German Alps. Pages 

74-91 in N.G. Bayfield and G.C. Barrow eds. The ecological impacts of outdoor recreation 

on mountain areas in Europe and North America, Rept. 9. 203pp. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. John Wiley 

and Sons, New York, NY. 341pp. 

Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Management. North American 

Press, Golden, CO. 

Lee, R.G. 1975. The management of human components in the Yosemite National Park ecosystem. 

Yosemite National Park, CA. 134pp. 

McQuaid-Cook, J. 1978. Effects of hikers and horses on mountain trails. J. Env. Manage. 6:209-

212. 

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

communities. Ecological Applic. 8:162-169. 

Nagy, J.A.S. and G.W. Scotter. 1974. A quantitative assessment of the effects of human and horse 

trampling on natural areas, Waterton Lakes National Park. Can. Wildl. Serv., Edmonton, AB. 

145pp. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl 24:123-130. 

Seney et al. 1991. 

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles, and horses in meadows and 

forests. J. App. Ecol. 15:451-457. 

Whitson, P.D. 1974. The impact of human use upon the Chisos Basin and adjacent lands. USDOI, 

NPS. 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-65

Swimming and Beach Use Compatibility Determination

Use: Swimming and Beach Use 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington, and Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-66 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

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

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Under Preferred Alternatives 2 of the CCP/EA, current seasonal beach use and associated other uses 

such as swimming would be discontinued on all beaches and islands of the Refuge. Summertime 

beach use is officially not allowed currently but occurs due to lack of law enforcement. The majority 

of summertime beach use occurs at Strawberry Islands; a minor amount of use occurs at Foundation, 

Badger and Crescent Islands. 

The uses that occur on these sites and that are analyzed in this CD include non-Big Six uses such as 

picnicking, sun bathing, walking on the beaches, and swimming from the beaches. Waterskiing takes 

place in the deep waters outside of Refuge jurisdiction. Waterskiing will not be allowed on Refuge 

waters and has been determined to be not appropriate as a Refuge use. 

Observational information by staff to date, suggests substantial increase in the number of beach users 

in recent years. This trend is expected to continue into the future, especially in light of developments 

in local communities. Illegal trespass onto the closed islands, as well as overnight camping on 

opened beaches, is now occasionally encountered. 

Availability of Resources: 

Currently, staffing levels for law enforcement are inadequate for implementation of this or other 

alternate management options for allowing swimming and beach use. Current law enforcement 

staffing consists of only one full time LE Officer (LEO) covering eight refuges spread out nearly 250 

miles within the Mid-Columbia Basin. Boat patrols require a minimum of two LEOs. Availability of 

dedicated funding would provide possible opportunity to expand such agreements for improved 

enforcement. Current staffing levels of law enforcement are totally inadequate for conducting this 

public use. 

 One-time Costs ($) Recurring Costs ($/year) 

Law Enforcement 18,000 

Sign maintenance 1,500 800 

Program monitoring/education 1,000 1,200 

Administration 1,500

TOTAL $2,500 $21,500 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-67

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Impacts on Wildlife: 

Breeding Birds—We anticipate negative impacts to colonial nesting birds from direct beach use at the 

designated sites. In addition, nesting birds cannot use beach areas for foraging sites while feeding 

young; and young fledged birds cannot use beach areas being used by humans. Although the timing 

of most beach use occurs in late summer (July 1-September 30), which is generally after the nesting 

season, young birds and foraging adults would still use the beach areas well into July and early 

August, if they were available. Beach use is supported by boating, and there is a considerable body 

of evidence suggesting negative consequences for birds from boating (USDOI, 1996 - For a wealth of 

information on disturbance caused by boating and beach use see pp. 37-40; for nesting occurrences 

see p. 34, Table 5.) Also see Boating and Fishing CDs in the CCP. 

Preferred nesting habitat that is abundant on most islands for use by Canada geese is sage-steppe 

areas that provide large shrubs for concealment and protection, but also allow sufficient open space 

for seeing and escaping approaching threats. Other areas are also used for nesting by geese such as 

riparian trees and shrubs, and tall grasses that provide good concealment. The timing of the heaviest 

use by humans occurs in the summer, which is a time of year that is well after nesting activity. 

However, the sandy beach sites are preferred for loafing by geese. The presence of human activity on 

beaches precludes that use by the birds. Human-induced fire resulting from beach users is a threat to 

the sagebrush habitat used by nesting geese. Such a fire could totally eliminate the sagebrush 

supporting nesting geese. 

Other breeding bird use on the islands includes bank swallows, various passerines, American avocets, 

California quail, ring-necked pheasant, and possibly long-billed curlews and burrowing owls. 

Designated and seasonal beach use would likely cause minor negative impacts for all said species. 

Human use directly on the islands would occur generally outside of the main breeding season; 

however, some of the species such as bank swallows and avocets could still be using beach sites for 

nesting during July. Fledged young of the year are known to use beach areas and associated 

vegetation zones for resting and feeding. Another concern is loss of beach areas for use by migrating 

shorebirds and other waterbirds including American white pelicans. Beach users displace shorebirds 

causing additional stress during the migration period. In addition, any boating activity during the 

breeding season could cause serious harm, especially to terns, avocets, and ducks. 

Habitat—With use restricted to designated beaches, there would be only minimal disturbance to 

habitat. The designated beaches are frequently washed over and are very dynamic. However, illegal 

activities stemming from the designated beaches pose the most serious threats to habitats on the 

island. Paper/plastic litter and human waste are expected problems, as well as some trespass onto 

the closed island areas. Wildfire resulting from beach users is the most significant threat, with fire 

ignitions potentially resulting from camp fires, fireworks or other sources. Campfires and use of 

fireworks are common violations on the beaches and pose a significant threat to habitat and wildlife 

resources. 

Cultural Resources—The islands have a rich cultural resource history and use by early Americans. The 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-68 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

potential for loss or damage to important sites is increased by the presence of beach use and 

associated public uses, including the potential for fire, disturbance, and inadvertent discoveries and/or 

exposures. 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination (check one below): 

__X__ Use is Not Compatible 

_____ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

n/a 

Justification: 

Swimming and beach use is not listed as one of the Big Six wildlife dependent recreational uses under 

the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Swimming and beach use on 

the three designated island sites on Umatilla Refuge are not necessary for the safe, practical, and 

effective conduct of existing Refuge wildlife-dependant recreational uses. While a certain portion of 

beach users do participate in fishing activities, beach access is not needed to facilitate this single 

activity. Furthermore, campfires and use of fireworks are common violations on the beaches and 

pose a significant threat to habitat and wildlife resources, especially trees used by colonial nesting 

birds and sagebrush used by nesting geese. Beach users displace wildlife including migrating 

shorebirds, fledged young of the year birds who use the beach vegetation zone, and adult colonial 

nesting birds foraging to feed young of the year in nests. 

Swimming and beach use does not contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, nor is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. Beach use increases the potential for damage or degradation of important cultural 

resources on the islands. 

 

Currently, the availability of resources for administration and adequate law enforcement patrols to 

implement swimming and beach use is not sufficient. Given the growing limitations of staffing and 

budget, resources are insufficient to meet the requirements for needed protection to wildlife resources 

and the public safety of Refuge visitors. 

Based on the analysis above, swimming and beach use has a negative impact on Refuge habitat, 

displaces wildlife, and pulls staff and operational resources away from programs that contribute to the 

conservation and management of wildlife, therefore, materially interferes with the Refuge achieving its 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-69

purposes, and is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

N/A

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Environmental Assessment of Public Use on Umatilla National 

Wildlfe Refuge, Morrow County, Oregon, Benton County, Washington. 

 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-71

 

Farming Compatibility Determination

RMIS Database Use: Farming 

 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington; Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-72 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

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

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

 

Description of Use: 

Current cropland farming practices include organic and biological farming (Cropland Management 

Plan, 1996). Under organic farming practices the use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides are 

eliminated. The use of organic fertilizers (such as manure) and crop rotation (including nitrogen fixing 

crops) are used to improve soil fertility and tilth. Control of weeds and plant pests are accomplished 

by crop rotation, mechanical techniques, and biological controls such as predatory insects. Crop 

variety is limited as some crops are unable to be successfully cultivated under organic practices in this 

area. Under biological farming practices, crops grown are selected primarily for their wildlife value. 

Use of organic fertilizer and crop rotations are used to improve soil fertility, but chemical fertilization is 

used if soil tests determine particular deficiencies, or if manure or crop rotations are found impractical 

for a particular crop. Plant pests and weeds are controlled by crop rotations, mechanical techniques, 

and bio-controls where practical, but approved low toxicity chemical agents are used as needed on a 

case by case basis. 

Production methods include cooperative agreement farming, which involves a negotiated agreement 

between the Refuge and private farmer to produce crops for both parties. The cooperator is 

responsible for all the costs of production except for maintenance of underground irrigations systems 

and pumps. In return for producing a specified amount of crops for the Refuge, the cooperator is 

allowed to harvest and sell the remaining crops. All crop selections are agreed to by the Refuge, and 

special conditions are documented in the cooperative agreement (Cropland Management Plan, 

1996). 

 

On McNary Refuge, a total of 632 acres are in cooperative farming programs, with the Refuge 

obtaining 25% of the crop share for wildlife and the cooperator harvesting the remainder (75%) for 

their share. The 75%/25% (cooperator/Refuge) share ratio was deemed appropriate for this area by 

the Oregon State University Agricultural Extension office (Cropland Management Plan, 1996). Any 

field which is double cropped during the growing season is assessed the 75%/25% cooperator/Refuge 

split for each crop (Cropland Management Plan, 1996). 

Crops grown include cereal grains and green forage for migratory and wintering waterfowl use. 

Grain crops grown to meet the high energy demands of migratory and wintering waterfowl include 

corn, wheat and occasionally buckwheat. Green forage crops which provide for the fall, winter and 

spring Canada goose population include alfalfa, winter wheat, and occasionally grass (Cropland 

Management Plan, 1996). The Refuge shares are obtained by 1) taking a share of a crop which is 

also being harvested by the farmer or 2) having the farmer grow specific crops just for the Refuge by 

splitting a field or devoting an entire field to Refuge shares. Exceptions include involving the 

cooperator in establishing native upland grasses in former farm fields, as well as developing native 

grasses in shelterbelts on the perimeter of current farming circles for improved weed and erosion 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-73

control and wildlife uses. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would continue this program; see Objective Ia. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage cooperative 

agreement farming, as described above. 

 One-time Costs Recurring Costs 

Underground irrigation system and pumps $10,000 

Road maintenance $1,000 

Program monitoring 

Administration $4,000 

TOTAL 0 $15,000

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The Columbia Basin and the lands of the Umatilla Refuge were once dominated by shrub-steppe 

habitat. This greater area, at present, is dominated by cropland farming. Combined with other 

development in the area, this once vast expanse of shrub-steppe habitat has been significantly 

degraded as a result of conversion, fragmentation, small patch size, lack of connectivity, introduction 

and spread of nonnative invasive weeds, livestock grazing, and fires. With a parallel history, the 

biological integrity of the relatively small area (10,255 acres) of shrub-steppe habitat on the Refuge is 

in an overall degraded to highly degraded state. Croplands represent approximately 9.5 percent of 

the total upland area on the Refuge. Other direct impacts of cropland management include exposure 

of soils to wind erosion, the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from 

pesticide usage, and continuance of the introduction and spread of weeds through use of manures 

and field to field movement of cultivating and harvesting equipment. 

About 100 bird species can occur in sagebrush habitats (Braun et al. 1976). Some of these species 

are sagebrush-obligates, almost entirely dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round or during the 

breeding season. These species include sage grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage 

thrasher. These sagebrush obligate birds have been reduced or most likely extirpated as breeders on 

Umatilla Refuge. Some of the songbirds may occur as migrants. When considering the conversion of 

Refuge croplands to shrub-steppe habitat the potential benefit would be negligible on a landscape 

scale for improving functional attributes of this system in support of dependent species (in particular, 

obligate nesting species). 

Many other species occur in shrub-steppe habitat but are not as dependent on sagebrush. Examples 

of these species are burrowing owl, lark sparrow, vesper sparrow, horned lark, loggerhead shrike, 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-74 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

long-billed curlew, and western meadowlark. 

Primary invasive plants are described in Chapter 4 of the CCP/EA and in the 1996 and 1999 

Cropland Management Plans.

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following stipulations ensure that Cropland Farming Management is compatible: 

• Cropland farming will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency 

policy. 

• Annual cooperative farming agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency policy. 

• Pest plants and weeds will be controlled by crop rotations, mechanical treatments and biological 

controls where practical; approved pesticides will be used only on a case by case basis. 

• Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and it must meet other State and Federal requirements. 

• Cooperators will provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and how applied. 

• Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal and agency requirements. 

• Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds. 

• Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff. 

 

Justification: 

 

Although not a Big-Six use, cropland farming management is a critical Refuge operation in meeting 

purposes of the Refuge (e.g., “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird program”), 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-75

as well as goals and objectives established in the CCP/EA (e.g., Goal 1: Manage high quality food 

and sanctuary to support large concentrations of migratory waterfowl; Objective 1A: Provide Crops 

for Waterfowl). Options for providing a more natural means to secure food supplies for area 

waterfowl are limited (Cropland Management Plan 1996). Area wetlands do not produce adequate 

natural waterfowl foods, because of their rarity and the lack of availability of high quality, productive 

wetlands. Consequently, waterfowl have relied heavily on waste grain in area corn fields (Cropland 

Management Plan, 1996). 

The Refuge share of cropland farming, which is managed primarily for the benefit of waterfowl, 

includes cereal grains and green forage. Grain crops grown to meet the high energy needs of 

migratory/wintering waterfowl include corn, wheat, and buckwheat. Green forage crops, which 

primarily provide for the fall, winter, and spring goose populations, include alfalfa, winter wheat, and 

occasionally grass. Because of restrictions on crops grown, areas farmed by the cooperator for their 

share provide additional benefit (not included in Refuge share) to waterfowl by providing waste grains 

and/or green forage in harvested fields. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

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

12/2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Cropland Management Plan. Mid Columbia Refuge Complex. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Cropland Management Plan. Mid Columbia Refuge Complex. 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-77

 

Research Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Research; Scientific Collecting; Surveys 

Refuge Name(s): McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington; Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property, Corps/Service Cooperative 

Agreement, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 2, 

1945]. (Corps/Service Cooperative Agreement 2000, Stateline and Juniper Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-78 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

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

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

 

Description of Use: Fish, wildlife, and habitat research is an existing use and is conducted on Refuge 

lands and waters by independent researchers, partnering agencies, educational groups, and Refuge 

staff. Some research is used to address basic wildlife conservation questions such as survival of 

federally listed endangered and threatened juvenile salmon stocks in the Columbia River. Other 

research is more specific to Refuge management and resources and is used in an adaptive way to 

measure the effectiveness of Refuge habitat and wildlife management programs. 

Umatilla and McNary Refuges together receive three to seven requests per year on average to 

conduct scientific research on the Refuges. Most have involved Columbia River System salmon and 

steelhead research and include studies of: piscivorous waterbirds; Caspian tern foraging; salmon/ 

steelhead PIT tag recovery; smolt radio telemetry and migration patterns; habitat use of burrowing 

owls; and wetland/groundwater hydrology. Between the years 2000 and 2005 there were between 

four and seven active special use permits issued for research and monitoring studies including those 

summarized in the following table. Under the CCP, special use permits would only be issued for 

monitoring and investigations which contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and 

management of native plant and wildlife populations and their habitats, especially as they relate to 

Refuge lands and management activities. 

 

Summary of research activities at McNary Refuge 2000-2005. 

Organization 

 

Research Topic 

and Description 

Location of Research 

and Habitats 

Timing of 

Research 

Equipment and 

Facilities Used 

OSU and Real 

Time Research 

(contract with 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service); Dr. 

Daniel Roby 

Avian predation of 

salmonids; mainly 

Caspian terns diet 

preferences and 

impacts to salmon 

and steelhead smolts 

Colonial nesting 

waterbird colonies 

primarily on Crescent, 

Badger, and Foundation 

Islands in Columbia River

Nesting 

season from 

April through 

June; research 

started in 

1998 

Seasonal field spy 

blind set up; access 

by boats; lowaltitude fly-over 

some years 

Oregon State 

University (contract 

with NOAA 

Fisheries Service); 

Dr. Daniel Roby 

Caspian tern feeding 

behavior and 

selective foraging; 

net-pen study on 

Refuge wetland 

Unit II wetland at 

McNary Refuge’s 

Burbank Slough 

May through 

June 

Access to shoreline/ 

wetland by vehicle 

on established 

roads/trails; netpens in Wetland II 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service; Northwest 

Fisheries Science 

Center; Brad Ryan 

Salmon/steelhead 

PIT tag recovery; 

nesting colonies are 

searched for tags 

deposited on the 

island as a result of 

predation 

Nesting islands are 

searched for PIT tags; 

both hand-held and jeep 

mounted detection 

antenna are used; 

primarily on Crescent, 

Badger, and Foundation 

Islands in Columbia River

Fall and early 

winter; annual 

and ongoing 

research effort 

Access to island by 

boat; at Crescent Is. 

a jeep is used to 

mount radio tag 

receiver and 

magnetic collector 

otherwise hand-held 

wands are used 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-79

Organization 

 

Research Topic 

and Description 

Location of Research 

and Habitats 

Timing of 

Research 

Equipment and 

Facilities Used 

NOAA Fisheries 

Service: Northwest 

Fisheries Science 

Center; Brad Ryan 

Smolt radio 

telemetry; use of 

fixed-site radio 

telemetry to track 

smolt migration in 

Columbia and 

Snake Rivers 

Radio telemetry antennas 

and receivers placed on 

Refuge at Strawberry 

Island in the Snake River 

and Peninsula Unit and 

Crescent Island in the 

Columbia River 

Antennas are 

placed during 

the smolt 

migration 

period from 

April through 

August 

Access to islands by 

boat; 8-12 foot 

antenna secured by 

guy wires 

USGS-BRD and 

Arizona Coop Fish 

and Wildlife Unit 

Habitat use and 

requirements of 

burrowing owls 

Refuge uplands and 

shrub steppe areas; offRefuge sites; nest 

searches conducted and 

habitat evaluated 

Breeding 

season from 

February 

through July 

Access by vehicle on 

established roads 

Research proposals are reviewed by the Refuge and conservation partners, as appropriate. If a 

proposal is approved, special use permits are issued and administered by the Refuge Manager. 

Evaluation criteria for approving studies will include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• research contributing to specific Refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other 

research requests 

• research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will 

not be granted 

• research projects that can be accomplished off-Refuge are less likely to be approved 

• level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request 

• Refuge evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize disturbance through 

study design, including considering adjusting location, timing, scope, number of permittees, study 

methods, number of study sites, etc. 

• Approvals are subject to sufficient staffing for the Refuge to monitor researcher activity in a 

sensitive area 

• the length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval 

• projects will be reviewed annually 

• These criteria will also apply to any properties acquired in the future within the approved boundary 

of the Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Under the Preferred Alternative 2, the following annual funding costs (based 

on FY 2005 costs) would be required to administer and manage research activities as described 

above. Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to 

administer this program as envisioned under Alternative 2. However, grants may be sought with the 

assistance of the Friends of Mid-Columbia River Refuges group to assist for smaller projects. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management (Refuge biologist and 

managers): 

 Evaluation of applications and permit management 

$0 $1,500

Maintenance: $0 $0
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-80 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Monitoring of ongoing research projects and their effects: 

(Refuge biologist and managers) 

$0 $2,500

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: $0 $0

Offsetting revenues: $0 $0

Total $0 $4,000

 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Short term impacts - Use of the Refuge to conduct research will generally benefit Refuge fish, wildlife, 

plant populations, and their habitat, and contribute to recovery of listed threatened and endangered 

species. Monitoring and research investigations are also an important component of adaptive 

management. Research investigations would be used to evaluate salmon and steelhead recovery 

efforts and assist managers in managing Refuge habitats to aid in recovery efforts. Specific restoration 

and habitat management questions would be addressed in research investigations, such as the 

burrowing owl studies, to improve habitat and benefit wildlife populations. 

Standardized monitoring would be used to insure data compatibility for comparisons from across the 

landscape. An expected short-term effect of monitoring and research investigations is that Refuge 

management activities would be modified to improve habitat and wildlife populations, as a result of 

new information. 

Some effects would occur through disturbance which is expected with some research activities, 

especially where researchers are entering sanctuaries or sensitive islands with colonial nesting birds. 

Researcher disturbance could include altering wildlife behavior, going off designated trails, collecting 

soil and plant samples or trapping and handling wildlife. Death of animals due to the use of lethal 

collection methods as well as accidental death and injury from trapping and handling and other 

invasive procedures (Pit-tagging, force feeding, and blood collection) can occur. American white 

pelican colonies are known to be sensitive to human disturbance and will abandon nests. The 

public’s perception of lethal methods, such as the taking of cormorants to determine stomach 

contents, might be negative. 

Disturbance to breeding, resting and feeding wildlife and their habitats may occur through frequent 

contact with researchers performing data collection and monitoring activities. Results of disturbance 

could include the abandonment of nest and young resulting from frequent visitation to nest or 

breeding sites. In addition, trapping and marking of wildlife for habitat and population studies may 

result in injury and mortality; study of food habits, parasitism or disease may require the taking of 

animals; and measurement of habitat characteristics or experimental manipulation 

of habitats may result in the alteration or destruction of wildlife habitat. 

Damage or alteration to the habitat from researchers would be minor; however, some increase in 

invasive plants is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation of source seed on research 

equipment and personnel. The blinds used by tern researchers at Crescent Island are small, on the 

surface, temporary, and are removed at the end of each season. The radio antenna used for PIT tag 

monitoring is moored to the ground with stakes and wires; but they too are removed after each 

season of use and have no lasting impact. The use of vehicles on Crescent Island to collect Pit-tags 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-81

could damage young vegetation. However, the nesting colonies are found in the cobble-stone 

substrate of the island, which is generally devoid of vegetation and/or limited by the bird colonies 

themselves. 

Most effects would be minor because only a minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, 

vegetative litter, plants, and macroinvertebrates) and required for identification and/or 

experimentation and statistical analysis would be permitted and captured, and marked wildlife would 

be released. Refuge evaluation of research proposals would insure that only proposals with adequate 

safeguards to minimize impacts would be accepted. Potential impacts associated with research 

activities would be minimized because sufficient restrictions would be included as part of the study 

design, and researcher activities would be monitored by Refuge staff. Refuge staff would ensure 

research projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native 

Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats, thereby, helping the Refuges fulfill the purposes for 

which they were established, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to 

maintain ecological integrity. 

Additionally, special use permit conditions would include restrictions to further ensure impacts to 

wildlife and habitats are avoided and minimized. 

Long-term impacts Expected long-term and cumulative effects include: a growing body of sciencebased data and knowledge as new/continued monitoring and new/continued research complements 

and expands upon previous investigations; resulting in an expanded science-based body of data and 

information from which to draw upon to implement the best Refuge management possible. Natural 

resources inventory, monitoring and research are not only provisions of the Improvement Act, but they 

are necessary tools to maintain biological integrity and diversity and environmental health, which are 

also key provisions of the Act. Inventory, monitoring and research are intended to improve habitat 

and wildlife populations. This in turn could improve wildlife-dependent recreation by increasing 

encounters with wild things. 

Public Review and Comment: Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the 

public during development of the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the 

CCP/EA further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__x__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the description of use section above, will 

be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on the Refuge. If proposed 

research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential adverse impacts on Refuge wildlife 

or habitat, then the Refuge will determine the utility and need of such research to conservation on 

management of the Refuge’s wildlife and habitat. If the need is demonstrated by the research 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-82 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

permittee and accepted by the Refuge, then measures to minimize potential impacts (e.g., reduce the 

numbers of researchers entering an area, restrict research in specified areas) will be developed and 

included as part of the study design and included on the special use permit. 

Special use permits will contain specific terms and conditions that the researcher(s) must follow relative 

to activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc. to ensure continued compatibility. All Refuge rules and 

regulations (CFR 50) must be followed unless otherwise accepted in writing by Refuge management. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility include: 

• Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas will be avoided unless sufficient protection from research 

activities (i.e., disturbance, collection, capture and handling) is implemented to limit the area 

and/or wildlife potentially impacted by the proposed research. 

• When and where needed, some areas may be temporarily/seasonally closed to research; research 

can be permitted to resume when impacts to wildlife and habitat are no longer a concern. 

• Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when unforeseen 

impacts arise, such as a wildfire altering landscape conditions or large declines in a population. 

• At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. 

• Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for compliance with conditions outlined on the 

Special Use Permit. A Refuge manager and/or Project Leader may determine that previously 

approved research and special use permits be terminated due to observed impacts. 

• The Refuge manager and/or Project Leader will also have the ability to unilaterally cancel a 

Special Use Permit if the researcher is out of compliance with permit conditions and/or to ensure 

wildlife or habitat protection and/or visitor and public safety. 

• All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research proposal for review and 

recommendation by the Refuge biologist and approval by the Refuge Manager. The biologist will 

provide the required proposal format to researchers. 

• Agencies and entities operating stationary monitoring stations requiring utilities (air quality, 

weather) will cover maintenance and operating costs including utilities for their station. 

• All samples and specimens collected from the Refuge are Refuge property. Once research is 

complete or terminated, researchers shall check with the Refuge to ascertain whether samples and 

specimens are to be turned over to Refuge offices. Service personnel shall be provided access to 

the samples and specimens at any time at no cost (unless arrangements are made to the contrary). 

• The Refuge Biologist will review all research proposals and identify any conditions of the research 

permits that eliminate or minimize negative impacts to any one area, species, or habitat of the 

Refuge. The Refuge Biologist will make a recommendation to the Refuge Manager on whether the 

research should occur, based on weighing of benefits and impacts. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-83

• Research requiring the collection of animals will only be authorized after careful consideration by 

the Refuge Biologist and Refuge Manager as to the importance of Refuge populations to the 

conservation of the species, the possible adverse impacts to the Refuge populations, and the 

humaneness of the collection methodology. State and Federal collection permits are required. 

• Consultation will be conducted for any research activities that may possibly have an impact on 

threatened or endangered species. 

• The Refuge Manger will issue no more than six special use permits annually for Refuge research. 

Additional permits may be considered depending on staff workload and cumulative impacts of 

existing research projects on wildlife and habitats. The permit holder will list each person assisting 

on the research project and provide description and license number of vehicles that will be used. 

• Refuge staff will monitor research projects to ensure that on-going research is not causing longterm habitat damage or impacting any animal populations. 

• Additional site specific and research specific terms and conditions will be included in all SUP's. 

Justification: Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act are to “maintain 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and monitoring.” 

Refuge plans and actions based on research and monitoring provide an informed approach to habitat 

and wildlife programs. Refuge monitoring and research will directly benefit and support Refuge goals, 

objectives and management plans and activities and can contribute to recovery of endangered/ 

threatened species. Management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat will improve through the 

application of knowledge gained from monitoring and research. Biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health will benefit from scientific research conducted on natural resources at the 

Refuge. The Refuge manager and biologist will ensure that proposed monitoring and research 

investigations will contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native 

wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge, thereby helping the Refuges fulfill the purposes 

for which they were established, as well contributing to the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

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

 2017 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-85

 

Dog Training (including Field Trials) Compatibility Determination 

RMIS Database Use: Dog Training, including Field Trials 

Refuge Name: McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

County and State: Walla Walla and Franklin Counties, Washington; and Umatilla County, Oregon. 

McNary Refuge was established in 1955 by cooperative agreement with the Corps which transferred 

administrative control of the original 2,849-acre parcel to the Service (Federal Register of May 1956; 

Document No. 56-3499; and Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service in September 

1963, and as amended September 1969). Additional lands were purchased in subsequent years 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d). A small parcel was donated to the Service 

in 1969, under the Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-1, k-2). In 1972, another parcel was 

transferred to the Service from the Bureau of Reclamation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664). In 1999, the original Refuge was transferred from the Corps to the Service 

through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999 bill (P.L. 106-53; 16 USC 668dd). 

Additional lands were added in 2000 (Cooperative Agreement No. DACW68-4-00-13), dated 

January 2000 and as amended June 2000. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

• for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources thereof, and habitat 

thereon, under plans... (All units, 16 U.S.C. §§ 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

• “for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources...” (All units, General Plan, 

1953). 

• “particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” (Original 

Burbank Unit, and Hanford Islands Unit, General Plan, 1953). 

• “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fish life, waterfowl and upland game birds” 

(Peninsula, Two Rivers, and Wallula Units, General Plan, 1953). 

• Snake River Mitigation Compensation Plan (Cummins Property only, Cooperative Agreement 

between Service and Service, 2000). 

• “Dam Project Purposes” [primary purposes of navigation, power development, irrigation, and 

conservation of wildlife - Public Law Number 14, 79th Congress, First Session, approved March 

2,1945]. (Cooperative Agreement between the Corps and Service, 2000, Stateline and Juniper 

Canyon units only). 

• Other parcels: Small pieces of the Refuge were also added later by purchase under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract of land under a 10-year lease with 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and, approximately 20 small tracts were 

acquired under authority of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (PL 87-714). 

Additional detail on the purposes of this Refuge may be found in Chapter 1 of the CCP/EA. 

 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-86 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

Field dog trials formally test dogs’ scenting, marking, and retrieving ability. At McNary Refuge, these 

events typically last one day, and use dead frozen or dummy birds. The use is confined to a small 

field area on the Two Rivers Unit, is usually attended by 20 to 25 people and 10 to 15 dogs, and 

takes place on the second weekend in March. This is in compliance with the State dog training 

season which runs from August through March. No horses are affiliated, or allowed for this use. 

Currently, this activity is administered through issuance of a special use permit with strict stipulations 

that must be followed. 

Historically, the Two Rivers Unit was listed as an official State dog trial area, and larger, more 

competitive trials, involving horses, trailers, and overnight camping, were held annually. However, no 

trials of that magnitude have been conducted within the last seven years, and future requests for such 

trials are not anticipated. 

This event is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use. The use was determined not appropriate 

under the Appropriate Uses review (Appendix K). 

Availability of Resources: 

Costs to administer the use are detailed below. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense ($) 

Recurring Expense 

($/year) 

Site Designation and Prep $0 2,000

Maintenance (Annual Noxious Weed Control) $0 1,000

Enforcement and Oversight $0 2,000

Totals $0 5,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

This event usually takes place in the spring and may contribute to short-term disturbances of ground 

nesting birds and other wildlife. Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a 

variety of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et 

al. 1985; Freddy 1986), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al 1982), altered foraging patterns 

(Burger and Gochfeld, 1991), and even, in some cases, diminished reproductive success (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). Based on this information, it is likely that field dog trials would have similar impacts. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-87

These studies and others have shown that the severity of the effects depends upon the distance to the 

disturbance and its duration, frequency, predictability, and visibility to wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). 

The most likely impact to the Refuge resources would be during spring and early summer. Limited 

impacts to nesting birds could occur as described below, but would be relatively minor because the 

dog training would be limited to a confined area and would occur on only one or two days per 

season. 

The presence of dogs may flush incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt 

breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb 

roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Despite thousands of years of domestication, dogs still 

maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. 

Dogs that are unleashed or not under the control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten 

the lives of some wildlife. In effect, off-leash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence 

or disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of a dog. 

Impacts to native vegetation could occur from movement of dogs and people over the landscape. 

Noxious weeds could be spread further into shrub-steppe habitat through the additional traffic. The 

short duration, infrequency, and restricted area of these events could result in minor impacts to 

resident wildlife but may have long-term impacts such as noxious weed spread and infestation. 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and 

ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to wild animals. In addition, dog 

waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other 

domesticated animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport 

parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). 

Current Refuge regulation (50CFR 26.21(b) states “...no unconfined domestic animals, including but 

not limited to dogs...shall be permitted to roam at large...” ). 

Public Review and Comment: 

 

Open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during development of 

the CCP/EA for the McNary and Umatilla Refuges. Appendix A of the CCP/EA further details public 

involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Determination (check one below): 

__X___ Use is Not Compatible 

____ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

B-88 Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: n/a 

 

Justification: 

Dog training is not listed as one of the six wildlife dependent recreational uses under the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. Dog training on the Refuges is not necessary 

for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of existing Refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

While most waterfowl and upland game hunters do employ dogs, training areas can be found 

elsewhere. The effects of dog training pose a minor threat to habitat and wildlife resources, and 

temporarily displace wildlife. 

Dog training does not appreciably contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, nor is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. 

 

Though the additional resources needed to administer the use are small, all resources on the Refuges 

for administering uses are stretched very thin. Given the growing limitations of staffing and budget, 

resources are insufficient to meet the requirements for needed protection to wildlife resources and the 

public safety of Refuge visitors. 

 

Based on the analysis above, dog training has a negative impact on Refuge habitat, displaces wildlife, 

and detracts staff and operational resources away from programs that contribute to the conservation 

and management of wildlife, therefore, it materially interferes with the Refuge achieving its purposes 

and is determined not a compatible use. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Reevaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

None 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

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

Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:110-116. 

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

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

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

and management guidelines. Colon. Waterbirds 12:104-108. 
McNary and Umatilla Refuges CCP/EA – May 2007 

Appendix B – Compatibility Determinations, McNary National Wildlife Refuge B-89

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

bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harasment during winter. Pages 286 in

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: Proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecol. Inst., Boulder, CO. 

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

and chick survival. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

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

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

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and Recreationists 

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

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

sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:351-358. 

Servheen, C.W. eds. 1980. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium; Seattle, 

Washington. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pp. 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. 

Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

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

apricarius). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 

MAPS 

 

 

 

Aerial view of Mid-Columbia River 

area and Refuges (1994) – NASA 

Pasco

Umatilla

Richland

Kennewick

Benton City

West Richland

Snake

River

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Columbia River

MCNARY

Refuge

Units

U T M Z O N E 1 1 N

N A D 8 3

Produced by the D ivision of R ealty and R efuge Inform ation

Com prehensive C onservation P lanning B ranch

Portland Oregon

File: 08-143-1.m xd 07/30/2008

WASHINGTON

OREGON

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington

Umatilla County, Oregon

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Vicinity Map

Legend

Yakima

River

Umatilla County

Franklin County

Aquatic portions

of Refuges

(includes some islands)

Upland portions

of Refuges

Columbia River (non-Refuge)

County boundaries

0 2 4 8 Miles

0 2 4 8 Kilometers

1:421,238

Map 1

The Columbia River Island units east and

north of Richland were planned as part of

the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP.

Refuge Headquarters
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

U TM Z O N E 11 N

N A D 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, G IS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-2.mxd 07/09/2008

Union P acific

B urlington Northern

B urlington Northern

Snake

River

Franklin County

Walla Walla County

12

12

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River

Benton County

Umatilla County

B urlington

Northern

730

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Refuge Boundary and Land Status

Columbia

River

Union

P acific

B urlington

Northern

12

Walla

River

Walla

Colum

bia River

12

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

395

395

Wallula Unit

395

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

395

Crescent

Island

Legend

FWS Land & Water Under Easement/Lease

Refuge Headquarters

FWS Managed Lands & Water

FWS Approved Acquisition Boundary

McNary NWR Islands

124

Burbank Sloughs

Unit

Burbank

Humorist Road

Wallula

Burbank Slough

Unit 4

Burbank Slough

Unit 3

Burbank Slough

Unit 2

Burbank Slough

Unit 1

Casey

Pond

Quarry

Pond

Sanctuary

Pond

White-Tail

Bay

South Millet

Wetlands 1, 2 & 3

Walla Walla

Delta

West Millet

East Millet

Woodland

Cottonwood

Map Index

1

2

3

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

3

1:157,000

0 2 4 Miles

0 2 4 Kilometers

2

1:48,000

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1

1:75,000

0 0.5 1 Miles

Map 2

Madame Dorian

Park

Cummins Property
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

Union Pacific

Burlington Northern

Burlington Northern

Snake

River

Franklin County

Walla Walla County

12

12

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Habitat Management Actions under Final CCP

Columbia

River

Union

Pacific

Burlington

Northern

12

Walla

River

Walla

Colum

bia River

12

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

395

395

Wallula Unit

395

Burbank Sloughs

Unit

Crescent

Island Maple Street

Lake Road

12

395

See Inset A

Wallula

Burbank

UTM ZO NE 11N

NAD 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, GIS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-3.mxd 07/22/2008

Inset A

Field 4a-d

Dudley

Ponds

Cummins Property West Millet

East Millet

Casey

Pond

Quarry

Pond

Sanctuary

Pond

White-Tail

Bay

Walla Walla

Delta

South Unit

Wetlands 1, 2 & 3

Field 9

Legend

Shrub Steppe: restore additional areas from roads

and croplands (may not represent actual location

or acreage)

Wetlands: improve submergent habitat and

decrease invasives

Shorebirds: maintain and improve value of mudflat areas

Riparian: Snake River mitigation area Cummins Property

Existing wetland moist soil areas

Existing active cropland to provide winter feed

for waterfowl

Shrub Steppe: improve condition in key areas

Curlews: restore suitable habitat

(may not represent actual location or acreage)

124

Humorist Road

Field 4e

MAPS

Station

Kohler

Kohler

Cottonwood

Woodland

Field 8

Field 6c

Field 6b

Field 6a Field 5

Field 7c

Field 7b

Field 7a

Field 3a

Field 3b

Field 3c

Riparian: improve condition in key areas

(may not represent actual location or acreage)

Field 3c

Field 3b

1

1:75,000

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 Kilometers 2 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:48,000

Refuge managed lands

McNary NWR islands

Salmonids: study feasibility of providing enhanced

backwater areas for rearing

Map 3

Map Index

1

2

3

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River

Benton County

Umatilla County

Burlington

Northern

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

3 0 3 6 Kilometers

0 3 6 Miles

1:157,000

730

395

Potential cropland

(may not represent actual location or acreage)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

Union Pacific

Burlington Northern

Burlington Northern

Snake

River

Franklin County

Walla Walla County

12

12

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Public Use Facilities under Final CCP

Columbia

River

Union

Pacific

Burlington

Northern

12

Walla

River

Walla

Colum

bia River

12

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

395

395

Wallula Unit

395

Burbank Sloughs

Unit

Crescent

Island Maple Street

Lake Road

12

395

See Inset A

Wallula

Burbank

UTM ZO NE 11N

NAD 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, GIS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-4.mxd 07/22/2008

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River Benton County

Umatilla County

Burlington

Northern

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

Inset A

West Millet

East Millet

Casey

Pond

Quarry

Pond

Sanctuary

Pond

White-Tail

Bay

South Unit

Wetlands 1, 2 & 3

Legend

Fishing:

Exisiting photo blind

Existing kiosk

Exisiting McNary Environmental Education Center facility

Existing stocked family fishing pond

Existing refuge headquarters

Existing trails

Existing boat ramps

New kiosks to be constructed

Interpretation:

Observation and Photography:

Environmental Education:

Trails:

Refuge Headquarters and Information:

Areas closed to the public at all times

124

Humorist Road

MAPS

Station

Monitoring Avian Productivity & Survivorship Station

Cottonwood

Woodland

Disabled access fishing pier

New fishing information kiosks to be constructed

Note:

Hunt areas and facilities found on Map 5

New canoe trail to be constructed

1

1:75,000

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 Kilometers 2 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:48,000

3 0 3 6 Kilometers

0 3 6 Miles

1:157,000

Refuge managed lands

McNary NWR islands

Map 4

Map Index

1

2

3

730

395

New birding trail to be constructed

Madame Dorian

Park

(Day Use Only)

New foot trail to be evaluated

P e n i n s u l a H o r s e T r a i l

W a l l u l a H o r s e Tr a i l
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

U TM Z O N E 11 N

N A D 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, G IS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-7.mxd 07/22/2008

Union P acific

B urlington Northern

B urlington Northern

Snake

River

Franklin County

Walla Walla County

12

12

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River

Benton County

Umatilla County

B urlington

Northern

730

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Overall Hunt Area Map

Columbia

River

Union

P acific B urlington

Northern

12

Walla

River

Walla

Colum

bia River

12

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

395

395

Wallula Unit

395

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

395

Crescent

Island

Legend

Upland game bird hunt areas

Big game hunt areas

Waterfowl hunt areas:

Reservation / Fee hunt

Existing refuge headquarters

Existing trails

Waterfowl sanctuary areas

Free roam without blinds

Trails:

Refuge Headquarters and Information:

Refuge managed lands

Burbank Sloughs

Unit

124

Humorist Road

Burbank

Wallula

Free roam with blinds

1 0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

1:75,000

2 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:48,000

3 0 2 4 Miles

0 2 4 Kilometers

1:157,000

McNary NWR islands

Map Index

1

2

3

Map 5

Hunter check station
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

U TM Z O N E 11 N

N A D 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, G IS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-5.mxd 07/22/2008

Union P acific

B urlington Northern

B urlington Northern

Snake

River

Franklin County

Walla Walla County

12

12

Benton County

Walla Walla County

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River

Benton County

Umatilla County

B urlington

Northern

730

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

McNary Main Habitats and Ecotypes

Columbia

River

Union

P acific B urlington

Northern

12

Walla

River

Walla

Colum

bia River

12

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

Map Index

1

2

3

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

395

395

Wallula Unit

395

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

395

Crescent

Island

Legend

Riparian*

Grasslands / Scablands*

Emergent / Submergent wetland*

and playas

Shrub steppe*

Cliff and steppe talus*

Woodlands / Canyon shrublands*

Agriculture fields*

Refuge managed lands

McNary NWR islands

Refuge Information

*This map represents areas ground-truthed

to the habitats listed above. The mapping/

ground-truthing effort is incomplete. Data is

current as of 02/22/06.

Burbank Sloughs

Unit

124

Humorist Road

Burbank

Wallula

2 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:48,000

1

1:75,000

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

3 0 2 4 Miles

0 2 4 Kilometers

1:157,000

Map 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties, Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Key Waterfowl Use Areas

Strawberry Island

Unit

McNary

Headquarters

Unit

Peninsula

Unit

Two Rivers

Unit

Strawberry Island

Badger Island

Foundation Island

12

395

Columbia

River

Union Pacific

Burlington Northern

Snake Franklin County

Walla Walla County

Burlington Northern

UTM ZONE 11N

NAD 83

Produced by the Division of Realty and Refuge Information

Kendra Maty, GIS Specialist

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

File: 08-143-6.mxd 07/22/2008

Wallula Unit

12

Columbia River

395

Walla Rive

W

r

alla

Union Pacific

Burlington Northern

12

Crescent

Island

395

Juniper Canyon and

State Line Unit

Washington

Oregon

Columbia

River Benton County

Umatilla County

Burlington

Northern

730

395

730

Legend

Waterfowl locations January 5, 2006

Waterfowl Habitat

Refuge managed lands

McNary NWR islands

Waterbody boundaries

1 - 300

301 - 1600

1601 - 5000

5001 - 12000

Existing agriculture areas

Moist soil emergent wetlands habitat

Submergent wetlands habitat

Sanctuary areas

Refuge Information Burbank Sloughs

Unit

124

Humorist Road

Burbank

Casey

Pond

Quarry

Pond

Wallula

Map Index

1

2

3

River

1:95,000

1 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:92,000

2 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Miles

1:195,000

3 0 1 2 Kilometers

0 1 2 Miles

Disclaimer: Overlapping dots on map are not

an indication of a double count, rather a

cartographic discrepancy.

Map 7
Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex

64 Maple Street

Burbank, WA 99323

Phone 509/546 8300

Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 2008

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

All photos ©C and G Bartlett Photography