McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              McNary and Umatilla
National Wildlife Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3250 Port of Benton Boulevard
Richland, Washington 99354
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Northwest Planning Team
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
December 2006
i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Proposed Action............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action......................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Content and Scope of Plan............................................................................................. 1-3
1.5 Refuge System Laws and Directives ............................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Establishment and Purposes of McNary and Umatilla Refuges.................................... 1-7
1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans...................................................... 1-13
1.8 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts ..................................................... 1-15
1.9 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities............................................................................ 1-18
1.10 Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................ 1-19
1.11 Refuge Goals ............................................................................................................. 1-20
1.12 Planning Process........................................................................................................ 1-21
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design............................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Developed ................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................................ 2-2
2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .................................................................................. 2-8
Chapter 3: Physical Environment
3.1 Climate.......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Hydrology......................................................................................................................3-3
3.3 Topography and Bathymetry ....................................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Geology........................................................................................................................3-12
3.5 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 3-13
3.6 Environmental Contaminants ...................................................................................... 3-14
3.7 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................... 3-15
Chapter 4: Refuge Biology and Habitat
4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis......................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Conservation Target Selection and Analysis................................................................. 4-5
4.3 Shrub Steppe System ..................................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 Riparian System........................................................................................................... 4-10
4.5 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ............................................................................... 4-13
4.6 Cliff/Rimrock and Outcroppings ................................................................................. 4-19
4.7 Islands .......................................................................................................................... 4-21
4.8 Waterfowl .................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.9 Shorebirds .................................................................................................................... 4-30
4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................... 4-32
4.11 Current Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts................................ 4-35
ii
Chapter 5: Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs
5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities .................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Recreation Overview ..................................................................................................... 5-6
5.3 Waterfowl Hunting ........................................................................................................5-9
5.4 Upland Bird/Small Game Hunting............................................................................... 5-16
5.5 Big Game Hunting ....................................................................................................... 5-18
5.6 Fishing......................................................................................................................... 5-20
5.7 Wildlife Viewing and Photography ............................................................................. 5-22
5.8 Environmental Education............................................................................................. 5-24
5.9 Interpretation................................................................................................................ 5-26
5.10 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation ......................................................................... 5-27
5.11 Illegal Uses................................................................................................................. 5-30
5.12 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends .............................................. 5-30
Chapter 6: Special Designation Lands, Culture Resources, and Social/Economic
Environment
6.1 Special Designation Lands ............................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Archaeological and Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Social/Economic Environment ...................................................................................... 6-9
Chapter 7: Environmental Effects
7.1 Summary of Effects ....................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Effects to Species and Habitats...................................................................................... 7-7
7.3 Effects to the Physical Environment............................................................................ 7-16
7.4 Social Effects ............................................................................................................... 7-19
7.5 Economic Effects......................................................................................................... 7-30
7.6 Effects to Cultural and Historical Resources............................................................... 7-32
7.7 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... 7-35
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Involvement ....................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Species Lists .................................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations ....................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Implementation ............................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E: Wilderness Review ........................................................................................E-1
Appendix F: Condition Classes for Shrub-Steppe and Riparian Habitats ...........................F-1
Appendix G: Compliance ................................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H: Glossary.........................................................................................................H-1
Appendix I: Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Needs ....................................................I-1
Appendix J: CCP Team Members ....................................................................................... J-1
Appendix K: Appropriate Uses Determinations ................................................................. K-1
Maps..................................................................................................................... After Page #
Map 1 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Map ........................................................... 1-2
Map 2A McNary Refuge Boundary and Land Status .......................................................... 1-2
Map 2B Umatilla Refuge Boundary and Land Status .......................................................... 1-2
iii
Map 3 McNary Refuge Alternative 1 ................................................................................... 2-8
Map 4 McNary Refuge Alternative 2 ................................................................................... 2-8
Map 5 McNary Refuge Alternative 3 ................................................................................... 2-8
Map 6 McNary Refuge Alternative 4 ................................................................................... 2-8
Map 7 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 1................................................................................... 2-8
Map 8 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 2................................................................................... 2-8
Map 9 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 3................................................................................... 2-8
Map 10 Umatilla Refuge Alternative 4................................................................................. 2-8
Map 11A McNary Refuge Main Habitats............................................................................. 4-4
Map 11B Umatilla Refuge Main Habitats ............................................................................ 4-4
Map 12A McNary Refuge Key Waterfowl Use Areas ....................................................... 4-26
Map 12B Umatilla Refuge Key Waterfowl Use Areas....................................................... 4-26
Map 13A McNary Refuge Existing Key Public Use Features ............................................. 5-2
Map 13B Umatilla Refuge Existing Key Public Use Features ............................................. 5-2
Map 14A McNary Refuge Existing Hunt Area .................................................................. 5-12
Map 14B Umatilla Refuge Existing Hunt Area.................................................................. 5-12
Map 15A McNary Refuge Hunt Area-Burbank Slough Unit ............................................ 5-12
Map 15B McNary Refuge Two Rivers and Peninsula Units, and Burbank Sloughs ......... 5-12
Map 15C McNary Refuge General Hunting Regulations-Wallula Unit............................. 5-12
Map 15D Umatilla Refuge McCormack Slough Unit ........................................................ 5-12
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
When first encountered by Lewis and Clark and early settlers, the Columbia River of the Pacific
Northwest was enormous, wild, and seemingly uncontrollable. Yet for all its enormous flows, the river
was nearly unusable in its native state as a source of irrigation water. Early settlers found that
agriculture was nearly impossible in most of the hot, arid Columbia Plateau (Dietrich 1995).
A grassroots effort to provide water for struggling small farmers culminated in the construction of
Grand Coulee Dam, finished in 1941, it was–at that time–the largest concrete structure ever built
anywhere in the world. Successful construction of the initial Columbia River dams led to increased
confidence and enhanced expectations for development of the water and hydroelectric resources in
the basin. Within a few decades, more than 400 dams—11 run-of-the-river dams on the mainstem—
and hundreds of major and modest structures on tributaries had been constructed, tapping a large
portion of the Columbia's generating capacity, more than 21 million kilowatts. The Columbia River is
now considered the most hydroelectrically developed river system in the world (Dietrich 1995).
McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges were both established subsequent to the construction
of two large dams on the mainstem of the middle Columbia River, as part of the Federal Columbia
River Power System. McNary Refuge is located near the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland
(together known as the Tri-Cities) upstream of the McNary Lock and Dam on waters of Lake Wallula
and adjoining uplands. Umatilla Refuge is situated upstream of the John Day Lock and Dam on Lake
Umatilla and on adjoining uplands about an hour’s drive southwest of the Tri-Cities. Map 1, the
Vicinity Map, shows the major features within the vicinity of both Refuges. Maps 2a and 2b show key
features for each Refuge.
Dam structures fundamentally alter riverine systems. Rivers are transformed by large dams from a
seasonally fluctuating, dynamic flow of water, into deep lakes, with slow-moving waters. In
recognition of this, the U.S. Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which requires
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and state fish and wildlife agencies for
federally-licensed dams and diversions. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of
"preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act authorizes land to be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for wildlife protection
purposes. McNary and Umatilla Refuges were each established directly as a consequence of the
Coordination Act requirements for dams and as such are often spoken of as “mitigation” refuges.
However, there is no direct language in any establishing documents referencing mitigation.
1.2 Proposed Action
The Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for McNary
National Wildlife Refuge and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge. This document is a Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for the two
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Refuges. The CCP sets forth management guidance for the Refuges over the next 15 years, as
required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 688 dd-688
ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). The Improvement
Act mandated that CCPs be developed for all Refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The proposed action in the Draft CCP/EA is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified as
the Service’s Preferred Alternative. This Draft CCP/EA explores three other options (alternatives) for
the CCP and discloses anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Alternatives are presented in
Chapter 2, and effects are analyzed in Chapter 7. Appendices provide supporting information.
The actions under Alternative 2 best achieve the purpose and need for the CCP while maintaining
balance amongst the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2 addresses the issues
and relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving the
Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats, for the long-term conservation of
native plants and animals and migratory birds. The CCP will identify appropriate actions for
protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of the river islands, the Refuges’
wintering waterfowl populations and habitats, the growing migratory shorebird populations that use
the Refuges, and threatened, endangered, or rare species. A final purpose of the CCP is to provide
guidance for providing high quality public use programs in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and interpretation.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these are the need to establish improved
habitat conditions on the Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff/talus habitats, many of
which are highly degraded by invasive plants and animals, and to identify and deal with key threats to
these habitats, including altered fire regimes and altered hydrological regimes. There is a need to
address the Refuges’ contributions to listed salmon species that migrate through McNary and Umatilla
waters and use certain Refuge habitats for rearing. There is a need to address public concern about
colonial waterbird populations that consume listed fish.
There is a need to analyze public use programs for the Refuge System’s “Big Six” uses and to
determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit of higher quality programs
The Big Six wildlife dependent uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation (See Section 1.5A for more on the Big Six uses.)
There is also a need to determine whether and how the Refuges should continue to offer camping and
other nonwildlife dependent uses, including horseback riding, beach use, and boating. There is a
need to address strategies to better prevent use of Refuge lands and waters for illegal uses including
off road use and trash dumping. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be taken to
better protect cultural resources.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-3
1.4 Content and Scope of Plan
This CCP provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of
public uses on Refuge lands and waters. An outline of the key information in the CCP follows.
• An overall vision for the Refuges and their role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1).
• Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and public use programs, as well as
strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2).
• A description of the conservation targets, their condition and trends on the Refuges and within the
local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for sustaining the targets,
and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter 4).
• An overview of the Refuges’ public use programs and facilities, a list of desired future conditions
for each program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5).
• Evaluations of existing and proposed public and economic uses for compatibility with each
Refuge’s purposes (Appendix C), and appropriate use evaluations (Appendix K).
• An outline of the projects, staff and facilities needed to support the alternatives considered
(Appendix D).
• A list of vertebrate species known or suspected to occur on the Refuges, with information about
their State and Federal listing status, and identifications under relevant ecosystem plans (Appendix
B).
1.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior, is the principal
Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95 million acre
Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife Refuges, thousands of small wetlands and
other special management areas.
Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or
Refuge System) and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation,
executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. The
hierarchical relationship of these documents in regards to refuge-specific planning and management
are, illustrated in Figure 1.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System were derived from the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act
of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of
the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general administration of units of the
Refuge System.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-4 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Guidance within the National Wildlife Refuge System
Applicable Federal laws and executive orders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
Refuge Purposes
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission*/Goals/Policies
Ecosystem Vision/Goals/Objectives
Refuge Vision
Refuge Goals
Refuge Objectives
Refuge Strategies
Developed or
revised as part of
the CCP process
Projects Developed as part
of the CCP or with
Step-down
Management Plans
* established by law
A. Improvement Act
Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act (Improvement Act) undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act
amended the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, by including a unifying mission for all
National Wildlife Refuges to be managed as a System, a new process for determining compatible uses
on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, developed in an open public process.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-5
The Improvement Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife and
plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure that the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House Report 105–106
accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘…the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife
conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later explained in the
Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (see section 1.5B), “the highest measure
of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining
habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.”
Under the Improvement Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as well
as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Act requires the Service to monitor the
status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
Additionally, the Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses (“Big Six”). These
uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and
interpretation. Through the Improvement Act,
the U.S. Congress directed the Service to grant
these six wildlife-dependent public uses special
consideration in the planning for, management
of, and establishment and expansion of units of
the Refuge System. In addition, when determined
compatible on a refuge-specific basis these six
uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or occurring on a refuge. The Service is to
make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
When preparing a CCP, Refuge Managers must reevaluate the compatibility of all general public,
recreational, and economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals)
proposed or occurring on a refuge. No refuge use may be allowed or continued unless it is
determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of
the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge
System or the purposes of the refuge. No refuge use may be allowed or continued unless it is
determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of
the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge
System or the purposes of the refuge. The authority to make the determination is delegated to the
Refuge Manager. Updated compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for McNary
and Umatilla Refuges are in Appendix C of this Draft CCP/EA.
The Improvement Act also required that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP must
be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public play a
role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and with the formal
guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative.
“Big Six”
The six priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses identified under the
Refuge System Improvement Act are
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education
and interpretation. These uses are to
receive enhanced consideration over
other uses in planning and management.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-6 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
B. Other Laws, Policies, and Orders
Many other laws govern the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge System lands. A list and brief
description of each can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. In addition, over the last few years, the
Service has developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s Orders to reflect the mandates and
intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the Biological Integrity, Diversity,
and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW3); the Compatibility Policy; the Refuge Planning Policy;
Mission, Goals, and Purposes (601 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent
Public Uses (605 FW 1); and the Director’s Order for Coordination and Cooperative Work with State
Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
These policies and others in draft or under development can be found at:
http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html.
In developing a CCP, refuges must consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge System
and ecosystem goals and visions. The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the Refuge
purpose. Figure 1 illustrates the hierarchy of planning guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997)
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes
Policy (601 FW1), are:
• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance
and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing
protection efforts.
• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-7
D. Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose
The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning.
Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. The purposes of a refuge are
specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order,
donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge,
refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which
they depend take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit.
Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more
specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired
under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes on
the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the
addition.
By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between the
Refuge System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede
the Refuge System mission.
1.6 Establishment History and Purposes of McNary
and Umatilla Refuges
A. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Both McNary and Umatilla Refuges were originally established under the authority of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667e, March 10, 1934, as amended 1946, 1958,
1978 and 1995). This Act requires consultation with the Service and the States’ fish and wildlife
agencies where the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized,
permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or otherwise controlled or modified" by any
agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of
"preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act authorizes land to be made available to the Secretary of Interior for wildlife protection purposes.
Section 664 of the Act specifies that areas made available for the purposes of the wildlife conservation
and development as outlined in sections 661 to 666c, must be administered by the Secretary directly
or in accordance with cooperative agreements, and “in accordance with rules and regulations
adopted by the Secretary for the conservation, maintenance and management of wildlife resources
thereof, and habitat thereon, under plans” approved jointly by the Secretary and the head of the
agency exercising primary administration of the areas. General plans may also include the transfer of
project lands to a state for management. Lands having value to the National Migratory Bird
Management Program may be made available without cost directly to the state agency having control
over wildlife resources.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-8 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Wildlife and wildlife resources are defined under section 666 as “birds, fish, mammals and all other
classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is
dependent.”
The Cooperative Agreement/General Plan associated with each Refuge provided more detail about
the resource values.
B. McNary National Wildlife Refuge Purposes
Dam Authorization: The United States Congress authorized the construction of McNary Dam at River
Mile 292 in 1946, under Public Law 14, 79th Congress, 59 Statute 10, for the primary purposes of
navigation, power development, and irrigation. The purpose of “conservation of wildlife” was added
to McNary’s project purposes by Public Law 732, 79th Congress, 60 Stat. 1080, 16 USC 661 et seq).
General Plan: The McNary Dam flooded about 39,000
acres of river bottomlands for 61 miles upstream of the dam.
As part of the responsibilities under the Coordination Act, the
Secretary of the Army, with the Secretary of the Interior, and
the Directors of the Fish and Game Departments for the
States of Oregon and Washington, signed a General Plan in
1953 which set aside various wildlife lands as encouraged
under the Coordination Act, including the original McNary National Wildlife Refuge, as well as other
lands that became State wildlife areas (US DOA et al. 1953).
The 1953 General Plan identified seven areas of land “for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon.” With the exception of the current
Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units, all areas currently managed as part of the Refuge are referenced
in this document. Specific language relative to wildlife management and public uses was included for
each of the seven areas. With a few exceptions, the language is open-ended enough to be
interpreted as recommended strategies to be pursued in perpetuity, but not mandated. The specifics
are detailed below.
Two of the seven areas were termed the Burbank National Wildlife Refuge and the Hanford National
Wildlife Refuge. These two sites, now named the McNary Headquarters, Strawberry Island, and
Hanford Islands Units, formed the original McNary National Wildlife Refuge. The plan noted that both
areas “have particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program.”
McNary Headquarters and Strawberry Island Units. Specific language from the General Plan includes
the statements:
• The slough will provide area for waterfowl nesting, resting and feeding.
• Extensive stands of aquatic vegetation will develop in the shallow areas.
• Food and cover crops can be grown on adjacent tillable lands.
• Inland sections can be isolated, providing water surface control for fish production and enhancing
waterfowl habitat.
• Fishing may be permitted consistent with sound waterfowl management practices and in
accordance with state laws and regulations.
The 1953 General Plan identified
seven areas of land “for the
conservation, maintenance,
and management of wildlife,
resources thereof, and its
habitat thereon.”
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-9
The other five areas described in the General Plan were identified by the Secretary of the Army to be
“made available for development, conservation and management of wildlife resources.” These areas
were particularly singled out for their “multiple use value relating to the conservation of fishlife,
waterfowl and upland game birds” and were initially placed under the State of Washington’s
management through a cooperative agreement. It is important to note the “multiple use” term was
used for describing different fish and wildlife values and was not used in the now common parlance
relating to recreation. Two of these five areas are now managed by the Service as part of McNary
Refuge.
Wallula Unit. This unit, originally identified in the General Plan as Area Number 3–Walla Walla River
Wildlife Area–was noted for having extensive shallow water areas well adapted for waterfowl habitat
development. Specific statements from the General Plan are listed below.
• Some present river bottom agricultural lands will be infrequently flooded and are well suited for
the production of cereal and cover crops. These will enhance the area for waterfowl production
and stimulate production of upland game birds.
• Public shooting may be desirable on all or part of the area.
• A substantial fish population may be developed in the waters of the area, thus providing excellent
angling opportunities. The area is also a migratory route for anadromous fish.
• Peculiar value as a wildlife demonstration and educational area.
Two Rivers, Peninsula, and Burbank Sloughs Units. These units were identified as Area Number 4–
Columbia River Wildlife Area–in the General Plan. Specific language from the General Plan includes
the following statements.
• Emergent aquatic vegetation may develop
• There are several excellent locations for creation of subimpounded or isolated water areas
suitable for fish production
• Water areas will be utilized by waterfowl and the shore areas will be used by upland birds
• Production of food crops and establishment of other vegetative cover will further attract both
waterfowl and upland game birds and stimulate an increase in their population.
• Public hunting for both will be highly desirable on all or part of this unit.
• Public hunting and fishing is permitted consistent with sound management practices.
Cooperative Agreement: After the General Plan was finalized, a cooperative agreement among the
same parties was signed in July of 1955. The cooperative agreement transferred administrative
control of 2,849 acres of land to the Service under the terms of the General Plan. Minor supplements
and modifications were made to the cooperative agreement in August 1963 and May 1965. In
1969, the cooperative agreement was rewritten, replacing and superseding the previous version of the
agreement (US DOA and US DOI, 1969a). An additional minor modification of the agreement was
made in 1975. The cooperative agreement gave little further mandatory guidance for habitat or
public use management.
McNary Master Plan: As mentioned above, the Stateline and Juniper Canyon Units were not included
in the General Plan. These lands were withdrawn for dam project purposes, which are navigation,
power development, irrigation, and conservation of wildlife, as detailed under the dam authorization
section above.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-10 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
The only other details available for these lands are found in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps)
Reservoir Master Plan for dam project areas. The Reservoir Master Plan was first published in July
1952, revised in 1964, with a comprehensive revision published in 1982. Although this plan is not
an original establishing or authorizing document and cannot be interpreted as being at the level of a
“purpose” as defined under Refuge System policy, the 1982 plan did provide land use allocations
which help provide some insight into the intent for the various project lands. The Stateline, Juniper
Canyon, and Wallula Unit lands lying west of Highway 12 were designated as “Moderate Wildlife
Management,“ defined as “lands that are valued for fish and wildlife management, but will not sustain
intensive management practices . . . Moderate management lands should be continuously available
for low-density recreation activities such as hiking, primitive camping, hunting, fishing, nature study,
nature photography, bird watching, and other related activities.” (McNary Master Plan 1982).
2000 Cooperative Agreement: In 2000, the Service assumed management, by cooperative
agreement, of 14,739 acres (GIS estimate) of the Burbank Sloughs, Peninsula, Two Rivers, Wallula,
Juniper Canyon, and Stateline Units (US DOA and US DOI, 2000). The Walla Walla River Unit—
now known as the Wallula Unit; and Columbia River Unit—now known as the Two Rivers and
Peninsula Units) had been originally set aside under the General Plan of 1953 and were managed by
the State of Washington until 1987, at which time the State relinquished its management control over
the areas. The Corps managed the areas over the next thirteen years. In 2000, the Service and the
Corps signed a cooperative agreement which permitted the Service to assume management authority.
Items of particular interest in the 2000 cooperative agreement include the following clauses:
• “The Department hereby makes available to the Service the land and water areas…hereinafter
referred to as the Premises, for the purpose of development, conservation and management of
recreation and wildlife resources thereon in accordance with the General Plan and under the
authority of the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 as amended.”
• “The Service shall manage, operate, and maintain the Premises included in the Cooperative
Agreement in accordance with its Comprehensive Conservation Plan....which shall be prepared by
the Service and submitted to the District Engineer for review and approval...The Service shall
complete the CCP within 5 years of the effective date of this Cooperative Agreement.”
• “The Service shall continue to manage the parcel of land known as the Cummins Property in the
Wallula Habitat Management Unit to meet or exceed the habitat goals identified in ‘Design
Memorandum No. 6, Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan, Wildlife
Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter supplement No. 15, SITE Development
Plan for the Wallula HMU,’ Exhibit C. The remainder of the lands shall continue to be managed
to help meet the wildlife losses identified in the ‘Wildlife Impact Assessment, McNary Project,
Oregon and Washington…Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration’ (BPA), dated
October 1990.”
• “The Service shall ensure that Madame Dorion Park and all facilities thereon shall continue to be
operated and maintained as a day-use and overnight camping recreation area at the same level
of service or better than currently provided. The Service shall be responsible for all costs
associated with…the Madame Dorion Park…Reasonable fees may be charged for entrance to or
use of facilities.”
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-11
The cooperative agreement was intended to be temporary. Both agencies envisioned an eventual full
transfer of these lands in fee title to the Service, as evident from the following clause in the
agreement:
• “The Department and the Service intend to recommend to their higher headquarters that
legislation be sought to authorize transfer of these Premises to the Service by fiscal Year 2002, or
as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. The District, subject to the approval of the
Departments of Fish and Wildlife in Oregon and Washington, will provide the Service all
assistance allowed by law and policy regarding such transfer . . . This interim agreement will
terminate when primary ownership is transferred to the Service.” [Note: An amendment was later
signed extending the original agreement to January 13, 2007.]
Language has been drafted and added to the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) bill
authorizing the transfer but the bill has not yet cleared Congress. Because the cooperative agreement
was intended to be a temporary set of management guidelines until a CCP was developed and/or the
land was transferred in fee to the Service, none of the clauses in the cooperative agreement have
been interpreted to be equivalent to “purposes” for McNary Refuge.
Other parcels: Small pieces of McNary Refuge were also added by purchase under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. The Refuge also manages a small tract under a 10 year lease with the Washington
Department of Natural Resources. And, according to Realty files, approximately 300 acres in four
tracts were acquired under authority of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
.
Unit Sizes: As depicted on Map 2A, McNary Refuge includes 7 separate units (not including the
Hanford Islands Unit, which is being evaluated under the Hanford Monument CCP). These units, their
land status and their acreages are shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. McNary Refuge Units – Status and Acreage*
Unit Name Management Authority Unit Acres
McNary Headquarters Fee title/Lease 2,960.40
Burbank Sloughs Fee title/Coop Agreement 430.63
Juniper Canyon/Stateline Coop Agreement 1,692.38
Peninsula original (all land and water, includes Badger,
Foundation, and Crescent islands)
Coop Agreement
7,838.80
Strawberry Island Fee title 135.74
Two Rivers Coop Agreement 344.01
Wallula Coop Agreement 2,264.04
Total Acreage (excluding Hanford Islands Unit) 15,666.00
*Acreages calculated from GIS analysis of the mcn_bnd coverage, modified as necessary to divide units.
C. Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Purposes
The Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge was created under Coordination Act obligations due to the
construction of the John Day Dam at River Mile 215. The Dam impounded waters along a 76-mile
stretch of the mainstem Columbia River, with about 48,000 acres flooded (Rasmussen 1989). The
General Plan, signed in 1968, designated various lands and waters to be set aside for the
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-12 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
“conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon”
including most of the lands located in the present day boundaries of the Umatilla Refuge. Like
McNary Refuge, the Umatilla Refuge is administered by the Service and much of the underlying land
and water are under ownership of the Corps.
Initial Consultation: Consultation with the Secretary of the Interior as part of the process for water
resources development for the John Day Lock and Dam Project was completed with a report by the
Service titled A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by the John Day Lock and
Dam Project (US FWS 1961). Information in this report as well as correspondence between the
Service and the Department of Army focused on Refuge creation for proposed management areas as
compensation for waterfowl losses. Additional correspondence continued to focus on waterfowl
resources for the proposed management area.
General Plan: A General Plan for the project (US DOA et al. 1968) was written in accordance with
the Coordination Act. The General Plan states that “those lands and waters acquired for primary
purposes of the project [John Day Lock and Dam] and found to have their greatest value in furthering
the national migratory bird program will be made available by cooperative agreement to the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for administration and
management.”
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298): Public Law 89-298 authorized the Secretary of
Army to acquire additional lands to be part of the management area “for waterfowl management.”
These lands are referred to as ‘special law lands’ (Exhibit A described as Exhibit C) and are the
original lands held in fee by the Service.
1969 Cooperative Agreement: This agreement transferred administrative control of the nonfee lands
to the Service for management “for the purpose of development, conservation, and management of
wildlife resources thereon in accordance with said General Plan” (US DOA and US DOI, 1969b).
Specific language relative to wildlife management and public uses was included in the agreement.
The language is open-ended enough to be interpreted as recommended, but not mandated,
strategies to be pursued in perpetuity. The specifics are detailed below.
• The Bureau…may enter into special use permits with local ranchers to graze and pasture land for
the purpose of maintaining optimum food and habitat conditions for wildlife.
• The Bureau may also plant and harvest crops…to provide: (a) food for wildlife; and (b) necessary
compensation to farmers under any sharecrop agreement…the lands will not be used by the
Bureau for the production of crops or any purpose solely to produce revenue to defray costs of
management of the wildlife area.
• Lands within the wildlife area which are not needed for the production of wildlife food and the
maintenance of wildlife habitat…will be leased by the District Engineer.
• The Bureau shall administer and maintain the area included in this Agreement in accordance with
its Master Plan for wildlife development…there shall be included within this plan those areas that
are designated for public hunting; for wildlife sanctuaries, and for the production of food for
wildlife or other purposes.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 ��� Introduction and Background 1-13
1995 Amendment to the 1969 Cooperative Agreement: The cooperative agreement was modified to
provide Service authority to manage portions of Blalock and Sand Dune Islands, which had formerly
been under Corps management. The agreement stated that these lands were “originally excepted
from management by the Service because they were classified for recreation use.” The amendment
stated that “All remaining terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement remain unchanged.”
Additional Land Acquisitions: Additional land tracts were added to the Refuge as shown in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2. Umatilla Refuge Land Acquisitions Subsequent to Original Refuge Establishment.
Tract Acres Acquisition Authority Purpose
10M 670 Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956
“development, management, advancement, conservation
and protection of fish and wildlife resources”
1121,
1122
136.45 Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
“for migratory bird Refuges, both for inviolate sanctuaries
and for other management purposes”
2a 27.6 Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956 and
Emergency Wetland
Resources Act
See above. Also, authorizes the purchase of wetlands or
interests in wetlands, which are not acquired under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
consistent with the wetlands priority conservation plan
using LWCF monies.
3015 27.1 Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956
See above
Umatilla Refuge: Map 3 shows the units of Umatilla Refuge. Acreages for each unit are shown in
Table 1-3. The Columbia River Navigation Channel acres are shown for informational purposes only,
therefore, the Refuge does not have any management authority over these waters, and they are not
considered further in the analysis.
Table 1-3. Umatilla Refuge Units Sizes.
Unit Name Management Authority Unit Acres
Boardman Partially fee title, coop agreement 2,174.49
Columbia River Unit (includes some islands) Cooperative agreement 5,954.09
McCormack (includes some islands) Partially fee title; remainder coop
agreement 6,886.79
Paterson Partially fee title, coop agreement 4,665.27
Ridge Coop agreement 985.21
Whitcomb Partially fee title, coop agreement 4,463.26
Total Acreage 25,129.11
*Acreages calculated from GIS analysis of the umt_bnd coverage.
1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
Planning has been a part of Refuge operations since their beginning. Although not all were done in a
comprehensive fashion, or with public participation considered adequate today, a considerable
number of plans were completed over the years to guide managers.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-14 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
A. Previous plans
Following the inception of McNary Refuge in 1955, a “Master Plan” was published in 1969. The
document included the then 3,215-acre McNary Refuge plus the 4,000-acre Ringold Division being
managed at that time for the Atomic Energy Commission. The Master Plan summarized project
history, Refuge purposes, and provided developmental plans for the Refuge which included estimated
cost and benefits. Management responsibilities for the Ringold Division were later transferred to the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The next large planning effort was the “Station Refuge Management Plan, Parts I and II” completed for
both Umatilla and McNary Refuges in 1987. Part I was a detailed and valuable plan covering
location, history, environment, resources, administration, land status, agreements and permits, and
management direction. Part II set detailed wildlife and public use objectives and strategies.
In addition, several smaller “step-down” plans (plans addressing one program or resource) have been
developed for both Refuges including:
• Fire Management Plans- 2001
• Station Safety Plans- 2005
• Hunting Plans-1986
• Sport Fishing Plans-1987
• Fire Dispatch Plans-2006 (Updated annually)
• Fisheries Management Plan-1988
• Cropland Management Plan – Umatilla-1996
• Cropland Management Plan – McNary-1999
• Umatilla Public Use Plan-1996
• Wildlife Inventory Plan Umatilla Refuge-1984
• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan-2006
• West Nile
B. Future planning
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that changes
are needed to achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides guidance
in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for Refuge program areas but may lack some of the
specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore be developed for
individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down plans require
appropriate NEPA compliance. Several step-down plans (Habitat Management Plan, Public Use
Management Plan, Inventory and Monitoring Plan, and Integrated Pest Management Plan) are
appropriate to develop and/or update following the CCP completion; all of these should be founded
on the management goals, objectives and strategies outlined in the CCP, and should be scheduled to
be completed by 2009. The Integrated Pest Management plan should address coordination with all
other Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies as well as neighboring private landowners in order to
effectively combat the spread of invasive species.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-15
1.8 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, regional
and ecosystem plans, state fish and wildlife conservation plans, and other landscape-scale plans
developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located. To the extent possible,
the CCP is expected to be consistent with the existing plans and assist in meeting their conservation
goals and objectives (Part 602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by
members of the core team while developing the CCP.
A. Columbia River Region
Columbia River Fisheries Management Plans: The art and science of Columbia River fisheries
management continues to evolve. There is no formally recognized "umbrella" plan that governs
fisheries management, and litigation continues over key aspects of fisheries management. Key
documents that were reviewed include the document known as the “All H Paper” (Federal Caucus
2000) and the 2004 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan (Lloyd et al. 1983): This plan, a partnership effort between
WDFW, Oregon Department of Wildlife (ODFW), and the Service, modified hunting areas and
regulations in the Columbia Plateau area with the purpose of “redistributing” waterfowl (mainly from
the Umatilla/Boardman area to the Yakima subbasin area). Because basin-wide numbers of wintering
waterfowl have dropped sharply since the plan was first implemented, possibly due to area-wide
cropping changes, climate change, and habitat improvements in California, the Columbia Basin
Wintering Waterfowl Plan is currently in the process of being updated with the same partner
organizations that originally authored the plan.
Subbasin Plans: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) has overseen the
development of plans for each of the 60 interior tributary subbasins of the Columbia River. Subbasin
plans are expected to assess the biological potential of the subbasin and to describe opportunities for
restoration. Plans also describe the amount of habitat change that has occurred within the subbasin
and limiting factors (analogous to stresses/sources in this plan). The plans will be the basis for review
of proposals for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) each year by the fish and wildlife agencies and
tribes, the Independent Scientific Review Panel, and the Council. All of Umatilla Refuge and much of
McNary Refuge is situated within the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin (Yakama Nation et al.
2004). Focal habitats included in the subbasin plan also occurring on McNary and Umatilla Refuges
include interior riparian wetlands and shrub-steppe/interior grasslands. These habitats include a set
of focal species selected for the subbasin plan. Part of the McNary Refuge falls within the Walla
Walla Subbasin (Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit et al. 2004). Focal habitats for the plan
include interior grasslands, shrub-steppe, and interior riparian-wetlands. Quantitative objectives were
written for each focal habitat, based on the needs of selected focal species. The Refuges will have the
opportunity every five years to submit project proposals for BPA funding that are consistent with the
subbasin plan.
Caspian Tern Management in the Columbia River Estuary (U.S. FWS 2005): This plan focuses on the
tern colony located in the Columbia River Estuary and recommends management of alternate sites in
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-16 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Western Oregon and Washington to redistribute terns away from the Columbia River estuary, so as to
reduce consumption of juvenile listed salmonids on their way to the ocean. The mid-Columbia River
area is not specifically covered under the plan.
The Nature Conservancy Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Assessment (The Nature Conservancy’s
Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team 1999): This assessment identified a portfolio of sites
that, collectively and with appropriate conservation action, could maintain all viable native species
and communities within the analysis area. In addition, it provides an assessment of threats to the sites
and develops multi-site strategies to conserve the biodiversity of the ecoregion. The document and
assessment are in the process of being updated.
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan: This project was an ambitious effort covering
the majority of the Inland Northwest and is one of the best sources of broad scale ecosystem analysis
for the region. The scientific assessment which underlies the plan identified numerous threats to the
ecological integrity of the basin (Quigley et al. 1997). Within the vicinity of the Mid-Columbia
Refuges, report authors listed the primary opportunities to address the risks to ecological integrity as:
(1) maintenance or restoration of riparian condition; (2) restoration of productive aquatic areas; and
(3) conservation of fish strongholds and unique aquatic areas.
B. Migratory Bird Plans
Birds of Conservation Concern (US FWS 2002): Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three
major bird conservation efforts (Partners In Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan), this report identifies, by Service region and by Bird
Conservation Region (BCR), the bird species most in need of conservation attention. The Mid-
Columbia Refuges are located within BCR Region 9, for which 29 species are listed.
Partners in Flight (PIF), Columbia Plateau Plan: The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy for
Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman and Holmes 2000) is
to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. Specific management
activities and strategies are recommended.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: The North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to
protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan contains population goals for several species
and groups of species by season or life stage. The plan was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on
strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding partnerships.
Additional strategic guidance was provided in a 2004 update, with specific population objectives by
species. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the regional level by partnership, within 11
Joint Venture areas. The Mid-Columbia Refuges are located within the area of the Intermountain
West Joint Venture. The document 2004 Strategic Guidance (North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, 2004), a 15 year plan, does contain species-specific population objectives as a
stepdown from the North American Waterfowl Plan and evaluations of whether the continental
population is currently short or over the target. There are also flyway goals for production by species.
The Columbia Basin is recognized as one of 67 areas of continental significance to waterfowl, but the
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-17
plan did not target population objectives for wintering or migratory waterfowl by area.
Pacific Flyway Plans: Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed to
help state and Federal agencies cooperatively manage migratory game birds. These plans typically
focus on populations. The Pacific Flyway Council has prepared 26 management plans to date in
either draft or final form available at http://pacificflyway.gov/Abstracts.asp#rmts. The following
flyway management plans pertain to the McNary and Umatilla Refuges and the CCP:
• Canada Geese: Lesser and Taverner's, Pacific Western, Rocky Mountain, Western, Depredation
Control
• Greater White-fronted Geese: Pacific, Tule
• Snow Geese: Wrangel Island Lesser, Western Canadian Arctic Lesser
• Ross' Geese
• Swans: Pacific Trumpeter, Rocky Mountain Trumpeter, Western Tundra, Eastern Tundra
• Sandhill Cranes: Pacific Coast, Central Valley
• Mourning Dove: National Mourning Dove Plan
Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Oring, Neel, and Oring, 2006):
According to this plan, the Intermountain West is North America’s most important inland area for
maintaining the continent’s shorebird population. The plan identifies major shorebird issues in the
region, and outlines Regional goals and objectives in the areas of habitat management, monitoring
and assessment, research, outreach, and planning. Key issues identified in the plan include: water
quality and quantity; maintenance and enhancement of populations of long-billed curlew, mountain
plover and upland sandpiper; depredation of eggs and young; regional coordination, agriculture-shorebird
interface; and wintering sites. Concern ranking scores are provided for each of the 34
shorebird species breeding or moving through the region. Species ranked as “critically important”
include snowy plover, black-necked stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher,
and Wilson’s phalarope.
Draft Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2003):
This plan identifies the 41 waterbird species inhabiting the Intermountain West. The plan provides
detailed background information for each species by BCR region, including population estimates,
identification of important areas, and an itemization of threats. For each BCR region, species were
categorized as high, moderate, or low concern or as “not currently at risk.” Specific objectives are
provided, usually framed in terms of overall population goals. Some habitat objectives are provided
as well. The plan provides a useful section on research and education/outreach needs as well. A
detailed species account is included for each of the 41 species.
C. State plans
State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2003):
This plan describes Washington State programs, especially Natural Areas Program, for conservation
of the State’s biological diversity. Species and ecosystems types (habitat associations) are ranked in
terms of conservation priority. Of approximately 800 plant and wetland communities located within
the State, 250 are considered priorities for conservation. Lists of rare animals, rare plants, and
priority communities are located at www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/index.html.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-18 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
State of Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WDFW 2005) and State of
Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2005): These plans were written by
each of the States to create a management framework for the protection of State species and habitats
in greatest need of conservation. The plans outline species and habitats of concern (called “species
of greatest conservation need” in the Washington plan and “Strategy species” in the Oregon plan).
Specific conservation actions are identified for these species.
1.9 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
A. Issues to be Addressed in the CCP
The following issues are within the scope of the CCP/EA and are considered by the Service to be the
major issues to address in the planning process.
Habitat and Species Management: What habitat conditions should be targeted and restored on the
Refuges’ shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff/talus habitats, many of which are highly degraded
by invasive plants and animals? How can the Refuges best prevent wildfire, particularly those that
arise regularly from trains that cross many miles of each Refuge numerous times each day? What are
the best methods for maintaining productivity and diversity in wetlands, when natural hydrologic
fluctuations no longer exist? What other actions should the Refuges take to sustain and restore priority
species and habitats over the next 15 years?
Waterfowl Management: Where shall specific waterfowl management tools and techniques, including
provision of cropping areas and sanctuary areas, be utilized at the Refuges? What role shall the
Refuges play in providing wintering waterfowl habitat and hunting areas within the Mid-Columbia
basin?
Shorebirds: How shall the Refuges best manage a thriving shorebird migration area?
Salmonids and Other Declining Species: What actions should the Refuge undertake to protect and
enhance habitat for the migratory and rearing needs of seven stocks of listed salmon and steelhead?
Should backwater areas be restored? What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values
for other declining species?
Islands: To what extent should islands located in the Columbia River be maintained free from human
disturbance? Are diverse suites of waterbird colonies that currently nest on the islands significant
sources of mortality to listed salmonids? If so, should populations or habitats be managed to prevent
their increase?
Wildlife Dependent Uses: Which “Big Six” programs should be offered at each Refuge and what kinds
of improvements to these programs can be provided to enhance public enjoyment and ensure a
quality experiences for Refuge visitors?
Camping and other Nonwildlife Dependent Uses: Shall the Refuges continue to offer additional
various non-wildlife dependent recreational opportunities, including camping, dog trials, swimming
and beach use, and horseback riding? What facilities and program support should be offered?
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-19
Cultural Resources: What steps should be taken to better protect and interpret cultural resources?
Effective Law Enforcement, Outreach, and Prevention of Illegal Uses: Between 2003 and 2006, the
Complex lost 75% of its law enforcement capacity. How can the Refuges better prevent the use of
Refuge lands for a variety of illegal uses, including dumping, ATVs, target shooting, and vandalism?
B. Issues outside the Scope of the CCP/EA
Hanford Islands: Many comments were received on this issue, with public opinion regarding summer
beach use on the islands varying greatly. This issue and management of the Hanford Islands Unit will
be addressed as part of the Hanford Reach National Monument CCP and not the McNary and
Umatilla Refuges’ CCP.
Columbia River Hydropower Operations: Operations of the Columbia River hydropower system are
not within the scope of the CCP/EA. Minor changes in pool level may be recommended under some
alternatives for limited periods of time, but analysis or proposals dealing with major modifications of
operations at McNary or John Day Dam are outside the scope of this CCP/EA. Ongoing litigation
over management of anadromous fish may result in major changes to hydropower operations,
especially in the McNary Pool. If this occurs, many of the CCP actions included under Preferred
Alternative 2 may require rework.
1.10 Refuge Vision
Encompassing the bend in the middle Columbia River where the waters of the Snake, Walla Walla,
and Umatilla Rivers join the Columbia, the McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges link a
network of diverse habitats stretching nearly 90 miles from Richland, Washington, to Boardman,
Oregon. The two Refuges’ 42,782 acres of shrub-steppe, basalt cliff, riparian, river islands and
aquatic habitats will be managed to fulfill the needs of native fish, wildlife, and plants. By actively
restoring habitat, controlling exotic species, and enhancing existing habitats and resources, the
Refuges will serve as anchors for biodiversity and models for habitat restoration and land
management.
Just as the Columbia River is an important corridor for the transportation of people and goods, it is
also an important natural corridor for migratory birds and fish, including endangered salmon and
steelhead stocks. Food, rest and sanctuary will be provided for large concentrations of migratory and
wintering waterfowl and shorebirds using the Refuges each year. Extensive corridors of riparian and
floodplain habitat will be restored and enhanced for nesting and migrating neo-tropical songbirds.
Management and enhancement of the Refuges’ waters, shorelines, channels and bays will contribute
to the needs and recovery of endangered salmon and steelhead passing through and rearing in
Refuge waters. By reaching out to neighbors and building strategic partnerships, the Refuges will seek
new and innovative ways to conserve and protect fish and wildlife resources along the entire stretch of
river.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-20 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Wildlife abundance and well planned and high quality interpretive facilities will attract thousands of
visitors to the Refuges. We will work with partners and volunteers to provide a wide range of high
quality recreational and environmental education programs, build Refuge support, and attract visitors.
Encouraging an understanding of and appreciation for the Refuges and the mid-Columbia River
environment will be a focus of the McNary and Umatilla Refuges for generations to come.
1.11 Refuge Goals
1. Manage high quality food and sanctuary to support large concentrations of migratory waterfowl.
2. Provide secure and productive foraging and nesting habitats for a diversity of shorebirds.
3. Contribute to the recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species by protecting,
maintaining, or increasing suitable habitats.
4. Provide a diversity of high-quality wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other
wetland plants and animals.
5. Provide high quality riparian habitats for the benefit of nesting and migrating birds, fish, riparian
plants, and other riparian wildlife.
6. Protect the integrity of the biological resources of the river islands.
7. Conserve and restore the plants, animals and shrub-steppe community representative of historic
Columbia Basin habitats.
8. Protect and maintain the ecological integrity of talus, outcropping, and cliff habitats for natural
levels of species diversity.
9. Visitors and local residents enjoy, value, learn about, and support the Refuges.
10. Hunters appreciate and experience a variety of quality hunting opportunities.
11. Anglers experience abundant opportunities to catch fish while appreciating the Refuges.
12. Students and teachers understand and value the Refuge System, and the ecology and
management of McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges.
13. Manage cultural resources for their educational, scientific, and cultural benefits for the benefit of
present and future generations of Refuge users and communities.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-21
1.12 Planning Process
A core planning team, consisting of a project leader, deputy project leader, biologist, public use
planner, the Refuge Managers for both Refuges, and a regional planner, began developing the CCP
in 2003. An extended team assisted in development, particularly in providing comments at key
milestones. The extended team consisted of various professionals from other agencies and within
Service. A list of core and extended team members, and their experience is located in Appendix J.
Early in the planning process, the team cooperatively identified the top eight priority species, groups,
and communities for these Refuges. These priorities were also called “conservation targets,” and most
of the biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these targets. The
analytical framework for analyzing the targets and for devising appropriate conservation objectives
and strategies for each target was loosely based on The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation
Assessment Methodology (formerly known as Five-S) process (TNC 2000).
Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives and strategies around the Big Six uses.
Other nonwildlife dependent uses that currently occur were also addressed.
Public scoping began in spring and summer of 2004. Scoping meetings were held in Burbank and
Boardman in June 2004. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning
update to the Refuges’ mailing list. A complete summary of public involvement is in Appendix A.
An internal draft was distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers and members of the extended team,
including States and Tribes, in May 2006. All changes requested by reviewers and extended team
members and actual changes made were documented.
References
Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of
Eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight, 97pp.
Dietrich, William. 1995. Northwest Passage: The Great Columbia River. Simon & Schuster, New
York, NY.
Federal Caucus. 2000. Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish. Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Ivey, G. and C. Herziger. 2003. Draft Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Lloyd, T.M., R. Denney, and G. Constantino. 1983. Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan for the
Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl
Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation.
Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales, 22 pp.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
1-22 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. State of Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy.
Oring, L., L. Neel, and K. Oring. 2006. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Intermountain West
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0
Quigley, T.M. and Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 3. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Rasmussen L. and P. Wright. 1989. Wildlife Impact Assessment, John Day Project, Oregon and
Washington. Annual Report 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Field Station.
Project No. 88-12.
Rasmussen L. and P. Wright. 1989. Wildlife Impact Assessment, McNary Project, Oregon and
Washington. Annual Report 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Field Station.
Project No. 88-12.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner’s
Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation Success. Second
Edition, June 2000.
The Nature Conservancy’s Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. The Columbia
Plateau Ecoregional Assessment: A Pilot Effort in Ecoregional Conservation.
US DOA, US DOI, State of Oregon and State of Washington. 1953. Memorandum of Joint
Agreement and Understanding Between the Department of the Army and Department of the
Interior and the State of Oregon and the State of Washington for the General Plan of
Development, Conservation and Management of Wildlife Resources within the Reservoir Area
of McNary Lock and Dam Project. Signed and finalized August 14, 1953.
US DOA, US DOI, State of Oregon and State of Washington. 1968. General Plan for the Use of
Lands. John Day Lock and Dam Project for Wildlife Conservation and Management. Signed
and finalized May 2, 1968.
US DOA and US DOI. 1969a. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of the Army and
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries. Signed and finalized September 25,
1969.
US DOA and US DOI. 1969b. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of the Army and
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. DACW57-4-70-14.
Signed and finalized July 3, 1969.
US DOA and US DOI. 2000. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of Army and the
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No. DACW68-4-00-13. Signed
and finalized January 13, 2000.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile
Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Portland,
Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory
Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961. A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by
the John Day Lock and Dam Project.
Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council. 2004. Walla
Walla Subbasin Plan Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 1-23
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2003. State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan.
Olympia, Washington, 64pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. State of Washington Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy.
Yakama Nation, Klickitat County, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Lower
Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan, including Rock Creek, Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design
In drafting the alternatives for this long term conservation plan, the Service reviewed and considered a
variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for managing the Refuge.
These background conditions are described more fully in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. As is appropriate
for a National Wildlife Refuge, resource considerations were fundamental in designing alternatives.
House Report 105-106 accompanying the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
states "…the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife
conservation must come first."
The team reviewed scientific reports and studies to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest
scientific recommendations for species and habitats.
The Service met with staff from local, State, and Federal agencies and elected officials to ascertain
priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff met with Refuge users, nonprofit groups,
and community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were considered during CCP
development. Details of public involvement can be found in Appendix A.
2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Developed
Federal agencies have been at work since the fall of 2005 to revise a 2004 Federal Columbia River
Power System biological opinion that U.S. District Court Judge James Redden declared invalid. Part
of the new proposed action under that effort may involve “summer spill” to promote fish passage. In
2005, a court injunction directed the Corps to spill water at several Columbia and Snake River dams
“in excess of that required for station service” June 20-August 31 at several Snake River dams and “all
flow above 50,000 cubic feet per second” from July 1– August 31 at the McNary Dam. In practice,
this meant that the reservoir level was dropped to near the minimum operating level of 335 msl (mean
sea level) at McNary Dam, dramatically lowering flooded wetland acres on McNary Refuge.
The final biological opinion may contain a provision to make summer spill an annual event. This
could dramatically change summer habitats and recreational opportunities on McNary Refuge.
However, an alternative taking summer spill into account was not developed, because it is unknown at
this time if such a strategy will become part of normal dam and fish management along the Columbia
River.
The planning team considered the appropriateness of providing opportunities for various nonwildlife
dependent recreational activities suggested during scoping including field dog trials, geocaching,
hang gliding, paragliding, rock climbing, motorized and nonmotorized off-road use, waterskiing,
camping, beach use, and personal watercraft. Based on policy guidance in the Service’s Appropriate
Refuge Uses Policy 603 FW 1 (2006), these uses were determined not appropriate, and are
documented on FWS Form 3-2319 in Appendix K.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-2 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.3 Alternative Descriptions
A summary table is presented on the following pages. This table summarizes the key differences
between the alternatives. Following the summary table, detailed descriptions of the goals, objectives,
and strategies for each alternative are presented. Maps 3, 4, 5, and 6, which follow the alternatives
descriptions, display the four alternatives at McNary Refuge. Maps 7, 8, 9, and 10 display the four
alternatives at Umatilla Refuge.
A. Features Common to all Alternatives
All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length and
redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions.
Implementation Subject to Funding Availability:
Under each alternative, actions will be implemented
over a period of 15 years as funding becomes
available. Project priorities are in Appendix D.
Refuge Fire Management: Fire Management Plans,
and accompanying NEPA documents and Endangered Species Act consultations, were finalized for
both Refuges in 2001. Fire management actions will continue to be guided by the direction set forth
in the plans.
Tribal Coordination: Regular communication with Native American Tribes who have an interest in the
Refuge will be common to all alternatives. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation (consisting of the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Tribes) are the major local Tribes the
Refuges will coordinate and consult with on a regular basis regarding issues of shared interest.
However, other Tribes with special interests, especially relating to the traditionally shared resource
corridors along the Columbia River and near the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, will
also be included in consultations affecting those resources. These traditionally local Tribes include the
Yakama, Nez Perce, Colville (Palouse), and the Wanapum. Currently, the Service seeks assistance
from Tribes in both Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) related issues.
State Coordination: Similarly, under all alternatives, the Service will continue to maintain regular
discussions with the Washington and Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife. Key topics for
discussion will be the Columbia Basin Winter Waterfowl Management Plan, colonial nesting birds,
wildlife monitoring, big game management, hunting and fishing seasons and regulations, and
endangered species management.
Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships: Volunteer opportunities and partnerships occur in all
alternatives. These are recognized as key components of the successful management of public lands
and vital to implementation of Refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining
budgets.
Actions will be implemented over a
period of 15 years as funding becomes
available. Implementation priorities are
designated in Appendix D.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment: Annual payments to Counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Program will continue according to the established formula and subject to payments authorized by
Congress. Total payments made to local Counties in 2005 are listed in Appendix D.
Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities: Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge
buildings and facilities will be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of
facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs and is
incorporated in the Service Asset Management System.
Management of Minor Recreational Uses: Minor recreational activities are occasionally pursued on
the Refuge. Such recreational activities not specifically addressed in this document may be allowed
on Refuge lands if the Refuge Manager first finds they do not conflict with wildlife or habitat objectives.
Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities: The Service will actively
participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future industrial and urban development,
contamination, and other potential concerns that may adversely affect Refuge and wildlife resources,
and habitats. The Service will cultivate working relationships with pertinent county, State, and Federal
agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments; and will utilize outreach and
education as needed to raise awareness of Refuge resources and dependence on the local
environment.
Maintain Existing Waterfowl Sanctuary in Support of Mid-Columbia Basin Planning Efforts: Waterfowl
sanctuary is an area that is closed to hunting and significant disturbance from other public uses to
provide important resting and/or feeding areas for waterfowl during the hunting season. Security,
indicated partly by the acres of sanctuary area provided during hunting season, was listed as a key
ecological attribute supporting waterfowl. There is public support for maintaining “large
concentrations” of waterfowl, as they have been important for hunting and viewing users. However,
Refuge sanctuary must be considered within the wider scope of Pacific Flyway and/or Region-wide
area closures and numbers of birds wintering in the Lower Columbia Basin. Defining the role and
extent of such sanctuary areas is a major component of the Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan
for the Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington (Lloyd 1983). It is presently being re-written and
updated through a partnership that includes WADFW, ODFW, Yakama Nation, the Corps, and the
Service. Therefore, except for very minor changes at McCormack Unit proposed in this CCP, McNary
and Umatilla Refuges will continue to manage waterfowl sanctuary in accordance with open and
closed areas called for in the 1983 Wintering Waterfowl Plan and existing Refuge closed/open zones,
and will make adjustments as needed, in consultation with the partnership agencies.
Vegetation Inventory and Condition Ranking. By the summer of 2007, the Service will complete a
vegetation inventory begun during the summer of 2005. Ground-truthing from randomly-selected
sites will be used to complete an inventory map to the Alliance level for all vegetation polygons and to
rank habitat conditions according to criteria outlined in Appendix F Condition Classes for Shrub
Steppe and Riparian Habitats. Further refinement of the condition classes may occur.
Section 106 Compliance. All ground-disturbing projects will undergo a review under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-4 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
B. Alternative Descriptions Summary
Alternative 1: Emphasize Migratory Waterfowl Management and Consumptive Public Uses
Under Alternative 1, the Refuges would focus on providing migratory waterfowl with high quality,
easily accessible food, by expanding both crop production and wetland food plants. Secure and
adequately sized resting areas will be provided to ensure the health of overwintering and migrating
waterfowl. Hunting and fishing would be emphasized, with improvement to facilities and increased
opportunities through habitat improvements. A Washington State pheasant augmentation/release
program would be phased out and camping would be discontinued at Madame Dorion Park. Other
public uses would continue at approximately their current levels of service.
Alternative 2: Emphasize Migratory Birds, Special Status Species, and Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses
(Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 2, the Refuges would manage its resources for all migratory birds and to enhance
populations of targeted special status species and their habitats. Habitats for migratory waterfowl,
shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, and other native wildlife would be improved. The
Refuges would emphasize control and reduction of weeds and improvement of riparian, shrub-steppe,
island, and cliff habitats. Wildlife-dependent public use would be emphasized with opportunities for
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and environmental education
maintained or improved from present conditions. A Washington State pheasant augmentation/
release program would be phased out in two years and camping would be discontinued at Madame
Dorion Park. Disturbance to island resources would be reduced through closure of all beach use and
implementation of a no-wake zone within 100 feet of Refuge islands.
Alternative 3: Emphasize Native Species Diversity and Non-Consumptive Public Uses
Under Alternative 3 the Refuges would focus on allowing management that mimics natural processes
to maintain or enhance native fish, wildlife and plant diversity. Improving existing island, riverine and
shrub-steppe habitat and restoring degraded habitat to more native conditions would be emphasized.
Fewer acres would be managed in croplands. The Refuges would contribute to recovery of threatened,
endangered or rare species such as salmon, steelhead and long-billed curlews. Hunting and fishing
opportunities would be available at most sites, however, pheasant and fish stocking would be
eliminated and fewer acres would be managed to provide waterfowl food. Opportunities for wildlife-dependent
nonconsumptive uses would be improved and expanded. Camping would be discontinued
at Madame Dorion Park. All island areas would be closed to public access, including beach use, and
a no-wake zone within 100 feet of Refuge islands would be implemented during summer.
Alternative 4: Continue Current Management
Alternative 4 is the no change alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Refuges would continue programs at current levels as described in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Specifically, the Refuges would maintain, and where feasible, restore habitat for waterfowl, migratory
birds, and State and federally-listed species. Existing public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, interpretation, environmental education, horseback riding, camping,
boating, and limited beach use would continue.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
Table 2-1. Summary of CCP Actions, By Alternative
Key Themes/Issues
Alternative 1
Emphasize
Migratory Waterfowl and
Consumptive
Public Uses
Alternative 2
(Preferred Alternative)
Emphasize Migratory Birds,
Special Status Species, and
Wildlife-Dependent Public
Uses
Alternative 3
Emphasize Native
Biodiversity and
Non-Consumptive
Public Uses
Alternative 4
Continue Current
Management
(No-action Alternative)
Waterfowl
Croplands:
Total Acreage
Share to Refuges
2,400 acres
25%
2,100 acres
25%
1,850 acres
25%
2,100 acres
25%
Grain Availability over Season and
During Emergency Weather
Conditions
390 acres scheduled for mid winter (post-hunting season)
knockdown. 70 acres for late season knockdown.
Emergency knockdown under severe weather conditions.
Most knockdown late Jan-mid Feb (no scheduled late
season knockdown and no provisions for emergency
knockdown
Moist Soil Management:
Total Acreage
Floodup for Early Migrants
406 acres
30 acres flooded by 9/15
366 acres
30 acres flooded by 9/15
Decrease acreage
All flooded 10/25 or later
356 acres
All flooded 10/25 or later
Shorebirds
Foraging Area:
Mudflats on Columbia River
Alternate Foraging Sites
Same as Alt. 3 and 4
20 acre increase for migration.
Alternate sites at moist soil units.
No change to existing mudflat acres.
No alternate sites provided.
Curlew Upland Habitats Existing suitable habitat
maintained
Existing habitat maintained and suitable nesting and foraging
habitat increased by 25% on inactive former croplands.
Existing suitable habitat
maintained
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
Salmon Rearing Habitats None Protect and where feasible enhance backwaters and side-channel
habitats.
Some backwater areas used
for salmon rearing.
Inventory for Rare Species not
Monitored by Other Agencies
No inventory conducted Undertake inventory. Specific habitat or population
management strategies determined in step down plan.
Minimal inventory conducted
Wetland and Deepwater Habitats
Shallow Marsh Management:
Open Water Areas Created
Emergent Invasives Cover
96 acres/year
< 20%
67 acres/year
< 20%
0 acres
Reduced
33 acres/year
Variable (30-50%)
Elimination of Carp Eliminated at 4 wetlands Eliminated at 2 wetlands No effort to reduce carp.
Riparian Habitats
Nesting Habitats Improved 0 acres/year 62 acres/year 5 acres/year improved 5 acres/year improved
Cottonwood Developed 0 acres/year 5 acres/year 0 acres/year 0 acres/year
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-6 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Islands and Cliffs
Waterbird Populations and
Coordination
Habitat maintained to support a diversity of island-nesting birds and colonies. Continued coordination with partners on research,
monitoring, and management of the Refuge’s colonies of salmonid-smolt eating birds.
Reduce Disturbance to Island
Wildlife to Protect Nesting and
Breeding Ares
Same as Alt. 4 Existing island closures to be enforced. No beach use. No-wake
zone within 100-feet of islands on Refuge waters.
Islands mostly closed in
summer but some trespass
issues. Crescent Island is open
for waterfowl hunt.
Protection of Rocky Habitats No mining, collection or extractive activities permitted on any natural Refuge rocky features. Baseline inventory of plant and
wildlife resources (Alts 1, 2, and 3 only). Protection for raptor nesting sites and limit public uses to Big Six uses.
Shrub-Steppe Habitats
Existing Habitats Improved 64 acres/year 192 acres/year 288 acres/year 64 acres/year
Restoration of Roads, Mining Sites,
and Inactive Croplands
100 acres 350 acres 600 acres 0 acres
Protection from Fire and Ground
Disturbance
No emphasis Active measures taken with partners, public, and contractors to
reduce fire damage and soil disturbances.
Frequent fires burn about
1,000 acres annually.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Trails
McNary Opportunities
No changes to current
trails, viewing, and
interpretive opportunities.
Trail/interpretive improvements
at Headquarters and Wallula
Units.
Trail and interpretive
improvements at
Headquarters Unit.
Existing trails, viewing and
interpretive signs at McNary
Headquarters Unit maintained.
Umatilla Hwy 14 Interpretive
Overlooks
No change
Improved and expanded
No change
Interpretive signs at several
overlooks on Hwy. 14
Umatilla Heritage Trail Consider Heritage trail
realignment.
Add benches, blind, sun shades, and potential side trails to
Heritage Trail; consider realignment. Add interpretive area at
check station.
County Heritage Trail traverses
Refuge. Portions of trail unsafe
during hunt season.
Hunting
Waterfowl Hunt Types Reservation fee hunting, posts/free roam, and youth hunts.
Waterfowl Hunt Areas 25,952 acres 25,739 acres 25,698 acres 25,905 acres
Sanctuary Areas Alt 4 minus Col. River
shoreline at McCormack
Alt 1 plus
East McCormack Slough
Alt 4 plus
East McCormack Slough
Existing areas (44% of
Umatilla, 24% of McNary)
Upland Bird Areas
All open units. Hunting improved at Peninsula (eliminating
mowing at former goose blinds).
Upland game bird hunting provided on all open units.
Upland Bird Hunt Schedule Hunt days and times standardized Variety of days/start times
Upland Permits (McCormack) Permits reduced to 15 on opening two weekends. 25 daily permits, crowding issue on opening two weekends
Pheasant Releases (McNary) Pheasant augmentation phased out in 2 years (Service policy prohibits nonnative stocking). State pheasant releases
Deer Hunt (McCormack) Doe hunting emphasis to reduce population and address vegetation impacts issue. Hunt open at current level.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Fishing
Diversity of Fishing Opportunities Maintain diverse opportunities, including State seasonal
stocking of rainbow trout at Quarry Pond for youth and family
fishing. Improve parking facilities and access.
Same as Alt. 4 except
Quarry Pond stocking
ended.
Plentiful walk-in and boat
fishing opportunities. Stocking
for family fishing at one pond.
Tournament Fishing Work in partnership with States and others to develop standard tournament permit conditions.
No tournament access within ½ mile of pelican nest colonies.
Several tournaments on both
Refuges
Fishing Outreach and Information Develop fishing brochure or tear sheets. Install kiosks at two
on-Refuge and two off-Refuge boat launches.
Large numbers of anglers and boaters using Refuges but little
Refuge information is disseminated to this user group.
Environmental Education
Number of Students Served McNary:1,500-3,000
Umatilla: 0
McNary: 1,500 – 3,000
Umatilla: 100-500
McNary: 1,500-3,000
Umatilla: 50
Teacher Led Program Some emphasis At least 75% of the classes teacher-led. Some emphasis.
EE Facilities at McNary Continue EE program at McNary Environmental Education Center at Burbank Slough.
EE Facilities at Umatilla None Field study sites integrated into East McCormack Slough None
Non-Wildlife Dependent Uses
Horseback Riding Same as Alt. 4 Improve signing, outreach, and interpretive materials. Riders
allowed on public roads and horseback designated trails.
Riding allowed on public roads
and designated trails. Limited
information/facilities.
Camping at Madame Dorion Park Madame Dorion Park available for day use for Big Six uses.
Eliminate camping. Maintain existing rest area facilities.
Camping permitted under
temporary coop agreement
Swimming and Beach Use Same as Alt. 4. Island beaches closed to all use. Beach use permitted on
designated portions of
Umatilla Islands in summer.
Heavy beach use on
Strawberry Island.
Law Enforcement
Illegal Shooting and Dumping Reduce dumping at Burbank Sloughs Unit by 80%. Eliminate target shooting. Illegal shooting and dumping
occurs .
Cultural Resources
Monitoring and Protection Increased with greater survey effort, enforcement, training, and consultation with Tribes. Enforcement, consultation and
project review per NHPA.
Interpretation Programs Develop interpretive materials in partnership with Tribes and historical societies. No active interpretation
Bank Stabilization Seek funding to stabilize eroding banks to protect buried cultural resources No funding for bank
stabilization sought.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-8 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and
focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the
Refuge System Mission.
A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly
reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and
larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed
by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals.
Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives (USDI 2002).
In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an environmental assessment. The
environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a variety of
management goals, objectives and implementation strategies.
The goals for McNary and Umatilla Refuges over the next fifteen years under the CCP are presented
on the following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. Some
objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot.
Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives.
The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are assigned in Appendix D.
Readers, please note the following:
• The objective statement as written is the objective statement that applies to the Service is Preferred
Alternative, Alternative 2.
• Bolded text in the objective statement indicates specific items that vary in the other alternatives.
How those items vary is displayed in the short table under each objective statement; as applicable,
each other alternative shows substitute text for the bolded item or items.
• If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is used to indicate that this objective is not
addressed in that alternative.
Finally, below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to
accomplish the objectives. Again, note the following:
• Check marks alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy.
• If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it
means that strategy will not be used in that alternative.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
GOAL 1: Manage high quality food and
sanctuary to support large concentrations
of migratory waterfowl.
Objective 1a: Provide Crops for Waterfowl
Maintain 600 acres at McNary and 1,500 at Umatilla (2,100 total acres of Refuge land) for the
production of crops on both Refuges, with a minimum of 400 acres to a maximum of 580 acres to
be grown as grain (corn preferred) and left standing to benefit trust species of waterfowl (mainly
mallard, northern pintail, Canada geese, and greater white-fronted geese). In addition, provide a
minimum of 1,000 acres in green feed for waterfowl use during winter.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Objective is modified by replacing bolded type
above with the text in this row.
Increase crop
acreage to
2,400 acres
Maintain
2,100
acres
Reduce
acreage to
<1,850 acres
Maintain
2,100 acres
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Plant crops on an additional 300 acres of cropland at
Umatilla (100 acres) and McNary (200 acres) Refuges;
use inactive agricultural lands currently in fallow, weedy
condition. (There will be no conversion of existing
grassland/shrub-steppe).
􀀹􃥃
Conduct cooperative farming in accordance with
guidelines, best practices and acreages outlined in the
existing McNary and Umatilla Cropland Management
Plan; and maintain Organic Farming Program on
Whitcomb Island and McCormack Units of Umatilla
Refuge.
􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥃
Consider force account farming to increase net food
availability if and when appropriate. To do so, increase
Refuge funding $100,000 annually for force account
equipment, supplies and staffing and submit funding
requests (RONS) for $300,000 to develop new
irrigation circles.
􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥄
Develop partnership programs to provide incentives and
funding to private landowners to provide standing corn
and other grains off-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 CCP team. Approximately 2,100 acres of Refuge lands are currently farmed
under cooperative agreements. Under the Cropland Management Plans for Umatilla and McNary Refuges (USDI, 1996;
USDI, 1999), croplands are managed for the benefit of waterfowl, but many other species benefit (i.e. bald eagles which
rely on Refuge waterfowl concentrations). Refuge crop shares are generally 25% of what is grown and are limited to 1)
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-10 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
cereal grains, preferably corn, to meet the high energy demands of migrating and wintering waterfowl, and 2) green winter
forage and cover crops which provide for Canada goose populations. In addition, harvested areas provide foods for
waterfowl, including waste grains and green forage such as alfalfa and grasses. Opportunities to provide natural foods on
the Refuges are limited, especially for the large concentrations of waterfowl (peaks of nearly 250,000 to 500,000 birds for
both Refuges combined). The 2003 Wildlife and Habitat Management Review of McNary and Umatilla Refuges
recommended providing additional corn for wintering waterfowl. Increasing corn is limited by costs of installing irrigation
systems, operation of the Organic Farming Program at Whitcomb Island, the need to rotate crops, and use of negotiated
cooperative agreements with farming cooperators versus force account. Substantial increases in funding to both develop
and maintain force account irrigation circles for corn would provide the best scenario for corn production. Partnerships and
incentives to area farmers to grow grains is another possibility. In addition, 300 acres of fallow agricultural land could be
redeveloped and cropped to meet the demand for standing corn for waterfowl. These 300 reactivated cropland acres
could be developed as follows: a 40-acre new irrigation circle at McCormack Unit, and a 60-acre new irrigation circle at
Paterson on Umatilla Refuge; and at McNary, 60 acres of dryland wheat at Peninsula, 77 acres of dryland or reactivation
of irrigation at Field 9 on Humorist Road, 37 acres irrigation system reactivation at Kohler, and 72 acres of irrigation
system reactivation on Field 4, and former irrigated cropland on the southside of Wallula.
Objective 1b: Extend Timeperiod Grain is Made Available to Birds.
Extend time period grain is made available to waterfowl and provide grains during emergency
weather conditions. Provide for mid and extended late-season nutritional needs of migrating and
wintering waterfowl, especially mallard, northern pintail and greater white-fronted geese, by
scheduling “knockdown” of 460 acres of available agricultural grain crops.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Objective as written above applies to alternatives (􀀹􃤩) 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Expand knockdown dates both earlier and later in the season:
• Post-hunting season (approximately January 18 – March 1): 390 acres
total for both Refuges, staged knockdown over this time period, if possible.
• Late season (week of March 1): 35 acres at Umatilla and 35 acres at
McNary
􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥃
Coordinate with cooperators and/or increase force account crop knockdowns
to achieve the schedule listed above.
􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥁
Allow for emergency knockdown during the hunting season if severe weather
causes a documented need. This action may require closure of hunting due to
baiting regulations; therefore coordinate with law enforcement and the public.
Severe weather is snow or ice covering of most local fields and or weather
below 0 degrees F for an extended time leading to generally inaccessible food
supply on surrounding farms and agricultural fields.
􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥒
Rationale: Traditionally, Refuges reserved the standing crop to be knocked down during severe winter weather and/or
immediately after the close of hunting season in late January to mid February. McNary staff have noted that in years when
they were “late” (February-March) in knocking down the corn crop, more white-fronted geese (early spring migrants) were
attracted. White-fronted geese have increased significantly in recent years, presumably in response to this late food
availability. Providing grain crops in a scheduled, staged way throughout the season will help provide for fall and spring
migrants as well as the wintering population. However, under this schedule the majority (85%) of standing crop is still kept
for late January–post hunting–knockdown. Refuge managers have documented extreme winter weather events leading to
area fields being covered with ice and snow; in such times Refuge corn fields have been mowed to supply the nutritional
need for a large percentage of Columbia Basin wintering waterfowl and have likely prevented die-off events.
Objective 1c: Increase Size and Availablity of Moist Soil Areas
Add10 acres to the existing 356 acres of managed moist soil units for both Refuges (5 acres each),
and increase efforts to provide high production of natural foods favored by mallards and northern
pintails, such as smartweed (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa spp.) and swamp timothy
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
(Crypsis schoenoides). Provide early flood-up, by September 15, on 30 acres of existing moist soil
units (10 acres at Umatilla/5 acres at McNary) to support early migrants such as northern pintail.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above
with the text in this row.
Add 40
acres to
Add 10
acres to
Substract 8
acres from
Maintain
current
acreage of
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Flood units in fall and follow with a late spring drawdown,
properly timed to maximize germination and growth of the
desired species.
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Utilize disking at Umatilla’s McCormack Slough to set back
taller persistent wetland vegetation, and to provide a seed bed
for preferred moist soil annual vegetation.
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
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 from the following
potential areas: McNary - Unit 3, Two Rivers, and Peninsula
units; and Umatilla - Boardman, and Paterson units. Utilize
irrigation water and manage piping/pumps as needed.
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Coordinate irrigations and new moist soil development with
local mosquito control districts (see West Nile Virus
Contingency Plans for both Refuges.
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Annually provide water for early flood up (by September 15) of
30 acres of moist soil from the following units: McNary-Dudley
wetlands, Wallula Units wetlands; Umatilla - Kathy’s Pond; and
any new sites to be developed (see above objective 4a).
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Coordinate timing and treatment of early fall flood-ups with
the mosquito control districts at both Refuges to reduce risks of
mosquito-borne diseases (see West Nile Virus Contingency
Plan).
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Terminate flood up at Dudley Ponds 1 and 2 and at Wallula
South 1. 􀀹􃤠
Rationale: Wetland food availability was identified as a key ecological attribute supporting waterfowl. Moist soil
wetlands use annual water control regimes to promote production of annual plants preferred by waterfowl, such as wild
millet, smartweeds, swamp timothy and goosefoot. Typically this includes a spring drawdown, one to two summer
irrigations, and a fall/winter flood-up. These wetlands also provide a variety of water depths that support a wide variety of
waterbird species including shorebirds and wading birds and serve as important feeding areas for young waterfowl bro
Although not considered typical moist soil management units (due to a lack of direct water control), some Refuge areas
are already being managed for moist soil plant production. These include several wetlands at McNary’s Wallula Unit, and
shoreline areas at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit. Expanses within McCormack Slough of Umatilla Refuge have been
excavated to elevations that fall between the annual minimum and maximum water levels of the slough, as dictated by John
Day Dam forebay operations. Under the influence of this operation, these sites are inundated with shallow water from
November through June and are exposed as saturated or moist soils from July to October, thus performing as a seasonal
wetland that is highly suitable for moist soil plant production. Disking has been used at these sites to eliminate
development of tall persistent vegetation such as bulrush, and to promote establishment of annuals as soon as the flats
become exposed about early July. Managed moist soil areas on the slough are used heavily by waterfowl, particularly
northern pintail, green-winged teal, and mallards. There has also been much use by shorebirds and wading birds in the
spring season.
New moist soil areas could be developed and/or managed for moist soil including: small wetlands associated with
irrigation water at the Dudley wetlands at McNary and additional sites at Umatilla’s McCormack Unit near Hunt Blinds 1,
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-12 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2, 5, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37, and shorelines at hunt blinds 7 and 30.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004) lists the long-term trend for northern pintail populations as
declining. The Refuges could distribute the benefits of moist soil management to a greater diversity of waterfowl, including
northern pintail, by providing earlier fall flood-up of units. Pintail generally arrive earliest of the waterfowl, with peak
concentrations sometimes occurring in September. The Refuges have limited ability to control the timing of flood-up at
some of the moist soil units. McNary’s Dudley wetlands and other irrigation-dependent wetlands generally have irrigation
water through mid-October, and could provide excellent smartweed beds to early migrants if managed and flooded early.
In the past, mosquito breeding and the potential for mosquito-borne diseases (such as West Nile Virus) has limited the use
of early flood ups. With close coordination and cooperation with the local mosquito control districts, early flood-up of
moist soil wetlands could be accomplished.
Objective 1d: Relocate Sanctuary Area within McCormack Unit
Improve resting and feeding opportunities for migratory birds and wintering waterfowl and increase
opportunities for wildlife observation on the eastern portion of McCormack Slough at Umatilla
Refuge by closing the area to hunting, eliminating foot traffic and access to the wetlands, and
restricting public use and access to the auto tour route and selected public viewing or overlook sites.
Move the current waterfowl and upland game bird hunting opportunity on the eastern portion of
McCormack Slough to a new area within current sanctuary along river shoreline on the north side of
the unit.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Objective as written above applies to alternatives (􀀹􃤩) 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Close all public access to the east portion of McCormack Slough except at
designated viewing and interpretive sites, and designated trails and roads (see
Objective 9d and 9e).
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Sign perimeter of new sanctuary area to inform public of area closure and make
changes to Refuge brochures and hunting tear sheets.
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Open new designated site along river shoreline for waterfowl and upland bird
hunting and sign as needed (see Objective 10a)
􀀹􃤠 􀀹􃤠
Rationale: The East McCormack Slough is an ideal area for sanctuary and use by waterfowl away from the buffeting
winds on the river. Its high quality wetlands and intensively managed foraging areas are used by large numbers of
waterfowl and other wildlife. The area is also currently heavily used, both as a hunt area and also (and at the same time)
by birdwatchers, photographers and general wildlife observation. Managing the East McCormack Slough with fewer
disturbances would help to greatly improve the quality of Objectives 9d and 9e, and better separate hunting from the
visiting public using the tour route and Heritage Trail. All three of these objectives, if implemented together, would
complement and benefit one another. If any one of them was implemented alone, it would be less valuable as a resource
to the public. The loss of waterfowl and upland bird hunting in the East McCormack Slough would be replaced with a new
hunt area located along the river shoreline with nearly an equal amount of hunting opportunities and overall land area.
Hunting quality at the new site would likely be the same or better than that provided in the east slough since an interior
sanctuary wetland could be expected to increase overall bird distribution and hunting success (similar to the situation at
McNary Refuge with Units 3 (sanctuary) and 2 (hunted). Intensively managed sites in the east slough would also provide
opportunity to expand desired habitats for various species other than waterfowl, such as shorebirds, wading birds, and
other water birds. Hikers, birders, and photographers would lose direct and close access to the wetlands; but the auto tour
route and carefully placed designated observation sites and decks would still provide for quality wildlife observation visits.
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13
GOAL 2: Provide secure and productive foraging and nesting
habitats for a diversity of shorebirds.
Objective 2a: Increase Available Delta Mudflat
Increase the acres of mudflat available for migratory shorebird foraging by 20 acres during peak
migration periods at McNary Refuge’s Walla Walla Delta to benefit shorebird species such as black-necked
stilt, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, dunlin, and Wilson’s phalarope.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Objective as written above applies to alternatives (􀀹􃤩) 􀀹􃤠
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Coordinate with the Corps for draw downs of McNary Reservoir to 336–337
mean sea level (msl) mid-July to October and mid-March to late April migration
peaks, to expose an additional 20 acres of mudflats for shorebirds at the Walla
Walla Delta
􀀹􃤠
Monitor and control expansion of invasives and other upland plants onto
mudflats: increase chemical and mechanical treatments to maintain and/or
increase mudflat habitat.
􀀹􃤠
Increase use of signing, education, and law enforcement to eliminate illegal
trespass onto Delta.
􀀹􃤠
Rationale: Foraging habitat and security were both identified as key ecological attributes for shorebirds by the CCP
team. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Oring 2004) lists black-necked stilt, American
avocet, dunlin, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope as “critically important” species. The Walla Walla Delta is
a major shorebird migration feeding area for these and other shorebird species, with documented annual populations
numbering up to 8,600, representing nearly 40 species (International Shorebird Surveys, Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences). Careful management of this area would help enhance and increase the habitat value of this site,
supporting goals of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). Spring and fall drawdowns of the McNary
Pool would create more exposed mudflat during the shorebird migration. Vegetation, including purple loosestrife,
phragmites, and false indigo, is encroaching onto Delta mudflats. Available biocontrols for purple loosestrife may be
limited by reservoir fluctuations and wintertime inundation. Public use planning can help eliminate illegal uses and
trespass.
Objective 2b: Provide Alternate Shorebird Foraging Areas
Annually provide 10 acres of alternative shorebird foraging areas within moist soil units at McNary
(Wallula Unit 8 acres) and Umatilla (McCormack Unit 2 acres) during the peak of the migration
period (August/September) and/or when the Walla Walla Delta is unavailable to shorebirds due to
high reservoir levels (e.g., during boat race week). Objective will benefit up to 40 species of
shorebirds documented to use the Delta, including species identified as “critically important��� such as
black-necked stilt, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope.
Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Objective as written above applies to alternatives (􀀹􃤩) 􀀹􃤠
McNary and Umatilla Refuges Draft CCP/EA – December 2006
2-14 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Determine best time periods for providing alternative foraging sites based on the
Corps’ projected reservoir levels and peak migration periods. Annually select and
prepare 10 acres of moist soil units needing treatment (i.e., disking and invasive
plant removal) and flood/drawdown these units just prior to projected periods of
high reservoir levels. Potential sites at McNary include Wallula and Dudley ponds;
and at Umatilla, McCormack Slough and Kathy’s Pond.
􀀹􃤠
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 populations of migratory shorebirds often find themselves without adequate foraging habitat when the
Corps suddenly increases and maintains reservoir levels for an extended period. Examples include boat race week and 2
to 4 day increases for special shipping/barging requests. Alternative foraging sites nearby could be valuable during these
time periods. The availability of alternate sites was identified in a literature review as a key consideration for managing
shorebird populations effectively (Prindle 2004). Properly timed draw downs, disking treatments, and/or irrigations of
existing moist soil units would help provide more habitats for shorebirds on the Refuges if the Delta becomes unavailable.
Potential locations for this include the Wallula moist soil units adjacent to Walla Walla Delta, and the McCormack Slough
and Kathy’s Pond area at Umatilla. These alternative mudflat-shorebird foraging sites will have the side benefit of
providing irrigation for the surrounding moist soil vegetation that remains untreated. Weedy areas and canary grass
portions needing a treatment (disking) will be chosen, not good moist soil sections. Remaining moist soil plants will be
allowed to continue to grow productively, and could produce larger seed heads irrigated. Many shorebird experts have
recognized the importance of providing alternate sites, especially along river systems (EDAW 2004). The timing will have to
be precise to provide habitat during the projected high water periods, requiring close Corps dam reservoir coordination.
Irrigations will also have to be conducted with shallow wat