1 

Finding of No Significant Impact

Wapato Lake Unit Addition

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1 

 Portland, Oregon 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge Wapato Lake Unit Addition, Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

The Environmental Assessment discloses the environmental consequences of protecting and 

restoring up to approximately 4,310 acres of fish and wildlife habitat in Washington and Yamhill 

Counties, Oregon, as the Wapato Lake Unit of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. The 

Land Protection Plan complements the Environmental Assessment by providing information on 

land acquisition priorities and management programs that could be implemented on the Refuge 

Unit addition. 

The Service has selected Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, for implementation because it 

best meets the Service=s goals for the project which are to: 

• Protect and restore a diversity of rare and native habitats and associated populations of fish, 

wildlife, invertebrate, and plant species. 

• Protect, restore, and develop a diversity of habitats for migratory birds such as neotropical 

songbirds, wading birds, and shorebirds, with special emphasis on wintering waterfowl. 

• Protect and restore floodplain benefits associated with the Wapato Lake wetland complex 

and Tualatin River Basin including water quality, flood storage, water recharge, and 

floodplain habitats. 

• Protect, restore, and develop habitats for and otherwise support recovery of federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species and help prevent the listing of candidate species and 

species of management concern. 

• Provide opportunities for high quality priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

 

Summarized below are the reasons why the No Action Alternative and Alternatives B, C, and E 

were not identified as the Preferred Alternative: 

• The No Action Alternative provides little likelihood that important wildlife habitats would be 

protected, restored, and managed. 

• Alternatives B and C provide an opportunity for the Service to protect, restore, and manage 

the historic Wapato Lake lakebed, however, they provide minimal opportunity to protect and 
2 

restore meandering riverine channels and riparian forest habitat along steam banks. These 

Alternatives do not provide any protection to intact riparian habitat along the Tualatin River 

and existing wetlands which play an important role in the improvement of water quality, 

stream temperature regulation, and control of sediment erosion. Additionally, these two 

Alternatives lack the diverse habitat types that support a much wider range of resident and 

migratory fish and wildlife species. 

• Alternative E allows the Service to provide much needed protection and restoration of habitat 

for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife species. However, this Alternative 

includes property close to the city of Forest Grove which could expose the proposed Wapato 

Lake Unit to urban runoff, disturbances, trash, and vandalism problems. The Service 

determined that the risk of encroachment to the new Wapato Lake Unit is too high to justify 

selecting this Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. In addition, much of the land in the 

northern part of Alternative E is owned and managed by Metro and Clean Water Services, 

and will likely be restored under their wildlife habitat programs. Providing wildlife habitat is 

an important program for these public agencies, but unlike lands of the Refuge System, they 

do not have a wildlife first mission allowing for greater flexibility in program policies. 

These policies could provide a means for granting an easement to construct and maintain a 

proposed raw water pipeline of the Joint Water Commission presently being planned for 

routing across the Tualatin River floodplain from Highway 47 to Clean Water Services 

facilities south of Fernhill Wetlands. This project would be subject to review under the 

compatibility policy of the Refuge System if proposed as a new easement on lands owned 

and administered by the Service.

Public input was solicited throughout the entire planning process, including the decision-making 

process. The Service identified issues and concerns relating to the project through a public 

scoping period beginning in November and December 2001. During development of draft 

planning documents, planning updates were mailed to government agencies, interested citizens, 

community groups, and landowners seeking their participation in the planning process. As part 

of the public notice and review process, the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Proposed 

Wapato Lake Unit, Draft Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment was available 

for a 30-day review and comment period starting in April 2006. A public open house was held 

on May 4, 2006 in Gaston, Oregon, where Service employees were available to discuss the 

project, answer questions, and receive public comments. The public comment period concluded 

on May 31, 2006. 

Comments received during the public review period indicate overwhelming public support for 

the Wapato Lake Unit addition to the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. No additional 

analysis was required as a result of the comments received during the 30-day review period; 

responses to public comments were primarily to reiterate or clarify content in the public review 

document. 


Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge

Wapato Lake Unit Addition 

Land Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Planning and Visitor Services 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97232 

(503) 231-2096 

February 2007
1 
i 

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.........................................................1 

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

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

1.3 Need for Action...........................................................................................................................1 

 1.3.1 Background........................................................................................................................3 

 1.3.2 Purpose for Proposed Action .............................................................................................4 

1.4 Study Area..... ............................................................................................................................6 

1.5 Related Actions...........................................................................................................................6 

1.6 Decisions to be Made..................................................................................................................6 

1.7 Public Participation and Issue Identification ..............................................................................11 

 1.7.1 Wapato Lake Unit Management ........................................................................................11 

 1.7.2 Water Rights ......................................................................................................................11 

 1.7.3 Socioeconomic Values.......................................................................................................12 

 1.7.4 Land Acquisition................................................................................................................12 

 1.7.5 Alternatives Identified During Public Scoping..................................................................12 

 1.7.6 Scoggins Dam Raise and Raw Water Pipeline ..................................................................12 

1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities .....................................................................13 

1.9 Habitat Protection and Land Acquisition Process ......................................................................13 

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES GIVEN DETAILED STUDY ................................................15 

2.1 Alternative A, the No Action Alternative...................................................................................15 

2.2 Alternative B, a 1,960-Acre Wapato Lake Unit .........................................................................15 

2.3 Alternative C, a 2,430-Acre Wapato Lake Unit .........................................................................15 

2.4 Alternative D, a 4,310-Acre Wapato Lake Unit (Preferred Alternative) ...................................19 

2.5 Alternative E, a 6,280-Acre Wapato Lake Unit..........................................................................19 

2.6 Alternatives Considered but not Selected for Detailed Analysis................................................22 

2.7 Features Common to All of the Action Alternatives ..................................................................22 

 2.7.1 Wapato Lake Unit Administration.....................................................................................22 

 2.7.2 Key Areas of Management Focus......................................................................................25 

 2.7.3 Rights-of-Way and Easements...........................................................................................35 

 2.7.4 Law Enforcement.............................................................................................................36 

 2.7.5 Facilities Development and Management..........................................................................36 

 2.7.6 Interagency and Public Coordination ................................................................................36 

 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................39 

3.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................39 

 3.1.1 Water Resources ................................................................................................................39 

 3.1.2 Wapato Improvement District (WID)................................................................................40 

 3.1.3 Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID) ........................................................................40 

 3.1.4 Water Rights ......................................................................................................................41 

 3.1.5 Contaminants and Hazardous Wastes................................................................................41 

3.2 Biological Environment..............................................................................................................42 

3.3 Socioeconomic Environment......................................................................................................44 
ii 

 3.3.1 Population Growth.............................................................................................................44 

 3.3.2 Economic Growth ..............................................................................................................44 

 3.3.3 Land Use ............................................................................................................................46 

 3.3.4 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................47 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES............................................................49 

4.1 Alternative A, the No Action Alternative...................................................................................49 

 4.1.1 Physical Consequences .....................................................................................................49 

 4.1.2 Biological Consequences..................................................................................................50 

 4.1.3 Socioeconomic Consequences..........................................................................................50 

4.2 Environmental Consequences Common to All the Action Alternatives ....................................51 

 4.2.1 Land Acquisition...............................................................................................................51 

 4.2.2 Habitat Management.........................................................................................................51 

 4.2.3 Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ........................................................................................52 

 4.2.4 County Tax Revenue.........................................................................................................52 

 4.2.5 Wapato Lake Unit Tourism and Spending in the Local Economy ..................................52 

 4.2.6 Land Use Zoning...............................................................................................................53 

 4.2.7 Agricultural Production ....................................................................................................53

4.3 Alternative B, a 1,960-Acre Wapato Lake Unit ........................................................................54 

 4.3.1 Physical Consequences .....................................................................................................54 

 4.3.2 Biological Consequences..................................................................................................54 

 4.3.3 Socioeconomic Consequences..........................................................................................55 

4.4 Alternative C, a 2,430-Acre Wapato Lake Unit .........................................................................55 

 4.4.1 Physical Consequences .....................................................................................................56 

 4.4.2 Biological Consequences..................................................................................................56 

 4.4.3 Socioeconomic Consequences..........................................................................................57 

4.5 Alternative D, a 4,310-Acre Wapato Lake Unit (Preferred Alternative)....................................57 

 4.5.1 Physical Consequences .....................................................................................................58 

 4.5.2 Biological Consequences..................................................................................................58 

 4.5.3 Socioeconomic Consequences..........................................................................................59 

4.6 Alternative E, a 6,280-Acre Wapato Lake Unit..........................................................................59 

 4.6.1 Physical Consequences .....................................................................................................60 

 4.6.2 Biological Consequences..................................................................................................60 

 4.6.3 Socioeconomic Consequences..........................................................................................61 

4.7 Rationale for Selection of the Preferred Alternative ..................................................................61 

4.8 Cumulative Impacts......... ........................................................................................................64 

CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND COMPLIANCE........................65 

5.1 Public Involvement.......... ........................................................................................................65 

5.2 Environmental Review and Consultation ...................................................................................65

 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act..................................................................................65 

 5.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act...................................................................................65 

 5.2.3 Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................................66 

 5.2.4 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders.................................................66 

 5.2.5 Distribution and Availability ............................................................................................66 
iii 

CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................67

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. Land Protection Priorities Map, Tract Maps, and Priorities Table 

APPENDIX B. Notification List for the Environmental Assessment 

APPENDIX C. Responses to Comments 

FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge and Wapato Lake Study Area......................7 

FIGURE 2. Wapato Lake Study Area...............................................................................................9 

FIGURE 3. Alternative B. 1,960 Acres ...........................................................................................16 

FIGURE 4. Alternative C. 2,430 Acres ...........................................................................................18 

FIGURE 5. Alternative D. 4,310 Acres (Preferred Alternative) .....................................................20 

FIGURE 6. Alternative E. 6,280 Acres ...........................................................................................21 

TABLES 

TABLE 1. Alternative B Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs ......................................17 

TABLE 2. Alternative C Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs ......................................17 

TABLE 3. Alternative D Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs......................................19 

TABLE 4. Alternative E Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs ......................................22 

TABLE 5 Restoration and Maintenance Actions Common to All Alternatives..............................27 

TABLE 6. Washington and Yamhill Counties’ Agricultural Acreage within the Wapato Lake 

Unit................................................................................................................................. 53 
iv 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

1 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency responsible for 

conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although 

the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private entities, 

the Service has specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, federally-listed threatened and 

endangered species, and certain anadromous fish and marine mammals. Service efforts over the 

last 100 years to protect wildlife and their habitats have resulted in a network of protected areas 

that form the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). This network of protected 

areas is the largest and most diverse in the world. Refuge System lands provide essential habitat 

for numerous wildlife species, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public, and a 

variety of benefits to local communities. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

The Service intends to establish the Wapato Lake Unit (Unit) Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge in Yamhill and Washington Counties, Oregon. In this Land Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (LCP/EA), the Service describes the purpose and need for protecting 

the wildlife and habitat associated with the Wapato Lake Unit and analyzes the consequences of 

a range of alternatives for accomplishing the needed protection. This document was prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

1.3 Need for Action 

Numerous species of shorebirds and marsh birds frequent the Wapato Lake area for foraging and 

resting during their spring and fall migrations. The Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird 

Management Plan specifically identifies the need to acquire or protect agricultural and pasture 

lands adjacent to Wapato Lake as well as additional lands in the central and southern Willamette 

Valley to provide needed freshwater habitat for shorebirds (Drut 2000). 

Riparian and wet deciduous swales of mixed deciduous/coniferous forest support breeding 

neotropical landbirds. American bald eagles, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, northern 

harriers, American kestrels, black-tailed deer, and species of special concern including northern 

red-legged frogs and western pond turtles, use the wetland habitats in the Wapato Lake area. 

Restoring the Wapato Lake Unit would improve habitat conditions for a number of native fish 

species. Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed anadromous species include Upper Willamette 

River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Upper Willamette River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus myki), both listed as threatened species (ODFW 2005). Coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Tualatin River are not ESA listed although coho in the adjacent 

Clackamas River basin were for threatened status in 2005 (ODFW 2005). The historic range of 

Oregon chub (Oregonichtyys crameri), listed as endangered, included the Tualatin River, but 

they are now considered extinct in this basin (ODFW 2005). Other salmonids inhabiting the 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

2 

Tualatin River are coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), and resident rainbow trout (O.

mykiss) (Friesen and Ward 1995). Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and Western brook 

lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), both occur in the basin as do a number of native minnows 

(Cyprinidae) including redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys 

osculus), and northern pike minnow (Ptycochelius oregonensis) (Friesen and Ward 1995). The 

Tualatin River is also occupied by many nonnative fish species including largemouth bass, black 

and white crappie, yellow and brown bullhead, and mosquito fish (Friesen and Ward 1995). 

Most of the nonnative introduced fish prefer warm water habitat, which becomes more prevalent 

within a basin as development and disturbance proceed. Although habitat preservation and 

restoration efforts may not preclude the presence of introduced species, it could be an important 

factor in limiting further spread within the basin. 

The Wapato Lake Unit contains portions of the Tualatin River and tributary streams that are 

identified as rearing habitat for cutthroat trout, steelhead and resident rainbow trout, (ODEQ 

2001). Given the location of the Wapato Lake Unit, stream and riparian restoration activities 

could link adjacent spawning habitat, and possibly extend the extent of spawning habitat 

available into the restored areas. In particular, the upstream location and extent of the Unit 

could, upon restoration, extend cold and cool water habitat further downstream in the basin 

resulting in improved conditions for resident and anadromous species, including the listed 

steelhead trout. 

When flooded in the fall and winter, the Wapato Lake lakebed supports large numbers of tundra 

swans, mallards, pintails, canvasbacks, ring-necked ducks, lesser scaup, and Canada geese 

including lesser, Taverners, cackling, and Aleutian. A variety of other waterfowl species 

including Pacific white-fronted geese use the wetland complex as well. Overall, the Pacific 

Flyway annually winters almost 5.3 million ducks, geese, and swans (Trost et al. 2004); and the 

Wapato Lake area continues to be an important wintering ground for waterfowl, especially for 

tundra swan, in the Pacific Flyway. Thus, protection and restoration of the Wapato Lake lakebed 

and associated habitats would help maintain the duck, geese, and swan populations of the Pacific 

Flyway. 

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture Implementation Plan (PCJVIP) (Roth 2004) specifically targets 

the extensive Tualatin River Basin floodplain and historic riparian areas for restoration in the 

vicinity of: Wapato Lake near Gaston, Oregon; Fernhill wetlands in Forest Grove, Oregon; 

Jackson Bottom wetlands in Hillsboro, Oregon; and the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

near Sherwood, Oregon. The PCJVIP goals for these restoration areas are to restore native plant 

communities and hydrology and to protect, restore, and develop a diversity of habitats for 

migratory birds, including songbirds, wading birds, shorebirds, wintering waterfowl, and 

resident and anadromous fish. The PCJVIP further states that Wapato Lake, located at the 

headwaters of the Tualatin River Valley, was historically one of the most important waterfowl 

sites in Willamette Valley and is still used extensively in the winter by dabbling ducks, Canada 

geese, and swans. Additionally, the PCJVIP concludes that the Wapato Lake lakebed, 

approximately 1,000 acres, has high potential for wetland restoration. The PCJVIP recommends 

the Service 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

3 

pursue establishing a new national wildlife refuge unit in the historic Wapato Lake area and 

restoring wetlands and riparian habitats. 

1.3.1 Background 

Historically, seasonal flood waters from the Tualatin River filled the Wapato Lake basin creating 

Wapato Lake. Wapato Lake had a surface area of about 1,500 acres and held water to a shallow 

depth through most of the year (Baar and Cunningham 1920). Wapato Lake soils contain an 

organic peat substrate that once supported a scrub-shrub wetland community. The wapato plant, 

(Sagittaria latifolia), dominated the stands of seasonally flooded herbaceous plants in the upper 

marsh areas. Oregon ash riparian hardwood forests historically occupied floodplains adjacent to 

streams and the Tualatin River. 

In the mid-1930s, local landowners formed the Wapato Improvement District (WID). The WID 

constructed ditches, dikes, and drainage tiles to drain Wapato Lake, and prepared the land for 

agriculture, using water from the Tualatin River for irrigation. Currently, crops include winter 

wheat, onions, corn, pasture grass, and various berries. Small orchards exist on drier slopes. In 

spite of this intensive conversion to agricultural land use, remnant communities of riparian forest 

and several freshwater wetland habitat types–emergent, shrub, and forested–still exist (Cowardin 

et al. 1979). These remnant habitats support a diverse association of flora and fauna. 

Scientists and policy makers recognize the value of wetland restoration. In 1989, President Bush 

stated that Ano net loss@ of wetlands was an administration goal. Nationally, wetlands have 

declined by more than 52 percent. At the time of European settlement, the area that is now the 

conterminous United States contained an estimated 221 million acres of wetlands. Frayer et al. 

(1983) estimated the rate of wetland loss between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s at 458,000 

acres per year. Dahl and Johnson (1991) reported that from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the 

rate of wetland loss had declined to 290,000 acres per year. Dahl (2000) estimated the annual 

loss rate between 1986 and 1997 at 58,500 acres per year with 105.5 million acres of wetlands 

remaining in 1997. Ninety-eight percent of all wetland losses between 1986 and 1997 were 

freshwater wetlands. Nationally, freshwater wetland losses occurred due to conversion to the 

following land uses: 30 percent urban development, 26 percent agriculture, 23 percent 

silviculture, and 21 percent rural development. 

Daggett et al. (1998) reported that the Willamette Valley in 1982 was comprised of 50 percent 

upland agriculture, 22 percent other uplands, 12 percent urban development, 9 percent wetlands, 

5 percent deepwater habitats, and 2 percent rural development. Wetlands covered 272,952 acres 

and all were palustrine (freshwater) wetlands of the following types: 34 percent forested, 29 

percent emergent, 27 percent farmed, and 10 percent other. A net wetland loss of 6,459 acres 

(2.4 percent) occurred in the Willamette Valley from 1982 to1994. These wetland losses are 

attributed to conversion to the following land uses: 64 percent agriculture, 23 percent upland 

urban and rural development, 11 percent other uplands, and 2 percent upland forest plantation. 

Additionally, just one-tenth of one percent of the Valley=s native grasslands and oak savannas 

remain (Noss and Peters 1995). 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

4 

Shaich (2000) examined whether these identified wetland changes were subject to, or in 

compliance with, Oregon=s Division of State Lands (DSL) Removal-Fill permit requirements. 

He found that 35 percent of wetland changes were subject to permit requirements and of these, 

70 percent were apparent violations. Shaich (2000) also found that agricultural conversions were 

responsible for 81 percent of all unauthorized wetland changes. 

The Willamette Valley is home to more than 70 percent of the State=s population, the majority of 

its industry, and almost half of its farmland. The Valley is also the fastest growing area in the 

State, with the human population expected to double in the next 25 years (Gregory and Sedell 

1994). 

The Tualatin River is a tributary of the Willamette River and enters above the Willamette Falls. 

In the Tualatin River watershed, drainage for agriculture and the development of dams and log 

cribs caused the loss of over 60 percent of the original freshwater wetlands (Tualatin River 

Watershed Council 1999). As discussed in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, 3.1.1 Water 

Resources, under Affected Environment: Water Resources, the State of Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality designated the Tualatin River as Awater quality limited.@

The loss of wetland and wildlife habitats within the northern Willamette Valley metropolitan 

area continues. Commercial and residential encroachments into floodplains and wetlands have 

increased over the past years resulting in fragmented and degraded habitat. Many of these 

wetlands are important to migrating and wintering waterfowl. Many other migratory bird, 

mammal, fish, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate species also depend upon floodplain, wetland, 

and riparian habitats. 

1.3.2 Purpose for Proposed Action 

The purpose of the Wapato Lake Unit would be to protect, manage, and restore habitats for 

migratory birds, fish, and other native fish and wildlife of the Willamette Valley; maintain and 

enhance the biological diversity of native plant communities and animals key to watershed 

health and function; and provide opportunities for people of all ages to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation and further awareness about the natural world. 

Due to the dramatic habitat losses which have occurred within the northern Willamette Valley, 

and the fact that the Wapato Lake wetland complex supports a variety of regionally and 

nationally important wildlife species including waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous fish, the 

Service intends to protect and improve habitat conditions in this area through establishment of 

the Wapato Lake Unit. Establishing the Unit would: 

• contribute to efforts across the Tualatin River basin to improve watershed health and 

function; 

• protect patches of remnant rare native habitat such as emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, 

wet meadow prairie, and Oregon ash riparian hardwood forests; 

• allow for the restoration of rare native habitats; 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

5 

• protect important migratory bird habitat, especially for wintering waterfowl and breeding 

neotropical songbirds; 

• improve and protect habitat for anadromous fish such as upper Willamette winter run 

steelhead and spring run Chinook salmon; coho salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout, 

• provide opportunities for people of all ages to enjoy all six priority wildlife-dependent public 

uses. 

• enhance protection of cultural resources under federal administration. 

Traditionally, fish and wildlife agencies have focused their efforts on managing lands and waters 

outside of urban areas where the majority of fish and wildlife resources occur. However, 

habitats of regional and national significance often occur in urban areas and are of great value to 

fish and wildlife. These habitats also provide important public benefits such as open space, 

recreation, environmental education, aesthetics, flood control, and water quality enhancement. 

The Wapato Lake Unit’s proximity to the urban environment of Forest Grove and Gaston would 

heighten public appreciation for the benefits wetland riverine habitats provide such as flood 

control, aesthetics, and open space. Natural areas protected on public lands are an essential 

component of the area’s quality of life. In some cases, these lands need to be restored. One of 

the benchmarks adopted for measuring Oregon=s Alivable environment@ is to maintain 100 

percent of the 1990 wetland resource base (Dagget et al. 1998). 

The interim goals of the Wapato Lake Unit reflect the core mission of the Service to protect 

wildlife resources of national importance and the purpose for which the Wapato Lake Unit 

would be established. The interim goals are to: 

• Protect and restore a diversity of rare and native habitats and associated populations of fish, 

wildlife, invertebrate, and plant species. 

• Protect, restore, and develop a diversity of habitats for migratory birds such as neotropical 

songbirds, wading birds, and shorebirds, with special emphasis on wintering waterfowl. 

• Protect and restore floodplain benefits associated with the Wapato Lake wetland complex 

and Tualatin River Basin including water quality, flood storage, water recharge, and 

floodplain habitats. 

• Protect, restore, and develop habitats for and otherwise support recovery of federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species and help prevent the listing of candidate species and 

species of management concern. 

• Provide opportunities for high quality priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

6 

1.4 Study Area 

The Wapato Lake Unit Study Area (Study Area) includes approximately 6,400 acres in 

Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. Immediately south of the city of Forest Grove, the 

Study Area is roughly bounded on the west by State Highway 47, on the east by Spring Hill 

Road, and extends approximately 1.4 miles south of Flett Road. The Study Area includes the 

historic Wapato Lake lakebed and portions of Wapato Creek, Ayers Creek, Gales Creek, and the 

Tualatin River (see maps on pages 7 and 9). 

1.5 Related Actions 

The 1,358-acre Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1992, is located 

primarily along State Highway 99W in Washington County, immediately north of Sherwood, 

Oregon, and 10 miles southwest of Portland. The Wapato Lake Unit lies within the lowermiddle section of the Tualatin River basin at the northern end of the Willamette Valley. The 

Service owns and/or manages through easement a total of 140 acres of land in and adjacent to the 

Wapato Lake lakebed acquired from the Farm Home Administration in 1992. 

The Metropolitan Service District (Metro) is an elected regional government covering the urban 

and urbanizing areas of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon. Metro is 

responsible for land use, transportation, open space, and water resource planning in its area of 

jurisdiction. Under the 1995 Open Spaces, Parks and Streams bond measure, Metro acquired 

more than 8,000 acres of natural areas, trails, and greenway corridors, and 74 miles of stream 

and river frontage. As part of this effort, Metro manages 606 acres along Gales Creek, south of 

the city of Forest Grove, in western Washington County. This area is managed for green space 

values and connectivity to the Tualatin River. Other open space areas in the vicinity include the 

243-acre Fernhill Wetlands complex owned by the city of Forest Grove, and managed by Clean 

Water Services, and a 362-acre area owned and managed by Clean Water Services. Metro plans 

to purchase another 775 acres in the Gales Creek target area for further greenway connections, 

water quality and quantity benefits, public recreation, and education and stewardship 

opportunities. 

1.6 Decisions to be Made 

Based on the analysis documented in this LCP/EA, the Director of the Service will determine 

whether or not to establish the Wapato Lake Unit. If the Director determines that establishing 

the Wapato Lake Unit is appropriate, a decision will also be made regarding the boundary of the 

Wapato Lake Unit and whether the selected boundary would have significant impacts on the 

quality of the human environment. 

The authorities for this habitat protection effort are the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-

1544) as amended; and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j) as amended. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act authorizes the acquisition and 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

7 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

8 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

9 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

10 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

11 

management of land for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Endangered Species Act 

authorizes the acquisition of land for the conservation of listed species with Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies. The Fish and Wildlife Act authorizes the acquisition of refuge lands 

for development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. 

1.7 Public Participation and Issue Identification

Issues and concerns were identified through public comments received during meetings, and in 

letters, faxes, and e-mails during scoping in November and December 2001 and through public 

review and comment ending May 31, 2006. These issues and concerns are outlined below and in 

other sections of the EA where they were considered in developing the objectives and 

alternatives for the Wapato Lake Unit. Appendix C of this document contains detailed responses 

to comments received during the public review and comment period on the draft Land 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

1.7.1 Wapato Lake Unit Management

Many people voiced support for public uses such as canoeing, hiking, photography, biking, 

wildlife observation, hunting, and wetland plant identification. Some said they saw the benefit 

of the Wapato Lake Unit to local schools as an outdoor classroom. A few people noted the 

absence of public hunting lands in the area and thought a portion of the Wapato Lake Unit 

should be open to hunting. Other people expressed concern that hunting could cause injury to 

nearby nursery workers and suggested only nonconsumptive uses be allowed. A few people 

thought the Wapato Lake Unit should be off-limits to public access. Some people had concerns 

that increased wildlife populations could cause damage on adjacent lands. Others pointed out 

the Wapato Lake Unit could provide an opportunity to protect sites of cultural and historical 

significance. 

1.7.2 Water Rights 

Water is critical to the establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit. Several citizens expressed 

concern about the effects the Unit would have on the water users within the WID and the 

Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID). Some people noted previous agreements between the 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), TVID, and WID on the maintenance of ditch systems and the 

continued delivery of water inside and outside the WID. Others stated that a determination 

should be made on who would maintain the ditches within the WID to insure water is delivered 

to those within and outside the WID. Some citizens asked if the dike system might be altered or 

drainage patterns changed. Others were concerned that if the Wapato Lake Unit is established, 

water costs would become prohibitive to other users within the delivery area of TVID. Some 

people wanted to address the effects endangered species might have on the available water. One 

commenter wanted assurances that the water supply would be uninterrupted. Other citizens were 

concerned the Wapato Lake Unit would affect the water temperature and amount of debris in the 

Tualatin River. A few people questioned whether restored wetlands would cause contamination 

of shallow wells that provide drinking water. Some noted that potable water lines need to be 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

12 

protected. Others questioned how water rights would be affected if only a portion of a property 

is sold to the Service. 

1.7.3 Socioeconomic Values

Stakeholders submitted several questions regarding the effects the Wapato Lake Unit would have 

on the social and economic values in the area. Specific questions included how would the local 

and regional farm economies, the growth of local communities, the local tax base, and other 

businesses be affected. Other people asked how the rural and agricultural “flavor” of the area 

would be affected. Some landowners were concerned about depredation of crops from an 

increase in migratory birds and asked about the availability of compensation if losses occurred. 

Several people pointed out the benefits to the local economy from Wapato Lake Unit visitation. 

1.7.4 Land Acquisition 

Many people asked for clarification of the land acquisition process and about various methods of 

acquiring an interest in land. Some specific questions were: What happens if a person does not 

want to sell? How will the loss of tax revenues be compensated? If a landowner currently does 

not want to sell, can the landowner sell in the future? If land acquisition occurs all around my 

property, how is my land affected? How will land values change around the Wapato Lake Unit? 

How are properties prioritized? How long does the acquisition process take? Will land be 

condemned? Would acquired lands be under Federal or State control? How are buildings 

affected? Does the Service expect to purchase all the land in the Study Area? 

1.7.5 Alternatives Identified During Public Scoping

Some people said they preferred to have the entire Study Area remain in farmland. Others 

thought only the original Wapato Lake lakebed should become a Wapato Lake Unit. A few 

people said they wanted to see the Wapato Lake Unit include the area south of Ayers Creek, 

while others said they wanted to see the area from Burgess Road south to Flett Road included in 

the Wapato Lake Unit boundary. Some people suggested that the Fern Hill Wetlands south of 

Forest Grove be included. One person recommended the areas near the transmission line south 

of Forest Grove be excluded. 

1.7.6 Scoggins Dam Raise and Raw Water Pipeline

The Joint Water Commission (JWC), comprised of the cities of Hillsboro, Forest Grove, 

Beaverton, and the Tualatin Valley Water District, has been contemplating the construction of a 

raw water pipeline from Henry Hagg Lake for many years. The pipeline would allow stored 

reservoir water from Henry Hagg Lake to be transmitted by gravity to the JWC water treatment 

plant. Partners in this project include the JWC, the city of Tigard, and Clean Water Services. 

This pipeline project has been closely coordinated with the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District. 

The final report from Phase 1 of the raw water pipeline project described basic alignment 

alternatives and other key recommendations in support of property acquisition and permitting 

activities. Phases 2, 3, and 4 are preliminary engineering, final design, and project construction, 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

13 

respectively. The Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the broader Tualatin 

Basin Water Supply Project will thoroughly address environmental conditions and impacts. The 

pipeline is scheduled to be on line by the year 2008 (Final ReportBRouting Analysis and 

Preliminary Environmental Review 2004). 

1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities 

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. 

The broad goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System further describe a level of responsibility 

and concern for the nation=s wildlife resources for the ultimate benefit of people. The goals of 

the Refuge System are: 

• To fulfill our statutory duty to Refuge purpose(s) and further the Refuge System mission. 

• Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

• Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations. 

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

• Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems. 

• To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlifedependent public use. Such uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

 

1.9 Habitat Protection and the Land Acquisition Process 

If the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service approves a Wapato Lake Unit boundary, land 

could be acquired from willing sellers using the following methods: purchase of fee title or 

conservation easement, no-cost transfer, long-term lease, donation, or exchange. The basic 

considerations in acquiring land are the biological significance of the land, existing and 

anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and landowners’ willingness to sell or otherwise make 

land available for the Wapato Lake Unit. The purchase of Wapato Lake Unit lands would 

proceed according to availability of funds. 

It is the established policy of the Service to acquire land or interests in land from willing 

participants under authorities such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

14 

715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r) as amended; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742) as 

amended; and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) as amended. 

Funding could be made available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, or other sources to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for fish and 

wildlife. Landowners within the Wapato Lake Unit boundary who do not wish to sell their 

property or any other interest in their property are under no obligation to enter into negotiations 

or to sell to the Service. 

In all cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair-market value for lands to 

be purchased as determined by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and 

Federal requirements. 

Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, as 

amended, landowners who sell their property to the Service are eligible for certain benefits and 

payments including: reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses or certain 

substitute payments; replacement housing payments under certain conditions; relocation 

assistance services to help locate replacement housing, farmland, or business property; and 

reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real property to 

the Federal government. Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-

469), the Service would annually reimburse Yamhill and Washington Counties for tax revenue 

lost as a result of acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) shall pay to each county in which any area acquired in fee title is situated, the greater 

of the following amounts: 

• An amount equal to the product of 75 cents multiplied by the total acreage of that portion of 

the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value, as determined by 

the Secretary, for that portion of the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to 25 percent of the net receipts collected by the Secretary in connection 

with the operation and management of such fee area during such fiscal year. If a fee area is 

located in two or more counties, however, the amount for each county shall be apportioned in 

relationship to the acreage in that county. 

Some payments to the counties have been less than the legislated amounts because of funding 

deficits. Congress may appropriate, through the budget process, supplemental funds to 

compensate local governments for any shortfall in revenue sharing payments. The Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act requires Service lands be reappraised every five years to ensure that 

payments to local governments remain equitable. Payments under this Act would be made only 

on lands that the Service acquires in fee title. On lands where the Service acquires only partial 

interest through easement, all taxes would remain the responsibility of the individual landowner. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

15 

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES GIVEN DETAILED STUDY

Five alternatives, including the No Action alternative, were considered and are described in 

detail as follows. Under the four action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E), a Wapato 

Lake Unit is established. The action alternatives differ in the number of acres identified for 

protection and the distribution of land that could be acquired in fee title or conservation 

agreement, or managed by the Service under an agreement. The alternatives= boundaries 

generally follow parcel lines. Not all lands in the Study Area are included in the alternatives. 

For example, most homes were excluded from the alternatives because land that has not been 

developed normally provides better opportunities for habitat protection and/or restoration. Some 

of the criteria used to determine which lands contain the highest habitat and natural resource 

values to include within an alternative follows: 

• Habitat restoration need and feasibility 

• Presence of rare native plant communities 

• Connectivity to other important wildlife habitat 

• Potential to enhance habitat for migratory birds and anadromous fish 

• Available or obtainable water rights and associated water delivery costs 

Survey data from 1851 served as a baseline to assess the types of habitat conditions for 

restoration (Christy et al. 2005). All the action alternatives entail protecting existing intact 

habitat and restoring degraded habitat. 

2.1 Alternative A, the No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the Service would not establish the Wapato Lake Unit. The lands would 

remain in private ownership, landowners would not have the option of selling lands to the 

Service, and protection or development within the Study Area would be managed through 

existing land-use regulatory controls administered by Washington and Yamhill Counties, the 

State of Oregon, and Federal agencies. The No Action alternative is required by the NEPA and 

serves as a baseline to compare the action alternatives. 

2.2 Alternative B, a 1,960-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative B proposes a 1,960-acre Wapato Lake Unit boundary around a contiguous block of 

habitat including the historic Wapato Lake lakebed, areas outside the lakebed, and areas outside 

the 100-year floodplain (see map on page 16). This alternative includes most parcels of land 

bounded on the north by Gaston Road, west to Highway 47, south to Flett Road, and east to 

Springhill Road. It is the smallest of the alternatives and the minimum land area manageable for 

Wapato Lake Unit purposes. Wapato Lake historically supported large numbers of migrating 

and wintering waterfowl including tundra swans. Wapato Lake derives its name from wapato, 

an aquatic plant with potato-like tubers that waterfowl and other wildlife use for food. Restoring 

this area would likely attract thousands of waterfowl and other wildlife to the area. This Unit 

could provide opportunities for priority public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife 
Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative B - 1,960 acres

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 05-016-6.mxd

Figure 3.

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

N

Valley R

L

d

aughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW Spr ni g

Bates Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley

Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Alternative B - 1,960 acres

Wapato Lake Unit 16 Environmental Assessment
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

17 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. In addition, a 

restored Wapato Lake lakebed would enhance aquatic habitats for anadromous fish such as 

steelhead. This alternative includes upland habitats that would support mammals such as blacktailed deer and migratory songbirds. 

Table 1 displays the acres of habitat types within Alternative B, based on the survey data 

recorded in 1851 (Christy et al. 2005) and the current estimated costs for restoration. 

Table 1. Alternative B Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs 

Habitat Type Acres Restoration Cost Per Acre* Total Restoration Cost 

Riparian Forest 154 $5,500 $847,000 

Scrub Shrub Wetland 90 $1,500 $135,000 

Wet Prairie 96 $475 $45,600 

Upland Prairie 460 $325 $149,500 

Herbaceous Wetland 1,000 $1,500 $1,500,000 

Woodland 81 $950 $76,950 

Total 1,881 $2,754,050 

* Cost estimates are based on current project costs at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Total number of 

individual projects and economy of scale could lower costs. 

2.3 Alternative C, a 2,430-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative C includes all land in Alternative B, plus Wapato Creek south of Flett Road between 

Highway 47 and Wapato School Road, and Ayers Creek from Flett Road south about 1.4 miles 

(see map on page 16). Including the lands along Wapato and Ayers Creeks could improve the 

water quality entering Wapato Lake and protect additional valuable habitat. Riparian areas along 

the Creeks would support fish and provide habitat for numerous songbird species such as the 

willow flycatcher and American robin. 

Table 2 displays the acres of habitat types within Alternative C, based on the survey data 

recorded in 1851 (Christy et al. 2005) and the current estimated costs for restoration. 

Table 2. Alternative C Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs

Habitat Type Acres Restoration Cost Per Acre* Total Restoration Cost 

Riparian Forest 154 $5,500 $847,000 

Scrub Shrub Wetland 90 $1,500 $135,000 

Wet Prairie 153 $475 $72,675 

Upland Prairie 581 $325 $188,825 

Herbaceous Wetland 1,159 $1,500 $1,738,500 

Woodland 205 $950 $194,750 

Total 2,342 $3,176,750 

* Cost estimates are based on current project costs at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Total number of 

individual projects and economy of scale could lower costs.
Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative C - 2,430 acres

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 05-016-7.mxd

Figure 4.

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

N

Valley R

L

d

aughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW Spr ni g

Bates Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley

Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Alternative C - 2,430 acres

Wapato Lake Unit 18 Environmental Assessment
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

19 

2.4 Alternative D, a 4,310-Acre Wapato Lake Unit (Preferred Alternative)

 

Alternative D includes all land in Alternative C plus the lands north of Gaston Road between 

Highway 47 and Springhill Road to their intersection (see map on page 18). The additional 

lands in this alternative include intact riparian habitat along the Tualatin River and existing 

wetlands. These areas currently support various wildlife including songbirds, waterfowl, and 

raptors such as red-tailed hawks. This area would also be suitable for restoration of a variety of 

native habitat types. Historically, this area supported riparian forest, emergent and forested 

wetland, and upland prairie habitats. This alternative, with habitat restoration, would provide 

important habitat for resident and migratory fish and wildlife. 

Table 3 displays the acres of habitat types within Alternative D, based on the survey data 

recorded in 1851 (Christy et al. 2005) and the current estimated costs for restoration. 

Table 3. Alternative D Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs 

Habitat Type Acres Restoration Cost Per Acre* Total Restoration Cost 

Riparian Forest 735 $5,500 $4,042,500 

Scrub Shrub Wetland 90 $1,500 $135,000 

Wet Prairie 460 $475 $218,500 

Upland Prairie 930 $325 $302,250 

Herbaceous Wetland 1,200 $1,500 $1,800,000 

Woodland 461 $950 $437,950 

Total 3,876 $6,936,200 

* Cost estimates are based on current project costs at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Total number of 

individual projects and economy of scale could lower costs. 

2.5 Alternative E, a 6,280-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative E includes all land in Alternative D plus the lands north of Springhill Road to the 

southern city limits of Forest Grove (see map on page 19). As the largest area of consideration, 

this alternative includes most lands within the Study Area. Much of the land in the northeast 

portion of this alternative is currently owned by Metro and Clean Water Services. These 

agencies may embark on restoration projects complementary to Service efforts; therefore, the 

potential exists for reducing overall costs of restoration. Restoring this area could provide 

connectivity to habitats located in Fernhill Wetlands, Gales Creek, and downstream areas of the 

Tualatin River. Much of this area was riparian forest according to historic records and would 

support a multitude of fish and wildlife species.
Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative D - 4,310 acres

(Preferred Alternative)

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 05-016-8.mxd

Figure 5.

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

N

Valley R

L

d

aughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW Spr ni g

Bates Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley

Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Alternative D - 4,310 acres

Wapato Lake Unit 20 Environmental Assessment
Gales Creek

Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Forest Grove

Carnation

Detour

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Stringtown Rd

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

FOREST GROVE Cornelius

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative E - 6,280 acres

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 05-016-9.mxd

Figure 6.

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW

Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

Laughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW

Spr ni

Ba

g

tes Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Fernhill

Wetlands

Alternative E - 6,280 acres

Wapato Lake Unit 21 Environmental Assessment
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

22 

Table 4 displays the acres of habitat types within Alternative E, based on the survey data 

recorded in 1851 (Christy et al. 2005) and the current estimated costs for restoration. 

Table 4. Alternative E Habitat Types and Estimated Restoration Costs

Habitat Type Acres Restoration Cost Per Acre* Total Restoration Cost 

Riparian Forest 1,459 $5,500 $8,024,500 

Scrub Shrub Wetland 291 $1,500 $436,500 

Wet Prairie 568 $475 $269,800 

Upland Prairie 1,315 $325 $427,375 

Herbaceous Wetland 1,200 $1,500 $1,800,000 

Woodland 752 $950 $714,400 

Total 5,585 $11,672,575 

* Cost estimates are based on current project costs at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Total number of 

individual projects and economy of scale could lower costs.

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Selected for Detailed Analysis

The following two alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail because they did not 

meet the needs or the purpose of the Unit: (1) proposing a Wapato Lake Unit which would 

consist of the historic Wapato Lake lakebed only, bounded by levees, was considered but not 

evaluated in detail because the area was too small to be a manageable unit of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; and (2) proposing a Wapato Lake Unit over the entire Study Area was 

considered as an alternative but not evaluated in detail because it would include areas that are 

too developed for inclusion in a national wildlife refuge. 

2.7 Features Common to All of the Action Alternatives 

The following features are common to Alternatives B through E, but would not be implemented 

as part of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. 

2.7.1 Wapato Lake Unit Administration 

If lands are acquired by the Service from willing sellers, funding for operations and maintenance 

of the Wapato Lake Unit would be needed for staff, administrative support, program and facility 

development, and maintenance. The Wapato Lake Unit’s budget may also include funding for 

detailed planning to ensure that programs and facilities foster the purpose for establishment of 

the Wapato Lake Unit and to involve the public in the Wapato Lake Unit management planning 

process. 

The Wapato Lake Unit’s staffing, programs, and facilities would be phased in over time as the 

land base and management responsibilities expand. Wapato Lake Unit staff and program 

development are anticipated to take several years and would reflect availability of funds 

appropriated by Congress to support the Wapato Lake Unit. Congressional funding for refuge 

operations and maintenance lags behind the establishment of a new refuge or addition of lands to 

existing refuges by several years. In the interim, the Service usually provides limited start-up 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

23 

funding from current appropriations or by incurring budget increases. However, start-up funds 

are not adequate to immediately develop facilities and programs at new refuges. The Wapato 

Lake Unit would be administered by the Refuge Manager at Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

During the start-up period, the Refuge Manager and staff would initiate land acquisitions and 

may operate certain programs as an interim form of management. The goals during interim 

management are to provide essential resource protection and enhancement within the Wapato 

Lake Unit and scaled-downed public use. Because of the time lag between land acquisition and 

base funding for Wapato Lake Unit operations and maintenance, there may be a perception that 

the Service is more focused on acquiring land than implementing programs for wildlife and 

public use. However, the interim start-up period provides both the Service and public with an 

opportunity to ensure that the Wapato Lake Unit is developed with sound planning to conserve 

wildlife and meet the community=s and the nation=s long-term expectation for quality programs. 

The public’s involvement in planning would assist the Service in defining long-term goals and 

objectives for the Wapato Lake Unit and in identifying future programs and facilities through the 

development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). 

Public concerns about water issues and refuge management, expressed during the scoping 

period, have been taken into account, explicitly with regard to existing land uses within the WID, 

traditional water delivery and maintenance responsibilities of the TVID, and water rights in 

general. 

The WID has traditionally allowed only cultivation practices which foster and promote 

agriculture and farming. To promote these practices, the WID has constructed, operated, and 

maintained infrastructure such as dikes, ditches, bridges, roads, and a small concrete dam. Funds 

to maintain some of these facilities have been derived from an annual assessment applied to all 

individual landowners within WID’s boundary. Recognizing the need and desire to facilitate an 

orderly transition from traditional farming to Wapato Lake Unit management, WID members 

amended the purpose statement in the WID’s existing by-laws by a 75 percent majority vote. 

The amendment added the clause “and/or restore and manage native habitats to conserve fish and 

wildlife” to the existing purpose of WID. This amendment allows acquisition, restoration, and 

management of habitats to proceed should the Wapato Lake Unit be established. Operations of 

the WID and collection of annual maintenance assessments from landowners would continue to 

support existing farming and future Wapato Lake Unit management purposes through the land 

acquisition process. Only a 75 percent majority vote of WID’s members could determine the 

WID purpose and original land use practices as obsolete. 

The BOR operates Scoggins Dam, a dam project authorized to store irrigation water, provide for 

recreation, and maintain regulated in-stream flows for the Tualatin River. The organization 

responsible for delivery of irrigation water is the TVID. To fulfill this delivery responsibility, 

the TVID constructed and presently operates and maintains a network of water delivery 

infrastructure. It serves the irrigation needs of landowners within the TVID boundary which 

includes the area south of Gaston. To receive irrigation benefits, each landowner must make an 

annual payment as a water duty assessment, to the TVID to cover delivery costs whether water is 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

24 

used or not. From a historical perspective, the WID had water delivery infrastructure in place 

upon establishment of Scoggins Dam. Existing infrastructure made it mutually beneficial for the 

TVID, BOR, and the WID to enter into an agreement. The existing agreement authorizes the 

TVID use of infrastructure owned by the WID for delivery of water to TVID members located 

both inside and outside the WID boundary. Furthermore, the agreement conveys payment to the 

WID using revenues from annual water duty assessments in exchange for carrying out routine 

operations and maintenance responsibilities of the TVID. From a conceptual perspective, an 

agreement could be arranged between the BOR, the TVID, and the Service whereby use of 

infrastructure for delivery of water would continue and routine operations and maintenance 

responsibilities would revert back to the TVID. This type of agreement could be developed upon 

purchase by the Service of infrastructure presently owned by the WID. Major improvements to 

existing infrastructure would become the responsibility of the Service. Current water delivery to 

landowners and associated annual water duty assessment payments to the TVID would continue 

for landowners located both inside and outside the WID boundary. 

Water rights would be a critical component of Wapato Lake Unit management if water 

dependent habitats and initial establishment of woody plantings are to be successfully restored 

and maintained. These consist of primary rights in the Tualatin River appropriated by the State 

of Oregon and secondary rights managed through the TVID on behalf of the BOR. Together, 

these rights are considered “one right” and may not be separated for use at a different location 

other than the original intended point of use. The season of use for primary appropriated rights 

is May 1 to September 30, while secondary rights may be extended beyond September 30 to 

November 30. Another difference between these rights includes a demonstration of use required 

for primary rights but not for secondary rights. Also, an annual duty assessment fee is imposed 

on secondary rights but not on primary rights. Annual assessment fees associated with 

secondary rights of the TVID could be partially offset by temporarily leasing a portion to Clean 

Water Services for use in maintaining minimum in-stream flows for the Tualatin River. 

A combined office/maintenance shop along with storage, visitor contact stations, and recreation 

and education facilities would likely be needed for the new Wapato Lake Unit. Existing 

buildings on acquired properties may be used or new facilities may be constructed to meet this 

need. Initial priority staffing for the Wapato Lake Unit would include personnel with refuge 

management and maintenance backgrounds. Additional staff skills covering administration, 

biology, public use, environmental education and interpretation, law enforcement, and fire 

management programs along with overall management support and guidance would be provided 

by the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge staff located in Sherwood, Oregon, during the 

start-up phase of management. 

 

Annual operation and maintenance budget estimates to properly fund the Wapato Lake Unit 

during the start-up phase of management amount to $200,000. The budget would cover all 

salary costs for an Assistant Refuge Manager and Maintenance Specialist ($130,000); all fixed 

costs for operating a small office and shop ($25,000); and existing as well as future annual 

assessments covering water delivery and infrastructure maintenance services provided by the 

WID and the TVID ($45,000), pending acquisition of lands within the Wapato Lake Unit 

boundary. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

25 

The long-term budget for the Wapato Lake Unit would include funds for salaries, facilities, 

capital improvements, equipment and infrastructure maintenance, biological surveys, public use 

management, habitat restoration and maintenance, fire management, and supplies. Wapato Lake 

Unit staff could include various skilled position disciplines in administration, biology, law 

enforcement, public use, environmental education and interpretation, and maintenance. 

Whenever possible, the talents and skills of volunteers would be used for specific projects. Staff 

positions would be incrementally added as lands are acquired and funds become available. 

2.7.2 Key Areas of Management Focus 

Key areas of initial focus for the Wapato Lake Unit would be protection of existing habitat and 

restoration and maintenance of native habitats. The Wapato Lake Unit would operate under 

interim management until a formal habitat management plan or CCP is in place. Interim 

management would include nonnative and invasive species management using integrated 

methods and means for control; habitat protection and restoration of native plant species; 

wildlife surveys; law enforcement patrols; and limited wildlife-dependent recreation including 

environmental education and interpretation. Under all the alternatives, the Service would 

manage the cultural resources in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, other 

cultural resource preservation laws, and Department of Interior and Agency policy. 

Native Plant Communities 

The Service would protect patches of remnant native habitat such as scrub-shrub wetland, 

Oregon ash riparian forest, seasonal herbaceous wetlands, and specific reaches of the Tualatin 

River within the Wapato Lake Unit. Historically, the upper marsh areas of Wapato Lake 

supported dense stands of wapato with fringed areas of Oregon ash. Central portions of the 

Wapato Lake lakebed supported scrub-shrub woody plants. Oregon ash riparian forests and 

scrub-shrub wetlands are representative of severely depleted habitats in the Willamette Valley. 

They are considered among the rarest of communities and highest in priority for protection due 

to their former historical status and range of importance for promoting biological diversity on a 

landscape scale. In addition to these plant communities, the main stem Tualatin River 

historically provided passage and rearing habitat for anadromous fish such as winter steelhead. 

Rare plant communities and additional native habitats including upland and wet meadow prairie, 

as well as mixed deciduous/coniferous woodland, would generally be managed for migratory 

birds such as neo-tropical songbirds, wading birds, and shorebirds, with special emphasis on 

wintering waterfowl, particularly cackling Canada geese as well as mallard and pintail ducks. 

Management of these habitats would also benefit fish and other resident wildlife species. 

Water rights are a critical component of Wapato Lake Unit management if water dependent 

habitats and initial establishment of woody plantings are to be successfully restored and 

maintained. These rights consist of primary rights in the Tualatin River appropriated by the 

State of Oregon and secondary rights managed by the TVID on behalf of the BOR. Both rights 

could be applied by irrigating plants in their early stage of growth within herbaceous wetlands, 

as well as irrigating woody plantings to enhance survival in a variety of habitat types. In 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

26 

addition, these rights could be applied to begin initial flood-up of herbaceous wetlands in 

preparation for fall flights of migratory birds. To facilitate these requirements in water 

management, the Service would pursue acquisition of one of the most significant primary 

appropriated rights in the Tualatin River watershed owned by the WID. Water rights to support 

the vast majority of herbaceous wetland flooding in fall and winter could be met through 

application of new water storage rights as presently done at Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge. These rights, regulated by the State, allow for storage at one specific location from 

November 1 to May 31. 

Active modification and manipulation of intact native plant communities would be avoided as 

appropriate. In native plant communities that have suffered some form of limited disturbance, 

management actions may involve eradicating nonnative plant species, replanting native plants, 

and restoring historic hydrologic conditions. On severely degraded sites, intensive restoration 

projects involving heavy equipment, herbicide application, native plantings, and long-term 

monitoring may be required. Restoration and maintenance actions by habitat type, and 

associated guilds of fish and wildlife species, are presented in Table 5. 

Although the focus of management would be on restoring and maintaining native plant 

communities, some level of pasture and/or cropland management may be used to provide forage 

and sanctuary to encourage greater use of Wapato Lake Unit lands by geese versus the use of 

adjacent agricultural lands. Restoration of native forest plant communities could encourage 

expansion of black-tailed deer populations using these habitats as cover. 

Riparian Forest 

Bottomland riparian forests are one of the most biologically rich and productive ecosystems in 

North America which historically occurred in Oregon throughout the floodplains of the 

Willamette River and Tualatin River Valleys. However, less than 8 percent of this important 

riparian habitat remains today (Chapell et al. 2001). The habitat type is characterized by an 

overstory canopy of vegetation greater than 18 feet in height with Oregon ash (Fraxinus 

latifolia) as the dominant tree species, but stands can contain a diverse species composition 

consisting of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), western red-cedar (Thujia plicata), 

western hemlock (Tsurga heterophylla), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and red alder (Altus rubra). The native shrub layer of riparian forests 

generally forms dense thickets that can include red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas 

spirea (Spiraea douglasii), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and vine maple (Acer 

circinatum). The forest floor forb layer can be abundant and diverse. A healthy functioning 

riparian system promotes streambank and channel stability, surface sediment filtering, shade, and 

temperature buffering for streams and rivers, and provides wildlife habitat for a variety of 

species. During flood events, riparian forests can provide off-channel backwater habitat for 

sensitive and listed salmon and steelhead. Neotropical migratory landbirds, resident birds, and 

raptors use riparian areas for foraging and breeding. Cavity nesting waterfowl utilize large 

hollow trees in mature stands as nest sites. Reptiles, amphibians, and resident mammals benefit 

from the diversity of the forest vegetation structure by fulfilling their life cycle requirements. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

27 

Table 5. Restoration and Maintenance Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Primary management goals for this habitat type would focus mainly on restoration of altered 

sites. Initial habitat restoration actions may include mechanical removal of nonnative plants and 

Service-approved herbicides. Upon completion of site preparation, a seeding of native grass and 

forbs would be conducted. Shrubs and trees would be hand planted. Once planted, maintenance 

of woody species would be critical to ensure their survival. Maintenance activities could include 

irrigation, mowing, spot spraying of herbicide, and remulching. Upon establishment, this 

vegetation community would be self-sustaining, regulated by the dynamics of river flooding and 

weather events. 

Habitat Type 

Restoration Actions 

Riparian 

Forest 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Upland 

Prairie 

Wet Meadow 

Prairie 

Herbaceous 

Wetland Woodland 

Mowing/Haying X X X X X X 

Discing X X X X X X 

Herbicide Application X X X X X 

Native Grass Seeding X X X X 

Tree Planting X X 

Shrub Planting X X X 

Prescribed Fire X X 

Remove or Develop Dikes, 

Levees, Structures X X 

Excavate Ponds/Swales X X 

Water Delivery X X 

Woody Plant Irrigation X X 

Maintenance Actions

Mowing/Haying X X X X 

Discing X X 

Integrated Pest Mgmt X X X X X 

Prescribed Fire X X X X 

Water Delivery X X 

Species Supported by Restoration and Maintenance Actions

Small Mammals X X X X X X 

Large Mammals X X X X 

Resident Birds X X X X 

Migratory Landbirds X X X X X X 

Migratory Waterfowl X X X 

Wading/Marsh Birds X X X 

Shore Birds X X 

Reptiles/Amphibians X X X X X X 

Raptors X X X X X X 

Fish X X X 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

28 

Scrub-shrub Wetland 

Scrub-shrub wetlands are a vegetation cover type associated with surface hydrologic features 

within or along edges of open water areas. They are usually dominated by willow species, 

especially sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) and Hooker’s willow (S. hookeriana). Douglas spirea 

(Spirea douglasii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and 

black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) are also common to this wetland type. Scrub-shrub 

wetlands provide important habitat for neotropical migratory landbirds such as the willow 

flycatcher (Empidonaz traillii) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). Marsh birds, 

wading birds, waterfowl, water-dependent mammals, reptiles, and amphibians benefit from this 

plant community as well. 

 

Restoration of this habitat type would focus mainly on the control of reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinaceae) and other nonnative invasive species. Nonnative seed banks would be exhausted 

by using mechanical means such as mowing, discing and the application of Service-approved 

herbicides. Effective management of scrub-shrub wetlands requires the capability to deliver and 

discharge water effectively, and to control water depths at a specific level. This can be 

accomplished through dikes or levees, shallow swales, and water control and delivery systems. 

Once infrastructure is in place to replicate natural hydrological regimes, native wetland shrub 

species would be planted at high densities to discourage invasion of shade intolerant nonnative 

species, such as reed canary grass. Weed control efforts involving both hydrological and 

mechanical actions would need to be implemented to assist in the establishment of a desirable 

plant community. Once established, periodic prescribed burning in combination with controlled 

flooding may be used as a tool to set back plant succession and to create a more dynamic and 

diverse plant structure. 

Upland Prairie 

Historic upland prairies of the Willamette River and Tualatin River Valleys have largely been 

converted into agricultural areas or developed for homes and communities leaving only small 

patches of highly fragmented habitat. Typical native grass and forb species associated with 

upland prairies include blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), California brome (Bromus carinatus), 

California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), Roemer’s fescue (Festuca roemeri), and lupine 

(Lupinus spp.). Throughout most of the interior valley settings, upland prairie is the transitional 

area from river floodplains to mixed woodlands and coniferous forests. Historically this cover 

type benefited from periodic fires, but increased fire suppression in the last century has led to the 

invasion by conifers in what little upland prairie remains. Wildlife and plant species dependent 

on this habitat type have experienced serious declines. Oregon’s state bird, the western 

meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), was once abundant in the Willamette Valley but is rarely seen 

today. Plant species such as Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidi), and Nelson’s 

checker mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) are rare endemic species of Western Oregon upland 

prairies. Other grassland dependant wildlife including songbirds, raptors, mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians count on upland prairies for food, shelter, and breeding sites. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

29 

Management objectives for this habitat would be to restore prairie habitat. Preparation of the 

site prior to planting is, by all accounts, the most important part of prairie restoration. Weed 

control can be achieved through mechanical means such as mowing and repeat tillage as well as 

applying Service-approved herbicides. Once completed, seeding of native grasses and forbs 

would be performed using a native seed drill. Long-term management of the upland prairie plant 

community could include the use of prescribed fire under a Wapato Lake Unit fire management 

plan (see page 29). The burn cycle to be used would depend on the type of weed and woody 

species control that becomes necessary as the prairie matures. 

Wet Meadow Prairie

During settlement of the Willamette Valley, expansive wet meadow prairies quickly disappeared 

as they were converted to productive farmland. Wet meadows are treeless open areas with wet 

or clay soils, often located near a high water table. They may or may not have standing water. 

Some have expanses of hummock-forming sedges which make them look lumpy and slows water 

movement through the area (Gosselink and Tiner 1978). Wet meadows occur with a great 

variety of plant species; therefore, it is not possible to generalize individual species composition. 

Several genera common to wet meadows include Carex, Juncus, Salix and Scirpus. Important 

grass and grass-like species include sedges, tufted hairgrass, and spikerush as well as a diversity 

of forbs. Wet meadows support a wide variety of flowering plants, grassland dependent 

migratory songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians including several species of 

frogs. This prey base attracts large wading birds such as egrets and herons, as well as birds of 

prey like hawks and owls. 

Restoration efforts would focus on the control of nonnative invasive species as well as their seed 

bank by mechanical means such as mowing and discing. Applications of Service-approved 

herbicides would also be used. Once completed, a seeding of native wet meadow prairie grasses, 

sedges, rushes, and forbs would be performed using a seed drill. Prairie grasslands composed of 

native cool-season grasses and forbs must be periodically rejuvenated to maintain vigor. 

Without rejuvenation, grasslands are slowly invaded by woody plants. Long-term maintenance 

activities are crucial to success of perpetuating a woody free community (USFWS, 2000). 

Prescribed fire or a combination of burning, mowing, and herbicide application are the methods 

most suitable for rejuvenation and maintenance of prairies.

Herbaceous Wetland

Herbaceous wetlands have been subject to a long history of manipulation throughout the 

Willamette and Tualatin River Valley floodplains. Subsurface drain tiles and surface ditches 

were installed to facilitate drainage of soils for agricultural purposes wherever possible, thus 

impeding the ability of floodplains to capture and retain surface runoff from rainfall and 

floodwaters of rivers. Herbaceous wetlands are comprised of medium tall (2 to 4 feet) to tall (4 

feet or more) grass or grass-like plants that occur with various substrates and water depths 

(Adamus, 2001). Herbaceous plants commonly associated with this habitat type are wapato 

(Sagittaria latifolia), cattail (Typha latifolia), several bulrush species (Scirpus spp.), burreed 

(Sparganium spp.), smartweed (Polygonaceae spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa crusgalli) and 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

30 

water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica). Along peripheral edges of wetlands, numerous 

sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.) dominate. Typical grasses that are commonly 

associated with this wetland type are tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), reed canary 

grass, and American sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne). Although sometimes undervalued, 

herbaceous wetlands are crucial habitats and provide many benefits to wildlife. Red-wing 

blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) breed and nest in cattail marshes, as do many other neotropical 

migratory landbirds. Wading and marsh birds such as the American bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginous) and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata) use wetlands to find food and shelter. 

Migratory waterfowl depend on moist soil plants and emergent vegetation for feeding and 

shelter. Mammals such as river otters (Lutra canadensis) utilize wetlands to feed, while smaller 

burrowing mammals take advantage of the soft soils. Some reptiles and amphibians feed, breed, 

and overwinter in herbaceous wetlands. 

Restoration of this habitat type would focus on the reestablishment of a hydroperiod that mimics 

the natural floodplain process. Managing water could be accomplished through dikes or levees, 

shallow swales, and water control and delivery systems (USFWS, 2000). Water depth, timing of 

flooding, duration of flooding, and mechanical treatments such as mowing and discing, can be 

used to promote the growth of desirable plants, discourage the growth of other undesirable plants 

like reed canarygrass, and make plants, seeds, or aquatic invertebrates available to wildlife at 

specific times of the year. Long-term management could implement a disturbance regime 

involving mechanical treatments and controlled burns to limit or exclude invasion of large 

woody plants. 

Woodland

Mixed deciduous/coniferous woodland was likely much more prevalent in the surrounding 

uplands than its limited spatial area of occurrence today. The woodland overstory is composed 

of co-dominant conifer, generally Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies 

grandis). Deciduous species such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and/or big leaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum) are also common. This type of forest structure is generally classed as an old 

clearcut, or young forest. Tree canopies are single story and closed. The deciduous component 

is a remnant of earlier clearcut succession as well as where red alder and big leaf maple 

dominate the canopy overstory. Over time, conifers out-compete deciduous trees making them a 

minor component in mature conifer forests of Western Oregon (Adamus, 2001). Understory 

vegetation is sparse as the tightly crowded canopy makes penetrating sunlight almost impossible. 

 Mixed deciduous/coniferous woodlands appear to have a more diverse wildlife component than 

other habitat types. The diversity of forest structure and successional stages across numerous 

landscapes is what provides the variety of habitats for many different species of plants and 

animals. Neotropical migratory landbird species composition varies with the successional stage 

of the forest. Younger stands support species, such as wood warblers and hummingbirds, which 

are associated with more deciduous woody vegetation. Older, more mature stands provide 

needed nesting habitat for bird species such as the Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) and pileated 

woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). This habitat also supports reptiles, amphibians, and resident 

mammals such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Wildlife species all benefit from the 

diversity of the forest’s vegetation structure that helps meet their life cycle requirements. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

31 

Primary management goals for this habitat type would focus mainly on restoration of altered 

sites. Initial habitat restoration actions may include removal of nonnative plants through the use 

of manual, mechanical, and Service-approved herbicides. Upon completion of site preparation, a 

seeding of native grass and forbs would be conducted. Shrubs and trees would be hand planted. 

Once installed, maintenance of the plantings would be critical to ensure their survival. 

Maintenance activities could include irrigation, mowing, spot spraying of herbicide, and remulching. Upon establishment, this vegetation community would be self-sustaining. 

Fire Management

A fire management plan (FMP) would be developed for the new Wapato Lake Unit. The FMP, 

developed with public input, would address initial response, fire crew dispatch, wildfire 

suppression, cooperative agreements for firefighting support, and prescribed burning for use as a 

habitat management tool. Fire management planning could also include an agreement with 

Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and other appropriate agencies for fire suppression support. 

The Service would maintain certain existing roads and trails as fire breaks, and would evaluate 

needs for additional fire management facilities. 

Fire plays a major role in succession and maintenance for some native plant communities. 

Historic fire dependent communities identified as occurring on the Wapato Lake Unit consist of 

upland and wet meadow prairies. The Service may use prescribed burning as a tool to restore 

and maintain these habitats or other mechanical techniques to reduce fuel loads and minimize 

wildfire hazards associated with woody plant communities. The role and implementation of 

prescribed burns in resource management and fuel reduction, and compliance with applicable air 

quality standards, would also be addressed in detail as part of the fire management plan. 

Pest Control

Integrated pest management approaches for control of nonnative, invasive, and noxious species 

may include the use of Service-approved herbicides, manual removal of plants, mechanical 

treatments such as mowing and discing, and release of biological control agents approved by the 

State of Oregon. Areas that have undergone vegetation control would be revegetated with native 

species. 

Population Monitoring 

Wildlife management would include monitoring for distribution and abundance patterns of 

migratory waterfowl, songbirds, wading and marsh birds, shorebirds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, 

and other resident wildlife. 

It is the policy of the Service to collect baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife. The 

Refuge System plays a critical role in collecting, monitoring, and keeping an inventory of data 

on wildlife populations from simple presence/absence and seasonal data checklists to the use of 

rigorous repeatable scientific methods. Extensive surveys are conducted yearly to track 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

32 

population trends and use of habitats providing a baseline for making habitat management 

decisions. 

A Wapato Lake Unit inventory and monitoring program may be structured using standardized 

techniques that determine presence, distribution, and status of species. Inventory and monitoring 

surveys can be quantitative or qualitative in nature. Quantitative surveys can be conducted on 

species or groups by planning a series of visits at fixed times and intervals. Observers 

consistently record data at a predetermined time. Examples are waterfowl migration surveys and 

nongame landbird point counts. 

Wildlife-Dependent Priority Public Uses 

National wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for the benefit of fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats. In addition, refuges are closed to public uses unless specifically and formally 

opened. Other Federal land management systems are managed under a multiple-use mandate 

(e.g., national forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

These uses must receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge 

planning and management. 

As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Wapato Lake Unit would provide 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent priority public uses that are compatible with the Wapato 

Lake Unit purpose. The Wapato Lake Unit could provide the local community, the greater 

Portland metropolitan area, and the nation with opportunities to gain a better appreciation for and 

understanding of the region's unique wildlife heritage. 

The Compatibility Standard 

Before a public use is allowed on a national wildlife refuge, Federal law requires a written 

compatibility determination be completed which states that the use is compatible. A compatible 

use is defined as a or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national 

wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission or the purposes of 

the national wildlife refuge. Sound professional judgment is defined as a decision that is 

consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife management and administration, available 

science and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and adherence to 

the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee), and other applicable laws. 

If resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain priority public uses that are 

otherwise compatible, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance 

from the state and other conservation interests. If adequate funding or staffing assistance cannot 

be identified, then the use is not compatible and cannot be allowed. Unlimited public access and 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

33 

use of Wapato Lake Unit lands could easily degrade resources. High quality wildlife-dependent 

priority public use opportunities are predicated on healthy habitats and healthy populations of 

fish, wildlife, and plant species. 

Wapato Lake Unit Purpose(s)

The purpose(s) for which the Wapato Lake Unit would be established would have special 

significance relating to compatible public uses. The Wapato Lake Unit’s purpose may be 

specified in or derived from a Federal law or proclamation, an executive order, an agreement, a 

public land order, a donation document, or an administrative memorandum (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.4M.). In addition to providing a basis for making 

compatibility determinations, the Wapato Lake Unit=s purpose would also serve as a vision or 

mission statement for refuge managers and the public. It provides a broad, long-term statement 

of management direction and priorities (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2) 

Preacquisition Compatibility Determinations

The Service is required to identify, prior to acquisition of new refuges or refuge additions, 

existing owner-authorized, wildlife-dependent priority public uses that would be allowed to 

continue on an interim basis during the time period following Service acquisition to the 

completion of a CCP. This is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The priority wildlife-dependent public uses are hunting, 

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

The Service is not required to complete preacquisition compatibility determinations for uses that 

did not previously exist and were not owner-authorized. Determination of what qualifies as an 

existing priority public use is a judgment call by the refuge manager. In general, occasional 

personal use of property, such as allowing family or friends to hunt or photograph wildlife, 

would not be considered an existing priority public use. In contrast, properties that are generally 

open to the public, such as hunt clubs or a military reservation that allows fishing by military 

personnel and their family members would be considered to have an existing priority public use. 

No owner-authorized priority public uses have been identified as previously existing within the 

Unit based on information from public scoping meetings, comments received from the public, 

and follow-up communications. 

The Wapato Lake Unit would initially be open to limited staff-led public use, providing 

interpretative and educational opportunities. There would also be the opportunity for the public 

to enjoy wildlife observation and photography during these visits. In order to protect sensitive 

resources, the area would initially be open to the public only through staff-led tours and 

volunteer programs. Group size would be limited in size to approximately 20 people and groups 

would be supervised by staff to ensure that resources are protected. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

34 

Public Use Program Development

Priority wildlife-dependent recreational and educational opportunities that may be offered 

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

interpretation. For each public use implemented, supporting programs and infrastructure would 

be developed consistent with compatibility and environmental compliance guidelines and to 

meet the expected degree of use. 

All public uses would require basic facilities and features such as safe access onto the Wapato 

Lake Unit, parking areas, restrooms, and informational signs and/or publications. To the greatest 

extent possible, facilities would be developed to be accessible in accordance with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. Additionally, entrance and user fees would be considered based on the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act as approved by Congress in December 2004. 

Opening a national wildlife refuge to hunting and/or fishing requires publishing a proposal and 

the final approval in the Federal Register. Detailed hunting and/or fishing proposals would be 

completed in close coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and would be 

largely based on statewide regulations. Refuge staff would also actively seek out the 

participation and input of local hunting and fishing organizations to shape the programs. Game 

species of wildlife to be considered under a Wapato Lake Unit hunting program and in 

accordance with Oregon hunting regulations would include waterfowl, mourning dove, snipe, 

ring-necked pheasant, California quail, and black-tailed deer. Species of game fish under a 

Wapato Lake Unit fishing program would likely include only finned fish as regulated by the 

State. The best fishing opportunities could be associated with the warm water fishery of the 

Tualatin River. Hunting and fishing of game species on Wapato Lake Unit lands would be 

managed to sustain healthy natural reproducing populations of fish and wildlife, therefore, 

programs to artificially supplement populations would be discouraged. Hunting and fishing 

programs can typically include waterfowl hunting blinds, boat launch and/or bank access 

facilities, and publishing brochures containing refuge-specific hunting/fishing regulations and 

general refuge information. 

Wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation often can 

be supported by many of the same facilities which could include walking trails, observation 

platforms and overlooks, viewing scopes, roadway pullouts, auto tour routes, and general refuge 

publications. Specific to the Wapato Lake Unit, facilities could be developed promoting calm 

water boating activities in support of wildlife observation and fishing programs. Special public 

events such as International Migratory Bird Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week would 

likely be celebrated on the Wapato Lake Unit to enhance these public uses. 

Wildlife photography could be augmented by the addition of photography blinds specifically 

designed to meet the needs of amateur and professional wildlife photographers. Such blinds 

would likely be managed on a reservation-only basis to provide high quality experiences for 

visitors. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

35 

Interpretation and environmental education programs often complement one another. Developing 

informational and interpretive signs, interpretive leaflets, wildlife and plant species checklists, 

and staff and volunteer led tours could support both programs. To develop a high quality 

environmental education program, Wapato Lake Unit staff would collaborate with local 

educators to design curriculum that meets both national and State learning requirements for K-12 

students. Curriculum materials would include pre-visit, on-site, and post-visit activities for 

students, as well as learning extensions and resources for teachers to plan further study. To 

maximize experiential learning for students, teacher workshops would be conducted to 

familiarize educators with the Wapato Lake Unit, curriculum activities, and learning 

opportunities available. Environmental education study sites and shelter areas could be 

constructed to facilitate on-site learning. Local universities and college students would also be 

encouraged to visit the Wapato Lake Unit to study habitat and wildlife management techniques. 

More than any other priority public use, the on-going involvement of volunteers would be 

critical to the management of high-quality interpretive and educational programs on the Wapato 

Lake Unit. 

Given the rich cultural heritage of the Wapato Lake area, the Service would seek to develop 

compatible education and interpretative programs on the cultural history and land use of the 

Wapato Lake area as an integral part of the public use program for the Wapato Lake Unit. 

In the future, public hunting opportunities, one of the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System would be considered during development of the CCP. 

Hunting could be used as a means for partial control of goose and black-tailed deer populations 

to offset potential damage to crops. In addition, the Department of Agriculture could provide 

technical assistance and tools used in hazing operations to reduce concentrations of wildlife. 

As part of the CCP, the Service would develop goals, objectives, and strategies for resource 

management and public use programs. During the planning process, the Service would actively 

seek public participation and input to complete a quality plan guiding future management of the 

Wapato Lake Unit. At that time, the Service will examine potential opportunities for all 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses deemed compatible with the Wapato Lake Unit 

purpose(s). Any public use allowed would be in strict conformance with applicable Federal and 

State statutes. 

2.7.3 Rights-of-Way and Easements 

Lands for the Wapato Lake Unit would be acquired subject to existing rights-of-way and 

easements. The Service has an application process for granting new rights-of-way and 

easements across Wapato Lake Unit lands. This process would also be used if holders of 

existing rights-of-way and easements on Wapato Lake Unit lands want to expand or modify the 

terms and conditions of their rights. New rights-of-way and easements or modifications to 

existing rights-of-way and easements must be compatible with the purpose for which the Wapato 

Lake Unit was established. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

36 

2.7.4 Law Enforcement 

Enforcement of Federal and State laws on the Wapato Lake Unit would be important to 

safeguard visitors, protect public and private property, and to conserve natural resources. Refuge 

law enforcement support could come from either future staff of the Wapato Lake Unit, Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge, or refuge zone officers. Refuge officers would work with local 

and State jurisdictions to control trespass and enforce fish and wildlife laws. Lands acquired by 

the Service would be posted with refuge signs. Boundary signs and fencing Service owned lands 

depicting the Wapato Lake Unit boundary would be important tools to control trespass. 

2.7.5 Facilities Development and Management 

An office/maintenance shop, storage building, trails, outdoor education sites, and visitor viewing 

structures with access support facilities may be needed for the Wapato Lake Unit. Establishing 

an office/maintenance shop would be highest in priority and could possibly be satisfied using 

existing buildings purchased during land acquisitions. Depending on availability of existing 

buildings, new facilities may need to be built. Costs for an office/maintenance shop, visitor 

contact facilities, trails and outdoor education sites, parking lots, and other facilities are not 

known at this time. Planning and design of visitor facilities would be subject to a public 

involvement process. Long-term needs would be analyzed as part of the development of the 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP. 

Some wetland restoration projects would require development of new water delivery and 

retention infrastructure, and some facilities already exist which could be used with a minimum 

level of retrofitting. Existing water diversions and control structures would likely require 

modification to meet conservation needs of fish such as winter steelhead. 

Fencing or other types of barriers may be constructed to control trespass in areas where damage 

could occur to habitat or endangered species. 

2.7.6 Interagency and Public Coordination 

The Service will continue to work closely with the WID, TVID, Clean Water Services, and the 

BOR. 

The Tualatin River Watershed Council has completed and is implementing a watershed plan for 

the Tualatin River Basin that includes conservation measures to improve fish and wildlife habitat 

and promote management practices to improve watershed health and function. Establishment of 

the Wapato Lake Unit, and the potential subsequent acquisition and restoration, would directly 

support and help fulfill goals and objectives of the watershed plan. 

Potential partners in acquisition and wetlands restoration for the Wapato Lake Unit include The 

Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund, River Network, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Metro, Portland General Electric, BOR, and Ducks Unlimited 

in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Partnerships could be explored 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

37 

which focus on potential purchase with partner funding and donation to the Service, and/or 

habitat restoration. Organizations may also be interested in forming partnerships for 

development of public use programs and facilities. Partnerships with organizations do not 

require partner ownership of lands within the Wapato Lake Unit boundary. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge has numerous partners participating in habitat 

restoration and public use projects which would likely become involved with the Wapato Lake 

Unit. Friends of Trees, Tualatin Riverkeepers, and the Friends of the Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge are all active partners providing financial resources as well as in-kind 

contributions. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

38 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the physical, biological, and socioeconomic factors within the Wapato 

Lake Study Area which could potentially be affected by implementing the action alternatives. 

 

3.1 Physical Environment

In this section, the Service describes the physical environment that would be affected by 

implementing the action alternatives. Due to the fact that the Unit would largely involve 

protecting and restoring wetland habitats, water resources are looked at in detail. Contaminants 

and hazardous waste are discussed as well. 

3.1.1 Water Resources

Groundwater aquifers exist in confined and unconfined conditions under the Tualatin Valley. 

During winter and spring, unconfined groundwater occurs beneath a large portion of the Tualatin 

Valley, usually at a depth less than 10 feet. Surface ponds are common in wetter months. 

During the summer and fall months the groundwater table ranges from 15 to 30 feet below the 

surface. Wells must extend below the yearly water-table fluctuation, which averages 20 feet. 

Deep wells (below 1,500 feet) provide the principal aquifers for irrigation, industrialcommercial, and municipal water supplies. 

Tualatin River flows are mainly dependent on rainfall. The distinct precipitation pattern causes 

highly variable stream flows. Flooding occurs on the river floodplains in winter months; the 

average flow is over 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). In late summer and fall, low stream flows 

averaging 132 cfs result from a lack of rain and mountain snowpack. Consumptive water uses 

further deplete river flows. A dam on Scoggins Creek modifies these variable flows. 

Most of the valley consists of farms or urban centers. Effluent from sewage treatment plants and 

storm water runoff from developed and agricultural areas are mainly responsible for the 

ammonia-nitrogen and phosphate levels in the river. A pollution problem exists during the 

summer months when the low flows in the Tualatin River are inadequate to carry runoff nutrient 

loads. Septic tank drain fields compound this problem when constructed in impervious soils and 

where the groundwater table is at or near the surface. As a result, the State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality gave the Tualatin River a designation of Awater quality 

limited.@ Present and future demand for water greatly exceeds availability during the low-flow 

summer months and leads to restrictions on water use. Clean Water Services and the BOR are 

preparing a study to address the feasibility of increasing water flows in this part of the Tualatin 

basin. 

Many governmental entities and special interest groups are developing and implementing 

strategies to improve the health of Oregon=s watersheds. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds is based on State and Federal laws, and calls upon governmental agencies, 

industries, and citizens to work together to address issues (Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board 2003). In January of 1999, Governor Kitzhaber issued an Executive Order clarifying the 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

39 

scope of the Oregon Plan to include water quality, watershed health, and native salmonids 

statewide. In 2001, the Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI), a citizen group established in 

1998, presented the Willamette Chapter of the Oregon Plan to the Legislature and Governor. 

The Oregon Plan includes 27 detailed recommendations on critical actions needed to protect and 

restore the health of the Willamette basin. 

3.1.2 Wapato Improvement District (WID) 

The WID operates under sanctioned by-laws governing land use within their legal boundary. 

Nearly all of the land within this boundary falls within the historic Wapato Lake lakebed. The 

WID has traditionally allowed only cultivation practices which foster and promote agriculture 

and farming. To promote these practices, the WID has constructed, operated, and maintained 

infrastructure such as dikes, ditches, bridges, roads, and a small concrete dam. Some of these 

features are owned by the WID and are located on lands owned by the WID. Funds to maintain 

some of these facilities have been derived from an annual assessment applied to all individual 

landowners within the WID’s boundary. Recognizing the need to facilitate an orderly transition 

from traditional farming to refuge management, WID members amended the purpose statement 

in the existing WID bylaws by a 75 percent majority vote. The amendment added the clause 

“and/or restore and manage native habitats to conserve fish and wildlife” to the existing purpose 

of WID. This amendment allows acquisition, restoration, and management of habitats to 

proceed should the Wapato Lake Unit be established. Operations of the WID and collection of 

annual maintenance assessments from landowners would continue to support existing farming 

and Unit management functions and practices until determined obsolete through a 75 percent 

majority vote of WID members. 

3.1.3 Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID)

The BOR operates Scoggins Dam, a dam project originally authorized to store irrigation water, 

provide recreation, and maintain regulated in-stream flows for the Tualatin River. The TVID is 

responsible for delivery of irrigation water. The TVID operates and maintains a network of 

water delivery infrastructure serving the irrigation needs of landowners within the TVID 

boundary ranging from the area around Gaston to Shamburg Bridge crossing the Tualatin River 

in the lower watershed. To receive irrigation benefits, each landowner must make an annual 

payment, as a water duty assessment, to the TVID to cover delivery costs whether water is used 

or not. Given that the WID already had water delivery infrastructure in place upon establishment 

of Scoggins Dam, it was mutually beneficial for the TVID, BOR, and WID to enter into an 

agreement. This existing agreement authorizes TVID use of WID infrastructure for delivery of 

water to TVID members located both inside and outside the WID boundary. Furthermore, the 

agreement conveys payment to the WID using revenues from annual water duty assessments in 

exchange for carrying out routine operations and maintenance responsibilities of the TVID. 

From a conceptual perspective, an agreement could be arranged between the BOR, the TVID, 

and the Service whereby use of infrastructure for delivery of water would continue and routine 

operations and maintenance responsibilities would revert back to the TVID. This type of 

agreement could be developed if the Service were to acquire infrastructure presently owned by 

the WID. Major improvements to existing infrastructure would become the responsibility of the 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

40 

Service. Current water delivery to landowners and associated annual water duty assessment 

payments to the TVID would continue for landowners located both inside and outside the WID 

boundary. 

3.1.4 Water Rights

Water rights are a critical component of the Wapato Lake Unit development if water dependent 

habitats and initial establishment of woody plantings are to be successfully restored and 

maintained. These rights consist of primary rights in the Tualatin River appropriated by the 

State of Oregon and secondary rights managed through the TVID on behalf of the BOR. The 

source of secondary rights stem from reservoir waters of Hagg Lake located on Scoggins Creek, 

operated by the BOR. These rights together are considered one right and may not be separated 

for use at a location other than their original intended point of use. The primary appropriated 

rights season of use is May 1 to September 30, while secondary rights may be extended beyond 

September 30 to November 30. Another difference between these rights includes a 

demonstration of use required for primary rights, but not for secondary rights. Also, an annual 

duty assessment fee is imposed for secondary rights but not for primary rights. 

Both primary and secondary rights could be applied to habitats being managed to restore and 

maintain seasonal wetlands, through summer irrigation of germinated plants as well as summer 

irrigation of woody plantings, to enhance survival in a variety of habitat types. In addition, these 

rights could be applied to begin initial flood-up of seasonal wetlands in preparation for fall 

flights of migratory birds. To facilitate these requirements in water management, the Service 

would pursue acquisition of one of the most significant primary appropriated rights in the 

Tualatin River watershed owned by the WID. Water rights to support the vast majority of 

seasonal wetlands flooding in fall and winter could be met through application of new storage 

rights as is presently carried out at the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. These rights 

regulated by the State of Oregon allow for storage at one specific location from November 1 to 

May 31. Finally, operating costs associated with secondary rights of the TVID could be partially 

offset by temporarily leasing these rights to Clean Water Services for use in maintaining 

minimum in-stream flows for the Tualatin River. 

3.1.5 Contaminants and Hazardous Wastes

 

As of October 2005, the Study Area is not on the Environmental Protection Agency=s (EPA) 

National Priority List or in their Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System. The historic Alvin T. Smith house within the Study Area 

contained an illegal methamphetamine laboratory in the basement. The owners of the property 

paid for the testing and clean up of the contaminants associated with the laboratory. 

An overview Level I Contaminant Survey would be conducted on the Unit, to identify potential 

contaminant sources. Potential contaminant sources include highways, industrial areas, 

agricultural land, and electrical powerlines which could create non-point source pollution. 

Potential hazardous materials from industrial areas and highways may include oil, grease, 

gasoline, and battery acid, among others. The EPA has found storm water runoff to be a 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

41 

significant pollution source, particularly from highways. Certain electrical transformers contain 

hazardous materials. Potential pollutants contained in nursery and farmland runoff may include 

fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste. Electrical powerlines also pose an 

electrocution and strike hazard to birds. 

3.2 Biological Environment 

Humans have substantially modified the Tualatin Valley. Since the late 1800s, a majority of the 

Valley floor forests and wetlands have been cleared and/or drained, converting them to 

agriculture and urban use. While most of the mountainous regions remain in forest, they have 

been logged at least once. Almost all of the habitats within the Unit have been modified, some 

to a greater extent than others. 

 

The Wapato Lake lakebed currently has moderate wildlife values. When flooded in fall and 

winter, the area provides foraging and roosting winter habitat for significant numbers of tundra 

swans. In December 1987, there were 800 swans as well as mallards, pintails, canvasbacks, 

ring-necked ducks, and lesser scaup using the Wapato Lake lakebed. Canada geese (western, 

dusky, lesser, Taverner=s, cackling, and Aleutian) occur at Wapato Lake. White-fronted geese 

also occasionally use the historic Wapato Lake basin. 

Numerous species of shorebirds and marsh birds frequent the basin for foraging and resting 

during spring and fall migration. Riparian areas, wet deciduous swales of mixed hardwood 

species, and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest provide breeding habitat for neotropical 

migratory birds. Raptors observed within the area include red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, 

and American kestrels. Mammals using the area include black-tailed deer, coyote, skunk, and 

numerous species of small rodents. Other wildlife species, either federally-listed or species of 

management concern, known or likely to frequent the project area include peregrine falcon, 

American bald eagle (threatened), dusky Canada goose, northern red-legged frog, and the 

western pond turtle. Restoration efforts would enhance population recovery efforts for all of 

these species. 

The diverse habitats of the Tualatin River floodplain just north of the Wapato Lake lakebed 

presently support large numbers of waterfowl and other species. Farmed wetlands, vegetated 

wetlands, and forested riparian habitat occur on the Tualatin River floodplain. Crop production 

alters the soil surface of farmed wetlands, but wetland plants will reestablish if farming stops. 

When flooded in winter and spring, the farmed wetlands of this floodplain support considerable 

numbers of wintering waterfowl and shorebirds. Upland birds and raptors use these lands in the 

summer after harvest. 

 

Vegetated wetlands, such as marshes, are scattered in backwater areas on the Tualatin River 

floodplain. Originally forested, landowners cleared many of these areas to create pasture. Some 

small marshes in upland areas result from groundwater seepage; others collect precipitation and 

runoff in depressions. Disturbance from grazing has favored the dominance of reed canary grass 

(Phalaris arundinacea), a European invasive. Reed canary grass forms thick monotypic stands 

and is not particularly valuable for providing diverse wildlife habitats. Marshes help moderate 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

42 

groundwater and surface water flow; control sediment transport, erosion, and deposition; and 

mediate physical and chemical processes affecting water quality and nutrient cycling. Marshes 

also have value as open space, an aesthetically pleasing feature of the landscape. 

Typical tree species of forested riparian habitats along the Tualatin River include red alder 

(Alnus rubra), willow (Salix spp), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Garry oak (Quercus 

garryana), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western red-cedar (Thuja plicata), cottonwood 

(Populus trichocarpa), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Less common species include 

grand fir (Abies grandis), Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), 

and an occasional ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). The shrub layer typically includes 

snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), elderberry (Sambucus 

racemosa), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Oregon grape (Berberis spp. [aka Mahonia]), Douglas 

spirea (Spiraea douglasii), rose (Rosa spp.), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), 

honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Pacific dogwood (Cornus 

nutalii), and cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). Less common species include chokecherry (Prunus 

virginiana), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), currant (Ribes spp.), 

hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), poison oak 

(Toxicodendron diversilobum), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and salmonberry (Rubus 

spectabilis). Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and blackberry (Rubus discolor) are common 

invasive nonnative plants on disturbed areas. 

The root systems of riparian vegetation stabilize river banks, prevent erosion, and trap sediments 

when streams overtop their banks. As sediments are trapped and stabilized by grasses and 

sedges, the streambank builds in height and the channel narrows increasing the amount of pool 

habitat, and reconnects the stream with its floodplain. In conjunction with restoring meander 

bends, as the stream recovers, a greater proportion of flood flows are stored within the floodplain 

and metered into the stream as flows recede. As a result summer base or low flows may be 

increased, and summer stream temperatures should decrease. Woody vegetation adds organic 

matter and associated nutrients to the river while providing the cover, shade, and cool 

temperatures essential for fish survival. Riparian alder improves soil microbiology and nutrient 

cycling. Wetland ecosystems enhance water quality by metabolizing and filtering excessive 

nutrients and pollutants. Woody riparian habitat also supports a diverse assemblage of birds, 

mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles. 

According to Dahl (2000), the acreage of freshwater wetlands continues to decline. The Service 

is committed to protecting these wetland types pursuant to the Emergency Wetland Resources 

Act of 1986 and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989. 

Upland forests are dominated by coniferous species such as Douglas-fir, western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylla), grand fir, and western red-cedar. Big leaf maple and red alder may also be 

common. The most common understory shrubs are salal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape, 

snowberry, and vine maple. Sword fern (Polystichum spp.) is ubiquitous. Like forested riparian 

areas, these upland forests provide important wildlife habitats. 

The lower Tualatin River is dominated by a warm water fishery consisting of nonnative crappie, 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

43 

bluegill, catfish, and bass. The upper Willamette River populations of steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) and low numbers of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyscha), federally-listed as 

threatened, occur in the Tualatin River and tributaries such as Gales Creek and Scoggins Creek 

(Friesen and Ward 1995). Low summer flows combined with low gradient areas result in slow 

moving waters where sediments are deposited and high temperatures prevail producing a low 

dissolved oxygen condition. These factors, combined with high nutrient loads, create conditions 

unfavorable for native fish migration and reproduction. As mentioned above, restoring riparian 

habitat, meandering river channels, and floodplain wetlands will improve water quality and fish 

habitat in the Tualatin River system. 

Through 1997, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stocked the Tualatin River 

and its tributaries with winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The ODFW continues to stock hatchery 

rainbow trout into Henry Hagg Lake, Dorman Pond, Commonwealth Lake, and Bethany Lake 

for the public sport fishery. 

3.3 Socioeconomic Environment

Some of the most productive agricultural lands in the nation are found in the Willamette Valley. 

The region is also home to nearly 70 percent of Oregon=s population and accounts for 75 percent 

of the State’s economy (Daggett et al. 1998). 

3.3.1 Population Growth 

The population of Washington County continues to experience one of the most rapid growth 

rates in the country. In 1950 the county population was 61,269; in 1990 the population was 

311,554; in 2000 the population was 445,342; and in 2003 the population was 472,600. The 

population of Washington County in 2000 represents a 42.9 percent increase over 1990. The 

Washington County population will probably continue to grow faster than both the national and 

the State’s average rate. The Cedar Hills-Beaverton-Tigard area has the majority of the county 

population. 

In 1950 the Yamhill County population was 33,484, and in 1990 the population was 65,551. By 

2000 the population was 84,992, and in 2003 the population was 88,150. The population of 

Yamhill County in 2000 represents a 29.7 percent increase over 1990. During the same time 

period, the increase in population for Oregon was 20.4 percent, and for the entire United States it 

was 13.1 percent. 

3.3.2 Economic Growth 

In the last 30 years, Washington County=s economy has grown at rates exceeding that of Oregon 

and the nation. Since 1980, employment grew nearly three times as fast as the national 

employment rate, and more than twice as fast as employment in Oregon as a whole. In 2002, the 

unemployment rate in Washington County was 6.7 percent. Since 1980, employment in Yamhill 

County grew at the same rate as Oregon=s, but 20 percent faster than employment nationwide. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

44 

Yamhill County=s unemployment rate was 7.4 percent in 2002, whereas the unemployment rates 

for Oregon and the nation were 7.5 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively. 

In 2003, Washington County farm and ranch gross sales totaled nearly $223 million, placing the 

county fourth in the State in total farm sales; Yamhill County gross sales were over $225 

million, placing third in the State (Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service 2003-2004). In nursery 

and greenhouse crops Washington County ranked third with sales of nearly $164 million, while 

Yamhill County ranked fourth at nearly $107 million. Nursery and greenhouse crops accounted 

for 74 percent of commodity sales for Washington County, and 48 percent for Yamhill County. 

Agriculture is still the main economic activity within the Wapato Lake Unit Study Area. 

However, in Washington and Yamhill Counties, growth and diversification of the non-farm 

economy has reduced the relative contribution agriculture makes to the Counties’ total economy. 

The principal industries of Yamhill County are agriculture, lumber, education, international 

aviation, dental equipment, manufactured homes, pulp and paper, and steel. The Evergreen 

Aviation Museum in McMinnville is home to Howard Hughes= Spruce Goose. The county=s 

primary industry is agriculture, specifically wheat, barley, horticulture, and dairy farming. 

Yamhill County is the major supplier of hazelnuts in the United States. This county is also the 

center of Oregon=s wine industry. Thirty-six wineries represent the largest concentration of 

wineries in any county and produce the greatest number of award-winning wines in the State. 

One-third of the county is covered with commercial timber, and the economic mainstay of the 

western part of the county is logging and timber products. 

The expanding Portland metropolitan area has extended to the eastern boundaries of Yamhill 

County and brought an increase in property values and demand for greater services from the 

private sector and county government. Nearly one-fifth of the county=s workforce commutes to 

the Portland metropolitan area. Yamhill County is meeting these demands by developing longrange plans for transportation, water, land use, criminal justice, and human services. 

In Washington County, three technology-based industries are the cornerstone of the county’s 

economy. These three are machinery, including computing equipment and peripherals; electrical 

equipment and components, including semiconductors; and instruments, including electrical 

measuring devices, oscilloscopes, and industrial controls. Other technology-based 

manufacturers produce optical instruments and lenses, engineering instruments, and 

photographic equipment and supplies. Production in technology-based industries results in 

employment in the fabricated metals industry. The limited amount of mining activity in 

Washington and Yamhill Counties makes it a minor contributor to the total economy. Tourism 

and recreation are becoming more important economic factors. Area residents live within a twohour commute to either the Cascade Mountains or the Pacific Coast. Year-round, residents and 

tourists can enjoy the region=s abundant natural resources to boat, water ski, fish, camp, climb, 

backpack, snow ski, raft, and many other outdoor activities. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

45 

3.3.3 Land Use 

 

Washington County contains approximately 465,280 acres; Yamhill County is of comparable 

size at 459,520 acres. Most land outside the Tualatin Valley is forested. Development for 

agriculture, residential housing, or light industrial use occupies much of the land in the Valley. 

In 2004, the top five commodities in Washington County were nursery and greenhouse crops, 

farm forest products, tall fescue, and dairy products. In Yamhill County the top five 

commodities were nursery crops, tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, dairy products, and farm forest 

products (OSU Extension Service, Oregon Agricultural Information Network). In the Wapato 

Lake lakebed farmers historically grew onions. Although onion production in western Oregon 

rose 120 percent from 1987 to 1997, the value of onions continued to decline, and many farmers 

have decided to plant other crops. 

Acreage in farms has generally decreased due to the pressures of urbanization. In Washington 

County, farm acreage totaled 140,884 acres in 1997, and 130,683 acres in 2002, a decline of 7.2 

percent. In Yamhill County, farmed acreage totaled 204,739 acres in 1997, and 196,298 acres in 

2002, a decline of 4.1 percent (2002 Census of Agriculture County Data). During the same time, 

acreage of land in Conservation Reserve or Wetlands Reserve Programs declined in Washington 

and Yamhill Counties by 25.6 percent and 24.2 percent, respectively. 

Washington County currently has Federal land administered by Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), BOR, and the Service; three State parks; and two county parks. The Tualatin Hills Parks 

and Recreation District is a special entity that owns and/or manages more than 200 parks and 

more than 35 miles of trails in Washington County. Yamhill County contains 4 State parks and 

15 county parks. Both counties have several public golf courses. Many people enjoy Henry 

Hagg Lake, in Washington County, for boating and fishing. No designated wilderness areas and 

no Awild and scenic@ river reaches exist in either county. 

The Wapato Lake study area shares its north border with Metro=s urban growth boundary for the 

Forest Grove-Cornelius region. Metro has purchased 606 acres along Gales Creek near its 

confluence with the Tualatin River. All of the newly acquired land provides greenspace value; 

connectivity between existing natural areas (Tualatin River, the 243-acre Fernhill Wetlands 

Complex, and a 363-acre wetland mitigation bank owned by Clean Water Services); water 

quality and quantity benefits; and recreation, education, and stewardship opportunities. 

The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation regulates private land use 

outside the urban growth boundary. The Rural/Natural Resource Plan guides conservation and 

development according to the potential of the land and in accord with State and regional 

requirements. In Yamhill County, the Department of Planning and Development governs private 

land use. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan guides the county’s growth and development. In 

both counties, land use plans must be in compliance with statewide planning regulations 

administered through the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

46 

Taxes are assessed on all taxable property by the County Assessor's office. In addition to 

property taxes on private lands, the counties receive revenues from the BLM and Service land 

holdings in the form of payment-in-lieu-of taxes. 

 

All factors seem to point to continued population and economic growth in Washington and 

Yamhill Counties, however, at a reduced rate from the past few years. Demands upon the land 

base for industrial and residential development will increase accordingly. Substantial programs 

are in place to support and further encourage urban growth and development whereas efforts to 

protect and restore wetland and wildlife values in urban areas have thus far been somewhat 

limited. Extensive development could easily detract from the counties’ attractiveness as a place 

to live and work. Amenity issues are increasingly important in the business and residential 

location decision-making process as well as land development decisions. The establishment of 

accessible open space, such as the Wapato Lake Unit may help to enhance the climate for future 

economic growth in Washington and Yamhill Counties. 

A number of other agencies have recognized the biological and cultural values of wetlands and 

open space. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has numerous programs to promote 

wetland protection for fish and wildlife. The Oregon Division of State Lands, by virtue of its 

Wetland Fill and Removal Permit Program, has recognized the biological and economic values 

of Oregon wetlands. The Oregon Department of Water Resources has adopted statewide policies 

promoting protection of water-related functions of riparian areas on public lands and protection 

of instream flows. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan and the Yamhill County 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan recognize the ecological and social values that wetlands and 

riparian habitats provide. These habitats offer economic and environmental benefits other 

resources cannot provide, including water quality enhancement, recreation, fish and wildlife 

habitat, and aesthetic features. 

3.3.4 Cultural Resources 

The Service conducted a record search for the Wapato Lake Unit Study Area using the records 

on file at the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. A few documented historic properties 

were identified within the Study Area boundary, including the historic A.T. Smith house built in 

1856 which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The house was purchased by 

the Friends of Historic Forest Grove in 2005 for preservation and to serve as an interpretative 

center. The other cultural resource sites that were identified are prehistoric and their location is 

confidential. Several Tualatin Native American villages, described in the ethnographic record, 

are reported to have existed in the vicinity. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

47 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

48 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section analyzes and compares the environmental consequences anticipated from the 

implementation of each alternative. The environmental consequences likely to occur if the 

Service does not establish the Wapato Lake Unit are described under Alternative A, the No 

Action Alternative. The effects of the action alternatives, Alternatives B through E, involving 

establishing the Wapato Lake Unit are analyzed using the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic factors relevant to the issues described in Chapter 1. 

4.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative represents no change from the existing management of lands in the 

Study Area. The No Action Alternative is the baseline to which the other alternatives are 

compared. Under this alternative, the Service would not acquire interest in the lands in the Study 

Area for the purpose of establishing the Wapato Lake Unit. 

The existing Federal land already under management by the Service in and adjacent to Wapato 

Lake lakebed may not be restored and may be placed into a cooperative farming agreement as an 

interim management practice. The Service would study the options for long-term management 

and evaluate these options as well as possible disposal of the property. 

4.1.1 Physical Consequences 

The distribution, general location, and extent of land use in the Study Area and vicinity would be 

guided by the appropriate county comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. The 

comprehensive plan is the official overall policy statement of a county relating to land use and 

planning issues and provides a broad outline of future land use patterns. The zoning ordinance 

regulates land use by dividing the unincorporated areas of a county into districts or zones and 

specifies the uses that are permitted or prohibited within each district. Under the No Action 

Alternative, existing land use patterns in the Study Area would remain under the authority of 

Washington and Yamhill Counties. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Service may place existing Service lands (108 fee title 

acres and 32 easement acres), in and adjacent to the Wapato Lake lakebed, into an interim 

cooperative farming agreement, similar to the surrounding landscape. The Service may not 

restore the property because, as a habitat fragment, the potential of the area to function 

ecologically is limited. Without restoration, the property is not likely to contribute to floodplain 

habitat diversity or improved water quality. However, the Oregon Department of Water 

Resources would continue its efforts to protect and enhance water in the vicinity. The Service 

would study options for the long-term including disposal of the property. In this case, the land 

would likely be purchased for agriculture, as long as the area remains zoned for agricultural use. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

49 

4.1.2 Biological Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, habitat restoration or management may not be provided for 

migratory waterfowl and resident fish and wildlife. Wildlife may not be provided secure habitat 

which is managed specifically for their benefit. Wildlife populations would change depending 

upon land use and habitat changes which take place within the Study Area. As with any land 

modification, habitat changes may benefit some species and be detrimental to others. 

Wetlands are afforded some protection from development under Federal and State wetland use 

regulations and county land use regulations. In spite of the above regulations, wetlands continue 

to be lost, especially in urbanizing areas. Without additional protection, there is little indication 

the wetland loss trend of past years will not continue. In many ways, agricultural activities are 

exempt from wetland regulations and often reduce wetland values to wildlife and may reduce 

other public benefits that wetlands provide. Riparian habitat would also likely continue to be 

lost due to land clearing activities such as logging or for agricultural purposes. 

Fragmentation of the existing natural habitat is likely to continue without landowner incentives. 

Two major forces are at work which could continue to remove suitable wildlife habitat from the 

Study Area: urban expansion and conversion of agricultural lands to non-wildlife compatible 

crops such as nursery stock or vineyards. Metro’s land protection efforts (Section 1.5) will 

continue to provide important habitat conservation in the vicinity of the Wapato Lake Unit. 

However, without the additional protection that the Wapato Lake Unit would provide, these 

lands could well become isolated islands of natural habitat amidst development and/or 

agriculture practices. 

Existing Service lands in and adjacent to the Wapato Lake lakebed may not be restored. The 

Service may place the property under a cooperative farming agreement and study options for the 

long-term, including disposal. The land under Service management now, in and of itself, does 

not warrant restoration or long-term management. The limited size of the property does not 

allow the Service to fulfill the purpose of the Wapato Lake Unit or the mission of the Refuge 

System.

4.1.3 Socioeconomic Consequences

There would be no changes to the local communities due to Service activities under the No 

Action Alternative. No lands would be removed from the tax rolls; therefore, tax revenues 

would remain unchanged. Public use would remain restricted by private land ownership and 

outdoor recreation opportunities would remain limited within the area. The 108 acres of existing 

fee title land already under management by the Service in and adjacent to Wapato Lake lakebed 

would still be subject to revenue sharing payments. In 2004, county revenue sharing payments 

for these lands was as follows; Yamhill County totaled $742.00 for 97.16 acres and Washington 

County totaled $113.00 for 11 acres. These lands would not be restored and may be placed into 

a cooperative farming agreement as an interim management practice. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

50 

The overwhelming majority (97.4 percent) of the Study Area is zoned agriculture, therefore, 

under the No Action Alternative the study area is expected to remain in agricultural use. 

4.2 Environmental Consequences Common to All the Action Alternatives

 

Under the four action alternatives, Alternatives B through E, the Service would establish the 

Wapato Lake Unit. The following environmental consequences apply to the implementation of 

the four alternatives. 

Protection and restoration of the habitats described would help maintain populations of ducks, 

geese and swans in the Pacific Flyway. Although it is not possible to quantify the increment of 

benefit to the migratory bird resource from this proposal, failure to protect and restore these 

habitats would result in population declines in the future. However, based on the relatively small 

size of the Wapato Lake Unit, and in the context of continuing regional habitat losses and habitat 

degradation, implementing the action alternatives would not result in significant environmental 

effects. 

Federal acquisition of private lands on which cultural resources are located would have a 

positive effect on those resources by bringing them under the protection afforded by the National 

Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resource preservation laws. To ensure refuge 

management activities do not have adverse effect on historic properties, the Service would 

follow established procedures and comply with Federal laws and policies for considering the 

impacts of any character-altering of buildings and/or ground disturbance, including habitat 

restoration, on a case-by case basis. 

4.2.1 Land Acquisition 

For each of the action Alternatives, it is important to note that land acquisition would be 

occurring over an extended period of time. Since acquisition is governed by the willingness of 

landowners to sell to the Service, and availability of funds, management and public use may be 

limited until such time as a manageable unit of land is acquired. The uncertainty of land 

acquisition under the willing seller policy, coupled with the unpredictability of the future 

economic and social climate prevents the impact analysis from being an exact science. 

4.2.2 Habitat Management 

The Service would only restore lands purchased and/or managed by the Service for the Wapato 

Lake Unit. For example, the Service would begin restoring the natural hydrology of the Wapato 

Lake lakebed once a manageable amount of contiguous property is acquired from willing sellers 

and the restoration would not affect private property. Restoration efforts would focus on 

removing nonnative plant species and establishing native plant communities for the benefit of 

fish and wildlife. 

Although the focus of management would be on restoring and maintaining native plant 

communities, some level of pasture and/or cropland management may be used to provide forage 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

51 

and sanctuary to encourage greater use of Wapato Lake Unit lands by geese versus the use of 

adjacent agricultural lands. Restoration of native forest plant communities could encourage 

expansion of black-tailed deer populations using these habitats as cover. 

As is the case with all other action alternatives, restoration activities may cause short-term 

erosion problems similar to those existing under current agricultural activities, but would provide 

long-term positive benefits to erosion and land stabilization. 

4.2.3 Wildlife-Dependent Public Use 

The Service would start with modest Service guided wildlife-dependent public use. Then, once 

the Service has an adequate land base, the Service would expand public use as appropriate. 

Priority wildlife-dependent recreational and educational opportunities that may be offered 

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

interpretation. Public use would be allowed where consistent with the Refuge System mission, 

and the purposes for establishing the Wapato Lake Unit. For each public use implemented, 

supporting programs and infrastructure would be developed consistent with compatibility and 

environmental compliance guidelines and to meet the expected degree of use. 

Wildlife-dependent public use opportunities on the Wapato Lake Unit would be relatively small 

compared to the other opportunities available in the county and the surrounding community. 

Also, public use would be allowed only where it would be compatible with Wapato Lake Unit 

purposes and the Refuge System mission; therefore, the impacts would not be significant. 

4.2.4 County Tax Revenue 

Fee acquisition would remove lands from Washington County and Yamhill County tax rolls. 

Nearly all the land in each of the action alternatives, Alternatives B through E, is zoned for 

exclusive farm use and has a deferred tax status. In the first three alternatives, Alternatives B 

through D, the areas zoned for uses other than agriculture are negligible. In the largest 

alternative, Alternative E, only 2.6 percent of the entire area is zoned for uses other than 

agriculture. 

The Service would make annual payments to the Counties through the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act to compensate for lost tax revenues. The nationwide formula used to calculate revenue 

sharing payments to Counties is detailed in Chapter 1, Section 1.9. The annual payments the 

Service would make to the Counties would be roughly the same as the taxes that would have 

been collected for these properties. Because of these annual revenue sharing payments there 

would be no significant impact to the tax base of the Counties as a result of implementing any of 

the action alternatives. 

4.2.5 Wapato Lake Unit Tourism and Spending in the Local Economy 

The Service anticipates a minor increase in tourism could occur if the Wapato Lake Unit is 

established which would bring income to the local economy. Visitors would likely support 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

52 

recreation-oriented businesses. This would include purchasing lodging at local hotels, meals at 

local restaurants, fuel, and purchase of other goods and services related to nature tourism such as 

film, binoculars, and clothing. Refuge staff would support local businesses throughout the 

course of conducting Unit operations. 

4.2.6 Land Use Zoning 

Incorporating these lands into the Wapato Lake Unit boundary would not create any new zoning, 

land use regulations, or changes to permitted uses. It would not affect the ability of private 

landowners and local jurisdictions to implement adopted land use plans. Local jurisdictions 

would be under no Service requirement to amend their land use plans to conform to the Wapato 

Lake Unit boundary, nor would landowners be under any obligation to sell their land or interest 

in their land to the Service. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not have a 

significant effect on land use zoning in the area. 

4.2.7 Agricultural Production 

Since almost all the land under the action Alternatives (Alternatives B through E) is in 

agricultural production, fee acquisition would keep these lands in open space but remove them 

from farm production. The number of acres removed from production and the monetary value 

removed from the total monetary value generated by agriculture in Washington and Yamhill 

Counties is not significant. See the following estimates: 

Table 6. Washington and Yamhill Counties’ Agricultural Acreage within the Wapato Lake 

Unit 

Alternative Acres in Agricultural Production 

within the Unit 

Percent of Counties’ Acres 

within the Unit 

Alternative B 1,845 acres .01 % 

Alternative C 1,885 acres .01 % 

Alternative D 2,879 acres .04 % 

Alternative E 4,408 acres .16 % 

Agriculture operations in the Wapato Lake Study Area support local and regional businesses by 

purchasing: seed for planting; feed; petroleum and chemical products; farm building and 

equipment construction, supplies, and repair; animal housing; veterinary services; production 

inspection and licensing; food processing, packaging, storing, and shipping; and accounting, 

legal, and payroll services. Under the four action alternatives, these industries would be 

minimally affected by removing the acreages being considered for the Wapato Lake Unit from 

agricultural production. In light of the total amount of farmland in Washington and Yamhill 

Counties (130,683 acres and 196,298 acres respectively), the amount of agricultural land that 

would be removed under even the largest Wapato Lake Unit proposal (4,408 acres under 

Alternative E) would not cause a significant impact to the Counties’ agricultural production. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

53 

Most of the farms in and around the Wapato Lake lakebed support a certain amount of wildlife 

on pastureland, woodlands, and/or wetlands. In fact, to a degree, the wildlife habitats 

interspersed with agricultural production on these farms have helped maintain wildlife 

populations for generations. If the Wapato Lake Unit was established, the Service would seek 

opportunities to collaborate on wildlife conservation with neighboring farms. 

The next section details the anticipated consequences of each action alternative (Alternatives B 

through E). 

4.3 Alternative B, a 1,960-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

Alternative B encompasses the historic Wapato Lake lakebed as well as a small amount of land 

beyond the historic lakebed and outside of the 100-year floodplain (see map page 15). This area 

is roughly bounded by Spring Hill Road to the east, Gaston Road to the north, State Highway 47 

on the west, and Flett Road to the south. 

4.3.1 Physical Consequences 

Currently the lakebed area is in agricultural use. Thus, restoring native habitats would locally 

improve water quality because it would mean less herbicides and pesticides being applied to the 

landscape, and the restored native vegetation would metabolize the nutrients and contaminants 

before they reach the creeks or ground water. Water quality improvement from Wapato Lake 

Unit wetland restoration would be localized, and would not result in significant environmental 

effects. Restoration activities may cause short-term erosion effects not entirely different from 

current farming practices, but restoration may reduce erosion in the long-term. 

4.3.2 Biological Consequences 

Service restoration of the Wapato Lake lakebed and vicinity to herbaceous and scrub-shrub 

wetland habitats would provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and 

songbirds. The Wapato Lake lakebed used to have an abundance of swans that would likely 

return if the lakebed was restored. Cackling and dusky Canada geese and pintails would also 

benefit. Weasels, mink, beaver, black-tailed deer, and raptors such as red-tailed hawks would 

benefit as well. 

A comparable example is the Steinborn Unit of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge in 

Sherwood, Oregon, where 450 acres were restored to similar habitat types and now support up to 

30,000 ducks and geese. Thus, a similar response might be expected at the Wapato Lake Unit. 

The Steinborn Unit is one half the size of the Wapato Lake lakebed, therefore, restoration of 

wetlands could provide habitat for as many as 60,000 ducks, geese, and swans. 

Pending funding and willing sellers, the Service could acquire the lands identified under 

Alternative B if this alternative is selected for implementation. The protection of these lands 

through acquisition, or other mechanisms, would allow for the conservation, protection, and 

restoration of wildlife habitats which support migratory birds and resident wildlife, improve 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

54 

biodiversity, and support wildlife-dependent public use activities. Protection of these lands 

would have a positive impact on the natural environment. 

4.3.3 Socioeconomic Consequences

Land Use 

 

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,069 acres of cropland in Washington County and 776 

acres of cropland in Yamhill County could be removed from agriculture and restored and 

managed as wildlife habitat. This represents an average of 0.8 percent total cropland in 

Washington County and 0.4 percent total cropland in Yamhill County. These percentages are 

not a significant impact on the local economy compared to the total number of acres of cropland 

in each County. Landowners would not be required to sell to the Service and may choose to use 

their land under current State and local regulations. Willing sellers within the boundary of this 

alternative would have the opportunity to sell their land to the Service. If the Service acquires 

property from willing sellers, acquired lands would be managed for fish and wildlife habitat. 

In order to restore and maintain native wetland habitats in the Wapato Lake lakebed, the Service 

would need to secure primary State-appropriated water rights and secondary water rights 

managed through TVID on behalf of the BOR. Lands under Alternative B fall under the 

operation authority of the WID. The WID owns all physical water conveyance and drainage 

systems and is responsible, through an agreement with the BOR and TVID, for the maintenance 

and operations associated with measuring, diverting, conveying, and delivering water to all 

landowners of the district on a daily basis. Funds to maintain some of these facilities have been 

derived from an annual assessment applied to all landowners within the WID’s boundary. 

From a conceptual perspective, if the Service began to acquire property a new agreement could 

be arranged between the BOR, the TVID, and the Service, whereby use of infrastructure for 

delivery of water would continue and routine operations and maintenance responsibilities would 

revert back to the TVID. This type of agreement could be developed upon purchase by the 

Service of infrastructure presently owned by the WID. Major improvements to existing 

infrastructure would become the responsibility of the Service. Current water delivery to 

landowners would not be impacted and associated annual water duty assessment payments to the 

TVID would continue for landowners located both inside and outside the WID boundary. The 

land use would gradually be converted from almost entirely agriculture to native Willamette 

Valley habitat types that support a variety of wildlife species. Over time, the area under 

Alternative B would remain in open space type use which would result in local communities 

continuing with the rural lifestyle. 

4.4 Alternative C, a 2,430-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

This proposal essentially includes the Wapato Lake lakebed (included in Alternative B) and 

adjacent bottomland to the south including the areas around Ayers and Wapato Creeks. The area 

includes all the land in Alternative B, lands along Wapato Creek between Wapato School Road 

and State Highway 47, and lands along Ayers Creek west of Spring Hill Road south to about a 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

55 

half-mile south of Laughlin Road (see map on page 16). If lands were acquired from willing 

sellers, the Service would restore the lakebed as previously noted, the adjacent bottom land to 

native wetland, riparian forest along the creeks, and upland grassland communities for the 

benefit of fish and wildlife. 

4.4.1 Physical Consequences

The Service, through establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit, could contribute to enhanced water 

quality through wetland enhancement and by restoring riparian areas along creeks. Should the 

Service be able to acquire manageable units of land for wetland enhancement, water from 

various tributaries flowing onto the Wapato Lake Unit would be filtered through Wapato Lake 

Unit wetlands. Nutrients such as nitrates would be metabolized by wetland vegetation, resulting 

in higher quality water entering the Tualatin River. 

Irrigation water rights are appurtenant to some of the land within the Wapato Lake Unit. These 

water rights could be used in the Wapato Lake Unit water management program through 

irrigation under existing or transferable rights to support wildlife enhancement. 

The potential exists for the Service to purchase, lease, or transfer water rights with a 

conservation easement or a fee title purchase. Transferring irrigation rights to other out-ofstream uses could benefit habitat, recreation, and water quality. Purchase, lease, or transfer of 

irrigation rights for instream purposes could enhance streamflows for the benefit of fish, aquatic 

wildlife, riparian habitat, water quality, and wetlands. 

4.4.2 Biological Consequences 

Simply protecting habitat from development and degradation provides wildlife with benefits. A 

stable habitat base which provides wildlife with the necessary food and cover may allow 

populations to flourish. Under Service management, habitats could be modified to provide better 

habitat conditions, thereby enhancing species populations. Based on the Service’s primary 

responsibilities, the Service would be seeking to restore and enhance wetland and riparian 

habitats for migratory waterfowl, other migratory birds, and resident fish and wildlife. Habitats 

would be managed for the benefit of diverse wildlife species wherever practicable. 

Specific benefits to wildlife and habitats from this alternative would be to: protect wetland and 

riparian habitat from drainage, filling, and other degradations; provide habitat for many species 

of water-dependent birds such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds; provide perching sites 

and foraging grounds for birds of prey; and provide habitat for songbirds, furbearers, big game, 

and other land mammals. As in Alternative B, cackling and dusky Canada geese and pintails 

would benefit from wetland habitat restoration. 

With riparian areas protected and restored along Wapato and Ayers Creeks under this alternative, 

there would be an increase in habitat for numerous songbird species such as willow flycatcher 

and American robin. Raptors such as red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, and American kestrels 

would benefit as well. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

56 

4.4.3 Socioeconomic Consequences 

Land Use 

Up to 1,069 acres of cropland in Washington County and 816 acres of cropland in Yamhill 

County could be removed from agriculture and restored and managed as wildlife habitat under 

Alternative C. This represents an average of 0.8 percent total cropland in Washington County 

and 0.4 percent of cropland in Yamhill County. These percentages are not a significant impact 

on the local economy compared to the total number of acres of cropland in each county. 

Landowners with land located within Alternative C would not be required to sell to the Service 

and may choose to use their land under current State and local regulations. Willing sellers 

within the boundary of this alternative would have the opportunity to sell their land to the 

Service. If the Service acquires property from willing sellers, acquired lands would be managed 

for fish and wildlife habitat. 

The land use would gradually be converted from almost entirely agriculture to native Willamette 

Valley habitat types that support a variety of wildlife species. Over time the land within 

Alternative C would remain in open space type use which would result in local communities 

continuing with the rural lifestyle. 

As in Alternative B, water rights held by landowners who do not wish to sell their land to the 

Service and/or who own land outside the Wapato Lake Unit boundary but rely on water 

conveyance and drainage systems under the operation of the WID would not be affected. 

Landowners along Wapato and Ayers Creeks will continue to utilize their existing water rights 

under the delivery authority of TVID, but the potential exists for the Service to purchase, lease, 

or transfer water rights with a conservation easement or a fee title purchase. 

4.5 Alternative D, a 4,310-Acre Wapato Lake Unit (Preferred Alternative) 

The Service’s preferred alternative includes the Wapato Lake lakebed, adjacent bottomland to 

the south (all lands included in Alternatives B and C), plus bottomland to the north. Additional 

lands to the north encompass the area roughly bounded by Spring Hill Road to the east and 

north, State Highway 47 to the west, an area of wetland immediately west of State Highway 47 

(east of Old Highway 47 and Lookingglass Drive), and Gaston Road on the south (see map on 

page 18). The action under this alternative is to restore: the Wapato Lake lakebed to herbaceous 

and scrub-shrub wetland habitats for migratory waterfowl and marsh and shorebirds; adjacent 

bottomland to native wet meadow and upland grassland communities for migratory marsh and 

wading birds and grassland birds; and riparian habitat for neotropical migrant songbirds, raptors, 

and other riparian-dependent species. 

Applicable to Alternatives D and E, a Joint Water Commission including the cities of Hillsboro, 

Forest Grove, Beaverton, and Tigard as well as the Tualatin Valley Water District and Clean 

Water Services are presently planning and investigating land acquisition options along a route 

for an eight-foot diameter pipeline that would intersect a small section of Alternative D and a 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

57 

larger section of Alternative E. Following Scoggins Creek and upon intersecting with Highway 

47, the pipeline would follow the eastern edge of the highway through the northwest portion of 

the Wapato Lake Unit boundary. Near Spring Hill Road, it would head easterly crossing the 

floodplain and terminate at one of the water treatment facilities. Acquisition options inside the 

Wapato Lake Unit boundary could include purchase of an easement for the footprint portion of 

the pipeline or purchase in fee of an entire property. Clean Water Services, a waste-water and 

storm-water public utility, has indicated an interest in exploring options of either selling or 

donating to the Service, portions of purchased properties if pipeline acquisitions are to proceed 

and determined later to be excess to their needs. Properties would need to be within the 

approved Wapato Lake Unit acquisition boundary and be approved for a lot line adjustment or 

partition by Washington County. This type of land use action is presently authorized by 

Washington County for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 

4.5.1 Physical Consequences

The Service could contribute to enhanced water quality through wetland enhancement and by 

restoring riparian areas along the Tualatin River. Should the Service be able to acquire 

manageable units of land for wetland enhancement, water from tributaries and surface runoff 

flowing onto the Wapato Lake Unit would be filtered through its wetlands. Nutrients such as 

nitrates would be metabolized by wetland vegetation, resulting in higher quality water entering 

the Tualatin River. 

Irrigation water rights are appurtenant to some of the land within the Wapato Lake Unit. These 

water rights could be used in the Wapato Lake Unit water management program through 

irrigation under existing or transferable rights to support wildlife enhancement. 

The potential exists for the Service to purchase, lease, or transfer water rights with a 

conservation easement or a fee title purchase. Transferring irrigation rights to other out-ofstream uses could benefit habitat, recreation, and water quality. Purchase, lease, or transfer of 

irrigation rights for instream purposes could enhance streamflows for the benefit of fish, aquatic 

wildlife, riparian habitat, water quality, and wetlands. 

Plant communities will be managed to provide long-term soil stabilization in most areas. 

Management of nonnative plant species may include mowing, discing, licensed herbicide 

application, or other similar treatments. 

4.5.2 Biological Consequences

Under this alternative, the Service would protect the areas described under Alternatives B and C. 

The additional lands in this alternative include intact riparian habitat along the Tualatin River 

and existing emergent and forested wetlands. Areas also exist that have the potential to be 

restored to riparian, wetland, wet meadow, and upland prairie habitat types. These areas would 

support a number of habitats rich in a diversity of species. Wetlands will provide habitat for 

many species of water-dependent birds, such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Some 

of the species that would benefit from forested habitats include birds of prey such as western 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

58 

screech owls, Cooper’s hawks, ospreys, and bald eagles; neotropical landbirds such as wood 

warblers, flycatchers, and vireos; and year round resident birds such as pileated woodpeckers, 

and chickadees. Riparian areas also support cavity nesting species and provide perch sites. 

Prairie habitats would support rare species endemic to western Oregon such as Kincaids lupine, 

Nelson’s checker mallow, and western meadowlarks. Amphibians such as salamanders and redlegged frogs; reptiles such as western pond turtles; and mammals such as river otters; would 

benefit from aquatic habitat restoration under this alternative. 

4.5.3 Socioeconomic Consequences 

Land Use 

Up to 2,063 acres of cropland in Washington County and 816 acres of cropland in Yamhill 

County could be removed from agriculture and restored and managed as wildlife habitat. This 

represents an average of 1.6 percent of the total cropland in Washington County, and 0.4 percent 

of all cropland in Yamhill County. These percentages are not a significant impact on the local 

economy compared to the total number of cropland acres in each county. 

Willing sellers within the boundary of this alternative would have the opportunity to sell their 

land to the Service. If the Service acquires property from willing sellers, acquired lands would 

be managed for fish and wildlife habitat. 

The land use would gradually be converted from almost entirely agriculture to native Willamette 

Valley habitat types that support a variety of wildlife species. Over time, the Unit under 

Alternative D would remain in an open space type use which would result in local communities 

continuing with the rural lifestyle. 

Under the preferred alternative, as in alternatives B and C, landowner’s water rights would not 

be affected if they do not wish to sell their land to the Service. Landowners outside the Wapato 

Lake Unit boundary and/or the boundary of the WID who rely on water conveyance and 

drainage systems of the district, will continue to utilize their existing water rights under the 

delivery authority of TVID. Both State-appropriated and TVID water rights associated with 

parcels inside the Wapato Lake Unit boundary would be eligible for purchase, lease, or transfer 

upon completion of a conservation easement or a fee title purchase. 

4.6 Alternative E, a 6,280-Acre Wapato Lake Unit

This is the alternative with the largest amount of acreage and includes most of the land within 

the original Study Area. The area includes all lands described in Alternatives B, C and D. In 

addition, lands to the north of Alternative D bounded by State Highway 47 on the west, a portion 

of Gales Creek between State Highway 47 and Old Highway 47, land south of the Forest Grove 

city limits, land south and east of Fern Hill Wetlands, and lands roughly west of Fern Hill Road 

are included in this alternative (see map on page 19). The action proposed under this alternative 

is to restore habitats within the previous alternatives as described and additional herbaceous 

wetland habitats, native wet meadow and upland grassland communities, and riparian habitat. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

59 

Alternative E encompasses the largest Wapato Lake Unit acreage. The additional portion of 

property is closest to urbanization. The close proximity to an urban area would expose the 

Wapato Lake Unit to feral animals such as dogs and cats that could disturb or kill wildlife. 

Additional factors associated with urban areas include trash, vandalism, and lights and noise that 

may disturb wildlife. 

Applicable to Alternatives D and E, a Joint Water Commission including the cities of Hillsboro, 

Forest Grove, Beaverton, and Tigard as well as the Tualatin Valley Water District and Clean 

Water Services are presently planning and investigating land acquisition options along a route 

for an eight-foot diameter pipeline that would intersect a small section of Alternative D and a 

larger section of Alternative E. Following Scoggins Creek and upon intersecting with Highway 

47, the pipeline would follow the eastern edge of the highway through the northwest portion of 

the Wapato Lake Unit boundary. Near Spring Hill Road, it would head easterly crossing the 

floodplain and terminate at one of the water treatment facilities. Acquisition options inside the 

Wapato Lake Unit boundary could include purchase of an easement for the footprint portion of 

the pipeline or purchase in fee of an entire property. Clean Water Services, a wastewater and 

storm-water public utility, has indicated an interest in exploring options of either selling or 

donating to the Service portions of purchased properties if pipeline acquisitions are to proceed 

and determined later to be excess to their needs. Properties would need to be within an approved 

Wapato Lake Unit acquisition boundary and be approved for a lot line adjustment or partition by 

Washington County. This type of land use action is presently authorized by Washington County 

for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 

4.6.1 Physical Consequences

The Service could contribute to enhanced water quality through wetland enhancement and by 

restoring riparian areas along Tualatin River. Should the Service be able to acquire manageable 

units of land for wetland enhancement, water from tributaries and surface runoff flowing onto 

the Wapato Lake Unit would be filtered through the Unit’s wetlands. Nutrients, such as nitrates, 

would be metabolized by wetland vegetation, resulting in higher quality water entering the 

Tualatin River. 

4.6.2 Biological Consequences

Gales Creek is part of Alternative E only. The creek and surrounding area would provide 

additional riparian habitat as well as the potential for restoring associated wetlands. This creek 

currently supports federally-listed threatened winter run steelhead trout. Restoration of lands 

adjacent to Gales Creek would likely improve water quality in both Gales Creek and the Tualatin 

River, benefiting steelhead and other native fish. Restoration of additional wetland, wet 

meadow, upland prairie, and riparian forest would provide additional habitat for species listed 

previously under Alternatives B, C, and D. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

60 

4.6.3 Socioeconomic Consequences 

Land Use 

 

Up to 3,592 acres of cropland in Washington County and 816 acres of cropland in Yamhill 

County could be removed from agriculture and restored and managed as wildlife habitat. This 

represents an average of 2.7 percent of the total cropland in Washington County and 0.4 percent 

of cropland in Yamhill County. These percentages are not a significant impact on the local 

economy compared to the total number of acres of cropland in each county. 

Willing sellers within the boundary of this alternative would have the opportunity to sell their 

land to the Service. If the Service could obtain funding to acquire property from willing sellers, 

acquired lands would be managed for fish and wildlife habitat. 

Land in this alternative may be subject to future expansion and annexation of Forest Grove 

and/or expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. As this city grows it is possible that 

expansion will occur within the Wapato Lake Unit boundary. 

The land use would gradually be converted from largely agriculture to native Willamette Valley 

habitat types that support a variety of wildlife species. Over time, the land under Alternative E 

would remain in an open space type use which would result in local communities continuing 

with the rural lifestyle. 

Under Alternative E, as in the other alternatives, landowner’s water rights would not be affected 

if they do not sell their land to the Service. Landowners outside the Wapato Lake Unit boundary 

and/or the boundary of the WID who rely on water conveyance and drainage systems of the WID 

will continue to utilize their existing water rights under the delivery authority of TVID. Both 

State-appropriated and TVID water rights associated with parcels inside the Wapato Lake Unit 

boundary would be eligible for purchase, lease, or transfer upon a conservation easement or a fee 

title purchase. 

4.7 Rationale for Selection of the Preferred Alternative

The smallest alternative, Alternative B, encompasses the core of the Wapato Lake Unit, the 

historic Wapato Lake lakebed. Each successive Wapato Lake Unit size (Alternatives C, D, and 

E) contains additional wildlife habitat and other attributes that were considered in the 

comparison of Alternatives as discussed below. 

Alternative D was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it would contribute the most to 

the purpose and need for establishing the Wapato Lake Unit. Immediately below is a discussion 

on the reasons why the No Action Alternative and Alternatives B, C, and E were not identified 

as the Preferred Alternative, followed by a discussion outlining why Alternative D was selected 

as the Preferred Alternative. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

61 

• The No Action Alternative provides little likelihood that important wildlife habitats would be 

protected, restored, and managed. 

• Alternatives B and C provide an opportunity for the Service to protect, restore, and manage 

the historic Wapato Lake lakebed, however, they provide minimal opportunity to protect and 

restore meandering riverine channels and riparian forest habitat along steam banks. These 

Alternatives do not provide any protection to intact riparian habitat along the Tualatin River 

and existing wetlands which play an important role in the improvement of water quality, 

stream temperature regulation, and control of sediment erosion. Additionally, these two 

Alternatives lack the diverse habitat types that support a much wider range of resident and 

migratory fish and wildlife species. 

• Alternative E allows the Service to provide much needed protection and restoration of habitat 

for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife species. However, this Alternative 

includes property close to the city of Forest Grove which could expose the Wapato Lake Unit 

to urban runoff, disturbances, trash, and vandalism problems. The Service determined that 

the risk of encroachment to the new Wapato Lake Unit is too high to justify selecting this 

Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. Much of the land in the northern part of Alternative 

E is owned and managed by Metro and Clean Water Services, and will likely be restored 

under their wildlife habitat programs. Providing wildlife habitat is an important program for 

these public agencies, but unlike lands of the Refuge System, they do not have a wildlife first 

mission allowing for greater flexibility in program policies. These policies could provide a 

means for granting an easement to construct and maintain a raw water pipeline of the Joint 

Water Commission presently being planned for routing across the Tualatin River floodplain 

from Highway 47 to facilities of Clean Water Services south of Fernhill Wetlands. This 

project would be subject to review under the compatibility policy of the Refuge System as a 

new easement on lands owned and administered by the Service. 

Alternative D has been identified as the Preferred Alternative because implementation of this 

Alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to: 

• Support the wide diversity of wildlife habitat types that could be protected and restored 

without exposing the Wapato Lake Unit to external threats while enhancing and contributing 

to habitat protection efforts on lands owned by Metro and Clean Water Services located to 

the north. Resource restoration and conservation efforts between Metro, Clean Water 

Services, and the Service could complement one another as well as leverage greater 

protection of wildlife habitat both inside and outside the Preferred Alternative boundary 

through collaborative partnership opportunities in securing grants and other financial 

resources. 

• Contribute to efforts across the Tualatin River basin to improve watershed health and 

function by protecting and restoring patches of rare remnant native habitat such as scrubshrub wetlands and Oregon ash riparian forest. These plant communities are representative 

examples of severely depleted habitats of the Willamette Valley. The Oregon Division of 

State Land’s Natural Heritage Program has referenced Oregon ash and scrub-shrub habitats 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

62 

as among the rarest which remain in the Valley and suggests they be considered the highest 

priority for protection because of their former historical status and range of importance for 

promoting biological diversity on a landscape scale. 

• Improve and protect fish habitat for two federally-listed species, spring-run Chinook salmon 

and winter-run steelhead. Mainstem and upper tributaries of the Tualatin River historically 

provided spawning, passage, and rearing habitat. This Alternative provides the opportunity 

to restore meandering riverine channels and riparian habitat along steam banks as well as 

wetlands within the historic Wapato Lake lakebed that will improve water quality and 

enhance migration passage functions of the Tualatin River. 

• Protect and restore important migratory bird habitat, especially for wintering waterfowl. The 

bald eagle, a federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act, would benefit from 

restored habitats and enhanced foraging opportunities. When flooded in fall and winter, the 

Wapato Lake lakebed provided foraging and roosting winter habitat for large numbers of 

tundra swans (800 were counted in December 1987), mallards, pintails, canvasbacks, ringnecked ducks, lesser scaup, and several varieties of Canada geese. Six of the seven Canada 

goose subspecies present in western Oregon have been recorded at Wapato Lake; western, 

dusky, lesser, Taverner’s, cackling, and Aleutian. Aleutian Canada geese have been sighted 

several times. Numerous species of shorebirds and other marsh birds frequent the area for 

foraging and resting habitat during spring and fall migration. In addition, riparian areas and 

mixed deciduous/coniferous forest located in this Alternative provide breeding habitat for 

neotropical landbird species and raptors, and shelter for resident mammal, amphibian, and 

reptile populations.

• Provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education to enhance 

public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the Wapato Lake Unit’s fish, wildlife, 

and plant habitats. 

• Contribute to the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System to benefit present and future 

generations of Americans. 

• Support the goals of the 1986 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 1986 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act, the 1989 North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 

and the 2000 Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan. 

The Land Protection Priorities Table and Tract Maps (see Appendix A) identify and prioritize 

the tracts located in the action Alternatives (Alternatives B through E). The tracts are identified 

in the Table first by Tract Map # and secondly by Landowner Name. The last column of the 

Table identifies the protection priority of each tract, as Priority 1, Priority 2, Priority 3, or 

Priority 4 based on a combination of factors such as existing habitat values, habitat restoration 

potential, location within the Unit, and current and anticipated land use. 
Wapato Lake Unit Environmental Assessment 

63 

4.8 Cumulative Impacts 

As described in detail in this EA, the Wapato Lake Unit in concert with other Service, Metro, 

and Clean Water Services land and habitat protection efforts in the area would have long-term 

cumulative benefits for wildlife and their habitats throughout the northern Willamette Valley. 

However, the benefits of land acquisition and associated habitat restoration and management 

would be limited in light of continuing development and commensurate loss of open space 

within the northern Willamette Valley. Thus, the acquisition and management of lands in the 

Wapato Lake Unit as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System does not represent a 

significant impact on the human environment.

Wapato Lake Unit 64 Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND 

COMPLIANCE

5.1 Public Involvement 

The establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit has been discussed with landowners; conservation 

organizations; Federal, Tribal, State, county, and city governments and other local organizations, 

interested groups, and individuals. 

The Service has invited and continues to encourage public participation through the public 

involvement process consisting of public notices and meetings with potentially affected 

landowners, government agencies, private organizations, and individuals. Public meetings were 

held on November 7 and December 5, 2001, at Gaston High School. Planning updates were 

distributed in October 2001, April 2002, December 2002, December 2003, and December 2005. 

As part of the public notice and review process, the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Wapato Lake Unit, Draft Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment was available 

for a 30-day review and comment period starting in April 2006. A public open house was held 

on May 4, 2006 in Gaston, Oregon where Service employees were available to discuss the 

project, answer questions and receive public comment. The public comment period concluded 

on May 31, 2006. 

5.2 Environmental Review and Consultation

In establishing the Wapato Lake Unit, the Service will comply with Federal laws, regulations, 

and executive orders. The following section describes specifically how the establishment of the 

Wapato Lake Unit is in compliance with the NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and other Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders. 

5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of the 1969 NEPA, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). An environmental analysis is required under NEPA to evaluate 

reasonable alternatives that will meet stated objectives, and to assess the possible environmental, 

social, and economic impacts to the human environment. The environmental assessment serves 

as the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would constitute a 

major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The 

environmental assessment facilitates the involvement of government agencies and the public in 

the decision making process. 

5.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act

The Service would follow established procedures for protecting cultural resources if the Wapato 

Lake Unit is established. This includes complying with the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469) and other cultural resource preservation laws, and consulting with the 
Wapato Lake Unit 65 Environmental Assessment 

State Historic Preservation Office and appropriate Native American Tribes for any future 

restoration and management actions which may have the potential to affect historic properties. 

5.2.3 Endangered Species Act 

Establishment of an approved refuge boundary does not represent a Federal action which would 

affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-

1544). The Service will conduct consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for 

any refuge management program actions which have the potential to affect listed species. 

5.2.4 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

In undertaking the proposal, the Service will comply with the following Federal laws, 

executive orders, and legislative acts: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (Executive 

Order 12372); Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties (Executive 

Order 11593); Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988); Protection of Wetlands 

(Executive Order 11990); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); Management and General Public Use 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Executive Order 12996); Departmental Policy on 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 3127); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as 

amended; National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175). 

5.2.5 Distribution and Availability 

Copies of this LCP/EA have been distributed to Federal and State legislative delegations, Tribes, 

agencies, county and city governments, affected landowners, private groups, and other interested 

individuals (see Appendix B for the notification list). Copies of the final document are available 

by contacting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 911 NE 11th Avenue, 

Portland, Oregon 97232 (telephone 503-231-2231). The documents can also be viewed on the 

Service’s website at http://pacific.fws.gov/pacific/planning. 
Wapato Lake Unit 66 Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES 

Adamus, P.R., K. Larson, G. Gillson, and C.R. Miller. 2001. Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas. 

Oregon Field Ornithologists, P.O. Box 10373, Eugene, OR. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western 

Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy, Boring, OR. 

Associated Press. 2002. Managers study Indian methods of burning land. The Statesman 

Journal, June 10, 2002. Salem, OR. 

Baar and Cunningham. 1920. Report on Wapato Lake Drainage Project near Gaston, Oregon. 

Unpublished. 

Campbell, B. 2001. Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program. Oregon Wildlife 

57: 26-28. 

Chappell, C.B., R.C. Crawford, C. Barrett, J. Kagan, D.H. Johnson, M. O’Mealy, G.A. Green, 

H.L. Ferguson, W.D. Edge, E.L. Greda, and T. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, 

status, trends, and system dynamics. In Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil, eds., Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Christy, J.A., E.R. Alverson, M.P. Dougherty, S.C. Kolar, C.W. Alton, S.M. Hawes, L. 

Ashkenas and P. Minear. 2005. Historical vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1851-

1910. ArcMap shapefile, Version 7.0. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology, 

Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, and National 

Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from 

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309074320/html/R1.html#pagetop. 

Cook, S.F. 1955. The Epidemic of 1830-33 in California and Oregon. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Services publication, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-79-31. 

Daggett, S.G., M.E. Boule, J.A. Bernert, J.M. Eilers, E. Blok, D. Peters, and J. Morlan. 1998. 

Report to the Oregon Division of Lands. Wetland and Land Use Change in the Willamette 

Valley, Oregon 1982 to 1994. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 
Wapato Lake Unit 67 Environmental Assessment 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United 

States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Drut, M.S., and J. B. Buchanan. 2000. Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Portland, OR, and 

Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, Washington. 

Follansbee, J.A. and F. Musick. 1977. A cultural resources survey for the Gaston-Forest Grove 

sewer project. Unpublished. 

Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NW Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Portland, OR. 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of 

wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s. Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Friesen, T. A., and D.L. Ward. 1995. Status and condition of fish populations in streams of the 

Tualatin River Basin, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, OR. 

Grosselink, J.G., and R.E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in fresh water wetland systems. 

 Pages 63-67 in R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater wetlands, 

ecological processes and management potential. Academic Press, New York, NY. 

Gregory, S.V., and J.R. Sedell. 1994. Analysis of past, present, and future stresses on the 

ecological resources of the mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon. Unpublished proposal to EPA. 

The Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. 2002. An introduction and user=s guide to 

wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement. Preprint, Silver Spring, MD. 

Johnson, M. 1994. The Native American Tribes of North America: A Concise Encyclopedia. 

Macmillan, New York, NY. 

Johnson, O. 1999. The Kalapuya. Retrieved April 3, 2002, from 

http://www.usgennet.org/alhnorus/ahorclak/kalapuyas.html. 

Noss, R.F., and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a status report 

and plan for action. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 
Wapato Lake Unit 68 Environmental Assessment 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Oregon native fish status report. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2001. Tualatin River subbasin TMDL. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Portland, OR. 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 2003. 2001-2003 Oregon Plan Biennial Report. 

Salem, OR. 

Rich, T.D., et al. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Roth, E., B. Taylor, and E. Scheuering. 2004. Pacific Coast Joint Venture Implementation Plan: 

draft Willamette Valley. Oregon Habitat Joint Venture, West Linn, OR. 

Shaich, J.A. 2000. Wetland Regulatory Compliance in the Willamette Valley, Oregon: 1982 to 

1994. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR. 

Trost, R.E., et al. 2005. 2004 Pacific Flyway Data Book. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR. 

Tualatin River Watershed Council. 1999. Tualatin River Watershed Action Plan and Technical 

Supplement. Tualatin River Watershed Council, Hillsboro, OR. 

Tualatin Valley Water District. 2004. Final ReportBRouting Analysis and Preliminary 

Environmental Review, Tualatin Valley Water District, Beaverton, OR. 

USFWS. 2000. Restoration of Hydrology and Native Vegetation Metro-Morand Property, 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Sherwood, OR.

USDA. 1982. Soils Survey of Washington County, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, OR. 

Zenk, H. 1994. Tualatin Kalapuyan villages: the ethnographic record. In contributions to the 

Archaeology of Oregon, 1989-1994. Association of Oregon Archaeologists, Occasional Papers 

Number 5. Paul W. Baxter, editor. University Printing Office, University of Oregon, Eugene, 

OR. 

Appendix A. 

Land Protection 

Priorities Map, Tract Maps, 

and Priorities Table 

Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

Produced by the Refuge Information Branch

NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 6/20/2006

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 06-147-1.mxd

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

N

Valley R

L

d

aughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW Spr ni g

Bates Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley

Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Wapato Lake Unit

Land Conservation Plan Priorities

Priority 1 - 1488 Acres - 53 Landowners

Priority 2 - 1105 Acres - 19 Landowners

Priority 3 - 1717 Acres - 33 Landowners

LEGEND

Total of Priority 1,2,3 = 4,310 Acres

Wapato Lake Unit 1 Appendix A
Wapato Lake Unit 2 Appendix A
Gales Creek

Little Russell Creek

Tualatin River

Scoggins Creek

Hill Creek

Forest Grove

Carnation

Detour

Dilley

Seghers

Patton

Wapato

Dewey

Cove Orchard

Blooming

SW Stringtown Rd

SW Blooming Fernhill Rd

Old

Highway

47

Laurelwood

Tualatin River

Goodin Creek

Ayers Creek

!(47

!(47

FOREST GROVE Cornelius

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

Wapato Lake Unit

of Tualatin River

National Wildlife Refuge

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

File: 05-213-1.mxd

Washington County

Yamhill County

Washington County

Yamhill County

SW

Fernhill Rd

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW

Burgarsky Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

S

SW

R

eghers

d

SW Withycombe Rd

Gaston Rd

Laurelwood Rd

Road

Dopp Rd

Laughlin

Ridge Rd

Albertson

Road

Flett Rd

Wapato School

Rd

N

E

Spring Hill Rd

Flett Rd

Goodin

Creek Rd

SW Spring Hill Rd

Hill Rd

SW

Spr ni

Ba

g

tes Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley Rd

Rd

Valley

SW

Patton

SW

0 500 1,000 2,000 Meters

0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet

Gaston

Dellwood

Wapato Cr

Wapato Cr

Fernhill

Wetlands

Wapato Lake Unit of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge - Tract Map Index

Tract Map 1

Tract Map 2

Tract Map 3

Wapato Lake Unit 3 Appendix A
Patton

Old

Highway 47

Tualatin River

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

File: 05-213-3.mxd

10

15b

15

16

17

18

15a

13

12

11

19

20 21

22

23

13a

13a

24

22a

37

37a

25

25

32

27

26

30

28

29

31

31

33

35

36

34

34

34a

39

42

42

38

3

37b

37c

39

40

41

SW Fernhill Road

Scoggins Cr

SW Sandstrom Rd

SW Burgarsky Rd

!(47

SW Spring Hill Rd

SW Seghers Rd

SW Seghers Rd

SW Patton Rd

Old Highway 47

SW Patton Valley Rd

SW Scoggins

Valley Rd

SW Vandehey Rd

SW Withycombe Rd

Bates Rd

Gaston

SW Gaston Rd

Dixon Mill Rd

SW Hardebeck Road

Road

SW Spring

Hill

Old Highway 47 !(47

Old Highway 47

Tualatin River

See

Tract Map 2

0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet

0 220 440 880 Meters

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

108

Wapato Lake Unit of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge - Tract Map 1

Wapato Lake Unit 4 Appendix A
Patton

Wapato

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

File: 05-213-4.mxd

Yamhill County

76 Washington County

75

74

610a 610

610b

77

78

72

4

74a

73

50a

62

59

58

63

64

53a

69

68

71

70

67

66

65

64

47

46

45

43

44a

44

49

48

63

48b 60 61 60a

59a

58a

38b

38a

38a

38a

38a

38a

38a

104

44b

50

49a

57

56

56b

56a

56c

38d

60b

34b

34c

58b

58c

58d

58e

38c

55

48a 54

48c

53

51

50b

52

38e

52a

52b

53b

610C/58f

Tualatin River

Wapato Creek

Wapato Creek

Goodin Cr

Little Russell

Cr

Goodin Creek Rd

Phillips Rd

!(47

NE Spring Hill Road

SW

Spring

Hill Road

Laurelwood Rd

La Salle Rd

Dixon Mill Rd

Copenhaver Rd

Matteson Rd

SW

Gaston Rd

SW Withycombe

Rd

SW Hardebeck

Rd

SW Spr ni g

Rd

Hill

O

SW Patton Rd ld Highway 47

Bates Rd

Gaston

SW

Spring Hill

Rd

See

Tract Map 1

See

Tract Map 3

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 Meters

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Wapato Lake Unit of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge - Tract Map 2

Wapato Lake Unit 5 Appendix A
Wapato

Dewey

Wapato School

Road

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Info

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

503.231.6221 7/6/2006

File: 05-213-5.mxd

Washington County

Yamhill County

100

99

98

99a

98a

101

102

103

97

96

95a

95

94

92

90

91

93

89

88

87

75a

86

85

84

83

77

78

79

79a

80

81

82

82a

!(47

Phillips Rd

Flett Road

Ri

Flett Road

dge Road

NE

Spring

Hill Road

Laughlin Road

Laughlin Road

Albertson Rd

Dopp Rd

North Valley Road

See

Tract Map 2

Wapato Lake Unit of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge - Tract Map 3

0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet

0 225 450 900 Meters

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Wapato Lake Unit 6 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

1 1S4250000800 34 BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 46.1 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000900 34 BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 59.87 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350000300 34 BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 28.1 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350001400 34a BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 25.62 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350001500 34a BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 9.17 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350001600 34a BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 16.65 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000700 26 BOUNEFF ANTHONY B 67.71 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000200 21 CASTER MARY LOU 2.15 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA00200 16 CORNETT DAVID & 4.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000704 42 EMBREE SHIRLEY 0.96 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000709 42 EMBREE SHIRLEY 7.71 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000400 19 FRAME HAROLD R & BETTY LOU 3.6 WASHINGTON 1 1S4130003300 11 FRANCK JACKIE D AND SHARON 3.13 WASHINGTON 1 1S4130003401 11 FRANCK JACKIE D AND SHARON 0.1 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000600 3 GASTON CITY OF 1 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350003502 41 GATEWOOD CHARLES A/MARY H % GARZA 0.56 WASHINGTON 

1 1S4260000301 30 GERDES STANLEY E & ALMEDA L 9.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S4130003200 10 GRAFT JIM 29.2 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000300 37,a HARDEBECK ANTONIOUS EDMUND & 62 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000200 37b,c HARDEBECK ANTONIOUS EDMUND & 148.26 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000900 23 HAWORTH HALLY L & MARY L 79.12 WASHINGTON 1 1S4230002400 13 HUTCHINSON KENT & PEGGY 31.82 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000500 13 HUTCHINSON KENT & PEGGY 51.08 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000601 13 HUTCHINSON KENT & PEGGY 244.22 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260000101 13 HUTCHINSON KENT & PEGGY 0.26 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA00100 15 KNECHT CLIFFORD C & SHARON K 4.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA00500 15a KNECHT CLIFFORD C & SHARON K 4.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA0600 15b KNECHT CLIFFORD C & SHARON K 5.4 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA00300 17 KUPRES JOSEPH J 4.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000600 32 LILLEGARD JAMES L & THOMAS LEE 19.7 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260000303 31 MCCARTHY CELINE 9.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260000304 31 MCCARTHY CELINE 37.5 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260001300 31 MCCARTHY CELINE 1 WASHINGTON 

Wapato Lake Unit 7 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

1 1S4240000800 24 MEIWES BETTY 5.7 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260000200 29 OEI ROY H & SHERIAN L 0.86 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000501 27 OGLESBY DOUGLAS R AND 2.93 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000400 25 OLD HAYES FARM LLC ET AL 149.48 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000401 25 OLD HAYES FARM LLC ET AL 7.98 WASHINGTON 1 1S423AA00400 18 PAYNE ROGER M & BEVERLY D 4.8 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260001100 33 ROHRER DAVID C/CAROLE M 42.01 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350000200 35 SCOTT HAL W AND CLYTALEE 2.32 WASHINGTON 1 1S4260000100 28 TOLSON GERALDINE 9.3 WASHINGTON 1 1S435DB00101 40 VAN DYKE ARTHUR E & DORIS R 1.6 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000300 20 VIRCHOW RICHARD C 3.45 WASHINGTON 1 1S4130003400 12 WARD MICHAEL/CAROLE 2.78 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350001700 39 WISMER FAMILY TRUST & 13.25 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350003500 39 WISMER FAMILY TRUST & 3 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350003503 39 WISMER FAMILY TRUST & 0.52 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350003504 39 WISMER FAMILY TRUST & 0.99 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000500 39 WISMER FAMILY TRUST & 89.37 WASHINGTON 1 1S4350000100 36 ZAIGER JOHN EDITH 1.47 WASHINGTON 1 1S4360000300 36 ZAIGER JOHN EDITH 100.16 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000600 22 ZURCHER GWENDOLYN L TRUSTEE 63 WASHINGTON 1 1S4240000701 22 ZURCHER GWENDOLYN L TRUSTEE 51.13 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000100 22a ZURCHER GWENDOLYN L TRUSTEE 132.04 WASHINGTON 1 1S4250000200 22a ZURCHER GWENDOLYN L TRUSTEE 1 WASHINGTON 

1,2 1S4360000400 38, 38a WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DIST 7.03 WASHINGTON 

2 2S4010001305 60b BATES DONALD 22.56 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001306 60b BATES DONALD 24.45 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001307 34b BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI 21.54 WASHINGTON 2 21947 34c BATES FARM FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 2.5 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001504 60 BATES RONALD H 22.76 WASHINGTON 2 19148 60a BATES RONALD H 10.97 YAMHILL 2 21935 77 BEECHER JAMES A & MARILYN G 45 YAMHILL 2 19147 59a BEELER RUTH L TRUSTEE FOR 1 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001503 59 BEELER RUTH LILLIAN TRUSTEE 15.26 WASHINGTON 

Wapato Lake Unit 8 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

2 2S4010001301 63 BIGGINS GENE R & CAROLYN M 35.43 WASHINGTON 2 2S3070002100 75 BOUTARD ANTHONY & CAROLINE BLAC 111.74 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001100 68 BRYANT RONALD L 28.68 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010000800 71 CATE WYMAN K 34.1 WASHINGTON 2 21936 78 COBLE JACKIE R & BEVERLY J 4 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001304 56a CROP LOIS G REVOCABLE TRUST 24.91 WASHINGTON 2 21924 56 CROP LOIS G REVOCABLE TRUST 59.3 YAMHILL 2 21311 56c CROP LOIS G REVOCABLE TRUST 77.4 YAMHILL 2 21945 56b CROP LOIS G TRUSTEE FOR 1 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001400 57 CROP WILLIAM C LOIS G 13 WASHINGTON 2 29643 54 CROSSMAN DAVID L & EVELYN R 5.07 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001505 62 DAVIS CLAUD & 31 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001200 66 FF ACQUISITIONS LLC 10.39 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001201 66 FF ACQUISITIONS LLC 5.75 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000701 49 FISHER DEAN 3.75 WASHINGTON 2 19142 49a FISHER DEAN 0.3 YAMHILL 2 2S4010000900 70 FREEMAN DOUGLAS K 36.86 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001303 53a,b FURUKAWA MARGARET TR & 47.14 WASHINGTON 2 29505 52a FURUKAWA NOBI & RENA J 1.75 YAMHILL 2 29506 52b FURUKAWA NOBI & RENA J 1.75 YAMHILL 2 30275 52 FURUKAWA NOBI & RENA J 1/2 0.15 YAMHILL 2 30276 53 FURUKAWA PETER & MARGARET L TRUST 0.25 YAMHILL 

2 1S4360000707 63 GONZALEZ SERGIO 23.59 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000703 48 HEESACKER WILLIAM JR & 15.76 WASHINGTON 2 29644 48a HEESACKER WILLIAM M JR & MADELYN 0.7 YAMHILL 2 29645 48a HEESACKER WILLIAM M JR & MADELYN 0.75 YAMHILL 2 29646 48a HEESACKER WILLIAM M JR & MADELYN 0.59 YAMHILL 2 30274 48c HEESACKER WILLIAM M JR & MADELYN 0.41 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001501 48b HEESACKER WM M JR ET AL 40 WASHINGTON 2 30273 51 HOCKERSMITH ROBERT 0.59 YAMHILL 2 21939 74a HUSERIK F ANTHONY 32.43 YAMHILL 2 2S3070001500 74 HUSERIK F ANTHONY AND 125.45 WASHINGTON 2 1S436D001400 46 LOSEY GARY M & JOV 3.66 WASHINGTON 

Wapato Lake Unit 9 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

2 1S436D001900 64 MCELLIOTT RICHARD T & 1.36 WASHINGTON 2 1S436D001800 47 MELER JAMES A JR AND 6.27 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001502 61 OTT PAUL F/WANDA M TRS 12 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001000 69 PEDEMONTE MICHAEL D/GAYLE 15.94 WASHINGTON 2 1S436D002000 65 PERRY ROBERT N 1.39 WASHINGTON 2 1S436D001200 43 PRINCE JAMES S AND KAREN A 1.38 WASHINGTON 2 19145 44b REESE DENNIS W & SUSAN 3.14 YAMHILL 2 1S4360000705 44 REESE DENNIS W/SUSAN 76.31 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001508 44 REESE DENNIS W/SUSAN 1.22 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000706 44a REESE DENNIS W/SUSAN 6.5 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001202 67 RICHTER TRACY M 12.61 WASHINGTON 2 2S3070001300 72 ROBB BETTY J TRUSTEE & 68.72 WASHINGTON 2 21937 73 ROBB CLARABELLE E TRUST 45.4% & 9.7 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001506 58 SPRY ALFRED 19.12 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001300 58b SPRY ALFRED 6.9 WASHINGTON 2 2S3070001400 58f SPRY ALFRED 50.64 WASHINGTON 2 19150 58a SPRY ALFRED 0.88 YAMHILL 2 21946 58c SPRY ALFRED 29.1 YAMHILL 2 21933 58d SPRY ALFRED L 8 YAMHILL 2 21930 58e SPRY ALFRED L 97 YAMHILL 2 21943 58c SPRY ALFRED L 43.2 YAMHILL 2 29507 55 STONECIPHER WAYNE & JANET P 1.1 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001309 610b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12.35 WASHINGTON 2 2S4010001310 610b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0.3 WASHINGTON 2 21941 610 USA OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY 62.9 YAMHILL 2 21942 610 USA OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY 24 YAMHILL 2 21938 610a USA OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY 11.7 YAMHILL 2 19146 50 VAN DYKE ALVIN & ELAINE 7.37 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001500 50a VAN DYKE ALVIN J 25.36 WASHINGTON 2 30271 50 VAN DYKE ALVIN J 0.6 YAMHILL 2 30272 50 VAN DYKE ALVIN J 0.35 YAMHILL 2 2S3060000402 104 WALTERS THEODORE W/JOANNE R TRS 58.02 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000702 38a WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DIST 15.13 WASHINGTON 

Wapato Lake Unit 10 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

2 2S4010001308 38a,c,d,e WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DIST 16.18 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000700 38a WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1.81 WASHINGTON 2 1S4360000708 38a WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 15.16 WASHINGTON 2 19144 38b WAPATO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 11.3 YAMHILL 2 2S4010001302 64 WATENPAUGH J A & DARLENE M 15.32 WASHINGTON 2 2S3070002300 76 WOELL EDNA I AND 3.67 WASHINGTON 2 21940 4 YAMHILL COUNTY 0.66 YAMHILL 2 1S436D001300 45 YONTZ ERLING W 3.74 WASHINGTON 3 22249 77 BEECHER JAMES A & MARILYN G 0.34 YAMHILL 3 22250 77 BEECHER JAMES A & MARILYN G 26.1 YAMHILL 3 220582 75a BOUTARDANTHONY & CAROLINE B 32.7 YAMHILL 3 220586 88 BULENE & MCGRAW 38.7 YAMHILL 3 220604 90 CARNAHAN SHIRLEY B LIVING TRUST 11.3 YAMHILL 3 220597 95 COOPER GARY N 26.2 YAMHILL 3 220686 95a COOPER GARY N 31 YAMHILL 3 22276 81 CUNNINGHAM LORI M 4.55 YAMHILL 3 220595 92 DOLSEN FREDERICK J 26.9 YAMHILL 3 22252 84 FRUIN ROBERT L 37.5 YAMHILL 3 220599 94 GONZALES HILL DENISE S 40.3 YAMHILL 3 223143 103 JOHNS MICHAEL S & HOLLY I 75.4 YAMHILL 3 22275 82 KINNEY ALVIN L & CHARLOTTE L 42.82 YAMHILL 3 22274 82a KINNEY ALVIN L & CHARLOTTE L 42.82 YAMHILL 3 220581 89 LMCA FARM LLC 315.2 YAMHILL 3 220587 89 LMCA FARM LLC 12.5 YAMHILL 3 220697 102 MAR VINEYARD LLC SO 40.48 YAMHILL 3 220684 97 OBERG MARION E & CHARLOTTE 30 YAMHILL 3 220685 97 OBERG MARION E & CHARLOTTE 46.6 YAMHILL 3 22253 85 REZVANI NADER 83.82 YAMHILL 3 221058 100 ROE CHARLES B JR 1/2 & 43 YAMHILL 3 220676 99 ROE E ELLEN & ROBERT B TRUSTEES FOR 70 YAMHILL 

3 221059 99 ROE E ELLEN & ROBERT B TRUSTEES FOR 30.5 YAMHILL 

3 221060 99 ROE E ELLEN & ROBERT B TRUSTEES FOR 1.01 YAMHILL 3 220679 99a ROE E ELLEN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 12.25 YAMHILL 

Wapato Lake Unit 11 Appendix A
TRACT MAP # COUNTY APN TRACT # LANDOWNER NAME ACRES COUNTY 

3 220681 98 ROE HARDING T 1/2 20.75 YAMHILL 3 220683 98 ROE HARDING T 1/2 34.5 YAMHILL 3 220682 98a ROE HARDING T 1/2 34.5 YAMHILL 3 223167 101 ROE ROBERT B REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS 100.5 YAMHILL 

3 220585 87 SHARP ETHEL M TRUSTEE FOR 21 YAMHILL 3 220584 86 STABLES JOHN D & CARLA J 43 YAMHILL 3 22270 80 STATE BANK COLUMBIA 12.8 YAMHILL 3 22260 78 STEELE ALEXANDER & WILLETTE 51.2 YAMHILL 3 22264 79 STEELE GEORGE S 30.8 YAMHILL 3 22269 79a STEELE GEORGE S 30.8 YAMHILL 3 22261 79 STEELE GEORGE S 53.4 YAMHILL 3 32637 79a STEELE GEORGE S 53.4 YAMHILL 3 220687 96 STILLER CHARLES G & REVA L 49.6 YAMHILL 3 22251 83 STILLER KORLY L & VICKI 21 YAMHILL 3 220596 93 TWIGG ROBERT E & DONNA J 38 YAMHILL 3 220601 91 YIELDING ALAN R & KATHLEEN 19.2 YAMHILL 

Wapato Lake Unit 12 Appendix A
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix B 1

Appendix B. Notification List 

for the Environmental Assessment 

Federal and State Congressional Offices

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden 

U.S. Senator Gordon Smith 

U.S. Congressman David Wu 

Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Bonneville Power Administration 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Tribal Agencies

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde

State of Oregon Agencies

Office of the Governor 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Water Resources 

Oregon Division of State Lands 

Oregon Land Conservation and Development 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Oregon Department of Forestry 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix B 2

Local Agencies

Washington County Board of County Commissioners 

Yamhill County Board of County Commissioners 

Metropolitan Service District 

Clean Water Services 

Gaston Rural Fire District 

Gaston School District 

City of Forest Grove 

City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services 

Organizations

Pacific University 

Tualatin Riverkeepers 

Friends of Trees 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

Audubon Society of Portland 

American Birding Association 

Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

Wapato Lake Improvement District 

Upper Tualatin River Improvement District 

Tualatin Valley Irrigation District 

Tualatin River Watershed Council 

Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture 

Oregon Farm Bureau 

Team Gaston 

Trout Unlimited 

Association of Northwest Steelheaders 

The Conservation Fund 

River Network 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wetlands Conservancy 

Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and Beaverton Utilities 

Trust for Public Lands 

Raindrops to Refuge 

David Evans and Associates 

Private Individuals 

Landowners 

Private Citizens 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 1

Appendix C. Response to Comments 

In this section, we summarize and respond to the comments received on the Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Wapato Lake Unit, Draft Land Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (April 2006). Copies of this document were distributed to the 

contacts listed in Appendix B as well as being posted on the Service’s regional website. The 

public comment period was April 21–May 31, 2006. Midway through the public comment 

period, the Service held an open house on May 4, 2006, in Gaston, Oregon, to describe the 

proposed action, answer questions and receive and respond to public comments in person. The 

purposes of public outreach were to identify and analyze the public’s perspective on proposed 

Unit management and alternatives being considered for protecting the Wapato Lake area. In 

addition to the public comments voiced at the open house, the Service received written 

comments in the form of letters and e-mail messages. The public comments received and 

Service responses, organized by subject area, are provided below. 

Comment Topic: Establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit 

Many commenters supported establishing the Wapato Lake Unit without specifying a preferred 

alternative. Several commenters specifically expressed support for habitat restoration at the 

Wapato Lake Unit. 

One commenter stated a preference for Alternative C because there would be less loss of 

farmland, leaving out areas east of Tualatin River and north of Gaston Road, but still retaining 

the rural character of the Wapato Lake area, restoring wildlife corridors, and providing habitat 

for migratory birds. 

Many commenters supported Alternative D, the Service’s preferred alternative. Some 

commenters stated they agree with the rationale that led to choosing Alternative D during the 

planning process. One viewed Alternative D as more cost effective. Another supported 

Alternative D because the alternative encompasses the majority of the wetlands and upper 

drainage without overlapping with lands owned by other public agencies. One commenter 

supported Alternative D because it includes the historic Wapato Lake and upper Tualatin River 

floodplain as an addition to the Willamette Valley’s very limited existing network of 

conservation lands, and for the fact that Service acquisition would protect valuable natural 

remnants of the Tualatin River floodplain and set the stage for large-scale restoration of 

important habitat types now rare in the Willamette Valley. Another commenter expressed that 

acquisition of the lands under Alternative D could create one of the most important wildlife 

habitat complexes in the Willamette Valley and provide benefits for the waterfowl associated 

with the historic Wapato Lake wetlands. A few commenters pointed out the benefits of 

Alternative D to water quality, flood hazard reduction, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. 

The Joint Water Commission’s (JWC) supports Alternative D but expressed concern that 

including JWC property within the refuge boundary could create serious obstacles to 

construction to the pipeline and would prefer that JWC property not be included in Alternative 

D. One commenter requested the Service add a piece of upland prairie/oak savanna east of 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 2

Spring Hill Road and south of SW Gaston Road to the proposed boundary and another 

commenter suggested that lands between the Clean Water Plant and Springhill Road be added to 

the proposed boundary. 

Many comments the Service received supported Alternative E stating that this Alternative would 

provide the broadest conservation, connectivity, and partnerships. One commenter pointed out 

the importance of lower Gales Creek to native, wild, and federally-listed steelhead spawning and 

rearing as well as coastal cutthroat trout. Another commenter said Gales Creek supports the 

healthiest populations of federally-listed Upper Willamette River steelhead and spring Chinook 

salmon in the Tualatin River Basin. Other commenters brought out the conservation benefits of 

Alternative E to waterfowl, raptors, neotropical birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, wildlifeoriented recreation, greenway corridors, non-motorized trails, bottomland riparian forests, scrub 

shrub wetlands, water quality, and the Wapato lake/marsh wetland complex. 

Several commenters said they wanted to see the Service compliment the efforts of Metro and the 

Fernhill Wetlands Council in implementing Alternative E to reduce costs, provide cohesive 

management and delivery of services, focus volunteers, and public access. Additional reasons 

commenters gave for Alternative E included benefits to the community around Forest Grove, 

temporary natural water storage, flood control, greater stream shade and water quality for fish 

and wildlife, and wildlife recreation. 

Some commenters disagreed with the Service’s rationale for preferring Alternative D suggesting 

instead that the impacts of adjacency to an urban area would be manageable. One expressed 

concern that Clean Water Services and Metro, who might otherwise purchase the property, have 

missions other than conservation. Some commenters said Alternative E would facilitate more 

partner collaboration, further more stewardship, and support much more education and research. 

Service Response. The Service acknowledges the greater potential for wildlife conservation and 

partnerships associated with Alternative E, however, Alternative D remains the Service’s 

preferred alternative based on issues described in the EA. We note that much of the northern 

area of Alternative E is already in public ownership and could be restored under Metro and Clean 

Water Services programs. In addition, we believe that through cooperative conservation efforts 

with Metro, cities, and other local organizations, the Service can achieve desired habitat 

protection and open space goals. Based on the Service’s experience with other refuges, urban 

related concerns can be substantively problematic. 

Another reason the Service identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative is because lands 

identified for the construction of a raw water pipeline have yet to be acquired for that purpose. If 

the Service acquired lands prior to pipeline rights of way being established, future construction 

of the pipeline across portions of Alternative E would likely present a substantial compatibility 

conflict for the Service (see page 10, section 1.7.6. of the LCP/EA). 

Although the JWC already owns property within Alternative D, the JWC stated that it preferred 

that JWC property not be included within Alternative D due to concerns that being within the 

refuge boundary could create serious obstacles to construction of the pipeline. The Service 

recognizes the importance of the long-range planning of the JWC and other agencies for meeting 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 3

municipal needs of water through the year 2050. It is important to note that designation of the 

Service approved refuge boundary does not preclude landowners from developing or otherwise 

using their property in a manner consistent with local zoning and regulatory provisions. 

Landowners within an approved refuge boundary retain all the rights, privileges, and 

responsibilities of private land ownership including the rights to access the property, control 

trespass, sell to any party, and develop their properties. Since designation of an approved refuge 

boundary would not create obstacles for pipeline construction and since the pipeline is one of 

several alternatives being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation, State, and local jurisdictions 

for meeting municipal water needs through the year 2050, the Service believes modifying the 

preferred alternative boundary is not warranted. 

Alternative D, the preferred alternative, supports the greatest biological diversity and array of 

wildlife and habitats without exposing the proposed Wapato Lake Unit to encroachment or 

external threats. Additionally, Alternative D, the preferred alternative, contributes to efforts 

across the Tualatin River basin to improve watershed health and function by protecting and 

restoring rare native habitats such as scrub-shrub wetlands, riparian forest, and wet meadow 

prairies, severely depleted habitats of the Willamette Valley. The Service believes there are 

opportunities for partnering even without the northern portion of Alternative E being included 

within the Refuge boundary and that the lands included in Alternative D are large enough for the 

Service to offer a full array of priority, wildlife-dependent public uses. After much deliberation, 

the Service concluded that Alternative D, the preferred alternative, offers the best balance for 

achieving the goals of the proposed Wapato Lake Unit in the context of other land use activities 

and plans for the area. 

Regarding the suggestion that certain areas be added to the project area boundary, the Service 

acknowledges that there are numerous habitat areas outside the preferred alternative project 

boundary that would be worthy of protecting. The Service put considerable effort into identifying 

a proposed project boundary which we believe would offer the best balance for protecting 

important wildlife habitats within the context of area’s current and near-future land use activities. 

Thus, we have not modified the preferred alternative boundary configuration. 

Comment Topic: Land Acquisition Program 

A few commenters asked how the Service’s land acquisition program works and whether the 

Service would impose land use restrictions on their private properties if they choose not to sell 

their property to the Service. Another commenter wanted to know if the Wapato Lake Unit was 

established whether Flett Road would still remain adjacent to the historic Wapato lakebed and 

cross Ayers Creek.

Service Response. The Service’s land acquisition program operates under a willing seller 

policy. Service land acquisition for the proposed Wapato Lake Unit would be prioritized based 

on the wildlife habitat value of the land (see Land Acquisition Priority Map in appendix A). If a 

landowner was willing to consider an offer from the Service to purchase any portion of their 

property and the Service was willing to pursue acquisition based on the property’s habitat values, 

the Service would obtain and pay for an appraisal. The appraisal would typically be done by a 

local contract appraiser hired by the Appraisal Services Directorate of the Department of the 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 4

Interior. The appraisal would be prepared in accordance with uniform appraisal standards. The 

Service’s purchase offer would be based on the full amount of the approved appraisal. The 

landowner would be under no obligation to accept the offer. 

Landowners within an approved refuge boundary retain all the rights, privileges, and 

responsibilities of private land ownership including the rights to access the property, control 

trespass, sell to any party, and develop their properties. In other words, an approved refuge 

boundary does not preclude landowners from developing or otherwise using their property in a 

manner consistent with local zoning and regulatory provisions. Landowners within an approved 

refuge boundary can sell their land to any buyer at any time, even if the Service has acquired 

easement rights or fee title to land adjacent to private lands. 

Land use regulating (i.e., restrictions on land use) does not expand when lands come within a 

refuge boundary. Service management of access, land use practices, habitat and public use 

management, and general use within a refuge boundary is limited to the lands the Service has 

acquired. 

Funding sources for Service acquisition of lands for the Refuge System include the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF). Given that 

migratory birds are a prominent wildlife species focus in the Wapato area, the Service would 

probably seek funding primarily from the MBCF. Projects for MBCF monies are submitted to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, established by Congress, for approval. The 

Service receives annual appropriations in the form of operations and maintenance funds for 

managing refuges through the Congressional budget process. The Service is able to use 

Congressional appropriated funds to leverage contributions through partnerships in order to 

create additional funding. 

Lands purchased in fee title for a national wildlife refuge, like other Federal, state, and countyowned lands, are not subject to property taxes. However, under the provisions of the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act, the Service makes annual payments to counties for lost tax revenues. 

Thus, the Service would make revenue sharing payments to Washington and Yamhill Counties 

for properties owned by the Service. These payments would be roughly the same as the taxes 

that would have been collected for these properties. Additionally, communities benefit from 

refuge open space which does not burden the municipal infrastructure. 

Regarding the question about Flett Road, this road would continue to cross Ayers Creek. The 

roads within the proposed Wapato Lake Unit are owned by the Counties and the Service does not 

have any plans to pursue negotiating control of any County roads with either Washington or 

Yamhill Counties. 

Comment Topic: Waterfowl hunting

Several commenters supported establishing the Wapato Lake Unit and requested that the 

tradition of waterfowl hunting in the Wapato area be allowed to continue. One commenter 

requested that only passive recreation be allowed; no hunting. 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 5

Service Response. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended, hunting is one of the six priority public uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

As one of the priority public uses, it is the policy of the Service to plan and implement safe high 

quality public hunting programs when found to be compatible with refuge purposes and the 

mission of the Refuge System. Game species providing hunting opportunities within the 

proposed Wapato Lake Unit could include waterfowl, mourning dove, snipe, ring-necked 

pheasant, California quail, and black-tailed deer. It is the policy of the Service to allow the 

hunting of only self sustaining game species populations. Hunting program techniques to 

promote high quality hunting could include hunting by permit, hunting at designated sites, time 

of day and days per week restrictions, type of weapon designations, and shell limit restrictions. 

If the Wapato Lake Unit is established, recreational hunting would be evaluated during the 

comprehensive conservation planning process, scheduled to begin in 2009, in close coordination 

with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Comment Topic: Other Wildlife-Dependent Public Use 

Many commenters stated they would like the Service to support wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and interpretation on the proposed Wapato Lake Unit. 

Several commenters requested blinds for bird watching and photography, overlooks, and 

interpretive signs. 

Service Response. Wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and 

interpretation are priority public uses of the Refuge System. The Service would seek to facilitate 

wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation if 

compatible with Refuge purposes. These wildlife-dependent uses would be evaluated during the 

conservation planning process, scheduled to begin in 2009.

Comment Topic: Cultural Resources 

A few commenters said they would like to see the Service preserve Native American history and 

cultural sites and offer related public education and interpretation. One commenter specified 

protection of Atfalati and Tualatin Indian historic sites, trails, and artifacts. Another commenter 

recommended the Service coordinate with the Grand Ronde tribe for the project. The Service 

also received a request to address the impacts of ground disturbing activities on cultural 

resources and known archaeological sites. 

Service Response. The Wapato Lake area was the major habitation site of the Tualatin Native 

Americans, one of approximately thirteen groups of Kalapuya people. Prior to the 1800s when 

settlers began arriving, the population was approximately 10,000. Their territory extended 

throughout most of the Willamette River Valley as far south as the Umpqua River to as far north 

as the Wapato Lake area, an important seasonal community gathering place for the Kalapuyans. 

On March 8, 2002, the Service conducted a record search for the proposed Wapato Lake Unit 

Study Area using the records on file at the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. A few 

documented cultural resources were identified within the Study Area boundary, including the 

historic A.T. Smith house built in 1856 which is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 6

Places. The house was purchased by the Friends of Historic Forest Grove in 2005 for 

preservation and to serve as an interpretative center. The other cultural resource sites that were 

identified are prehistoric and their location is confidential. Several Tualatin Native American 

villages, described in the ethnographic record, are reported to have existed in the vicinity. 

Federal acquisition of land on which cultural resources are located is not considered, in and of 

itself, an undertaking requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Once under Federal ownership, cultural resources are protected under the 

National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resource preservation laws. To ensure 

refuge management activities do not have adverse effect on historic properties, the Service would 

follow established procedures and comply with Federal laws and policy for considering the 

impacts of any character-altering of buildings and/or ground disturbance, including habitat 

restoration, on a case-by case basis. Overall, the Service would evaluate the effects of refuge 

management on the rural, cultural landscape of the Wapato Lake area. 

Given the rich cultural heritage of the Wapato Lake area and the fact that environmental 

education and interpretation are priority public uses of the Refuge System, the Service would 

seek to develop compatible education and interpretative programs on the cultural history and 

land use of the Wapato Lake area as an integral part of the public use program for the Wapato 

Lake Unit. The Service has coordinated with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

throughout the planning process and would seek their involvement in developing cultural 

resource programs for the Wapato Lake Unit. 

Comment Topic: Effects on the Economy

One commenter asked the Service to explain more of the economic benefits generated by 

national wildlife refuges, and more specifically, on the hunting dollars generated by refuges. A 

few commenters inquired about the revenue losses associated with taking farmland out of 

production to restore wildlife habitat. 

Service Response. Although a detailed analysis for assessing the economic effects of 

establishing a refuge in the Wapato Lake area, and more specifically of providing a hunting 

program, has not been developed for this proposal, detailed analyses contained in the Service’s 

Banking on Nature document provides insight on the economic effects associated with public use 

activities on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. For example, we can examine a similarly 

situated national wildlife refuge in the Pacific Northwest, the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge 

(Umatilla NWR). Two units of Umatilla NWR are located in Morrow County, Oregon, and three 

units in Benton County, Washington. Upland, marsh, and open water habitats at Umatilla NWR 

support an abundance of wildlife including migratory birds during their spring and fall 

migrations. The Service manages a wildlife-dependent public use program including hunting, 

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

During the fiscal year 1995, the Service recorded 55,459 visits to the Umatilla NWR and 

waterfowl hunting accounted for 14,188 of these visits. Wildlife observation and photography 

and environmental education and interpretation accounted for 16,309 of these visits. 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 7

A number of small towns located close by the Umatilla NWR, including Paterson, Plymouth, 

Boardman, Irrigon, and Umatilla, benefit from Refuge visitor recreational expenditures on food, 

gas, lodging, sporting goods, and other items. Refuge visitor expenditures occurred primarily 

within the surrounding three counties, Morrow, Benten, and Franklin, and were estimated at 

$1,280,500 in the fiscal year 1995; non-residents accounted for $907,000, 71 percent of the total. 

Expenditures on fishing accounted for 53 percent of the total, hunting 43 percent, and nonconsumptive use 4 percent. The monetary value of economic spending in the three-county area 

based on Refuge visitor spending generated 23 jobs (both full-time and part-time) with a total 

employment income of $388,100. 

 

For the proposed Wapato Lake Unit, the Service examined the economic effects of taking 

farmland out of production and found that if all the lands were purchased from willing sellers 

and all necessary habitat restoration activities were completed under a given action alternative 

(Alternatives B, C, D, or E), the total percent acreage taken out of agricultural production in 

Washington and Yamhill counties would be .01%, .01%, .04%, or .16%, respectively. Although 

a monetary value has not been tied to percentages, it is believed that anything less than 1.0 % is 

thought to be insignificant. Public visitation of the Wapato Lake Unit would help off-set 

economic values lost in agricultural production by buying local goods and services in the 

community, a by-product of nature tourism. 

Comment Topic: Water access and delivery to private landowners 

One commenter expressed opposition to the establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit because of 

concern about Federal authority over access to their “water take out point” for irrigation and 

asked what would prevent the Service from appropriating their TVID water right entirely? 

Another commenter spoke about not wanting to be dependent on the Service for receiving their 

water. A few commenters wanted to know future managed water levels? 

Service Response. Establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit would not add to or alter the 

prevailing land use laws and zoning regulations administered by the State of Oregon and the 

local jurisdictions. All existing easements for private access to private lands would also be 

unchanged. 

Lands with water delivery infrastructure owned by the Wapato Improvement District (WID) and 

water entitlements served by WID would be Service priorities under an acquisition program. 

Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID) is responsible for delivery of irrigation water stored 

behind Scoggins Dam to TVID-assessed lands in the area. TVID delivers water to lands that 

have primary and secondary irrigation rights in the Wapato Lake area through an agreement with 

WID to use WID infrastructure. The Service is not authorized nor does it have the resources or 

expertise to operate and administer the WID system and deliver irrigation water to WID and 

TVID patrons. The Service is investigating an arrangement with TVID that would transfer 

operation, annual maintenance, and administration of the WID distribution system to TVID. The 

Service is aware of the citizen concern that assessments to local WID and TVID patrons remain 

stable and closely related to the quality of services delivered. Lands within the existing TVID 

and WID boundaries, whether in Service or private ownership, would continue to be assessed 

duties for the delivery of irrigation water. When the majority of WID irrigated lands are finally 
Wapato Lake Unit Appendix C 8

converted to refuge purposes, the Service would convert the water rights from irrigation to onsite refuge purposes. TVID will retain its ownership interest in water rights appurtenant to 

assessed lands converted to refuge purposes. The Service would not acquire primary and 

secondary water rights, attached to the deeds of private land ownerships, without the consent of 

the landowners because establishment of the Wapato Lake Unit would be based on a willing 

seller program. 

 

If the Wapato Lake Unit is established with approval of the Director, the Service would seek to 

purchase land within the approved boundary from willing sellers. Due to the relatively flat 

contours of the Wapato lake basin, restoration of wetland habitats could not begin until a 

significant percentage of lands within the Wapato lakebed are under management authority of 

the Service. The duration of seasonal flooding of the lakebed would be managed to mirror 

historic hydrology as much as possible. Typically, flooding would begin in fall and remain at 

desired management levels through early spring. Water levels would then gradually recede 

through evaporation/transpiration or lake level manipulation until reaching a desired 

management elevation. When the Service considers lakebed restoration feasible, it would 

implement a restoration and management plan that would protect neighboring private lands from 

flooding or other hydrologic impacts. This could include structural changes, for example, a low 

elevation levee with associated toe drains, or management strategies such as manipulation of lake 

levels or source water contributions. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge has successfully 

implemented similar physical and management solutions to protect private lands near or adjacent 

to Federal land. 

Comment topic: Mosquito control 

One commenter inquired how the Service would manage the proposed Wapato Lake Unit to 

control mosquitoes. 

Service Response. By policy, the Service recognizes mosquitoes as a natural component of 

most wetland ecosystems, and also, that under certain circumstances; their presence may cause a 

threat to human and wildlife health as vectors of disease. When necessary to protect the health 

and safety of the public or a wildlife population, the Service may manage mosquitoes on Refuge 

System lands using the least intrusive means possible. Compatible habitat management and 

pesticide uses for mosquito control must give full consideration to the integrity of non-target 

populations and be consistent with integrated pest management strategies and policies of the 

Department of the Interior and the Service. 

Most mosquitoes breed in standing stagnant water and their movement as adults is fairly limited. 

Many species of wildlife forage on mosquito larvae with mosquito fish and dragon flies being 

the most aggressive of predators. The Service manages water and vegetated wetlands to create 

undesirable habitat for mosquitoes, and to break-up conditions required for fulfilling their 

reproductive cycle. Sample monitoring of mosquito larvae is performed on some refuges to 

determine species presence and relative abundance, baseline information which can be used to 

evaluate and improve management effectiveness.