Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
An Image of the Future

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a natural treasure 

where an abundance of native wildlife thrive in a mosaic of 

wetland, prairie, forest and stream habitats characteristic of

the Willamette Valley that the Atfalat’i people knew. The refuge

is a sanctuary for both wildlife and people, a place where the

ebb and flow of the river marks the natural rhythms of the 

refuge through the seasons. It’s a special place, an icon 

where the stories of the refuge reflect the importance of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge has 

a rich history of community vision where friends 

and neighbors helped create, and continue to 

care for, this urban refuge and the watershed 

that supports it. It’s a model that combines 

excellence in landscape conservation, 

learning, and partnerships to strive for 

a healthy natural world. Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge is a place 

where rich traditions, outdoor

learning experiences, and 

discovery foster a love of and

caring for nature that endures

for generations to come.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions and set

forth goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish refuge purposes 

and identify the Service’s best estimate 

of future needs. These plans detail 

program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations and,

as such, are primarily for Service 

strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans 

do not constitute a commitment 

for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or 

funding for future land 

acquisition.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................... 1-1

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

1.2 Importance of the Refuge ......................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance ...................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................ 1-5

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................ 1-5

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates ................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes......................................................................................................... 1-8

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-8

1.6.2 Purpose and History of Refuge Establishment .................................................................................... 1-8

1.6.3 Land Status and Ownership ................................................................................................................. 1-9

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts .................................................................................................... 1-9

1.7.1 Regional Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 1-9

1.7.2 State Plans .......................................................................................................................................... 1-11

1.7.3 Additional Plans and Assessments ..................................................................................................... 1-11

1.8 Special Designation Lands ..................................................................................................................... 1-11

1.8.1 Important Bird Areas ......................................................................................................................... 1-11

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification .............................................................................................. 1-12

1.9.1 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................ 1-12

1.9.2 Key Issues Addressed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...................................................... 1-14

1.9.3 Issues Outside the Scope of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ................................................. 1-17

1.10 Refuge Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................... 1-18

1.10.1 Expanded Vision Statement: An Image of the Future ................................................................... 1-18

1.10.2 Condensed Vision: Summarizing the Core Values of the Refuge ................................................. 1-19

1.10.3 Refuge Goals ................................................................................................................................. 1-19

Chapter 2 Management Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Alternatives Development ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Alternative Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.2 Summaries of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 2-14

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................................... 2-22

Goal 1: Maintain, enhance, and restore bottomland riparian habitat consistent with the historical range of 

variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem to support breeding and migratory landbirds 

and other native species. .................................................................................................................................. 2-23
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

ii Table of Contents 

Goal 2: Maintain, enhance, and restore mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat to a historical range of 

variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in order to support breeding and migratory 

landbirds and other native species. .................................................................................................................. 2-25

Goal 3: Maintain, enhance, and restore oak savanna habitat to a historical range of variability representative 

of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in order to support breeding and migratory landbirds and other native 

species. ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-28

Goal 4: Maintain, enhance, and restore native Willamette Valley wet prairie habitat, with an emphasis on 

management for rare and listed plant species. ................................................................................................. 2-30

Goal 5: Maintain, enhance, and restore a diversity of wetlands to support migratory landbirds, waterbirds, and 

shorebirds with special emphasis on wintering waterfowl. ............................................................................. 2-32

Goal 6: Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore streams and off-channel backwater slough habitats in 

order to benefit salmonids and other native aquatic species. ........................................................................... 2-36

Goal 7: Cultivate and maintain croplands as an interim measure to control nonnative invasive species. ....... 2-39

Goal 8: Collect scientific information (surveys, scientific assessments, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions that are associated with Goals 1-7. ............................................................... 2-43

Goal 9: Protect and manage the refuge’s unique cultural resources for their cultural, scientific, and educational 

values, while consulting with appropriate Native American groups and preservation organizations and 

complying with historic preservation legislation. ............................................................................................ 2-46

Goal 10: Provide visitors, local residents, volunteers, and partners with opportunities to understand and 

appreciate fish and wildlife conservation as well as the purpose, ecology, and management of the refuge and the 

Refuge System. ................................................................................................................................................ 2-47

Goal 11: Provide students and educators from the greater Portland area with compatible and high-quality 

opportunities to participate in environmental education. ................................................................................. 2-52

Goal 12: Provide refuge visitors with diverse, compatible, and high-quality opportunities to participate in 

wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. ............................................................................................ 2-55

Goal 13: Build a broad-based natural resource conservation constituency with a focus on urban audiences to 

create a conservation ethic within urban communities; increase relevance of habitat conservation, wildlife 

heritage, and the Refuge System in the eyes of urban citizens; and instill a sense of empowerment for urban 

communities to work together to actively support conservation, in both local and global settings. ................ 2-61

Chapter 3 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 General Climate ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 3-9

3.2.1 Regional Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3-9

3.2.2 Refuge-specific Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 3-12

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry .................................................................................................................. 3-16

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................................................ 3-16

3.4.1 Origins and Development .................................................................................................................. 3-16

3.4.2 Recent Geologic Events ..................................................................................................................... 3-17

3.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-18

3.6 Fire ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.6.1 Historic Activity ................................................................................................................................ 3-18

3.6.2 Recent Activity .................................................................................................................................. 3-19
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents iii 

3.6.3 Current Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 3-20

3.7 Environmental Contaminants ................................................................................................................. 3-20

3.8 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 3-21

3.9 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 3-23

3.9.1 Overview—Tualatin River and Basin ................................................................................................ 3-23

3.9.2 Refuge-specific Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-24

3.10 Visual Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 3-24

3.11 Surrounding Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3-25

Chapter 4 Biological Environment ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Historic Land Use and Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ............................................................................................. 4-2

4.2.1 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concern .......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Habitat Types ........................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.1 Bottomland Riparian Forest ................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3.2 Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest ................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Oak Savanna ........................................................................................................................................ 4-8

4.3.4 Wet Prairie ........................................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.5 Herbaceous and Scrub-shrub Wetlands ............................................................................................. 4-11

4.3.6 Rivers, Streams, and Backwater Sloughs........................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.7 Croplands ........................................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.3.8 Ruderal Lands .................................................................................................................................... 4-16

4.4 Major Species Groups ............................................................................................................................ 4-17

4.4.1 Waterfowl .......................................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.2 Songbirds ........................................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.4.3 Shorebirds .......................................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.4.4 Marsh Birds and Waders .................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.4.5 Raptors ............................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.4.6 Mammals ........................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.4.7 Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 4-21

4.4.8 Reptiles .............................................................................................................................................. 4-22

4.4.9 Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................ 4-22

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .................................................................................... 4-23

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species .............................................................................................................. 4-24

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ................................................................... 4-27

Chapter 5 Human Environment .................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Resources .............................................................................................. 5-2
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

iv Table of Contents 

5.1.2 Historic Resources ............................................................................................................................... 5-4

5.2 Refuge Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2.1 Boundary Fences and Markers............................................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.2 Entrance and Access Points ................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.3 Administrative Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.4 Roads, Trails, and Parking Areas ......................................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.5 Visitor Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 5-9

5.2.6 Easements and Agreements ............................................................................................................... 5-10

5.2.7 Dikes, Irrigation, Water Control Structures, and Pump Houses ........................................................ 5-11

5.3 Public Use Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5-12

5.3.1 Public Use Program History .............................................................................................................. 5-12

5.3.2 Open and Closed Areas...................................................................................................................... 5-12

5.3.3 Annual Visitation ............................................................................................................................... 5-13

5.3.4 Entrance and User Fees ...................................................................................................................... 5-13

5.3.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs to Disabled Persons ................................................ 5-13

5.3.6 Volunteers .......................................................................................................................................... 5-13

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses ............................................................................................................. 5-14

5.4.1 Hunting .............................................................................................................................................. 5-14

5.4.2 Fishing ............................................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography.............................................................................................. 5-15

5.4.4 Environmental Education .................................................................................................................. 5-16

5.4.5 Interpretation/Outreach ...................................................................................................................... 5-17

5.5 Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation......................................................................................................... 5-18

5.6 Illegal Uses and Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................ 5-18

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ........................................................................... 5-19

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities .................................................................................................... 5-19

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Trends and Demographics ................................................................................. 5-19

5.8 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................................................. 5-22

5.8.1 Population and Area Economy .......................................................................................................... 5-22

Chapter 6 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Summary of Effects .................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Effects to the Physical Environment ........................................................................................................ 6-7

6.2.1 Effects to Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 6-7

6.2.2 Effects to Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.3 Effects to Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6-8

6.2.4 Effects to Visual Quality ...................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.3 Effects to Habitats and Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 6-9

6.3.1 General Effects .................................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.3.2 Effects to Bottomland Riparian Forest .............................................................................................. 6-12
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents v 

6.3.3 Effects to Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest ................................................................................. 6-13

6.3.4 Effects to Oak Savanna ...................................................................................................................... 6-13

6.3.5 Effects to Wet Prairie ......................................................................................................................... 6-14

6.3.6 Effects to Herbaceous and Scrub-shrub Wetlands ............................................................................. 6-14

6.3.7 Effects to Streams, Rivers, and Backwater Sloughs .......................................................................... 6-15

6.3.8 Effects to Croplands .......................................................................................................................... 6-16

6.3.9 Effects to Ruderal Lands .................................................................................................................... 6-17

6.3.10 Effects to Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................... 6-17

6.3.11 Effects to Songbirds ...................................................................................................................... 6-18

6.3.12 Effects to Shorebirds ..................................................................................................................... 6-19

6.3.13 Effects to Marshbirds and Waders................................................................................................. 6-20

6.3.14 Effects to Raptors .......................................................................................................................... 6-20

6.3.15 Effects to Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 6-21

6.3.16 Effects to Native Fish .................................................................................................................... 6-21

6.3.17 Effects to Reptiles ......................................................................................................................... 6-22

6.3.18 Effects to Amphibians ................................................................................................................... 6-23

6.3.19 Effects to Federally and State-listed Species ................................................................................. 6-23

6.4 Effects to Cultural and Historical Resources.......................................................................................... 6-25

6.4.1 Overall Effects to Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 6-26

6.5 Social Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 6-26

6.5.1 General Effects .................................................................................................................................. 6-26

6.5.2 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................... 6-27

6.5.3 Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education ......................................................................... 6-28

6.5.4 Opportunities for Quality Interpretation ............................................................................................ 6-29

6.5.5 Opportunities for Quality Hunting ..................................................................................................... 6-29

6.5.6 Opportunities for Quality Fishing ...................................................................................................... 6-29

6.5.7 Opportunities for Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ........................................................................ 6-29

6.5.8 Projected User Numbers in 15 Years ................................................................................................. 6-29

6.5.9 Amount of Illegal Use........................................................................................................................ 6-32

6.5.10 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................... 6-32

6.5.11 Overall Social Effects .................................................................................................................... 6-32

6.6 Economic Effects ................................................................................................................................... 6-32

6.6.1 Approach to Estimating Economic Effects ........................................................................................ 6-32

6.6.2 Economic Impacts from Recreational Activities ............................................................................... 6-34

6.6.3 Alternative 1 (Baseline): Recreational Activities .............................................................................. 6-35

6.6.4 Alternative 2: Recreational Activities ................................................................................................ 6-37

6.6.5 Alternative 3: Recreational Activities ................................................................................................ 6-39

6.6.6 Summary of Recreational Visitation Impacts .................................................................................... 6-41

6.6.7 Economic Effects from Refuge Budget ............................................................................................. 6-42
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

vi Table of Contents 

6.6.8 Summary of Economic Impacts by Alternative ................................................................................. 6-44

6.7 Other Effects .......................................................................................................................................... 6-45

6.7.1 Potential Impacts on Adjacent Lands and Associated Natural Resources ......................................... 6-45

6.7.2 Potential Impacts to Nearby Residents .............................................................................................. 6-46

6.8 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................. 6-46

6.8.1 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities ....................................................... 6-47

6.8.2 Potential Effects from Climate Change ............................................................................................. 6-47

6.8.3 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities ........................................................................ 6-50

Figures 

Figure 1-1. Overview of CCP planning process. ..................................................................................................... 1-12 

Figure 3-1. Average and peak river levels measured in feet above mean sea level (MSL) at Farmington gauge 

approximately 8 miles upstream from the westernmost parcel in the Sherwood Units. ............................................ 3-3 

Figure 3-2. Global surface temperature (NASA 2012). ............................................................................................. 3-4 

Figure 3-3. Water year temperature 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, Oregon (352997). ........................ 3-6 

Figure 3-4. Water year total precipitation 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, Oregon. .............................. 3-8 

Figure 3-5. Summer (Jun-Aug) total precipitation, 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, Oregon (352997). 3-8 

Figure 3-6. Average daily discharge rate (cfs) measured on the Tualatin River at the West Linn gauging station. 3-11 

Figure 4-1. Average and maximum number of waterfowl counted on refuge lands during regular weekly surveys 

from 2004-2011. ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-18 

Figure 5-1. Public use facilities and regulations. ....................................................................................................... 5-7 

Tables 

Table 1-1. Summary of CCP Planning Process for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge ................................ 1-13

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison.............................................................................................. 2-18

Table 3-1. Monthly High, Low, and Average Temperatures; Monthly Rainfall April 2008-March 2009 ................ 3-2

Table 3-2. Seasonal Temperature Trends, 1981-2010 (Monthly Records) ................................................................ 3-6

Table 3-3. Approximate Reaches of the Tualatin River As it Flows from the Coast Range Mountains (rivermile 80) 

to its Confluence with the Willamette River (rivermile 0) ...................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3-4. Summary of Water Rights for the Refuge .............................................................................................. 3-13

Table 3-5. Letter Grades* of Selected Air Quality Measures Based on Tons Emission per Square Mile ............... 3-22

Table 4-1. Focal Species and Other Benefitting Species for Each Priority Habitat Type.......................................... 4-4

Table 4-2. Common and Scientific Names of Target Nonnative Invasive Species on Refuge ................................ 4-24

Table 4-3. Regular Surveys Conducted on Refuge Lands and Their Usual Timetables .......................................... 4-27

Table 5-1. Prehistoric Resources within Refuge Boundaries .................................................................................... 5-4

Table 5-2. Historic Resources within Refuge Boundaries ......................................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-3. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Summary of Area Economy, 2009 ........................................ 5-22

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use ............................................... 6-2

Table 6-2. Current and Proposed Habitat Acreages ................................................................................................. 6-11

Table 6-3. Annual Refuge Visits, Projected in 15 Years, by Activity ..................................................................... 6-30

Table 6-4. Alternative 1: Fiscal Year 2010 Visitation at the Refuge ....................................................................... 6-35

Table 6-5. Alternative 1: Visitor Recreation Expenditure (2010 dollars in thousands) ........................................... 6-36

Table 6-6. Alternative 1: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2010 dollars in thousands) 6-36

Table 6-7. Alternative 2: Annual Refuge Visitation ................................................................................................ 6-37

Table 6-8. Alternative 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands) ......................................... 6-38

Table 6-9. Alternative 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2010 dollars in thousands) 6-39

Table 6-10. Alternative 3: Refuge Visitation ........................................................................................................... 6-40

Table 6-11. Alternative 3: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands) ....................................... 6-40
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents vii 

Table 6-12. Alternative 3: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2010 dollars in thousands) ..... 

 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6-41

Table 6-13. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2010 dollars in thousands) ................. 6-42

Table 6-14. Change in Average Annual Recreation Visitors and Expenditures Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 

1) (2010 dollars in thousands) ................................................................................................................................. 6-42

Table 6-15. Refuge Average Annual Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands) ..................................................... 6-43

Table 6-16. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Refuge Budget (2010 dollars in 

thousands) ................................................................................................................................................................ 6-43

Table 6-17. Change in Annual Expenditures Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 1) (2010 dollars in thousands) 6-

43

Table 6-18. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2010 dollars in thousands) ....................... 6-44

Table 6-19. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (2010 dollars in thousands) ....................... 6-44

Table 6-20. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 (2010 dollars in thousands) ....................... 6-45

Appendices 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings ............................................................................................................... A-1

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

Appendix C. Implementation ................................................................................................................................ C-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review ......................................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern .................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance ................................................................................................................ F-1

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program ............................................................................................ G-1

Appendix H. Glossary of Terms, Phrases, Abbreviations, and Acronyms .......................................................... H-1

Appendix I. Contributors to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan .................................................................... I-1

Appendix J. Acquisition History .......................................................................................................................... J-1

Appendix K. Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................... K-1

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling ................................................................................................................... L-1

Appendix M. References ...................................................................................................................................... M-1

Appendix N. List of Refuge Species .................................................................................................................... N-1

Appendix O. Wildland Fire Management Plan .................................................................................................. O-1 

Appendix P. Maps ............................................................................................................................................... P-1 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

viii Table of Contents 

Document continues on the following page. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

and Background

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

© Dennis Davenport

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

 Just a few short miles from the center of Oregon’s largest city, the honking of geese replaces 

the honking of cars. This special place is a refuge, a haven for wildlife and people. Born of a 

community’s dream, and made possible by their support, a wildlife refuge now thrives in the 

backyard of a growing metropolis. 

Located on the outskirts of Portland, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) is one of a 

handful of urban national wildlife refuges in the country. Situated within the floodplain of the 

Tualatin River, the refuge comprises less than 1 percent of the 712-square-mile watershed (see 

Appendix P, Maps 1 and 3). Yet, due to its richness and diversity of habitats, it supports some of the 

most abundant and varied wildlife in the watershed. The refuge is home to nearly 200 species of 

birds, over 28 species of mammals, 14 species of reptiles and amphibians, and a wide variety of 

insects, fish, and plants. The refuge has also become a place where people can experience and learn 

about wildlife and the places they call home. Established in 1992 under the guidelines of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s; Service’s) Urban Refuge Policy (341 FW 1) (Smith 1991), 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge has served nearly 100,000 visitors annually since it opened 

to the public in 2006. In 2007, the Wapato Lake Unit was established, more than doubling the size of 

the original acquisition boundary. 

The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, which includes the Wapato Lake and Sherwood Units 

(the Sherwood Units contain five subunits: Atfálat’i, Onion Flats, Riverboat, Rock Creek, and 

Tualatin River), is located in the northern portion of the Willamette Valley, in Washington and 

Yamhill Counties, Oregon (see Appendix P, Maps 4 and 5). The overall management focus cited in 

the Land Protection Plan (USFWS 1992a) is to “protect, enhance, and manage upland, wetland, and 

riparian habitats for a variety of migratory birds and resident fish and wildlife, as well as for the 

enjoyment of people.” The Wapato Lake Unit serves a similar purpose and supports many of the 

same types of habitats found within the Sherwood Units. Currently, the established acquisition 

boundary of the refuge totals 7,370 acres, with 2,204 acres under management. The refuge may 

purchase lands within the boundary from willing sellers. Land currently owned or managed by the 

refuge is distributed among six management units: Riverboat (348 acres); Tualatin River (221 acres); 

Atfálat’i (555 acres); Onion Flats (126 acres); Rock Creek (75 acres); and Wapato Lake (879 acres). 

The refuge’s landscape is predominately flat bottomland bordered by uplands. Habitats consist of 

rivers and streams; herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands; riparian forests; wet meadows; oak 

savanna; and mixed coniferous/deciduous forested uplands. 

The refuge has a rich history in community involvement, beginning with the establishment of the 

refuge itself. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many local residents and leaders recognized that the 

Tualatin River and its floodplain had been highly modified by both agriculture and urbanization. This 

recognition fueled a desire by local communities to preserve open greenspace and create an area 

where future generations could enjoy outdoor recreation and interpretation, while also leaving an 

educational legacy for children. This led a small group of citizens and local leaders to approach the 

Service to request having part of the 100-year floodplain, just north of Sherwood, be set aside as a 

national wildlife refuge. At the same time, the Service identified a need to protect and enhance 

floodplains, wetlands, riparian habitats, and upland buffers for a variety of wildlife and for the 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

enjoyment of people—in particular in urban areas. In 1992, grassroots and governmental support 

coalesced, and the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge became part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System). 

Photo 1-1. Entry to Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS. 

1.2 Importance of the Refuge 

Since the time of Euro-American settlement, habitats in the Willamette Valley have been converted 

to support a growing human population. Significant losses of habitat have occurred within the 

Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area and continue to occur (see Appendix P, Map 2). Commercial, 

agricultural, and residential encroachments into floodplains, which include wetlands, riparian forests, 

and uplands, have occurred during the past 150 years, resulting in lost habitat, increased pollution, 

increased human disturbance, and lower water quality. These habitats are important to resident, 

migrating, and wintering bird, mammal, fish, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate species. Although 

these habitats are provided some degree of protection by Oregon’s land-use planning process, the 

wildlife values of these habitats continue to be degraded. 

Traditionally, fish and wildlife agencies have focused their efforts on management of lands and 

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

habitats of regional 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 proximity and availability 

of these public benefits are attributes for which the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area is 

renowned. Many consider natural areas to be an essential component of the quality of life in this 

metropolitan area. 

As an urban refuge, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge was established under the guidance of 

the Urban Refuge Policy and “may protect habitat of great significance to the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources, including endangered and threatened species. However, the ‘Primary 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3 

Purpose’ for establishment of new urban refuges will be to foster environmental awareness and 

outreach programs to develop an informed, involved citizenry that will support fish and wildlife 

conservation ... these refuges will provide public use benefits associated with fish and wildlife 

resources that include, but are not limited to, bird watching, fishing, scientific research, 

environmental education, open space in a urban setting, and protection of cultural resources” (Smith 

1991). 

Situated within the floodplain of the Tualatin River Valley, the refuge provides habitat for some of 

the most diverse and abundant wildlife in the valley. The refuge also provides a variety of 

recreational and educational activities focused on fish and wildlife and their habitats. Visitor facilities 

include a Wildlife Center, an environmental education shelter, trails, overlooks, an observation deck, 

a photography blind, environmental education study sites, and exhibit panels. Current visitation is 

approximately 100,000 people per year (USFWS 2010a). 

Photo 1-2. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge lies on the outskirts of Portland, 

Oregon. © Bjorn Fredrickson. 

1.3 Proposed Action 

The Service manages wildlife refuges as part of the Refuge System. We propose to adopt and 

implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge. This document is the refuge’s 

draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (draft CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA). A CCP 

sets forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of 15 years, as required by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). The Improvement Act 

requires CCPs to identify and describe: 

 The purposes of the refuge; 

 The fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural 

values found on the refuge; 

 Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to 

correct or mitigate those problems; and 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities, and opportunities for fish- and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Refuge System planning policy (602 FW 3) states that the purpose of CCPs is to “describe the 

desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to 

achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, 

restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; ... and meet other mandates.” 

The action proposed in the CCP is the implementation of Alternative 2, which has been identified as 

the Service’s preferred alternative. The Service has developed and examined three alternatives for 

future management of the refuge and discloses anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies under Alternative 2 best achieve the purpose of the refuge and the need for the CCP, while 

maintaining balance among the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2 represents the 

most balanced approach for achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals; contributing to the 

Refuge System’s mission; addressing relevant issues and mandates; and managing the refuge with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

The draft preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final documents depending 

upon comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. The Service’s 

Regional Director for Region 1 will decide which alternative will be implemented. For details on the 

specific components and actions constituting the range of alternatives, see Chapter 2. 

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role the refuge would play in supporting the mission 

of the Refuge System, and to provide the Service, the Refuge System, partners, and the public with 

long-term guidance for managing programs and activities. This will be a 15-year management plan 

for improving the refuge’s habitat conditions and infrastructure for fish, wildlife, and public use. The 

CCP is needed to: 

 Communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the 

Refuge System; 

 Provide a clear statement of direction for managing the refuge; 

 Provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

 Ensure that the Service’s management actions support the goals and intent of the 

Administration Act; 

 To the extent practicable, ensure refuge plans will be consistent with the fish and wildlife 

conservation plans of the state and the conservation programs within the ecosystem; 

 Provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs; 

 Address habitat management concerns; and 

 Address increasing visitor use needs. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance 

1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The 

Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs. 

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

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

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, America’s fish and wildlife resources were 

declining at an alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market hunting. Concerned citizens, 

scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together and generated the political will for the first 

significant conservation measures taken by the Federal government. These actions included the 

establishment of the Bureau of Fisheries in the 1870s, the passage of the first Federal wildlife law in 

1900, the Lacey Act, which prohibited interstate transport of wildlife taken in violation of state laws, 

and the creation of wildlife refuges across the nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, 

and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds, establish more new refuges, and create a 

funding source for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was created 

within the Department of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions including law 

enforcement, fish management, animal damage control, and wildlife refuge management were 

combined into a single organization for the first time. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the 

nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of native nesting birds. This was the first time the 

Federal government set aside land for wildlife. This small but significant designation marked the 

beginning of the Refuge System. 

Over one hundred years later, the Refuge System has become the largest collection of lands in the 

world specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more than 150 million acres within 556 

refuges, 38 wetland management districts, and more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas providing 

breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Today there is at least one refuge in every state as 

well as in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System within a 

framework of legal and policy guidelines. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on 

refuges, in contrast to other public lands, which are managed for multiple uses. Refuges are guided 

by various Federal laws and executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties. The 

mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of the refuge as described in 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

a refuge are fundamental. 

1.5.2.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals 

The mission of the Refuge System is: 

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

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

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended). 

The goals of the Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission, Goals, and Purposes Policy (601 FW 

1), are: 

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

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

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

 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, and wetlands of national or international 

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

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

interpretation). 

 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

1.5.2.2 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Administration Act undoubtedly 

exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act amended the Administration Act in 1997 by 

including a unifying mission for all national wildlife refuges as a system, a new process for 

determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a 

comprehensive conservation plan, developed in an open public process. In addition to the 

Improvement Act providing the mission for the Refuge System, it also stated that the wildlife and 

habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge System shall maintain the following principles. 

 Wildlife comes first. 

 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge and district 

management. 

 Habitats must be healthy. 

 Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

 The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from 

others. 

The Administration Act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the conservation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure that the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained. House Report 

105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘... the fundamental mission of our System is 

wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later made 

clear in the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3), “the 

highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact 

and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.” 

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

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

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

Additionally, the Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses for the 

Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Under the Improvement Act, the Service is to grant these 

six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning, management, establishment, 

and expansion of units of the Refuge System. The overarching goal of the wildlife-dependent public 

uses program is to enhance opportunities and access to quality wildlife-dependent visitor experiences 

on refuges while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. When 

determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume priority status among all 

uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlifedependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

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

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

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

one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

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

professional judgment of the refuge manager, would not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. Updated appropriate 

use and compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge can be found in Appendices A and B of this draft CCP. 

The Improvement Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP must 

be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public play a 

role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and together with formal 

guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. It is Service policy that CCPs be 

developed in an open public process, and the agency is committed to securing public input 

throughout the process. Public involvement details can be found in Appendix K of the draft CCP. 

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates 

Many other Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties govern Service 

and Refuge System lands. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. For additional information on laws and other mandates, a list and brief description of 

Federal laws of interest to the Service can be found in the Laws Digest at 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

In addition, over the last few years, the Service has developed or revised numerous policies and 

Director’s Orders to reflect the mandates and intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key 

policies include the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3); the 

Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2); the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Policy (602 FW 3); 

Mission, Goals, and Purposes (601 FW 1); Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-dependent 

Public Uses (605 FW 1); Wilderness-related Policies (610 FW 1-5); and the director’s order for 

Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(http://www.fws.gov/policy/). These policies and others in draft or under development can be found 

at: http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

In developing a CCP, refuges must consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge 

System and ecosystem goals and visions. The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the 

refuge purpose. 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes 

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose 

The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning. 

Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. Refuge purposes are the driving force 

in the development of vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP and are critical to 

determining the compatibility of existing and proposed refuge uses. 

The purposes of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

purpose(s) of the newer addition. When a conflict exists between the Refuge System mission and the 

purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission. 

1.6.2 Purpose and History of Refuge Establishment 

The Improvement Act of 1997 defines “purposes of the refuge” and “purposes of each refuge” as the 

purpose specified in or derived from the law or any of a number of specified documents that 

establish, authorize, or expand a refuge. This includes acquisition purposes in cases where land at a 

refuge has been acquired under authority other than the establishing authority. 

The purposes of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge are defined as: 

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

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

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

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

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

1956). 

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

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

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

1986). 

1.6.3 Land Status and Ownership 

Established in 1992 under the guidelines of the Service’s Urban Refuge Policy, the Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge became one of a handful of urban refuges in the country. The establishment 

of the refuge was in response to a growing concern in the community about urbanization replacing 

the rural way of life. Concerned about this urban growth, the community requested a study of the 

feasibility of creating a refuge. The need and endorsement for creating this refuge was officially 

approved on December 20, 1991, which then led to an Environmental Assessment that culminated in 

a decision to approve the refuge boundary on February 13, 1992 (USFWS 1992a). This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) approved acquiring and managing lands within an acquisition 

boundary of 3,058 acres by fee title purchase, conservation easements, and/or agreements. In 2004, 

an additional 2 acres were added, and more recently in 2007, the Wapato Lake Unit was established, 

adding an additional 4,310 acres to the acquisition boundary. Currently, the approved acquisition 

boundary incorporates 7,370 acres. Approximately 2,154 acres are under fee title or easement and are 

managed as a national wildlife refuge. 

Numerous land parcels have been acquired since 1992 ranging from several acres to over 300 acres. 

These properties were purchased using different funding sources and under different authorities. 

Appendix J explains in further detail the acquisition history and authorities of individual tracts. 

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 

When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, 

regional, state, and ecosystem plans and/or assessments. The CCP is expected to be consistent, as 

much as possible, with existing plans and assist in meeting their conservation goals and objectives. 

This section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by members of the core team while 

developing the CCP. 

1.7.1 Regional Plans 

The Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional 

Assessment: This report addresses the most important places for conserving native species and 

ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Using this assessment, The Nature Conservancy selected target 

species and communities that represented various habitat types. This assessment is a guide for 

providing the most conservation benefit for the lowest cost. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.7.1.1 Migratory Birds Plans 

Birds of Conservation Concern: Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three major bird 

conservation efforts (Partners In Flight [PIF], the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan [NAWCP]), this report (USFWS 2002a) identifies, by 

Service region and by Bird Conservation Region (BCR), the bird species most in need of 

conservation attention. The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is located within BCR Region 5, 

for which 27 species are listed; however, several of these are seabirds that do not use the refuge. 

PIF: The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Lowlands and Valleys of 

Western Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy 

populations of native landbirds. Specific management activities and strategies are recommended. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): This plan, first formulated in 1986, 

provides a strategy to protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl 

populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan was updated in 2004 

with an emphasis on strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach, and 

expanding partnerships. The 2004 update contains species-specific population objectives and 

evaluations of whether the continental population is currently above or below the target. There are 

also flyway goals for production by species, but the plan did not target population objectives for 

wintering or migratory waterfowl by area (NAWMP Committee 2004). Implementation of this plan 

is accomplished at the regional level by partnership, within 11 Joint Venture areas. Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge is located within the area of the Pacific Coast Joint Venture. Many of the 

projects identified to achieve the NAWMP objectives are eligible for funding under the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). NAWCA authorizes congressional funding for 

projects fostering public/private partnerships that support the conservation and restoration of wetland 

habitats and associated wildlife resources. Given the extent of historical wetlands and ongoing 

public/private partnerships in the Willamette Valley, this Act has been (and continues to be) a 

tremendous resource for the conservation community in the region. 

Pacific Flyway Plans: Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed to 

help state and Federal agencies cooperatively manage migratory gamebirds. Several flyway 

management plans pertain to Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, especially those for the 

western and cackling Canada goose (Pacific Flyway Council 1999, 2000) and tundra swans (Pacific 

Flyway Council 2001). In addition, the Plan for Northwest Oregon/Southwest Washington Canada 

Goose Agricultural Depredation Control (Pacific Flyway Council 1998) details specific strategies 

and guidance by management area for reducing depredation by Canada geese within the Lower 

Columbia Region/Willamette Valley. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan/Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird 

Management Plan: These plans (Brown et al. 2001; Drut and Buchanan 2000) identify numerous 

landscapes within the northern Pacific coast that provide important habitat for shorebirds. The 

diversity of wetland habitat types in the Willamette Valley is specifically highlighted as being of 

regional importance for several species including dunlin, Wilson snipe, and killdeer. 

Pacific Coast Joint Venture Willamette Valley Implementation Plan: This plan (Roth et al. 2004) 

is intended to provide a strategic framework for site-specific habitat protection and restoration 

projects within the Willamette Valley. The plan’s primary focus is on migratory birds and their 

habitats including waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

1.7.2 State Plans 

Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS): This document, authored by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW) (2006), is an overarching strategy for conserving fish and wildlife within the 

State of Oregon. The strategy identifies specific Conservation Opportunity Areas where high-priority 

species and habitat conservation may be most efficiently addressed. Strategy (high-priority) habitats 

identified by the OCS within the Willamette Valley include grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian 

areas, and wetlands/wet prairies. Three mammals, 10 plants, five herptiles, four invertebrates, 23 fish 

species, populations, or segments, and 14 birds are listed as strategy (high-priority) species within the 

OCS; many of these are found within the Willamette Valley. 

Oregon Elk Management Plan: This plan (ODFW 2003) outlines elk management guidelines 

within the State of Oregon. ODFW manages elk based on management objectives for winter 

population size and post-season bull ratios in each Wildlife Management Unit in the state. The 

current management objective size for Roosevelt elk in the Willamette Valley is zero. Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge will be working cooperatively with ODFW on a step-down elk 

management plan for the refuge. 

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): The 2008-2012 Oregon SCORP 

(Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 2008) includes a comprehensive overview of state 

recreational trends. The SCORP provides guidance, information, and recommendations for Federal, 

state, and local government as well as the private sector in making policy and planning decisions 

regarding outdoor recreation in Oregon. 

1.7.3 Additional Plans and Assessments 

USFWS Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern 

Washington: This plan (USFWS 2010b) outlines the main recovery areas, actions, and population 

objectives for five listed Willamette Valley plants and Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan: This plan (USFWS 1998) outlines the main recovery areas, actions, 

and population objectives for Oregon chub. 

Oregon Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Statewide Strategic Plan 2007-2011: This plan 

(USFWS 2007a) identifies the ecological importance of habitats that occur within the Willamette 

Valley Focus Area. Continued emphasis would be placed on conservation of rare and unique habitats 

that support declining species on private lands within the Willamette Valley through collaborative 

partnerships with private landowners, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies. 

1.8 Special Designation Lands 

1.8.1 Important Bird Areas 

The Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is a global effort to identify the most important areas for 

maintaining bird populations and focusing conservation efforts on protecting these sites. Within the 

United States, the program has been promoted and maintained by the American Bird Conservancy 

(ABC) and the National Audubon Society (NAS). The ABC is coordinating the identification of 

nationally significant IBAs while NAS is working to identify sites in individual states. The NAS is 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

working within each state to identify a network of sites across the United States that provide critical 

habitat for birds. This effort recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious 

threats to birds across North America and around the world. By working through partnerships, 

principally the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, to identify places that are critical to 

birds during some part of their life cycle (breeding, wintering, feeding, migrating), the hope is to 

minimize the effects that habitat loss and degradation have on bird populations. The IBA program 

has become a key component of many bird conservation efforts. Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge is in the bird conservation area known as the Northern Pacific Rainforest region. The refuge 

was designated as an Important Bird Area due to high population numbers of wintering geese and 

northern pintails, in addition to shorebirds. More information is available at 

http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html. 

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification 

1.9.1 Planning Process 

The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in compliance with the Administration Act. The actions 

described within meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing NEPA. Figure 1-1 demonstrates the complete CCP planning process from conception 

to final document. 

Figure 1-1. Overview of CCP planning process. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13 

The Service began the pre-planning process in 2009 (Table 1-1) with the formation of the core 

planning team, which consists mostly of refuge staff and a regional planner. The extended planning 

team included other Service employees, fisheries biologists, refuge law enforcement officers, and 

other Federal, regional, and state employees. Early in the planning process, both teams cooperatively 

identified priority species, groups, and communities for the refuge, and most of the biological 

emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these targets. Public use planning 

centered on developing goals, objectives, and strategies around the “big six” uses. Other nonwildlifedependent uses that currently occur were also addressed. 

Table 1-1. Summary of CCP Planning Process for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Event Outcome 

December 15, 2009 Kick-off meeting and formation 

of core team 

Planning team learned about the 

CCP process and discussed initial 

team list, mailing list, roles of team 

members, and planning schedule. 

January 12-14, 2010 Wildlife and habitat review Panel of wildlife and habitat 

experts from Federal, state, and 

regional agencies and other 

partners gathered to discuss and 

propose options for managing the 

refuge’s wildlife and habitat 

resources. 

October 14, 2010 Visitor services review Panel of visitor services experts 

from Federal, state, and regional 

agencies met to discuss public use 

opportunities, issues, and concerns. 

November 3, 2010 Notice of Intent publication Notice of Intent to prepare CCP 

was published in the Federal 

Register. 

November 2010 Planning Update #1 mailing First update was sent to mailing list 

recipients; it described planning 

process and preliminary issues to 

be considered. 

November 16, 2010 Interagency scoping meeting Multiple agencies gathered to 

discuss issues, opportunities, and 

concerns. 

November 30 and December 2, 

2010 

Public scoping meeting, 

Sherwood and Forest Grove, 

Oregon 

Public attendees learned about 

CCP process and discussed issues 

and ideas for future management. 

April 2011 Planning Update #2 mailing Update discussed comments 

received from the public and 

summarized draft refuge goals. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Table 1-1. Summary of CCP Planning Process for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Event Outcome 

May 2011-December 2011 Alternatives development and 

evaluation; objective and strategy 

development 

Environmental consequences 

review 

Map and figure review 

Internal draft plan preparation 

Planning team developed 

alternatives, objectives, and 

strategies for refuge goals. 

Team reviewed consequences of 

proposed alternatives. 

Team discussed relevant maps and 

figures needed. 

Planning team prepared draft CCP 

and EA, including maps. 

Document was prepared for editor 

to ready for internal review. 

November 2011 Planning Update #3 mailing Update #3 summarized the 

preliminary alternatives. 

October 2012 Draft CCP distributed with 

Planning Update #4 

Comment period opened for 30 

days. 

During the pre-planning phase, refuge staff identified and evaluated the issues and concerns raised 

during public scoping. These issues are defined as matters of controversy, dispute, or general 

concern, or interest in resource management activities, the environment, land uses, or public use 

activities. Issues are important to the planning process because they identify topics to be addressed in 

the CCP, pinpoint the types of information to gather, and help define alternatives for the CCP. It is 

the Service’s responsibility to focus planning and analysis on major issues. Major issues typically 

suggest different actions or alternative solutions, are within the refuge’s jurisdiction, and have a 

positive or negative effect on the resource. Major issues influence the decisions proposed in the draft 

CCP. Preliminary issues and goals that assisted in developing the draft preliminary alternatives for 

the draft CCP are listed below. 

1.9.2 Key Issues Addressed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.9.2.1 Restoration of Native Habitats and Natural Water Regimes 

One of the primary goals of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and 

restore native habitats of the Tualatin River Basin and ensure that the refuge’s efforts contribute to 

the much larger landscape outside of the refuge’s boundary. Native habitat restoration requires 

understanding basic resources that ecosystems are dependent on to make sound scientific decisions. 

Local-scale knowledge of soils, hydrology, and topography are important attributes to consider when 

planning to restore a given habitat type. Additionally, it is just as important to determine what the 

land supported historically and identify changes from the historical condition that would help guide 

restoration options for a given area. Refuge management must be able to answer the most basic 

questions of “why” and “where” to support decisions. One of the key components in making 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15 

restoration decisions is looking at the larger landscape both within and outside refuge boundaries. 

Habitats within the Tualatin River Basin are often fragmented into small, disconnected areas. Of 

primary concern is to provide larger contiguous blocks of a given habitat type, and maintain wildlife 

corridors to increase connectivity among habitat patches. 

The Tualatin River is the “lifeblood” of the refuge, as a majority of refuge lands lie within its 

floodplain. Agricultural practices, development of dams, and urbanization have drastically altered 

hydrological patterns of the Tualatin River floodplain. Knowledge of current river functions is 

critical to support floodplain habitat restoration and support decisions to convert areas of the refuge 

to a more natural hydrologic-driven process. 

One outcome of the CCP planning process was the development of computer modeling to help 

identify and map important floodplain habitat restoration opportunities using current land attributes 

and historical vegetation. The model would also help determine the historical, current, and future 

extent of frequency and duration of Tualatin River flooding in order to identify floodplain restoration 

opportunities and show how current river hydrology could be integrated into habitat management. 

1.9.2.2 Species Posing Management Challenges 

The refuge is known for its natural features and diverse and abundant wildlife. However, as a refuge 

in an urban/rural interface, the space for wildlife is limited and the potential for conflicting use, use 

that disturbs wildlife both within and outside refuge boundaries, poses wildlife management 

challenges. 

To date there have been no mosquito-borne human health disease issues documented near the refuge, 

but public concern for potential disease transmission from wildlife to humans have increased as 

human populations have grown around the refuge. The CCP will explore the refuge’s role and 

appropriate responses to these concerns in cooperation with local agencies. 

Invasive species are a major issue on public lands throughout the United States, and national wildlife 

refuges are no exception. Some invasive species are so well established that eradicating them 

completely using existing technology is impossible. The CCP will examine what the most 

appropriate strategies are for controlling invasive species in a variety of habitat types. Nonnative 

invasive plant species include reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, Bermuda grass, and common 

cocklebur. Efforts to control these and other species are ongoing. 

Nonnative animal populations that occur on refuge lands include nutria, bullfrogs, carp and other 

nonnative fish species, and feral cats. These species degrade habitat and affect native wildlife 

populations directly or by displacement. 

Some native species also pose management challenges. For example, beavers cause damage to water 

control structures and native vegetation; Canada geese numbers have increased significantly in the 

Willamette Valley and impact surrounding agricultural lands; ODFW has designated the Willamette 

Valley Management Unit as an elk de-emphasis area to minimize damage to agricultural crops—

populations of elk reside less than a mile from the Wapato Lake Unit. The CCP will evaluate all 

wildlife management options and control strategies for these species to protect refuge resources. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.9.2.3 Management of Special-status Species 

The refuge has great potential to play a role in the protection and recovery of listed species, species 

of concern, and rare species occupying a variety of habitat types within the Willamette Valley. The 

CCP will explore management and landscape-level restoration actions that could include restoring 

riparian habitats to a more natural barrier-free system, providing wintering habitat for listed 

salmonids and other native fish. The conservation and restoration of rare and declining habitats such 

as wet prairie, oak savanna, and other habitat types would assist in the recovery of special-status 

species and possibly prevent future listings. 

1.9.2.4 Refuge Access 

Getting to and from the refuge as well as accessing areas within the refuge are important 

considerations for the CCP. Many transportation systems that would bring visitors to the refuge 

either already exist, are planned, or have the potential to be implemented in the future. The CCP will 

explore whether the existing facilities within the refuge are sufficient to provide access to the range 

of high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including those existing and those that 

may be implemented as an outcome of the CCP. Access must be considered through the lens of 

appropriateness and compatibility, evaluating disturbance/impacts to wildlife and their habitats, other 

compatible public uses, and refuge management programs. 

1.9.2.5 Hunting and Fishing 

Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational uses of renewable natural resources. The 

Administration Act, other laws, and the Service’s policies permit hunting and fishing on a national 

wildlife refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and 

acquired. 

National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation. The word “refuge” encompasses the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, 

and as such, hunting might seem to be an inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, habitats 

that normally support healthy wildlife populations produce populations that can sustain minor 

individual loss without impacting the population as a whole; therefore, the resource is renewable. 

As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations, and in some 

instances, are actually necessary for sound wildlife management. For example, on some wildlife 

refuges, deer populations will often grow too large for the refuge habitat to support. If some deer are 

not harvested, they destroy habitat for themselves and other animals and die from starvation or 

disease. The harvesting of wildlife on refuges is carefully regulated to ensure an equilibrium between 

population levels and wildlife habitat. The decision to permit hunting and fishing on national wildlife 

refuges is made on a case-by-case basis that considers biological soundness, economic feasibility, 

effects on other refuge programs, and public demand (USFWS 2011f). 

Hunting and fishing are currently not offered at the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Hunting 

opportunities in the Portland metropolitan area are very limited, but there is potential to provide highquality hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge, in particular hunting at the Wapato Lake Unit 

and fishing at the Sherwood Units. Public scoping in 2010 revealed interest in offering hunting, 

including programs that offer youth hunts, and some interest in fishing. The CCP will examine what 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17 

types of hunting and fishing could be offered, based on appropriateness, compatibility, sustainability, 

and feasibility. 

1.9.2.6 Entrance and User Fees 

Charging entrance fees (to visit the refuge) and user fees (to participate in a specific program or use 

specific facilities) are options to financially support visitor service operations, including facility 

maintenance and salaries for park rangers, fee collectors, or hunter check station operators. Several 

aspects of a potential fee program will be evaluated during the CCP. The cost of managing a fee 

program will be weighed against the revenue that is likely to be generated. The refuge will consider 

whether the income generated by a fee program would be worth the potential loss of visitors who 

would not come to the refuge if a fee were required. 

1.9.2.7 Wapato Lake Management 

In 1952, the Wapato Improvement District (WID) was established to coordinate the various water 

needs for agricultural operations and maintenance of Wapato Lake. The WID operated and 

maintained the two pumps, 5+ miles of levees, weirs, canals, bridges, and culverts associated with 

water management of the lake. The district was comprised of all the landowners of the lake who paid 

assessments to WID to perform the necessary maintenance and operations to dewater the lake and 

deliver summer water to the lakebed landowners. 

When the refuge first acquired lands within the Wapato Improvement District, it became a member 

of the WID and paid an assessment along with the other landowners to maintain the infrastructure. 

When the refuge became the majority landowner of the lakebed, the WID voted to no longer function 

as a district and in spring of 2012, the WID donated its assets to the Service. In the interim, until 

more detailed habitat management can be completed, the refuge will continue to dewater the lakebed 

to manage invasive species and provide additional forage for waterfowl. Since it is inconsistent with 

refuge purposes and Service policies the refuge cannot take on the responsibilities of WID that relate 

to the irrigation responsibilities of the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District. However, the refuge is 

committed to working with the local agencies to address immediate concerns until a long-term 

alternative to irrigation water delivery can be determined. 

1.9.3 Issues Outside the Scope of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

While CCPs are very comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The planning team 

has compiled a list of issues that are currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP. 

Operations associated with raising of Scoggins Dam and raw water pipeline: At the Wapato 

Lake Unit, additional potential impacts to riverine and floodplain habitats and wildlife resources exist 

that are associated with a proposed raising of Scoggins Dam and the raw water pipeline project. 

Refuge and other Service staff will continue to be a part of this planning process. 

Alignment of proposed I-5 and 99-W connection corridor: A new road development and 

associated right-of-way construction project has the potential to impact future acquisition needs and 

threaten refuge resources at several refuge unit locations. Alternative routes have been proposed that 

cross fee title refuge lands or are in close proximity to refuge parcels. Refuge staff will continue to 

monitor and comment on this planning process. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Washington County urban reserve planning process: As an urban refuge, the Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge faces external threats that reflect the urbanization of the surrounding 

landscape. The City of Sherwood has been identified as one of the fastest growing cities in Oregon, 

with residential and commercial development continuing to expand at a high rate. Metro, the elected 

regional government for the Portland metropolitan area, has expanded the urban growth boundary 

since refuge establishment to accommodate growth of municipalities. Much of the habitat adjacent to 

the floodplain is now targeted for construction and development. 

Hazardous material and contaminant issues: Land use surrounding the refuge includes a variety of 

operations that may adversely impact refuge resources, primarily through contamination of soils and 

waterways and urban-related runoff upstream and adjacent to the refuge. Examples of past and 

current operations include auto recycling facilities; landfills; abandoned and current industrial sites; 

quarries; and others. The Service will continue to engage and provide input on these types of 

concerns on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate and as authorized. 

Willamette Valley Conservation Study Area: The Service has initiated a collaborative study of 

conservation opportunities within the Willamette Valley. The Willamette Valley Conservation Study 

Area is part of the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to develop twenty-first century conservation 

and recreation solutions. The initiative takes as its premise that lasting conservation solutions should 

rise from the American people. This landscape-level study will be accomplished with our partners 

and other stakeholders to focus on several key points (USFWS 2011a): 

 Conserving rare and declining habitats; 

 Assisting in recovering endangered, threatened, and candidate species; 

 Connecting people to nature through outdoor recreation and education opportunities; 

 Enhancing habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors; 

 Conserving rural working farms, ranches, and forest with wildlife habitat values through 

partnerships and incentives; and 

 Assisting in achieving Pacific Flyway Canada goose and other migratory bird objectives. 

1.10 Refuge Vision and Goals 

1.10.1 Expanded Vision Statement: An Image of the Future 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a natural treasure where an abundance of native 

wildlife thrive in a mosaic of wetland, prairie, forest, and stream habitats characteristic of the 

Willamette Valley that the Atfálat’i people knew. It’s a special place, an icon where the 

stories of the refuge reflect the importance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

refuge has a rich history of community vision where friends and neighbors helped create, and 

continue to care for, this urban refuge and the watershed that supports it. It is a model that 

combines excellence in landscape conservation, learning, and partnerships to strive for a 

healthy natural world. 

The refuge is a sanctuary for both wildlife and people, a place where the ebb and flow of the 

river marks the natural rhythms of the refuge through the seasons. 

Spring is a time when the melody of songbirds echoes through the canopy of the riparian 

forest and prairies are washed in the vibrant colors of wildflowers in bloom. Nature is alive 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

with the sights and sounds of animals as they fulfill their ancient ritual of courting and raising 

their young. Wetlands give way to mudflats as migrating shorebirds probe the mud for the 

insects and worms that will nourish them on their northward journey. The curiosity of school 

children is nurtured as they discover nature’s surprises like a bird’s nest, a vole tunnel, a 

duckling, a soaring hawk, or the slither of a snake. 

The heat of summer dominates as wetlands dry and native plants continue to grow, setting the 

dinner table for the waterfowl that will arrive in fall. Turtles bask on logs, songbirds are 

fledging their young, the chorus of frogs resonates at sundown, and bats dart through the 

night sky eating insects on the fly. Volunteers and refuge staff are busy with the chores of 

caring for the refuge, while families explore the sunny expanse of tall meadow grasses and 

seek shelter in the cool shade of the green forest. 

As fall approaches, the colors of the forest change to golden hues and the air fills with the 

sound of migrating geese and swans. Seasonal rains begin as the arriving waterfowl seek 

shelter and food in the wetlands that are beginning to flood. Deer and squirrels prepare for 

winter as they search for acorns under majestic oaks. Teachers gather at the refuge to learn 

how to share the sense of wonder that nature has to offer to their students. 

Winter brings the awe of thousands of waterfowl, swirling overhead as they seek sanctuary. 

Rains pour down as ducks, geese, and swans forage in the wetlands, abundant with the seeds 

and roots that will nourish them through the cold season. People gather and marvel as bald 

eagles perch high atop leafless trees and patrol wetlands searching for a waterfowl meal. Fish 

migrate through rising rivers and streams, and seek shelter in the quieter waters of backwater 

sloughs. Late in the winter, the open water of the wetlands reflects the misty sunsets as 

waterfowl depart to their arctic breeding grounds. 

Winter rains wane as the cycle begins anew in a place where rich traditions, outdoor learning 

experiences, and discovery foster a love of and caring for nature that endures for generations 

to come. 

1.10.2 Condensed Vision: Summarizing the Core Values of the Refuge 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a natural treasure where an abundance of native 

wildlife thrive in a mosaic of wetland, prairie, forest, and stream habitats characteristic of the 

Willamette Valley that the Atfálat’i people knew. The refuge is a sanctuary for both wildlife 

and people, a place where the ebb and flow of the river marks the natural rhythms of the 

refuge through the seasons. It’s a special place, an icon where the stories of the refuge reflect 

the importance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge has a rich history of 

community vision where friends and neighbors helped create, and continue to care for, this 

urban refuge and the watershed that supports it. It’s a model that combines excellence in 

landscape conservation, learning, and partnerships to strive for a healthy natural world. 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a place where wildlife, rich traditions, outdoor 

learning experiences, and discovery foster a love of and caring for nature that endures for 

generations to come. 
Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.10.3 Refuge Goals 

Refuge management goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose, but do not define measurable units. Goals must support the refuge 

vision and describe the desired end result. 

The CCP planning team has drafted a series of goals, objectives, and strategies to meet these goals 

and to address the concerns identified during scoping. Included below are draft goals. 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore bottomland riparian habitats consistent with the historical 

range of variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem to support breeding 

and migratory landbirds and other native species. 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat to a historical range 

of variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem to support breeding and 

migratory landbirds and other native species. 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore oak savanna habitat to a historical range of variability 

representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem to support breeding and migratory 

landbirds and other native species. 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore native Willamette Valley wet prairie habitat, with an 

emphasis on management for rare and listed species. 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore a diversity of wetlands to support migratory landbirds, 

waterbirds, and shorebirds with special emphasis on wintering waterfowl. 

 Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore streams and off-channel backwater slough 

habitats to benefit salmonids and other native aquatic species. 

 Cultivate and maintain croplands as an interim measure to control nonnative invasive species. 

 Collect scientific information (surveys, scientific assessments, and research) as necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions that are associated with the goals of the refuge. 

 Protect and manage the refuge’s unique cultural resources for their cultural, scientific, and 

educational values, while consulting with appropriate Native American groups and 

preservation organizations and complying with historic preservation legislation. 

 Provide visitors, local residents, volunteers, and partners with opportunities to understand and 

appreciate fish and wildlife conservation as well as the purpose, ecology, and management of 

the refuge and the Refuge System. 

 Provide students and educators from the greater Portland area with compatible and highquality opportunities to participate in environmental education. 

 Provide refuge visitors with diverse, compatible, and high-quality opportunities to participate 

in wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. 

 Build a broad-based natural resource conservation constituency with a focus on urban 

audiences to create a conservation ethic within urban communities; increase relevance of 

habitat conservation, wildlife heritage, and the Refuge System in the eyes of urban citizens; 

and instill a sense of empowerment for urban communities to work together to actively 

support conservation, in both local and global settings. 
Chapter 5

HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

Chapter 2

Management

Alternatives

© Craig Strand

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-1 

Chapter 2 Management Alternatives 

2.1 Alternatives Development 

In developing the alternatives for this draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), the Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) reviewed and considered a variety of natural and cultural 

resource, social, economic, and organizational information, ideas, and concerns important for 

managing the refuge. Much of this information is more fully described in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. As is 

appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, biological resource considerations were paramount in 

designing alternatives. A U.S. House of Representatives report accompanying the Refuge System 

Improvement Act stated, “the fundamental mission of our [Refuge] System is wildlife conservation: 

wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The refuge planning team reviewed available scientific reports and studies to better understand 

ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species, habitats, and public uses, 

including environmental and social effects of those uses. The planning team also identified refuge 

areas that, due to natural or cultural considerations, were especially sensitive to public uses and 

facilities, and identified refuge areas that provided special opportunities for public uses. 

Refuge staff met with representatives from local, state, and Federal agencies and initiated contact 

with elected officials and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (Tribes) to ascertain issues, 

priorities, problems, and recommendations as perceived by others. Refuge staff also conducted 

scoping meetings with agencies and the general public to ensure that comments and ideas were 

considered from all interested parties during development of this CCP, including the alternatives. 

These consultation, coordination, and public participation efforts are more fully described in 

Appendix K. 

The refuge planning team considered all of the above information and input, and identified and 

described a range of reasonable alternatives. A reasonable alternative is one that is technically and 

economically practical or feasible, would fulfill the purpose of and need for action without violating 

minimum environmental standards, and could be implemented. Each alternative was then evaluated 

for environmental and social effects and how it addressed the CCP issues. The Refuge then identified 

its preferred alternative—Alternative 2—which is labeled as the Proposed Action. Following public 

review and comment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service; USFWS) will select a CCP 

alternative for implementation. This selected alternative may include elements from any of the 

alternatives evaluated herein. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

During development of the alternatives, the refuge planning team considered the alternative actions 

discussed below. All of these actions were ultimately eliminated from further evaluation and 

inclusion in any alternatives for the reasons stated. 

Expanding the refuge boundary. The refuge has been protecting habitat within the approved 

acquisition boundary through an active effort to acquire lands and waters for almost 20 years. The 

approved acquisition boundary was substantially increased in 2007 with the addition of the 4,310-

acre Wapato Lake Unit (USFWS 2007b). As of June 2011, the refuge has acquired or has otherwise 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

gained management authority over approximately 2,204 acres of the 7,370 acres within the approved 

refuge acquisition boundary. Acquisition is from willing sellers through fee title or easements. Of 

those acres 2,154 acres are in fee title or easement and 50 acres are under memorandum of agreement 

with Metro for management. Refuge efforts now and into the foreseeable future are focused on 

securing the acreage yet to be acquired within the existing boundary from willing sellers. Therefore, 

expansion of the approved refuge acquisition boundary is not being considered as part of this CCP 

effort. 

The Service has recently initiated a separate study of opportunities to conserve valuable fish, 

wildlife, and plant habitats throughout the Willamette Valley (USFWS 2011a). This new effort is 

part of the national America’s Great Outdoors initiative and will involve collaboration among local 

communities, landowners, agencies, and organizations. Purposes of the study include conserving rare 

habitats; enhancing habitat connectivity; helping to recover and avoid listing species with declining 

populations; addressing goose management issues, including agricultural depredation; enhancing 

water quantity and quality; and increasing wildlife-dependent recreation and education opportunities. 

The study will evaluate voluntary conservation easements, private land incentives, potential 

expansion of existing or establishment of new national wildlife refuges; and other “land protection 

strategies that support local economies, conserve natural resources and provide increased outdoor 

recreation and education opportunities” (USFWS 2011a). One of the outcomes of this study may be 

the possibility of establishing the existing Wapato Lake Unit as its own national wildlife refuge. 

Several opportunities will be provided for the public to become involved in this new study. The 

refuge is participating in this Willamette Valley–wide conservation effort, but the initiative is not part 

of this CCP. 

Cropland management for geese. In its plan to reduce goose depredation of private agricultural 

lands, the Pacific Flyway Council (PFC) recommended, among other things, that Federal refuges do 

“everything possible ... to provide abundant, high quality goose forage” (PFC 1998). A task force 

created by the Oregon legislature in 2009 to evaluate this issue made similar recommendations and 

stated that, “Supplemental feeding of geese on ... federal areas should be utilized when needed to 

reduce goose depredation on private farmlands” (Goose Depredation Task Force 2010). Although 

cooperative farming is used as an interim management tool prior to restoring acquired lands, the 

refuge planning team considered implementation of a permanent cropland management program on 

the refuge to provide winter forage for geese. This proposal was eliminated from further study for the 

following reason: 

 Restoration and management of native habitat types on these refuge acreages support higher 

priority ecological values (i.e., remnant vegetation communities and wildlife species with 

declining populations) and directly support the purposes of the refuge. 

Allowing certain nonwildlife-dependent uses. Uses found not appropriate have not been included 

in alternatives or carried forward in the CCP process (see discussion of the Refuge Administration 

Act in Section 1.5, Legal and Policy Guidance). The refuge planning team considered the 

appropriateness of providing opportunities for a broad range of recreational and commercial uses of 

the refuge that were suggested during CCP scoping or at other times prior to the start of the CCP 

process. These uses include dog training/walking, bicycling/jogging, plant harvesting, trapping, boat 

access, and geocaching. 

Each of these uses was evaluated and found to cause unacceptable levels of disturbance to wildlife, 

create unacceptable public safety issues, and/or interfere with users engaged in compatible wildlife-
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-3 

dependent uses. Therefore, these uses were found to be not appropriate on the refuge, and they are 

not included in any of this CCP’s alternatives. These findings are documented in Appendix A, 

Appropriate Use Findings. 

Providing boat access to the Tualatin River at the Wapato Lake Unit. Comments were made 

during public scoping and the public use review regarding the potential for boating access to the 

Tualatin River from the Wapato Lake Unit (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2010a, 2010b). 

As it flows through the northern half of the Wapato Lake Unit, the Tualatin River is quite narrow and 

is bordered by strips of remnant riparian forest. As a result of flooding and natural tree fall, the river 

is regularly blocked by multiple brush and logjams. Maneuvering even a small human-powered craft 

through this reach of the river would require regular lifting of the craft over or around logjams, 

creating a potentially dangerous situation. If the refuge developed improved boat access to the river, 

the public would reasonably expect a relatively safe and enjoyable boating experience, which at this 

time, we are unable to provide. Additionally, large woody debris is often a valuable component of 

aquatic fisheries habitat and logs are best left in place to facilitate wildlife benefits. For these reasons, 

this proposal was determined impractical and was not further evaluated as part of this CCP. 

2.3 Alternative Descriptions 

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives 

As a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), the refuge is managed to 

conserve native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and to provide opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent public uses. The refuge would continue to conduct core management programs 

regardless of which CCP alternative is eventually selected for implementation. Following are brief 

descriptions of the principles and programs that are common to all three alternatives evaluated in this 

CCP, including Alternative 1, Continue Current Management (for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], Alternative 1 is also the No Action Alternative). 

Adaptive management. Based upon the Service’s Adaptive Management Implementation policy, 

refuge staff shall use adaptive management for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, 

restoring lands and resources. Adaptive management is defined as a system of management practices 

based upon clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether management actions are 

achieving desired results (objectives). The recently published Adaptive Management Technical Guide 

also defines adaptive management as a decision process that “promotes flexible decision making that 

can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events 

become better understood” (Williams et al. 2009). Adaptive management accounts for the fact that 

complete knowledge about fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and the ecological processes supporting 

them may be lacking. The role of natural variability contributing to ecological resilience also is 

recognized as an important principle for adaptive management. It is not a “trial and error” process; 

rather, adaptive management emphasizes learning while doing based upon available scientific 

information and best professional judgment considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on 

refuge lands. 

Appropriateness and compatibility. Consistent with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, prior 

to allowing any public use, including commercial use of the refuge, each such use would first need to 

be found appropriate and determined compatible. The Service would make preliminary findings and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

determinations regarding the appropriateness and compatibility of each use included in each 

alternative. Prior to signature of a decision document for the CCP and its associated NEPA 

document, appropriateness findings and compatibility determinations would be finalized for each 

public use included in the Service’s proposed action. Appropriateness and compatibility are further 

discussed in Appendices A and B. 

Biological integrity. The Administration Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the [Refuge System] are maintained for the benefit 

of present and future generations of Americans ....” The policy is an additional directive for the 

Service to follow while achieving a refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System’s mission. It provides 

for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of native fish, wildlife, and habitat 

resources found on the refuge. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for the Refuge 

(e.g., in compatibility determinations), the Service would use sound professional judgment to 

determine the refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

(BIDEH) at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment would incorporate field 

experience, knowledge of refuge resources, an understanding of the refuge’s role within the 

ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside 

and outside the Service. The policy states that “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, 

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

populations that existed during historic conditions.”1

Climate change. The Service considers and analyzes climate change in its decisions, long-range 

plans, and other activities. Habitat conditions and wildlife populations are directly and indirectly 

sensitive to climatic conditions, namely precipitation and temperature. As described in greater detail 

in Chapter 3, the area’s hydrology is not particularly sensitive to changes in climate because the 

refuge is located in a rain-dominant system. However, increasing temperatures increase the risk of 

fire, disease, pests, and invasive species throughout the Pacific Northwest, and these trends may 

affect the refuge’s forest, riparian, and upland habitats and species and their management. 

The combined changes (temperature, precipitation, and hydrology) can affect the refuge’s habitats 

and species directly, such as the timing of migratory arrival and many other phenological responses, 

and indirectly, such as by added vulnerability to other stressors including invasive species and 

pathogens. Predicting biological response at the population level, however, requires complex 

research and information and sophisticated models that can be validated with field studies over time. 

This highlights the importance of monitoring both habitats and species to establish potential 

correlations and adaptation options. 

In summary, climate change has the potential to significantly impact the refuge’s ability to achieve 

its purposes, goals, and objectives. Knowledge and monitoring of these regional and local trends 

would be used to assess potential changes or enhancements to the refuge’s management actions and 

techniques and/or their timing, using the adaptive management approach described above. Most 

notably, the region’s changing climate, specifically hotter and drier summer months, could challenge 

the refuge’s goals and objectives for maintaining, enhancing, and restoring mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest habitat to a historical range of variability, and for maintaining, 

enhancing, and restoring native Willamette Valley wet prairie and shrub-scrub wetland habitat. 

 

1

 There is one caveat, however. Management for a refuge’s purpose(s) is the highest priority, so maintenance and/or 

restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health cannot compromise or conflict with refuge 

purpose(s). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-5 

The refuge would monitor wildlife corridor analyses, vulnerability assessments, vegetative and 

species response modeling, and other efforts, including those underway at a landscape scale, such as 

the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC). LCCs are formal sciencemanagement partnerships between the Service, Federal agencies, states, Tribes, nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), universities, and other entities to address climate change and other biological 

stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs provide science support, biological planning, conservation 

design, research, and design of inventory and monitoring programs. As needed, objectives and 

strategies would be adjusted to assist in enhancing refuge resources’ resilience to climate change and 

to potentially manage for new assemblages of species in the future. 

Energy efficiency, sustainability, and other green building concepts were among the key principles 

used in the design and construction of the refuge’s Wildlife Center, environmental education shelter, 

and administration building in the past decade (USFWS 2003a). The refuge would continue to take 

steps to mitigate effects of climate change and reduce its carbon footprint to help achieve the 

Service’s national commitment to become carbon neutral by 2020 (USFWS 2010a). Habitat 

restoration efforts under all alternatives would help to sequester carbon. Most restoration efforts 

involve planting grasses, shrubs, or trees, each of which would remove atmospheric carbon dioxide 

and store it within the plant materials. In addition, forest and scrub-shrub habitat types would 

increase shading along waterways, contributing to decreased water temperatures. Restoring and 

maintaining large blocks of habitat may also provide extended life history needs, such as cooler 

forest areas, for fish and wildlife as climate change occurs. 

Coordination with the State. The refuge would continue to routinely coordinate with state agencies 

such as Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ), and the Department of State Lands (DSL). Key subjects of mutual interest include 

water quality; wetlands; management of dusky Canada geese, cackling Canada geese, and other 

waterfowl; goose and elk depredation; management of wildlife-dependent recreation, including 

hunting and fishing; management of nonnative and invasive species; and management of specialstatus species. 

Coordination with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. The refuge would continue to 

coordinate and consult with the Tribes on subjects of mutual interest, including education and 

interpretation regarding cultural resources. 

Cultural resources protection and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance. The 

refuge would continue to uphold federal laws protecting cultural resources, including Section 106 of 

the NHPA. These laws also mandate consultation with Native American Tribes, the State Historic 

Preservation Office, and other preservation partners.

Facility management. The efficient and safe operation of refuge facilities is critical to achievement 

of refuge purposes, goals, and objectives, including conserving native fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats, and providing compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. Under all 

alternatives, the Service would continue to maintain, repair, upgrade, and/or replace refuge facilities 

as necessary and appropriate, consistent with available funding. 

Fees. Some public lands, including national wildlife refuges, establish and use revenues generated by 

entrance and user fees to help support their programs. Federal law and policy requires the use of fee 

revenues to support visitor services programs, including maintenance and repair of visitor facilities. 

The refuge has received official approval to establish an entrance fee program (USFWS 2009a) but 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

has not implemented one to date. The refuge would continue to evaluate the desirability of 

establishing entrance fees to supplement Federal appropriations, grants and other less reliable 

funding, and volunteer support. 

Funding and staffing. As a result of inflation, implementation of the No Action Alternative would 

likely require increased funding just to maintain current operations. Full implementation of 

Alternatives 2 or 3 would require funding levels substantially above current budget allocations to 

support the identified habitat and wildlife management activities and enhanced public use programs. 

Aspects of the refuge’s habitat and wildlife program, such as habitat restoration projects, have been 

funded with grants and cost-share moneys, and through mitigation and other agreements with other 

agencies. A much greater proportion of the refuge’s visitor services program has been funded with 

one-time grants, cost-share programs, and funding from other outside sources. In addition, as 

discussed elsewhere in this chapter, both programs are supported through numerous partnership and 

volunteer efforts. Regardless of which alternative is selected for implementation, future programs on 

the refuge would continue to rely on grants, cost-share moneys, partnerships, and volunteers. 

Maintenance of public use activities at the levels provided at present is not guaranteed and is less 

certain than continuation of current habitat and wildlife management activities. 

As noted at the beginning of this document, the purpose of this CCP is to provide long-term guidance 

for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge 

purposes; and identify the Service’s best estimates of future needs. Selection of a CCP alternative 

does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, 

continued land acquisition, or construction of new projects. After the CCP is completed, actions and 

programs that are part of the selected alternative would be implemented over a period of 15 years, 

consistent with available funding and staffing. 

Goose management. The refuge and partner agencies are grappling with several issues regarding 

goose management. Issues of concern include reduced numbers of dusky Canada geese and the 

abundance of cackling Canada geese, the loss of goose foraging habitat, and goose depredation on 

private farmland (PFC 1998, 1999, 2008). There are also concerns with increasing populations of 

resident Western Canada geese. 

The refuge lies within the Willamette Valley and Lower Columbia River area, has agricultural lands 

as neighbors, and supports wintering dusky Canada geese and cackling Canada geese; thus, goose 

management is an important issue for the refuge. All CCP alternatives include winter surveys of 

refuge goose use and winter sanctuary areas that provide resting and foraging habitats for dusky 

Canada geese and other waterfowl. 

Integrated pest management (IPM). Nonnative species, especially invasive species, and other pest 

plants and animals can disrupt native ecosystems and management of conservation lands. They can 

displace native plants and create monotypic habitats of little value to native fish and wildlife; they 

can prey upon native species; they can transmit diseases to other species, including humans; and they 

can damage facilities used to manage habitats and provide public use opportunities. Species posing 

the greatest current threats to the refuge include Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, common carp, 

bullfrogs, nutria, Bermuda grass, and reed canarygrass. Species that have been detected on the refuge 

but were immediately eradicated include Japanese knotweed and purple loosestrife. In addition, 

snapping turtles have been documented in the Tualatin River, but have not been observed by refuge 

personnel. Species that pose a significant threat to the refuge, but have not been documented, include 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-7 

giant hogweed, zebra mussel, garlic mustard, and New Zealand mud snail. Control of such species is 

a high-priority refuge management activity in all alternatives. Because of their aggressive nature and 

high potential for harm, the refuge has zero tolerance for purple loosestrife and Japanese knotweed 

and would continue to take immediate action to remove these species from the refuge whenever they 

are found. 

Other pest species, both native and nonnative, such as beaver, feral cats, catfish, cocklebur, mosquito 

fish, poison hemlock, mosquitoes, sunfish, teasel, bull thistle, Canada thistle, velvetleaf, and tansy, 

can also limit the refuge’s ability to provide high-quality habitats and public use programs. 

Appropriate management actions, including control efforts, would continue to be taken for these 

species under all alternatives, consistent with need and available funding. 

An IPM approach would be used, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and 

invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on refuge lands. IPM would involve using 

methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which considers 

minimum potential effects to nontarget species and the refuge environment. Pesticides may be used 

where physical, cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof are impractical or incapable 

of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is needed on refuge lands, 

the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species would be used unless 

considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards preclude it. Pesticide use 

would be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be applied on lands 

and waters under refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species refers to a biologically substantial decrease in environmental 

quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors such as declines in native species populations or 

communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered ecological processes. 

Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species, including preying 

and feeding on them (e.g., bullfrogs eating native amphibians); causing or vectoring diseases; 

preventing them from reproducing or killing their young (i.e., pushing eggs out of nests); 

outcompeting them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other vital resources; or hybridizing with 

them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly native individuals remain. 

Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest species. For example, 

decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing the availability and/or 

abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during winter. 

See Appendix G for the refuge’s IPM program documentation. Along with a more detailed 

discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of pesticides for pest 

management on refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, most proposed 

pesticide uses on refuge lands would be evaluated for potential effects to refuge biological resources 

and environmental quality. These potential effects would be documented in “chemical profiles” (see 

Appendix G). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best management practices (BMPs) for 

habitat management as well as cropland/facilities maintenance would be approved for use on refuge 

lands where there likely would be only minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and 

environmental quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold values in chemical profiles. 

However, pesticides may be used on refuge lands where substantial effects to species and the 

environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., 

to counter mosquito-borne disease). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Land acquisition and habitat protection. The approved refuge boundary for the Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge totals 7,370 acres. As of June 2011, the Service had secured management 

authority over 2,215 acres. This authority was secured through fee title land acquisition, purchase of 

conservation easements, and management agreements. During the 15-year life of the CCP, the 

Service would continue actively securing management authority over lands and waters within the 

approved refuge boundary to protect habitat for native fish, wildlife, and plants and to provide 

opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent public use. This high-priority effort would be 

accomplished with available funding under current management authorities, and would continue to 

be exclusively on a willing-seller basis. 

Some residences and outbuildings acquired when lands were purchased for the refuge would be used 

to house refuge personnel, provide offices for Service personnel, and provide storage space. 

Outbuildings included with newly acquired lands would be opportunistically considered for reuse 

(e.g., to shelter environmental education activities or store equipment and supplies) or removed. 

Partnerships. It is essential to partner with others to conduct programs and accomplish goals and 

objectives on national wildlife refuges. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge actively partners 

with a number of organizations, including other public agencies, nonprofit conservation 

organizations, schools, private businesses, and others to implement current programs. Partners 

provide funding, equipment and supplies, special expertise, and volunteers (see further discussion 

below). These partnerships would continue in the future. 

Public uses and facilities in Atfálat’i Unit. At least the same types of public use opportunities and 

facilities currently available in the Atfálat’i Unit (see Section 2.3.2, Summaries of Alternatives) 

would continue to be available in the future under all CCP alternatives. Depending upon funding 

levels, the magnitude of these opportunities could change (e.g., changes could result in the 

numbers/frequency of programs offered, or the days or hours of operation). 

Participation in planning and review of regional development activities. The Service would 

continue to participate in local planning and studies pertaining to future commercial, industrial, 

residential, and other urban development; transportation; recreation; contamination; and other 

potential concerns that may affect refuge resources. This includes maintaining relationships with 

local jurisdictions, other agencies, and private groups to stay abreast of ongoing planning, studies and 

current and potential developments. Outreach and education would continue to be used to raise 

awareness of refuge resources and their dependence on a healthy and functioning ecosystem. 

Quality recreation programs. Refuge System policy provides specific criteria for managing 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (605 FW 1). This policy defines quality recreational 

programs as ones that: 

 Are safe, accessible, and available to a diversity of citizens, and use facilities that blend into 

the environment; 

 Promote responsible behavior and compliance with laws and regulations; 

 Promote stewardship and conservation, understanding and appreciation of nature, and the 

refuge’s role in resource management and conservation; 

 Provide reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 

 Minimize conflicts with fish, wildlife, and their habitats, other public uses, and neighboring 

landowners; and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-9 

 Use visitor satisfaction to define and evaluate programs. 

Refuge programs would be developed and managed to ensure that high-quality opportunities are 

provided for all visitors. 

Refuge revenue sharing. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act provides a mechanism to make 

payments to counties in lieu of taxes. Lands acquired by the Service are removed from county tax 

rolls. However, this Act, amended in 1978, allows the Service to offset the tax losses by annually 

paying the county or other local units of government an amount that often equals or exceeds that 

which would have been collected from taxes if the lands had been in private ownership. 

Regulatory compliance. Prior to implementation, all activities in all alternatives would undergo 

appropriate reviews and consultations. Permits and clearances would be secured as necessary to 

comply with legal and policy requirements. 

Response to mosquito-borne disease. Mosquito populations on refuge lands would continue to be 

allowed to fluctuate and function unimpeded unless they pose a threat to human health. Mosquitoes 

inhabiting the refuge’s aquatic habitats are native invertebrates that provide a forage base for fish and 

wildlife, including migratory birds and anadromous fish. To protect human health, the state or a local 

vector control agency would be allowed to control mosquito populations on refuge lands. Pesticide 

treatments (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) would be allowed on refuge lands only if local, 

current population monitoring and/or disease surveillance data indicate refuge-based mosquitoes 

pose a health threat to humans. Mosquito treatments would be in accordance with IPM principles 

applicable to all pests. Pesticides proposed for mosquito control would use appropriate and practical 

BMPs, given potential effects documented in chemical profiles. Under Service policy, pesticides may 

be used on refuge lands for mosquito control even though substantial effects to species and the 

environment are possible (i.e., exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety. 

The mosquito management compatibility determination in Appendix B provides details regarding 

allowed mosquito population monitoring, disease surveillance, and treatments. As noted earlier, 

Appendix G, describes the refuge’s IPM program, which is applicable to all pests, including 

mosquitoes. 

Following adoption of this CCP, the refuge would develop a disease contingency plan to address 

responses to mosquito-borne disease outbreaks on and/or adjacent to refuge lands. Much of the 

information contained in the compatibility determination for mosquito management would be 

incorporated with additional specificity, where necessary, in this plan. This plan would also include 

information on the history of mosquito-borne diseases on and/or adjacent to the Refuge as well as 

measures to protect refuge visitors, Service-authorized agents, and Service employees when a health 

threat or emergency is identified by health officials. 

Restoration of ruderal habitats. The refuge contains many tracts of land that consist of fallow 

farmland, undeveloped lands that contain mainly nonnative vegetation, or lands that are otherwise 

not restored to native habitat types. These lands include both uplands and wetlands in degraded 

condition. On many of these tracts, the refuge has begun pretreatment work to restore native habitat 

types. Pretreatments may include mowing, discing, removal of nonnative trees, application of 

herbicide to remove nonnative plants, or other activities. These pretreatments are conducted with the 

expectation that the area would be restored to specific native habitat types as described in the habitat 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

goals listed below in this chapter. There are currently 181 acres of ruderal upland and 68 acres of 

ruderal wetland that would be restored to native habitat types. 

Site restrictions. Selected tracts of land within the refuge boundary are encumbered with legal 

restrictions that limit the manner in which those tracts can be managed for fish, wildlife, and public 

use (see Appendix J). These site-specific limitations originate with management agreements and 

mitigation requirements (USFWS 1992a, 2010d). These site restrictions are common to all CCP 

alternatives for the refuge. 

Sound professional judgment. Decisions regarding refuge management and actions taken to carry 

out these decisions would continue to be based on sound professional judgment. Federal regulations 

in 16 United States Code (USC) 668-668ee define sound professional judgment as “a finding, 

determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management 

and administration, available science and resources, and adherence to the requirements of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and other applicable laws. Included in 

this finding, determination, or decision is a refuge manager’s field experience and knowledge of the 

particular refuge’s resources.” 

Step-down management plans. This CCP provides broad, long-range guidance for overall 

management of the refuge and its principal programs. Further work, including more data gathering 

and more detailed analyses, would be needed to develop more specific guidance for selected 

programs and elements. In these cases, step-down management plans would be developed. Stepdown management plans would satisfy NEPA requirements and other relevant compliance 

requirements, and the development of these plans would include appropriate opportunities for public 

involvement. The following plans are scheduled for development, regardless of which alternative is 

selected for implementation. 

Disease contingency plan. This plan would be developed in partnership with mosquito abatement, 

public health, and animal health authorities from the State of Oregon, Washington County, and 

Yamhill County. This plan would describe mosquito abatement, avian influenza, and other public 

and wildlife health threats. It is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

Elk management plan. This plan would be developed in partnership with the Willamette Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex and ODFW. It would describe how elk would be managed on 

national wildlife refuges in the Willamette Valley. Consideration of elk viewing and/or hunting 

opportunities, as appropriate, would be included. 

Facilities management plan. This plan would be developed within 5 years of the completion of the 

CCP. The plan would include: 1) preparation of a historic buildings assessment; 2) evaluation of 

quarters buildings to determine number needed, best locations, and maintenance costs; and 3) 

evaluation of potential locations for a small administrative and maintenance facility at the Wapato 

Lake Unit. 

Fire management plan. The refuge’s 2008 fire management plan is being revised and updated. The 

current plan solely addresses fire suppression and pile burning. The updated plan would address the 

need for prescribed fire to support established habitat communities and would be developed in 

consultation with DEQ and concurrently with the CCP. See Appendix O for the draft revised fire 

management plan. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-11 

Inventory and monitoring plan. The Refuge System Administration Act charges the Service to 

“monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.” The refuge would 

participate in development of an inventory and monitoring plan as part of a larger effort in the 

Willamette Valley. This plan would provide guidance for establishment of baseline inventories and 

subsequent monitoring activities to ensure they use common standards and are conducted with 

appropriate statistical rigor. These inventory and monitoring efforts would be designed to address 

refuge information needs for adaptive management. Data gathered would feed into efforts across 

larger geographic areas to detect ecological changes caused by pollution, development, climate 

change, and other major environmental stressors. 

Support the protection and recovery of federally listed, state-listed, and other special-status 

species. The refuge is undertaking projects to enhance and restore native prairie and savanna habitat 

types that may support recovery of federally and state-listed plant species, such as Bradshaw’s 

lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, Nelson’s checker-mallow, Willamette daisy, and others. Whenever 

possible, as these projects proceed, planting and maintenance of these species would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable recovery plans to help facilitate downlisting or delisting. Restoration and 

maintenance of in-stream, off-channel, and other habitat types may benefit various native fish species 

including upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, Oregon chub, Pacific lamprey, coastal cutthroat 

trout, and upper Willamette River steelhead. In addition, most habitat types encountered on refuge 

lands could support some or all life phases of any number of listed or special-status species such as 

bald eagle, band-tailed pigeon, Fender’s blue butterfly, streaked horned lark, northern red-legged 

frog, northwestern pond turtle, willow flycatcher, and others. When planning and implementing 

various restoration projects, consideration would be given to strategies that would promote healthy 

populations of these species. 

Urban refuge. The refuge is one of a handful of urban national wildlife refuges and was one of the 

first in the Refuge System specifically established under the Service’s Urban Refuge Policy (Smith 

1991; USFWS 1996). This policy states, in part, that the primary purpose for establishing urban 

refuges is to: 

 “foster environmental awareness and outreach programs to develop an informed and involved 

citizenry that will support fish and wildlife conservation”; 

 “ ... provide public use benefits associated with fish and wildlife resources that include ... 

bird watching, fishing, scientific research, environmental education, open space in an urban 

setting, and protection of cultural resources”; and 

 include “education, interpretation and wildlife-oriented recreation ... opportunities for 

partnerships with State and local governments, private individuals, or citizens groups ... [and 

a] potential role of nonprofit or volunteer groups for management purposes.” 

The Refuge would continue in the future to be managed consistently with the guidance contained in 

the Urban Refuge Policy.

Volunteers. With the exception of law enforcement, personnel management, contracting, and select 

other functions prohibited by law, volunteers are involved in almost all aspects of the refuge’s habitat 

and wildlife, and visitor services programs. In fiscal year 2010, volunteers donated over 15,000 hours 

of support to the refuge (USFWS 2010a). This equals more than seven full-time personnel and is 

valued at more than $327,000 (national volunteer value = $21.79/hour [Independent Sector 2011]). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

As with partnerships, the level of volunteer involvement is essential to the variety, number, and 

quality of programs offered through the refuge. Volunteer contributions are especially valuable 

during times of static or declining budgets, and when grants and other funding are harder to secure. 

However, volunteers are not without cost. The success of the volunteer program relies heavily on 

management and oversight by the refuge’s visitor services manager, the Friends of the Refuge, shortterm interns, and grant-funded staff. Regardless, the refuge would continue in the future to encourage 

and support a large and active volunteer program. 

Wapato Lake conceptual management. The Wapato Lake Unit was established in 2007 to restore 

the historic lake bed for the purpose of improving habitat conditions for a number of native species. 

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

listed fish species, as well as migratory birds including breeding landbirds and waterfowl species. It 

is the intent of the Service to restore the lake bed to protect, manage, and restore habitats for 

migratory birds, fish, and other native wildlife of the Willamette Valley (USFWS 2007b). 

Management of this unit remains mostly conceptual as further analysis of the area is required before 

making specific management decisions on habitat restoration and public use opportunities. Future 

management decisions would support the purposes for which the Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge was established as described in the 2007 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Proposed 

Wapato Lake Unit Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2007b). 

Key factors in establishment of the unit were to: 

 Contribute to efforts across the Tualatin River Basin to improve watershed health and 

function; 

 Protect patches of remnant rare native habitat such as herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands; 

 Allow for the restoration of rare native habitat; 

 Protect migratory bird habitat, especially wintering waterfowl and breeding neotropical 

songbirds; 

 Improve and protect habitat for anadromous fish; 

 Provide opportunities for people of all ages to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation; and 

 Enhance protection of cultural resources. 

Currently, the Wapato Lake Unit is composed mostly of land that has been farmed since the 1930s. 

The land is mostly agricultural fields that, when left alone, are invaded by reed canarygrass that 

forms a monoculture. Reed canarygrass is an invasive plant that likes disturbed, moist soil 

conditions, and would prevent any native plants from becoming established. It does this by 

overcrowding the site and taking essential nutrients from the soil and water that would otherwise be 

used by native plants. The levees that were constructed to facilitate delivery of water to the lake bed 

during summer months are overrun with stands of Himalayan blackberry. The blackberry makes it 

nearly impossible to navigate the levees by foot, and they are also completely inaccessible by allterrain vehicle (ATV) or other wheeled vehicles for maintenance purposes. The canals themselves 

are filled with water during the winter from the creeks and also during the summer months during 

irrigation. These canals may contain some fish species and invertebrates. Overall, due to the severity 

of the reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry invasion, it is unlikely that the Wapato Lake Unit 

currently supports a high diversity of species. However, the potential for restoring this area to a 

mixture of riparian forest, and scrub-shrub and herbaceous wetlands, is extremely high, and there are 

vast benefits to trust resources, including migratory birds and listed species. Restoration of this 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-13 

historic lake bed would lead to a diverse and rich area that would protect, restore, and provide a 

diversity of habitats for migratory birds, including songbirds, wading birds, shorebirds, wintering 

waterfowl, and resident and anadromous fish. 

To help determine the level of restoration needed at Wapato Lake, the Service has engaged the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct studies to assist with the refuge’s planning 

efforts. Actual management activities of the Wapato Lake Unit would be determined based upon 

adaptive management and the outcome of the Wapato Lake water management planning study. 

While there are many unknowns for the future of Wapato Lake, there are some things that would 

occur regardless of the restoration direction the Services chooses to take. Interim goals, as defined in 

the 2007 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Wapato Lake Unit Land Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment, reflect the core mission of the Service to protect wildlife 

resources and the purpose for which the Wapato Lake Unit was established. There would continue to 

be cooperative farming on the lake bed to help control and eradicate reed canarygrass and other 

invasive species, and the refuge would provide public use and focus on habitat restoration. 

Wapato Lake Water Management Planning Study. The Service is coordinating with the USGS’s 

Oregon Water Science Center and others to conduct studies and evaluations to support planning for 

the Wapato Lake Unit (Buccola et al. ca. 2010). Results from these studies would allow the refuge to 

better define and evaluate the effects of water management and associated habitat restoration 

alternatives for Wapato Lake to benefit the habitat and species, as mentioned in the above section. 

These studies and evaluations would continue under all alternatives. 

Interim water management at Wapato Lake. Water retention in and discharge from Wapato Lake 

would continue as they have in the recent past until a more detailed habitat management plan can be 

completed. That is, rain and naturally inflowing water would be allowed to fill the lake bed during 

the fall and winter. In the spring, the lake bed would be dewatered by pumping out and discharging 

water into the Tualatin River to allow cooperative farming to occur as an interim form of habitat 

management. On-going maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure would occur to the best of 

our ability and as appropriate, and no pumped discharges would be made with the large pump 

between May 1 and October 31 each year without approval of DEQ. 

Although the Service recognizes the importance of irrigation water to the farming community, the 

delivery of irrigation water is not part of the Refuge System’s mission or the official purposes for 

establishing the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Federal legislation mandates that, first and 

foremost, the mission of the Refuge System is wildlife conservation. In addition, before being 

allowed, any other use of a national wildlife refuge must first be determined compatible with the 

purposes for establishing the refuge. Regulations and policy establish specific guidance for making 

this determination. 

Water quality. The Tualatin River is listed as a “water quality limited” waterway and as such was 

assigned a series of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for temperature, pH, chlorophyll a, 

bacteria, and dissolved oxygen. The existing TMDLs are currently being revised by DEQ. The refuge 

would continue to work with DEQ and other partners to address issues related to water quality and 

TMDLs in the Tualatin River. 

Wilderness review. Service policy requires that a wilderness review be completed for each refuge as 

part of the CCP process. This review includes three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. If 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

the wilderness inventory determines that some refuge lands and/or waters satisfy minimum criteria 

for wilderness designation, wilderness study areas are designated and the review enters the second 

(study) phase. See Appendix D for more information on the refuge’s wilderness review, which 

recommended that the refuge not undergo further study for inclusion into the wilderness system 

because it does not meet specific criteria required for wilderness designation. 

Wildlife-dependent public uses. The Improvement Act identified six wildlife-dependent public 

uses. They are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. These six wildlife-dependent public uses are to be given special consideration in 

refuge planning and management, and opportunities to allow these six uses are to be considered in 

each refuge CCP. 

It is expected that participation in refuge visitor service programs would instill a sense of wonder; 

cultivate a connection with nature; foster a lifelong relationship with the refuge and the Refuge 

System; encourage a conservation ethic; and enhance the public’s understanding of and appreciation 

for fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as of refuge management programs to conserve 

these biological resources. 

2.3.2 Summaries of Alternatives 

A brief description of each alternative follows. Table 2-1 summarizes all three alternatives for 

comparison. All of the actions described in Section 2.3.1, Features Common to All Alternatives, 

would occur with each alternative and are not repeated here. Maps displaying the habitat types and 

visitor services features associated with the three alternatives can be found in Appendix P. Changes 

in habitat types and restoration objectives were derived from the philosophy of creating larger blocks 

of contiguous habitat types to reduce fragmentation and increase connectivity among habitat patches. 

In some instances we propose to eliminate small patches of rare habitat in favor of another habitat 

type that would result in less fragmentation. We would then enhance and/or restore more of the rare 

habitat type in another location to achieve the same goal. 

2.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Alternative 1 describes continued implementation of the refuge’s current management program and 

philosophy. This is known as the “No Action” Alternative. 

Habitat and Wildlife 

The refuge would continue efforts to acquire, restore, and conserve wetlands and other habitats to 

benefit native fish and wildlife resources (see Appendix P, Map 8). Migratory birds, including 

wintering waterfowl, would remain a focus. 

Habitats on the refuge would be actively managed. A large focus of management would be on 

wetland habitats where levees, water diversions, water control structures, pumps, canals, and ditches 

would be used to manage water levels to mimic historic seasonal flooding and draining cycles. 

Wetland basins would be periodically mowed, disced, and/or selectively treated with herbicides to 

mimic natural disturbance cycles, limit plant succession, and suppress invasive plant species. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-15 

Future habitat restoration would consider soils, elevation, hydrology, adjacent relic habitats, habitat 

connectivity across the landscape, and other factors when determining which habitats to restore and 

manage on the refuge. 

Refuge habitats, such as prairies, oak savannas, wetlands, and forests would be restored using a suite 

of techniques. These include: removal of nonnative plants; planting native grasses and forbs; planting 

native shrubs and trees; and weed control. Wildfire suppression would remain the only element of the 

refuge’s fire management program. A cooperative farming program would provide winter forage for 

migratory birds and other wildlife and suppress invasive species as an interim measure prior to 

restoration. 

The refuge would continue to monitor, protect, restore, and/or control selected fish and wildlife 

species. The screened diversion and fish ladder on Chicken Creek would be operated to protect 

migrating fish. The refuge would plant Nelson’s checker-mallow to assist with recovery of this 

threatened plant species. Problem animals, such as beavers, nutria, and feral cats, would be removed. 

Visitor Services 

The refuge would continue to offer quality wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation programs with an emphasis on serving the local urban population on the 

Atfálat’i Unit (see Appendix P, Map 11). There would remain no hunting or fishing opportunities. 

Programs would be supported by existing facilities. The refuge would offer teacher training and a 

handful of special events. There would continue to be no visitor activities or facilities offered at other 

refuge units. With a growing urban population in the Portland area, the refuge’s popularity, and 

continued promotion and awareness of the refuge, it is expected that visitation would gradually 

increase over the next 15 years. 

Administration 

Existing staffing levels would remain the same, with six full-time permanent employees. Additional 

seasonal employees and other positions would continue to be filled as monies become available both 

from discretionary funds and from partners and grants. 

2.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 is the Service’s draft “Preferred Alternative.” This alternative represents a balanced 

approach among the many competing needs and issues that the refuge currently faces and is likely to 

experience in the next 15 years. 

The refuge is currently composed of a mosaic of fragmented habitats. This proposed action would 

strive to combine some of these fragments into larger contiguous blocks of native habitat types 

within the landscape and also restore relic or disappearing habitat types (see Appendix P, Map 9). 

This alternative would benefit imperiled species that rely on prairie, scrub-shrub wetland, and oak 

savanna habitats. It would capitalize on opportunities to work with regional partners and increase the 

continuity of habitats as well as recreational connections beyond the boundaries of the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Habitat and Wildlife 

Alternative 2 is largely driven by the typical hydrologic flows in the Tualatin River, with limited 

water control manipulation on the refuge. Prescribed fire would be added as an additional habitat 

management technique. 

The habitat types of the Tualatin River, primarily riparian forest and herbaceous wetland, would not 

substantially change under this management alternative. In the upland, oak savanna and ruderal 

habitats would convert to mixed forest. The oak savanna that is currently identified on the refuge is 

habitat where management efforts have been made to begin converting ruderal uplands to oak 

savanna primarily through the treatment of invasive species and by some planting. The habitat is not 

mature oak savanna. However, through this CCP, the refuge has identified some areas that would 

provide more benefit as mixed forest. The conversion of oak savanna to mixed forest would not 

result in a “true” loss of oak savanna. The limited water manipulation on the Tualatin River Unit 

would continue. On the Rock Creek Unit, the ruderal wetlands would be converted to scrub-shrub 

wetland. Other actions included in this alternative intend to restore a mosaic of wetlands, riparian 

forests, oak savannas, prairies, and streams. 

Habitats on the Riverboat Unit would largely remain the same as in Alternative 1, except that active 

water control management that artificially maintains a 30-acre herbaceous wetland would be 

discontinued. The wetland would be allowed to evolve into a mixture of wet prairie and scrub-shrub 

wetland. Approximately 4 acres of riparian forest on this unit would convert to wet prairie. 

At the Atfálat’i Unit, Chicken Creek would be restored to its historical footprint. The current 

channelized Chicken Creek would be filled and the existing narrow band of riparian vegetation 

removed. The existing water diversion structure would be relocated to the east, allowing water 

management on approximately 158 acres of herbaceous wetland, 69 acres less than what is currently 

managed. These wetlands would be enhanced (e.g., recontouring ground surface and updating water 

control structures) to manage them more effectively. The remaining acres would be converted to a 

mixture of wet prairie, oak savanna, and scrub-shrub wetland. An additional 20 acres located in the 

northern portion of the unit would convert from seasonal wetlands and wet prairie to bottomland 

riparian forest. 

Management of the Onion Flats Unit would take advantage of soils that are rare in the Willamette 

Valley and historically supported the disappearing scrub-shrub wetland type. Assuming further land 

acquisition occurs, Onion Flats Unit would convert from cooperative farming into a scrub-shrub 

wetland and oak savanna. These changes could benefit declining dusky Canada geese and the 

threatened Nelson’s checker-mallow plant. This alternative would also include restoring channelized 

Rock Creek to its historical channel. 

Management of the Wapato Lake Unit would include a mixture of free-flowing hydrology and 

intensive water control with the intention of a more natural hydrology being implemented over the 

long term. Actual management activities of the lake bed would be determined based upon a Wapato 

Lake water management planning study. 

Visitor Services 

In this alternative, existing visitor service programs would remain and new opportunities would be 

added (see Appendix P, Map 12). A junior waterfowl hunt program would be developed in the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-17 

northern portion of the Riverboat Unit. Other expanded visitor services would include: one to three 

additional wildlife photography blinds; an environmental education off-trail study area; a fishing 

program from the River Overlook; and a nature exploration play area. The refuge would explore 

opportunities to connect to regional trail projects. 

At the Wapato Lake Unit, opportunities for public use, such as hunting, photography, fishing, 

wildlife observation areas, a nature trail, and interpretive exhibits would be explored as adequate land 

and access are acquired and habitat restoration decisions are made. In the near term, the refuge would 

pursue environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in the community. 

Administration 

Full implementation of Alternative 2, including increasing habitat restoration projects and public use 

opportunities, would require, at a minimum, six additional full-time permanent employees. The 

refuge would continue to pursue additional staff over the life of the CCP. 

2.3.2.3 Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, the refuge would be managed with the least amount of water manipulation, 

instead relying on natural hydrologic cycles of the area. Habitat restoration and management would 

favor restoring large patches of contiguous riparian forest and mixed forest, with smaller areas of 

scrub-shrub wetlands (see Appendix P, Map 10). Prescribed fire would be added as an additional 

habitat management technique. Visitor services would focus less on expansion of opportunities and 

more on improving the quality of the existing programs. 

Habitat and Wildlife 

In the Tualatin River Unit, the existing 118 acres of riparian forest and ruderal habitats would be 

expanded to cover approximately 148 acres. The remainder of the unit would be covered with mixed 

forest. At the Atfálat’i Unit, all but 66 acres of the current 251 acres of ruderal and herbaceous 

wetland would be converted to riparian forest and scrub-shrub wetlands. The oak savanna, emergent 

wetland, and wet prairie in the northeastern portion of the unit would be converted to expanded 

riparian forest. 

Like Alternative 2, this alternative would remove cooperative farming from the Onion Flats Unit. 

The hydrology would result in the same scrub-shrub wetland as in Alternative 2. The upland areas 

surrounding the scrub-shrub wetland would be managed to become mixed forest. At the Riverboat, 

Rock Creek, and Wapato Lake Units, actions under Alternative 3 would remain the same as those 

described in Alternative 2. 

Visitor Services 

As in Alternative 2, the refuge would continue to explore opportunities for connecting to regional 

trail projects under Alternative 3. At the Wapato Lake Unit, opportunities for public use on the 

refuge would be explored as adequate land and access are acquired and habitat restoration decisions 

are made. In the near term, the refuge would pursue education and recreation activities in the 

community. Alternative 3 provides a more limited expansion of the environmental education and 

recreation programs on the Atfálat’i Unit than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 does not include an offtrail study area, nature play area, junior waterfowl hunt, additional photo blinds, or a fishing 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

program. However, more emphasis would be placed on improving the quality of public use through 

evaluation of existing programs (see Appendix P, Maps 11 and 12). 

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison 

Key Indicators of 

Comparison 

Alternative 1 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative 

Action) 

Acres of Each Habitat Type Under Various Alternatives* 

Bottomland riparian forest 388 413 657 

Mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest 49 126 178 

Oak savanna 149 194 109 

Wet prairie 27 129 45 

Herbaceous wetland 294 187 64 

Scrub-shrub wetland 20 200 196 

Crops and improved 

pastures 942 0 0 

Ruderal uplands 181 0 0 

Ruderal wetlands 68 0 0 

Developed land (buildings, 

etc.) 62 60 60 

Water (river) 24 24 24 

Restored acres of 

undetermined native 

habitat types at Wapato 

Lake Unit 

0 871 871 

Total acres* 2,204 2,204 2,204 

Miles of Each Habitat Type Under Various Alternatives 

River frontage 7.2 7.2 7.2 

Streams—maintain 4.0 1.4 1.4 

Streams—restore 0 2.7 2.7 

Backwater slough—

maintain 0.9 0.9 0.9 

Backwater slough—restore 0 1.6 1.6 

Species Posing Management Challenges 

Nonnative, invasive, and 

pest plants 

Continue IPM, without 

prescribed fire. 

Immediate early 

detection and rapid 

response actions to 

eliminate purple 

loosestrife, giant 

hogweed, garlic 

mustard, and Japanese 

knotweed if found. 

Same as Alternative 1 

and use prescribed fire. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Nonnative, invasive, and 

pest animals 

Continue IPM, plus 

eliminate problem 

beavers, feral cats, and 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as 

Alternative 1. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-19 

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison 

Key Indicators of 

Comparison 

Alternative 1 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative 

Action) 

nutria. Immediate 

action to eliminate New 

Zealand mud snail, 

snapping turtle, and 

zebra mussel if found. 

Mosquitoes Continue to allow 

mosquito populations 

on the refuge to 

fluctuate and function 

unimpeded unless they 

pose a threat to human 

health. Mosquito 

treatments would be in 

accordance with IPM 

principles. 

Same as Alternative 1, 

and develop mosquito 

component of disease 

contingency plan in 

cooperation with state 

and/or local vector 

control agencies. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Canada geese Continue to provide 

wintering sanctuary. 

Same as Alternative 1, 

and work with partner 

agencies to implement 

regional plans and 

agreements. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Roosevelt elk Continue to take no 

management actions. 

Work with partner 

agencies to develop elk 

management plan. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Management of Special-status Species 

Wetland, riparian, and 

upland habitats and species 

Continue to support 

recovery of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. 

Continue to support 

recovery of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow and 

explore options to 

assist recovery of other 

listed species. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Aquatic habitats and 

species 

Continue to maintain 

and operate weirs, fish 

passage, and fish 

screening structures. 

Same as Alternative 1, 

and where appropriate 

remove culverts and 

other passage barriers 

during restoration 

efforts. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Wapato Lake Management 

 Existing lake bed 

infrastructure would be 

maintained. Lake water 

levels and downstream 

discharges would 

continue as in the past. 

Interim management 

same as Alternative 1. 

Long-term management 

would include more 

natural, free-flowing 

hydrology. 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 

Public Information and Outreach 

General program Continue to maintain Expand information and outreach 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison 

Key Indicators of 

Comparison 

Alternative 1 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative 

Action) 

signs, brochures, 

websites, and limited 

media exposure. 

materials to use broader range of 

techniques, more diverse use of social 

media, and aimed at a broader audience. 

Facilities and Access 

Facilities—Sherwood 

Units 

Continue to maintain 

existing public use 

facilities. 

Expand facilities to 

include: 1-3 additional 

wildlife photography 

blinds, 1 off-trail 

nature explore/play 

area, 1 off-trail 

environmental 

education study area. 

Continue to 

maintain 

existing public 

use facilities. 

Facilities—Wapato Lake 

Unit 

Continue to have no 

facilities. 

As habitat restoration proceeds, explore 

opportunities for observation areas, trails, 

interpretive exhibits, signs, photography 

blinds, and hunting and fishing facilities. 

Access—Sherwood Units Continue to provide 

existing access to and 

within the Atfálat’i 

Unit. 

Expand access to trails, 

blinds, and 

study/explore areas. 

Explore connecting 

refuge to existing 

regional trail systems. 

Conduct transportation 

and safety studies for 

new and existing 

access points. 

Explore 

connecting 

refuge to 

existing regional 

trail systems. 

Conduct 

transportation 

and safety 

studies for new 

and existing 

access points. 

Access—Wapato Lake 

Unit 

No public access. As habitat restoration proceeds, explore 

opportunities for public access to portions 

of the unit in support of compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education. 

Refuge entrance and user 

fees 

Refuge continues to 

have no entrance or user 

fees, but would 

continue to explore 

desirability of 

establishing an entrance 

fee. 

Same as Alternative 1, plus explore 

desirability of user fees in support of 

waterfowl hunting, photo blind use, and 

special events and activities. 

Environmental Education 

Number of students served 

annually on refuge 

1,900 5,000 1,900 

Number of students served 

annually off-site 

700 1,750 700 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-21 

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison 

Key Indicators of 

Comparison 

Alternative 1 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative 

Action) 

Number of youth served in 

informal (non-classroombased) education programs 

800 2,000 800 

Number of teacher 

workshops offered 

annually 

2 2 2 

Outreach to schools Predominately schools 

within a 10-mile radius 

of Sherwood. 

Expand to include schools within a 10-

mile radius of Sherwood and Gaston. 

Number of volunteer 

naturalists trained annually 

in support of the education 

program 

10 25 25 

Education opportunities 

offered near the Wapato 

Lake Unit 

None Expand to offer teacher training, education 

materials to be housed at local schools, 

and education programs/events at locations 

within the community (e.g., schools, 

parks). 

Hunting and Fishing 

Hunting—Sherwood Units Refuge would remain 

closed to hunting. 

Junior hunt program 

would be developed on 

the Riverboat Unit. 

Includes 2 to 5 hunting 

blinds. 

Refuge would 

remain closed to 

hunting. 

Hunting—Wapato Lake 

Unit 

Refuge would remain 

closed to hunting. 

Explore opportunities for waterfowl 

hunting in concurrence with habitat 

restoration planning and implementation. 

Fishing Refuge would remain 

closed to fishing. 

Fishing program would 

be developed at the 

existing River 

Overlook on the 

Atfálat’i Unit. 

Refuge would 

remain closed to 

fishing. 

Urban Refuge Initiative 

Information clearinghouse 

for natural resources 

management 

 Provide information exchange on natural 

resource issues to encourage collaborative 

sharing within communities and 

organizations; agencies; businesses; and 

others. 

Information clearinghouse 

for environmental 

education 

 Provide information exchange and 

materials to educators, schools, and 

communities, including social science 

research supporting the benefits of naturebased education to people, with a focus on 

children. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives for Comparison 

Key Indicators of 

Comparison 

Alternative 1 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative 

Action) 

Bring more urban citizens 

to the refuge to experience 

nature. 

 Identify barriers to connecting urban 

people to natural areas; hire youth in 

natural resource jobs; develop a 

transportation strategy to bring urban 

audiences to the refuge. 

Increase relevance of 

natural resources to urban 

citizens 

 Provide outreach that supports the value of 

natural resources for communities—for 

human health, economic health, watershed 

health; provide education materials that 

address conservation and community 

issues such as invasive species, pollinators, 

urban wildlife, and climate change. 

*All figures are based on GIS analysis using the data shown in the Alternatives maps in Appendix P. 

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to legal mandates (including refuge purposes) 

for managing a refuge, Service policies that step down from legal mandates (e.g., Improvement Act), 

and the Refuge System Mission. 

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

reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and 

larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed 

by SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-oriented, Time-fixed) objectives that direct 

efforts into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals. Strategies identify 

specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. 

The draft goals for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge for the life of the CCP, after its approval, 

are presented in the tables on the following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that 

pertain to that goal. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the 

most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. 

The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in the staffing 

and funding analysis in Appendix C. 

Readers, please note the following: 

The objective statements as written apply to the Service’s Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2. 

The objective statement identifies specific attributes (e.g., acreages) that vary in the other 

alternatives. How those items vary is displayed in the short table under each objective statement. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-23 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed to accomplish the 

objectives. Note the following: 

 Check marks (✓) alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy 

 If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it 

means that strategy will not be used in that alternative. 

 Other symbols used in the following tables include: 

% percent sign 

> greater than 

< less than 

≥ greater than or equal to 

≤ less than or equal to 

Refer to Appendix P, Maps 8 through 12, for maps of alternatives described below. 

Goal 1: Maintain, enhance, and restore bottomland riparian habitat 

consistent with the historical range of variability representative of the 

Willamette Valley ecosystem to support breeding and migratory landbirds 

and other native species. 

Objective 1.1 Enhance and maintain bottomland riparian forest 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 322 acres of bottomland riparian forest on Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge for the benefit of breeding and migrating landbirds (e.g., Pacific slope 

flycatcher, yellow warbler) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., northern red-legged 

frog). Bottomland riparian forest is characterized by the following: 

 >60% overstory canopy cover of trees (e.g., Oregon ash, bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, grand fir) 

that are >50 feet tall (Altman 2000) 

 >20% understory canopy cover of trees (e.g., willow, redosier dogwood, Pacific yew, cascara, 

and hazel) that are ≥12 feet tall 

 Habitat patches >100 feet wide along streams (Altman 2000) 

 30%-80% understory cover of shrubs (e.g., snowberry, swordfern) 3-12 feet tall (Altman 2000) 

 Herbaceous layer dominated by native grasses and forbs 

 >5 snags/acre >6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) with at least 2 per acre >10 inches DBH 

and 6 feet tall (Altman 2000) 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, 

English holly) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 349 322 338 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological means, to control 

or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Map invasive plant distributions every 5 years, during the 

spring and summer months when most plants are easily 

identified. 

  

Place protective tubes on naturally recruiting 

saplings/seedlings. 

  

Establish a permanent biological technician position to 

conduct habitat maintenance and perform habitat inventory 

and monitoring such as vegetation parameters and wildlife 

species diversity and density. 

 

Rationale: Bottomland riparian forest is a rare, native plant community in the Willamette Valley. It 

provides habitat for over 100 migrating and breeding landbird species (Roth et al. 2004) and summer 

habitat near wetlands for native amphibians. Enhancing and/or maintaining existing bottomland riparian 

forest would reduce additional habitat fragmentation that is occurring in the valley at large and is 

consistent with refuge purposes and the Service’s BIDEH Policy. It provides habitat connectivity and 

movement corridors for many species. Riparian areas often serve as off-channel backwater habitat for 

outmigrating salmonid species during winter flooding. In addition, riparian areas help to slow, absorb, 

and filter rainwater and runoff. Riparian areas also provide shade and woody structure to adjacent 

streams, rivers, and wetlands. Some of the areas to be maintained under this objective were recently 

restored and would not reach a mature growth form for many years. They would not achieve the full 

attributes described above, but would provide a diversity of benefits as they continue to grow. Riparian 

areas are important to achieve purposes of the refuge to conserve fish and wildlife. Mapping invasive 

species would provide for a targeted approach to their removal or control, and provide a basis for 

adaptive management when evaluating efficacy of treatments. By using IPM techniques to maintain and 

enhance this habitat type the refuge would provide enhanced habitat for a myriad of fish and wildlife 

species. Placing tree protective tubes on naturally recruiting trees would help to both identify and protect 

trees during invasive species control, and protect them from herbivory by deer, voles, and other species. 

Objective 1.2 Restore bottomland riparian forest 

By 2020, bottomland riparian forest would be restored from a mixture of ruderal uplands, herbaceous 

wetland, and wet prairie habitat types. Then these 140 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be 

protected and maintained on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge for the benefit of breeding and 

migrating landbirds (e.g., Pacific slope flycatcher, yellow warbler). Mature bottomland riparian forest is 

characterized by the following: 

 >60% overstory canopy cover of trees (e.g., Oregon ash, bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, grand fir) 

that are >50 feet tall (Altman 2000) 

 >20% understory canopy cover of trees (e.g., willow, redosier dogwood, Pacific yew, cascara, 

and hazel) that are ≥12 feet tall 

 Habitat patches >100 feet wide along streams (Altman 2000) 

 30%-80% understory cover of shrubs (e.g., snowberry, swordfern) 3-12 feet tall (Altman 2000) 

 Herbaceous layer dominated by native grasses and forbs 

 >5 snags/acre >6 inches DBH with at least 2 per acre >10 inches DBH and 6 feet tall (Altman 

2000) 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, 

English holly) 

 Swales connecting to rivers or streams to provide backwater fish habitat and species diversity 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-25 

Acres 39 90 318 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Pretreat for 1-2 years to exhaust non-native seed bank prior to 

restoration actions. 

  

Plant native tree and shrub species at a high stocking density 

of 870-1,450 plants/acre. 

  

Tube and mulch around planted saplings/seedlings to prevent 

girdling by small mammals and browsing by deer. 

  

Seed native herbaceous species using local genotypes, where 

needed. 

  

Where appropriate, construct swales using heavy equipment to 

increase plant diversity and connect with the river or nearby 

streams providing off-channel refugia for native fish. 

 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological means, to control 

invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Monitor survival and growth of planted woody species.   

Map invasive plant distributions every 5 years, during the 

spring and summer months when most plants are easily 

identified. 

  

Establish a permanent engineering equipment operator 

position to restore riparian forest.  

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 1.1. 

Pretreatment is recommended for 1-2 years prior to planting native trees and shrubs in order to remove 

invasive plant seed sources in the soil. Pretreatments may consist of mechanical removal (e.g., mowing, 

discing) of invasive plant species, and/or application of Service-approved herbicide in accordance with 

the IPM plan (Appendix G). Planting trees and shrubs at a high density would ensure desired attributes of 

canopy and shrub cover are achieved while allowing for natural mortality of newly installed plants during 

the first few years. To ensure successful restoration, >70% survival of woody species is needed during 

the first year after planting. Tubing and mulching around newly planted trees and shrubs retain soil 

moisture, act as a weed barrier, and prevent girdling by small mammals. Where appropriate backwater 

swales can be constructed to provide floodplain connection with nearby streams or rivers. Backwater 

swales would enhance biodiversity of the flora and fauna in the area and provide enhanced habitat 

attributes for native resident and anadromous fish (Jeffres et al. 2008). Restoring this floodplain 

connection is one of the most critical areas to achieve benefit for aquatic, riparian, and upland species 

(ODFW 2006). Restored areas would not reach the full attributes described during the 15-year life span 

of the CCP, but management would be directed toward reaching those characteristics. 

Goal 2: Maintain, enhance, and restore mixed coniferous/deciduous forest 

habitat to a historical range of variability representative of the Willamette 

Valley ecosystem in order to support breeding and migratory landbirds and 

other native species. 

Objective 2.1 Enhance and maintain mixed coniferous/deciduous forest 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 46 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest on 

the refuge for the benefit of breeding and migrating landbirds (e.g., orange-crowned warbler, Bewick’s 

wren) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., black-tailed deer, northwestern salamander, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

little brown bat). Mixed coniferous/deciduous forest is characterized by the following: 

 40%-60% canopy cover that is Douglas-fir–dominated with mixtures of grand fir, western 

redcedar, western hemlock, bigleaf maple, Garry oak, Pacific dogwood, Pacific yew, and red 

alder 

 10%-50% subcanopy trees (Spies and Franklin 1991) 

 >30% cover in understory layer <15 feet tall consisting of snowberry, hazel, swordfern, and other 

shrubs 

 >5 snags/acre >6 inches DBH with at least 2 per acre >10 inches DBH and 6 feet tall (Altman 

2000) 

 <20% cover of non-native invasive plants (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, English ivy) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 49 46 49 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Map invasive plant distributions every 5 years, during the 

spring and summer months when most plants are easily 

identified. 

  

Use common forest health practices including prescribed fire 

and mechanical removals to create variable age structure. 

 

Create snags, where needed, using mechanical methods (e.g., 

girdling). 

  

Rationale: Mixed coniferous/deciduous forests provide valuable habitat for breeding and migrating 

landbirds. Cavity-nesting birds such as woodpeckers benefit from snags and dying trees. Mannan and 

Meslow (1984) found higher abundance of bird species in forests with more and larger snags. Fallen trees 

and branches provide substrate for salamanders and nutrients for future plant growth. These habitats 

support a diversity of other native species (deer, bats, amphibians) to meet various life history 

requirements. Using common forest management strategies such as prescribed fire and mechanical 

manipulation would allow the refuge to create uneven age structures to support a variety of species needs. 

These strategies also address rising fire risks due to a changing climate, specifically hotter and drier 

summer conditions, which are projected to continue and accelerate into the future. Mapping invasive 

species would provide for a targeted approach to their removal or control, and provide a basis for 

adaptive management when evaluating efficacy of treatments. 

Objective 2.2 Restore mixed coniferous/deciduous forest 

By 2017, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest would be restored from ruderal uplands and oak savanna 

habitat types (ruderal species are the first to colonize disturbed lands) and then these 153 acres of mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest would be protected and maintained on the refuge for the benefit of breeding 

and migrating landbirds (e.g., orange-crowned warbler, Bewick’s wren) and a diverse assemblage of 

other native species (e.g., black-tailed deer, northwestern salamander, bat species). Mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest is characterized by the following: 

 40%-60% canopy cover that is Douglas-fir–dominated with mixtures of grand fir, western 

redcedar, western hemlock, bigleaf maple, Garry oak, Pacific dogwood, Pacific yew, and red 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-27 

alder 

 10%-50% subcanopy trees (Spies and Franklin 1991) 

 >30% cover in understory layer consisting of snowberry, hazel, sword fern, and other native 

shrubs 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, English ivy) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 0 80 129 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

See strategies for Objective 2.1.   

Pretreat for 1-2 years to exhaust nonnative seed bank prior to 

restoration actions. 

  

Plant native tree and shrub species at a high stocking density 

of 870-1,450 plants/acre. 

  

Tube and mulch around planted saplings/seedlings to prevent 

girdling by small mammals and browsing by deer. 

  

Seed native herbaceous species using local genotypes, where 

needed. 

  

Monitor survival and growth of planted woody species.   

Map invasive plant distributions every 5 years, during the 

spring and summer months when most plants are easily 

identified. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Use prescribed fire as appropriate to control invasive species 

and reduce the build-up of unwanted fuel.   

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 2.1. Restoring mixed coniferous/deciduous forest near or adjacent 

to existing forest could create larger tracts of contiguous forest habitat beneficial to forest-dwelling 

species (songbirds), creating larger travel corridors, and helping to prevent invasion from edge species 

such as brown-headed cowbirds. These strategies fit into refuge purposes and Service policy of 

maintaining biological integrity and species diversity. 

Pretreatment is recommended for 1-2 years prior to planting native trees and shrubs in order to remove 

invasive plant seed sources in the soils. Prescribed fire could be used to control invasives and clear 

understories of unwanted fuels. Tubing and mulching around newly planted trees and shrubs retain soil 

moisture, act as a weed barrier, and prevent girdling. Planting trees and shrubs at a high density would 

ensure desired attributes of canopy and shrub cover are achieved while allowing for natural mortality of 

newly installed plants during the first few years. To ensure successful restoration, >70% survival of 

woody species is needed during the first year after planting. Restored areas would not reach the full 

attributes described during the 15-year life span of the CCP, but management would be directed toward 

reaching those characteristics. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Goal 3: Maintain, enhance, and restore oak savanna habitat to a historical 

range of variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in 

order to support breeding and migratory landbirds and other native species. 

Objective 3.1 Enhance and maintain oak savanna 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 115 acres of oak savanna on the refuge for the 

benefit of breeding and resident landbirds (e.g., western bluebird, white-breasted nuthatch, acorn 

woodpecker) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., western gray squirrel, black-tailed 

deer). Oak savanna is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Trees dominated by widely spaced (1/acre), mature Garry oak 16->40 inches DBH with cavities 

(Thilenius 1968) 

 Native grass and forbs <3 feet tall in understory 

 Few to no woody species in understory, where tree and shrub cover is <10% 

 Viable and reproducing populations of listed plant species such as Nelson’s checker-mallow 

 <5% cover of invasive shrubs (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) 

 <20% cover of nonnative grasses (e.g., velvet grass) and <10% nonnative forbs (e.g., Canada 

thistle, tansy ragwort) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 149 115 109 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use prescribed fire, with burn interval of 3-5 years, to reduce 

encroachment of woody species and to reduce thatch. 

 

Plant listed species, as appropriate.   

Use mechanical treatments (e.g., mowing) during late 

summer/early fall to promote native herbaceous ground cover. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Use mechanical thinning to reduce density of oak with 

removals limited to trees <15 inches DBH. 

  

Use mechanical thinning to remove encroaching conifers, as 

needed. 

  

Rationale: Oak savanna is a rare and unique habitat in the Willamette Valley that has been reduced to 

<1% of its historic extent; it provides habitat for migratory birds that are high priority and specific to 

purposes of the refuge. Oak savanna habitat in the Willamette Valley supports five federally listed 

species (USFWS 2010b) and along with prairie habitats supports the greatest number of rare upland 

animals in the Willamette Valley (Titus et al. 1996). Fire historically maintained oak savanna habitat by 

removing competing vegetation and stimulating regeneration of native fire-associated plants. Fire 

suppression has allowed shrubs and conifers to encroach into oak savanna (ODFW 2006). Mowing 

during the fall season promotes native plant response while reducing the growth of undesirable trees and 

shrubs. Mowing during the fall would also reduce impacts to migratory birds by avoiding disturbance 

during their nesting cycle. Late summer/early fall prescribed fire on a rotational basis could help reduce 

encroachment of woody species such as Himalayan blackberry and poison oak and invigorate soil for 

establishment of native plants. Using IPM techniques ensures the best control of pest species with the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-29 

lowest possible impact to fish and wildlife resources (Appendix G). Planting listed species would support 

recovery of plant and butterfly species identified in the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western 

Oregon and Southwestern Washington (USFWS 2010b). 

Objective 3.2 Restore oak savanna 

By 2020, oak savanna would be restored from ruderal uplands and early successional riparian forest 

habitat types. These 111 acres of oak savanna would be protected and maintained on the refuge for the 

benefit of breeding and resident landbirds (e.g., western bluebird, chipping sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., coyote). Oak savanna is characterized by 

the following attributes: 

 Scattered oaks (1/acre)of individual trees (Thilenius 1968) or tight small clusters 

 60%-80% ground cover composed of native grasses and forbs 

 <5% cover of invasive shrubs (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) 

 <20% cover of nonnative grasses (e.g., velvet grass) and <10% nonnative forbs (e.g., Canada 

thistle, tansy) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 0 79 0 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Pretreat for 1-2 years to exhaust nonnative seed bank prior to 

restoration actions. 

  

Plant acorns, seedlings, and/or potted oaks in clusters of 10-

100 at a spacing of 100-300 feet between clusters (5-50/acre). 

  

Use tubing or other protection to protect seedlings and 

saplings from herbivores. 

  

Plant native grasses and forbs.   

Conduct supplemental watering during first year.   

Plant appropriate listed species such as Nelson’s checkermallow and Willamette daisy. 

  

Use prescribed fire during spring to control nonnative species 

prior to initial planting. 

 

Use prescribed fire during fall, with burn intervals of 3-5 years 

to reduce thatch and control invasive species. 

 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Monitor plantings to determine survival and growth; replant if 

below target level or thin if too dense. 

  

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 3.1. Restoring oak savanna habitat is consistent with refuge 

purposes, the Service’s mission to support the recovery of listed species associated with rare and unique 

habitat (e.g., Kincaid’s lupine, Willamette daisy), and with Service policy of maintaining BIDEH. 

Pretreatment would involve mowing, burning, and spraying of invasive shrub and grass species to create 

open grassland settings for the establishment of native forbs and grasses associated with this habitat type, 

and would thus be beneficial to listed species adapted to the oak savanna community. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Prescribed fire use in the spring would help purge invasive plant seed banks prior to planting native 

species. Planting at a higher than desired density allows for natural mortality and provides a larger 

volume of oak substrate for wildlife while slow-growing oaks are small in the sapling stage. Oaks can 

later be thinned to achieve the final desired spacing. Placing tree protective tubes on trees would help to 

both identify and protect trees during invasive species control, and protect them from herbivory by deer, 

voles, and other species. Planting native grasses and forbs (wild flowers) is essential to restore the full 

suite of native vegetation for this plant community. Fall fires would be used to reduce thatch build-up and 

promote the health of native grass and forb communities. Protecting seedlings for up to 15 years would 

allow them to gain important establishment on the refuge. Intensive pretreatment is necessary to ensure 

establishment of a diverse native community and, in turn, the long-term success of oak savanna 

restoration. Planting and maintenance of listed species would aid in their recovery (USFWS 2010b). 

Goal 4: Maintain, enhance, and restore native Willamette Valley wet prairie 

habitat, with an emphasis on management for rare and listed plant species. 

Objective 4.1 Enhance and maintain native wet prairie 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 15 acres of wet prairie habitat on the refuge for the 

benefit of migratory birds (e.g., Wilson’s snipe, northern pintail, American kestrel, western meadowlark) 

and a diverse assemblage of other native species. Wet prairie habitats are characterized by the following: 

 Diverse community of native sedges, rushes, native grasses (e.g., Deschampsia sp.) that may be 

>3 feet tall, and a diversity of native forbs (e.g., camas, blue-eyed grass, popcorn flower) (Titus 

et al. 1996; USFWS 2010b) 

 Intermittent ponding of water and saturated soils from November to April (Titus et al. 1996) 

 Very few scattered shrubs or trees (especially Garry oak) >66 feet apart 

 <5% total canopy cover of shrubs and trees 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, cocklebur, blackberry, Bermuda grass) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 27 15 15 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain/protect relic oaks at very low density.   

Plant native grasses and forbs, where necessary, using local 

genotypes. 

  

Plant appropriate listed species, such as Nelson’s checkermallow. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Use prescribed fire at burn intervals of 3-5 years.  

Conduct haying or mowing after July 15 to protect groundnesting birds and reduce woody encroachment. 

  

Evaluate the potential for prescription grazing during later 

growing season. 

 

Rationale: With less than 1% remaining, prairie habitats are one of the rarest plant communities in the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-31 

Willamette Valley and provide important habitat for breeding and migrating birds. Loss of prairie habitat 

is due in large part to conversion to agriculture and urbanization as well as fire suppression during the 

past 150 years. Enhancing and maintaining wet prairie would support the purposes of the refuge and 

BIDEH. Prairie habitats support federally listed plant species including Nelson’s checker-mallow, and 

provide opportunities to contribute to recovery of other federally listed plants. Wet prairies generally 

occur in the floodplain on heavy, poorly drained soil (USFWS 2010b). Prescription grazing, mowing, and 

haying would occur in late season after seed has set and migratory bird nesting is complete. Determining 

which method to use would depend on best available science, objectives, and availability of resources. 

Generally, haying or mowing would occur only once per year. These techniques are necessary to set back 

succession of woody plant species, reduce thatch, control invasive plants, and stimulate new growth of 

native plants. Planting listed species would support recovery of plant and butterfly species identified in 

the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington (USFWS 

2010b). Historically, many habitats such as wet prairie were maintained by disturbance. The primary 

disturbance was fire, but also included flooding, wind, and storms (ODFW 2006). Regular disturbance 

regimes are essential to maintain prairie and prevent encroachment of woody species as well as to 

promote a diversity of native plant species. Burning can reduce thatch and stimulate growth and health of 

native plants. Timing of prescribed burns would depend on the objective of the burn (e.g., reduce thatch, 

address invasive species), weather, and plant response to burns, and may occur during spring, late 

summer, or fall. Mowing may be used in some years to control the growth of woody species, but it does 

not reduce thatch. Mowing should be conducted after July 15 to protect ground-nesting birds. By July 15, 

most bird species have completed nesting and young have fledged. 

Objective 4.2 Restore native wet prairie 

By 2025, wet prairie would be restored from herbaceous wetland and early successional riparian forest 

habitat types. Then the refuge would protect and maintain 114 acres of wet prairie on the refuge for the 

benefit of migratory birds (e.g., Wilson’s snipe, northern pintail, green-winged teal) and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. Wet prairie habitat types are characterized by the following: 

 Diverse community of native sedges, rushes, and native grasses (e.g., Deschampsia sp.) that may 

be >3 feet tall, and a diversity of native forbs (e.g., camas, blue-eyed grass, popcorn flower) 

(Titus et al. 1996; USFWS 2010b) 

 Intermittent ponding of water, and saturated soils from November to April (Titus et al. 1996) 

 Very few scattered shrubs or trees (especially Garry oak) >66 feet apart 

 <5% total canopy cover of shrubs and trees 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, cocklebur, blackberry, Bermuda grass) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 0 114 30 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Pretreat (e.g., herbicide, discing) for 1-2 years to exhaust 

nonnative seed bank prior to restoration actions.   

Use prescribed fire during spring to control nonnative species 

prior to initial planting. 

 

Plant native grasses and forbs, where necessary, using local 

genotypes. 

  

Maintain/protect relic Garry oaks at low density.   
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Plant listed species, as appropriate.   

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Where appropriate, construct swales using heavy equipment to 

increase plant diversity and connect with the river or nearby 

streams, providing off-channel refugia for native fish. 

 

Use mechanical treatments to remove encroaching woody 

species. 

  

Evaluate the potential to use prescription grazing during later 

growing season. 

 

Evaluate the potential use of prescription grazing, mowing, 

and/or haying after July 15 to protect ground-nesting birds. 

  

Use prescribed fire at burn intervals of 3-5 years.  

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 4.1. Restoring wet prairie is consistent with refuge purposes and 

the Service’s mission to support recovery of listed species associated with this rare and unique habitat, 

and it fits the Service policy of BIDEH. Pretreatment would involve a rotation of herbicide, discing, and 

prescribed fire over a 1-2 year period to exhaust nonnative seed banks and reduce aggressive invaders 

like reed canarygrass. This would prepare sites and better ensure the establishment of a diverse native 

community and, in turn, the long-term success of wet prairie. Planting listed species would aid in the 

recovery efforts as spelled out in the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and 

Southwestern Washington (USFWS 2010b). Mechanical and chemical treatments such as mowing and 

spraying would reduce woody species and open up ground for native grasses and forbs. Periodic 

prescribed burns would maintain the integrity of the wet prairie, clearing thatch, encroaching on 

nonnatives, and invigorating growth of natives species. 

Restoration sites would be selected considering connectivity with existing or to-be-restored prairie, both 

on and off refuge lands. Intensive pretreatment is necessary to ensure establishment of a diverse native 

community and, in turn, the long-term success of wet prairie restoration. 

Goal 5: Maintain, enhance, and restore a diversity of wetlands to support 

migratory landbirds, waterbirds, and shorebirds with special emphasis on 

wintering waterfowl. 

Objective 5.1 Enhance and maintain herbaceous wetland 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 187 acres of herbaceous wetland on the refuge for 

the benefit of migrating and wintering waterfowl (e.g., northern pintail, cackling Canada goose, tundra 

swan) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., waterbirds, shorebirds). Herbaceous 

wetlands are characterized by the following: 

 Most wetlands with shallow water depths averaging 4-18 inches deep from October to June 

 Other wetlands with deeper water averaging 18-48 inches deep, sometimes year-round 

 >60% cover of desirable and/or native wetland plants including moist-soil annuals (e.g., 

smartweeds, wild millet, water plantain), wapato, sedges, and rushes 

 In deeper water, >50% cover of submergent plants (e.g., Potamogeton sp., Callitriche sp.) 

 <20% cover of native emergent species (e.g., cattail, bulrush) that are >5 feet tall 

 <30% cover of undesirable/invasive plants including reed canarygrass 

 Presence of large woody debris 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-33 

 Minimal damage to wetland infrastructure by nutria 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 294 187 64 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Initiate flood-up to full pool from October through December.   

Irrigate, as needed, during summer to stimulate early season 

wetland annual plants and/or control invasive species. 

  

Initiate drawdown of 10%-20% of seasonal wetlands in early 

April to provide mudflats for migrating shorebirds. 

  

Initiate drawdown of most seasonal wetlands between May 

and July to stimulate germination of moist-soil annual plants. 

  

Allow selected wetlands to dewater by natural 

evapotranspiration to provide extended wet season for BIDEH 

species. 

  

Where feasible, provide supplemental flooding throughout the 

growing season to control nonnative invasive plants (e.g., 

cocklebur) and promote moist-soil annual plants. 

  

Use mowing and/or herbicides to remove encroaching woody 

vegetation. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, water management, cultural, and 

biological methods, to control invasive species (see Appendix 

G). 

  

Use mowing and discing as a disturbance regime to stimulate 

growth of desirable species. 

  

Reconfigure water control structures and dikes/levees where 

necessary, to promote more precise water level management. 

  

Install low-level berms, where necessary.   

Work closely with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries in the design and operation 

of flashboards, spillways, and other refuge water-control 

structures to enable proper operation to benefit water 

management without adversely affecting special-status fish 

species. 

  

Use heavy equipment to recontour wetland basins to allow for 

complete drawdown and/or to promote water flow. Allowing 

for complete drainage would help reduce the presence of 

nonnative species such as reed canarygrass, bullfrogs and 

carp. 

  

Investigate the viability of using screens to exclude nonnative 

species such as bullfrogs and carp from wetlands. 

  

Use lethal control methods (e.g., shooting or trapping) to 

remove nutria and problem beaver. 

  

Where necessary, plant trees along wetland boundaries to 

provide a buffer from disturbance such as hunting on 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

neighboring lands. 

Mow wetland margins prior to flood-up to provide waterfowl 

access to adjacent uplands. 

  

Use prescribed fire to reduce extent of emergent plants and/or 

remove encroaching woody species (e.g., willow, ash).   

Install logs, large trees, or root wads for turtle basking and 

waterfowl resting and preening.   

Schedule strategic drawdowns to entrap invasive species such 

bullfrogs and carp.   

Rationale: Historically, herbaceous wetlands were a dominant feature on the landscape within the 

Willamette Valley, but considerable wetland loss has occurred due to conversion to agriculture, urban 

development, and changes in hydrology such as dam building and channelizing streams and rivers (Taft 

and Haig 2003). A multitude of native fish and other animals use wetlands for at least part of their annual 

life cycles. Seasonal herbaceous wetlands are essential for providing moist-soil plant food resources for 

migratory waterfowl and waterbirds, and amphibians and reptiles. Flood-up/drawdown scenarios provide 

foraging substrate for spring and fall migratory shorebirds. Maintaining most wetlands with shallow 

water would benefit waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Using various water management scenarios 

(drawdown and irrigation) would set back Bermuda grass and cocklebur growth/expansion. Summer 

irrigation is used to both control certain invasive species (e.g., common cocklebur) and to stimulate 

growth of moist-soil plants. Maintaining some wetlands with deeper water in a permanent or 

semipermanent condition provides habitat for overwater nesters such as pied-billed grebes, marshbirds, 

turtles, etc. Many shallow wetland areas would naturally convert to forested areas if encroaching 

vegetation were not controlled. Mowing or herbicide application is periodically required to set back 

woody vegetation and reinvigorate annual plants. Reconfiguring water control structures and 

dikes/levees, and installing low-level berms, would provide greater water-level management flexibility 

for wetland habitat rotations. Heavy equipment can be used to recontour wetland basins for a more 

diverse topography and to allow complete drawdown. Allowing for complete drawdown would help 

control invasive species such as carp and bullfrogs. Removal of nutria would protect management 

infrastructure and habitat from degradation. Native turtles would benefit from basking logs placed in 

many of the refuge’s wetlands. 

Objective 5.2 Enhance and maintain scrub-shrub wetland 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 20 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands on the refuge for 

the benefit of breeding migratory birds (e.g., willow flycatcher, red-winged blackbird, common 

yellowthroat, sora) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., northern red-legged frog, 

northwestern salamander). Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by the following: 

 Water depths typically averaging 3-10 feet with some water remaining during most of the year 

 Vegetation dominated by willow species, rose, and Douglas spirea with some Oregon ash, redosier dogwood, black cottonwood, and other species 

 Presence of large woody debris 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 20 20 20 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-35 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Map invasive plant distributions at least every 5 years.   

Use prescribed fire to increase diversity in older stands.   

Install logs, large trees, or root wads for turtle basking and 

waterfowl resting and preening structure.   

Rationale: Scrub-shrub wetlands are a unique habitat type in the Willamette Valley, characterized 

mainly by peat soils. Scrub-shrub wetlands are important habitats for breeding and migrating landbirds 

and waterbirds. When breeding, native amphibians require these important habitats for egg mass 

attachment on emergent vegetation. Prescribed fire can be used to invigorate vegetation communities and 

to create mosaics of habitat patches where there are monotypic willow stands. Removing some willows 

would create openings and increase heterogeneity/diversity in habitat structure. In consideration of 

preserving peat soils, prescribed fire use would be timed with water inundation cycles. Changing climate, 

especially hotter and drier summer conditions, are projected to continue and accelerate. This could affect 

the ability of these wetlands to remain wet throughout the summer months, bringing potential new 

management needs. The refuge would monitor changing conditions and consider alternative strategies as 

needed, and practicable. Mapping invasive species would provide for a targeted approach to their 

removal or control, and provide a basis for adaptive management when evaluating efficacy of treatments. 

Objective 5.3 Restore scrub-shrub wetland 

By 2020, scrub-shrub wetlands would be restored from a mixture of ruderal wetlands, croplands, and 

herbaceous wetlands. The refuge would then protect and maintain 180 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands on 

the refuge for the benefit of breeding migratory birds (e.g., willow flycatcher, red-winged blackbird, 

common yellowthroat, sora) and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., northern red-legged 

frog, northwestern salamander). The range of acres is due to the uncertainty of the direction of the 

Wapato Lake Unit restoration. As previously mentioned, restoration would be dependent on the outcome 

of a hydrology study currently being conducted by USGS. Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by the 

following: 

 Water depths typically 3-10 feet with some water remaining during most of the year 

 Vegetation dominated by willow species, rose, and Douglas spirea with some Oregon ash, redosier dogwood, and black cottonwood 

 Presence of large woody debris 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 0 180 176 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Pretreat (e.g., herbicide, prescribed fire, discing) for 1-2 years 

to exhaust nonnative seed bank prior to restoration actions. 

  

Create swales using heavy equipment.   

Install water control structures, spillways, levees, and/or low 

berms as necessary. 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Plant cuttings, plugs, and potted plants of native shrubs and 

trees. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Map invasive plant distributions at least every 5 years.   

Establish a permanent refuge operations specialist position to 

oversee restoration and operations at the Wapato Lake Unit.   

See also strategies under Objective 5.1.   

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 5.2. Restoration of scrub-shrub wetlands would add and protect a 

significant amount of this unique habitat and associated species on the refuge in large contiguous tracts, 

helping to achieve refuge purposes and the Service policy of BIDEH. 

Restoration of scrub-shrub wetlands in the Onion Flats Unit is dependent on further land acquisition. 

Without further acquisition any restoration efforts would impact neighboring lands and restrict the full 

spectrum of restoration desired. 

Goal 6: Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore streams and offchannel backwater slough habitats in order to benefit salmonids and other 

native aquatic species. 

Objective 6.1 Enhance and maintain streams (in-channel) and backwater sloughs (off-channel) 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enhance and maintain 7.2 miles of river frontage, 1.4 miles of streams, 

and 0.9 mile of backwater sloughs on the refuge for the benefit of salmonids (e.g., coastal cutthroat trout, 

steelhead), migratory birds (e.g., belted kingfisher), and a diverse assemblage of other native species 

(e.g., northwestern pond turtle, mink, Pacific lamprey). 

In-channel stream is characterized by the following: 

 Barrier-free river and stream channels 

 Intact riparian areas along the banks with shade provided by large native trees 

 Coarse woody debris inputs for in-stream structure 

Backwater sloughs are characterized by the following: 

 Temporary flooding and draining with a connection to nearby creek or river 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, Canada thistle) 

 Barrier-free sloughs with connections to stream or river channels providing for access and egress 

for native fish species during flood events 

 Coarse woody debris for slough structure 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Miles of river frontage 7.2 7.2 7.2 

Miles of in-channel stream 4.0 1.3 1.3 

Miles of backwater slough 0.9 0.9 0.9 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-37 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Where fish passage barriers exist, either remove or modify 

barriers to allow passage, for example on an unnamed creek at 

the Riverboat Unit and on Rock Creek at the Rock Creek Unit. 

  

Plant cuttings, plugs, and potted plants for native shrubs and 

trees as necessary. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Maintain structures that enhance fish passage in tributary 

streams. 

  

Place woody debris as necessary to provide subsurface 

structure for native fish, and basking areas for native turtles 

and other wildlife. 

  

Inventory and monitor freshwater mussels.   

Where necessary install erosion control mats along 

river/stream banks. 

  

Use BMPs with respect to the refuge cropland management 

program, including unfarmed buffers to ensure minimal runoff 

and erosion into streams and rivers. 

  

Rationale: River and stream habitat at the refuge includes the mainstem of the Tualatin River, and 

Chicken and Rock Creeks at the Sherwood Units; the Tualatin River, Wapato, Ayers, Scoggins, Harris, 

and Hill Creeks at the Wapato Lake Unit; and many smaller tributary perennial and ephemeral streams. 

Functioning stream corridors provide access for upstream adult salmonid migration as well as 

downstream and off-channel migrating, foraging, and sanctuary habitat for outmigrating juvenile fish. In 

addition, headwater streams are important breeding areas both for salmonids and lamprey species. Intact 

riparian areas adjacent to river and stream channels serve many functions including providing waterquality benefits, shade, organic matter via leaf fall, and coarse woody debris. A host of wetlanddependent wildlife species thrive along river and stream channels including beaver, mink, muskrat, blacktailed deer, belted kingfisher, and northwestern pond turtle. Removing barriers such as culverts in the 

Rock Creek and Riverboat Units would enhance fish passage. 

Objective 6.2 Restore streams (in-channel) 

By 2027, restore 2.7 miles of in-channel stream on the refuge for the benefit of salmonids (e.g., coastal 

cutthroat trout, steelhead), migratory birds (e.g., belted kingfisher), and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species (e.g., northwestern pond turtle, mink, Pacific lamprey). 

In-channel stream is characterized by the following: 

 Barrier-free river and stream channels 

 Intact riparian areas along the banks with shade provided by large native trees 

 Coarse woody debris for in-stream structure 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Miles of in-channel stream 0 2.7 2.7 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

By 2017: Develop a restoration plan for Chicken Creek.  

By 2020: Develop a restoration plan for Rock Creek.  

Conduct topographic surveys to determine location and 

elevation of stream channel and backwater 

channels/sloughs. 

 

Locate and reestablish the historic channels of perennial 

streams (e.g., Chicken Creek, Rock Creek). 

 

Use heavy equipment to remove plugs to reconnect 

historic oxbows to channels. 

 

Remove culverts and other fish passage barriers on 

tributary streams including on an unnamed stream at the 

Riverboat Unit and on the Rock Creek Unit. 

  

Improve river and stream connectivity with the floodplain 

(e.g., through removal or relocation of levees, 

channelized reaches, or other features restricting seasonal 

inundation of the floodplain). 

  

Plant cuttings, plugs, and potted plants for native shrubs 

and trees. 

  

Maintain structures that enhance fish passage in tributary 

streams. 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Place woody debris as necessary to provide subsurface 

structure for native fish, and basking areas for native 

turtles and other wildlife. 

  

Install gravel bars as necessary for native fish and mussel 

habitat. 

 

Use BMPs with respect to the refuge cropland 

management program, including unfarmed buffers, to 

ensure minimal runoff and erosion into streams and 

rivers. 

  

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 6.1. Removing culverts and other fish passage barriers directly 

supports the strategies outlined by the Willamette Restoration Strategy (Jerrick 2001). Stream restoration 

activities would require additional analysis and regulatory compliance. 

Objective 6.3 Restore backwater sloughs (off-channel) 

By 2020, restore 1.6 miles of backwater sloughs on the refuge for the benefit of salmonids (e.g., coastal 

cutthroat trout, steelhead), migratory birds (e.g., belted kingfisher), and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species (e.g., northwestern pond turtle, mink, northern red-legged frog). 

Backwater sloughs are characterized by the following: 

 Temporary flooding and draining with a connection to nearby creek or river 

 <20% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass, Canada thistle) 

 Barrier-free sloughs with connections to stream or river channels 

 Coarse woody debris for slough structure 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-39 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Miles of backwater slough 0 1.6 1.6 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct topographic surveys to determine location and 

elevation of backwater channels/sloughs. 

 

Use heavy equipment to remove plugs to reconnect 

historic oxbows to channels, and to create new backwater 

areas in conjunction with other restoration activities (See 

Objectives 1.2, 4.2, and 5.3). 

 

Improve river and stream connectivity with the floodplain 

(e.g., through removal or relocation of levees, 

channelized reaches, or other features restricting seasonal 

inundation of the floodplain). 

  

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, cultural, and biological methods, to 

control invasive species (see Appendix G). 

  

Place woody debris as necessary to provide subsurface 

structure for native fish, and basking areas for native 

turtles and other wildlife. 

  

Use BMPs with respect to the refuge cropland 

management program, including unfarmed buffers, to 

ensure minimal runoff and erosion into backwater 

sloughs. 

  

Rationale: Off-channel backwater areas have been shown to be important for spawning and juvenile 

rearing of native fish (Colvin et al. 2009). Henning et al. (2007) found that oxbow habitats were 

dominated by coho salmon. Jeffres et al. (2008) found that Chinook salmon experienced higher growth 

rates in off-channel habitats than in perennial habitats. These ephemeral habitats may also provide 

breeding and foraging sites for amphibians such as northern red-legged frogs and northwestern 

salamanders. Backwater sloughs also provide a diversity of plant growth as they dry out in summer, 

providing a variety of benefits for native wildlife. 

Goal 7: Cultivate and maintain croplands as an interim measure to control 

nonnative invasive species. 

Objective 7.1 Cultivate small cereal grain crops and green pasture at the Wapato Lake Unit 

Prior to initiating restoration activities in the Wapato Lake lake bed and surrounding areas, use small 

grain croplands and green pastures as an interim measure to provide wildlife habitat while controlling 

weeds on acquired lands. Benefitting species include migrating and wintering waterfowl (e.g., tundra 

swan, northern pintail), raptors (e.g., northern harrier, red-tailed hawk), and landbirds (e.g., western 

meadowlark, savanna sparrow). 

Small grain croplands are characterized by the following: 

 Crops such as corn, wheat, barley, and oats 

 70% harvested, 30% left standing 

 May have standing water or be completely flooded during rainy season 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Green pastures are characterized by the following: 

 Green forage crops such as clover and grass hay 

 Tall grasses during spring 

 Short grasses during fall and winter 

 May have standing water or be completely flooded during rainy season 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 837 0-871 0-871 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing), chemical, water management, cultural, and 

biological methods, to control invasive species (Appendix G). 

  

Conduct cooperative farming to grow and harvest small grain 

crops. 

  

Leave 30% of small grain crops standing for winter waterfowl 

forage. 

  

Conduct cooperative farming to grow and harvest green 

pasture. 

  

Harvest 100% of green pasture during spring/summer.   

Mow green pasture to <4 inches during late summer/early fall 

to provide forage for migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

  

Explore the feasibility of refuge staff conducting farming 

operations on part or all refuge lands in a temporary cropping 

program. 

  

Rationale: Growing cereal grains and green pasture on refuge lands as an interim measure helps reduce 

invasive plant species infestations prior to initiating restoration measures and provides benefits for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl, and other species. Selecting cereal grains versus green pasture is 

usually a decision based on market economics—which crops are most valuable to local farmers. 

Cooperative farming should benefit both the refuge in terms of wildlife value and the farmer in terms of 

economic value. 

Maintaining crops on the land prior to restoration helps control nonnative invasive plant species such as 

reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Farming activities may include mowing, discing, application 

of approved herbicide, and planting of small grain crops, clover, or grass. Cooperative farming would be 

phased out in Alternatives 2 and 3 as restoration efforts continue throughout the refuge. Acreage numbers 

presented in Alternatives 2 and 3 (0-804 acres) reflect the uncertainty of restoring the entire lake basin 

during the 15-year life span of the CCP. The range of acres suggested for restoration is due to the 

uncertainty of the direction of the Wapato Lake Unit restoration. Restoration would be dependent on the 

outcome of a hydrology study currently being conducted by the USGS. 

Conversion of croplands to native habitat types should benefit native species in the long term. Species 

using this area would likely transition as restoration is completed and new native habitats mature. Native 

fish species such as steelhead, coho, and lamprey would benefit from reconnecting the Wapato Lake lake 

bed with the Tualatin River and nearby tributary streams, while a host of waterfowl would benefit from 

restoration of herbaceous wetlands, and marsh birds and songbirds would use restored scrub-shrub 

wetlands. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-41 

Cooperative farming is conducted by local growers who incur all costs associated with growing and 

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

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

remove the crop or prepare the field for the following year. Cooperators are required to leave a share of 

crops as determined by a cooperative agreement. For additional information see the compatibility 

determination in Appendix B. 

Harvesting green pasture is usually conducted during spring, and a follow-up cutting is conducted in fall 

to provide forage for wintering geese. 

Refuge staff may also conduct farming operations; however, all costs would be incurred by the refuge 

and all crops would be left for the benefit of wildlife. 

Objective 7.2 Cultivate small cereal grain crops and green pasture at the Onion Flats Unit 

Until the refuge acquires an interest in portions of the Onion Flats Unit that are sufficient to conduct 

restoration activities without impacting neighboring landowners, use small grain croplands and green 

pastures as an interim measure to provide wildlife habitat while controlling weeds on acquired lands. 

Benefitting species include migrating and wintering waterfowl (e.g., Canada goose, northern pintail), 

raptors (e.g., northern harrier, red-tailed hawk), and landbirds (e.g., western meadowlark, savanna 

sparrow). 

Small grain croplands are characterized by the following: 

 Crops such as corn, wheat, barley, and oats 

 70% harvested, 30% left standing 

 May have standing water or be completely flooded during rainy season 

Green pastures are characterized by the following: 

 Green forage crops such as clover and grass hay 

 Tall grasses during spring 

 Short grasses during fall and winter 

 May have standing water or be completely flooded during rainy season 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Acres 105 0-105 0-105 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use IPM techniques, including 

mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, 

water management, cultural, and biological 

methods, to control invasive species (see 

Appendix G). 

  

Conduct cooperative farming to grow and 

harvest small grain crops. 

  

Leave 30% of small grain crops standing for 

winter waterfowl forage. 

  

Conduct cooperative farming to grow and 

harvest green pasture. 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Harvest 100% of green pasture during 

spring/summer. 

  

Mow green pasture to <4 inches during late 

summer/early fall to provide forage for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

  

Explore the feasibility of refuge staff 

conducting farming operations on part or all 

refuge lands in a temporary cropping program. 

  

Rationale: Growing cereal grains and green pasture on refuge lands as an interim measure helps reduce 

invasive plant species infestations prior to initiating restoration measures and provides benefits for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl, and other species. Due to the nature of the Onion Flats basin, 

restoration of Rock Creek (see Objective 6.2) and restoration of scrub-shrub wetland (see Objective 5.3) 

cannot proceed until sufficient interest in land (e.g., fee title, easement, or management agreement) is 

secured so that neighboring landowners are not impacted by refuge actions. The acreage numbers 

presented in Alternatives 2 and 3 (0-105 acres) reflect the uncertainty of acquiring an interest in land and 

restoring the basin during the 15-year life span of the CCP. 

Conversion of croplands to native habitat types should benefit native species in the long term. Species 

using this area would likely transition as restoration is completed and new native habitats mature. Native 

fish species such as cutthroat trout and lamprey would benefit from restoration of Rock Creek, while a 

host of marsh birds and songbirds would use restored scrub-shrub wetlands. 

Selecting cereal grains versus green pasture is usually a decision based on market economics—which 

crops are most valuable to local farmers. Cooperative farming should benefit both the refuge, in terms of 

wildlife value, and the farmer, in terms of economic value. 

Maintaining crops on the land prior to restoration helps control nonnative invasive plant species such as 

reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Farming activities may include mowing, discing, application 

of approved herbicide, and planting of small grain crops, clover, or grass. Cooperative farming would be 

phased out in Alternatives 2 and 3 as restoration efforts continue throughout the refuge. 

Cooperative farming is conducted by local growers who incur all costs associated with growing and 

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

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

remove the crop or prepare the field for the following year. Cooperators are required to leave a share of 

crops as determined by a cooperative agreement. For additional information see the compatibility 

determination in Appendix B. 

Harvesting green pasture is usually conducted during spring, and a follow-up cutting is conducted in fall 

to provide forage for wintering geese. 

Refuge staff may also conduct farming operations; however, all costs would be incurred by the refuge 

and all crops would be left for the benefit of wildlife. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-43 

Goal 8: Collect scientific information (surveys, scientific assessments, and 

research) necessary to support adaptive management decisions that are 

associated with Goals 1-7. 

Objective 8.1 Inventory and monitoring surveys 

Throughout the life of the CCP, conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring surveys that evaluate 

resource management and public use activities to facilitate adaptive management as well as provide 

baseline data. These surveys contribute to the protection, enhancement, restoration, use, and management 

of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off refuge lands. Specifically, they can be used to 

evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under Goals 1-7 in the CCP. These 

surveys would have the following attributes: 

 Data collection techniques would likely have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction 

 Scale and accuracy of assessments would be appropriate for development and implementation of 

refuge habitat and wildlife management actions 

 Minimum number of samples to meet statistical analysis requirements would be used to 

minimize long-term or cumulative impacts 

 Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where 

necessary, would be required to minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species 

 Projects would adhere to scientifically sound protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

The following is a list of survey activities to support resource management decisions on the refuge. This 

list is not in order of priority.

Work with the Friends of the Refuge and other volunteers to 

conduct inventory and monitoring surveys.   

Map invasive plant distributions throughout the refuge.   

Monitor water levels in managed wetland basins.   

Monitor survival and growth of planted woody species to 

evaluate restoration success as needed. 

  

Conduct forest monitoring to assess snag density every 5 

years. 

  

Inventory and monitor restored wet prairies to gather baseline 

life history data and evaluate changes over time. 

  

Monitor wetland and other vegetation types to determine 

management effectiveness as needed. 

  

Monitor wintering waterfowl weekly from September 15 to 

March 15. 

  

Monitor shorebirds weekly from April 1 to September 30.   

Conduct monthly point count surveys for songbirds from April 

1 to June 30. 

  

Conduct songbird banding from May 1 to August 15 following 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

protocol. 

Monitor reptiles and amphibians (e.g., frogs, salamanders, 

turtles) as needed. 

  

Monitor mammals as appropriate.   

Inventory freshwater mussels in streams.   

Monitor for listed fish species as appropriate (e.g., salmonids, 

lamprey). 

  

Monitor water quality entering, within, and at discharge points 

of refuge wetlands.   

Conduct periodic assessments to evaluate current habitat 

conditions.   

Rationale: The Improvement Act requires the Service to “monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge.” Surveys would be used primarily to evaluate resource response to assess 

progress toward achieving refuge management objectives (under Goals 1-7 in this CCP) derived from the 

Refuge System mission, refuge purposes, and maintenance of BIDEH. Determining resource status and 

evaluating progress toward achieving objectives is essential to implementing adaptive management on 

Department of Interior lands. Specifically, results of surveys would be used to refine management 

strategies, where necessary, over time in order to achieve resource objectives. Surveys would provide the 

best available scientific information to promote transparent decision-making processes for resource 

management. 

Objective 8.2 Research 

Conduct high-priority research projects that provide the best science for habitat and wildlife management 

on and off refuge lands. Scientific findings gained through these projects would expand knowledge 

regarding the life history needs of species and species groups as well as identify or refine habitat and 

wildlife management actions. Research also would reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat 

responses to refuge management actions, which would help achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives and facilitate adaptive management. These research projects would have 

the following attributes: 

 Data collection would adhere to scientifically defensible protocols, where available and 

applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management 

 Data collection techniques would likely have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction 

 The minimum number of samples would be collected to meet statistical analysis requirements for 

identification and/or experimentation to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts 

 Proper cleaning methods would be used on investigator equipment and clothing, as well as 

quarantine methods, where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of 

invasive species 

 Research projects would produce a summary report containing methods, results, and discussion 

of findings 

 Projects would often result in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications and/or 

symposiums 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

The following is a list of research projects to support resource management decisions on the refuge. This 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-45 

list is not comprehensive and is not in order of priority. 

Conduct soil and topographic surveys and hydrological 

modeling to determine surface water interactions between 

river levels and floodplain elevations, with an outcome of 

frequency and duration of flooding within the Tualatin River 

floodplain to support saturation requirements for Objectives 

4.1, 4.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, and 6.2. 

  

Conduct detailed topographic survey of Wapato Lake and 

surrounding areas to use in restoration planning and 

evaluation. 

 

Conduct hydrologic survey of Wapato Lake and the 

surrounding watershed to use in restoration planning and 

evaluation. 

 

Conduct studies to determine water quality parameters within 

refuge impoundments, and the effects to water quality on 

streams and the Tualatin River. 

  

Conduct study to evaluate timing of prescribed fire to best 

promote native herbaceous cover and control invasive plants. 

 

Conduct studies to determine practical techniques (grazing, 

haying, mowing, herbicide application) for habitat 

management. 

 

Conduct studies to determine BMPs for eradicating or 

controlling nonnative invasive species. 

  

Conduct studies of disturbance to wildlife from public use 

activities to determine compatibility and recommend any 

necessary modifications to reduce disturbance. 

  

Investigate methods for reducing competition from nonnative 

fish species in stream and floodplain habitat types. 

  

Investigate species and habitat sensitivity to changing climate 

trends and climate vulnerability assessments; monitor results 

of climate modeling by University of Washington and others. 

  

Partner with universities and other academic institutions to 

conduct scientific research. 

  

Partner with USGS, other Federal and state agencies, and 

nongovernmental organizations to conduct research studies. 

  

Rationale: Research projects on refuge lands would address a wide range of natural and cultural resource 

as well as public use management issues. Examples of research projects include habitat use and life 

history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat management and 

restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate pest 

species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, 

identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, modeling of wildlife populations, and assessing 

response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be species-specific or refugespecific, or they may evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge to issues and trends affecting the 

larger landscape (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international). Like monitoring, results of 

research projects would expand the best available scientific information and potentially reduce 

uncertainties to promote transparent decision-making processes for resource management over time on 

refuge lands. In combination with results of surveys, research would promote adaptive management on 

refuge lands. Scientific publications resulting from research on refuge lands would help increase the 

visibility of the Refuge System as a leader in the development of the best science for resource 

conservation and management. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Goal 9: Protect and manage the refuge’s unique cultural resources for their 

cultural, scientific, and educational values, while consulting with appropriate 

Native American groups and preservation organizations and complying with 

historic preservation legislation. 

Objective 9.1 Inventory, evaluate, monitor, and protect cultural resources to improve cultural 

resource management 

Continue and improve cultural resource management that meets the requirements of the NHPA, including 

consultation, identification, inventorying, monitoring, and protection of cultural resources. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Through partnerships, expand on current cultural resource 

inventories in high probability areas on existing lands and 

newly acquired lands. 

  

Develop partnership with the Tribes for cultural resource 

inventory, evaluation, and project monitoring, consistent with 

the regulations of the NHPA. Protect all identifiable 

archaeological sites by avoiding disturbance within the area. 

  

Evaluate sites for eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). 

 

Continue to identify cultural resources that coincide with 

existing and planned roads, facilities, public use areas, habitat 

projects, and research projects. Plan and implement activities 

to avoid or mitigate impacts as necessary. 

  

Complete a comprehensive cultural review of the refuge and 

compile all site surveys, work requests, and reports for easy 

access by managers. 

 

When funding is limited, low priority and unsafe buildings 

should be cataloged and considered for removal.  

Monitor known archaeological and historical sites, as needed.  

Provide refuge staff with training on managing historic, 

archaeological, and cultural resources. 

 

Develop and implement a museum management plan 

(including inventory, storage, and use) for existing and new 

property. 

 

Collect and catalog oral histories from local community 

members. 

 

Rationale: Various Federal historic preservation laws and regulations, such as the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the NHPA, require the Service to implement the kind of program 

described under this objective. The refuge has currently identified numerous historic structures and 

archaeological sites throughout the refuge related to pioneer agriculture. The refuge has also been 

identified as a long-term occupation area of the Kalapuyan Tribe, and several prehistoric sites have also 

been discovered. This objective would serve to protect these important cultural resources. Developing a 

partnership with the Tribes would foster greater understanding of not only the refuge’s cultural heritage, 

but the greater Willamette Valley region as well. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-47 

Objective 9.2 Provide interpretive and educational programs on the refuge’s cultural resources 

Expand education and interpretation for cultural resources through programs and materials that highlight 

the rich cultural heritage of the Tualatin River watershed and the Willamette Valley. Encourage 

understanding and appreciation of the relationships of past and present human interactions with wildlife 

and their habitats. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Develop and strengthen partnership with the Tribes in order to 

provide high-quality educational and interpretive programs 

with a focus on natural and cultural resources of the refuge 

and the Tualatin River watershed. 

  

Consult with the Tribes and other preservation partners to 

identify the type of cultural resources information appropriate 

for public interpretation. 

  

Expand the Wildlife Center exhibits to include exhibits 

highlighting Native American history and Euro-American land 

use. 

 

Develop interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, and 

exhibits) that relate to cultural resources and the refuge. 

 

Rationale: Preservation and protection of our cultural resources requires attention not only from the 

refuge but the public as well. Interpretation of these resources can raise public interest and appreciation 

for the rich history of the peoples who lived in the valley in earlier times and how they shaped the 

landscape the refuge now manages. This appreciation can lead to public support for the conservation, 

maintenance, identification, and protection of archaeological and historic sites. 

Goal 10: Provide visitors, local residents, volunteers, and partners with 

opportunities to understand and appreciate fish and wildlife conservation as 

well as the purpose, ecology, and management of the refuge and the Refuge 

System. 

Objective 10.1 Provide visitors with clear and accurate information 

Visitors would be provided with clear and accurate information that would: 

 Describe what areas are open to the public 

 Articulate activities that are allowed and those that are prohibited and why 

 Describe how to safely and ethically experience the refuge 

 Be presented in a variety of graphic and written formats

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Provide informational signs and brochures, regulatory 

information, and trail maps. 

  

Partner with others to keep the refuge Wildlife Center open a 

minimum of 5 days a week. 

  

Maintain a refuge website that meets Service web standards.   
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Provide at least annual training for Wildlife Center volunteers 

and volunteer rovers to ensure they provide quality service and 

are well informed about the refuge, its resources, and rules and 

regulations. 

  

Maintain all existing public use facilities.   

Explore opportunities for one or two informational kiosks at or 

near the Wapato Lake Unit. 

 

Hire a full-time, permanent law enforcement officer to provide 

both visitor and resource protection. 

 

Rationale: Kiosks, signs, publications, and contact with refuge staff and volunteers are effective 

communication tools to welcome and orient visitors. These steps are necessary to provide a safe and 

enjoyable visit that both meets visitor needs and communicates what public use opportunities and 

facilities are available at the refuge. In addition, clear regulations and guidance promotes protection of 

refuge resources, reduces law enforcement violations, and maintains compatibility. A full-time law 

enforcement officer would provide greater protection of visitors and natural and cultural resources. 

Objective 10.2 Conduct outreach and special events 

Conduct outreach and special events that: 

 Describe the refuge and its place as part of the Refuge System 

 Promote understanding of the refuge’s role in enhancing natural resources, protecting habitats 

and water quality, and providing educational and economic benefits to the community 

 Describe how the refuge is different from local parks 

 Focus on local residents, with an emphasis on serving urban and underserved populations, and 

families and youth that may not otherwise have opportunities to engage in programs about or 

activities on national wildlife refuges

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Partner with Friends of the Refuge and others to offer 

special programs and events to draw neighbors, area 

residents, and community partners to the refuge. Examples 

of events include Tualatin River Bird Festival, National 

Wildlife Refuge Week, and Spring Break Exploration Days. 

  

Maintain a presence at community events where there is a 

high potential for delivering refuge messages. Examples 

include local county fairs, nature festivals, city events, and 

farmers’ markets. 

 

Develop a volunteer speakers’ bureau to deliver 

presentations to local groups. 

 

By 2015, investigate and develop a plan to use new/social 

media to expand refuge outreach. 

 

Regularly use media like newspapers, television, magazines, 

and radio. Focus on news venues, as well as specialty 

outdoor, commerce, and travel venues. 

  

Rationale: The area surrounding the refuge is becoming increasingly developed, and the population is 

expanding. The refuge opened to the public in 2006 and is still relatively unknown to many area residents 

and businesses. Outreach is needed for these new and growing audiences, in order to build interest in the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-49 

refuge, bring visitors to the refuge, and build support for refuge programs and fish and wildlife 

conservation. 

Objective 10.3 Plan for continuing and new public use opportunities 

Plan for continuing and new public use opportunities that: 

 Emphasize the role that national wildlife refuges have in the conservation of fish and wildlife and 

their habitats 

 Prescribe a wide range of techniques and media that appeal to culturally and ethnically diverse 

audiences and can adapt to changing trends 

 Allow visitors to experience a variety of refuge habitats and associated wildlife 

 Ensure that public uses are accessible and adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Architectural 

Barriers Act 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

By 2016, develop primary refuge interpretive, outreach, and 

educational themes. 

 

By 2016, identify target audiences through a variety of means 

including demographic studies. 

 

Use the Refuge System’s visitor survey (USFWS and USGS, 

OMB #1018-0145) or other valid and approved method to 

gather information about visitors and their expectations and 

experiences. Use data to identify areas of growing public 

interests and to provide the information necessary to exercise 

adaptive management. 

 

Use the Refuge System Visitor Estimation Workbook 

(USFWS 2005a), traffic counters, and program attendance to 

estimate numbers of visitors participating in public use 

activities. 

 

At least every 5 years, conduct an evaluation using Visitor 

Services Standards: A Handbook for Evaluating Visitor 

Service Programs (USFWS 2009b) for all visitor services 

programs of the refuge. Conduct evaluations of new programs 

within 1 year of implementation. 

 

Every 3 years, invite an organization such as Access 

Recreation in Portland to conduct a courtesy accessibility 

evaluation of public use facilities. Develop and implement a 

plan to make needed corrections or improvements based on 

this evaluation. 

 

By 2017, develop a comprehensive visitor services plan that 

prescribes all public use facilities and programs at both the 

Sherwood Units and the Wapato Lake Unit. Complete all 

relevant appropriateness and compatibility determinations. 

 

Rationale: Established under the Urban Refuge Policy, the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge has 

a special role in sharing the mission of the Refuge System, how refuges are managed throughout the 

Refuge System, and how citizens can learn more about and support the Refuge System as a whole. Public 

use opportunities need to be designed and planned in a way that that is aligned with primary messages. 

Opportunities that do not support primary messages should be eliminated from consideration. A 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

comprehensive visitor services plan would use primary refuge messages and themes to prescribe longterm wildlife-dependent public use programs and the facilities that would support those programs. 

Examples of programs could include, but may not be limited to, wildlife observation areas, trails, 

interpretive exhibits, signs, photography blinds, auto tour routes, education study sites, and hunting and 

fishing facilities. 

Objective 10.4 Improve and enhance public access to, from, and within the refuge 

Improve and enhance public access to, from, and within the refuge in a manner that: 

 Is safe, well marked, and accessible where feasible 

 Promotes the use of alternative transportation to visit the refuge, thereby helping to reduce the 

refuge’s carbon footprint 

 Poses minimal conflict with wildlife and habitat objectives 

 Promotes stewardship and conservation 

 Is coordinated with local communities and agencies planning transportation corridors near the 

refuge

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Continue to work with regional and local organizations to 

connect the refuge to existing and proposed land-based and 

water-based trail systems, such as Sherwood’s Cedar Creek 

Trail (Otak 2009), Metro’s Tonquin Trail, and Tualatin 

Riverkeepers’ Tualatin River Water Trail, where feasible and 

compatible. 

  

Partner with interested parties/organizations to identify 

potential locations for one public river access for 

nonmotorized boats in or near the refuge. 

 

By 2015, partner with Oregon Department of Transportation 

(ODOT), local counties, TriMet, and the Western Federal 

Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway 

Administration to conduct transportation access and safety 

studies for the existing refuge access from Highway 99W and 

Roy Rogers Road and any proposed new access points to the 

Sherwood Units. 

 

If determined necessary, partner with transportation agencies 

to improve safety of existing access points. 

 

Rationale: The demand for increased, enhanced, and improved public access to the refuge was a 

common theme of many public comments during scoping for the CCP. These comments also reflect a 

desire for improved public access within the refuge and for connectivity with existing and proposed land 

and water trails. 

At present, public access to the refuge is primarily by automobile along Highway 99W and Roy Rogers 

Road, and by TriMet bus along Highway 99W. Of particular concern, the Highway 99W entrance was 

constructed in 2006 without a deceleration lane. This current entrance design was required by ODOT 

specifications and permit conditions, and the entrance resides within ODOT’s right-of-way. Refuge 

visitors continue to express concern that the Highway 99W entrance is unsafe. This entrance warrants 

further evaluation and potential remedy. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-51 

Objective 10.5 Maintain a volunteer and internship program 

Maintain a volunteer and internship program that: 

 Assists with the habitat, biological, public use, maintenance, and administrative programs of the 

refuge 

 Provides opportunities for citizens to engage in, learn about, and conduct the work of 

conservation 

 Builds capacity to recruit, train, manage, and retain volunteers over the long term 

 Fosters the development of conservation professionals

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Hire a full-time, permanent volunteer coordinator to manage 

current and expanding refuge-wide volunteer program. 

 

Develop and conduct an annual refuge-wide volunteer needs 

assessment. 

 

Develop a package of position descriptions that clearly define 

the responsibilities and roles of volunteers in all relevant 

refuge programs. 

 

Continue to provide opportunities for young adults to gain 

work experience in natural and cultural resources planning and 

management, as well as visitor services management, and to 

explore career options in conservation fields. These 

opportunities may include programs such as internships, 

AmeriCorps placements, student employment and work/study 

programs, Youth Conservation Corps, and other youth 

employment initiatives. 

  

Develop written training programs, manuals, and other 

resource training for volunteers. 

 

Establish an advisory committee of volunteers that helps the 

refuge with oversight and day-to-day management of 

volunteer activities. 

 

Construct a new bunkhouse and two recreational vehicle (RV) 

pads (with hookups) on the Tualatin River Unit near the 

maintenance facility to house volunteers. 

 

Host annual volunteer appreciation event.   

Rationale: Volunteers are necessary to meet the operational needs of the refuge. In fiscal year 2010, a 

total of 205 volunteers contributed 15,065 hours. This contribution is the equivalent of 7.2 full-time staff, 

at a value of $327,000, calculated at $21.79/hour (Independent Sector 2011). Expansion of the current 

volunteer program to fully meet the needs of the refuge over the life of the CCP would require a full-time 

volunteer coordinator. This need could be met through direct hiring of USFWS staff or by partnering 

with Friends of the Refuge to hire personnel. 

It is critical for the Service to attract and nurture the future workforce in natural resource conservation. 

This priority is also reflected in the Department of Interior’s Youth in the Great Outdoors initiative. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-52 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Objective 10.6 Maintain a close working relationship with the Friends of the Refuge 

Maintain a relationship in which the Friends of the Refuge: 

 Assist with the refuge’s habitat, biological, public use, and maintenance programs 

 Seek grants, funding, and sponsorships to support refuge programs

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Work with the Friends of the Refuge to establish a chapter that 

would provide support for the developing Wapato Lake Unit. 

 

Continue to provide the Friends of the Refuge with office and 

storage space to successfully conduct their activities. 

  

Maintain the current memorandum of understanding between 

the Service and the Friends of the Refuge. 

  

Rationale: The Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization 

whose mission is to “support the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.” It is “dedicated to the 

protection and restoration of the refuge for the benefit of fish and wildlife, and for public education and 

recreation” (Friends of the Tualatin Refuge 2011). The Friends provide critical support to the refuge, 

supporting programs and activities that would otherwise not be feasible to conduct. 

The refuge maintains a memorandum of understanding with the Friends of the Refuge, partially under the 

authority of the Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. 

Goal 11: Provide students and educators from the greater Portland area with 

compatible and high-quality opportunities to participate in environmental 

education. 

Objective 11.1 Increase participation in the refuge’s environmental education program 

The goals for the refuge’s environmental education program are to: 

 Remain of high quality 

 Not exceed capacity of refuge public use facilities 

 Coordinate with other regional natural areas and organizations that offer environmental education 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Hire a permanent, full-time environmental education specialist 

to manage all refuge education and interpretation programs. 



Throughout the life of the CCP, increase the number of 

students participating in educator-led field trips from an 

average of 1,900 to at least 5,000 per year. 



Throughout the life of the CCP, increase the number of 

students reached at off-site activities and events from an 

average of 700 to at least 1,750 per year. 



Throughout the life of the CCP, increase the number of 

volunteers trained in support of the environmental education 

program from an average of 10 to at least 25 per year. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-53 

Offer programs that are tailored to youth outside of the 

traditional classroom (e.g., scouts, clubs). Increase the 

numbers of youth participating in these programs from an 

average of 800 to at least 2,000 per year. 



Increase outreach about the refuge’s environmental education 

program to teachers and administrators at schools within a 10-

mile radius of Sherwood and of Gaston. 



Continue to require teacher workshops prior to educators 

bringing class field trips to the refuge. Offer a minimum of 

two teacher workshops annually. 

  

By 2013, identify one off-trail area that students can use, when 

approved as part of a field trip registration and supervised by 

volunteers, to conduct educational activities. 



By 2018, design and construct one off-trail nature exploration 

area that engages young children to experience unstructured 

outdoor play. 



Rationale: Environmental education activities promote appreciation and knowledge of natural resources, 

foster a conservation ethic, and aid in understanding the important role people have in the environment. 

Ultimately, the highest goal of environmental education is to foster an aware and involved citizenry that 

takes an active role in conservation efforts. As such, environmental education is identified as one of the 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and, as an urban national wildlife refuge, is one of the top goals 

for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Expanding the current environmental education program 

would reach more students and educators and foster integration into local school curricula. The current 

education program is carried primarily through internships, grants, and volunteers, and maintaining its 

current capacity is dependent on soft funding, which is funding that may or may not be available each 

year. Permanent maintenance of the current program and future increase in participation (as proposed in 

Alternative 2) is dependent on the hiring of a full-time professional environmental education coordinator. 

Nature explore areas provide opportunities for children to experience nature first-hand through 

unstructured outdoor play. Richard Louv identified the importance of first-hand unstructured experience 

in nature and the prevalence of “nature deficit disorder” as a serious issue in his book Last Child in the 

Woods (Louv 2005). Research supports Louv’s arguments demonstrating that children’s positive 

encounters with nature can lead to development of an environmental ethic (Chawla 1988; Palmberg and 

Kuru 2000; Wilson 1997). 

Objective 11.2 Expand the environmental education program to include the Wapato Lake Unit 

Same as Objective 13.1. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

By 2013, provide teacher training and curricula to educators 

within the schools and communities surrounding Wapato Lake 

Unit. 

 

By 2013, provide environmental education materials to 

educators in schools and communities surrounding the Wapato 

Lake Unit. 

 

Explore the potential to partner with the City of Gaston to 

provide space and/or facilities for environmental education 

programs to occur at Brown Park. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-54 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

By 2014, annually host at least two environmental education 

programs with the Tribes at the Wapato Lake Unit, both for 

tribal students and surrounding communities. 

 

Rationale: Schools close to the Wapato Lake Unit offer a new audience that has yet to participate in 

refuge environmental education programs. The community, especially Gaston, has expressed a desire to 

have students learn about and experience the refuge. Although there are currently no public use facilities 

at the Wapato Lake Unit, the refuge can offer high-quality environmental education activities at schools, 

within the local community, and at the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. 

Objective 11.3 Ensure that the environmental education program is high quality 

The environmental education program should: 

 Align with grade-level curricula and be age appropriate 

 Correlate with national and state educational standards 

 Use current and widely accepted techniques 

 Appeal to a broad range of learning styles and provide interdisciplinary opportunities that link 

natural resources through all academic subject areas 

 Serve students across a range of economic, social, cultural, and ethnic diversity 

 Be conducted to minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; other compatible 

public uses; and refuge management programs and facilities 

 Involve local communities, Friends of the Refuge, volunteers, and other partners 

 Incorporate the importance of the Refuge System and the purposes, goals, and objectives of the 

refuge 

 Incorporate current conservation issues and concerns 

 Provide experiences that are hands-on and integrate the resources of the refuge 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Conduct at least one training per year to ensure volunteers use 

high-quality and appropriate educational methods, techniques, 

and tools. 

  

Loan educators and schools relevant supplies and materials 

such as binoculars, field guides, lesson kits, and water testing 

kits to support on-site field activities for environmental 

education. 

  

Develop a training program for parent chaperones who 

accompany student field trips to the refuge. 

 

Align refuge education materials, curricula, and techniques 

with the Oregon Environmental Literacy Plan, as appropriate. 

(Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force 2010) 

 

At least every 5 years, conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 

the environmental education program using the Guidelines for 

Excellence established by North American Association for 

Environmental Education ([NAAEE] 2004). 

 

Explore the potential to extend the teacher-training program 

from 1-day workshops to long-term, one-on-one coaching 

with individual teachers. 

 

Maintain memberships in organizations such as NAAEE, 

Environmental Education Association of Oregon, Portland’s 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-55 

Regional Environmental Education Network, and Metro’s 

Intertwine. 

Rationale: Environmental education opportunities in the greater Portland area are plentiful, although few 

areas provide natural areas with facilities that accommodate student field trips (with shelter, classroom, 

and study areas) while also providing quality wildlife-oriented education opportunities. In addition, the 

past and projected population boom in proximity to the refuge may continue to create a larger demand for 

nature-based education programs within a short bus trip from local schools. However, several key factors 

limit schools’ abilities to offer environmental education without the assistance of outside resources such 

as the refuge. At this time, environmental education is not mandated by the State of Oregon; teachers are 

increasingly pressured to meet current mandates and may not have the time to build skills, learn curricula, 

and seek out environmental education activities. Declining school budgets often limit teachers in their 

ability to provide transportation, cover substitute fees, purchase materials, and defray other costs 

associated with off-site field trips. By maintaining a high-quality education program, the refuge can offset 

these limitations in order to meet our environmental education goal. Education programs would be 

effective and offered in a way that would both attract educators and meet the learning mandates and 

objectives that schools are responsible for providing. The refuge can provide environmental education 

teaching materials (binoculars, field guides, water test kits, study skins, etc.) that schools would likely not 

have access to. In addition, the refuge can offer programs for youth outside the formal classroom (such as 

scouts and after-school clubs) that are more affordable and not subject to daily limitations of the school 

day. Ensuring the long-term quality of the environmental education program, through evaluation and 

adaptive management (as proposed in Alternative 2), is dependent on the hiring of a full-time 

professional environmental education coordinator. 

Goal 12: Provide refuge visitors with diverse, compatible, and high-quality 

opportunities to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation and 

interpretation. 

Objective 12.1 Provide high-quality wildlife observation and wildlife photography opportunities 

Provide high-quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities that: 

 Focus on major wildlife species and groups of wildlife species, including migratory birds 

 Incorporate a diversity of habitats found on the refuge 

 Use various types of facilities to view/photograph wildlife and their habitats 

 Are emphasized on a year-round basis 

 Satisfy a range of skill sets, from casual and beginning observers/photographers, to advanced and 

expert observers/photographers 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Enhance and maintain the existing seven wildlife observation 

structures, 1.1 miles of year-round trails, 3.1 miles of seasonal 

trails, one wildlife photography blind, and two restrooms. 

  

Maintain seasonal trail closure from October 1 to April 30 on 

the Atfálat’i Unit to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl 

and maintain quality viewing opportunities. 

  

Improve habitat conditions and maintain viewing “lanes” in 

close proximity to wildlife observation/photography facilities. 

These improvements could include items such as snag/log 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-56 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

placements; removal of branches, trees, or other encroaching 

vegetation; and control of nonnative vegetation within 

wetlands. 

Explore the possibility of adding a material or substance to 

trail surfaces to both reduce the sound of footsteps on the trail 

and reduce weed encroachment. 

 

Improve 400 feet of existing year-round trail to avoid winter 

flooding.  

Explore adding trees and/or other vegetation along busy road 

corridors to reduce noise and create a more natural setting. 

 

By 2016, construct and maintain one to three additional 

wildlife photography blinds and associated access trails on the 

Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. Manage use through a reservation 

system. 

 

Partner with the Friends of the Refuge, Tualatin River 

Photographic Society, and local wildlife organizations to assist 

with the funding, design, construction, maintenance, and 

management of new and existing wildlife observation and 

photography facilities. 

 

Explore the desirability of user fees to help operate the 

wildlife observation and photography program, and maintain 

and repair associated facilities. 

  

Maintain wildlife “Discovery Packs” for visitors to check out 

at the Wildlife Center. Packs would contain binoculars, field 

guides, and activities for outdoor nature exploration. 

  

Maintain an up-to-date and accurate Watchable Wildlife 

leaflet and checklist of birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians. 

  

Partner with Friends of the Refuge, Tualatin River 

Photographic Society, local wildlife organizations, agencies, 

and/or universities to offer regular programs on the Refuge 

oriented to increasing the knowledge and skills of wildlife 

observers and photographers. Evaluate the potential for 

revenue from a modest program-specific fee to support such 

programs. 

 

At least every 5 years, conduct an evaluation of the wildlife 

observation and photography program using the Refuge 

System Birder Friendly Refuge criteria (USFWS 2008a). 

 

Rationale: Opportunities to participate in wildlife observation and photography in the greater Portland 

area are plentiful. However, many areas lack the diversity and abundance of wildlife and the expanses 

that the refuge offers. The refuge also provides a relatively unique location for high-quality wildlife 

observation and photography by limiting nonwildlife-dependent activities such as biking, jogging, dog 

walking, and other activities that may otherwise conflict with and disturb wildlife. Wildlife observation 

and photography programs are designed to provide a diversity of wildlife viewing opportunities in a 

manner that minimizes disturbance to wildlife. Many of the various wildlife observation facilities provide 

excellent photography opportunities. In addition, the refuge has one existing photography blind that can 

be reserved on a first-come, first-served basis, on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays throughout the 

year. The 0.2-mile spur trail to the photography blind is closed to all other users during the winter 

seasonal trail closure period. Demand for the blind is growing. Wildlife photographers have expressed 

concern that the blind does not offer a consistent quality experience because it faces south and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-57 

photographs must be taken toward the sun at all times during the day. Opportunities may exist to offer 

additional photography blinds that do not face the sun. 

A 400-foot section of the year-round trail, located between the River Overlook and the riparian forest, 

floods during most winters—sometimes with puddles up to 16 inches deep. Pedestrians are forced to 

walk around the puddles and cause substantial trampling of vegetation. This section is impassable by 

strollers or wheelchairs when flooded. The trail section could be improved by relocating the trail farther 

toward the river, by building a boardwalk, or by raising the trail surface. 

Maintaining the existing public use seasonal trail closures from October 1 to April 30 would help provide 

needed sanctuary for wintering waterfowl, and other wildlife such as the bald eagles, in support of refuge 

purposes. 

Objective 12.2 Provide high-quality interpretive programs 

Provide high-quality interpretive programs that: 

 Follow the basic tenets of interpretation as defined in the Interpretive Process Model (Larsen 

2003) 

 Incorporate a variety of materials and technology into interpretive materials, such as signs, 

publications, exhibits, and direct contact with staff and volunteers 

 Appeal to a variety of learning styles and facilitate self-discovery 

 Convey the key messages and purposes of the refuge 

 Explore interconnection of the natural and human environments 

 Empower individuals to adopt conservation-minded lifestyles 

 Emphasize first-hand experiences on the refuge

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Maintain existing interpretive facilities, including signs, 

exhibits, overlooks, and kiosks. 

  

Annually, provide interpretive training for volunteer 

naturalists and participating refuge staff and partners. 

  

By 2018, develop a partnership with the National Association 

for Interpretation to train refuge staff and long-term volunteers 

as Certified Interpretive Trainers and/or Certified Interpretive 

Guides. 

 

Develop and publish an annual calendar of refuge 

presentations, special programs, and events. This would 

include volunteers and guest speakers who conduct a variety 

of interpretive programs on topics that support refuge 

messages and themes. 

 

Partner with the Tribes to provide interpretive programs at the 

refuge that focus on Native Americans’ traditional uses of the 

refuge and surrounding areas; uses of native fish, wildlife, and 

plants; and other indigenous knowledge. 

 

Every 10 years, partner with Certified Interpretive Trainer(s) 

to conduct an audit or review of the refuge’s interpretive 

programs to measure adherence to the Interpretive Process 

Model (Larsen 2003). 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-58 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Rationale: Interpretation is a communication method whereby visitors and program participants forge 

emotional and intellectual connections between their own interests and the significance of refuge 

resources, and management of the refuge and the Refuge System. Interpretation differs from formal 

education in that participants are self-motivated, have a choice as to whether or not to participate, and are 

not part of a formal class seeking an educational objective. The refuge currently documents 90,000 

annual visitors, only 4,000 of whom participate in formal education programs. Most of the remaining 

visitors come in small groups, with their families, or alone. Interpretation is a key method to connect the 

public with the primary messages of the refuge. 

Objective 12.3 Provide opportunities for youth to participate in high-quality waterfowl hunting on 

the Riverboat Unit of the refuge 

Waterfowl hunting on the Riverboat Unit should: 

 Place a priority on safety (hunters are spaced appropriately, spatial separation exists between 

hunt areas and areas open to other recreational use, law enforcement presence is adequate, etc.) 

 Include clear and concise regulations that are readily available 

 Pose minimal conflict with wildlife and habitat objectives 

 Pose minimal conflict with other priority public use activities 

 Pose minimal conflict with neighboring lands 

 Promote stewardship and conservation 

 Provide youth with quality hunting experiences that include hunter education and mentorships in 

coordination with ODFW 

 Promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources 

 Provide reliable/reasonable opportunity to experience wildlife 

 Use accessible facilities that blend into the landscape

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

By 2015, complete all requirements to open the 

Riverboat Unit of the refuge to waterfowl hunting for 

youth. 



Work closely with ODFW, local sporting organizations, 

and local hunters to develop a waterfowl youth hunt plan 

that includes hunter safety and mentorships. 



By 2016, construct and maintain two to five hunting 

blinds and associated access trails on the Riverboat Unit. 

Manage use through a reservation and/or lottery system. 



Explore the potential for local sporting organizations to 

provide volunteers, funding, and other resources needed 

to operate the youth hunting program, and maintain and 

repair associated facilities. 



Rationale: Opportunities to hunt in the greater Portland area are increasingly scarce due to an evergrowing population, urbanization, and a relative lack of public lands open to these uses. Hunting (both 

for and against) was the subject of more letters and e-mails received during scoping for the CCP than any 

other topic. In particular, the community has expressed a very strong interest in sharing hunting traditions 

with youth. 

Opening the refuge to waterfowl hunting would provide youth an opportunity to hunt in proximity to the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-59 

urban area, in uncrowded and in relatively natural environments. In addition, youth hunts would reinforce 

ODFW programs that expose young people to hunting heritage, education, and mentorships. Refuge 

hunting opportunities would be consistent with relevant state hunting regulations, and with management 

plans for applicable game species and the PFC’s plans for cackling Canada geese (PFC 1999) and dusky 

Canada geese (PFC 2008). 

Objective 12.4 Provide opportunities for high-quality fishing in the Tualatin River 

Fishing opportunities in the Tualatin River should: 

 Include clear and concise regulations that are readily available 

 Pose minimal conflict with wildlife and habitat objectives 

 Pose minimal conflict with other “big six” priority public uses 

 Pose minimal conflict with neighboring lands 

 Promote stewardship and conservation 

 Focus on youth, families, and disabled persons 

 Promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources 

 Provide reliable and reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife 

 Use the existing River Overlook on the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

By 2016, complete all requirements to open the refuge to 

fishing on the Atfálat’i Unit. 



Work closely with ODFW, local sporting organizations, 

and local anglers to develop a fishing plan. 



Explore the desirability of user fees to help operate the 

fishing program, and maintain and repair associated 

facilities. 



Explore the potential for local sporting organizations to 

provide volunteers, funding, and other resources needed 

to operate the fishing program, and maintain and repair 

associated facilities in lieu of or to offset user fees. 



By 2017, offer at least one special fishing event annually 

on the refuge and/or elsewhere in the local community. 

This could be a Take Me Fishing event, could coincide 

with Oregon’s free fishing day(s) or National Fishing 

and Boating Week, and/or could be a separate local 

event at an area such as Henry Hagg Lake. 

 

Work with partners to support and/or promote other 

fishing opportunities that are not on but near the refuge 

and/or within the Tualatin River watershed. 

 

Rationale: Fishing opportunities on the Tualatin River, especially for families and disabled persons, are 

scarce. Opening the refuge to fishing would provide the public an opportunity to fish in proximity to the 

urban area, in an uncrowded and natural environment, and at a reasonable cost. Special emphasis would 

be placed on family-oriented and accessible fishing opportunities in order to introduce fishing to urban 

audiences who may otherwise not regularly experience this high-priority wildlife-dependent activity. 

As part of an earlier planning and evaluation effort, fishing was determined compatible on the Atfálat’i 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-60 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Unit (USFWS 2003a). Refuge fishing opportunities would be consistent with relevant state fishing 

regulations. 

Objective 12.5 As land acquisition progresses and habitat restoration is completed on the Wapato 

Lake Unit of the Refuge, explore opportunities to offer high-quality waterfowl hunting 

As land acquisition progresses and habitat restoration is completed on the Wapato Lake Unit of the 

refuge, explore opportunities to offer high-quality waterfowl hunting that: 

 Place a priority on safety (hunters are spaced appropriately, spatial separation exists between 

hunt areas and areas open to other recreational use, law enforcement presence is adequate, etc.) 

 Include clear and concise regulations that are readily available 

 Pose minimal conflict with wildlife and habitat objectives 

 Pose minimal conflict with other priority public use activities 

 Pose minimal conflict with neighboring lands 

 Promote stewardship and conservation 

 Provide the public with quality hunting experiences that include hunter education and mentorship 

in coordination with ODFW 

 Promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources 

 Provide reliable/reasonable opportunity to experience wildlife 

 Use accessible facilities that blend into the landscape and are compatible with and do not 

interfere with habitat restoration facilities and programs at Wapato Lake Unit

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Concurrent with habitat restoration research and planning (see 

Objective 8.2), explore the feasibility of providing safe 

parking and access to hunting facilities, such as blinds and 

associated trails. 

 

If hunting is determined feasible, complete all requirements to 

open the Wapato Lake Unit of the refuge to waterfowl hunting 

within 2 years after restoration planning is completed. 

 

Work closely with ODFW, local sporting organizations, and 

local hunters to develop a waterfowl hunt plan. 

 

Concurrent with restoration, construct hunting blinds and 

associated access trails on the Wapato Lake Unit. Implement 

and maintain a hunting program. Manage use through a 

reservation and/or lottery system. Explore the desirability of 

user fees to help operate the hunting program, and maintain 

and repair associated facilities. 

 

Explore the potential for local sporting organizations to 

provide volunteers, funding, and other resources needed to 

operate the hunting program, and maintain and repair 

associated facilities in lieu of or to offset user fees. 

 

Rationale: Opportunities to hunt in the greater Portland area are increasingly scarce due to an evergrowing population, urbanization, and a relative lack of public lands open to these uses. Hunting was the 

subject of more letters and e-mails received (both for and against) during scoping for the CCP than any 

other topic. 

Opening the refuge to waterfowl hunting would provide the public an opportunity to hunt in proximity to 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-61 

the urban area, in uncrowded and relatively natural environments, and at a reasonable cost. The habitat 

and wildlife objectives for Wapato Lake Unit are very likely to support quality waterfowl hunts. Refuge 

hunting opportunities would be consistent with relevant state hunting regulations, and with management 

plans for applicable game species and the PFC’s plans for cackling Canada geese (PFC 1999) and dusky 

Canada geese (PFC 2008). 

Goal 13: Build a broad-based natural resource conservation constituency with 

a focus on urban audiences to create a conservation ethic within urban 

communities; increase relevance of habitat conservation, wildlife heritage, 

and the Refuge System in the eyes of urban citizens; and instill a sense of 

empowerment for urban communities to work together to actively support 

conservation, in both local and global settings. 

Objective 13.1 Serve as a gathering place and clearinghouse for natural resource conservation–

related information and resources to be shared among community organizations, agencies, 

educators, businesses, urban planners and builders, and other stakeholders 

Serve as a gathering place and clearinghouse for natural resource conservation–related information and 

resources to be shared among community organizations, agencies, educators, businesses, urban planners 

and builders, and other stakeholders that: 

 Provides an information exchange location for conservation partner resources as well as Refuge 

System information 

 Encourages a collaborative approach to information sharing 

 Is accurate, current, scientific, credible, and responsive to public requests and needs 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Develop a guide to the sustainable land management and 

construction practices employed by the refuge, and share with 

interested partners such as urban planners, developers, and 

individuals. 

 

Develop a self-guided walking tour of the refuge’s 

sustainability features. This may include leaflets, exhibits, 

and/or technology-based information such as podcasts and QR 

codes. 

 

Develop a reference library of natural resource/conservation 

education curricula, techniques, and materials. Provide access 

to formal and informal educators, parents, schools, and youth 

clubs. 

 

Provide a resource library of land conservation incentives, and 

cost-sharing and financial assistance opportunities through 

organizations such as UFSWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife; 

Natural Resources Conservation Service; ODFW; Oregon 

Watersheds Enhancement Board; soil and water conservation 

districts; and watershed councils. 

 

Engage refuge staff and Friends of the Refuge leadership in 

urban land use and open space planning in communities 

surrounding the refuge to encourage development that favors 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-62 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

wildlife corridors, watershed protection, and high-quality 

nature-based recreation. 

Provide technical assistance and/or subject matter experts to 

local communities for both wildlife and habitat restoration and 

management, and nature-based recreation and education. 

 

Host one open house per year that highlights urban refuge–

related conservation challenges, progress, opportunities, 

research, and initiatives. 

 

In cooperation with Intertwine, use the refuge’s Wildlife 

Center to host and facilitate dialogue regarding conservationrelated urban planning efforts. 

 

Establish a conservation leadership program that encourages 

urban youth aged 18 to 25 to contribute to community 

conservation needs. 

 

In cooperation with the Service Natural Resources Program 

Center’s Branch of Social Science, collect scientific literature, 

research, and materials supporting social values of connecting 

people with nature. Provide this information to partners and 

the public. 

 

Rationale: As an urban refuge, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge can be a catalyst for building a 

natural resource conservation constituency among urban dwellers. The refuge is strategically located near 

more than 2 million people in the Portland-Salem metropolitan area and is accessible to countless local 

and regional jurisdictions, schools, agencies, nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations. 

Conservation information is plentiful, but there are few places where information is centrally accessible. 

While the refuge cannot provide comprehensive conservation information, the refuge can partner with 

entities such as the Intertwine Alliance (www.theintertwine.org), ODFW, USFWS Partners for Wildlife 

Program, and others to leverage collective resources. In addition, the refuge can serve as an example of 

wildlife habitat restoration and sound land management techniques, as well as high-quality nature-based 

recreation and education. The USFWS “Conserving the Future” vision document (USFWS 2011e) states 

that “As leaders, partners, and role models in conservation efforts, we can seek to inspire others to work 

with us ....” 

Objective 13.2 Provide urban people tangible opportunities to experience nature and actively 

participate in the work of conservation 

Provide urban people tangible opportunities to experience nature and actively participate in the work of 

conservation in a way that: 

 Appeals to and reflects the diverse communities and people of the Portland-Salem metropolitan 

area. (Diversity may be measured in economic, educational, cultural, ethnic, and language terms) 

 Builds comfort for those unfamiliar with or lacking experience in nature 

 Focuses on urban citizens, with an emphasis on families and children 

 Incorporates standards of excellence for urban refuges as defined in recommendation 13 of the 

USFWS “Conserving the Future” vision document (USWFS 2011e) 

 Uses the refuge’s land base to connect people with nature 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 

Incorporate objectives and strategies for public activities as 

defined for Goals 10, 11, and 12. 

  
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-63 

Become a partner in national and regional outreach 

organizations such as Children in Nature Network, Nature 

Rocks, Intertwine Alliance, and other similar groups. 

  

Hire urban youth (ages 18-25) through direct hires or through 

partnerships with organizations such as Northwest Youth 

Corps, Confluence Environmental Center, and Youth 

Conservation Corps of Oregon. Youth would participate in the 

work of habitat conservation on the refuge and in the 

community. 

  

By researching literature and relevant publications, identify 

barriers to connecting the Portland-Salem metropolitan area’s 

urban population with nature. Use results to adapt refuge 

outreach, education, and interpretation programs as 

appropriate. 

 

Use the refuge’s nature explore area (see Objective 11.1) to 

promote development of similar play areas in urban 

communities. 



Develop a transportation outreach strategy for letting urban 

audiences know how to access the refuge using existing and 

future planned infrastructure (bus stop, bike lanes, and 

regional trail systems). 

 

Rationale: Many organizations are recognizing an increasing disconnect between people (especially 

children) and the natural world. In addition, our society is more ethnically and socially diverse and 

increasingly more urban, with 80% of Americans living in urban or suburban areas. Nature therefore 

seems to be, or is, farther away from the majority of Americans than ever before. As urban dwellers have 

competing priorities, technology is replacing place-based opportunities, and nature places may be harder 

to access, people have fewer experiences in nature (USFWS 2011e). The Oregon Parks and Recreation 

Department (OPRD) recognizes several demographic and social changes, including fewer youth learning 

outdoor skills, a (lack of) physical activity crisis, and an increasingly diverse Oregon population (OPRD 

2008). These types of changes have led to an increased disconnect between people and the natural world, 

to the detriment of physical and mental health, as well as decreasing understanding, awareness, and 

support of conservation efforts. It is critical to provide nature-based facilities and programs to provide 

opportunities for diverse urban publics to reconnect with their natural environment, for the benefit of both 

wildlife and people. Key to the effort is providing nature-based experiences starting in childhood to 

prepare youth with a foundation for facing future environmental challenges (Chawla 1988; Palmberg and 

Kuru 2000). 

Objective 13.3 Share how the conservation of natural resources is relevant to urban communities 

Share how the conservation of natural resources is relevant to urban communities in a way that: 

 Builds support for conservation of the refuge and other natural spaces 

 Reaches a demographic that mirrors the diversity of the Portland-Salem metropolitan area 

 Promotes dialogue and partnerships to further identify connections between the value of the 

natural world and the well-being of people 

 Increases environmental literacy of citizens (see Rationale for definition of environmental 

literacy) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(proposed 

action) 

Alt 3 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

2-64 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

Complete an economic benefits study demonstrating the 

refuge’s economic contribution to local community, and share 

with local jurisdictions, tourism organizations, city planners, 

and community leaders. 

 

Partner with local health care providers and organizations to 

promote the value of nature-based activities in support of 

mental and physical health for community members. 

 

Identify and/or develop projects in and near the refuge, such as 

a water quality monitoring station or bioswale, to measure and 

demonstrate the value of natural systems to improving 

watershed health. 

 

Develop outreach and interpretive materials to address 

landscape-level conservation issues/challenges that affect 

habitats and wildlife, as well as agriculture areas and 

communities. Examples of topics may include: the value of 

pollinators for native landscapes and for agricultural crops and 

urban gardens; the threats of nonnative and invasive species; 

the ever-increasing interaction with wildlife in urban 

neighborhoods; and the effect of climate change. 

 

Seek partner(s) to develop traveling exhibit and/or outreach 

materials demonstrating the value of natural spaces for 

improved mental and physical health. Display at local 

libraries, museums, schools, hospitals, other urban refuges or 

natural areas, and other urban community centers. 

 

Rationale: Increasing the relevance of natural systems to urban people would build increased awareness 

of and support for conservation and, therefore, human well-being. The National Park Service (NPS), 

through its “Healthy Parks Healthy People US” strategic plan states that “human health is dependent 

upon the health of all species and the planet we share” (NPS 2011). Even more traditional nonprofit 

organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Lands recognize the need for an 

increasing urban focus to stay viable in the minds of citizens (Grist.org 2012; Trust for Public Lands 

2003). The Nature Conservancy’s chief scientist is quoted as saying “Conservation is facing a crisis of 

irrelevance—it is an enterprise that is not urgent to most people.... If conservation is to build the support 

it needs, it must energize young urban dwellers, who now make up most of the world. The best way to 

get city people to care about conservation is to do conservation where they live, so that nature is seen as 

relevant and connected to modern life” (Grist.org 2012). Also critical to gaining this support is an 

increased need for people to understand the interrelationship between environment, society, and 

economy. In 2009, the State of Oregon passed into law the “No Oregon Child Left Inside Act” (HB2544), 

which created a task force that, in 2010, defined environmental literacy as “an individual’s 

understanding, skills and motivation to make responsible decisions that consider his or her relationships 

to natural systems, communities and future generations” (Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force 

2010). Through the strategies listed above, the refuge can increase relevance to people’s everyday lives 

through their food sources, water sources, and personal health, as well as increase environmental literacy 

of citizens to behave in a way that contributes to conservation. 
Chapter 5

HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

Chapter 3

Physical Environment

© Ed Bustya

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3 Physical Environment 

3.1 Climate

3.1.1 General Climate 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) is located in Washington and Yamhill Counties 

in northwestern Oregon (see Appendix P, Map 3). The refuge is located at the northern end of the 

Willamette Valley in the Tualatin River watershed, between the Coast Range mountains and the 

Willamette River (see Appendix P, Map 1). Much of the refuge lies within the Tualatin River 

floodplain. Major tributaries that drain into the refuge include Chicken and South Rock Creeks in the 

Sherwood Units (see Appendix P, Map 6), and Wapato, Hill, Ayers, Harris, and Scoggins Creeks at 

the Wapato Lake Unit (see Appendix P, Map 7). Many smaller perennial and ephemeral streams also 

drain into the basin. Elevation within the Sherwood Units ranges from about 105 feet to 300 feet. 

Elevation at the Wapato Lake Unit varies from about 160 to 240 feet, with the majority of the lake 

bed at about 170 feet. The Tualatin River Valley consists of low foothills, terraces, alluvial fans, and 

floodplains. The floodplains are subject to frequent flooding during winter and spring. However, 

changes due to agriculture, urbanization, and flood control projects have altered historic flooding 

patterns. 

Photo 3-1. Frozen wetlands on the Atfálat’i Unit, January 2008. Peter Schmidt/ 

USFWS. 

The northern Willamette Valley exhibits a general maritime climate with cool, wet winters and 

warm, dry summers. Temporal patterns of climate variability in Oregon are primarily influenced by 

the Pacific Ocean, namely the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (Oregon Climate Change Research 

Institute [OCCRI] 2010). Precipitation averages about 42 inches per year (Table 3-1) and occurs 

mainly from November through March. Average temperatures are lowest from December through 

February and highest on average during July and August (Table 3-1). Severe weather events are rare 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

but may include summer temperatures above 100°Fahrenheit (F), winter snow and ice storms, 

flooding of the Tualatin River and tributaries, high winds, and periods of subfreezing weather. 

Flooding of the river and tributaries typically occurs during December and January when the ground 

has become saturated and rainfall increases (Figure 3-1). 

Table 3-1. Monthly High, Low, and Average Temperatures; 

Monthly Rainfall April 2008-March 2009

Month Average 

Temperature* 

Average 

Precipitation** 

January 40.0 6.74 

February 41.3 3.63 

March 45.3 4.36 

April 48.5 2.95 

May 58.9 2.59 

June 61.8 1.15 

July 68.8 0.21 

August 69.6 0.74 

September 65.2 1.01 

October 53.5 3.62 

November 49.2 7.12 

December 37.5 8.23 

Total 42.35 

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 

Weather Service for Portland, Oregon. 

**Average from refuge rain gauge 2003-2010. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

Average and Peak River Level at Farmington Guage 

2002 - 2010

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

120.00

125.00

130.00

135.00

140.00

1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep

Date

River Elevation (Feet MSL)

Flood Stage

Average Stage

Peak flow 

Figure 3-1. Average and peak river levels measured in feet above mean sea level (MSL) at 

Farmington gauge approximately 8 miles upstream from the westernmost parcel in the 

Sherwood Units. 

3.1.2 Climate Change 

As stated in U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Secretarial Order 3226 (USDOI 2009) and the 

Service’s climate change strategic plan (USFWS 2010c), the Service considers and analyzes climate 

change in its decisions, long-range plans, and other activities. Also, refuge efforts contribute to 

carbon sequestration through habitat restoration and protection efforts. A 1999 U.S. Department of 

Energy report, Carbon Sequestration Research and Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999), 

concluded that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon sequestration as 

“the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the 

atmosphere.” 

Greenhouse gases (GHG) occur naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere, but are also added by human 

activities. This happens primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural 

gas, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Over the past century, atmospheric carbon 

dioxide (as measured from ice cores) has increased due to human activities, and the average Earth 

temperature has increased approximately 0.7°Celcius (C) or about 1.3°F (NOAA 2011a; OCCRI 

2010) (Figure 3-2), and it continues to increase. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-2. Global surface temperature (NASA 2012). 

The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon that assists in regulating and warming the 

temperature of our planet. Just as a glass ceiling traps heat inside a greenhouse, certain gases in the 

atmosphere, called greenhouse gases, absorb heat from sunlight. The primary GHGs occurring in the 

atmosphere include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is 

produced in the largest quantities, accounting for more than half of the current impact on the Earth’s 

climate. 

The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions 

over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer 

periods also may be used (IPCC 2007b:78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the 

mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 

persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural 

variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007b:78). 

Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring, 

and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global 

climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases 

in other regions. (For these and other examples, see Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [IPCC 2007a:30] and Technical Summary [Solomon et al. 2007:35-54, 82-

85].) In the Pacific Northwest, increased GHGs and warmer temperatures have resulted in a number 

of physical and chemical impacts. These include changes in snowpack, stream flow timing and 

volume, flooding and landslides, sea levels, ocean temperatures and acidity, and disturbance regimes 

such as wildfires, insects, and disease outbreaks (United States Global Change Research Program 

[USGCRP] 2009). All of these changes will cause major perturbations to ecosystem conditions, 

possibly imperiling species that evolved in response to local conditions. 

Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in 

global average temperature since the mid-twentieth century cannot be explained by natural variability 

in climate, and is “very likely” (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the 

observed increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007b:5-6, Figures SPM.3 and 

SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007:21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses 

by Huber and Knutti (2011:4), who concluded it is extremely likely that approximately 75 percent of 

global warming since 1950 has been caused by human activities. 

Looking toward the future, the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (CIG) has 

projected changes in mean annual temperature and precipitation for the Pacific Northwest based on 

“statistical downscaling” an ensemble of 20 global climate models and two carbon emissions 

scenarios for each model run (Mote and Salathé 2009, 2010). The CIG also performed projections 

using two regional climate simulations with the same two emissions scenarios (Salathé et al. 2010). 

These two approaches provide the projected changes described below. 

3.1.2.1 Temperature: Historical Trends and Projections 

The Pacific Northwest experiences wide temperature variability based on geography (for example, 

the Olympic, Coast, and Cascade mountain ranges enhance a moderating maritime influence west of 

the Cascades) and seasonal and year-to-year variability (e.g., associated with the El Niño-Southern 

Oscillation) (Salathé et al. 2010). In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged temperature rose 

1.5°F between 1920 and 2000, slightly more than the global average. Warming was largest for the 

winter months of January through March. Minimum daily temperatures have increased faster than 

maximum daily temperatures (Mote et al. 2005). 

Historical climate data for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge are available from the United 

States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), a high-quality data set of daily and monthly 

records of basic meteorological variables from 1,218 observing stations across the 48 conterminous 

states. The data have been corrected to remove biases or heterogeneities from nonclimatic effects 

such as urbanization or other landscape changes, station moves, and instrument and time-ofobservation changes. 

The USHCN Forest Grove, Oregon, station is the station closest to the refuge, and temperature data 

are shown in Figure 3-3. There has been a statistically significant increase of 1.36°F (p = 0.001) in 

average annual temperature from 1925 to 2010 at the Forest Grove station, similar to the regional 

average. Much of the increase is due to the increase in minimum temperature (increase of 1.53°F, p = 

0.000) rather than maximum temperature (increase of 1.1°F, p = 0.025). In the past 30 years, 

temperature increases have been particularly pronounced during summer months (Table 3-2). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-3. Water year temperature 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, Oregon 

(352997). 

Table 3-2. Seasonal Temperature Trends, 1981-2010 (Monthly Records) 

Monthly Absolute Change 

Temp. Max Temp. Avg Temp. Min. 

Winter (Dec-Feb) +0.54°F +0.18°F −0.21°F 

Spring (march-May) −0.23°F −0.44°F −0.64°F 

Summer (Jun-Aug) +1.36°F +1.07°F +0.79°F 

Fall (Sept-Nov) −0.36°F −0.41°F −0.48°F 

* Forest Grove, Oregon United States Historical Climatology Network Observation Station 

Looking to future projections, researchers have refined global circulation models so that they are 

useful at a regional scale, in our case, for the Pacific Northwest. One approach involves statistical 

downscaling of 20 global climate models, which projects that average annual temperature would 

increase by 2.0°F by the decade of the 2020s for the Pacific Northwest, 3.2°F by the decade of the 

2040s, and 5.3°F by the decade of the 2080s, relative to the 1970-1999 average temperature (Mote 

and Salathé 2009, 2010). This is substantially greater than the 1.5°F increase in average annual 

temperature observed in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth century. Seasonally, summer 

temperatures are projected to increase the most. One important note is that actual global emissions of 

GHGs in the past decade have exceeded even the highest emissions scenario (the A2 scenario), a 

scenario that was not modeled by Mote and Salathé in 2009 and 2010, or Salathé et al. in 2010 

(discussed below). The authors used more moderate emissions scenarios. If these emission trends 

continue, temperature increases could turn out to be much greater than projected. 

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Temperature (F)

Year

Average WY Max Average WY Mean Average WY Min 4-yr moving average
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

Another approach involves two regional climate simulations (Salathé et al. 2010). These findings 

support the warming increases described above, with small variations. West of the Cascades, both 

regional climate change models predict warming in all seasons (when compared to current average 

air temperatures) (Salathé et al. 2010). Increases in air temperature are forecasted to be the greatest in 

summer and spring (including increased frequency of heat waves, which are three or more 

consecutive days with a daily heat index of over 89.6°F or 32°C), while increased marine cloudiness 

in fall and winter may dampen temperature increases during those seasons (Salathé et al. 2010). 

It should be noted that these projections are not intended to be predictions of actual conditions on any 

given date. Models represent the average response over climatological timescales (i.e., on a multidecadal timescales) rather than precise behavior at exact dates. As discussed above, the Pacific 

Northwest’s long-term climate includes a high degree of interannual and decadal variability, and this 

is projected to continue. However, long-term trends and projections indicate that overall temperatures 

are increasing and will continue to do so. 

3.1.2.2 Precipitation: Historical Trends and Projections 

Longer-term precipitation trends in the Pacific Northwest are more variable than temperature and 

vary with the period of record selected for analysis (Mote et al. 2005). The Pacific Northwest 

experiences this wide precipitation variability due to geography (e.g., the Olympic, Coast, and 

Cascade mountain ranges cause orographic, or upward, lift of air masses and precipitation) and 

seasonal and year-to-year variability (e.g., variation associated the El Niño Southern Oscillation and 

other longer-term oscillations) (Salathé et al. 2010). Looking at the period 1920 to 2000, precipitation 

has increased almost everywhere in the region, though not in a uniform fashion. Most of that increase 

occurred during the first part of the record (Mote et al. 2005). 

The Forest Grove USHCN station (the closest station to the refuge) provides historical precipitation 

data, shown in Figure 3-4. There is no statistically significant trend, but note the year-to-year 

variability, such as flood risk during El Niño years in the late 1990s, which can provide management 

challenges for the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-4. Water year total precipitation 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, Oregon. 

The other significant trend found from the Forest Grove USHCN observation station is a 37 percent 

decline in summer precipitation in the last 30 years (Figure 3-5). 

Figure 3-5. Summer (Jun-Aug) total precipitation, 1925-2010. USHCN Station: Forest Grove, 

Oregon (352997). 

15 

25 

35 

45 

55 

65 

75 

85 

1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950195519601965197019751980198519901995 2000 2005 2010

Year

WY Total Pcp (in) 4-yr moving average
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

West of the Cascades, projections of future precipitation levels vary by model, with a majority of 

models projecting an annual increase in precipitation (Mote and Salathé 2010) and some models 

projecting a decrease relative to current observations (Leung et al. 2004). A strong seasonal pattern in 

altered precipitation relative to current levels is foreseen, as well as increases in the number of 

extreme precipitation events (daily precipitation exceeding the twentieth-century 95th percentile) 

(Salathé et al. 2010). Seasonal increases in precipitation are projected for fall, winter, and spring, and 

little change or a slight decline in precipitation for summer (Salathé et al. 2010). Regional climate 

change models project conflicting results for the spring season, with one model showing a substantial 

decline in precipitation while the second shows increases in precipitation (Salathé et al. 2010). 

3.1.2.3 Stream Flow Changes 

In addition to changes in the amount of precipitation, a major concern in the Pacific Northwest is 

change in the form of winter precipitation expected due to warmer temperatures. The CIG has 

modeled changes in current and future peak snowpack versus October through March precipitation 

for watersheds in the Columbia River Basin and the coastal watersheds of Oregon and Washington. 

Generally, there is a large shift in the form of winter precipitation from snow to rain, with lower 

elevation basins affected before upper elevation basins (Elsner et al. 2010). As these changes occur, 

there would likely be a tendency for higher winter flows and possible increased risk of flooding in 

transition watersheds (those not dominated by snow processes and those not rain-dominant), earlier 

snowmelt and runoff from peaks, and lower summer stream flows (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). 

The Tualatin River watershed is a rain-dominant system, and these changes may not be significant to 

the refuge. 

3.2 Hydrology 

3.2.1 Regional Hydrology 

The refuge lies within the Tualatin River watershed, which is a part of the Willamette River Basin 

(see Appendix P, Map 3). The Tualatin River is one of the most northern tributaries in the Willamette 

River watershed and is about 80 miles long (Tualatin River Watershed Council [TRWC] 1998). The 

river flows roughly eastward from the Coast Range mountains in Washington County, Oregon, to its 

confluence with the Willamette River in Clackamas County, Oregon, near the City of West Linn. The 

elevation at the headwaters of the Tualatin River is approximately 1,980 feet, and there are four large 

elevation drops in the river before it enters the Tualatin Valley plain at an elevation of 240 feet. 

Where the Tualatin River meets Wapato Lake, the elevation is about 170 feet, and where the Tualatin 

River meets the Willamette River, it is 58 feet in elevation. The Tualatin River drainage basin is 

approximately 43 miles long and 29 miles wide, covering an area of 712 square miles (TRWC 1998). 

Annually, more than 1.1 million acre-feet of water flow out of this watershed into the Willamette 

River. Nearly 85 percent of this flow is discharged during November through March. 

The river can be characterized in four distinct reaches with varying degrees of flows and gradients 

(Table 3-3). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-3. Approximate Reaches of the Tualatin River As it Flows from the Coast Range 

Mountains (rivermile 80) to its Confluence with the Willamette River (rivermile 0)

Reach Description Rivermile Elevation Gradient 

(feet/mile) 

Description 

1 Mountain 80-58 80.4 Forested, fast-moving mountain streams, 

rock channels 

2 Meander 58-33 2.8 Transition from timberland to farmland, 

major floodplain storage, logjams 

3 Reservoir 33-3.4 0.2 Flat, “reservoir like” flow with heavy 

sedimentation, recreational use 

4 Riffle 3.4-0.0 10.1 Steep gradient, short series of shallow 

pools and riffles 

The first reach of the river starts in the mountains and is characterized by forested, fast-moving 

mountain streams with rock channels. As the river flows through the basin, it slowly transitions from 

forested areas into more open habitat, and the flow changes from fast to slow flowing. The Tualatin 

River has five major and numerous minor tributary streams. Streams entering the river within the 

refuge include Wapato, Ayers, Hill, Harris, and Scoggins Creeks in the Wapato Lake Unit, and 

Chicken and Rock Creeks in the Sherwood Units. Average daily flow rate in the Tualatin River 

measured at the West Linn gauging station, approximately 1.7 miles from the confluence with the 

Willamette River, ranged from a low of 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) to a high of 4,150 cfs between 

1928 and 2010 (Figure 3-6). These figures do not include water that is diverted upstream of this 

gauging station into Oswego Lake. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

Average Daily Discharge Rate of Tualatin River at West Linn Gauge 

1928-2010

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1-Jan

1-Feb

1-Mar

1-Apr

1-May

1-Jun

1-Jul

1-Aug

1-Sep

1-Oct

1-Nov

1-Dec

Date

Discharge (CFS)

Figure 3-6. Average daily discharge rate (cfs) measured on the Tualatin River at the West Linn 

gauging station. 

In general, stream flow in the Tualatin River Basin reflects patterns of precipitation with high winter 

and low summer flows (Figure 3-6. River elevation measured at the Farmington gauge is typically at 

summer flows (<110 feet) from late April to early May until late October when precipitation begins 

to fill the river basin. Flooding in tributary streams is typically more prevalent during short-term 

heavy rainfall after the surrounding watershed is saturated by early season rainfall. In particular, the 

Chicken Creek watershed, which includes Cedar Creek, flows from the City of Sherwood and 

experiences heavy flooding. The population of Sherwood has increased from about 3,000 in 1990 to 

over 18,000 in 2010, and this has led to an increase in urban development (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011). This change has created increased impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, rooftops) and has led to an 

increase in runoff and higher peak flows in Chicken Creek that flow into the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Photo 3-2. Chicken Creek flooding. Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

There are two dams affecting water flows within the basin: Scoggins dam on Scoggins Creek, 

creating Henry Hagg Lake, and the Lake Oswego diversion dam, which shunts water to Oswego 

Lake. In addition, Barney Reservoir on the Trask River diverts water to the Tualatin River during 

summer to augment flows. Henry Hagg Lake has a capacity of 53,600 acre-feet of water and is 

managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (USDOI 2011). A large part of refuge lands, both in the 

Sherwood Units and the Wapato Lake Unit, lie within the jurisdictional boundary of the Tualatin 

Valley Irrigation District. This district was formed to deliver irrigation water associated with the 

Henry Hagg Lake project. As members of the district with attached water rights, the refuge is 

required to pay for irrigation on lands that fall within the district. 

3.2.2 Refuge-specific Hydrology 

Water Rights: The refuge has a complex system of irrigation ditches, springs, creeks, wetland cells, 

and water control structures for moving water within the refuge to fill the various wetland cells and 

for irrigation purposes in the cooperative farming program. The refuge has 51 water rights with 

priority dates ranging from 1890 to 2000. Sources of water include wells, ditches, unnamed creeks, 

springs, overland flow and runoff, Chicken Creek, Hill Creek, Rock Creek, Scoggins Creek, and the 

Tualatin River. The purposes of the water rights are primarily for irrigation and wildlife use, and to 

ensure that water is diverted for use on approximately 1,157 acres of wet prairie, scrub-shrub, and 

herbaceous wetlands at the Sherwood Units and the lake bed at the Wapato Lake Unit. In addition, 

the Service voluntarily selected 15 irrigation water rights for in-stream leases, which aids in 

restoration and protection of over 4 cfs of stream flow in Rock Creek and the Tualatin River. 

Table 3-4 summarizes the water rights of the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

Table 3-4. Summary of Water Rights for the Refuge 

Priority Date Application 

No. 

Certificate 

No. 

Source Name Flow Rate 

(cfs) 

Place of 

Use/Storage 

(Acres/AcreFeet) 

Groundwater 

25-Jul-50 G-2325 33116 Well 0.026 2.9 

30-Sep-68 G-4614 45012 Sump well 0.07 

27-Oct-88 G-11863 72443 Well 0.35 

19-Oct-06 G-16740 Three wells 0.13 

Instream Lease 

02-Mar-51 IL-809 20149 Rock Creek 0.34 

05-Dec-28 IL-867 8117 Rock Creek 0.38 

05-Dec-28 IL-867 8117 Rock Creek 0.38 

1-01-1890 IL-869 29185 Cummings ditch 0.1 

16-Jun-50 IL-868 22918 Tualatin River 0.35 

1-01-1890 IL-870 29186 Rock Creek and 

unnamed ditches 

0.338 

1-01-1890 IL-871 29191 Rock Creek 0.044 

1-01-1890 IL-872 29192 Unnamed ditches 0.037 

1-01-1890 IL-873 29193 Rock Creek 0.1 

1-01-1890 IL-874 29195 Springs and ditch 0.044 

1-01-1890 IL-875 29202 Cummings Ditch and 

unnamed ditches 

0.231 

1-01-1890 IL-876 29282 Rock Creek 0.063 

25-May-53 IL-890 81965 Tualatin River 0.97 

Reservoir 

23-Jun-97 R-83470 Chicken Creek 579 AcreFeet 

01-Jul-97 R-83496 Runoff 180 AcreFeet 

12-Aug-97 R-83529 Runoff and Chicken 

Creek 

 40 Acre-Feet 

08-Aug-00 R-84503 Tualatin River, 

overland flow 

 100 AcreFeet 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-4. Summary of Water Rights for the Refuge 

Priority Date Application 

No. 

Certificate 

No. 

Source Name Flow Rate 

(cfs) 

Place of 

Use/Storage 

(Acres/AcreFeet) 

25-Jul-01 R-84813 Runoff 10 Acre-Feet 

24-Apr-03 R-85570 84056 Overland flow/runoff 1.6 Acre-Feet 

24-Apr-03 R-85571 84055 Overland flow/runoff 2.9 Acre-Feet 

24-Apr-03 R-85572 84054 Overland flow/runoff 2 Acre-Feet 

24-Apr-03 R-85573 84053 Overland flow/runoff 1.8 Acre-Feet 

06-May-05 R-86279 Runoff 60 Acre-Feet 

Surface Water 

29-Dec-28 S-12500 14092 Tualatin River 6.93 553.8 Acres 

29-Dec-28 S-12500 14093 Tualatin River 2.03 162.3 Acres 

29-Aug-30 S-13702 14096 Chicken Creek (Cedar 

Creek) 

1.8 143.3 Acres 

19-Nov-35 S-16153 24368 Chicken Creek 1.01 80.8 Acres 

04-Sep-36 S-16568 45451 Hill Creek 0.06 4 Acres 

04-Sep-36 S-16568 45451 Tualatin River .44 36 Acres 

01-Aug-39 S-18312 19761 Tualatin River 1.08 21 Acres 

26-Feb-40 S-18591 15099 Tualatin River 0.21 2.1 Acres 

14-Nov-49 S-24270 22317 Rock Creek 0.044 3.5 Acres 

25-Jul-50 S-25034 23148 Drainage ditch and 

unnamed stream 

0.16 7 Acres 

25-Jul-50 S-25035 20132 Unnamed drainage 0.024 2.9 Acres 

12-Mar-51 S-25704 40860 Tualatin River 0.38 30 Acres 

02-Jun-65 S-40957 40726 Tualatin River 0.6 50 Acres 

31-Mar-71 S-48082 43946 Tualatin River 0.96 77.1 Acres 

28-Jun-82 S-63714 64950 Chicken Creek 1.08 86.2 Acres 

25-May-53 T-10246 81965 Tualatin River 0.13 

02-Jan-00 29187 Rock Creek 

Source: USFWS 2012. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15 

The main season of water use is usually between November until May at select locations. This varies 

with water conditions as determined by annual precipitation. Adequate water is important to provide 

habitat for migratory birds and for irrigation of habitat restoration sites. During the winter, most 

wetland cells (including the Wapato Lake Unit lake bed) are kept full to provide water for both 

resident and wintering species. 

Photo 3-3. Tualatin River flooding at the Tualatin River Unit, December 2007.

Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

Sherwood Units: The floodplain of the Tualatin River is the dominant feature within the Sherwood 

Units (see Appendix P, Map 6). The Atfálat’i Unit is bordered by the Tualatin River, but water for 

wetlands in much of this unit comes from a diversion on Chicken Creek. The diversion allows 

gravity flow to fill five managed wetland cells in the unit. One additional wetland cell is filled by rain 

water and is managed as a permanent wetland with no outlet structure. Another wetland cell is also 

filled with rain water and overland runoff, but is managed as a seasonal wetland with a water control 

structure at the outlet. 

On the Tualatin River Unit there are five wetland impoundments that normally fill with rain and 

overland runoff, but the largest wetland also has a pump with a fish screen in the Tualatin River that 

may be used to conduct early season flood-up or to augment rainfall during periods of drought. On 

the Riverboat Unit there are four impoundments, with a seasonal wetland filled using a water control 

structure to back up overland flow from springs and rainfall and, frequently, floods from high water 

in the Tualatin River. In addition, the seasonal wetland has a series of three low-capacity wells that 

are sometimes used to augment overland flow in early fall. There is also a scrub-shrub wetland, 

which is a closed water body and is filled by rainfall alone. During extreme flooding of the Tualatin 

River, the scrub-shrub wetland becomes a flow channel for river water. This unit has extensive 

floodplain connections to the river and is often saturated through the winter. 

The Onion Flats Unit is a low-lying basin bisected by Rock Creek. The creek is channelized and 

straightened through this unit and is deeply incised. This area floods frequently as the Tualatin River 

water backs up Rock Creek, and also during periods of heavy rain. The Rock Creek Unit features its 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

namesake creek and is also largely channelized. This is a relatively small creek through this unit and 

rarely causes any major flooding. During winter as the Tualatin River begins to reach bankfull stage 

(elevation 128 above mean sea level), many backwater areas in riparian forest and wetland habitats 

begin to flood. Vegetation communities in these areas are adapted to frequent winter flooding, and 

fish and wildlife species use these areas for foraging and sanctuary. Inundation in these areas is 

typically intermittent and of short duration 

Wapato Lake Unit: The Tualatin River bisects the Wapato Lake Unit acquisition boundary. Inputs to 

Wapato Lake proper were historically from Wapato, Ayers, and Hill Creeks, and from the river 

backing up into the lake (see Appendix P, Map 7). The historical Wapato Lake lake bed was severely 

altered during the 1920s with the formation of the Wapato Improvement District (WID), a statesponsored irrigation and drainage district. This district supported onion farming that took place on 

the lake bed itself. The WID installed 5.5 miles of levees around the lake, a lift pump station, and 

interior ditches to facilitate drainage of the lake for historical farming. Wapato, Ayers, and Hill 

Creeks were diverted around the outside of the levees to connect with the Tualatin River later. 

During fall and winter, the lake was allowed to fill with rain water, and it was pumped out in early 

spring for farming. Currently the refuge has a cooperative farming program that uses much of the 

same infrastructure. In the northern part of the acquisition boundary, Scoggins and Harris Creeks are 

tributaries to the Tualatin River. 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry 

The refuge area lies in the northwestern corner of the Willamette Valley, southwest of Portland, 

Oregon (see Appendix P, Map 1). Elevations on the refuge range from about 105 feet to 300 feet. 

The Tualatin River floodplain is relatively flat, with gradually sloping sides leading to upland forest 

types, agricultural lands, and developed areas. Major mountain features include the Coast Range to 

the west of the Wapato Lake Unit and Chehalem Ridge rising to 1,629 feet (Oregon Parks and 

Recreation Department 2011) between the Wapato Lake and Sherwood Units. The Tualatin River 

channel is deeply incised with steep banks throughout most of its length. Henry Hagg Lake is a 

1,110-acre reservoir (ODFW 2011a) approximately 3 miles west of the Wapato Lake Unit. 

Many refuge land parcels have had detailed topographic surveys completed prior to initiation of 

restoration projects. In the Sherwood Units, surveys were conducted on the Atfálat’i, Tualatin River, 

and Riverboat Units. The refuge is currently working with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other 

partners to conduct a hydrogeomorphic survey at the Wapato Lake Unit that will provide a digital 

elevation model for the lake bed and surrounding area, as well as a water budget for future 

restoration planning. 

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology 

3.4.1 Origins and Development 

During the Oligocene epoch roughly 35 million years ago (MYA), a line of sea floor subduction, 

which had run in a northeast direction from west of the Klamath Mountains to the Blue Mountains, 

moved to its current position several hundred miles to the west on its northern end. This change left a 

slab of what had been subducting sea floor attached to the continental margin and also moved the line 

of volcanic activity associated with remelting oceanic crust. Part of this slab, covered by shallow 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17 

seas, ultimately became the floor of the Willamette River basin. Although volcanic eruptions had 

started building the southern Cascade Mountains millions of years earlier in the Eocene epoch, the 

northern Cascades lie on top of the slab and arose as volcanoes. Volcanic rocks in the western 

Cascades date from two principal periods of volcanic activity, one occurring 20 to 30 MYA and the 

other in the Miocene, 10 to 15 MYA; both periods included the entire length of the Cascades 

(Branscomb 2002). The Tualatin River Basin is underlain by 9,000-12,500 feet of sedimentary and 

volcanic rock (Popowski 1996; Wilson 1998). On top of this layer lie up to 900 feet of Columbia 

River basalt and another 1,200 feet of sediments from the late Miocene to Pleistocene. 

The Coast Range arose as continental sediments carried eastward by the subducting oceanic plate 

were forced under the western edge of the slab, pushing it upward. The rise proceeded from south to 

north, the northern Coast Range not appearing until roughly 15 MYA. During this process, the area 

of the future Willamette Valley also rose, becoming dry land and draining its embayment by about 20 

MYA. Although the direction of sea floor spread is southeastward toward the Oregon coast, the 

entire Pacific plate, including the spreading and subduction zones, is moving northward. The net 

effect for the Oregon Coast Range appears to be a slow movement north, evidence for which may be 

seen in the roughly 50-mile northward offset of the Columbia River at Portland and the sharply 

curved Olympic Mountains in western Washington State, where movement of the Coast Range 

encountered the more deeply rooted Vancouver Island. This northward tearing of the Coast Range 

may also have contributed to the formation of the Willamette Valley, the floor of which is now 

composed of multiple fault blocks. In contrast to its south end, the valley is spreading more in the 

north, possibly due to the thinner crust and reduced linkage with the subducting sea floor present 

there (Branscomb 2002). 

3.4.2 Recent Geologic Events 

Defining the northern limit of the Willamette River Basin, the Columbia River has reestablished its 

course through multiple dammings by slides, basalt flows, and ice. Reaching their maximum 13 

MYA, basalt floods from the enormous Grande Ronde volcano in northeast Oregon flowed down the 

Columbia channel all the way to the river’s mouth and into the Willamette Valley. In the Pliocene (3 

to 11 MYA), western Oregon was a desert, and gravels produced during that time eroded into and 

covered the spreading valley floor. 

Work performed by J. Harlan Bretz in the 1920s revealed that between 15,500 and 13,000 years ago, 

ice periodically dammed the Clark Fork in Idaho east of Spokane, Washington, forming a lake in the 

present-day Missoula Valley of Montana covering some 3,100 square miles and containing 500 cubic 

miles of water. In a typical release occurring over less than two weeks, a quantity of water equal to 

half the present volume of Lake Michigan, more than the modern annual volume of all the world’s 

rivers, poured down the Columbia channel. These floods were known as the Missoula Floods. 

Backwater from these floods carried ice-rafted “erratic” rocks from Montana repeatedly into the 

Willamette Valley, filling it to about 400 feet above current sea level. Evidence in the geologic 

record suggests that these floods entered the Tualatin River Valley at least 22 times during this time 

period (Wilson 1998). This vigorous overflow southward across the divide between the Willamette 

River and Tualatin River Basins scoured multiple channels in the basaltic bedrock, dug small rockbound basins, and left rock knobs barren of soil, forming a topography in the Rock Creek area just 

east of the City of Sherwood that is a miniature replica of the well-known scablands in eastern 

Washington. The sediments left by these floods form much of the present valley floor (Branscomb 

2002). In the Tualatin River Basin, these overlying sediments have been classified as the Hillsboro 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Formation (Wilson 1998) and consist of about 900 feet of fluvial and lacustrine sediment overlying 

95 feet of lateritic soil and weathered basalt of the Columbia River Basalt Group. This area is still 

geologically active as evidenced by the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens 65 miles to the 

northeast. 

3.5 Soils 

Within the refuge boundaries there are 64 soil types described (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

[USDA] 1982). These can roughly be broken down into the following six categories: 1) clay, 2) 

loam, 3) silt loam, 4) silty clay loam, 5) stony silt loam, and 6) Xerochrepts. A majority of refuge 

lands in the floodplain contain clays, silty clay loams, and silty loams. Most of these lands were in 

agricultural production prior to purchase by the Service. On areas outside the floodplain, most of the 

soils are loams and silty loams that are well drained and primarily support mixed upland forest types. 

There are two areas of particular historical interest—Onion Flats and Wapato Lake. These areas 

contain Labish Mucky Clay, a rare organic peat soil type that historically supported scrub-shrub and 

other wetland types. It is heavy, poorly drained soil, usually associated with old concave lake beds. 

These areas were drained for farming in the early twentieth century and continue to be cooperatively 

farmed by the refuge at present. The major crop in these areas was onion, but with a shift in 

economics, these areas now support small grains such as oats, corn, wheat, barley, and grass and 

clover crops. 

Another area of interest is the Tonquin scablands along the Rock Creek drainage. This area contains 

soils of stony loam to Xerochrepts deposited by the ancient Missoula Floods, and is an area of rocky 

basalt outcrops and deep gravel. This soil varies greatly from highly porous, well-drained soil to 

highly impermeable rock creating perched wetlands. Much of the area surrounding refuge lands in 

the Rock Creek area is extensively mined for rock and gravel. Any organic soil existing within this 

area is relatively shallow, but still supports abundant native plant growth. 

3.6 Fire 

3.6.1 Historic Activity 

For thousands of years prior to European settlement, fire played an important role in maintaining 

various habitat types within the Willamette Valley and in Oregon as a whole. Whether ignited by 

lightning or set by Native Americans, fire helped to maintain native habitat types by preventing 

woody species from encroaching into prairie habitat types, preventing build-up of volatile fuels in 

forested areas, creating a mosaic of habitat types and successional stages, and recycling nutrients 

(ODFW 2006). Since at least the 1850s, fire suppression actions began to change the landscape of the 

Willamette Valley, and have resulted in a host of unintended consequences for ecological health, 

wildlife populations, and people. 

In more open habitat types such as prairies and oak savanna, fires were essential for removing 

encroaching woody species (especially conifers), reducing thatch left by annual and perennial grasses 

and forbs, and providing habitat for wildlife, such as elk, acorn woodpeckers, and white-breasted 

nutchatch, dependent on open habitat types. Native Americans often burned open habitat types to 

promote food plants such as camas and tarweed, provide for more open travel corridors, and provide 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19 

forage for elk, deer, and other game species that they hunted (ODFW 2005). Due to fire suppression, 

less than 1 percent of these habitats remain in the valley, as woody species, such as Douglas-fir, have 

moved in and changed the landscape. 

Photo 3-4. Kalapuya people ignited fires to manage habitats for their needs. 

USFWS. 

In forested areas, fires played an important role in maintaining a diversity of habitat structure. Drier 

forests historically experienced frequent fires (usually at less than 25-year intervals) that mainly 

burned understory plants, but left larger trees undamaged. In wetter forests such as those in the Coast 

Range, fires were less frequent (on the order of once every 100 years), but often burned the entire 

stand, setting the stage for early successional plant growth. 

3.6.2 Recent Activity 

In forested areas, fire suppression has increased the likelihood of wildfires that are unusually large 

and severe (ODFW 2005). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, logging operations 

combined with fire suppression throughout the Pacific Northwest created conditions for catastrophic 

fires. Vegetation composition within forests has also changed as a result of fire suppression. 

Historically, conifer-dominated forests had little undergrowth because of the shade imposed by the 

closed canopy and frequent fires that cleared brush and downed woody debris. However, with the 

onset of widespread fire-suppression activities, debris was allowed to accumulate, and brush and 

eventually understory trees began to grow and provide “ladder” fuels that led to canopy fires when a 

fire did occur. 

In prairie and savanna habitat types, fire suppression often led to a complete change in vegetation 

structure as woody species such as shrubs and conifers invaded and shaded out other species. In 

addition to fire suppression, these open habitat types were often the first to be converted to 

agriculture or developed as home and town sites, thus exacerbating their decline. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Photo 3-5. Prescribed fire can be used to manage native habitats. Scott Swanson/ 

USFWS. 

3.6.3 Current Conditions 

The refuge currently has a fire management plan (USFWS 2002b) in place that covers wildland fire 

events and pile burning, but does not address prescribed fire. This plan states that all wildland fires, 

whether human-caused or lightning-induced, will be suppressed. Brush and debris piles that result 

from management activities will be burned by fully trained and equipped Service fire crews in 

accordance with national and regional policies. The refuge is updating the fire management plan, 

which will propose prescribed fire; this information can be found in Appendix O of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA). 

Many of the habitat types on the refuge are fire-dependent vegetation communities. In the absence of 

prescribed fire, these habitat types are maintained with surrogates for fire such as mowing and 

discing. The introduction of nonnative and invasive plant species such as reed canarygrass, 

velvetgrass, cocklebur, and Bermuda grass during the past century have complicated maintenance of 

these native habitat types. Use of prescribed fire to maintain native habitat types may or may not 

address some of these issues. 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants 

In 1992, prior to formal establishment of the refuge, the Service conducted a pre-acquisition 

contaminant survey (USFWS 1992b) to assess possible contaminants affecting proposed refuge 

lands. The survey found that there were “ ...a variety of contaminant sources on and adjacent to the 

refuge including container nurseries, a tannery, a potato processing plant, an abandoned town dump, 

nonpoint source pollution from highways and industrial areas, agricultural runoff, dairy farms, auto 

wrecking yards, electrical power lines, and possible hazardous wastes from farming and industrial 

operations.” 

In the Rock Creek drainage within the refuge acquisition boundary, but on lands not owned by the 

refuge, is the 33-acre site of a former tannery and battery company. The Frontier Leather Company 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21 

(Frontier) began operating a tannery at the site in 1947. Two 3-acre sedimentation lagoons were 

constructed, and placed in service in 1965. Frontier discharged wastewater to the sedimentation 

lagoons intermittently between 1965 and 1982. Between 1971 and 1974, chromium-treated hides 

were both stockpiled and buried at the facility. Frontier landfilled an estimated 21,000 cubic yards of 

chromium-containing wastes including chromium-treated hides and chromium-containing vacuum 

filter sludge. Some of the hides were later covered with approximately 2 feet of soil, but a large 

percentage of the landfill was not adequately consolidated and capped to control possible direct 

contact or surface water runoff. Landfilling of hides was discontinued in 1973 after analytical results 

from hide samples collected by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) suggested that the 

hides could adversely impact soil, groundwater, or surface water quality (DEQ 2011c). Additionally, 

contaminants found in surface soil samples included antimony, trivalent chromium, lead, and 

mercury (DEQ 2011b). In addition to contaminants from the tannery, there are also contaminants 

from lead acid batteries at the tannery site, including lead, sulfuric acid, and battery casings (DEQ 

2011b). 

DEQ uncovered records from the former tannery indicating that tannery wastes were land-applied to 

pasture land at Ken Foster Farm (KFF) during the 1960s. The former KFF 40-acre farm site is on 

Murdock Road, in Sherwood, outside the refuge acquisition boundary, but adjacent to and upslope of 

the Rock Creek Unit. Investigations of the KFF confirmed the presence of high concentrations of 

chromium in surface soils consistent with land application of the tannery wastes. These contaminants 

could have migrated into the Rock Creek drainage, which flows through the refuge. In 2007, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published findings from their assessment of the former 

KFF site confirming that several heavy metals, primarily chromium, lead, and mercury were present 

at elevated concentrations in site soils. Sampling performed to date indicates lead and chromium in 

site soils are attributable to historical land application of tannery wastes at the site (DEQ 2011a). 

Additional work at the KFF site is warranted, including completion of a comprehensive remedial 

investigation and risk assessment, feasibility study, and implementation of remedial action as 

necessary (DEQ 2011b). 

3.8 Air Quality 

The EPA has lead responsibility for the quality of air in the United States; through the 1990 Clean 

Air Act, the agency sets limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the air. More 

than 170 million tons of pollution are emitted annually into the air within the United States, through 

either stationary sources (such as industrial or power plants) or mobile source (such as automobiles, 

airplanes, trucks, buses, and trains). There are also natural sources of air pollution such as fires, dust 

storms, volcanic activity, and other processes. The EPA has identified six principal pollutants that are 

the focus of its national regulatory program: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

The Oregon DEQ is responsible for protecting Oregon’s air quality. DEQ monitors air pollution to 

ensure that communities meet national ambient air quality health standards (DEQ 2011c). There are 

three main pollutants that are of greatest concern in Oregon. These are: 

 Ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog; 

 Fine particulate matter (mostly from wood smoke, other combustion sources, cars, and 

dust) known as PM2.5 (2.5 micrometers and smaller in diameter); and 

 Hazardous air pollutants (also called air toxics). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

According to a 2010 DEQ report (DEQ 2011c), the PM2.5 level was below the Federal health level 

throughout Oregon. Ground-level ozone (smog) exceeded the Federal standards twice in Portland and 

once in Salem. They did not violate the standard, which requires four exceedance days. Forest fire 

smoke was light in 2010 and did not exceed the Federal health standard anywhere DEQ monitored. 

Air toxins, such as benzene and acetaldehyde, remain near or above the health benchmarks. The 

health benchmarks are concentration levels at which, if exposed over a lifetime, an individual’s risk 

of getting cancer is increased by one in one million. Carbon monoxide and PM10 (particulate matter 

10 micrometers in diameter and smaller) remained far below the Federal health standard. The 

pollutants have been trending down in the past 10 to 15 years. 

According to Creative Methods (2011), Washington and Yamhill Counties received poor grades for 

air quality based on tons of emissions per square mile of the following pollutants (Table 3-5): carbon 

monoxide, lead and lead compounds, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, PM10, PM2.5, 

ammonia, sulfur dioxide, total hazardous air pollutants, and two particular hazardous air pollutants, 

diesel emissions and acrolein emissions. 

Table 3-5. Letter Grades* of Selected Air Quality Measures Based on Tons Emission per 

Square Mile 

County CO Pb NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 NH3 SO2 HAP Diesel Acrolein

Washington F C D D D F C D D F D 

Yamhill D D C D D D C C C C D 

*The grade “A” represents the best/cleanest emission densities in the United States, and “F” the 

worst/dirtiest in the United States. 

CO: Carbon dioxide 

Pb: Lead 

NOx: Nitrogen oxides 

VOC: Volatile organic compounds 

PM10: Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers 

PM2.5: Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

NH3: Ammonia 

SO2: Sulfur dioxide 

HAP: Hazardous air pollutants 

However, in actual tests of ambient air quality, only Yamhill County exceeded any air quality 

parameters. Based on these tests, EPA levels for quarterly levels of lead were exceeded (Creative 

Methods 2011). 

As discussed in Section 3.6 above, prescribed fire can be a useful management tool, but smoke 

management is a concern and is governed in part by Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) (OAR 

2011). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-23 

3.9 Water Quality 

3.9.1 Overview—Tualatin River and Basin 

The Tualatin River watershed lies almost completely within Washington County but also crosses 

Multnomah, Clackamas, Yamhill, Tillamook, and Columbia Counties. This watershed, or subbasin, 

is part of the larger Willamette River Basin. The Tualatin River drains more than 700 square miles of 

land on the west side of Portland’s metropolitan area; its headwaters are in the Coast Range and it 

flows in an easterly direction to the confluence with the Willamette River. The Tualatin River Basin 

supports a growing population of more than 450,000 people and a wide range of urban, agricultural, 

and forest-derived activities (DEQ 2011d). The discharge of the river reflects seasonal rainfall, and 

most precipitation occurs between November and March. Seasonal stream flow is typically highest 

from December through April and lowest from July through October (USGS 2008). The low flow 

period occurs during the summer from May through October. Streams entering the river within the 

refuge include Wapato, Ayers, Hill, Harris, and Scoggins Creeks in the Wapato Lake Unit, and 

Chicken and Rock Creeks in the Sherwood Units. 

The Oregon DEQ is the agency responsible for ensuring that the streams and rivers of Oregon are 

within standards set forth by the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. In the past, as human activity 

increased in the subbasin, the Tualatin River experienced many water quality problems including 

algal blooms. Many streams in the Tualatin River subbasin do not meet Oregon water quality 

standards as these streams have high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels that can 

harm fish and other aquatic life. Some water bodies have bacteria counts that are higher than 

Oregon’s water quality standards recommend (DEQ 2011d). In response to these streams not meeting 

water quality standards, DEQ listed the Tualatin River as a “water-quality limited” stream. The term 

“water-quality limited” is used in the Clean Water Act to define streams that do not meet established 

water quality standards even after the implementation of standard controls. In 1984 and 1986, 

Tualatin River was listed due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations and nuisance levels of algae. 

Once a river has been designated as water-quality limited, the Clean Water Act requires that the DEQ 

develop thresholds for the amount of pollutants to be released in the river (USGS 2008). 

Since the 1970s, DEQ has worked with other agencies and organizations to ensure actions are taken 

to improve water quality in the Tualatin River. These actions include closure of several water 

treatment plants that historically discharged high concentrations of ammonia and phosphorous, 

upgrades at remaining treatment facilities, implementation of management plans by agencies that 

address potential sources of pollutants, tree plantings along streams to facilitate cooler water 

temperatures, and the release of water from Henry Hagg Lake by Clean Water Services (CWS) 

during the critical summer months when water flow is low. All of these actions have contributed to 

improvement in the water quality of the Tualatin River. 

CWS has worked further with DEQ to improve water quality in the Tualatin River. Water is released 

by CWS from Scoggins and Barney Reservoirs to improve the river’s water quality. In 2004, CWS 

received a watershed-based permit from DEQ that provided a mechanism to offset a portion of the 

thermal loads from their wastewater treatment facilities with releases of stored water from the 

reservoirs. Reservoir releases during July and August are used to mitigate part of the thermal impacts 

from wastewater treatment facilities. CWS offsets the remainder of its thermal impact by planting 

riparian areas along tributaries, either directly within its service area or through a partnership with the 

Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District on rural lands. During the rest of the summer, the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

water is released to offset the effect of sediment oxygen demand on the dissolved oxygen levels in 

the river. Dissolved oxygen levels in the river downstream of the wastewater treatment facilities 

determine the ammonia limits for wastewater treatment facilities. The higher the dissolved oxygen 

levels, the more operational flexibility the wastewater treatment facilities have (CWS 2011). 

Low dissolved oxygen levels can be a water quality issue in the lower Tualatin River. During the 

early parts of the summer, photosynthetic production of oxygen by algae effectively offsets the 

oxygen consumed by the decaying substances in the sediment of the river (sediment oxygen 

demand). In the fall, however, oxygen production by algae is reduced as the days become shorter and 

it no longer offsets the oxygen consumption by sediment oxygen demand. This can lead to low 

dissolved oxygen levels. Increasing stream flow reduces oxygen consumption by sediment oxygen 

demand because it shortens the contact time between the river water and the river sediments (CWS 

2011). 

In addition to the above actions, DEQ developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) as required by 

the Clean Water Act. The TMDLs are developed to meet established water quality standards. They 

define the amount of heat, bacteria, phosphorous, and ammonia that can be added while still being 

protective of the river (DEQ 2011d). DEQ first released TMDL loads (or amounts) in the 1980s for 

various sources in the Tualatin River Basin. There has been a revision of these TMDLs, and they are 

currently undergoing public review at the time of this writing. The establishment of TMDLs in the 

Tualatin River Basin prompted many management agencies to take actions to meet the load 

allocations set forth by the TMDLs. 

3.9.2 Refuge-specific Water Quality 

There are some data available on several creeks that enter the Tualatin River through the refuge. 

Chicken Creek, which supplies most of the water to the managed wetlands on the Atfálat’i Unit, 

enters the refuge through a diversion point from which water is then diverted to several different 

ponds using an irrigation canal. Over the years, as more urban development occurs upstream, the 

refuge has observed higher stream flows at the diversion. Higher flows have caused extra 

management responsibility and burden on the refuge to divert the water to the river to avoid flooding 

or damage to refuge infrastructure. In response to the increases in high flows, the refuge has installed 

some new infrastructure, including an emergency spillway to facilitate water reaching the river. In 

addition to high water flows, another concern of the refuge is the water quality of Chicken Creek, due 

to the runoff from urban development that occurs in the watershed. However, CWS has been 

monitoring the water quality for upper and lower Chicken Creek and as of date, all standards of 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and toxics are below applicable water quality criteria. 

3.10 Visual Quality 

The scenic beauty of the refuge plays in sharp contrast to the surrounding urban development of 

homes and roads. All features of visitor and administrative facilities have been designed and 

constructed to complement the natural refuge environment. Buildings are placed to welcome visitors 

at the entry point of the refuge, but not detract from wildlife observation. Where possible, structures 

are set into the landscape and/or provide views through or around the structure itself. Overlooks, 

kiosks, benches, signs, and railings are all low profile and colored to match the environment. This 

careful planning allows the visitor to experience the refuge without distractions. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

3.11 Surrounding Land Use 

The region surrounding the refuge is primarily a mix of urban and agricultural lands (see Appendix 

P, Map 2). The City of Sherwood in Oregon (population 17,930) abuts the southern and western 

boundaries of the Sherwood Units (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), the City of Tualatin (population 

26,745) is to the east, and King City (population 2,965) is northeast of the refuge. The City of 

Gaston, Oregon (population 792), is adjacent to the west boundary of Wapato Lake Unit, and Forest 

Grove (population 21,448) is north of the refuge boundary by approximately 2 miles. Oregon’s 

largest metropolitan center with Portland at its core is approximately 12 miles from the Sherwood 

Units and 23 miles from the Wapato Lake Unit. The population of Portland is 566,143; the 

population including its surrounding metropolitan area is approximately 2,260,000 (Portland 

Business Journal 2011). The population of Sherwood has increased by more than five times from 

3,093 in 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) to the current level, and other cities in the surrounding area 

are also experiencing rapid population growth. In fact, some areas within the refuge acquisition 

boundary have already been developed with housing and businesses. 

The western part of the Sherwood Units and Wapato Lake Unit are characterized by a more rural 

nature, with active agriculture as well as scattered patches of potential wildlife habitat. Dominant 

agricultural practices include growing of nursery and greenhouse stock; field crops such as winter 

wheat, corn, grass hay, and clover and grass seed; orchards of fruit and nuts; berry crops; and row 

crops such as potatoes and onions. In 2009, Washington County produced $4,106,865 in agricultural 

products (Oregon State University 2011). Yamhill County is a more rural county with high 

production of both agricultural commodities and timber products. Yamhill County is the nation’s 

leader in production of hazelnuts and the fifth-largest producer of grass seed; it has the third-largest 

acreage of rhubarb, and is number five nationally for llama production (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 2012). Active timber harvest occurs both east and west of the Wapato Lake Unit in the 

Chehalem Ridge area and in the Coast Range, respectively. 

Within the Tualatin River Basin there are a number of public and private lands managed as wildlife. 

The regional Metro government has an active greenspaces program and has acquired and restored 

several land parcels. CWS maintains several land parcels that benefit wildlife, and other county and 

public entities maintain suitable wildlife habitat within the basin. In addition, private landowners 

maintain waterfowl hunting clubs throughout the area that benefit fish and wildlife. Other private 

landowners maintain habitat in a natural condition that also benefits fish and wildlife. 

The lower reaches of the Tualatin River are navigable with small boats, and many recreationists take 

advantage of the river using canoes and kayaks. Fishing opportunities are limited; however, a few 

people use motor boats to fish for warm-water species during summer, and at least one person fishes 

for crayfish commercially on the river. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on the following page. 
Chapter 5

HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

Chapter 4

Biological Environment

© Margaret Tusko

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4 Biological Environment 

4.1 Overview 

4.1.1 Historic Land Use and Conditions 

The Willamette Valley is an area of extremely fertile and rich soils that when mixed with the 

abundant rainfall and relatively mild temperatures of the region provide an ideal system for healthy 

natural ecosystems (see Appendix P, Map 1). With the presence of people, these natural ecosystems 

changed (see Appendix P, Map 2). Prior to European settlement in the 1850s, the Kalapuya were the 

first people of the valley, and one band, the Atfálat’i, made their home here. At that time, much of 

the valley was covered by native grasses and forbs, with riparian forests and wet prairies along the 

rivers. The Atfálat’i observed the benefits of lightning-strike fires and emulated those benefits by 

manually setting fires to serve their needs. Each year, they burned different parts of the valley to 

control insect pests and to keep woody plants from moving into uplands of grasslands and oak 

savannas. Fire also cleared foraging ground for elk and deer. This method of prescribed burning 

added nutrients into the soil and stimulated plant growth. However, with European settlement, fire 

ceased to exist on a consistent and rotational basis, thereby allowing woody plant species to invade 

the grasslands and resulting in less than 1 percent of this habitat remaining in the valley. 

Historically, the Willamette Valley was home to large ungulates such as deer and elk. However, by 

1898 elk populations had diminished to the point that the Oregon Legislature prohibited elk hunting 

until 1910 (a ban that was later extended to 1933). Bears and wolves were present, and bighorn sheep 

lived nearby in the Columbia River Gorge. 

Sturgeon, steelhead, salmon, and other native fish were numerous in most rivers and streams; 

however, by 1898 fish stocks were declining and hatchery operations were underway (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW] 2011b). Beaver, mink, and other wetland-dependent 

mammals found an abundant food source in the riparian forest of the Tualatin River. Trapping was in 

high demand here in the early 1800s, but declined as the demand for farmland increased. In 1899, a 

moratorium on beaver trapping was imposed, but it was lifted 20 years later. In 1931 beaver season 

was again closed as habitat conditions declined, and fish and wildlife resources continued to take a 

downward turn. 

By the 1850s, the grasslands and prairies had been claimed by settlers for grazing and town sites. 

This left riparian forest for farmers who were beginning to move west. To use the land, the farmers 

cut, burned, and plowed riparian forest for farmlands. Widespread burning of habitats was eliminated 

to protect infrastructure and farmlands. Lack of periodic fire allowed succession of shrubs and trees 

into remaining prairie, woodland, and savanna habitat types, which eventually changed many of them 

to Douglas-fir-dominated forest. 

Other habitats also saw modifications. Wetlands were drained for farming, and rivers and streams 

were channelized as flood control measures. Some areas were frequently flooded and were too wet to 

farm or develop and therefore were left as intact habitats. The flora and fauna of the valley began to 

change and support different species. This change continues as exotic species invade and once 

common native species decline. Christy et al. (2006) reported 1,404 plant species in the Portland area 

in 2006, and noted “today there are about half as many common native taxa as there were in 1925, 

and the number of rare natives has increased eleven-fold. Since 1925, the number of common exotic 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

taxa has nearly tripled, while the number of rare exotics has increased by 71. This trend is to be 

expected in an urbanizing environment, and as time goes on, more native species will become rare 

while the ranks of common exotic species will continue to increase.” 

Currently the Tualatin River Basin is a highly altered system with almost all the land within the 

watershed affected, at least to some degree, by timber harvest, agriculture, urbanization, dams, 

diversions, and stream channel alteration. However, many organizations and individuals are working 

to restore natural processes and habitats. Many species of native plants, fish, and wildlife still thrive 

in the basin, and opportunities exist to enhance and restore additional habitat for greater resource 

enrichment. 

4.1.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service; USFWS) to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) are maintained for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. To meet this mandate, the Service developed a Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) Policy to provide implementation guidance. 

Elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as those 

ecological processes that support them. The Refuge System policy on BIDEH provides guidance on 

consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources that 

represent BIDEH on refuges and in associated ecosystems. This policy provides refuges with a 

process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of 

environmental conditions and to restore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also 

provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the BIDEH of a refuge and its ecosystems. 

Maintaining and perpetuating the ecological integrity of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

(the refuge) fits well within this policy. By providing for the full range of natural processes and 

native floral and faunal diversity, the refuge will be implementing this policy. 

To preserve BIDEH, we examined priority habitat types and determined the species that were the 

best indicators of the health of those plant communities. 

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern 

4.2.1 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concern 

Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were designed directly around the habitat requirements of 

species designated as “priority resources of concern” (ROC). ROCs are called conservation targets in 

conservation planning methodologies used by other agencies and nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs). In developing objectives, the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) planning team 

followed the process outlined in the Service’s Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A 

Handbook (Handbook) (Adamcik et al. 2004). 

As defined in the Service’s policy on habitat management plans, ROCs are “all plant and/or animal 

species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), System Mission, 

or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, 

waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that 

same refuge are also a resource of concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts 

(620 FW 1.4G).” The Handbook goes on to say that “Habitats or plant communities are resources of 

concern when they are specifically identified in refuge purposes, when they support species or 

species groups identified in refuge purposes, when they support NWRS [Refuge System] resources 

of concern, and/or when they are important in the maintenance or restoration of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health.” Therefore, ROCs for a refuge may be a species or species 

group, or the habitat/plant community that supports a priority species/species group. 

In developing a list of ROCs, the planning team selected not only species mentioned in establishing 

documents for the refuge, but also species that captured the ecological attributes of habitat types 

required by larger suites of species (see Appendix E, Biological Resources Of Concern). The 

ecological attributes of habitats were analyzed with regard to the life history requirements of ROCs 

and are critical to sustaining the long-term viability of the ROC and other benefitting species. 

Ecological attributes of habitats include vegetation structure, species composition, age class, and 

patch size and/or connectivity with other habitat types; hydrologic regime; and disturbance events 

(e.g., flooding, fire). From the ROC list, we developed a list of focal species to represent each habitat 

type on the refuge. These provide measurable indicators that strongly correlate with the ability of a 

plant community to support a given species or group. The descriptions of habitat types on the refuge 

incorporate “desired” conditions that are based on scientific literature review and team members’ 

professional judgment. These desired conditions for specific ecological attributes were used to help 

design habitat objectives, as presented in Chapter 2. 

Limiting factors were also considered in developing objectives. A limiting factor is a threat to, or 

degradation of, the natural processes responsible for creating and maintaining plant and animal 

communities. In developing objectives and strategies, the team gave priority to mitigating limiting 

factors that presented a high risk to ROCs. In many cases, limiting factors occur on a regional or 

landscape scale and are beyond the control of individual refuges. Therefore, objectives and strategies 

may seek to mimic, rather than restore, natural processes. For example, pumps and water control 

structures may be used to control water levels in wetlands in areas where natural hydrology has been 

altered. Also, the structure of plant communities used by ROCs can be created, rather than restoring 

the original native species composition. For example, mowing and/or grazing may be used to 

maintain a desirable vegetation structure in restoring native grassland communities when prescribed 

fire is impractical. With the consideration of BIDEH, the refuge will maintain all appropriate native 

habitat types and species. Table 4-1 lists the focal and benefitting species that were considered using 

the following criteria: 

 The resource must be reflective of the refuge’s establishing purposes and the Refuge System 

mission; 

 The resource must include the main natural habitat types found at the refuge; 

 The resource must be recommended as a conservation priority during preplanning efforts; 

and 

 The resource must be federally or state listed, be a candidate for listing, or be a species of 

concern. 

Other criteria that were considered in the selection of the ROCs included: 

 Species groups and/or refuge features of special management concern; or 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

 Species contributing to the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the 

ecosystem or community. 

Table 4-1. Focal Species and Other Benefitting Species for Each Priority Habitat Type 

Habitat Type Focal Species Other Benefitting Species 

Bottomland 

riparian forest 

Pacific slope flycatcher Yellow warbler, song sparrow, willow 

flycatcher, and rufous hummingbird 

Swainson’s thrush 

Beaver, northern red-legged frog, 

anadromous fish, yellow-breasted chat, and 

black-capped chickadee 

Brown creeper 

Chestnut-backed chickadee, anadromous 

fish, downy woodpecker, and pileated 

woodpecker 

Western wood pewee 

Wood duck, yellow warbler, warbling vireo, 

western screech owl, spring Chinook, winter 

steelhead, chorus frog, and hooded 

merganser 

Mixed 

coniferous/decidu

ous forest 

Orange-crowned warbler 

Bewick’s wren, spotted towhee, downy 

woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and 

pileated woodpecker 

Oak savanna 

Western bluebird 

Chipping sparrow, coyote, grasshopper 

sparrow, mourning dove, rufous 

hummingbird, and western meadowlark 

White-breasted nuthatch Western gray squirrel, acorn woodpecker, 

black-tailed deer, and lesser goldfinch 

Wet prairie Wilson’s snipe 

American bittern, savanna sparrow, western 

meadowlark, northern harrier, dusky Canada 

goose, migrating and wintering waterfowl, 

and Nelson’s checker-mallow 

Herbaceous 

wetland 

Northern pintail 

Tundra swan, cackling Canada goose, 

wintering waterfowl, river otter, mink, 

northwestern pond turtle, bald eagle, and 

peregrine falcon (foraging) 

Greater yellowlegs 

Least sandpiper, dunlin, killdeer, lesser 

yellowlegs, long-billed dowitcher, spotted 

sandpiper, tree swallow, and great blue 

heron 

Virginia rail 

Wintering waterfowl, American bittern, 

sora, common yellowthroat, common garter 

snake, and chorus frog 

Shrub-scrub 

wetland Willow flycatcher 

American bittern, sora, Virginia rail, redwinged blackbird, common yellowthroat, 

northern red-legged frog, and northwestern 

salamander 

Rivers, streams, 

and backwater 

sloughs 

Coastal cutthroat trout, 

winter steelhead 

Northwestern pond turtle, mink, beaver, 

belted kingfisher, spring Chinook, and 

Pacific lamprey 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

Table 4-1. Focal Species and Other Benefitting Species for Each Priority Habitat Type 

Habitat Type Focal Species Other Benefitting Species 

Cropland Cackling Canada goose 

Tundra swan, dusky Canada goose, northern 

pintail, American wigeon, northern harrier, 

and western meadowlark 

4.3 Habitat Types 

4.3.1 Bottomland Riparian Forest 

4.3.1.1 Overview 

There are currently about 388 acres of riparian forest on the refuge supporting a myriad of breeding 

and migrating songbirds, amphibians and reptiles, resident mammals, and anadromous fish. Mature 

bottomland riparian forests are characterized by Oregon ash, bigleaf maple, scattered grand and 

Douglas-fir, and western red cedar in the overstory, with swordfern, snowberry, and willow in the 

understory. There are many acres of this habitat type on the refuge that have been recently restored 

and would not have all these attributes yet. This forest type typically occurs in floodplains and other 

areas with moist soils. Plants here are adapted to winter and spring flooding and may be inundated or 

have wet feet for several months of the year. 

Photo 4-1. Riparian forest during winter flooding. Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

4.3.1.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Bottomland Riparian Forest 

Bottomland riparian forest in the greater Willamette Valley has been severely reduced since historic 

times due to draining and timber harvest, conversion to agricultural and urban uses, and stream 

alterations. Riparian forest within the Tualatin River Basin is highly fragmented. Metro, Clean Water 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Services, and others are working to restore riparian forest on many of their land holdings within the 

basin. The refuge has also engaged in restoration of bottomland riparian forest on several sites within 

the Sherwood Units. 

4.3.1.3 Key Species Supported 

Bottomland riparian forest supports a host of bird species and guilds including warblers, 

woodpeckers, raptors, flycatchers, and hummingbirds. Amphibians such as northern red-legged 

frogs, salamanders, and rough-skinned newts may spend part of their life cycles in riparian forests. 

Reptiles such as northwestern pond turtles and garter snakes frequently use these habitats to aestivate 

over winter or to escape the hot summer sun. Mammals such as beaver, mink, black-tailed deer, and 

bats use this habitat type for foraging, resting, and finding escape cover. Anadromous fish such as 

steelhead and Pacific lamprey migrate up rivers and creeks shaded by riparian forest. In winter, 

juvenile salmonids may benefit from riparian forests for foraging and escape during flood events. 

4.3.1.4 Refuge Management Activities 

In existing stands of riparian forest, management activities are typically limited to controlling 

nonnative invasive plant species. Plants such as English ivy, nightshade, and Himalayan blackberry 

crowd out native plants, to which native wildlife are adapted. Nonnative trees such as cherry, English 

hawthorn, and English holly are removed or girdled and treated with herbicide following integrated 

pest management (IPM) methods, to create snags. 

In areas of new riparian forest restoration, native trees and shrubs are planted and maintained for 

several years to ensure successful establishment. Trees are typically planted and protected with tubes 

to prevent browsing by deer and other herbivores, and girdling by voles and other rodents. Grasses 

and nonnative plants are mowed and/or sprayed with Service-approved herbicide between shrubs and 

trees to reduce competition and shading until the desired plants are of sufficient size to compete on 

their own. After 5 to 10 years, once the trees have reached sufficient size and girth to resist damage 

from herbivores, tree tubes are removed. 

In some areas where natural recruitment of native plants is strong, management activities include 

placing tubes on naturally established trees and mowing nonnative plants and grasses until the trees 

are tall enough to compete on their own. 

4.3.2 Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest 

4.3.2.1 Overview 

There are currently about 49 acres designated as mixed coniferous/deciduous forest on the refuge. 

This habitat type is typically above the floodplain on drier, well-drained soils. This forest type is 

dominated by Douglas-fir, with grand fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, bigleaf maple, red 

alder, Pacific yew, and Pacific dogwood. The understory contains swordfern, snowberry, hazel, 

cascara, vine maple, and various other shrubs and forbs. Snags are an important habitat component in 

a mature forest. Snags provide foraging substrate and nesting cavities for a variety of bird species. 

This upland forest type supports a host of bird species and other wildlife. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

Photo 4-2. Mixed coniferous/deciduous forest in the Rock Creek Unit. Peter 

Schmidt/USFWS. 

4.3.2.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous 

Forest 

Historically, upland forest was the dominant habitat type in the greater Portland area (Christy et al. 

2006). By the time the General Land Office surveys were undertaken in the 1850s, much of this 

habitat type was already burned or logged. In the area surrounding the refuge, there is no old-growth 

forest remaining, but there are some tracts of mature second growth with intact native understory 

plants and few invasives. The forests surrounding the refuge were logged during the late nineteenth 

and early twentieth centuries to provide lumber for an expanding population and to provide more 

agricultural land. Currently, remaining forest tracts occur in areas too steep to farm or build 

effectively, or on land managed for timber production. Some tracts of remaining forest are found on 

conservation lands such as those recently purchased and protected by Metro and others. This forest 

type has also expanded into areas that were historically oak woodland, oak savanna, or prairie, as a 

result of fire suppression. 

4.3.2.3 Key Species Supported 

A myriad of species spend all or part of their life cycles in mixed forest habitat types. A host of 

resident and migratory birds such as woodpeckers, owls, wood warblers, and corvids use mixed 

forests for foraging, resting, and nesting. Small mammals such as squirrels, shrews, and mice are 

abundant in mixed forest habitat types, and bats often roost in cracks and cavities of larger trees. 

Larger mammals such as black-tailed deer and coyotes are also present in smaller numbers. Reptiles 

and amphibians such as chorus frogs and common garter snakes also use this habitat type. 

4.3.2.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Management activities for this habitat type are similar to activities carried out in riparian forest. In 

established forest, management of invasive species is the primary activity, while maintenance of 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

planted trees and shrubs would be the focus in restoration areas. In addition, prescribed fire may be a 

management tool employed to manage fuel and provide a diversity of habitat structure. 

4.3.3 Oak Savanna 

4.3.3.1 Overview 

There are currently about 149 acres of oak savanna habitat on the refuge. This land is in various 

stages of restoration. Restored areas have been planted with oaks, native grasses, and other native 

species during the past 12 years. The oaks in these areas are in the sapling stage and range from 3 to 

20 feet in height; they have not reached a mature stage. Only a few relic oaks over 100 years old 

remain on refuge lands. Mature oak savanna is characterized by large single or a very small cluster of 

Garry oaks, generally widely scattered throughout a grassland with few to no shrubs and abundant 

native wildflowers. Snags may be present in small numbers, and areas of bare ground may also be 

present. Native grass species may include California oatgrass, California brome, meadow barley, 

Roemer’s fescue, and blue wildrye. Native forb species include blue-eyed grass, tiger lily, tarweed, 

and pearly everlasting. Overall grass height is usually less than 3 feet. Sites are typically dry, but may 

have saturated soils for a short duration during winter. This habitat type was historically maintained 

by frequent, low-intensity fire, which prevented shrubs and encroaching species, especially conifers, 

and maintained a low density of oaks. Currently the refuge manages this habitat type by annual 

mowing. However, mowing does not remove accumulated thatch, which may inhibit growth of some 

species of wildflowers. Spot spraying of herbicides is also employed to control invasive species such 

as blackberry and thistle. 

Photo 4-3. Garry oaks. © Ed Bustya.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

4.3.3.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Oak Savanna 

Oak savanna is a rare habitat type in the Willamette Valley. Noss et al. (1995) reported a loss of 99.5 

percent of this habitat type in the Willamette Valley since Euro-American settlement. Metro and 

other organizations are conserving and restoring this habitat type; however, few large areas with 

mature oaks remain in the Tualatin River Valley and distribution is fragmented. Restoration efforts 

may take up to 100 years before the habitat can support a full range of species. 

4.3.3.3 Key Species Supported 

Oak savanna supports a variety of species, especially grassland bird species, oak specialists, 

invertebrates, and listed plant species. Grassland birds such as western meadowlark and savanna 

sparrow nest and forage in grassland communities. Oak specialists such as acorn woodpecker and 

Lewis’ woodpecker, and white-breasted nuthatch use oaks for nesting and foraging. Invertebrates 

such as Fender’s blue butterfly rely on native savanna and prairie plants for survival. Listed plant 

species native to oak savanna habitats include Kincaid’s lupine, Willamette daisy, and golden 

paintbrush (USFWS 2010b). 

4.3.3.4 Refuge Management Activities 

The refuge has undertaken several oak savanna restoration projects and annually maintains these 

areas by mowing to reduce encroachment of woody species and applying Service-approved 

herbicides, following IPM practices, to control nonnative and invasive species. As land has been 

acquired, restoration activities have included cooperative farming as a means of purging weeds 

through tilling and application of herbicide. Further application of herbicide is usually necessary 

prior to planting of native seed. Native seed may be drilled in using a no-till drill or may be broadcast 

following discing. Typically, native grasses are planted first and allowed to become established while 

using a broad-leaved-specific herbicide to control invasive species. Once native grass is established, 

native forbs are seeded. Research is still needed to determine best management practices for 

establishing native oak savanna plants in this area because restoration of this habitat type is still in its 

infancy. 

4.3.4 Wet Prairie 

4.3.4.1 Overview 

Wet prairie covers about 27 acres on the refuge. Wet prairie is dominated by native herbaceous plants 

such as sedges, rushes, grasses, and forbs that are generally less than 3 feet tall. There are few to no 

trees or shrubs. Wet prairie is characterized by generally poorly drained soils that may be saturated or 

have standing water from November through April. These habitat types on the refuge are typically 

inundated by either back flooding of the river onto floodplain areas or by ponding of rainwater in 

shallow basins. There are currently two areas of wet prairie restoration on the refuge. One was 

planted in 2001-2002 with native grasses, oaks, and ponderosa pine. Plants in this area are well 

established. The other area was restored in 2005, but is currently being rehabilitated to remove 

invasive reed canarygrass. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4-4. Wet meadow prairie habitat, Morand. Kim Strassburg/USFWS. 

4.3.4.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Wet Prairie 

Similar to oak savanna, this habitat type has undergone a dramatic decline since Euro-American 

settlement due to conversion to other uses and lack of fire, which has allowed the encroachment of 

woody species, thus changing the vegetation community. Noss et al. (1995) state that 99.9 percent of 

all prairie habitats in the Willamette Valley have been lost. Much of the habitat that remains is in 

degraded condition due to the influence of invasive and nonnative species and lack of periodic fire to 

properly maintain function. Further, restored sites are confounded by a lack of available native seed 

types to foster adequate diversity. However, more native seed and plant varieties are becoming 

available as more entities embark on restoration of wet prairies. As with other rare habitat types, 

Metro, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other organizations are conducting restoration 

and enhancement of this habitat type throughout the Tualatin River Valley. As these projects 

proceed, knowledge is gained and shared about methods and tools used to effectively manage wet 

prairie habitats. 

4.3.4.3 Key Species Supported 

Wet prairie supports a number of listed plant species (Bradshaw’s lomatium, Willamette daisy, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow) and species of concern (upland larkspur, peacock larkspur, Sierra 

horkelia, Columbian whitetop aster) (USFWS 2010b). A number of other species use wet prairies 

during all or part of their life cycles. Chorus frogs, northern red-legged frogs, northwestern and longtoed salamanders, and rough-skinned newts breed and lay eggs in shallow, vegetated wet areas in 

spring; wading birds such as great blue herons and great egrets also forage in the shallow pools or 

dry margins of wet prairies. Wilson’s snipe nest in the wet grasses of the prairie. Black-tailed deer 

forage on grasses and forbs, while mink hunt for birds and rodents. In winter, large numbers of 

waterfowl rest and forage on the numerous seeds and plants in the flooded prairie. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

4.3.4.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Refuge management includes restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of wet meadow prairie. As 

with other habitat types, restoration usually begins with efforts to purge nonnative and invasive plant 

species using mechanical means (mowing and discing) and/or application of Service-approved 

herbicide, following IPM practices. Plants may be installed as pots or plugs, or seeded using a no-till 

drill or broadcast method. Areas requiring enhancement may have plants installed as mentioned 

above and invasive species removed using mechanical means or spot spraying with herbicide. 

Current maintenance includes annual mowing to prevent encroachment of woody species and/or spot 

spraying with herbicide to control nonnative and invasive species. 

4.3.5 Herbaceous and Scrub-shrub Wetlands 

4.3.5.1 Overview 

There are currently about 294 acres of herbaceous wetland and 20 acres of scrub-shrub wetland 

habitat on the refuge. The herbaceous wetlands have all been restored, but the scrub-shrub wetlands 

are in various early stages of restoration. According to Christy et al. (2006), prior to Euro-American 

settlement, there were historically few wetlands in the vicinity of the refuge. Wetlands that existed at 

the time of Euro-American settlement were often drained by ditching, diversions, channelizing 

streams, and installing drain tiles to facilitate farming and development. The floodplain in the 

northern part of the Riverboat Unit had extensive scrub-shrub and herbaceous wetlands that were 

likely drained by the early twentieth century. Likewise, the majority of the Wapato Lake basin 

consisted of various wetland types. Even though they represent a small fraction of the landscape, 

wetlands play a vital role in the ecosystem, providing habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent 

plants and wildlife, and native resident and anadromous fish. 

Herbaceous wetlands are characterized by areas with heavy, poorly drained clay soils. Wetlands may 

be saturated or flooded for a large part of the year, usually from the first fall rains until early to midsummer. Water depths may range from just a few inches to 3 feet or more, with an average of 4 to 18 

inches. The extent and depth of water is dynamic, changing throughout the season and year to year as 

periods of rain and flooding from creeks and rivers come and go. Plant composition includes 

perennial species such as sedges, rushes, wapato, common cattail, and softstem bulrush, and a large 

variety of annual plants such as smartweed, beggars tick, and wild millet. 

Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by a somewhat more stable hydrological regime. Soils may 

range from heavy clay to organic peat soil, and water may be present year-round. Water is typically 

deeper than on herbaceous wetlands and may range from 1 foot or 2 to 10 feet deep at times. Plants 

include woody species dominated by willow, as well as Douglas spirea, swamp rose, redosier 

dogwood, and emergent species such as cattails and softstem bulrush. Fewer annual plants would be 

expected in this habitat type. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4-5. Seasonal wetland plants provide habitat and food for wintering waterfowl. 

Kim Strassburg/USFWS. 

4.3.5.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Herbaceous and Scrub-shrub 

Wetlands 

As noted above, considerable effort was historically expended to convert wetlands to human-oriented 

uses. However, the value of wetlands for many beneficial uses, and their intrinsic value, has been 

recognized, and substantial work has been accomplished to restore or create wetlands throughout the 

Tualatin River Basin for the benefit of both human endeavors and wildlife needs. Wetlands currently 

exist on every unit of the refuge. Many of these wetlands are intensively managed to mimic historic 

conditions by using water control structures, diversions, pumps, canals, and levees. Managing and 

maintaining these systems is expensive and time consuming, but provides a level of certainty that 

habitat would be available no matter what the seasonal climate might provide. Other wetlands are not 

managed and depend on seasonal rain to fill and evaporation to naturally draw down in summer. 

In addition to wetlands on the refuge, Metro, Clean Water Services, local duck hunting clubs, and 

others have worked to restore or create wetlands in the Tualatin River Basin. These wetlands provide 

a host of benefits such as groundwater recharge, water quality benefits, dissipation of flood waters, 

and habitat for fish and wildlife. 

4.3.5.3 Key Species Supported 

Wetlands support a number of fish and wildlife species throughout their annual cycle. Marsh birds 

such as sora and Virginia rail, and songbirds such as common yellowthroat and marsh wren nest in or 

near wetlands. Mammals such as mink, muskrat, and beaver use wetlands. Amphibians such chorus 

frogs, northern red-legged frogs, and salamanders use wetlands for breeding. Migratory shorebirds 

such as least and western sandpipers, greater yellowlegs, and black-bellied plovers forage on wetland 

mudflats and margins. Waterfowl such as northern pintails and cackling Canada geese forage and rest 

on wetlands. Raptors such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons prey on waterfowl that use wetlands. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

4.3.5.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Of all habitat types encountered on the refuge, wetlands require the most management and 

maintenance. During fall and winter, water is managed to fill and maintain wetlands. Fish screens are 

maintained to allow water passage and to prevent both native and nonnative fish from entering 

wetlands from diversions. Pumps are sometimes operated to begin filling wetlands prior to fall rains. 

Water control structures such as flashboard risers are managed to precisely control timing of water 

levels in some wetlands. Supplemental planting of woody species such as willow is conducted in 

newly restored scrub-shrub wetlands. During spring, water levels in managed wetland basins are 

drawn down to stimulate growth of desirable wetland plant species. Invasive species may be 

controlled by timing of flooding, mechanical means such as mowing or discing, or application of 

Service-approved herbicide. In late summer, some wetland basins are mowed to reduce vegetation 

height at the wetland margin to allow waterfowl access to adjacent uplands. Some wetlands are 

periodically disced to stimulate growth of annual plants dependent on a disturbance regime. In newly 

restored scrub-shrub wetlands, mowing is conducted around woody species to reduce competition 

with invasives such as reed canarygrass. 

4.3.6 Rivers, Streams, and Backwater Sloughs 

4.3.6.1 Overview 

The Tualatin River and several tributary streams run through or are adjacent to refuge lands (see 

Appendix P, Maps 6 and 7). In addition, several areas back up with water during periods of flooding 

or high water. These waterways have been impacted by alterations since the time of Euro-American 

settlement. Streambanks were fortified to prevent flooding; adjacent lands were drained and ditched, 

causing increased runoff and erosion; vegetation along streambanks was removed, reducing the 

amount of shade and resulting in increased water temperatures, reducing woody input, and causing 

additional erosion; timber harvest, farming activities, and urbanization caused increased runoff, 

chemical and trash inputs, and reduced groundwater recharge; and water diversions for industrial, 

agricultural, and municipal uses caused a reduction in water flow. 

Tributary streams such as Chicken Creek and South Rock Creek in the Sherwood Units were 

channelized in the early twentieth century to facilitate drainage and farming of adjacent lands. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the refuge would restore at least parts of these creeks to their natural 

meandering channels. In addition, under these alternatives, construction and/or reconnection of 

backwater sloughs would be explored on some refuge units. 

4.3.6.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Rivers, Streams, and 

Backwater Sloughs 

The Tualatin River and its tributaries have total maximum daily loads listed by the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for several water quality parameters including 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and bacteria (DEQ 2001). Efforts have been underway 

for several years in the Tualatin River Basin to reverse some of the negative effects that have taken 

place over the past 150 years. Many organizations have been promoting stewardship of the watershed 

and are engaged in restoration and enhancement projects that have greatly improved conditions in the 

river and local streams. The Service has partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 

others to conduct a water quantity and quality study at Wapato Lake that will help inform and guide 

future refuge management activities at that unit. A few small backwater areas on the refuge have 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

been enhanced to provide benefits to anadromous fish during flood events and provide benefits to 

native wildlife. 

Photo 4-6. Backwater flooding along the Tualatin River. Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

4.3.6.3 Key Species Supported 

Rivers, streams, backwater sloughs, and their streamside vegetation support a vast array of fish, 

wildlife, and plant species. Native resident and anadromous, and nonnative fish species, may be 

found in local waters. Resident native fish include coastal cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and threespined stickleback. Native anadromous fish include steelhead and western brook and Pacific 

lamprey. Nonnative fish include a number of sunfish species, bass, catfish, mosquito fish, and carp. 

Coho salmon, which were not historically present in the Tualatin River system because they could 

not get over Willamette Falls during the fall when they migrate, were introduced into the system as 

mitigation for Scoggins Dam. The coho stocking program ended in 1998, but coho are still present 

and reproducing with help from fish ladders at the falls (ODFW 2011c). 

Wildlife also abounds in and along waterways. Mammals such as beaver, mink, and muskrats are 

water-dependent furbearers. Birds of all types are associated with streams and rivers including 

mergansers, wood ducks, belted kingfishers, and ospreys. Many warblers and flycatchers are 

associated with streamside riparian habitats. Reptiles such as northwestern pond turtles and painted 

turtles use the slow-moving lower reaches of the Tualatin River, often basking on logs in spring and 

summer. Amphibians such as rough-skinned newts are abundant in all waters of the refuge. 

Many plant species thrive in and around refuge streams. Submergent vegetation such as pondweeds 

and wigeon grass grow in the slow-moving waters of the river and adjacent sloughs. Trees and shrubs 

commonly associated with streams include willow, Oregon ash, redosier dogwood, Oregon grape, 

and Douglas spirea. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

4.3.6.4 Refuge Management Activities 

One of the major management activities related to streams is operation of a water diversion structure 

on Chicken Creek on the Atfálat’i Unit. A portion of the water in Chicken Creek is diverted yearround to supply water to managed wetlands. In summer, a small maintenance flow is diverted to 

maintain freshwater flow to a minimal number of wetland acres. In fall and winter, more water is 

diverted to fill and maintain approximately 226 acres of wetlands. There is a fish passage associated 

with the structure that was designed prior to listing of upper Willamette salmon and steelhead, and it 

may no longer be adequate based on current standards. There are fish screens on the structure to help 

prevent fish from entering the wetland system and becoming entrapped. Upstream and downstream 

of the diversion, the creek was channelized decades ago and runs straight to the Tualatin River. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Chicken Creek would be at least partially returned to its historical 

channel and a new diversion structure would be constructed in a different location and built to 

current fish passage standards. 

Similar to Chicken Creek, South Rock Creek is channelized through both the Rock Creek and Onion 

Flats Units. 

Management of water in the Wapato Lake Unit is another important activity. Currently the refuge is 

maintaining cooperative farming operations in the lake bed and using the pumps in place to dewater 

the lake during spring. Until restoration begins, it is anticipated that this practice would continue. 

Other management actions along streams include planting native vegetation, and controlling 

nonnative and invasive species including reed canarygrass, English holly, and Himalayan blackberry. 

4.3.7 Croplands 

4.3.7.1 Overview 

Cropland management is used as a tool when lands are acquired to provide wildlife habitat and 

control invasive species until restoration of the property to native habitats can commence. Croplands 

are currently managed under cooperative farming agreements with local farmers who plant, maintain, 

and harvest select crops. A share of the crops is left for wildlife use. Crops grown include cereal 

grains, such as corn, wheat, barley, and oats. In the case of cereal grains the grower is required to 

leave 30 percent of crops standing as forage for wildlife. Another crop grown is green forage, such as 

pasture grass for hay or clover for seed. In this case, the grower harvests all the crop and then mows 

the area in late summer or early fall to provide green forage primarily for geese. 

The refuge currently has cooperative farming agreements on the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units. 

Crops on the Onion Flats Unit are naturally flooded as fall rains begin and standing water 

accumulates or as the Tualatin River backs up into this area. Similarly, Wapato Lake starts to fill 

following fall and early winter rainy periods. Typically waterfowl will wait until rains begin before 

they begin foraging in grain fields, but they will begin to use green forage as soon as they arrive in 

fall. During periods of drought, when fields may not become flooded, waterfowl will begin to forage 

in grain fields after other sources of food in the vicinity have been depleted. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.3.7.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Croplands 

The refuge is surrounded by a mixture of urban and rural land uses. There are many farms in the area 

supporting a variety of crop types including small grains and green forage. The primary difference in 

private management is that most small grains are tilled under after harvest in early fall to prepare for 

the next crop and green forage areas may also be tilled under if on a rotational schedule. However, 

many fields retain forage values for wildlife whether tilled or not. Many farmers rotate crops from 

year to year, and some crops may not be attractive to wildlife. Landowners may also convert field 

crops to orchards, berry crops, or nursery stock, which have different values for wildlife. 

4.3.7.3 Key Species Supported 

Croplands primarily support foraging for waterfowl such as dabbling ducks and grazers such as 

Canada geese and American wigeons. Other birds commonly observed in this habitat type include 

great blue herons, shorebirds, and grassland songbirds. Many small rodents such as Oregon voles 

reproduce here, providing a prey base for coyotes and raptors such as northern harriers, red-tailed 

hawks, and American kestrels. 

4.3.7.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Management activities are typically limited to overseeing cooperative farming activities and, in the 

case of the Wapato Lake Unit, managing water levels necessary for planting and irrigation. 

4.3.8 Ruderal Lands 

4.3.8.1 Overview 

Currently there are approximately 181 acres of ruderal uplands and 68 acres of ruderal wetlands on 

the refuge. Ruderal uplands are lands that are typically above the annual floodplain but may 

experience occasional flooding from extreme events. These lands have been fallow for some time 

and typically are dominated by nonnative vegetation. Ruderal wetlands are lands typically within the 

annual floodplain, or they are saturated or inundated during some part of the year. These lands were 

often former pasture lands used for summer grazing. 

4.3.8.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Ruderal Lands 

Ruderal lands in the surrounding area are usually limited to farm field edges or transitions between 

habitat types that remain unmanaged. Occasionally, growers will abandon a field or orchard and 

weeds will invade, creating a ruderal condition. If the field is left unmanaged for some time, native 

species may pioneer into the area and begin to transform the tract to a mix of native and nonnative 

species. 

4.3.8.3 Key Species Supported 

Ruderal lands may support a number of species such as great blue herons, sparrows, and grassland 

songbirds. Many small rodents such as Oregon voles reproduce here. Raptors such as red-tailed 

hawks and American kestrels may forage here. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

4.3.8.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Many of these lands have undergone pretreatment activities prior to restoration. Pretreatment 

activities may include removal of nonnative trees, mowing, discing, or application of herbicide. It is 

the refuge’s intention to convert ruderal lands to native species habitat. 

4.4 Major Species Groups 

A wide variety of fish and wildlife use refuge habitats during all or part of their life. Appendix E 

contains a listing of ROCs that inhabit the refuge, and Appendix N is a listing of all known plants, 

fish, and wildlife that have been documented on the refuge. Large numbers of waterfowl use refuge 

wetlands during fall and winter, and some remain to breed during spring and summer. Shorebirds and 

marsh birds use the refuge to some extent year-round, but peak numbers typically occur during 

spring. Some species in these guilds breed on refuge lands or nearby, while others are migrants. Both 

resident and migrating songbirds use all refuge habitat types. Many species of neotropical migrant 

songbirds breed here during spring and summer, and many species of raptors use the refuge during 

most seasons of the year. Mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are present on the refuge year-round, 

but some of these species are secretive and may not be readily observed during most of the year. 

Many species of fish, some of which are migrants, inhabit waterways on and adjacent to the refuge. 

4.4.1 Waterfowl 

Providing high-quality habitat for waterfowl has been one of the priorities on the refuge since its 

establishment. Waterfowl are primarily associated with wetlands; however, they also use upland 

grasslands and croplands. Detailed weekly winter waterfowl surveys have been conducted on the 

refuge since 2000, and the area surveyed has increased over time as land has been acquired and/or 

restored. Surveys are conducted from September through at least February each year. Typically, few 

numbers and species of waterfowl breed and nest on the refuge and surrounding areas. A limited 

number of western Canada geese, mallards, gadwalls, cinnamon teal, hooded mergansers, and wood 

ducks annually raise a few broods. Buffleheads, northern shovelers, and blue-winged teal are rare 

breeders here. In early fall, waterfowl numbers remain low as migration begins (Figure 4-1); their 

numbers then increase sharply during November. Numbers remain relatively high to the end of 

January when waterfowl hunting season ends, and then birds tend to disperse to nearby private lands 

before migrating north near the end of March. The refuge lies in the Pacific Flyway, where birds 

migrate primarily from breeding grounds in Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon, and 

Northwest Territories, and to a lesser extent from Saskatchewan. For many of these birds, the refuge 

is an important stopover to wintering areas in California and Mexico, and for others it is their 

southern terminus, where they spend the winter. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4-7. Waterfowl. Gary Kramer/USFWS. 

Average and Maximum Number of Waterfowl Counted 

2004-2011

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

25-Aug 25-Sep 26-Oct 26-Nov 27-Dec 27-Jan 27-Feb 29-Mar

Date

Waterfowl Count

Average Ducks

Average Geese

Max Ducks

Max Geese

Figure 4-1. Average and maximum number of waterfowl counted on refuge lands during 

regular weekly surveys from 2004-2011. 

Note: On December 16, 2010, a maximum of 71,601 ducks were counted, but this data point was 

removed to make the chart more readable. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

4.4.2 Songbirds 

The refuge supports a host of both resident and migratory songbirds that use all of the habitat types 

represented here. About 100 songbird species have been identified on the refuge and many of those 

species breed here. Point count surveys have been conducted to identify species using the refuge, and 

a bird banding program has been established under the Monitoring Avian Production and Survival 

protocol to assess productivity and survival of locally breeding birds. These surveys will help to 

determine long-term trends in songbird populations on both a local and regional scale. 

4.4.3 Shorebirds 

There are relatively few shorebirds that use the refuge, and species diversity is low. Twenty-one 

species have been recorded, but many of those are one-time or rare sightings. Killdeer, spotted 

sandpipers, and Wilson’s snipe are among the most numerous; all of them breed at the refuge. Least 

and western sandpipers, dunlin, lesser yellowlegs, and long-billed dowitchers are also commonly 

sighted during migration. Regular weekly surveys are conducted from April through September on 

several of the Sherwood Units. Weekly counts average fewer than 50 individuals, but may number 

several hundred on rare occasions. Although some shorebirds do breed here, the majority of 

shorebirds are migrants, passing through during spring and late summer and fall. Typically, mudflats 

in wetland margins are available for shorebird foraging from early spring through summer as 

managed wetlands are drawn down on their annual cycle. 

Photo 4-8. Long-billed dowitcher. © Ed Bustya. 

4.4.4 Marsh Birds and Waders 

Marsh birds use both herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands, and to a lesser extent adjacent uplands. 

Surveys for sora, Virginia rail, American bittern, American coot, and pied-billed grebe are conducted 

using recorded calls from April through June each year. Breeding has been verified on the refuge for 

each of these species, although they occur in relatively low numbers. Early spring drawdown of 

wetlands to meet other management objectives may have a negative effect on these species. The first 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

confirmed breeding of American bitterns on the refuge was observed at a recent scrub-shrub wetland 

restoration site. 

Wading birds such as great blue herons, great egrets, and green herons are surveyed in conjunction 

with shorebird and waterfowl surveys. Great blue herons and great egrets are present nearly yearround on the refuge, while green herons are usually only observed during summer. 

4.4.5 Raptors 

At least 18 species of raptors have been recorded on the refuge including eagles, hawks, falcons, and 

owls. Bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and great horned owls are year-round 

residents. Other species such as peregrine falcons are usually only present during winter when 

waterfowl populations are high. Some species are regular summertime visitors, such as ospreys that 

forage on fish as wetlands are drawn down. Raptors are specialized in the habitat types that they use 

and may be observed in most habitat types on the refuge. Eagles and peregrine falcons use wetlands 

for hunting waterfowl. Great horned owls hunt rodents in the forest at night while Cooper’s hawks 

hunt in the forest during daylight in search of songbirds. Northern harriers hunt in the uplands, 

croplands, and wetlands during the day, while barn owls hunt open fields during the night and 

evening. The refuge has installed American kestrel nesting boxes and will monitor these from time to 

time to determine nesting success. There are no other surveys that specifically target raptors, 

although raptors are recorded during songbird point count surveys. 

Photo 4-9. American kestrel. Robert Burton/USFWS. 

4.4.6 Mammals 

Many mammal species, large and small, use the various habitat types on the refuge. Large mammals 

such as black-tailed deer and the occasional elk are observed on the refuge. Smaller mammal species 

such as coyote, river otter, bobcat, raccoon, beaver, muskrat, and mink are present on the refuge, but 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

are less frequently observed. No regular surveys are conducted for the above-mentioned groups of 

mammals. Smaller, yet more numerous, are squirrels, voles, mice, and shrews. Bats are also known 

to use refuge lands, but no surveys have been conducted to determine species present. From 2003 to 

2005, a small mammal survey was conducted, which identified 14 species on one parcel. By far the 

most numerous species in this study was deer mouse. 

Photo 4-10. Black-tailed deer at Atfálat’i Unit. Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

4.4.7 Fish 

Numerous fish species have been noted using the waters in and adjacent to refuge lands. The refuge 

has conducted fish trapping in refuge wetlands following river flood events to determine if salmonids 

were entering wetlands from the river and subsequently escaping as water levels receded. No 

salmonid species were detected during any surveys. Several species of both native and nonnative fish 

were detected during these surveys. Native species included western brook lamprey, three-spined 

stickleback, and sculpin. Nonnative species included carp, mosquito fish, and bluegill. From 1999 to 

2001, ODFW conducted fish surveys in the Tualatin River Basin (Leader 2001) and recorded 16 

species of fish from seven families. The survey noted that only 0.16 percent of the total sample were 

nonnative fish. 

Upper Willamette River steelhead and Chinook salmon were both listed as threatened species in 

March 1999 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2011d, 2011f), and critical 

habitat was designated in 2005 (Federal Register 2005) in the upper Tualatin River Basin (roughly 

defined as the Tualatin River and its tributaries upstream of Highway 219 near Hillsboro), excluding 

Rock Creek. Leader (2001) identified both rainbow trout (genetically identical to steelhead) and 

Chinook salmon in the Tualatin River system. Coho salmon, while not native to the Tualatin River 

system, were introduced and are now a self-sustaining population in the basin. 

Nonnative fish such as carp, bass, catfish, and sunfishes are disruptive to and can outcompete native 

species. Carp uproot and consume submergent vegetation important to native species and cause 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

turbidity, thus inhibiting further growth of vegetation. Bass, catfish, and sunfishes directly consume 

native species, such as red-legged frogs, and also indirectly affect native species by consuming food 

such as invertebrates that native species forage upon. 

Native fish species such as lampreys, sculpin, and three-spined sticklebacks have also been recorded 

in refuge waters and are an important part of the aquatic community. The presence of lampreys is a 

good indicator of water quality as they will not persist in poor-quality habitats. Three-spined 

sticklebacks, which were numerous in our sampling, may be beneficial in removing mosquito larvae 

from slow-moving waterways (Sharp 2000). 

4.4.8 Reptiles 

Reptiles observed on the refuge include northwestern, painted, and nonnative red slider turtles, and 

various varieties of garter snakes. Other species that are likely present, but have not been 

documented, are alligator lizards and rubber boa. Nonnative snapping turtles have been documented 

in the Tualatin River but have not been observed by refuge staff or volunteers. Turtles are commonly 

observed basking on logs in the river or on herbaceous wetlands. Garter snakes are observed in most 

open habitat types throughout spring and summer. No surveys for reptiles are currently being 

conducted. 

Photo 4-11. Garter snake. © Ed Bustya

4.4.9 Amphibians 

Many species of amphibians have been documented on the refuge including chorus frogs, red-legged 

frogs, and nonnative bullfrogs; long-toed and northwestern salamanders; and rough-skinned newts. 

These species breed in refuge wetlands and use adjacent uplands for part of their life cycles. Surveys 

for amphibian egg masses were conducted in late winter and spring during 2010 and 2011 on several 

refuge wetlands. Results showed red-legged frogs, chorus frogs, and long-toed salamanders were 

breeding in refuge wetlands. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

One goal of the Refuge System is “to conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of 

fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.” In the policy 

clarifying the mission of the Refuge System, it is stated, “We protect and manage candidate and 

proposed species to enhance their status and help preclude the need for listing.” In accordance with 

this policy, the CCP planning team considered species with Federal or state status, and other specialstatus species, in the planning process. 

Currently there is one plant species (Nelson’s checker-mallow) that is federally listed as threatened, 

and two fish species (upper Willamette River run Chinook, and upper Willamette River run 

steelhead) that are federally threatened and occur or could occur on the refuge. These three species 

are also state-listed as threatened. Meadow checker-mallow is a state-listed candidate plant species 

that occurs on several areas of the refuge. Bald eagles are listed as a state-threatened species, 

although they have been removed from the federally threatened list. Birds considered species of 

concern that have been observed on the refuge are olive-sided flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, acorn 

woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, and band-tailed pigeon. Reptiles and amphibians considered 

species of concern include northwestern pond turtle and northern red-legged frog. Fish species 

considered species of concern that may occur in refuge waters are Pacific lamprey and coastal 

cutthroat trout. 

Photo 4-12. Nelson’s checker-mallow. Jeff Dillon/USFWS. 

In February 2008, Nelson’s checker-mallow was planted in seven plots on three of the Sherwood 

Units: Atfálat’i, Tualatin River, and Riverboat. Nelson’s checker-mallow was known to occur on one 

parcel of the Atfálat’i Unit prior to this planting effort. In 2010, additional plants were added to the 

plots on the Atfálat’i and Riverboat Units. The plants have experienced good survival since 

installation and will continue to be monitored. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species 

Refuge personnel expend considerable resources in terms of funding and staff and volunteer time 

managing invasive and nuisance species each year to provide quality habitat for native species. 

Management of invasive and nonnative species follows the practices set forth and described in the 

IPM Plan in Appendix G. This plan describes priorities for response by the refuge and the various 

methods used to manage these species. The refuge has and will continue to follow the practice of 

“Early Detection and Rapid Response” (EDRR). Preventing the introduction of invasive species is 

the first line of defense in the battle against new invasions. However, it is inevitable that new 

introductions will occur. The next best line of defense is to manage these invasions through EDRR. 

EDRR is the principle of targeting noxious weed infestations when they first arrive in a given area, 

while their populations are small and localized. This effort greatly increases the likelihood that new 

invasions are addressed immediately, before the species can become established and widespread. 

Table 4-2 lists the target nonnative and invasive species for the refuge; however, this list is not 

comprehensive. Plant species are by far the most problematic, but nonnative fish and wildlife species 

also have important direct and indirect impacts to native habitat types, native fish and wildlife, and 

refuge infrastructure. 

Table 4-2. Common and Scientific Names of Target Nonnative Invasive Species on Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name State Noxious Weed* 

Plant Species 

Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon 

Bull thistle Circium vulgare B 

Canada thistle Circium arvense B 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium B 

Cutleaf teasel Dipsacus fullonum B 

English holly Ilex aquifolium 

English ivy Hedera helix B 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis B 

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor B 

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum B 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum B 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B 

Red hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius B 

Tansy Tanacetum vulgare 

Velvet grass Holcus lanatus 

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti B 

Wildlife Species 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Nutria Myocastor coypus 

Feral cat Felis catus 

Red-eared slider (turtle) Trachemys scripta elegans 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

Table 4-2. Common and Scientific Names of Target Nonnative Invasive Species on Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name State Noxious Weed* 

House sparrow Passer domesticus

Fish Species 

Bass Micropterus sp.

Catfish Ictalurus sp.

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis 

Sunfish Family Centrarchidae 

*State B-listed plants are those defined as “a weed of economic importance which is regionally 

abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties” (ODA 2012). 

There are species such as reed canarygrass listed in Table 4-2 that are not on the state’s list of 

noxious weeds but are very problematic for the refuge because of their aggressive nature, difficulty 

of control, and abundant distribution. This list is not presented in priority order, and some plant 

species may be treated more aggressively in one season than another depending on staff availability, 

extent of distribution, or threat presented to native wildlife or habitats. The invasive plant species 

listed above often form a monoculture and compete with native plants. Many species of native 

wildlife have evolved with native plants and either cannot use nonnative plants or have reduced 

benefits from them. Many plants such as Himalayan blackberry form very dense thickets that may 

actually hinder wildlife movement. Reed canarygrass invades wetlands, forming dense monocultures 

and preventing beneficial native plants from growing. Both purple loosestrife and Japanese knotweed 

have been found on the refuge and have been vigorously removed before they could become 

established. Invasive tree species such as English holly and red hawthorn crowd out native species 

and spread prolifically by means of thousands of seeds annually per tree. These trees are removed as 

time allows in established habitat types and are vigorously controlled in new restoration areas. 

Invasive wildlife regularly observed on the refuge include nutria and bullfrogs. Nutria, a native of 

South America, were introduced for fur farming and escaped or were released as fur prices dropped. 

They are well established in our area, and eradication efforts would only be successful if adopted on 

a regional basis. Climate change may contribute to their spread if winter climate becomes more 

favorable for breeding and survival. Nutria directly affect wetland and adjacent habitat types by 

foraging on native plants, and they also affect native wildlife such as muskrats by direct competition 

and displacement. They affect refuge infrastructure such as levees and water control structures by 

burrowing into levees, causing leakage through the levees and/or causing cave-ins of dens presenting 

safety hazards to vehicles traveling on levees; they also burrow along the side of culverts, causing a 

“piping” effect whereby water leaking along the outside of the pipe erodes the earthen material and 

causes a washout of the pipe. Lethal means such as shooting and trapping, wherever feasible, are 

used to attempt control of nutria. 

Bullfrogs, which are native to the southeastern United States, eat native frogs and many other 

wildlife species such as ducklings. Bullfrogs thrive in wetlands that retain water year-round and can 

be at least partially controlled by completely drawing down wetlands during summer. The refuge 

contains managed wetlands that cannot be completely drawn down due to either incorrectly situated 

water control structures or incorrectly contoured basins that do not allow for complete drainage. 

European starlings are cavity nesters and displace and sometimes kill native cavity nesters such as 

Western bluebirds, American kestrels, and white-breasted nuthatches. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4-13. Nonnative nutria. Peter Schmidt/USFWS. 

The Tualatin River watershed contains many species of nonnative fish. These species were either 

brought in for sport fishing, as commercial species, or were accidentally introduced. Nonnative fish 

displace and compete directly with native species by preying on native species, and/or disrupting 

native plant growth. Sunfish may eat larval amphibians and native fish, carp eat submergent 

vegetation important to wildlife species and cause turbidity, which further reduces plant growth, and 

bass eat native fish and wildlife species. Completely drawing down wetlands in summer may help 

reduce these species on a site-specific basis, but they likely will not be eradicated in the watershed as 

a whole. As mentioned above in the discussion on bullfrogs, drawing down the wetlands completely 

would help reduce nonnative fish on a localized basis but is not a likely scenario. Screening water 

diversions from creeks and the river would help reduce the presence of nonnative as well as native 

fish in wetland areas. 

Nuisance species on the refuge may include such native animals as beavers, elk, Canada geese, and 

others, depending on circumstances. Beavers are native and are encouraged in most areas. However, 

they can become problematic by plugging up water control structures on a daily basis or cutting 

down trees in restoration areas. Sometimes it is necessary to control beavers using lethal means. 

Relocation is seldom successful as most suitable beaver habitat is already occupied and problem 

beavers are likely to return to their original capture site. Elk have not been a problem on the refuge to 

date, but with acquisition and restoration of large tracts of land in the Wapato Lake Unit this may be 

an issue in the future. ODFW considers the Willamette Valley an “elk de-emphasis zone” to prevent 

conflicts with agricultural interests. A population of elk residing on refuge lands and foraging on 

neighboring agricultural lands would cause conflict with neighboring landowners. In addition, elk 

crossing Highway 47 or Springhill Road to and from refuge property would create a safety hazard to 

vehicles. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring 

There are several regular inventory and monitoring surveys, and occasional research studies, 

conducted on the refuge. Table 4-3 lists the regular surveys that are conducted almost every year to 

determine habitat conditions, restoration/enhancement response to management activities, and 

wildlife response and population trends. In addition, research is conducted by refuge staff or outside 

organizations such as universities and USGS to help inform management decisions. 

Table 4-3. Regular Surveys Conducted on Refuge Lands and Their Usual Timetables 

Habitat Type or Guild Survey Type Timetable 

American kestrel Nest box Spring/early summer 

Amphibians Egg mass Late winter/spring 

Western bluebird Nest box Spring/summer 

Fish Trapping/identification Winter/flooding 

Marsh birds Recorded call-back April-June 

Nelson’s checker-mallow Inventory June-July 

Shorebirds Instantaneous scan April-September 

Songbirds Point count April-June 

Songbirds Monitoring Avian 

Production and Survivorship 

mist netting 

May-August 

Tree and shrub Fixed plots: survival and 

growth 

Summer/early fall 

Wading birds Instantaneous scan Year-round 

Waterfowl Instantaneous scan September-February 

Wetlands Transects: plant 

species/density 

Summer/early fall 

In addition to surveys listed in Table 4-3, other surveys are conducted periodically by refuge staff 

and others: 

 Mosquito larvae surveys were conducted during summer for several seasons and revealed 

very low numbers of larvae in refuge wetlands. 

 A feasibility study was conducted in 2004 to determine if boxes for cavity nesting waterfowl 

would be beneficial. The study revealed adequate natural cavities existed on the refuge and 

brood water was limited. 

 A survey for freshwater mussels was conducted in 2009 and revealed the presence of native 

western pearlshell mussels in Chicken Creek. 

 USGS conducted a survey for nonnative crayfish and found none in waters in and adjacent 

to the refuge. 

 University researchers conducted a study over a three-year period to inventory small 

mammals and determine prevalence of hanta virus. 

 Extensive surveys have been conducted by qualified volunteers to identify, collect, and 

catalog plant species throughout the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

 Refuge staff and volunteers have undertaken a project to map invasive plant species 

throughout the refuge using global positioning system (GPS)/geographic information system 

(GIS). 

 In 2011 the refuge began a collaborative study with USGS and other partners to obtain a 

detailed topographic survey and water quantity/quality study at the Wapato Lake Unit to 

guide future restoration efforts. 
Chapter 5

HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

Chapter 5

Human Environment

USFWS

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5 Human Environment 

5.1 Cultural Resources 

Archaeological and other cultural resources are important components of our nation’s heritage. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service; USFWS) is committed to protecting valuable evidence of 

plant, animal, and human interactions with each other and the landscape over time. An example of an 

interaction would be the importance of specific plants to Kalapuya Indians, or the use of fire to burn 

open spaces that then provided habitat for elk and deer. These interactions may include previously 

recorded or yet undocumented historic, cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources as 

well as traditional cultural properties and the historic built environment. Protection of cultural 

resources is legally mandated under numerous Federal laws and regulations. Foremost among these 

are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, the Antiquities Act, the Historic 

Sites Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) as amended, and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The Service’s Native American 

Policy of 1994 articulates the general principles guiding the Service’s relationships with Tribal 

governments in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources (USFWS 1994). Additionally, the 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) seeks to maintain a working relationship and 

consult on a regular basis with the Tribes that are or were traditionally tied to lands and waters within 

the refuge. 

Since cultural resources encompass many elements and time periods, the following simple temporal 

divisions were used to distinguish and categorize this brief review of the following resources. 

 Pre-recorded history 

 Pre-contact Native American traditions 

 Post-contact traditions (Native American, Early British, and United States) 

 Recent U.S. settlement and economic development period 

 Historic and prehistoric sites on the refuge 

Cultural resources can be of significant cultural, scientific, and educational importance. It is essential 

that the Service look beyond compliance with cultural resource laws to ensure protection of these 

nonrenewable resources. Of critical importance is the development of close working relationships 

with those that express affinity with the refuge’s cultural resources, such as Native Americans, 

historians, and educators. 

There are seven recorded prehistoric sites and six recorded historic sites within the refuge 

boundaries. Other historic sites and features may exist on the refuge that have not been recorded. 

Several prehistoric and historic sites and/or features have been recorded within 1 mile of the refuge. 

Two of the historic sites within refuge boundaries have been evaluated and determined ineligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One site has been determined eligible to the NRHP. 

It is highly probable that additional archaeological sites will be exposed by human actions or natural 

causes in future. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Resources 

5.1.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Setting of the Refuge Region 

The meandering Tualatin River and its banks are home to native fish, beaver, deer, raptors, 

songbirds, and plants, all of which are disappearing as their habitats are lost to urban development. 

Yet these resources were abundant when the Atfálat’i (At-fahl-a-ti) Tribe of Kalapuya Indians lived, 

hunted, and gathered food on the Tualatin River floodplain. 

Archaeological research on the refuge has revealed a history of humans hunting and gathering that 

dates back over 2,000 years. Camas, tarweed, and wapato were some of the most important plant 

foods. Long before the Wapato Lake Unit of the refuge was turned into an irrigated agricultural area 

by settlers in the late nineteenth century, it was an important place where all the villages of Atfálat’i 

Kalapuya gathered in autumn to harvest wapato. The Kalapuya routinely burned the valley floor for a 

variety of benefits: to increase grazing for game animals such as elk and deer, to maintain and spread 

camas habitat, to increase production of acorns, and to prepare for tarweed harvest, to name a few. 

As Zenk (1976:358) reported: 

... each Tualatin winter-village group had its own tarweed-producing area within which 

individuals (at least, we would presume, wealthy individuals) owned their own sub-plots. 

These areas were set on fire about August. Women then went out with rawhide buckets and 

paddles; the seeds were beaten from the plants into the buckets. It is stated that each “lot” 

(individually owned plot) might produce 10-20 bushels of seeds. 

Understanding these past land uses by the valley’s original inhabitants offers critical lessons and has 

important ramifications regarding habitat restoration and management decisions on the refuge today. 

What food or tools they could not obtain along the river and its environs, the Kalapuyans obtained 

via trade with their neighbors. Obsidian, a volcanic rock used to make arrow points, has been found 

from as far away as the east side of the Cascades. Historical accounts (Zenk 1976) suggest that the 

Tualatin River Valley, including the area of the refuge, supported at least 20 native winter villages. 

Wapato Lake was a major habitation location for the Tualatin Indians, also known as the Wapato 

Lake Indians, one of approximately 13 groups of Kalapuya people. The territory of the Kalapuyans 

extended throughout most of the Willamette River Valley as far south as the Umpqua River. Named 

for the wapato plant that grew in and was harvested from it, Wapato Lake served as a seasonal 

community gathering place for the bands of Kalapuyans. 

The first recorded contact between Euro-Americans and the Kalapuyans occurred in 1812, when the 

Kalapuyan population may have been as great as 10,000 people. From 1812 to the 1840s, 

Kalapuyans had many contacts with fur traders. Though it occurred even before recorded contact, the 

smallpox epidemic of 1782-1783 and the later malaria epidemic of the 1830s had dramatic impacts 

on the Kalapuyan population, and on other native groups. Other new illnesses soon followed. By the 

1850s there were few Atfálat’i left to claim their traditional lands, and the survivors were ultimately 

removed to the Grand Ronde Reservation. 

Euro-American settlers began arriving in the 1840s, displacing the native population and turning the 

fertile Tualatin River bottomlands to agricultural purposes. Land clearing and the construction of 

farming infrastructure such as dikes and ditches drained Wapato Lake and changed the landscape 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3 

from one of riparian forest to agricultural fields. Towns grew up around the homes of the earliest 

settlers, intensified by the development of a Portland-to-Corvallis railroad that begun in the late 

1860s. Many towns bear the names of their founders or influential early landowners (e.g., Gaston, 

Seghers, Dilley). 

Photo 5-1. For thousands of years, the Kalapuya people called Willamette Valley 

their home. Smithsonian Library (Wilkes 1845:223). 

5.1.1.2 Known Prehistoric Sites 

There are seven prehistoric archaeological sites recorded on the refuge. These sites are located 

throughout the refuge on both the Sherwood (three sites) and Wapato Lake (four sites) Units. In 

addition to the prehistoric sites, there is also a collection of artifacts donated to Portland State 

University by a private landowner. These artifacts came from property within and immediately 

adjacent to the refuge. Currently, the status and location of the collection is unknown. Table 5-1 

summarizes the sites and surveys. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5-1. Prehistoric Resources within Refuge Boundaries 

Site# Unit Date 

Recorded

Site Type Materials NRHP 

Eligibility 

Notes 

35WN17 Wapato Lake 1977 Recorded 

based on 

informants’ 

descriptions

Potentially 

eligible 

State 

Historic 

Preservation 

Office 

(SHPO) 

report 

11951 

(testing) 

35WN19 Wapato Lake 1977 Recorded 

based on 

informants’ 

descriptions

Potentially 

eligible 

SHPO 

report 9734 

(survey) 

35WN29 Wapato Lake 1982 Lithic scatter Pestle, 

projectile 

points, firecracked 

rocks 

(FCR), 

charcoal 

Potentially 

eligible 

35WN30 Wapato Lake 1982 Lithic scatter Obsidian 

flake, FCR, 

basalt 

debitage 

Potentially 

eligible 

34WN43 Atfálat’i 1997 Lithic 

scatter/FCR/artifact 

concentration 

Period III 

(40000 BC250 BC) 

and Period 

IV (250 BCAD 1700) 

Eligible Tested 

34WN44 Atfálat’i 1997 Lithic 

scatter/FCR/artifact 

concentration 

 Potentially 

eligible 

35WN46 Atfálat’i 2001 Lithic scatter Eligible Tested 

5.1.2 Historic Resources 

5.1.2.1 Known Historic Sites 

Parcels acquired within the approved boundaries of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

often come with standing structures associated with the area’s agricultural history. After being 

acquired, several of these historic farm complexes and/or residential structures have been 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5 

documented and evaluated by the Service’s Cultural Resources Branch (Table 5-2). Upon evaluation 

and determination of noneligibility to the NRHP, the subject buildings may be slated for removal 

through demolition and salvage if they pose a risk to humans or wildlife. In one case, a historic 

structure was determined eligible, and the necessary documentary steps were taken to mitigate its 

removal in compliance with the NHPA. 

Photo 5-2. Onion barns are part of the historic structure of the refuge. Nick 

Valentine/USFWS. 

Table 5-2. Historic Resources within Refuge Boundaries 

Site Name Site Type/Features/ 

Materials/Notes 

Condition 

(integrity) 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Cranfield Homestead Estimated located as per 1852 

General Land Office (GLO) map 

(GLO 1952) 

Some 

brick/ceramic/glass 

observed 

N/A 

McKinney Field Estimated located as per 1852 

GLO map 

No existing 

evidence 

N/A 

White-Ditmman 

Onion Barn 

Onion barn reflecting 

agricultural function. A 

memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) was prepared to 

document it before demolition 

Demolished Eligible 

Naujock House Built in 1891 by emigrants from 

Germany who arrived in the area 

in 1876. Replaced earlier log 

house 

In use, modified Not eligible 

Naujock Barn and Gambrel roof barn, built in Not in use Not eligible 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5-2. Historic Resources within Refuge Boundaries 

Site Name Site Type/Features/ 

Materials/Notes 

Condition 

(integrity) 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Granary 1930s along with brick building 

(granary and potato cellar). 

SHPO recommended retaining 

or if necessary, salvaging site 

Cereghino Farm 

Complex 

Onion drying barn, house, and 

outbuildings associated with 

onion farm complex. House is 

used for office space and other 

buildings are used for storage or 

are vacant 

 Not evaluated 

5.2 Refuge Facilities 

There are numerous refuge facilities that require upkeep and maintenance, which are performed by 

one maintenance employee and volunteers, as available. These facilities serve both the visitor 

services and biological programs, and range from boundary fencing to residences to public use 

facilities. In addition, there are structures that serve as offices for other Service programs, such as the 

Office of Law Enforcement and the Cultural Resources Office. 

5.2.1 Boundary Fences and Markers 

There are approximately 8.4 miles of boundary fence around various tracts of the refuge. The 

majority of the fencing is around tracts on the Riverboat Unit. 

5.2.2 Entrance and Access Points 

The primary public entrance to the refuge, opened in 2006, is from Oregon State Highway 99W, 

between Sherwood and King City. This entrance is allowed through a permit issued by the Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) and was constructed according to ODOT specifications, 

which do not include a deceleration lane from the highway to the refuge or an acceleration lane from 

the refuge to the highway. This has caused some safety concerns for visitors. Four state highway 

recreation signs direct visitors into the refuge. A secondary public entrance off of Washington 

County’s Roy Rogers Road provides access to the west side of the Atfálat’i Unit and the Wayside 

Overlook (see Figure 5-1 and Appendix P, Map 11). There are no other public access points to the 

refuge. The refuge has provided input to a number of regional trail planning projects that have the 

potential of connecting to refuge access points. These include Tonquin Trail planning by Metro, a tricounty regional government that serves Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties; Cedar 

Creek Trail planning by the City of Sherwood; and West Bull Mountain Concept Plan by 

Washington County. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7 

Figure 5-1. Public use facilities and regulations. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.2.3 Administrative Facilities 

Administrative facilities are located on the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. The 4,058-square-foot refuge 

headquarters, completed in 2007, includes staff offices and other work area amenities consisting of a 

documents work area, conference room, reception area, and space for volunteers. New facilities, 

including the refuge headquarters, Wildlife Center, environmental education shelter, fee collection 

booth, and parking lots have all been designed and constructed to meet sustainable design standards 

of the silver level of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). There is a fire 

suppression pump and a water storage building that serves the public use facilities and refuge 

headquarters. 

There are other refuge buildings being used by Service Regional Office employees as offices. These 

include the Cultural Resources Office located at the Onion Flats Unit and the Office of Law 

Enforcement, located on the Tualatin River Unit. 

The shop area on the Tualatin River Unit contains shop facilities that include a 3,750-square-foot 

shop containing the maintenance office, vehicle/equipment repair bays, and tool storage. There are 

another six buildings located at the shop area that support refuge maintenance functions. These 

include three pole barns used for equipment storage, a hazardous materials storage building, a 

wooden lean-to for equipment implement storage, and a storage shed for environmental education 

materials. 

The refuge has numerous barns, outbuildings, and homes (houses and mobile homes) that came with 

the land when property was acquired. Many of these buildings are in poor condition and need to 

either be demolished or undergo a complete overhaul to be functional. There are seventeen barns and 

outbuildings scattered throughout the Sherwood Units and four at the Wapato Lake Unit. Along with 

the barns and outbuildings, there are two houses and one manufactured trailers on the Sherwood 

Units, and two homes and one manufactured trailer at the Wapato Lake Unit. Altogether, there are 31 

buildings on the refuge. 

5.2.4 Roads, Trails, and Parking Areas 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge opened its Atfálat’i Unit to the public in 2006 after two 

years of construction that provided safe access from adjacent highways and a variety of outdoor 

wildlife recreation and education features. Roads and parking features include: a 0.3-mile 

headquarters entrance road and bus turnaround with parking for 60 cars plus three buses/recreational 

vehicles (RVs); a 0.1-mile wayside entrance road with parking for six cars and one RV; and five 

bicycle racks. In the fall of 2010, both entry roads and parking lots were upgraded from gravel to a 

combination of pervious paver parking stalls and asphalted driving lanes—all stormwater flows into 

a bioswale in the center of the parking areas. The bioswale is designed to both slow the rate of 

stormwater runoff and provide natural filtration and water quality treatment. 

Trail features include: a 1.1-mile year-round trail; a 0.2-mile photography blind spur trail; two foot 

bridges; a 3.1-mile seasonal trail, which is part of a gravel refuge road used by staff; a plaza 

overlook; a bioswale overlook; a wetland observation deck; a wayside overlook; a river overlook; a 

wildlife photography blind; and five environmental education study sites. All trail features were 

opened with the refuge in 2006, except for the bioswale overlook, which was completed in 2011. 

Numerous informational, regulatory, and directional signs are located throughout the refuge’s public 

use areas. The refuge is open daily from dawn to dusk. To provide these high-quality facilities and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9 

maintain compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, dense riparian vegetation plantings were planted 

in 2004 and 2005 along the planned trail corridor. These screens now provide “natural blinds” where 

visitors can observe wildlife while minimizing disturbance to the wildlife they are enjoying. 

There are roads and parking areas that are not open to the public and serve solely administrative 

functions. Parking lots for the various residences and other structures include tracts on the Riverboat 

Unit (Harmon and Naujock tracts), Onion Flats Unit (Cereghino tract), Riverboat Unit (Dennis tract), 

and Wapato Lake Unit (Losey and Beecher tracts) and total 64,826 square feet of gravel and asphalt 

lots. Administrative roads throughout the refuge total 11.5 miles and are used to access areas for 

habitat management and maintenance. These roads are mostly gravel and require regular 

maintenance and upkeep. There is also a concrete road bridge that crosses Chicken Creek on the 

Atfálat’i Unit. 

Photo 5-3. Wetland observation deck. USFWS. 

5.2.5 Visitor Facilities 

Outdoor facilities are complemented by a state-of-the-art, sustainably built Wildlife Center, which 

opened in 2008. The Wildlife Center encompasses 6,316 square feet, and includes an exhibit room, 

environmental education field laboratory, information desk, a Friends of the Refuge nature store, an 

indoor viewing area, and a multipurpose room. The center is currently open Tuesday through Sunday 

year-round. The center is typically closed on major holidays and for one to two weeks spanning the 

New Year holiday. Friends of the Refuge help staff the daily operation of the center by recruiting and 

training volunteers. The environmental education shelter, designed primarily to provide cover and 

education space for students visiting the refuge, was completed in the fall of 2010. The shelter can 

accommodate up to 65 students at a time. Approximately 25 percent of refuge visitors and students 

visit the Wildlife Center and/or environmental education shelter annually. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-10 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Photo 5-4. Wildlife Center. Kim Strassburg/USFWS. 

5.2.6 Easements and Agreements 

There is an intergovernmental agreement in place between the Service and Metro that has established 

a framework for the refuge to manage a portion of a property owned by Metro known as the Morand 

tract. The property is approximately 50 acres in size, and the Service is performing restoration of a 

mixture of bottomland riparian forest, herbaceous wetland, and wet prairie habitats. Additionally, the 

Service is responsible for all funding, restoration, management, operations, and maintenance of the 

property. This agreement is for 10 years, with the option to extend upon agreement by both parties. 

In 1992, the Service purchased a voluntary conservation easement on what is now the Wapato Lake 

Unit to manage the land for the purpose of habitat restoration. In agreement with the landowner, the 

refuge has the right to establish or reestablish habitat through various management tools. The 

purposes of this easement are the preservation and maintenance of wetland and floodplain areas as 

well as protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and populations. Easements are a 

cost-effective method of conservation, allowing us to work with landowners to protect the habitat on 

their land. 

There are also several access easements that allow staff to access refuge property via private 

property. These are located at the Onion Flats, Riverboat, and Wapato Lake Units. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-11 

Photo 5-5. Water control structure. USFWS. 

5.2.7 Dikes, Irrigation, Water Control Structures, and Pump Houses 

The refuge manages herbaceous wetlands on several units. To manage these wetlands, the refuge 

manipulates water levels using a system of dikes, levees, water control structures, and pump houses. 

For the Steinborn tract on the Atfálat’i Unit, the main source of water is Chicken Creek, which was 

channelized to facilitate farming and is diverted to an irrigation canal to allow further diversion into 

specific wetland impoundments. At the point where Chicken Creek enters the refuge, there are fish 

ladders that were installed to facilitate fish movement past the diversion structure from the river to 

headwaters. There is also a fish screen in place to prevent fish from moving into the irrigation canal. 

To move the water through the five impoundments totaling 234 acres, a system of 15 water control 

structures and 2.23 miles of levees and dikes are used. There is a dilapidated pump that was used 

prior to refuge acquisition for farming and irrigation purposes. The refuge does not use the pump for 

its habitat management purposes. 

The other tract on the Atfálat’i Unit that has managed wetlands is the Morand tract, which is 

managed by the Service under a cooperative agreement with Metro, as described in Section 5.2.6. 

This unit has one herbaceous wetland of 6 acres that is managed by one water control structure, and 

receives water only from rainfall. 

On the Tualatin River Unit, there are five wetland impoundments totaling 35 acres on the Dennis 

tract. Four of these are seasonal and rely on rainfall as their source of water. The main impoundment 

is also seasonal and is fed primarily by rainfall supplemented by a pump that uses water from the 

Tualatin River. The system for this unit contains one water control structure, the aforementioned 

pump, and 0.40 mile of levees and dikes. 

On the Riverboat Unit, 48 acres make up four wetland impoundments that are managed by a system 

of two water control structures, three low-capacity wells, and 0.10 mile of levees and dikes. All four 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

wetlands received their water primarily from rainfall; however, the main wetland unit can also get 

limited water pumped from the wells. 

There is a concrete pumphouse located on the Onion Flats Unit that was historically used for 

irrigation purposes prior to refuge acquisition. This pumphouse has fallen into disrepair and is not 

used by the refuge for habitat management purposes. 

5.3 Public Use Overview 

5.3.1 Public Use Program History 

One of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge’s current management priorities is to “provide high 

quality opportunities for wildlands and wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education to 

enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, habitats, 

and cultural resources, with emphasis towards urban residents” (USFWS 2003a). This stems from the 

refuge’s establishment under the guidelines of the Service’s Urban Refuge Policy (341 FW 1) (Smith 

1991), which strives to connect large populations of people to the concept of national wildlife 

refuges. In addition, the communities surrounding the refuge have expressed a desire for the refuge to 

provide a natural legacy where future generations can enjoy and learn about the outdoors. This 

foundation has led to a robust public use program at the refuge. The overarching goals of the visitor 

services program closely mirror national efforts to implement one of the six highest priorities of the 

Service, namely “Connecting People with Nature—Ensuring the Future of Conservation” (USFWS 

2008b). 

5.3.1.1 Visitor Experience 

The protection of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the refuge provides the public with highquality wildlife-oriented recreation, education, and interpretation opportunities. Visitors of all ages 

can experience the beauty of the Tualatin River Valley, view abundant wildlife, and discover how 

this urban national wildlife refuge represents the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

The Wildlife Center serves as a springboard by introducing the public to the refuge and its purposes, 

helping visitors hone their wildlife observation skills, and encouraging visitors to get outside and 

experience first-hand the wildlife wonders of the refuge. Throughout their visit, whether walking on 

trails, participating in an education program, or enjoying exhibits, visitors are reminded that they play 

a role in the health and future of the refuge, the watershed, the Refuge System, and ultimately of fish 

and wildlife conservation. 

5.3.2 Open and Closed Areas 

The Atfálat’i Unit is open year-round during daylight hours for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education. Access within this unit is limited to defined public use areas. Most of the use originates 

from the headquarters parking area and Wildlife Center, and is concentrated along the year-round 

trail and its associated features (see Figure 5-1 and Appendix P, Map 11). The spur trail to the 

wildlife photography blind is open year-round by registration only. From May 1 through September 

30, visitors are permitted to walk on 3.1 miles of service roads. From October 1 through April 30, 

these service roads are closed to all public entry to provide sanctuary for wildlife. 

All other areas of the refuge are closed to public use. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-13 

5.3.3 Annual Visitation 

Demand for interpretive and educational programs has soared, and visitation has been increasing 

steadily since the refuge opened to the public in 2006. Current visitation is approximately 100,000 

people per year, 4,000 of whom participate in formal, curriculum-based education programs 

(USFWS 2010a). Since the Wildlife Center opened in 2008, it has received as many as 25,000 annual 

visitors. Projections indicate that refuge public facilities could serve an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 

visitors annually (USFWS 2003b). 

5.3.4 Entrance and User Fees 

In 2009, the refuge received official approval to establish an entrance fee program, but it has not 

implemented one to date (USFWS 2009a). Implementation of a fee program remains as a possibility 

in the future and has been described in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, “Features Common to All 

Alternatives.” 

A fee booth was constructed in 2008, but is currently unused. If a fee program is implemented, each 

of the three trailhead kiosks currently include a fee canister and a sign explaining a potential future 

fee program. 

5.3.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs to Disabled Persons 

Except as noted below, all refuge public use facilities are accessible to disabled visitors and conform 

to standards set forth in the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S. Code 4151 et seq.). 

The exceptions are: 

 The 200-yard spur trail to the Ridgetop Overlook reaches a maximum grade of 20 percent, 

but is designed to be wheelchair-accessible in all other respects. 

 The 3.1 miles of service roads open to seasonal public use consist of uneven gravel surfaces. 

5.3.6 Volunteers

The refuge has a robust volunteer program that is essential to maintaining current refuge operations. 

With the exception of law enforcement, personnel management, contracting, and select other 

functions prohibited by law, volunteers are involved in almost all aspects of the refuge’s visitor 

services and habitat and wildlife programs. In fiscal year 2010, volunteers donated over 15,000 hours 

of support to the refuge (USFWS 2010a). This equals more than seven full-time personnel and is 

valued at more than $327,000 (national volunteer value = $21.79/hour [Independent Sector 2011]). 

Over 75 percent of the hours contributed were in support of wildlife-dependent public uses. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Photos 5-6 and 5-7. Volunteers assist with many aspects of refuge operations. 

USFWS. 

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses

5.4.1 Hunting 

Currently, hunting is not offered on the refuge. 

5.4.2 Fishing 

Currently, fishing is not offered on the refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-15 

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The refuge provides a variety of facilities and programs that support high-quality wildlife observation 

and photography. Both the year-round and seasonal trails offer overlooks and observation points. For 

a complete description of trail lengths and features, refer to Section 5.2.4, “Roads, Trails, and 

Parking Areas.” Nearly 70,000 pedestrians used the trails in fiscal year 2010. In addition, the refuge 

is a stop along the Willamette Valley Birding Trail and has been designated by the Audubon Society 

as an Important Bird Area. 

The wildlife photography blind can be reserved at no charge on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and 

Sundays. The blind can accommodate two photographers at a time. Wildlife observation supporting 

materials are available to visitors, and include a spotting scope (indoor viewing area), Discovery 

Packs (loaner field guides and binoculars at no charge), wildlife sightings register, and refuge 

Watchable Wildlife checklist. In addition, numerous interpretive signs along the trail and within the 

Wildlife Center are designed to help visitors develop wildlife observation skills and learn about the 

specific wildlife and habitats of the refuge. The Wildlife Center also includes a gallery hall with a 

picture hanging system that primarily highlights refuge wildlife and nature photographs from 

photography contests, calendar entries, and student projects. Nearly 1,800 people participated in 

wildlife photography activities in fiscal year 2010. 

Programs offered for wildlife observation and photography activities include partner-led bird walks, 

Friends of the Refuge’s Tualatin River Photographic Society (workshops, trainings, monthly 

meetings, and nature photography contests), plant walks led by a volunteer botanist, and others as 

staff/volunteers are available. Additionally, Volunteer Trail Rovers welcome, meet, and interact with 

visitors along the trail, report wildlife sightings and visitor contacts, and help ensure visitor 

compliance with refuge rules. 

Photo 5-8. Sunset wildlife watcher. Kim Strassburg/USFWS. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-16 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.4.4 Environmental Education 

The refuge, in coordination with local educators, has developed a robust curriculum-based 

environmental education program that is blossoming into a metropolitan resource for teachers, 

students, youth group leaders, and families. The environmental education program is a key focus of 

refuge public use activities. 

In 2005, the refuge and Friends of the Refuge partnered with a team of elementary and middle school 

teachers to develop and implement an environmental education program that would be in place by 

2006, when the refuge was to open to the public. The result was a written curriculum called Rhythms 

of the Refuge: Open Your Eyes to Wildlife. This curriculum includes a field trip guide and pre-visit, 

on-site, and post-visit lessons for kindergarten through eighth-grade students. The refuge also 

supports the use of and offers workshops for national curricula such as Project Wild; Project Flying 

Wild; Project Learning Tree; Growing Up Wild; Project Aquatic Wild; and 4H Wildlife Stewards. 

Modeled after other national wildlife refuge programs, the curriculum is paired with required teacher 

workshops that prepare educators to bring their students to the refuge, relying on teachers to lead 

field trips and refuge volunteer naturalists to assist and accompany class visits. The day-to-day 

coordination of the education field trip program is generally managed by interns, grant-funded shortterm staff, and volunteers. Environmental education training for staff/volunteers consists of a fourday class for volunteer naturalists; on-the-job shadowing for interns; coaching by refuge staff and 

long-term volunteers; online college courses for staff/interns; and regional workshops/trainings with 

partners. The emphasis on training has resulted in a high-quality program that follows national and 

statewide standard practices for environmental education. 

The refuge offers facilities and equipment specifically in support of the environmental education 

program. These include a classroom and student patio that accommodates 36 students; the 

environmental education shelter, which accommodates 65 students; trailhead restrooms; five study 

sites along the year-round trail, each of which accommodates 15 students at a time and provides 

exposure to different habitat types on the refuge; learning materials (e.g., study skins, microscopes, 

craft supplies); and field investigation equipment (e.g., binoculars, field guides, water quality test 

kits). 

The education program has developed strong partnerships within the community that facilitate 

quality education. Examples of partners include Friends of the Refuge, Oregon Natural Resources 

Education Program (Oregon State University), Sherwood School District, 4-H (Oregon State 

University), Tualatin Riverkeepers, Sherwood Foundation for the Arts, and YMCA of Sherwood. 

On-site programs: In fiscal year 2010, the refuge provided teacher workshops for 280 educators. 

Those who attend the workshops can could register their classes to visit the refuge for a field trip. A 

maximum of 70 students, plus required chaperones, can be accommodated at any given time. In 

fiscal year 2010, 1,306 students participated in on-site field trip programs. Although no formal 

program is offered for high school and college students, the refuge will tailor a visit based on the 

needs of the students/classes. Local schools occasionally transport physically and learning-disabled 

students to the refuge for short walks and/or visits to the Wildlife Center. No programs currently 

exist for these students; however, volunteers will welcome and orient groups as needed. The refuge 

also draws youth groups for whom learning occurs outside the formal school day. Examples include 

boy/girl scouts, after-school clubs, summer youth programs and day camps, and pre-school. In fiscal 

year 2010, 917 students attended informal youth programs. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-17 

Off-site programs: The refuge participates in off-site programs when funding and staff are 

available. Examples of such programs include school-based nature festivals/events, outdoor schools, 

career days, and special requests. In fiscal year 2010, 1,665 students participated in off-site 

environmental education programs. 

Photo 5-9. Students explore and learn at the refuge. USFWS. 

5.4.5 Interpretation/Outreach 

The refuge has a variety of interpretive and informational media and programs that strive to 

accomplish a number of objectives, such as welcoming and orienting visitors; conveying the 

importance of native wildlife, their habitats, and the interconnectedness of lands and waters; 

encouraging nature exploration and appreciation; exploring the refuge’s cultural history; describing 

the refuge’s resources; introducing the Refuge System; and describing ways in which people are part 

of and can help care for the natural environment. All interpretive approaches follow the basic tenets 

of the Service’s Interpretive Development Model (605 FW 7, Interpretation). Staff and volunteers are 

offered training in interpretive techniques. 

Interpretive facilities include a 1,200-square-foot exhibit hall within the Wildlife Center; numerous 

outdoor interpretive panels, kiosks, sculptural elements, and trailside signs; temporary exhibits in the 

atrium of the Wildlife Center; and publications such as general leaflets and trail maps. Outreach tools 

include the refuge website; online and printed calendar postings by local partners such as 

Washington County Visitors Association and Metro Greenscene; newspaper articles and radio spots; 

flyers; complementary online media such as the Friends of the Refuge website and Facebook page; 

and the Tualatin River Bird Festival website. 

A number of “in-person” interpretive programs are typically offered throughout the year, generally 

led by staff, volunteers, and partners. These are scheduled opportunistically depending on staff and 

volunteer availability and expertise. Nearly 2,500 people attended interpretive programs in fiscal year 

2010. These programs included owl prowls; nature tours; plant identification walks; birding tours; 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Puddle Stompers pre-school program; and workshops (e.g., rain gardens, birding). Oftentimes, other 

organizations bring visitors in large groups to either participate in refuge-led activities or to 

participate in wildlife-dependent activities on their own (e.g., senior groups, Audubon Society 

outings, walking clubs). The refuge requires that groups larger than 15 people but not exceeding 50 

people register ahead of their visit, and while at the refuge, follow a certain set of requirements. Key 

requirements include breaking large groups into groups of 15 or fewer people and staggering these 

smaller groups along the trail; encouraging carpooling; and not charging participants commercial 

guiding fees. The refuge does acknowledge that group organizers may recover operating costs, such 

as transportation, for visits to the refuge. 

Several on-site special events occur on the refuge. The primary event, held annually in May, is the 

Tualatin River Bird Festival, which is hosted in partnership with Friends of the Refuge. Starting in 

May 2011, the event grew from a one-day festival with an average of 700 attendees to a three-day 

festival that attracted over 3,500 participants. Other smaller events, offered less frequently, include 

National Wildlife Refuge Week, Spring Break Exploration Days, Family Adventure Days, and a 

native plant sale, attracting 100 to 200 participants each. Refuge staff and/or volunteers attend local 

off-site special events as schedules and funding allow. Common off-site venues include nature 

festivals and health fairs, reaching 300 to 500 people annually. 

Photo 5-10. Interpretive programs connect visitors to refuge resources. Bjorn 

Fredrickson/USFWS. 

5.5 Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

Nonwildlife-dependent recreation activities are not permitted on the refuge. Kiosks, brochures, and 

informational and regulatory signs articulate prohibited activities. 

5.6 Illegal Uses and Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement issues that currently occur on the refuge are primarily trespass in closed areas, 

presence of dogs, jogging and bicycling, and other nonwildlife-dependent uses. Other illegal uses 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19 

include low-flying aircraft, trash dumping, theft (vehicle break-in, stolen gas and tools), and using 

the refuge facilities to access and steal from neighboring business. These illegal uses persist due to 

lack of public knowledge and support as well as limited law enforcement capability. Currently there 

is a zone law enforcement officer stationed at the refuge, but their duties require them to be 

frequently off-site. 

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities 

The refuge lies just 15 miles southwest of downtown Portland and is located within the Portland 

metropolitan area, which is known for its natural areas and parks. Metro boasts over 11,000 acres of 

protected lands, most of which are open to the public. In addition, the greater Portland area is home 

to thousands of acres of local/city parks, gardens, arboretums, state and local wildlife areas, state 

parks, nature centers, multi-use trails, and the 5,000+ acre Forest Park. Many of these areas are 

connected by bike, pedestrian, and boat corridors. These nearby facilities provide a wide range of 

recreational opportunities such as hiking, bicycling, wildlife observation, fishing, hunting, 

picnicking, environmental education, interpretation, guided nature tours, outdoor photography, nature 

festivals, camping, canoeing/kayaking/rafting, sports, and agritourism sites (e.g., vineyards and “upick” produce and tree farms). Portland sits at the mouth of the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area 

and is the closest major city to Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests. The highways that skirt 

the refuge are major corridors providing access to the Oregon coast. 

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Trends and Demographics 

Participation in wildlife-associated recreation has been measured by the Service to determine trends 

and economic impacts, both at national and state levels. The latest survey, completed in 2006, found 

that 87.5 million (over 38%) of U.S. residents 16 years and older participated in wildlife-related 

recreation. During that year, 30.0 million people fished, 12.5 million hunted, and 71.1 million 

participated in at least one type of wildlife-watching activity such as observing, feeding (e.g., 

backyard bird feeders), or photographing fish and other wildlife in the United States. Participation by 

Oregonians is higher than the national average. In 2006, 53 percent of Oregonians participated in 

wildlife-associated recreation, both within and outside of Oregon. More specifically, 44 percent of 

Oregonians participated in wildlife-watching and 19 percent in hunting and fishing (U.S. Department 

of the Interior [USDOI] et al. 2007). 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) is responsible for providing guidance, 

information, and recommendations to Federal, state, and local units of government, as well as the 

private sector, in making policy and planning decisions regarding outdoor recreation in Oregon. They 

do this in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The latest SCORP is a 

five-year plan covering outdoor recreation in Oregon from 2008 through 2012 (OPRD 2008). 

The OPRD began the SCORP planning process in September 2005. The agency took a proactive 

approach in addressing a limited number of previously identified and defined issues. Key findings 

from the 2008-2012 SCORP and the 2005-2014 statewide trails planning efforts identified a number 

of important demographic and social changes specifically facing outdoor recreation providers in the 

coming years, including: 1) a rapidly aging Oregon population, 2) fewer Oregon youth learning 

outdoor skills, and 3) an increasingly diverse Oregon population. An additional identified issue 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

related to human health is the physical inactivity within the population. Key findings especially 

relevant to the Service regarding these issues are summarized below. 

A Rapidly Aging Oregon Population 

 On average across all activities, respondents expect to spend 28 percent more days recreating 

10 years from now than they currently do. 

 The most popular outdoor recreation activities for Oregonians between the ages of 42 and 80 

included walking, picnicking, sightseeing, visiting historic sites, and ocean beach activities. 

A comparison across age categories for the top five activities by the level of participation 

leads to the following conclusions: Walking is the top activity across all age categories (40- 

79); jogging is a top activity between the ages of 40-59, but is also popular for those in their 

70s; bicycling is a top activity between the ages of 40-64; sightseeing is a top activity 

between the ages of 45-74; bird watching is a top activity between the ages of 55-79; and 

RV/trailer camping is a top activity between the ages of 55-74. 

 The top five activities in terms of future participation intensity 10 years from now included 

walking, bicycling, jogging, bird watching, and day hiking. 

 Ensuring clean and well-maintained parks and facilities was the most important management 

action leading to a large increase in recreation, followed by developing walking/hiking trails 

closer to home and providing more free-of-charge recreation opportunities. 

 Over a third of Oregon Boomers, people born between 1946 and 1964, and Pre-Boomers, 

who were born between 1926 and 1945, volunteered in their community, with an average 

time commitment of 5.3 hours per week. Of those who volunteered, 43 percent expect future 

changes in their volunteer activities, with most of the changes involving greater 

volunteerism: more time, more projects at current volunteer opportunities, and new volunteer 

opportunities. 

Fewer Oregon Youth Learning Outdoor Skills 

 The most popular outdoor activities for parents were walking, viewing natural features, and 

relaxing/hanging out. For children, the most popular were walking, followed by outdoor 

sports/games, relaxing/hanging out, and general play at neighborhood parks/playgrounds. 

 The more a parent engages in an outdoor recreation activity, the more their child does. 

Participation varies across child age, with both the number of activities and the number of 

activity-days peaking among 12 to 14 year olds and decreasing for 15 to 17 year olds. 

 Rural children spend more days, on average, in outdoor activities relative to urban and 

suburban children. Suburban children spend the least amount of days engaged in outdoor 

activities. Outdoor abilities have decreased more, on average, among urban and suburban 

households. 

 Outdoor sports programs and day camps were the most popular types of outdoor recreation 

programs with respect to past participation. Many parents indicated that it was very likely 

their children would participate in outdoor sports programs (62%), multiday camps (49%), 

outdoor adventure trips (45%), and day camps (45%) in the future. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21 

An Increasingly Diverse Oregon Population 

 Walking for pleasure was the most common favorite activity for both Hispanics and Asians, 

with fishing and soccer being the next most common for Hispanics and hiking and fishing the 

next most common for Asians. 

 Both Hispanic and Asian study respondents most commonly did their favorite activity with 

members of their immediate family. Asians were more likely than Hispanics to do activities 

alone, as were older respondents relative to younger respondents. 

 The most common location for Hispanic and Asian respondents to do their favorite activity 

was in a park or other area outside their town or city. Males were more likely than females to 

engage in their favorite activity further from home. 

 Survey results suggest that both the Hispanic and Asian populations in Oregon engage in 

outdoor recreation less than the general population. 

 Walking for pleasure was also the activity respondents spent the most days engaged in during 

the past year. Hispanics engage more intensely than Asians in jogging/running, day hiking, 

picnicking, fishing, viewing natural features, visiting nature centers, and visiting historic 

sites. 

 The most common activities respondents would like to do more often, or start doing, were 

walking for Asians and walking and camping for Hispanics. The factor that would most help 

make this happen is availability of partners, followed by more time. 

 For the Hispanic population, being in the outdoors, relaxing, and having fun were the most 

important motivators or reasons for participating in outdoor activities. For the Asian 

population, relaxing, fitness, and having fun were the top motivators. 

 Ensuring clean and well-maintained parks and facilities were the most important 

management action, followed by keeping parks safe from crime and providing more free-ofcharge recreation opportunities and expanded facilities. 

Several management recommendations from the SCORP are relevant to the types of outdoor 

recreation Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge provides; relevant recommendations from the 

SCORP are as follows: 

 Develop accessible trails in remote settings in close proximity to urban areas of the state. 

 Create a statewide interagency volunteer information website or other communications 

medium to match Boomer volunteers with recreation or natural resource projects in Oregon. 

 Greater priority for trail acquisition and development projects in OPRD-administered grant 

program (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties are considered “high priority” 

based on increase in aging population). 

 Develop a statewide youth outdoor programming framework and funding source to focus 

youth programming efforts across Oregon to address a specific set of key measurable 

objectives. 

 Create a new Outdoor Recreation Section within Oregon Recreation and Park Association 

addressing the areas of outdoor recreation and environmental education. 

 Provide funding and assistance for innovative park designs to connect youth with nature in 

high-priority counties and communities ... in OPRD-administered grant programs 

(Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties are considered “high priority” based on 

increase in youth population). 

 Encourage organizational cultural change within public recreation agencies/organizations to 

effectively address the diversity issue. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

 Develop recommendations for addressing language barriers to encourage underrepresented 

population use of outdoor recreation facilities and programs 

 Create a customer service training module related to serving the outdoor recreation needs of 

an increasingly diverse population. 

 Develop and implement a regional youth framework to encourage underrepresented youth 

participation in outdoor recreation activities through partnerships and investments in schoolbased recreation clubs. 

5.8 Socioeconomic Environment 

5.8.1 Population and Area Economy 

Oregon’s population (3,782,991) ranks twenty-seventh in the nation. State land area covers 95,997 

square miles compared to 3,537,438 square miles (United States), with a population density of 40 

persons per square mile compared to 87 nationwide. Located in Washington and Yamhill Counties, 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a 30-minute drive from downtown Portland and only 

minutes away from the Cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Newberg, Forest Grove, and Hillsboro. 

The greater Portland metropolitan area, including Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Yamhill, and 

Marion Counties, is the economic hub for the refuge. Table 5-3 shows the population and area 

economy. Between 1999 and 2009, the population of Oregon increased 11 percent compared with a 

10 percent increase for the United States as a whole. Employment for Clackamas, Marion, and 

Yamhill Counties increased at a greater rate (see Table 5-3) compared to the rest of Oregon (8 

percent) and the United States (8 percent). Only Yamhill and Marion Counties exceeded the increase 

in per capita income compared with Oregon and the United States as a whole (USFWS 2011d). 

Table 5-3. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Summary of Area Economy, 2009 

Population Employment Per Capita Income 

2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 

Clackamas 

County 

 386.1 15% 219.2 18% $44,362 −1% 

Marion 

County 

 318.0 13% 173.2 10% $33,415 5% 

Multnomah 

County 

 726.9 11% 560.5 4% $41,154 3% 

Washingto

n County 

 537.3 23% 284.1 6% $40,112 −3% 

Yamhill 

County 

 99.0 17% 44.0 13% $33,434 9% 

Oregon 3,825.7 11% 2,202.7 8% $36,785 4% 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23 

Table 5-3. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Summary of Area Economy, 2009 

Population Employment Per Capita Income 

2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 2009 

Percent change

1999-2009 

United 

States 

307,006.6 10% 173,809.2 8% $40,285 9% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2011. 

Note: Population and employment are in thousands; per capita income in 2010 dollars. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

 Document continues on the following page. 
Chapter 5

HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Appendices

Chapter 6

Environmental

Consequences

© Kent Millard

 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-1 

Chapter 6 Environmental Consequences 

6.1 Summary of Effects 

Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. Impacts are described for the main aspects of the environments described in 

Chapters 3 through 5, including physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. The 

alternatives are compared “side by side” under each topic, and both the adverse and beneficial effects 

of implementing each alternative are described. The overall cumulative effect on the environment 

from implementing the various alternatives is summarized in Section 6.8. More detailed assessments 

of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge’s (the refuge’s) cumulative effects for relevant impact 

topics are presented section by section. For additional reference, see Appendix P for maps of land 

status, hydrology, public use, and management alternatives. 

Table 6-1 provides an overview of the effects under each alternative by indicator. Effects are 

described in terms of the change from current conditions. Although the analysis shows that none of 

the alternatives would be expected to result in significant effects, some positive (beneficial) or 

negative effects are expected. The terms intermediate, minor, and slight, are used to describe the 

magnitude of the effect. To interpret these terms, intermediate is a higher magnitude than minor, 

which is of a higher magnitude than slight. The word neutral is used to describe a negligible or 

unnoticeable effect compared to the current management plan as depicted in Alternative 1. For more 

detail, please refer to the remainder of Chapter 6. 

The information used in this comprehensive conservation plan/environmental assessment (CCP/EA) 

was obtained from relevant scientific literature, existing databases and inventories, consultations with 

other professionals, and personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience.

The terms identified below were used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources. 

 Neutral. Resources would not be affected, or the effects to resources would be at or near the 

lowest level of detection. 

 Slight. Resource condition changes would be so slight there would not be any measurable or 

perceptible consequence to a population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, 

visitor experience, or cultural resource. 

 Minor. Effects would be detectable but localized, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily 

implemented and successful. 

 Intermediate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized, with consequences to a 

population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects, and would 

be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful. 

 Significant (major). Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial positive or 

negative consequences to a population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, 

visitor experience, or cultural resource within the local area and region. Extensive mitigating 

measures may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be large scale in nature, very 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

complicated to implement, and may not have a guaranteed probability of success. In some 

instances, major effects would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Time and duration of effects have been defined as follows. 

 Short term or Temporary. An effect that generally would last less than one year or season. 

 Long term. A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a single year 

or season. All effects described below are long term unless otherwise indicated. 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

Effects to the physical environment 

Effects to hydrology Neutral effects as no 

changes would be made 

Minor positive longterm effects as Rock and 

Chicken Creeks, and 

Wapato Lake would be 

restored 

Minor positive longterm effects as Rock and 

Chicken Creeks, and 

Wapato Lake would be 

restored 

Effects to water quality Neutral or slightly 

positive long-term 

effects as streams are 

restored and croplands 

are converted to native 

habitat types 

Neutral or slightly 

positive long-term 

effects as streams are 

restored and croplands 

are converted to native 

habitat types 

Neutral or slightly 

positive long-term 

effects as streams are 

restored and croplands 

are converted to native 

habitat types 

Effects to air quality Neutral effects as 

restoration and 

maintenance of habitats 

continues 

Slight short-term 

negative effects that 

would impact vegetation 

and may displace 

wildlife, but a slight 

long-term and beneficial 

effect as prescribed fire 

is introduced and 

restoration of native 

habitat types allows for 

increased carbon storage

Slight short-term effects 

that would impact 

vegetation and may 

displace wildlife, but a 

slight long-term and 

beneficial effect as 

prescribed fire is 

introduced and 

restoration of native 

habitat types allows for 

increased carbon storage

Effects to visual quality Neutral effects as 

management activities 

continue 

Neutral to slightly 

positive long-term 

effects as new 

infrastructure designed 

to enhance visitor 

viewing opportunities 

are constructed 

Neutral effects as more 

closed canopy habitats 

are restored 

Effects to habitats 

Effects to bottomland 

riparian forest and 

Slight positive effects 

from maintaining and 

Neutral effects as some 

bottomland riparian 

Intermediate positive 

effects from expanding 
 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-3 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

associated species restoring bottomland 

riparian forest 

forest is converted to 

other habitat type and 

new areas are restored 

to this habitat type 

bottomland riparian 

forest 

Effects to mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest and associated 

species 

Slight positive effects 

from maintaining mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest 

Slight positive effects 

from expanding mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest 

Minor positive effects 

from moderate 

expansion of mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest 

Effects to oak savanna 

and associated species 

Slight positive effects 

from maintaining oak 

savanna 

Slight short-term 

negative effects that 

would impact vegetation 

and may displace 

wildlife due to 

prescribed fire, but a 

slight long-term and 

beneficial effect as 

prescribed fire is 

introduced and 

restoration of native 

habitat types allows for 

increased carbon 

storage. Overall slight 

positive effects from 

restoration of oak 

savanna 

Minor negative effects 

from conversion of oak 

savanna to other habitat 

types 

Effects to wet prairie 

and associated species 

Slight positive effects 

from maintaining wet 

prairie 

Slight short-term 

negative effects that 

would impact vegetation 

and may displace 

wildlife, but a slight 

long-term positive and 

beneficial effect as 

prescribed fire is 

introduced and 

restoration of native 

habitat types allows for 

increased carbon 

storage. Overall, 

intermediate positive 

effects from expanding 

wet prairie from 

currently farmed areas 

Neutral effects from 

expanding wet prairie in 

some areas while 

reducing this habitat 

type in other areas 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

Effects to herbaceous 

and scrub-shrub 

wetlands and associated 

species 

Neutral effects from 

maintaining wetlands 

Slight positive effects to 

wetlands by reducing 

some wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring wetlands in the 

Wapato Lake Unit 

Minor negative effects 

to wetlands by further 

reducing wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring wetlands in the 

Wapato Lake Unit 

Effects to streams, 

rivers, and backwater 

sloughs and associated 

species 

Slight positive effects 

from maintaining 

streams, rivers, and 

backwater sloughs 

Intermediate positive 

effects from restoring 

streams and backwater 

sloughs 

Intermediate positive 

effects from restoring 

streams and backwater 

sloughs 

Effects to croplands and 

associated species 

Neutral effects from 

maintaining croplands 

Intermediate negative 

effects from converting 

croplands to native 

habitat types 

Intermediate negative 

effects from converting 

croplands to native 

habitat types 

Effects to ruderal lands 

and associated species 

Intermediate long-term 

negative effects as these 

lands are restored to 

native habitat types 

Intermediate long-term 

negative effects as these 

lands are restored to 

native habitat types 

Intermediate long-term 

negative effects as these 

lands are restored to 

native habitat types 

Effects to fish and wildlife 

Effects to state- and 

federally listed and 

special-status species 

Minor long-term 

positive effects from 

continuing to introduce 

and maintain listed and 

special-status species 

Minor long-term 

positive effects from 

continuing to introduce 

and maintain listed and 

special-status species 

Minor long-term 

positive effects from 

continuing to introduce 

and maintain listed and 

special-status species 

Effects to nonnative 

plant and animal species 

Neutral effects from 

continued management 

to reduce nonnative 

plant and animal species 

Minor long-term 

positive effects to native 

habitat types and native 

fish and wildlife by 

implementing measures 

to further reduce 

nonnative plant and 

animal species 

Minor long-term 

positive effects to native 

habitat types and native 

fish and wildlife by 

implementing measures 

to further reduce 

nonnative plant and 

animal species 

Effects to waterfowl Neutral effects from 

maintaining current 

habitat types 

Minor positive effects 

for waterfowl by 

reducing some wetlands 

in the Sherwood Units 

while restoring 

croplands to wetlands in 

the Wapato Lake Unit 

Neutral effects for 

waterfowl by further 

reducing wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring croplands to 

wetlands in the Wapato 

Lake Unit 
 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-5 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

Effects to songbirds Slight positive effects as 

recently restored habitat 

matures 

Intermediate positive 

effects as more 

bottomland riparian and 

mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest, oak savanna, and 

wet prairie habitat types 

are expanded 

Slight positive effects as 

more bottomland 

riparian and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous 

forest habitat types are 

expanded, but wetlands, 

oak savanna, and wet 

prairie are reduced 

Effects to shorebirds Neutral effects from 

maintaining current 

habitat types 

Slight positive effects 

for shorebirds by 

reducing some wetlands 

in the Sherwood Units 

while restoring wetlands 

in the Wapato Lake Unit

Neutral effects for 

shorebirds by further 

reducing wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring wetlands in the 

Wapato Lake Unit 

Effects to marshbirds 

and waders 

Neutral effects from 

maintaining current 

habitat types 

Intermediate positive 

effects for marshbirds 

and waders by reducing 

some wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring wetlands in the 

Onion Flats and Wapato 

Lake Units 

Slight positive effects 

for marshbirds and 

waders by further 

reducing wetlands in the 

Sherwood Units while 

restoring wetlands in the 

Onion Flats and Wapato 

Lake Units 

Effects to raptors Neutral effects from 

maintaining current 

habitat types 

Slight positive effects 

for raptors as a result of 

habitat conversions 

Slight positive effects 

for raptors as a result of 

habitat conversions 

Effects to mammals Slight positive effects as 

current restoration of 

habitat matures 

Minor positive effects 

for most mammals as 

native habitat types are 

restored 

Minor positive effects 

for most mammals as 

native habitat types are 

restored 

Effects to native fish Slight positive effects 

for native fish as current 

restoration of habitat 

matures 

Intermediate positive 

effects for native fish as 

streams and backwater 

sloughs, and other 

habitat types, are 

restored 

Intermediate positive 

effects for native fish as 

streams and backwater 

sloughs, and other 

habitat types, are 

restored 

Effects to reptiles Slight positive effects as 

current restoration of 

habitat matures 

Intermediate positive 

effects as habitats are 

restored, especially as 

cropland is taken out of 

production and streams 

and backwater sloughs 

are restored 

Intermediate positive 

effects as habitats are 

restored, especially as 

cropland is taken out of 

production and streams 

and backwater sloughs 

are restored 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

Effects to amphibians Slight positive effects 

from maintaining 

current habitat types 

Minor positive effects 

as cropland, especially 

in the Wapato Lake 

Unit, is restored to 

wetland habitat types 

Slight positive effects as 

cropland, especially in 

the Wapato Lake Unit, 

is restored to wetland 

habitat types, but some 

negative effects at the 

Sherwood Units as 

wetland habitat is 

reduced 

Effects to cultural and historic resources 

Effects to cultural and 

historic resources 

Slight negative effect 

from lack of adequate 

protection and 

interpretation of cultural 

resources 

Minor positive effect 

from stronger inventory, 

evaluation, and 

protection of, and 

education about, 

cultural resources 

Minor positive effect 

from stronger inventory, 

evaluation, and 

protection of, and 

education about, 

cultural resources 

Social effects 

Effects to wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

Neutral effect Minor positive effect 

from providing 

additional facilities and 

improved program 

quality 

Minor positive effect 

from improved program 

quality 

Effects to environmental 

education 

Neutral effect Intermediate positive 

effect by increasing 

participation in 

program, adding new 

program elements, and 

improving program 

quality 

Minor positive effect 

from enhancing current 

program 

Effects to interpretation Neutral effect Minor positive effect 

from improving 

program quality and 

building new 

partnerships 

Minor positive effect 

from improving 

program quality and 

building new 

partnerships 

Effects to hunting Neutral effect Intermediate positive 

effect due to 

establishing waterfowl 

hunt program(s) 

Intermediate positive 

effect due to 

establishing waterfowl 

hunt program(s) 

Effects to fishing Neutral effect Intermediate positive 

effect by establishing a 

fishing program 

Neutral effect as no 

fishing would be 

established 
 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-7 

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects to Habitats, Major Wildlife Groups, and Public Use 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Alternative Action) 

Effects to nonwildlifedependent recreation Neutral effect Neutral effect as no 

nonwildlife-dependent 

uses are proposed 

Neutral effect as no 

nonwildlife-dependent 

uses are proposed 

6.2 Effects to the Physical Environment 

Topics addressed under the physical environment section include direct and indirect effects to 

hydrology, water quality, air quality, visual quality, and geology/soils. Direct effects are generally 

caused by a particular action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the proposed action, but occur later in time. 

6.2.1 Effects to Hydrology 

Under Alternative 1 (no action) there would be no change to hydrology as described in Section 3.2 of 

this CCP/EA. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) and Alternative 3, intermediate, positive long-term effects would 

take place in the hydrology of Chicken and Rock Creeks in the Sherwood Units, and Ayers, Wapato, 

and Hill Creeks in the Wapato Lake Unit as these areas are restored. These positive effects include 

returning stream channels to a more natural meandering condition, reduced streambank erosion, 

increased groundwater recharge, and sediment and nutrient trapping by vegetation. Minor short-term 

negative effects would occur during restoration and include direct impacts such as disturbance to 

stream channels, erosion, sediment inputs, disturbance of habitat, release of stored nutrients from 

fertilizers, and displacement of fish and wildlife. Restoring croplands to wetlands and other habitat 

types in both the Sherwood and Wapato Lake Units would have similar short-term minor negative 

effects, but these would be offset by long-term intermediate positive effects to habitats, fish, and 

wildlife. Converting wetlands to wet prairie in the Sherwood Units would likely have a neutral effect 

on hydrology. Short-term minor negative effects of conducting this conversion would include some 

local erosion and siltation. Long-term minor positive effects are increased floodplain storage during 

flood events and trapping sediments and nutrients by vegetation. 

6.2.1.1 Overall Effects to Hydrology 

Overall, Alternative 1 would be expected to have a neutral effect to hydrology. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would be expected to have minor long-term positive effects to hydrology in the vicinity of the refuge. 

6.2.2 Effects to Water Quality 

Under Alternative 1 (no action), restoration activities might cause a slight short-term negative effect 

on water quality as a result of heavy equipment operation necessary to conduct habitat restoration. 

There would be slight long-term positive effects as habitats mature and create shade for water 

cooling and water filtration as plants mature. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), there would be short-term minor negative effects due to restoration 

of croplands to natural habitat types, conversion of wetlands to wet prairie, and restoration and 

construction of stream channels and backwater sloughs. These effects may include localized siltation 

and turbidity, and release of trapped nutrients into local waters. Long-term minor positive effects 

include trapping of sediments and nutrients by vegetation, and increased groundwater recharge. 

Restoration of vegetation along stream and river channels would have a minor positive effect by 

cooling water, thus increasing its capacity to hold dissolved oxygen. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be short-term minor negative effects due to restoration of croplands 

to natural habitat types, conversion of wetlands to bottomland riparian forest, and restoration and 

construction of stream channels. These effects may include localized siltation and turbidity, and 

release of trapped nutrients into local waters. Long-term minor positive effects include trapping of 

sediments and nutrients by vegetation, and increased groundwater recharge. Restoration of vegetation 

along stream and river channels would have a minor positive effect by cooling water, thus increasing 

its capacity to hold dissolved oxygen. 

Under all alternatives the refuge would continue to conduct habitat management that would include 

periodic discing of wetlands, which may cause short-term slight negative effects to water quality 

such as sedimentation and turbidity, and reduced trapping of sediments and nutrients. Also the refuge 

would apply herbicide in situations where other methods of invasive species control are ineffective. 

Application of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service; USFWS)-approved herbicide may have a 

slight short-term negative effect to local water quality as described in Appendix G, Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM). 

6.2.2.1 Overall Effects to Water Quality 

Overall, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would all be expected to have a neutral or slightly positive long-term 

effect to local water quality. 

6.2.3 Effects to Air Quality 

Under all alternatives, restoration activities might cause a slight short-term negative effect on air 

quality as a result of exhaust and dust from heavy equipment operation necessary to conduct habitat 

restoration. In addition, during the first few years following a restoration project, it is often necessary 

to mow or apply Service-approved herbicide to combat weeds until native plants can become 

established. Mowing and herbicide applications can be expected to produce slight negative shortterm air quality impacts from gas- and diesel-powered equipment and possible herbicide drift. 

Restoration of native habitat types would have a slight long-term positive effect on air quality as 

plants grow by producing oxygen, and taking in carbon dioxide and storing it in plant fibers as 

carbon. 

Under Alternative 1 (no action), no further effects to air quality would be expected. 

Under Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, prescribed fire would be implemented as a tool for habitat 

management and would result in intermediate short-term negative effects on air quality in a localized 

area. Any prescribed burning would be conducted in accordance with all state, local, and Service 

policies and regulations. Wilhelm (2004) suggested that burning of wet prairies has a negligible 

effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels because plants store more carbon underground than is 

released as a result of burning their aboveground parts. With the conversion of croplands to native 
 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-9 

habitat types under these two alternatives, there would likely be a slight positive long-term effect on 

air quality as a result of using less diesel fuel in farm equipment and applying less herbicide 

necessary for crops. 

Under Alternative 3, there may be slight long-term positive effects to air quality as more land is 

converted into forested habitat types. The increase in forested habitat types would be expected to 

produce more atmospheric oxygen, take up carbon dioxide, and store carbon in plant materials. In 

addition, the conversion of wetlands to forest habitat types would negate the need for continued 

maintenance using heavy equipment, thus reducing the amount of diesel fuel expended. 

6.2.3.1 Overall Effects to Air Quality 

Overall, effects to air quality would be neutral under all alternatives. 

6.2.4 Effects to Visual Quality 

All alternatives would have neutral or slight positive effects to visual quality. A few minor 

developments, such as new photography blinds, kiosks, and hunting blinds, would be incorporated in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. These would be designed to enhance visitor appreciation of the natural and 

visual resources in that area, and would be constructed in the same architectural style as existing 

features. Short-term minor visual effects may occur during construction of new facilities. 

Habitat actions proposed in Alternative 2 would enhance a variety of habitats and would therefore 

slightly improve visual quality, with more diverse wildlife and scenery. Alternative 3 would convert 

more of the refuge into contiguous forest habitats, resulting in less broad landscape views, less 

habitat diversity, and more closed canopy views. 

6.2.4.1 Overall Effects to Air Quality 

Overall, effects to visual quality would be neutral under all alternatives. 

6.3 Effects to Habitats and Wildlife 

6.3.1 General Effects 

Under Alternative 1, most habitat types and fish and wildlife listed below would experience largely 

neutral or slightly positive long-term effects from continued current management actions. However, 

Alternative 2 and 3 show some changes to habitats and wildlife. Table 6-2 demonstrates the changes 

in habitat types across alternatives. As restored and enhanced habitat types continue to mature, slight 

positive long-term effects might be realized by some species or guilds, while others would remain 

unchanged. For example, mammals such as black-tailed deer and most songbirds would benefit as 

bottomland riparian forests mature. Black-tailed deer prefer the sanctuary of a closed forest rather 

than open habitat types, and many songbird species forage and nest in mid- to large-sized trees. 

Likewise, marshbirds and waders would see slight benefits as recently restored scrub-shrub wetlands 

continue to mature. Marshbirds and waders forage on a diversity of invertebrates and amphibians that 

would flourish in a mature scrub-shrub wetland. Guilds such as waterfowl and shorebirds would 

likely remain unchanged. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.3.1.1 General Effects from Public Use Actions 

Several general effects from public use apply refuge-wide and are not tied to specific habitats or 

wildlife guilds. With the proposed increase in public use opportunities, expanded outreach, new 

facilities, and current rising interest in the refuge, visitation is estimated to grow to 250,000 visitors 

per year. This could have an intermediate negative effect from wildlife disturbance, introduction of 

invasive species, and loss/fragmentation of habitat. Some examples of disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat from public use include flushing of birds, causing additional expenditure of energy to evade 

humans; disturbance to nest sites; and changes in animal behaviors or patterns of habitat use from 

off-trail use by refuge visitors. However, disturbance to wildlife and habitat from visitors would be 

minimized with the use of several techniques, including the use of screening vegetation; seasonal 

closures; limited use of photography and hunt blinds through reservation systems; establishing 

maximum group/class sizes; providing accurate regulatory information; and increasing law 

enforcement. 

Construction of new facilities would include proper placement of facilities; constructing during a 

time of the year when the least amount of disturbance would be caused; using low-impact 

construction techniques and materials; planning minimal footprints; and timely rehabilitation from 

ground disturbance. 

These techniques would cumulatively result in a minor overall negative effect to wildlife and habitat, 

and is balanced with an overall positive social effect. See remaining sections of Chapter 6 and 

Compatibility Determinations in Appendix B for detailed analysis of specific public use actions, 

where applicable. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessm

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-2. Current and Proposed Habitat Acreages 

Habitat type Current 

Acreage* 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Restored Converted 

to Other 

Habitat 

Net 

Gain/ 

Loss 

Restored Converted 

to Other 

Habitat 

Net 

Gain/ 

Loss 

Restore

Bottomland riparian forest 

388 39 7 +32 90 39 +51 318 

Mixed coniferous/deciduous forest 

49 47 0 +47 80 3 +77 129 

Oak savanna 149 0 0 0 79 33 +46 0 Wet prairie 27 0 0 0 114 12 +102 30 Herbaceous wetland 294 0 0 0 0 106 

−106 0 

Scrub-shrub wetland 20 0 0 0 180 0 +180 176 Cropland 942 0 0 0 0 942 

−942 0 

Ruderal lands 249 0 246 

−246 0 249 

−249 0 

* Approximate values based on geographic information system (GIS). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.3.2 Effects to Bottomland Riparian Forest 

Under Alternative 1, bottomland riparian forest would experience slight long-term positive effects as 

plants mature in newly and previously restored areas, and as plants continue to flourish in maintained 

areas. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), bottomland riparian forest would be expanded slightly from the 

current extent of approximately 388 acres and would experience neutral effects. In the Riverboat 

Unit, about 11 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be converted to wet prairie and scrub-shrub 

wetland. In the Tualatin River Unit, 13 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be restored from 

ruderal land. In the Atfálat’i Unit, about 25 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be restored 

from ruderal lands. An unknown part of the Wapato Lake Unit might also be restored to bottomland 

riparian forest. 

Under Alternative 3, bottomland riparian forest would experience intermediate positive effects as 

bottomland riparian forest would be expanded from about 388 to 707 acres. In the Riverboat Unit, 

about 11 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be converted to wet prairie and scrub-shrub 

wetland. In the Tualatin River Unit, 13 acres of bottomland riparian forest would be restored from 

ruderal land, and an additional 28 acres of herbaceous wetland would be converted to riparian forest. 

In the Atfálat’i Unit, about 248 acres would be converted to bottomland riparian forest from 

wetlands, ruderal lands, and other habitat types. An unknown part of the Wapato Lake Unit might 

also be restored to bottomland riparian forest. 

Bottomland riparian forest on refuge lands exists as mature forest with large trees creating a 

relatively closed canopy over a diverse understory of smaller trees, shrubs, and herbaceous layer, and 

as young restored areas from 2 to10 years old with saplings and shrubby understory. Maintenance of 

these areas includes protecting young trees in older stands with tree tubes, clearing nonnative 

invasive plants such as Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, English holly, and English hawthorn 

using mechanical, cultural, chemical, and/or biological means (as described in Appendix G, IPM). 

6.3.2.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

The possibility for one boat access is considered under Alternatives 2 and 3. The location is 

undetermined, but would be considered if implementation would result in minimal disturbance to 

vegetation. Implementation would require a shallow slope that could be accessible for wheelchairs, 

safe parking area, and little to no impact to the floodplain. In these circumstances, a boat access 

would create the potential for minor amounts of increased erosion and additional visitors within 

bottomland riparian and riverine habitats. 

The 2-acre environmental education off-trail study area proposed in Alternative 2 would likely result 

in trampling of bottomland riparian forest vegetation and may increase disturbance to forest wildlife 

species. However, these impacts would not result in displacement of unique habitats, resulting in a 

minor negative effect to bottomland riparian forest. 

6.3.2.2 Overall Effects to Bottomland Riparian Forest 

Overall effects to bottomland riparian forest are expected to be slightly positive and long term under 

Alternative 1, neutral under Alternative 2, and intermediate positive in the long term under 

Alternative 3. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-13 

6.3.3 Effects to Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest 

Under Alternative 1, mixed coniferous/deciduous forests would experience slight long-term positive 

effects as new areas would be restored and other areas maintained to benefit this habitat type. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), slight long-term positive effects would be expected as mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest would be expanded from about 49 to 199 acres. In the Atfálat’i and Rock 

Creek Units, there would be no change to mixed coniferous/deciduous forest acreage. In the Onion 

Flats Unit, about 3 acres of mixed forest would be converted to oak savanna. In the Tualatin River 

Unit, about 33 acres of newly restored oak savanna would be allowed to convert to a mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest habitat type, and an additional 10 acres of ruderal habitat would be 

restored to mixed forest. In the Riverboat Unit, about 36 acres would be restored. 

Under Alternative 3, intermediate long-term effects would be expected as mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest would be expanded from 49 to 252 acres. In the Rock Creek Units, there 

would be no change to mixed coniferous/deciduous forest acreage. Similar to Alternative 2, about 33 

acres of newly restored oak savanna in the Tualatin River Unit would be converted to mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest, and about 36 acres in the Riverboat Unit would be restored. In addition, 

about 6 acres of oak savanna, and 29 acres of ruderal lands in the Atfálat’i Unit would be converted 

to mixed forest. 

6.3.3.1 Overall Effects to Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest 

Overall effects to mixed coniferous/deciduous forest are expected to be slightly positive in the long 

term under Alternatives 1 and 2, and minor positive effects are expected in the long term under 

Alternative 3. 

6.3.4 Effects to Oak Savanna 

Under Alternative 1, oak savanna would be expected to have slight long-term positive effects from 

new restoration projects and maintaining current oak savanna restoration areas. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), oak savanna would be expected to have slight long-term positive 

effects as it is increased from 149 to 226 acres. In the Riverboat and Rock Creek Units, there would 

be no changes to oak savanna. In the Onion Flats Unit, there would be an increase of 17 acres; in the 

Tualatin River Unit, about 33 acres would be converted to mixed forest; and on the Atfálat’i Unit, 

about 62 acres would be restored from ruderal lands and other habitat types. 

Under Alternative 3, oak savanna would have minor long-term negative effects as it would be 

reduced from 149 to 141 acres. In the Riverboat, Rock Creek, and Onion Flats Units, there would be 

no changes to oak savanna. In the Tualatin River Unit and on the Atfálat’i Unit, about 33 and 6 acres, 

respectively, would be converted to mixed forest. 

6.3.4.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

The proposed nature play area (along the existing year-round trail) in Alternative 2 and the tree 

screen along highways proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would both occur in upland/oak savanna 

habitats that are currently disturbed/degraded and do not connect to other intact habitats. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.3.4.2 Overall Effects to Oak Savanna 

Overall effects to oak savanna are expected to be slightly positive in the long term under Alternative 

1 and Alternative 2, and minor negative effects are expected in the long term under Alternative 3. 

6.3.5 Effects to Wet Prairie 

Under Alternative 1, there would be slight positive long-term effects from maintaining existing wet 

prairie habitat. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), wet prairie would experience intermediate positive effects as prairie 

would increase substantially, from about 27 to 129 acres. In the Onion Flats, Tualatin River, and 

Rock Creek Units there would be no change. In the Riverboat Unit, about 30 acres of herbaceous 

wetland and bottomland riparian forest would be converted to wet prairie, and in the Atfálat’i Unit 

about 13 acres of wet prairie would be converted to bottomland riparian forest, while 85 acres of 

herbaceous wetland, riparian forest, and ruderal land would be converted to wet prairie. Wet prairie, 

similar to scrub-shrub wetlands, relies on precipitation and seasonal high groundwater levels rather 

than active manipulation of water. To convert herbaceous wetlands to wet prairie, manipulation of 

water would be discontinued. See Section 6.3.6 for further discussion on wetlands. 

Under Alternative 3, wet prairie would experience neutral effects as it would increase from about 27 

acres to 45 acres. In the Riverboat Unit, about 30 acres of herbaceous wetland and bottomland 

riparian forest would be converted to wet prairie. In Atfálat’i Unit, 13 acres of wet prairie would be 

converted to bottomland riparian forest.

6.3.5.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

The junior waterfowl hunt on the Riverboat Unit, proposed in Alternative 2, would have a neutral to 

slightly negative effect to wet prairie, due to development of two to five blinds and access trails 

within prairie areas. Water management would be used to benefit wildlife and habitat and would not 

be used to enhance hunting without an accompanying wildlife and habitat benefit. 

Similar effects to prairies from a waterfowl hunting program proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 at the 

Wapato Lake Unit would be expected, but the degree of impacts cannot be determined until 

restoration decisions are made prior to planning a hunt program. 

6.3.5.2 Overall Effects to Wet Prairie 

Overall, wet prairie is expected to have slight long-term positive effects under Alternative 1, 

intermediate long-term positive effects under Alternative 2, and be neutral under Alternative 3. 

6.3.6 Effects to Herbaceous and Scrub-shrub Wetlands 

Alternative 1 would be expected to have neutral effects to herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands as 

these habitats are maintained in their current condition. 

Wetlands on the refuge are roughly classified as either herbaceous or scrub-shrub wetland types. 

Most of the herbaceous wetlands are intensively managed using water control structures, canals, 

pumps, and dikes to mimic natural hydrology. Scrub-shrub wetlands are typically not intensively 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-15 

managed and rely on rain water, overland flows, or flood flows from streams and rivers for 

hydrologic inputs and natural evapotranspiration for drying cycles. Some refuge wetlands have been 

difficult to manage and exhibit a natural tendency to convert to other habitat types such as wet prairie 

or bottomland riparian forest. Therefore, refuge staff in consultation with other professionals have 

suggested converting some wetlands to these other habitat types. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), there would be a slight positive effect as wetlands would increase 

from 314 to 387 acres in the Sherwood Units, and an unknown quantity of wetlands would also be 

restored in the Wapato Lake Unit. In the Riverboat Unit, about 26 acres of herbaceous wetlands 

would be converted to wet prairie. In the Atfálat’i Unit, some active manipulation of water levels 

would cease, allowing about 69 acres of wetlands to convert to wet prairie, oak savanna, and scrubshrub habitats. In the Onion Flats Unit, about 101 acres of cropland would be restored to scrub-shrub 

wetland. In the Rock Creek Unit, about 27 acres of ruderal wetland would be restored to scrub-shrub 

wetland. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a minor negative effect as wetlands would decrease from 314 to 

260 acres in the Sherwood Units, and an unknown quantity of wetlands would be restored in the 

Wapato Lake Unit. In the Riverboat Unit, about 26 acres of herbaceous wetlands would be converted 

to wet prairie, and in the Tualatin River Unit about 28 acres would be converted to bottomland 

riparian forest. In the Atfálat’i Unit, about 167 acres of wetland would be converted to bottomland 

riparian forest, while about 17 acres of ruderal wetland would be restored to scrub-shrub wetland. In 

the Onion Flats Unit, about 101 acres of cropland would be restored to scrub-shrub wetland. 

6.3.6.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

The junior waterfowl hunt on the Riverboat Unit, proposed in Alternative 2, would have a neutral to 

slightly negative effect to wetlands, due to the development of two to five blinds and access trails 

within wetland areas. Water management would be used to benefit wildlife and habitat, and would 

not be used to enhance hunting without an accompanying wildlife and habitat benefit. 

Similar effects to wetlands from a waterfowl hunting program proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 at the 

Wapato Lake Unit would be expected, but the degree of impacts cannot be determined until 

restoration decisions are made prior to planning a hunt program. 

6.3.6.2 Overall Effects to Wetlands 

Overall, wetlands are expected to exhibit neutral effects under Alternative 1, slightly positive longterm effects under Alternative 2, and minor negative long-term effects under Alternative 3. 

6.3.7 Effects to Streams, Rivers, and Backwater Sloughs 

There are no direct maintenance, restoration, or other impacts planned for the Tualatin River under 

any of the alternatives. However, maintenance and/or restoration of tributary streams, backwater 

sloughs, and adjacent habitats would have positive long-term effects, as well as slight short-term 

negative effects to the river. 

Under Alternative 1, the refuge would maintain existing streams and backwater sloughs. Additional 

lands adjacent to stream channels would be restored or maintained that would benefit these habitat 

types. Effects would be slightly positive in the long term. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), there would be intermediate long-term positive effects as the refuge 

would restore 4.3 miles and maintain 9.5 miles of river frontage, stream channels, and backwater 

sloughs. In the Atfálat’i Unit, Chicken Creek would be restored to its historical footprint and an 

additional 0.6 mile of backwater slough would be created. In the Onion Flats and Rock Creek Units, 

about 1.1 miles of Rock Creek would be restored to a more meandering configuration and an 

additional 1.0 mile of backwater slough would be created. In the Wapato Lake Unit, about 0.3 mile 

of Ayers Creek and 0.5 mile of Wapato Creek could be also be restored. Additionally, with 

restoration of other habitat types such as wet prairie and scrub-shrub wetland, construction of 

backwater sloughs would be incorporated into restoration plans. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be intermediate long-term positive effects as the refuge would 

restore 4.3 miles and maintain 9.5 miles of river frontage, stream channels, and backwater sloughs. In 

the Atfálat’i Unit, Chicken Creek would be restored to its historical footprint and an additional 0.6 

mile of backwater slough would be created. In the Onion Flats and Rock Creek Units, about 1.1 

miles of Rock Creek would be restored to a more meandering configuration and an additional 1.0 

mile of backwater slough would be created. In the Wapato Lake Unit, about 0.3 mile of Ayers Creek 

and 0.5 mile of Wapato Creek could be also be restored. Additionally, with restoration of other 

habitat types such as wet prairie and scrub-shrub wetland, construction of backwater sloughs would 

be incorporated into restoration plans. Under this alternative, there would be fewer miles of 

backwater sloughs in the Atfálat’i Unit as wetlands would be converted to bottomland riparian forest. 

Restoration and maintenance of streams and backwater sloughs would require constructing new 

channels with heavy equipment. Construction would have intermediate negative short-term effects 

from disturbance of soils, causing dust, erosion, and sedimentation; use of diesel fuel causing 

reduced air quality; and disturbance to resident fish as channels are rerouted and reconnected. 

Maintenance of streams, backwater sloughs, and adjacent vegetated areas include removing 

nonnative invasive plants using mechanical, cultural, chemical, and/or biological means (Appendix 

G, IPM) and would also have intermediate negative short-term effects. 

However, intermediate long-term positive effects from restoration would include increased 

groundwater recharge, benefits to listed anadromous fish, and benefits to native wildlife. 

6.3.7.1 Overall Effects to Streams, Rivers, and Backwater Sloughs 

Overall, slight positive long-term effects are expected under Alternative 1, and intermediate positive 

long-term effects to streams, rivers, and backwater sloughs are expected under both Alternatives 2 

and 3. 

6.3.8 Effects to Croplands 

Under Alternative 1, the effects to croplands would be neutral as croplands would be maintained in 

their current condition and no changes would be expected. 

Under both Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, effects would be intermediate, negative, and long term 

as all refuge croplands would be restored to native habitat types. Currently there are 909 acres of 

croplands. Croplands are currently only present on the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units. Shortterm minor negative effects might occur as heavy equipment would be used to restore croplands to 

native habitat types. Restoration might include earth moving that would result in dust, minor erosion, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-17 

and siltation on a localized basis. Restoration might also include application of Service-approved 

herbicide as described in Appendix G. 

6.3.8.1 Overall Effects to Croplands 

Overall, croplands are expected to experience neutral long-term effects under Alternative 1, and 

intermediate long-term negative effects under Alternatives 2 and 3 as these lands are converted to 

native habitat types. 

6.3.9 Effects to Ruderal Lands 

Under all alternatives, ruderal lands would be restored to native habitat types and would experience 

long-term intermediate negative effects. Currently there are 181 and 68 acres of ruderal uplands and 

wetlands, respectively. 

6.3.9.1 Overall Effects to Ruderal Lands 

Overall, ruderal lands are expected to experience intermediate long-term negative effects as these 

lands are converted to native habitat types under all alternatives. 

6.3.10 Effects to Waterfowl 

Under Alternative 1, waterfowl would be expected to experience neutral effects from maintaining 

existing habitat types. There would be no increase in wetland areas or other habitat types that would 

benefit waterfowl. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), waterfowl would be expected to benefit from increased acreage of 

wetlands and wet prairie, as well as restoration of croplands to native habitat types. In the Sherwood 

Units, most of the increase in wetland acres would be composed of scrub-shrub wetland types, while 

herbaceous wetlands would decrease. While waterfowl use scrub-shrub wetlands, these wetlands 

would not support the same number or diversity of waterfowl as herbaceous wetlands. Scrub-shrub 

wetlands are a more closed habitat type that would be used by some waterfowl species such as wood 

ducks and hooded mergansers for foraging, breeding, and brood rearing. Species such as cackling 

Canada geese and northern pintails, which constitute the majority of wintering birds on the refuge, 

prefer the more open habitat of herbaceous wetlands. In the Wapato Lake Unit, it is unknown what 

wetland types would be restored from croplands, but the effect on local waterfowl populations would 

likely be neutral or slightly positive. In Alternative 2, wet prairie would be restored primarily from 

herbaceous wetlands, and this would be expected to have a neutral or slightly negative effect on 

waterfowl. 

Under Alternative 3, the effects to waterfowl would likely be neutral as most existing wetlands and 

wet prairie would be converted to bottomland riparian forest, but cropland would be converted to 

wetland. Under this alternative, the emphasis would be on providing the largest contiguous blocks of 

habitat possible with an emphasis on forested habitat types. In the Sherwood Units most remaining 

wetlands would be composed of scrub-shrub, and in the Wapato Lake Unit wetlands would be 

restored from croplands. 

The conversion of croplands to wetlands under these two alternatives would likely have a positive 

effect on waterfowl. Even though waterfowl use croplands extensively for foraging, wetlands would 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

provide a longer season of use than croplands. Croplands are heavily used during periods of winter 

flooding, but are typically drained during early spring to facilitate planting, whereas wetlands would 

typically retain water into late spring or early summer, providing additional foraging, roosting, and 

breeding opportunities for waterfowl. 

6.3.10.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

Under Alternative 2, there would be a youth waterfowl hunt on the Riverboat Unit, and general 

public waterfowl hunting would be considered under Alternatives 2 and 3 at the Wapato Lake Unit. 

Blinds would be constructed and placed to minimize disturbance to waterfowl, and vegetative 

screening on trails approaching blinds may be used to increase cover and reduce silhouetting of 

hunters. Individual ducks and geese would be taken; however, the impact to the population as a 

whole would remain neutral. Duck populations have not changed substantially nationwide since 

comprehensive surveys began in 1955 (USFWS 2011b), and with the exception of dusky Canada 

geese, all populations of geese that occur on the refuge have been increasing during the past 30 years 

(USFWS 2011c). Recreational hunting would be implemented in accordance with regulations and 

laws of the State of Oregon. The junior hunt at the Riverboat Unit would have a minor negative 

impact to waterfowl. The effects from hunting at the Wapato Lake Unit would likely be similar, but 

the degree cannot be determined until restoration decisions are made prior to planning a hunt 

program. Specific effects to waterfowl from hunting are discussed in Section B.2 of Appendix B, 

Compatibility Determinations. 

6.3.10.2 Overall Effects to Waterfowl 

Overall, waterfowl are expected to experience neutral effects under Alternative 1, minor long-term 

positive effects under Alternative 2, and neutral long-term effects under Alternative 3. 

6.3.11 Effects to Songbirds 

Under Alternative 1, songbirds would be expected to benefit as areas that have been restored begin to 

mature, and maintenance of intact habitat continues. The presence of croplands would continue to 

have a slight negative effect on most songbird species. Because cropland areas are often planted or 

harvested during spring and summer, there would be negative effects because of disturbance and 

direct impacts to ground-nesting birds attempting to nest in these areas. In addition, application of 

herbicide may directly or indirectly affect songbirds via direct ingestion, or via foraging on insects or 

plants that have been sprayed with herbicide. Refer to Appendix G, Integrated Pest Management, for 

more information. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), a diversity of habitat types would be maintained, enhanced, and 

restored that would benefit a multitude of songbird species. Bottomland riparian forest, mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest, wet prairie, and scrub-shrub wetland habitat types would all increase, 

while herbaceous wetland and oak savanna would be reduced in the Sherwood Units. In the Wapato 

Lake Unit, croplands would be converted mainly to native wetland types, which would benefit some 

songbird species. Songbirds occupy all the habitat types represented on the refuge. Larger contiguous 

blocks of forested habitats would benefit forest interior species such as many of the warblers. Habitat 

edges and transition zones benefit other species such as red-tailed hawks that typically nest and roost 

in tall forest trees while foraging in open grassy habitat types. Grassland songbirds would benefit 

from restoration of wet prairie. A variety of resident and migratory songbirds such as swallows, 

willow flycatchers, and marsh wrens use both herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetland types. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-19 

Under Alternative 3, bottomland riparian forest, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest, and scrub-shrub 

wetland would expand by about 82 percent, 515 percent, and 980 percent, respectively. Many species 

of songbirds would benefit from these expansions of habitat, especially the expansion of forested 

habitat types. Herbaceous wetland and oak savanna would be substantially reduced in the Sherwood 

Units, and wet prairie would remain about the same. The reduction of oak savanna would have 

indirect negative effects on some songbirds specializing in oak and grassland habitat types. In the 

Wapato Lake Unit, croplands would be converted mainly to native wetland types, which would 

benefit some songbird species. Larger contiguous blocks of forested habitat types would benefit a 

host of interior songbird guilds. One of the goals of the Oregon Conservation Strategy (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW] 2006) is to maintain and restore important stopover sites 

for migratory birds, and restoring large blocks of forested habitat helps achieve this goal. 

6.3.11.1 Overall Effects to Songbirds 

Overall, slight long-term positive effects are expected under Alternative 1, intermediate long-term 

positive effects to songbirds are expected with an increase in overall diversity of habitat types under 

Alternative 2, and slight long-term positive effects are expected under Alternative 3. 

6.3.12 Effects to Shorebirds 

Under Alternative 1, shorebirds would experience neutral effects as current habitat types are 

maintained. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), shorebirds would benefit from proposed habitat restoration and 

maintenance. In the Atfálat’i and Riverboat Units, some herbaceous wetlands would be converted to 

other habitat types that would not be as attractive to most shorebird species, while restoration of wet 

prairie in these units would be attractive to such species as Wilson’s snipe. However, restoration of 

wetlands in the Wapato Lake Unit would provide positive benefits for a multitude of shorebird 

species such as greater yellowlegs, least and western sandpipers, and killdeer. Currently at Wapato 

Lake, water is drained early in spring to facilitate farming and remains dry into fall, until rain begins 

to fill the basin. Under its restored condition, water would likely remain throughout much of summer, 

providing foraging and resting habitat for migrating and locally breeding shorebirds. Restoring 

cropland in the Onion Flats Unit to native habitat types likewise would have benefits for a number of 

shorebird species. 

Under Alternative 3, with an emphasis on large blocks of forested habitat types, many wetlands in 

the Atfálat’i, Riverboat, and Tualatin River Units would be converted to habitat types less suitable 

for shorebirds. Currently, migrating and locally breeding shorebirds use these wetlands for foraging. 

However, restoration of native wetland habitat types in the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units from 

croplands would provide foraging and nesting opportunities to shorebirds. 

6.3.12.1 Overall Effects to Shorebirds 

Under Alternative 1 shorebirds would be expected to experience neutral long-term effects from 

current habitat management. Under Alternative 2 shorebirds are expected to experience slight 

positive long-term effects from proposed habitat changes. Under Alternative 3 shorebirds are 

expected to experience neutral long-term effects from proposed habitat changes. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.3.13 Effects to Marshbirds and Waders 

Under Alternative 1, marshbirds and waders would experience neutral effects from maintaining 

current habitat types. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), marshbirds and waders would benefit from conversion of cropland 

in the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units to native wetland habitat types. Species such as Virgina 

rail, American bittern, and great blue heron would thrive in these restored habitat types, which would 

provide forage and, for some species, nesting cover. In the Atfálat’i Unit habitat changes would 

likely be neutral overall as some herbaceous wetlands would be converted to other habitat types, 

while new areas of scrub-shrub and wet prairie would benefit this guild by providing foraging 

habitat. In the Riverboat Unit changes in habitat types would also likely benefit this guild as 

herbaceous wetland is converted to scrub-shrub and wet prairie. Any enhancement or restoration 

projects in the Rock Creek Unit would also benefit this guild by improving habitat conditions there. 

Under Alternative 3, several herbaceous wetland areas in the Sherwood Units would be converted to 

other habitat types. This would likely cause short-term negative effects to marshbirds and waders as 

some of these herbaceous wetlands are converted to scrub-shrub wetlands and wet prairie, and would 

cause long-term negative effects as some of these wetlands are converted to forested habitat types 

that are less suitable for this guild. As in Alternative 2, croplands in the Onion Flats and Wapato 

Lake Units would be converted to scrub-shrub wetland and other native habitat types that would 

benefit this guild in the long term. 

6.3.13.1 Overall Effects to Marshbirds and Waders 

Under Alternative 1 marshbirds and waders would be expected to have neutral long-term effects 

from current habitat management. Under Alternative 2 marshbirds and waders would be expected to 

have intermediate positive long-term effects from proposed habitat changes. Under Alternative 3 

marshbirds and waders would be expected to experience slight positive long-term effects from 

habitat changes. 

6.3.14 Effects to Raptors 

Under Alternative 1, raptors would be expected to experience neutral effects from current habitat 

management. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), raptors would benefit from proposed habitat changes such as 

converting croplands to native habitat types in the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units. Species such 

as bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and northern harriers frequently forage in wetlands such as those 

that would result from habitat restoration. Increasing bottomland riparian forest habitat in the 

Tualatin River and Atfálat’i Units would benefit species such as Cooper’s hawks, sharp-shinned 

hawks, and great horned and western screech owls by providing foraging and nesting habitat. 

Restoring wet prairie would benefit short-eared and barn owls, red-shouldered hawks, and American 

kestrels by providing foraging habitat. 

Under Alternative 3, raptors would benefit from proposed habitat changes such as converting 

croplands to native habitat types in the Onion Flats and Wapato Lake Units. Under this alternative 

there would be an emphasis on restoring and expanding forested habitat types that would benefit 

interior forest species such as Cooper’s hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, and great horned and western 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-21 

screech owls by providing foraging and nesting habitat, but there might be a slight negative effect for 

edge species such as red-tailed hawks. There would be less wet prairie, oak savanna, and wetlands 

for open-area foraging species such as American kestrel and northern harrier. 

6.3.14.1 Overall Effects to Raptors 

Under Alternative 1 raptors would be expected to have neutral long-term effects as a result of current 

management practices. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, raptors would be expected to have slight 

positive long-term effects from proposed changes in habitat. 

6.3.15 Effects to Mammals 

A wide range of mammal species from shrews to black-tailed deer use refuge lands during all or part 

of their lives. Most species are adapted to native habitat types, but many thrive in human altered 

landscapes as well. 

Under Alternative 1, mammals would be expected to have slight positive effects as restored areas 

such as bottomland riparian forest begin to mature and habitat changes occur. 

Under both Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, most mammal species would be expected to benefit 

from continued enhancement and restoration of native habitat types. Conversion of croplands to 

native habitat types would benefit numerous mammal species, especially aquatic-associated species 

such as beaver, mink, and muskrat, but may negatively affect coyotes by reducing foraging areas. 

Creating larger blocks of contiguous habitat would also benefit many species such as black-tailed 

deer, western gray squirrel, and bobcat. In most cases, conversion of one native habitat type to 

another would require minimal ground-disturbing activities that would have a slight negative effect 

on small mammals such as rodents. Restoration activities often involve ground-disturbing activities 

such as mowing and discing, which would have a short-term negative effect on small rodents and 

possibly other mammals. Long-term effects from most habitat enhancement and restoration would 

likely be beneficial to mammals. 

6.3.15.1 Overall Effects to Mammals 

Under Alternative 1, most mammal species would be expected to experience slight long-term 

positive effects with current management activities. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, mammals 

would be expected to have minor positive long-term effects from proposed changes in habitat. 

6.3.16 Effects to Native Fish 

Under Alternative 1, native fish would likely benefit as native habitat types mature and positively 

influence river and streamside waterways. 

Under both Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, most native fish species would benefit from proposed 

restoration and enhancement measures. Restoration of the historical Chicken and Rock Creek 

channels would provide benefits such as shaded waterways, off-channel refugia during flood events, 

coarse woody debris to create channel diversity and refuge from predators, and a diversity of riffle 

and pool habitats. Riffle and pool habitats are largely missing from Rock Creek at present. Henning 

et al. (2007) found that enhanced wetlands were beneficial to salmonids and other native fish. 

Restoration of Wapato Lake would likely result in reconnecting the lake bed with the Tualatin River, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Wapato and Ayers Creeks, and possibly other perennial streams. Reconnecting the lake bed with the 

river and streams would create off-channel refugia during flood events. Construction of new stream 

channels and backwater sloughs using heavy equipment might have short-term negative effects such 

as erosion and siltation, removal of streamside vegetation, and disturbance of stream beds, but 

resulting habitats would likely provide benefits for salmonids (Jeffres et al. 2008) and have 

intermediate long-term effects. Any in-stream work would be conducted in accordance with ODFW 

regulations (ODFW 2008) and best management practices to minimize effects to native fish. 

6.3.16.1 Effects from Public Use Actions 

Alternative 2 proposes a fishing program in the Tualatin River from the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. 

The most likely catch at this location would be warm-water, nonnative fish such as crappie, bluegill, 

and largemouth bass. A less-likely catch would be native fish such as cutthroat trout and steelhead, 

and anglers would be encouraged to release native fish. Recreational fishing would be implemented 

in accordance with regulations and laws of the State of Oregon. A slight negative effect would result 

to native fish populations if these species were caught on a regular basis and not released. Specific 

effects to native fish from fishing are discussed in Section B.5 of Appendix B, Compatibility 

Determinations. 

6.3.16.2 Overall Effects to Native Fish 

Under Alternative 1, native fish would be expected to experience slight positive long-term effects as 

native habitat types mature. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, native fish species would likely 

experience intermediate long-term positive effects from proposed activities. 

6.3.17 Effects to Reptiles 

Under Alternative 1, reptiles would benefit as restoration and maintenance of native habitat types 

continues. 

Under both Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, most native reptile species would benefit from proposed 

restoration and enhancement measures. Native reptiles using refuge lands and waters include various 

snakes, lizards, and both northwestern pond turtles and painted turtles. Turtles would benefit as 

croplands are converted to native wetland habitat types and as stream channels and backwater 

sloughs are restored or created. Restoration activities that include introduction of basking logs or 

similar structures would enhance habitat for turtles. Restoring wet prairie, oak savanna, and forested 

habitat types would benefit snakes and lizards, as well as providing nesting sites for turtles. 

Construction activities, such as disturbance from heavy equipment and removal of nonnative 

vegetation in preparation for planting native vegetation in restoration sites, might produce short-term 

negative effects for reptiles. Any in-stream work would be conducted in accordance with ODFW 

regulations (ODFW 2008) and best management practices to minimize effects to reptiles. 

6.3.17.1 Overall Effects to Reptiles 

Under Alternative 1, reptiles would be expected to experience slight positive long-term effects as 

habitats mature. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, reptiles would be expected to experience intermediate 

long-term positive effects from proposed activities. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-23 

6.3.18 Effects to Amphibians

Under Alternative 1, amphibians would benefit as current habitat types mature and prosper with 

ongoing maintenance activities. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), most amphibian species would benefit from proposed restoration 

and enhancement measures. Native salamanders, newts, and frogs use refuge wetlands and adjacent 

uplands to complete their annual life cycles. Conversion of herbaceous wetlands to wet prairie and 

scrub-shrub wetlands would likely have a neutral effect on amphibians. 

Under Alternative 3, amphibians would likely experience negative effects from loss of breeding 

habitat as wetlands are converted to forest habitat types on the Atfálat’i and Tualatin River Units. 

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, restoration of streams and backwater sloughs would have positive 

effects on species such as northern red-legged frogs and long-toed salamanders as these species 

would use side pools for foraging and breeding. In addition, conversion of croplands to native habitat 

types such as wetlands would have a positive effect on amphibians by providing additional areas for 

breeding and over-wintering. Restoration and enhancement activities might have short-term negative 

effects from heavy equipment and removal of vegetation in preparation for establishing native 

vegetation. Any in-stream work would be conducted in accordance with ODFW regulations (ODFW 

2008) and best management practices to minimize effects to amphibians. 

6.3.18.1 Overall Effects to Amphibians 

Under Alternative 1, amphibians would be expected to experience slight positive long-term effects 

from habitat maintenance. Under Alternative 2, amphibians would be expected to experience minor 

long-term positive effects from proposed activities, and under Alternative 3 amphibians would be 

expected to experience slight long-term positive effects. 

6.3.19 Effects to Federally and State-listed Species 

Listed species receive special consideration in terms of refuge management. Federally listed species 

are trust resources that require additional consultation whenever an activity conducted by or 

permitted by the refuge may have an effect on these species or their habitats. Impacts to these species 

from wildlife-dependent recreation and habitat management are assessed in this chapter. Impacts 

associated with the use of herbicides and pesticides are assessed in the IPM plan in Appendix G. 

Federally listed species that are known to occur on or adjacent to the refuge include Nelson’s 

checker-mallow, upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, and upper Willamette River steelhead. In 

addition to these three species, which are also state-protected under Oregon Administrative Rules 

(OAR) (OAR 2011), additional Oregon state-listed species known to occur on or adjacent to the 

refuge include only the bald eagle. 

Nelson’s checker-mallow exists as experimental populations on the Atfálat’i, Tualatin River, and 

Riverboat Units of the refuge; there is also one small area on the Atfálat’i Unit that had plants 

existing before the introduction program began. Nelson’s checker-mallow is a hearty perennial plant 

that prefers wet prairies, wetland margins, sloughs and stream sides, or other moist open habitat 

(USFWS 2010b). Activities in these habitat types might include mowing, discing, burning, or 

application of Service-approved herbicide. In areas of known Nelson’s checker-mallow populations, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

mowing or burning might be conducted, but discing and application of herbicide would be avoided. 

Mowing and burning would likely have a net positive effect as these management actions help to 

reduce woody species that would otherwise outcompete or shade out Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Discing or application of herbicide would likely have a negative effect on Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Enhancement and restoration of additional native habitat types would provide opportunities for 

additional planting and expansion of Nelson’s checker-mallow into new areas to meet recovery 

objectives. 

Upper Willamette River Chinook and steelhead use the mainstem of the Tualatin River to reach 

headwater tributary streams, and may use tributary streams along the lower reaches of the river as 

well. Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2001 (Leader 2001) found that upper Willamette River 

Chinook represented only 0.08 percent of all fish in 22 reaches of 10 tributary streams of the Tualatin 

River and were located in only one reach of one stream. Rainbow trout (genetically identical to 

steelhead) represented 1.01 percent of all fish and were found in seven reaches of five streams. Ward 

(1995) suggested that enhancing portions of Rock and Chicken Creeks, as proposed in this CCP/EA, 

would benefit salmonid and other native fish species. Enhancing and restoring streams and backwater 

sloughs, as well as enhancing and restoring native habitat types adjacent to the Tualatin River, 

streams, and sloughs would benefit native fish by providing protective cover, food inputs, shade, and 

reduced erosion. In addition, converting croplands in Wapato Lake to native habitat types and 

reconnecting the Tualatin River and perennial streams to the lake bed would likely be a benefit to 

outmigrating juvenile salmonids and other native fish by providing off-channel refugia. 

Bald eagles are frequently observed on refuge lands during fall, winter, and spring. During the last 

decade there have been no bald eagles documented nesting on refuge lands. However, a bald eagle 

nest was observed during 2008 and 2009 on private land adjacent to the refuge. This nest was blown 

down during a winter storm and was not rebuilt. During fall and winter, bald eagles primarily forage 

on waterfowl that are attracted to refuge wetlands. Some waterfowl remain to breed in spring, and 

bald eagles would continue to prey upon them and their young. In addition, as wetlands are drawn 

down for management purposes in late spring and early summer, bald eagles would also forage on 

nonnative fish, particularly carp, that gather in the remaining pools. By mid-summer, food sources 

are scarce and eagles move off the refuge. Enhancement and restoration of native habitat types that 

support waterfowl would likely benefit bald eagles. In addition, bald eagles typically nest in tall 

trees, snags, or power towers. Enhancement of forest habitats would likely benefit bald eagles over 

the long term. Public use programs on the refuge have been designed to minimize disturbance to 

waterfowl that in turn benefit bald eagles. Any expansion of public use programs would seek to 

continue this practice. Restoration projects involving the use of heavy equipment would likely occur 

during summer and thus minimize disturbance to bald eagles. 

6.3.19.1 Overall Effects to Federally and State-listed Species 

Under Alternative 1, listed species would be expected to experience minor positive long-term effects 

from current management, and under Alternative 2, they would experience minor positive long-term 

effects from the increase in rare habitat types that support those species. Under Alternative 3, listed 

species would be expected to have slight positive long-term effects as native habitats are restored and 

enhanced. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-25 

6.4 Effects to Cultural and Historical Resources 

The Service is committed to the protection of known cultural resources under all alternatives; 

however, Alternatives 2 and 3 would implement actions to build stronger inventory, evaluation, and 

protection procedures. In addition, Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide actions to form partnerships 

and improve interpretation of these resources. In general, this would help to strengthen long-term 

protection and preservation of all cultural resources. 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, defines historic preservation 

as the protection, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and archaeology. 

Title I, Section 106, of the NHPA requires Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over 

a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any state to take into account the effect of the 

undertaking on any historic property in the project vicinity. Regulatory procedures for complying 

with Section 106 are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800. All ground-disturbing 

activities proposed for the refuge and for any parcels that might be acquired in the future, as well as 

alterations to significant historic structures or infrastructure, would be subject to compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA, which may require a pedestrian survey and other identification efforts as 

appropriate. 

Prior to implementing undertakings, the applicable cultural resource compliance investigation would 

be undertaken. If significant cultural resources are found, appropriate procedures and protocols 

would be followed to protect them. Whenever possible, resources would be avoided or mitigated. 

Mitigation options, in addition to site avoidance by relocating or redesigning facilities, include data 

recovery, using either collection techniques or in-situ site stabilization procedures, or other measures 

as appropriate. 

Under all alternatives, the Service would seek to develop appropriate strategies to address 

maintenance needs of existing structures that are eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Service would actively recruit funding and seek to 

develop partnerships to address these needs. However, under Alternatives 2 and 3, unless funding 

sources are adequate to cover all needs, structures that are either low priority or unsafe without nearterm maintenance could potentially be removed. Under Alternative 1, historic structures would 

continue to deteriorate, though none would be deliberately removed. All structures would need to be 

evaluated in the context of the NHPA prior to any work or removal. Maintenance and improvement 

of historic resources would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, resulting in positive 

impacts to cultural resources, while also causing some temporary noise and disturbance at and near 

the site. Lead paint may have the potential to be mobilized during any maintenance or removal 

process; enacting best practices (such as stripping the paint with a product that limits dust and binds 

with the lead, creating an inert substance for easier disposal, or covering the lead paint with an 

encapsulating paint product) would minimize this risk. Removal of historic resources would have a 

negative effect to cultural resources and could cause some temporary disturbance and soil 

compaction, as heavy equipment would likely be used in the removal process. 

Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to create a program to identify and protect 

historic properties. This program includes the nomination of eligible properties to the NRHP; the 

designation of a qualified agency historic preservation officer; the presence of agency programs and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-26 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

activities that consider preservation values; and the authority of Federal agencies to include the costs 

of preservation activities within overall project costs during undertakings. Many opportunities exist 

to comply with Section 110, including but not limited to the development of interpretive materials 

and exhibits, refuge-based cultural heritage curricula and resources for use both on and off the 

refuge, and a systematic program for recording and evaluating the refuge’s cultural resources. These 

opportunities also present excellent prospects for partnerships with Tribal communities and historical 

societies. The myriad ways in which the refuge’s rich cultural history can be shared with refuge 

audiences should be considered during any planning project or undertaking on the refuge. 

A more comprehensive understanding and inventory of cultural resources on-site would occur under 

Alternatives 2 and 3. The Service would complete a comprehensive review of resources, develop a 

museum management plan for existing and new properties, and collect oral histories. This gathering 

of data and knowledge would help the refuge protect and understand the cultural resources of this 

area, resulting in a slight positive effect for cultural resources as they would be more protected. 

Partnerships, interpretation, and education would be expanded under Alternatives 2 and 3, compared 

to Alternative 1, and this expansion would strengthen current partnerships and provide high-quality 

interpretation and education opportunities. This effort would assist in laying the groundwork for 

establishment of more effective partnerships and coordination. Additionally, this would contribute to 

the public’s understanding and appreciation for archaeological and historic resources and would have 

a slight positive effect to cultural resources. 

6.4.1 Overall Effects to Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative 1, cultural resources would be expected to experience slight negative long-term 

effects from lack of adequate protection and interpretation. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, cultural 

resources would be expected to experience minor long-term positive effects from proposed activities. 

6.5 Social Effects 

The baseline against which all alternatives are compared is the current public use program as 

described in Chapter 5. Unless otherwise noted, throughout this section, Alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative, is assumed to have a neutral effect because minimal or no changes to programs would 

occur under Alternative 1. 

6.5.1 General Effects 

6.5.1.1 General Effects from Public Use 

Several general social effects from public use apply across the visitor services program and are not 

tied to specific wildlife-dependent recreation and education opportunities. 

With the proposed increase in public use opportunities, expanded outreach and information, new 

facilities proposed in Alternative 2, new communication tools, and current rising interest in the 

refuge, visitation is estimated to grow to 250,000 visitors per year. With this increased contact with 

the public, the most likely results would be better understanding and support of the refuge and the 

Refuge System; more visitors from diverse backgrounds, in particular urban residents; increased 

environmental awareness of natural resources; better protection of natural resources; and more 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-27 

involvement by community members, volunteers, and partners. More formal evaluation of programs 

would lead to improved and more effective learning outcomes and experiences. Improvement of 

existing public use facilities would lead to a safer and more comfortable visitor experience. On the 

other hand, increased visitation may lead to more crowding at times such as weekends and during 

summer months, when visitation tends to be greatest. This could lead to a slight long-term negative 

effect to the quality of individual visitor experience. 

User fees for photography blinds and hunting and fishing programs, proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, 

and entrance fees proposed in all alternatives could provide additional financial support for public 

use on the refuge. However, if fees were implemented, visitors may be discouraged from visiting the 

refuge or participating in certain activities. On the other hand, the refuge’s need for program support 

may encourage stakeholders (such as hunting groups or photography clubs) to take an active role in 

implementing and managing public use programs to offset the need for fees. If implemented, fees 

would have a minor negative effect to the visiting public. 

The cumulative general effects from public use would be a minor positive effect for visitors. See 

remaining sections of Chapter 6 and Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations, for more detailed 

analysis of wildlife-dependent recreation and education activities. 

6.5.1.2 Effects of Wildlife and Habitat Actions on Public Use from Restoration/Habitat 

Actions 

The refuge is currently composed of a mosaic of fragmented habitats. Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

strive to combine these fragments into larger contiguous blocks of native habitat types within the 

landscape and to restore relic or disappearing habitat types. The result for refuge visitors participating 

in wildlife-dependent recreation and education would generally be positive as these habitat actions 

would likely result in enhanced opportunities to experience native wildlife and native habitats. As 

enhancement and restoration projects occur, there would likely be negative short-term minor effects 

to visitor experience. Examples of these effects in both Alternatives 2 and 3 include disruption from 

construction activities (heavy equipment, installation of water control structures, earth moving) and 

habitat actions such as conducting prescribed fire (refer to Chapter 2 for a complete list of habitat 

management strategies). The effect from day-to-day habitat maintenance as described in Alternative 

1 would be neutral, as these activities already occur on the refuge within areas open to the public. 

6.5.2 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography 

All existing wildlife observation and photography facilities are to be maintained and/or improved in 

all alternatives, and several new facilities are being proposed in Alternative 2. 

Maintaining seasonal closures, improving habitat conditions near viewing facilities, adding a tree 

buffer along highways, and altering the trail surface to be quieter would all create a minor positive 

effect by increasing chances of viewing abundant and diverse wildlife by reducing disturbance and 

creating a more natural and quieter setting for visitors 

The addition of one to three photo blinds in Alternative 2 would provide more people opportunities 

to participate in wildlife photography; other vantage points with either a landscape view or more 

intimate habitat setting; a wider variety of habitat types such as oak savanna, scrub-shrub wetland, 

wet prairie, and forested areas, in addition to the current herbaceous wetland habitat; and increased 

photo quality by orienting blinds with the sun behind the photographer. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-28 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Boat access would be considered in Alternative 2, and connection to regional trail systems would be 

explored in Alternatives 2 and 3. These new features, if implemented, would increase areas for 

wildlife observation and photography, provide better connectivity to other natural areas and 

communities, and encourage alternative transportation to the refuge. Both actions would rely on 

partners and have the potential to enhance existing and create new partnerships with local 

organizations. 

Collectively, in Alternatives 2 and 3, the result would be a minor positive effect for the public 

participating in wildlife observation and photography. 

6.5.2.1 Effects from Habitat Actions 

Restoration and/or enhancement of habitats in all alternatives would continue to provide high-quality 

viewing and photography opportunities by providing habitats that favor diverse and abundant 

wildlife, although actual species viewed may shift based on future habitat and restoration actions. 

Viewing opportunities from the current wetland observation deck (Atfálat’i Unit) would shift from 

herbaceous wetland to wet prairie in Alternative 2 and to bottomland riparian forest in Alternative 3. 

Both would still provide a diversity of wildlife, but would be less likely to provide views of abundant 

waterfowl. Herbaceous wetlands would be maintained below the plaza overlook in all alternatives 

and would continue to provide abundant waterfowl and waterbird viewing opportunities. 

6.5.3 Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education 

Alternative 2 proposes to add two new off-trail areas to support the environmental education 

program—a designated study area within the bottomland riparian forest for students participating in 

registered field trips and a nature play area in the upland designed for small children to participate in 

less-structured nature play. Both features would provide a slightly more rustic and/or quieter 

experience for students and children, provide a better learning environment for certain education 

lessons, provide an area where students and children can disperse but still be supervised by adults, 

and provide opportunities for more individual learning in addition to the group learning that occurs in 

the trail study sites. The nature play area would specifically provide a new activity area dedicated to 

young children (6 years and under) that would teach children and their parents how to interact with 

nature. These two new opportunities would result in an intermediate positive effect by offering 

opportunities that do not currently exist on the refuge. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to improve the quality of the existing environmental education program 

through formal evaluation, educational materials enhancement, and adaptive management. Both 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to add environmental education opportunities for communities 

surrounding the Wapato Lake Unit. Alternative 2 proposes to increase the capacity of the 

environmental education program by reaching more students, youth, and educators through on-site 

field trips, teacher workshops, after-school programs, and off-site education programs. In addition, 

capacity would be increased by enhancing the quality of the education programs through evaluation 

and better alignment with state learning standards. This would result in the development of 

environmental literacy for more students; more involvement with diverse communities; more 

environmental education teaching skills and resources for educators and schools; and overall better 

learning outcomes. 

Collectively, these actions would create an intermediate positive effect in Alternatives 2 and a minor 

positive effect in Alternative 3 by enhancing the current program. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-29 

6.5.4 Opportunities for Quality Interpretation 

All existing interpretive facilities, signs, kiosks, and overlooks would be maintained in all 

alternatives. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the refuge would improve the quality of interpretive programs 

through more in-depth staff/volunteer training and program evaluation. These improvements would 

be guided by the nationally recognized and Service-adopted Interpretive Process Model, which has 

interpretative guidelines (Larsen 2003). Alternatives 2 and 3 would also build new partnerships with 

organizations such as the National Association of Interpretation and the Confederated Tribes of 

Grand Ronde to develop new programs. Collectively, these enhancements would result in a minor 

positive effect to the quality of the interpretive program. 

6.5.5 Opportunities for Quality Hunting 

Alternative 2 proposes to establish a youth waterfowl hunting program on the Riverboat Unit. This 

would provide an opportunity for youth to hunt where very few nearby opportunities currently exist 

in the community; it would also meet the community’s desire to share and teach hunting traditions to 

youth, provide an opportunity for the refuge to offer hunter education and mentorship programs, and 

provide an opportunity for stakeholders and partners to get involved in implementing and sustaining 

the program. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to establish waterfowl hunting at the Wapato Lake Unit 

once land acquisition and habitat restoration have progressed enough to sustain a safe and quality 

hunt program. Adding youth and/or general public waterfowl hunts would result in an intermediate 

positive effect because the refuge would provide a new wildlife-dependent public use (as defined in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act [Improvement Act]) that is not currently 

offered on the refuge. 

6.5.6 Opportunities for Quality Fishing 

Alternative 2 proposes to establish a fishing program from the existing River Overlook on the 

Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge. Due to the presence of the existing trail and overlook, this action would 

provide a location for disabled visitors and families to fish where they may otherwise not have safe 

and/or wheelchair access to the Tualatin River. In addition, this action would provide an opportunity 

to teach angler education and for stakeholders and partners to get involved in implementing and 

sustaining a fishing program. Adding fishing would result in an intermediate positive effect because 

the refuge would provide a new wildlife-dependent public use (as defined in the Improvement Act) 

that is not currently offered on the refuge. 

6.5.7 Opportunities for Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

Currently, nonwildlife-dependent recreation activities are not permitted or offered on the refuge and 

no new nonwildlife-dependent activities are being proposed. Thus, the resulting effect for all 

alternatives is neutral. 

6.5.8 Projected User Numbers in 15 Years 

Refuge management can influence the number of visitors. Refuge decisions about features of public 

use management—such as how many facilities to build, where to build those facilities, how much 

staff time to devote to programs, and how much parking to provide—influence visitation for years to 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-30 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

come. Similarly, and often playing a greater role, demographic shifts, cultural preferences, and 

economics influence refuge visitation. Even small annual shifts can have a profound effect over time. 

As a piece of the analysis, the CCP planning team projected the number of visits that would be 

expected at the end of 15 years, by alternative. Table 6-3 displays the number of visits to the refuge 

expected under a variety of different uses. Assumptions used in generating the projections are 

provided as footnotes to the table. A key assumption was that overall visitation would increase by 2.5 

times over the course of 15 years, to 250,000 visitors annually. 

Table 6-3. Annual Refuge Visits, Projected in 15 Years, by Activity 

Estimated Number of Annual Recreation Visits 

Recreation 

Activity 

Alternative 1 (baseline: 

2011 recorded annual 

visitation) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wildlife observation 69,900 250,000 250,000 

Wildlife photography 1,764 10,000 9,000 

Environmental 

education 

4,228 12,000 6,000 

Interpretation 4,288 9,000 5,000 

Waterfowl hunting 0 1,200 1,140 

Fishing 0 1,000 0 

Auto tour visits 0 100,000 100,000 

Notes 

Activity Descriptions: 

Wildlife observation includes pedestrian visits to trails and overlooks. 

Wildlife photography includes photo blind reservations, photographers using trails and overlooks, and 

photography club events 

Environmental education includes formal student programs (field trips), teacher workshops, youth group 

programs (scouts, after-school clubs), off-site education fairs, off-site student programs led by the Service 

Interpretation includes guided walks and talks, naturalist-led programs, workshops, and special events 

(e.g., bird festival, refuge week, spring break exploration days, and others). 

Waterfowl hunting includes youth hunt on the Riverboat Unit and public hunt on the Wapato Lake Unit. 

Fishing includes fishing in the Tualatin River from the existing river overlook on the Atfálat’i Unit. 

Auto tour visits reflect potential future use at the Wapato Lake Unit that would occur on existing state and 

county roads, if overlooks, kiosks, and pullouts were to be developed over the life of the CCP. 

Assumptions for Projections in Alternatives 2 and 3: 

Wildlife observation: Alternatives 2 and 3 assume 2.5-fold increase in visitors at the Sherwood Units 

(175,000), plus an additional 75,000 people at the Wapato Lake Unit. Potential future visits to the Wapato 

Lake Unit were calculated based on the current visits of nearby Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve 

(30,000) multiplied by 2.5. 

Wildlife photography: Alternative 2 assumes a 2.5-fold increase in visitors at the Sherwood Units (4,500), 

plus an additional 4,500 visits at the Wapato Lake Unit. It is expected that although the Wapato Lake Unit 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-31 

is more rural, it would command a large draw of photographers due to its large expanse and potential for 

photographing abundant waterfowl such as tundra swan. Alternative 3 would not include new 

photography blinds at the Sherwood Units and is therefore projected to experience a 10% decrease as 

compared to Alternative 2. 

Environmental education: Alternative 2 assumes a 2.5-fold increase in visitors at the Sherwood Units 

(10,000), plus an additional 2,000 students at the Wapato Lake Unit. Student use at the Wapato Lake Unit 

was calculated as 25% of the total 2010-2011 student body of the Gaston, Forest Grove, and YamhillCarlton School Districts. Alternative 3 would not include expansion of the environmental education 

program and would rely on current management capacity and staffing; therefore, it is expected to only 

have a modest increase to 6,000 students a year. 

Interpretation: Alternative 2 assumes a twofold increase in visitors for the Sherwood Units (9,000 people), 

plus an additional 1,000 participants at the Wapato Lake Unit. This projection includes special events, 

where participation tends to be steadier than other activities; therefore, interpretation was calculated at a 

lower growth rate as compared to wildlife observation, photography, and education. Participation at the 

Wapato Lake Unit is based on an estimated 600 people a year attending special events and 25 to 30 

attendees at monthly, guided interpretive programs. Alternative 3 would not include expansion of the 

interpretive program and would rely on current management capacity and staffing; therefore, we would 

only expect a modest increase to 5,000 participants a year. 

Fishing: Alternative 2 assumes that fishing would attract 30% of the participation that currently occurs at 

nearby refuges (William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge in Washington). Access to fishing at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge would be 

considerably more limited than at these nearby refuges. Alternative 3 does not include a fishing program. 

Waterfowl hunting: Alternative 2 assumes that a youth hunt on the Riverboat Unit would include two 

people per four blinds, two days a month, for three months a year. At the Wapato Lake Unit, it is assumed 

that the refuge would draw approximately 60% of the participation that currently occurs (1,900) at nearby 

Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge in Washington. It is assumed that the Wapato Lake Unit could 

support slightly more than half the number of blinds that Ridgefield Refuge has. Alternative 3 would not 

include a youth waterfowl hunt. 

Auto tour visits: Alternatives 2 and 3 assume that a future auto tour route would attract a similar number 

of visitors to what Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon currently experiences. As 

compared to Baskett Slough Refuge, the Wapato Lake Unit sits in a similar setting and with similar 

proximity to urban areas and travel corridors. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-32 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.5.9 Amount of Illegal Use 

Trespass into closed areas, nonwildlife-dependent activities (e.g., jogging, dog walking, bicycling), 

and theft are the primary illegal activities that occur on the refuge. Under all alternatives, the refuge 

intends to curb illegal activities, protect natural resources, and provide a safe environment for 

visitors. In all alternatives, visitation to the refuge is projected to increase substantially. With more 

visitors comes increased likelihood of illegal activities, creating a minor to intermediate negative 

effect. In Alternatives 2 and 3, a new law enforcement officer position is proposed to provide fulltime resource and visitor protection, and if this strategy is implemented, a minor positive effect 

would be expected. 

6.5.10 Environmental Justice 

Since CCP implementation is expected to result in generally positive effects on the human 

environment, all alternatives and their proposed actions have little risk of having disproportionate 

adverse effects on human health, economics, or the social environment. All public use alternatives 

propose to reach out to increasingly diverse audiences and therefore would likely increase the 

amount of benefit provided to the whole community and have a minor long-term positive effect. 

6.5.11 Overall Social Effects 

As indicated in the beginning of Section 6.5, Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, is assumed to 

have a neutral effect because minimal or no changes to programs would occur. Alternative 2 would 

result in an overall intermediate positive effect due to addition of new wildlife-dependent public uses, 

addition of new facilities, enhancement of current programs, and expansion of the number of people 

reached through programs resulting from increased environmental awareness of natural resources, 

better protection of natural resources, and more effective learning outcomes and experiences. 

Alternative 3 would result in similar effects for the reasons described for Alternative 2, except that 

Alternative 3 does not add new wildlife-dependent public uses or new facilities, resulting in an 

overall minor positive effect for Alternative 3. 

6.6 Economic Effects 

6.6.1 Approach to Estimating Economic Effects 

From an economic perspective, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of 

environmental and natural resource goods and services used by people either directly or indirectly. 

The use of these goods and services may result in economic impacts to both local and state 

economies. The various services the refuge provides can be grouped into five broad categories: (1) 

maintenance and conservation of environmental resources, services, and ecological processes; (2) 

production and protection of natural resources such as fish and wildlife; (3) production and 

protection of cultural and historic sites and objects; (4) provision of educational and research 

opportunities; and (5) outdoor and wildlife-related recreation. People who use these services benefit 

in the sense that their individual welfare or satisfaction level increases with the use of a particular 

good or service. 

One measure of the magnitude of the change in welfare or satisfaction associated with using a 

particular good or service is economic value. Economic value is the economic trade-off people would 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-33 

be willing to make to obtain some good or service. It is the maximum amount people would be 

willing to pay to obtain a particular good or service minus the actual cost of acquisition. In economic 

theory this is known as net economic value or consumer surplus. In the context of this report, 

estimates of the economic value of particular recreational activities are used to determine the 

aggregate value of recreational use of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Aside from the effect on the individual, use of the good or service usually entails spending money in 

some fashion. These expenditures, in turn, create a variety of economic effects collectively known as 

economic impacts. Economic impacts refer to employment, employment or labor earnings, economic 

output and Federal, local, county, and state tax revenue that occur as the result of refuge activities. To 

estimate the total economic activity, employment, employment income, and Federal and state taxes 

generated by refuge activities, this report uses IMPLAN1

 (Impact Analysis for Planning), a regional 

input-output model and software system. The following is a list of terms and definitions that are 

commonly used in economic impact analysis (Miller and Blair 1985; Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 

Inc. 2004). 

Economic output includes three types of effects: direct, indirect, and induced effects. Direct effects 

are the expenditures associated with a particular activity (such as refuge recreation visits and 

management activities). “Indirect effects result from changes in sales for suppliers to the directlyaffected businesses (including trade and services at the retail, wholesale and producer levels). 

Induced effects are associated with further shifts in spending on food, clothing, shelter and other 

consumer goods and services, as a consequence of the change in workers and payroll of directly and 

indirectly affected businesses” (Weisbrod and Weisbrod 1997:11). The indirect and induced effects 

represent any multiplier effect. Both job income and tax revenue are derived from total economic 

output (aggregate sales). For example, labor costs are paid out of total sales revenue for a company as 

are taxes. To add taxes and job income to output would double-count economic impacts. 

Jobs and job income include direct, indirect, and induced effects in a manner similar to economic 

output. Employment includes both full- and part-time jobs, with a job defined as one person working 

for at least part of the calendar year, whether one day or the entire year. 

Tax revenues2 are shown for business taxes, income taxes, and a variety of taxes at the local, state, 

and national level. Like output, employment, and income, tax impacts include direct, indirect, and 

induced tax effects. 

A comprehensive economic profile (baseline) of the refuge and estimates of the economic effects of 

alternative management strategies would address all applicable economic effects associated with the 

use of refuge-produced goods and services. However, for those goods and services having nebulous 

or nonexistent links to the marketplace, economic effects are more difficult or perhaps even 

impossible to estimate. Some of the major contributions of the refuge to the natural environment, 

such as watershed protection, maintenance and stabilization of ecological processes, and the 

enhancement of biodiversity would require extensive on-site knowledge of biological, ecological, 

 

1

“IMPLAN ... was originally developed by the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] Forest Service in cooperation with the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency and the USDOI [U.S. Department of the Interior] Bureau of Land Management to 

assist the Forest Service in land and resource management planning” (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2004). First developed in 

1979, IMPLAN data and software was privatized in 1993 by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. For additional information, see 

www.implan.com. For additional information on input-output modeling, see Input-Output Analysis (Miller and Blair 1985). 2 The overall tax rate is about 13.7 percent of economic output and includes direct, indirect, and induced tax effects nationwide. 

The tax rate is calculated within the economic modeling software used to estimate economic impacts.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-34 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

and physical processes and interrelationships even to begin to formulate economic benefit estimates. 

This is beyond the scope of this report. 

This report focuses on a limited subset of refuge goods and services, primarily those directly linked 

in some fashion to the marketplace, such as recreation use and refuge budget expenditures. It should 

be kept in mind that the emphasis on these particular market-oriented goods and services should not 

be interpreted to imply that these types of goods and services are somehow more important or of 

greater value (economic or otherwise) than the nonmarket goods and services previously discussed. 

For this report, two types of economic impacts are addressed: (1) impacts associated with annual 

consumer expenditures on refuge-related recreation and (2) impacts associated with refuge budget 

expenditures. The economic impacts are presented as annual impacts over a 15-year time period. For 

Alternative 1, the analysis is based on 2011 refuge recreation visits and budget expenditures. For 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the analysis presents the impacts that would result assuming that all 

management objectives are implemented and achieved. Note that funds are not currently present to 

implement all objectives and strategies identified; however, the analysis for Alternatives 2 and 3 

assumes that funding would manifest. 

6.6.2 Economic Impacts from Recreational Activities 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge receives visitors from across North America and the world. 

The majority of refuge visitors live in the local area. Spending by recreational visitors when visiting 

the refuge impacts the local economy by creating jobs and generating tax revenue. 

Economic impacts for the recreation baseline (Alternative 1) and action alternatives (Alternatives 2 

and 3) are addressed in this section. Two types of information are needed to estimate the economic 

impacts of recreational visits to the refuge: (1) the amount of recreational use on the refuge by 

activity and (2) expenditures associated with recreational visits to the refuge. Recreational use is 

estimated by refuge staff (Table 6-4). Expenditure patterns used in this report were obtained from the 

2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of 

the Interior [USDOI] et al. 2007). These expenditures include only travel-related expenses, including 

food, lodging, transportation, and other miscellaneous travel-related expenses. With this information, 

total expenditures for each activity can be estimated. These expenditures, in turn, can be used in 

conjunction with regional economic models to estimate industrial output, employment, employment 

income and tax impacts associated with these expenditures. The economic impact area for 

recreational activities is defined as the greater Portland metropolitan area including Clackamas, 

Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. It is assumed that visitor expenditures 

occur primarily within this five-county area. 

The economic impacts from recreation expenditures estimated in this report are gross area-wide 

impacts. Information on where expenditures may occur locally and the magnitude and location of 

resident and nonresident expenditures (resident and nonresident relative to the geographical area of 

interest) is not currently available. Generally speaking, nonresident expenditures bring outside money 

into the area and thus generate increases in real income or wealth. Spending by residents is simply a 

transfer of expenditures on one set of goods and services to a different set within the same area. To 

calculate net economic impacts within a given area derived from resident expenditures, much more 

detailed information would be necessary on expenditure patterns and visitor characteristics. Since 

this information is not currently available, the gross area-wide estimates are the maximum impact for 

the net economic impacts of total resident and nonresident spending in the five-county area. The 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-35 

economic impacts of nonresident spending represent a real increase in wealth and income for the area 

(for additional information, see Loomis 1993:191). 

6.6.3 Alternative 1 (Baseline): Recreational Activities 

Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to the recreational activities offered at the refuge. All 

programs would continue to follow current management goals. The refuge would continue to offer a 

variety of nonconsumptive public uses, including wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, 

and environmental education. Visitation is increasing as people continue to discover the refuge, 

which opened to the public in 2006. Refer to Section 6.5.8 for a summary of projected user numbers 

in 15 years. 

Table 6-4 shows the 2010 visitation for the refuge. The refuge had 80,180 visits in 2010. Pedestrian 

visits represented 87 percent of all visits. Interpretation visits include naturalist-led programs and 

special events. In addition to recreation visits, the refuge also had about 4,200 environmental 

education visits. The environmental education program includes student field trips, teacher 

workshops, youth group programs, and various off-site educational programs. 

Table 6-4. Alternative 1: Fiscal Year 2010 Visitation at the Refuge

Activity Residents* Nonresidents* Total 

Nonconsumptive 

Pedestrian 55,920 13,980 69,900 

Auto tour 0 0 0 

Boat trail/launch 0 0 0 

Bicycling 0 0 0 

Photography 1,676 88 1,764 

Interpretation 4,074 214 4,288 

Environmental education 4,228 0 4,228 

Hunting

Waterfowl 0 0 0 

Other migratory birds 0 0 0 

Upland game 0 0 0 

Big game 0 0 0 

Fishing

Fresh water 0 0 0 

Salt water 0 0 0 

Total visitation 65,897 14,283 80,180 

*Resident versus nonresident estimates are based on informal data gathered from visitor logbook, 

special event records, and direct visitor contacts. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-36 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.6.3.1 Regional Economic Analysis 

Visitor recreation expenditures for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 6-5. Environmental education 

opportunities for residents do not contribute to the local economic impacts because the events 

typically do not bring visitors who spend money on travel-related goods and services. Total annual 

expenditures were about $927,400, with nonresidents accounting for about $422,100 or 46 percent of 

total expenditures. Under Alternative 1, these annual expenditures are expected to continue. 

Table 6-5. Alternative 1: Visitor Recreation Expenditure (2010 dollars in thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian $452.0 $411.9 $863.9 

Photography $20.3 $3.9 $24.2 

Interpretation $32.9 $6.3 $39.2 

Total nonconsumptive $505.2 $422.1 $927.4 

Hunting

Total hunting − − −

Fishing

Total fishing − − −

Total Expenditures $505.2 $422.1 $927.4 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the refuge’s 

local economy. The estimated economic impacts are expected to occur in the greater Portland 

metropolitan area. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within this area. Table 6-6 

summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. Final demand totaled $1.8 

million, with associated employment of 14 jobs, $543,000 in employment income, and $258,700 in 

total tax revenue. 

Table 6-6. Alternative 1: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits 

(2010 dollars in thousands)

Residents Nonresidents Total 

Final demand $1,011.5 $798.0 $1,809.5 

Jobs 8 6 14 

Job income $305.9 $237.1 $543.0 

Total tax revenue $144.8 $113.9 $258.7 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-37 

6.6.4 Alternative 2: Recreational Activities 

6.6.4.1 Description of Recreational Activities 

Under Alternative 2, additional activities would be assessed as future land acquisition and habitat 

restoration progresses on the Wapato Lake Unit. New opportunities that would be considered include 

expanded environmental education and interpretation programs, and new waterfowl hunting and 

fishing opportunities. Management under this alternative would be focused on expanding developed 

facilities and programs for casual visitors, and beginning, moderate, and advanced birders. 

Table 6-7 shows the visitation that would occur if Alternative 2 is fully implemented. Approximately 

383,200 visits would be related to a variety of recreational opportunities, interpretation programs, 

and environmental education. Pedestrian visits would continue to represent the majority of all visits. 

In addition to recreation visits (nonconsumptive activities, hunting, and fishing), the refuge also 

would support 9,800 environmental education visits. 

Under Alternative 2, recreation visits are projected to more than quadruple at the end of 15 years, 

compared to Alternative 1. Refuge staff estimate that the majority of recreational visitors would live 

within the greater Portland metropolitan area. Similar to Alternative 1, nearly all recreational visitors 

would participate in nonconsumptive activities. Less than 1 percent of visitors would participate in 

hunting and fishing combined. 

Table 6-7. Alternative 2: Annual Refuge Visitation

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian 200,000 50,000 250,000 

Auto tour 80,000 20,000 100,000 

Boat trail/launch 0 0 0 

Bicycling 0 0 0 

Photography 9,000 1,000 10,000 

Interpretation 8,100 900 9,000 

Environmental education 12,000 0 12,000 

Hunting

Waterfowl 1,080 120 1,200 

Other migratory birds 0 0 0 

Upland game 0 0 0 

Big game 0 0 0 

Fishing

Fresh water 1,000 0 1,000 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-38 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-7. Alternative 2: Annual Refuge Visitation

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Salt water 0 0 0 

Total Visitation 311,180 72,020 383,200 

6.6.4.2 Regional Economic Analysis 

Visitor recreation expenditures associated with a fully implemented Alternative 2 are shown in Table 

6-8. Total annual expenditures would be about $6.2 million, with nonresidents accounting for about 

$2.9 million or 46 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures associated with nonconsumptive 

activities would account for 99 percent of all expenditures, followed by hunting and fishing at less 

than 1 percent. 

Table 6-8. Alternative 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian $2,424.8 $2,209.9 $4,634.7 

Auto tour $646.6 $589.3 $1,235.9 

Boat trail/launch − − −

Bicycling − − −

Photography $109.1 $44.2 $153.3 

Interpretation $98.2 $39.8 $138.0 

Total nonconsumptive $3,278.8 $2,883.2 $6,161.9 

Hunting

Waterfowl $43.6 $16.8 $60.5 

Other migratory birds − − −

Upland game − − −

Big game − − −

Total hunting $43.6 $16.8 $60.5 

Fishing

Fresh water $14.8 − $14.8 

Salt water − − −

Total fishing $14.8 − $14.8 

Total Annual Expenditures $3,337.2 $2,900.0 $6,237.2 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-39 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the refuge’s 

local economy under Alternative 2. The estimated economic impacts are expected to occur in the 

greater Portland metropolitan area. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within the 

five-county area. Table 6-9 summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. 

Under Alternative 2, final demand would total $12.2 million, with associated employment of 96 jobs, 

$3.6 million in employment income, and $1.7 million in total tax revenue. 

Table 6-9. Alternative 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits 

(2010 dollars in thousands)

Residents Nonresidents Total 

Final demand $6,681.2 $5,482.3 $12,163.5 

Jobs 54 42 96 

Job income $2,020.5 $1,628.6 $3,649.1 

Total tax revenue $956.5 $782.7 $1,739.2 

6.6.5 Alternative 3: Recreational Activities 

6.6.5.1 Description of Recreational Activities 

Under Alternative 3, additional activities would be assessed as future land acquisition and habitat 

restoration progresses on the Wapato Lake Unit. Visitation related to nonconsumptive activities and 

hunting would increase compared to Alternative 1. Management for recreational activities, 

environmental education, and interpretation would be similar to Alternative 2, but photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education programs would be developed to a lesser extent. Also, 

fishing would not be permitted under Alternative 3. 

Table 6-10 shows the visitation that would occur if Alternative 3 is fully implemented. 

Approximately 371,140 visits would be related to a variety of recreational opportunities, 

interpretation programs, and environmental education. Pedestrian visits would continue to represent 

the majority of all visits. In addition to recreation visits (nonconsumptive activities and waterfowl 

hunting), the refuge would also support 6,000 environmental education visits. 

Under Alternative 3, recreation visits are projected to more than quadruple at the end of 15 years, 

compared to Alternative 1. Refuge staff estimate that the majority of recreational visitors would live 

within the greater Portland metropolitan area. Similar to Alternative 1, nearly all recreational visitors 

would participate in nonconsumptive activities. Less than 1 percent of visitors would participate in 

waterfowl hunting. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-40 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-10. Alternative 3: Refuge Visitation

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian 200,000 50,000 250,000 

Auto tour 80,000 20,000 100,000 

Boat trail/launch 0 0 0 

Bicycling 0 0 0 

Photography 8,100 900 9,000 

Interpretation 4,500 500 5,000 

Environmental education 6,000 0 6,000 

Hunting

Waterfowl 1,026 114 1,140 

Other migratory birds 0 0 0 

Upland game 0 0 0 

Big game 0 0 0 

Fishing

Fresh water 0 0 0 

Salt water 0 0 0 

Total Visitation 299,626 71,514 371,140 

6.6.5.2 Regional Economic Analysis 

Visitor recreation expenditures estimated for Alternative 3 are shown in Table 6-11. Total annual 

expenditures would be about $6.1 million, with nonresidents accounting for $2.9 million or 47 

percent of total expenditures. 

Table 6-11. Alternative 3: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian $2,424.8 $2,209.9 $4,634.7 

Auto tour $646.6 $589.3 $1,235.9 

Boat trail/launch − − −

Bicycling − − −

Photography $98.2 $39.8 $138.0 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-41 

Table 6-11. Alternative 3: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Interpretation $54.6 $22.1 $76.7 

Total nonconsumptive $3,224.2 $2,861.1 $6,085.3 

Hunting

Waterfowl $41.5 $16.0 $57.4 

Other migratory birds − − −

Upland game − − −

Big game − − −

Total hunting $41.5 $16.0 $57.4 

Fishing

Fresh water − − −

Salt water − − −

Total fishing − − −

Total Annual Expenditures $3,265.6 $2,877.1 $6,142.7 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the refuge’s 

local economy. The estimated economic impacts, including visitor expenditures, are expected to 

occur in the local five-county area. Table 6-12 summarizes the local economic effects associated with 

recreation visits. Under Alternative 3, final demand would total nearly $12.0 million, with associated 

employment of 95 jobs, $3.6 million in employment income, and $1.7 million in total tax revenue.

Table 6-12. Alternative 3: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits 

(2010 dollars in thousands) 

Residents Nonresidents Total 

Final demand $6,537.9 $5,438.9 $11,976.8 

Jobs 53 41 95 

Job income $1,977.2 $1,615.7 $3,592.9 

Total tax revenue $936.0 $776.5 $1,712.5 

 

6.6.6 Summary of Recreational Visitation Impacts 

Tables 6-13 and 6-14 provide a summary of the potential economic impacts related to recreational 

visitation for each alternative. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, recreation visitation would quadruple after 

the management alternative is fully implemented. As a result, economic output, jobs, job income, and 

tax revenue would increase. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-42 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-13. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2010 dollars 

in thousands)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreation visits 80,180 383,200 371,140 

Expenditures $927.4 $6,237.2 $6,142.7 

Economic output $1,809.5 $12,163.5 $11,976.8 

Jobs 14 96 95 

Job income $543.0 $3,649.1 $3,592.9 

Total tax revenue $258.7 $1,739.2 $1,712.5 

Table 6-14. Change in Average Annual Recreation Visitors and Expenditures 

Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 1) (2010 dollars in thousands)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Visitors +303,020 +290,960 

Economic output +$10,354.0 +$10,167.3 

Jobs +82 +80 

Job income +$3,106.2 +$3,049.9 

Total tax revenue +$1,480.5 +$1,453.8 

6.6.7 Economic Effects from Refuge Budget 

Annual costs reflect refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations. Nonsalary expenditures are 

primarily fixed costs such as utilities, fuel, office supplies, water district assessments, and other 

expenses. Large restoration and facility costs are currently undetermined for each alternative and are 

not included in the average annual expenditures presented below. 

Table 6-15 shows that average annual expenditure would be about $732,000 for Alternative 1, and 

about $1.5 million for Alternatives 2 and 3. The estimated expenditures for Alternatives 2 and 3 

assume that the alternatives are fully funded as described in the CCP. Thus, the expenditures for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 include an additional six full-time staff members compared to Alternative 1. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-43 

Table 6-15. Refuge Average Annual Expenditures (2010 dollars in thousands)

Expenditure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Salary $498.0 $996.1 $996.1 

Nonsalary $233.8 $467.5 $467.5 

Total $731.8 $1,463.6 $1,463.6 

Table 6-16 shows the economic impact of average annual (salary and nonsalary) expenditures. 

Impacts associated with annual expenditures would continue to occur throughout the 15-year 

timeline of the CCP if the alternative chosen is fully funded. Under Alternative 1, the refuge’s annual 

expenditures would generate approximately $1.3 million in economic output, 10 jobs, $500,000 in 

job income, and $193,000 in tax revenue. Economic impacts for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the 

same. Annual expenditure under Alternatives 2 and 3 would generate an economic output of $2.7 

million, 19 jobs, $1.0 million in job income, and $385,300 in tax revenue. 

Table 6-16. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Refuge 

Budget (2010 dollars in thousands)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Economic output $1,340.4 $2,680.8 $2,680.8 

Jobs 10 19 19 

Job income $499.6 $999.3 $999.3 

Total tax revenue $192.5 $385.0 $385.0 

Table 6-17 shows the change in economic impacts associated with the refuge budget compared to the 

baseline (Alternative 1). Once fully funded, annual expenditures for Alternatives 2 and 3 would each 

increase by about $732,000, compared to Alternative 1 (Table 6.15). Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

economic impacts associated with annual expenditures would increase by $1.3 million in economic 

output, 9 jobs, and $500,000 in job income. 

Table 6-17. Change in Annual Expenditures Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 1) 

(2010 dollars in thousands)

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Annual expenditures +$731.8 

Economic output +$1,340.4 

Jobs +9 

Job income +$499.6 

Total tax revenue +$192.5 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-44 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.6.8 Summary of Economic Impacts by Alternative 

This section summarizes the economic impacts generated by refuge management activities for each 

alternative. Table 6-18 summarizes the economic impacts in the greater Portland metropolitan area 

for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, refuge activities would generate an estimated $3.1 million in 

economic output, 24 jobs, $1.0 million in job income, and $451,300 in tax revenue in the local 

economy. These economic impacts under Alternative 1 represent less than 1 percent of total income 

and total employment in the local area economy.

Table 6-18. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2010 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income Tax Revenue 

Recreation $1,809.5 14 $543.0 $258.7 

Budget $1,340.4 10 $499.6 $192.5 

Total $3,149.9 24 $1,042.6 $451.3 

Table 6-19 summarizes the economic impacts for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, refuge activities 

would generate an estimated $14.8 million in economic output, 115 jobs, $4.6 million in job income, 

and $2.1 million in tax revenue in the local economy. These economic impacts under Alternative 2 

represent less than 1 percent of total income and total employment in the local area economy.

Table 6-19. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (2010 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income Tax Revenue 

Recreation $12,163.5 96 $3,649.1 $1,739.2 

Budget $2,680.8 19 $999.3 $385.0 

Total $14,844.2 115 $4,648.4 $2,124.3 

Table 6-20 summarizes the economic impacts for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, refuge activities 

would generate an estimated $14.7 million in economic output, 114 jobs, $4.6 million in job income, 

and $2.1 million in tax revenue in the local economy. These economic impacts under Alternative 3 

represent less than 1 percent of total income and total employment in the local area economy.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-45 

Table 6-20. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 (2010 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income Tax Revenue 

Recreation $11,976.8 95 $3,592.9 $1,712.5 

Budget $2,680.8 19 $999.3 $385.0 

Total $14,657.6 114 $4,592.2 $2,097.6 

 

6.7 Other Effects 

6.7.1 Potential Impacts on Adjacent Lands and Associated Natural Resources 

Under Alternative 1, as maintenance and management continue across all refuge lands, there is 

potential for both positive and negative effects to surrounding natural resources. Various land uses 

surround the Sherwood Units, including residential, retail/commercial, industrial, agricultural, 

recreational, and native habitat types. The land around the Wapato Lake Unit is mainly agricultural 

with some residential and commercial uses. As management and maintenance continue, waterfowl 

hunting clubs may benefit from waterfowl using habitats in the refuge that also venture to the nearby 

hunting clubs. As native habitat types on the refuge mature, adjacent native habitats may benefit from 

exchange of genetic material among plants, and animals may benefit from larger blocks of habitat. 

As refuge habitats are maintained, nonnative plants may be reduced and produce less seed that has 

the potential to spread to neighboring lands. On the other hand, many neighboring landowners may 

consider native or other plants beneficial to the refuge as nuisance species especially to agricultural 

operations. For example, many native grass species are unwelcome for agricultural growers, who 

may have to control these species. For natural areas owned by Metro and others, the refuge and its 

habitats provide a stepping stone in a chain of native habitats within the Tualatin River Basin. 

Overall, slight positive long-term benefits should result from continuing Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), proposed restoration and maintenance activities would create larger 

contiguous blocks of habitat both within the refuge and connecting with habitats outside the 

boundary, which should benefit a number of wildlife communities. Mammals such as black-tailed 

deer and mink would have larger blocks of habitat in which to live and move about the Tualatin 

River Basin. Many songbird species would benefit from larger blocks of habitat as well. Lands 

adjacent to the refuge may see an increase in local populations of wildlife as a result of improved 

habitat conditions. For some landowners, this increase in population may be welcome, but for others 

such as agricultural operators an increase in some wildlife populations may have a negative effect. 

One of the largest impacts would be terminating farming of croplands and restoring those parcels to 

native habitat types. These conversions would be expected to have positive effects to wildlife and 

neighboring native habitats. On the Sherwood Units, conversion of herbaceous wetlands to other 

native habitat types and restoration of croplands to native habitat types could cause a decrease in 

waterfowl numbers using this area of the refuge. This may be considered a negative impact among 

waterfowl hunters in the area who hunt on neighboring land. Overall, intermediate positive long-term 

effects would be expected under this alternative. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-46 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 3, larger blocks of forested habitat types would be restored, providing even more 

contiguous forested habitat connecting with neighboring lands. Croplands would also be restored to 

native habitat types. This would likely have similar results to wildlife populations as described under 

Alternative 2 above. Overall, intermediate positive long-term effects would be expected under this 

alternative. 

6.7.2 Potential Impacts to Nearby Residents 

Under all alternatives, effects that may occur from management and maintenance activities include 

dust created while mowing or discing, and possibly the smell and effects of unwanted drift of 

herbicide being used on refuge lands; however, these effects would be greatly reduced by following 

the refuge IPM plan (Appendix G). There would be some level of noise associated with operating 

heavy equipment such as farm tractors and backhoes. 

Under Alternative 1, refuge habitats would continue to be maintained as they currently are. Most 

effects to local residents would be expected to be positive as habitats mature and provide viewing 

opportunities for wildlife. Most residents enjoy observing wildlife, and this opportunity should 

increase slightly over the 15-year life of this plan. Although black-tailed deer and other wildlife 

species currently inhabit the refuge and surrounding areas, slight negative effects might occur as 

wildlife interact with nearby residents and cause damage to gardens or crops. 

Under both Alternatives 2 (preferred) and 3, as larger blocks of contiguous habitats are restored, local 

wildlife populations may increase, providing both benefits in terms of wildlife observation and 

negative effects in wildlife conflicts with local residents. At the Wapato Lake Unit, conversion of 

croplands to native habitat types would likely change the look of the area and composition of wildlife 

communities using the area. This also may result in both positive and negative effect to neighboring 

residents, such as an increase in watchable wildlife and an increase in wildlife/human interactions. 

Additionally, fully restoring Wapato Lake may result in a change in interactions of the Tualatin River 

and creeks in the area with the restored lake. This may result in reduced flooding of neighboring 

lands during winter or other unknown effects. Maintaining water in the lake during summer may 

increase the incidence of mosquitoes in the area. Prescribed fire would be used to maintain certain 

habitat types and may cause irritation due to smoke and falling ash to nearby residents. 

6.8 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects can result from the incremental effects of a project when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but cumulatively significant actions over a period of time. This analysis is 

intended to consider the interaction of activities at the refuge with other actions occurring over a 

larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define several different types of effects that should be 

evaluated in an EA, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct and indirect effects are 

addressed in the resource-specific sections of this draft CCP/EA. This section addresses cumulative 

effects. 

The CEQ (40 CFR 1508.7) (CEQ 1997) provides the following definition of cumulative effects as: 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-47 

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

It should be noted that the cumulative effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of the 

comprehensive nature by which direct and indirect effects associated with implementing the various 

alternatives were presented. The analysis in this section primarily focuses on effects associated with 

reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless of what entity undertakes that action. 

6.8.1 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities 

As described in Chapter 4, cumulatively, there has been a substantial modification to native habitats 

of the Tualatin River Basin over the past 150 years. Although a number of natural areas have been 

designated and are maintained in the area, modification and loss of native habitats continue at a 

regional scale. There is a clear trend of regionally increasing population growth, which is bringing 

increased development and associated habitat loss, particularly in the Portland area. Invasive species 

and altered ecosystem processes are widespread within the area. Within this context, region-wide 

biological integrity may be at risk. Over time, the refuge, although relatively small and isolated from 

other natural lands, may become increasingly valuable for the persistence of native wildlife of the 

Willamette Valley. Active improvement of refuge habitats would increase or maintain the value of 

refuge lands and waters for a wide variety of native fish and wildlife, and biological diversity (the 

number of species present on the refuge) would probably remain about the same. All of the 

alternatives would maintain refuge habitats valuable to wildlife. The Service would improve the 

availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation, but within a regional context, there would 

be little cumulative difference in recreational opportunity. Although mortality would occur to some 

wildlife under the refuge’s hunt program, the analysis presented in this chapter supports the 

conclusion that there would be no adverse population-level impacts to hunted or nonhunted wildlife 

species, even when added to other hunt programs regionally or nationally. 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 present the potential for more benefit to 

conservation of native species in the Tualatin River Basin and to recreational users, because under 

these alternatives the Service would restore and maintain larger blocks of wildlife habitat, restore 

waterways, and develop additional public use features. Further land acquisition would provide 

protection and restoration of additional habitats that may presently, or in the future, support rare 

species. Such additional lands may eventually be opened to public use, providing direct opportunity 

for enjoyment of nature and wildlife. However, even if they are never opened to the public, managing 

additional lands for conservation values would bolster and support native species populations in the 

Tualatin River Basin, benefiting recreationists using the refuge and surrounding lands. 

6.8.2 Potential Effects from Climate Change 

According to the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, “even subtle changes in 

Pacific Northwest precipitation and temperature have noticeable impacts on the region’s mountain 

snowpack, river flows and flooding, the likelihood of summer droughts, forest productivity and forest 

fire risk, salmon abundance, and quality of coastal and near-shore habitat” (Climate Impacts Group

2011). Warming is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. 

However, the complexity of ecological systems and interactions means that there is tremendous 

uncertainty about the exact eeffect climate change would have. In addition, localized effects still 

require more research (Parmesan et al. 2011). The following paragraphs attempt to identify the key 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-48 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

potential effects of climate change on refuge-specific habitats and plants and wildlife, using the 

available science and projections, combined with awareness of refuge-specific conditions. By 

necessity this brief assessment is incomplete, and all projected effects should be treated as 

hypotheses and tested over time using scientific methods. 

Vegetation models indicate that in western Oregon, areas of mixed evergreen and subtropical mixed 

forest are projected to expand, marking a major transition from temperate to subtropical species 

(Oregon Climate Change Research Institute [OCCRI] 2010). Pests and diseases would continue to 

expand northward into Oregon, affecting forest species (Waring et al. 2011). Mountain pine beetle 

occurrence has been increasing over the last eight years and would likely continue to increase in a 

warmer climate, along with forest pathogens. Drought also increases vulnerability to mountain pine 

beetle. Other pests and diseases, including sudden oak death, have been spreading northward from 

California into southwestern Oregon since the beginning of the twenty-first century. In the case of 

sudden oak death, extreme precipitation events tend to infect more trees, which then become more 

vulnerable to mortality during droughts. Generally, insects and diseases would expand northward in 

latitude, toward the coast, and upward in elevation in a warming climate. 

Wildfires would likely increase in all Oregon forest types in the coming decades. Warmer and drier 

summers leave forests more vulnerable to fire, while wetter winters provide abundant fuel in the 

form of grasses and shrubs. Wildfire frequency in western forests increased fourfold during 1987-

2003 as compared to 1970-1986, while the total area burned increased sixfold (Westerling et al. 

2006). Westerling et al. (2006) demonstrated that earlier snowmelt dates correspond to increased 

wildfire frequency. Trouet et al. (2006) confirmed that these increases in area burned are tied to 

climate conditions, despite forest suppression management practices such as thinning. As shown 

above, virtually all climate model projections indicate that warmer springs and summers would occur 

over the region in coming decades. Prolonged dry and hot periods are generally required for large 

fires (Gedalof et al. 2005), and future conditions would likely make these periods, and resultant 

wildfires, more likely. 

Climate change effects on species’ ranges, phenology, and physiology have been well documented 

(Lovejoy and Hannah 2005; Parmesan 2006; Rosenzweig et al. 2008; Schneider and Root 2002). 

Fish and wildlife in the Willamette Valley include both migratory and resident species. There is 

evidence that the abundance and distribution of species are shifting in response to climate change, 

and would shift more rapidly as habitats on land and in water are altered due to increasing 

temperatures and related environmental changes (OCCRI 2010). Among the observed species 

changes: 

 Insects are moving in from the south of Oregon; 

 Frogs are reproducing earlier in the year; 

 Landbirds are shifting their distributions northward and migrating earlier; and 

 Fish are losing their cool-water habitats. 

Rising temperatures, shifts in precipitation patterns, and other climatic change may also affect other 

ecological interactions, such as densities of species; timing of events such as spring flowering times, 

emergence timing, patterns for insect and pollinator species, egg laying, and migration; changes in 

morphology, such as body size, and behavior; and changes in genetic frequencies such as those 

caused by a disruption in the connectedness among species (Root et al. 2003). These changes can 

unfold in complex cascading direct and indirect effects such as those described by Martin and Marin 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-49 

(2012). The refuge’s wetland, riparian, and aquatic species are perhaps the most vulnerable to these 

effects (Lawler et al. 2008). 

However, predicting biological response at the population level is difficult (Akcakaya et al. 2006; 

Pereira et al. 2010). In a warmer climate, plant and animal species may respond by occupying 

different parts of the landscape. Rare or endangered species may become less abundant or extinct; 

insect pests, invasive species, and harmful algal blooms may become more abundant. Declines in 

abundance of species may be caused directly by physiological stress related to changes in 

temperature, water availability, and other environmental shifts, and/or indirectly by habitat 

degradation and negative interactions with factors that are benefited by climate change (diseases, 

parasites, predators, and competitors), but it remains difficult to model how species’ range and 

population abundance (increasing or declining) can be projected from a suite of interrelated climaterelated variables (Fordham et al. 2012). Researchers are improving models, and the refuge would 

evaluate the results of a new Willamette Valley vegetative and species response model currently 

being undertaken by the University of Washington (led by Dr. Josh Lawler and funded by the North 

Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative). 

The increase of invasive species risk is due to a variety of reasons. For example, invasive species 

have a broader climate tolerance and larger geographic ranges, along with characteristics that favor 

rapid range shifts. Also, climate change may alter transport and introduction mechanisms, establish 

new invasive species, alter the impact of existing invasive species, and affect other risk factors 

(Hellmann et al. 2008; Rahel and Olden 2008; Willis et al. 2010). One example that affects Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge is the potential population growth of nutria. Nutria are currently at a 

nuisance level at the refuge in terms of physical damage to embankments and vegetation, but with 

milder winters projected, they may become more abundant and more disruptive to water 

management, recreation access, and native species conservation. 

The good news is that hotter and drier summers generally favor fire-adapted communities such as 

Willamette Valley prairie and savanna communities (Bachelet et al. 2011). Bachelet et al. (2011) also 

found that: 

Many of the aggressive exotic species that occur in both wet and dry prairies in the western 

Pacific Northwest currently have wide range distributions in the U.S. (Dennehy et al. 2011), 

so it is reasonable to assume that they will be relatively adaptable to changing climate. 

Consequently, they may provide even more of a competitive challenge to native Pacific 

Northwest prairie species in the future than they do currently. However, as we mentioned 

above, many native prairie species are well adapted to summer drought, which could give 

them an advantage over many exotic species as summer drought extends and intensifies... 

Directly relevant to the future of prairies and oak savannas, Shafer et al. (2001) showed 

significant contraction of the range of Garry oak [Oregon White Oak] on the west side of the 

Cascades and a shift and expansion to the east side of the mountains by the end of the 21st 

century. However, a recent study conducted by Bodtker et al. (2009) found that climate 

suitability for Garry oak is likely to improve overall in Washington, Oregon, and British 

Columbia, where it is the dominant oak species, with some declines in specific areas... 

The effects of warming on grasslands have also been experimentally studied by a variety of 

scientists who focused on plant community structure, productivity, or phenology... Findings 

include: warming often causes a decrease in plant biodiversity (Zavaleta et al. 2003, Klein et 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

6-50 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

al. 2004, Walker et al. 2006), while species-specific effects are mediated through changes in 

litter quantity (Weltzin et al. 2001, Klein et al. 2004, Weltzin et al. 2005, Suttle et al. 2007) 

and nutrient availability (Shaver et al. 2000, De Valpine and Harte 2001, Rustad et al. 2001, 

An et al. 2005, Suttle et al. 2007). Pfeifer-Meister and Bridgham (2007) showed strong 

seasonal controls of temperature and moisture on carbon and nutrient cycling in a 

Willamette Valley/Puget Trough/Georgia Basin prairie, with competition between native and 

exotic species mediated by moisture and nutrient availability (Pfeifer-Meister et al. 2008). 

A recently completed vulnerability assessment for Willamette Valley provides an analysis of effects 

to many species and habitats managed by the refuge (Steel et al. 2011). A summary of the findings is 

excerpted here: 

Of the 46 species and subspecies assessed, the four most vulnerable to climate change were 

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Southwest Columbia River ESU; Oncorhynchus clarkii pop. 2), 

Chinook Salmon (Lower Columbia River ESU, Fall Run; Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 

22), Way-side Aster (Aster vialis), and Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fendereri). 

Among the species assessed, invertebrates, fishes, and plants tended to be the most 

vulnerable groups on average. The ecological parameters that most contributed to climate 

change sensitivity were inferred limitations in temperature tolerance, negative response to 

disturbance regimes, dependence on current precipitation/hydrologic regimes, dependence 

on specific habitat attributes, and dependence on cooler microsites within habitats. 

When analyzing Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs), the authors focused on climate sensitivity 

and overall vulnerability. The Tualatin River is ranked as a highly vulnerable area. However, the 

authors also note that in many cases nonclimate factors may remain more threatening to COAs than 

climate change. 

6.8.3 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities 

Development and population growth: By 2030, the population of the greater Portland area is 

expected to be as high as 3.5 million people. Population growth would continue to place stress upon 

the ecosystems of the Willamette Valley, both through direct loss of remaining habitats, and 

indirectly through fragmentation and degradation of the valley’s remaining parcels of wildlife 

habitat. 
Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings

and Justifications

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Introduction 

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

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

may be considered. Public uses, previously defined as wildlife-dependent uses under the National 

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

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

review. Other exempt uses include situations where the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction 

to control the activity and refuge management activities. Other existing, proposed, or requested 

public uses are required to undergo the appropriateness screening. 

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

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

a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

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

local)? 

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

policies? 

d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

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

document? 

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

been proposed? 

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

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

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

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

resources? 

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

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

recreation into the future? 

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

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

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

allowing it on a refuge. 

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

appropriate. Narrative answers for negative findings follow the forms. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-3 

Appropriate Uses Findings 

Appropriate Use Justification, Attachment 1
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) 

Use: Bicycling/jogging on the refuge 

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

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

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

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

3-2319 is provided below: 

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

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

priority wildlife-dependent public uses. 

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

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

did not specifically address jogging or bicycling. 

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

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

resources that are not available with current resources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

around ponds did not usually cause birds to flush. 

However, as stated under Objective 10.4 of this CCP/EA (Chapter 2), we would explore 

opportunities with partners to connect with regional trails while ensuring the uses minimize 

disturbance. At that time, we would re-evaluate the appropriateness of the uses. 

References 

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

21:231-241. 

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

environmental assessment, Wildlife Center and visitor services facilities, Washington 

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

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-5 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 2 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Boat access 

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

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

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

time. 

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

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

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

are running high. 

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

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

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

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

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

nearby river access points. 

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

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

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

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

damage. 

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

recreational uses. However, as stated under Objective 10.4 in this CCP/EA, the refuge would 

“partner with interested parties/organizations to identify potential locations for one public river 

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

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

References 

USFWS. 2003a. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge environmental assessment, Wildlife Center 

and visitor services facilities, Washington County, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR. 318 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-7 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 3
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial or recreational trapping 

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

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

be not appropriate. 

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

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

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

conflict with wildlife. 

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

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

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

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

budget and staff. 

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

appreciation of cultural or natural resources. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-9 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 4
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial visitor services 

Summary: Commercial visitor services on the refuge cover a broad range of wildlife-dependent 

recreation and education activities that are led by any organization or individual that charges a fee to 

participate in the activity. Activities could include, but are not limited to: birding tours, plant 

identification, wildlife photography, art, interpretive programs, guided trail walks, training 

workshops, summer youth camp, nature classes, and other similar non-consumptive uses. These uses 

would occur in areas and facilities that are open to the public and would support the identified 

wildlife-dependent public uses of the refuge. Organizations conducting commercial visitor services 

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

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

Understanding. 

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

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

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

for income or revenue. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) The use is consistent with Goals 12, 13, and 14 of the CCP/EA. Requests would be approved in 

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

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

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

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

approvals. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-11 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 5
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative farming on the refuge 

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

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

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

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

has been determined to be appropriate. 

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

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

maintaining small croplands helps control nonnative invasive species such as reed canarygrass and 

Himalayan blackberry prior to restoration of native habitats. 

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

management tool prior to restoring acquired lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

(i) As mentioned in the features common to all alternatives in Chapter 2 of this CCP/EA, cooperative 

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

by providing public use and focus on habitat restoration. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-13 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 6
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Dog walking and training 

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

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

considered a wildlife-dependent use. 

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

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

other goals and objectives in the CCP/EA. 

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

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

could be detrimental to those resources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Manitoba. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Clinton. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132. 

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

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

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

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-15 

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

apricarious). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-17 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 7 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Geocaching 

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

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

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

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

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

only physical geocaching. 

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

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

in any national wildlife refuge is prohibited. 

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

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-19 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 8
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-20 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito and disease vector management 

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

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

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

(e) Mosquito and disease vector management is consistent with features common to all alternatives in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The District would be responsible for staffing and expenditures for sampling and pesticide 

applications. Refuge staff resources would be needed to review annual proposals, prepare SUPs, and 

monitor District personnel to ensure compliance. 

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

minimal refuge staff oversight. 

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

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

equine encephalitis, and St. Louis encephalitis. 

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

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

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

undertaken would have minimal impact on any priority wildlife-dependent public use program. The 

disturbance of wildlife by District staff is minimized to the extent practicable by restricting access to 

sensitive areas and by controlling the type of access. The impacts anticipated from the logistical 

activities resulting from the proposed monitoring and treatment actions on wildlife are minimal. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-21 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 9
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

A-22 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Refuge: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research and monitoring 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. 

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

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

monitoring would be conducted by outside entities, not refuge staff. Minimal refuge staff time is 

anticipated for project oversight. 

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

staff oversight. 

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

public education and interpretation. 

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

interference with any priority wildlife-dependent public use program. 
Appendix B

Compatibility 

Determinations

© Ed Bustya

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.1 Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) planning process evaluate uses that are projected to occur under Alternative 2, the preferred 

alternative. The evaluation of funds needed for management and implementation of each use also 

assume implementation as described under Alternative 2. Chapter 6 of the draft CCP/EA contains 

analysis of the impacts of public uses to wildlife and habitats. That portion of the document is 

incorporated through reference into this set of CDs. 

B.1.1 Uses Evaluated at This Time 

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

time. According to Service policy, compatibility determinations will be completed for all uses 

proposed under a CCP that have been determined to be appropriate. Existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses must also be reevaluated and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP. 

According to the Service’s compatibility policy, uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

are not explicitly required to be reevaluated in concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions 

of the use have changed or unless significant new information relative to the use and its effects have 

become available, or the existing CDs are more than 10 years old. However, the Service planning 

policy recommends preparing CDs for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related 

uses associated with the proposed action. 

B.1.2 Compatibility—Legal and Historical Context 

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

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of the refuge. Compatibility is not new to the Refuge 

System and dates back to 1918 as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of refuge 

lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” 

Legally, refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a compatibility 

determination. Regulations require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection 

of refuges before opening them to any public uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

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

interpretation) are to receive enhanced consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of 

funding resources unless the refuge has made a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential 

partners. Once found compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public 

uses at the refuge. If a proposed use is found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded 

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

compatible. Economic uses that are conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require 

compatibility determinations. 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

uses of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas 

where property rights are vested by others, where legally binding agreements exist, or where there 

are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, aircraft overflights, emergency actions, some activities on 

navigable waters, and activities by other federal agencies on “overlay refuges” are exempt from the 

compatibility review process. 

New compatibility regulations, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act), were adopted by the Service in October 2000 

(http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a use must be 

compatible with both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of the individual refuge. 

This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. The Act also 

requires that compatibility determinations be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to 

comment on most use evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of 

primary consideration. The Improvement Act defined a compatible use as one that “... in the sound 

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

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.” Sound professional judgment 

is defined under the Improvement Act as “... a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources ....” Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent 

of a use. 

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests against 

the primary purpose of the Refuge (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus [Ruby Lake Refuge]). The 

Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge managers 

are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best available 

science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives 1997). 

Evaluations of the existing uses on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge are based on the 

professional judgment of refuge and planning personnel, including observations of refuge uses and 

reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 

In July 2006, the Service published its Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1). Under this 

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

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

References 

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

Reporter 11:873. 

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

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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

B.2 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Wildlife 

Photography, and Interpretation at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation 

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

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

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

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

Refuge Purpose(s): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

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

interpretation as proposed under Preferred Alternative 2 of the Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge (refuge) draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)/environmental assessment (EA). 

There is substantial overlap between activities associated with wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and interpretation where participants are engaged in self-directed learning about the 

natural and cultural resources on the refuge, and as such these uses are evaluated together in this CD. 

This use would foster an aware and involved citizenry that would take an active role in conservation. 

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

refuge Wildlife Center, along the year-round and seasonal trails, at a number of overlooks, and at the 

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

refuge public facilities could serve an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 visitors annually (U.S. Fish and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

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

statistics. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prohibited. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferred Alternative 2 provides more opportunities for developing wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation programs and structured visitor experiences with enhanced facilities 

and improved access. Proposed actions are as follows. 

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

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

out of gravel or other low-impact and low-maintenance material. Use of the blind(s) would be 

managed on a reservation basis for up to two people at a time. Blinds would be available up to three 

days a week, from dawn to dusk. For both wildlife photography and observation areas, the refuge 

would maintain “viewing lanes” by selectively trimming branches, mowing tall grass, and/or 

occasionally removing vegetation. In addition, areas around these facilities may be enhanced to 

maximize wildlife use of the area. Examples of enhancements include planting vegetation for 

additional habitat; providing habitat structure such as basking logs; increasing vegetation cover to 

serve as a natural blind; and adding trees and/or shrubs to minimize “urban noise” from off-refuge 

sources (i.e., roads, industrial activities). Though no public use facilities currently exist at the Wapato 

Lake Unit, one or two additional kiosks are proposed and have potential to be developed off-refuge 

in partnership with local city and county jurisdictions. 

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

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

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

trails would be completed at a later date. The refuge supports providing additional wildlife 

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

plans to continue working with local organizations to explore this further. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation would continue to occur primarily informally 

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

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

demonstrations would be expanded to diversify the visitor experience and opportunities for these 

uses. Increased outreach and program offerings would likely result in increased visitation to the 

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

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

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

observation, photography, and interpretation. These programs would require preapproval by the 

refuge manager and would be subject to all of the same regulations as the general public (i.e., no 

special access to closed areas would be granted) and stipulations of this CD. 

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

form of interpretation under this CD. Physical geocaching (the actual placement of objects in the 

landscape by the public) is not appropriate (see Appendix A) and is not included as a form of 

interpretation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be subject to case-by-case refuge manager approval and, if necessary, a special use permit 

(SUP). 

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

Preferred Alternative 2, the refuge would continue to pursue additional volunteers and interns. This 

would include providing bunkhouses or recreational vehicle (RV) pads to support long-term housing 

on the refuge. These facilities would be located in areas such as the maintenance and shop facility on 

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

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the environmental education program as envisioned under Alternative 2 

are displayed in the following table. Estimated costs for operating the wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation programs as envisioned under Alternative 2 are also displayed in the 

following table. With assistance from Friends of the Refuge, grants, volunteers, and other partners, 

the refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support these programs at their current levels. 

Additional resources would be needed to fully implement the uses and strategies described in the 

CCP/EA. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Costs to Administer and Manage Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, and 

Interpretation under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) 

Activity or Project One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Volunteer Coordinator 55,000 

Law Enforcement Officer 78,500 

Develop new kiosks at Wapato Lake Unit 20,000 

Maintain Wildlife Center and exhibits 5,000 

Host special events 5,000 

Transportation study 30,000 

Maintain parking lots, trails, overlooks, blinds, 

signs, outdoor exhibits 

 15,000 

Construct up to 3 additional photo blinds and 

associated trails 

 40,000 

Construct RV pads and bunkhouse 300,000 5,000 

Maintain existing and develop new signage and 

publications 

5,000 5,000 

Program oversight: Visitor Services Manager 20,000 

Total 327,000 258,500 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

General Impacts Expected: 

A general assessment of impacts resulting from wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation 

uses has been compiled from the literature and is briefly summarized below. 

Disturbance intensity (frequency, distance, etc.): Human activities on recreational lands, trails, and 

other access points can result in direct effects on wildlife. Disturbance responses can depend upon 

the activity type, recreationists’ behavior, and the distance, duration, frequency, predictability, 

timing, and visibility of the use (Knight and Cole 1995). Disturbance to migrant shorebirds on 

eastern coastal bays was found to increase as the total number of disturbances and recreationists 

increased and the duration of the disturbance and distance from the disturbance decreased (Burger 

1986). Flushing, especially repetitive flushing, can strongly impact patterns of many bird species. 

Migratory birds have been observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 

1989), and in the case of the eastern coastal migrant shorebirds, the percentage of observed 

shorebirds that were flushed and did not return increased by 53 percent from 1982 to 2002, 

suggesting that the birds were not adapting to the presence of people by habituation and were being 

affected in the long term (Burger et al. 2004). 

Nest predation for songbirds (Miller et al. 1998), raptors (Glinski 1976), colonial nesting species 

(Buckley and Buckley 1976), and waterfowl (Boyle and Samson 1985) tends to increase in areas 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Norling et al. 1992). Klein (1989) studied the effect of visitation on migrant and resident waterbirds 

at Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, finding that resident birds were less sensitive to human 

disturbance than migrants. Migrant ducks were particularly sensitive when they first arrived on-site 

in the fall. They usually remained at a distance of more than 80 m [from a visitor footpath on a dike], 

even at very low visitor levels. Herons, egrets, brown pelicans, and anhingas were most likely to 

habituate to humans, thus exposing them to direct disturbance as they fed on or near the dike. 

Shorebirds showed intermediate sensitivity. Strauss (1990) observed piping plover chicks spent less 

time feeding (50% versus 91%) and more time running (33% versus 2%), fighting with other chicks 

(4% versus 0.1%), and standing alert (9% versus 0.1%) when pedestrians or moving vehicles were 

closer than 100 m than when they were undisturbed. In addition, plover chicks spent less time out on 

the feeding flats (8% versus 97%) and more time up in the grass (66% versus 0.1%) during periods of 

human disturbance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

question. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that both numbers and distance matter in determining disturbance effects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

groups or individuals. 

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

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

landscape. 

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

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

1982; Pease et al. 2005; Skagen 1980). Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can 

cause a variety of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; 

Fraser et al. 1985; Freddy 1986; Pease et al. 2005), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al. 1982), 

altered foraging patterns (Burger and Gochfeld 1991), and even, in some cases, diminished 

reproductive success (Boyle and Samson 1985). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

desire to observe closely.

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

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

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

blinds and associated access trails of less than a 0.25 mile each would be added under the preferred 

alternative. Minimal effect as a whole would occur as a result of new wildlife observation and 

photography facilities constructed under Preferred Alternative 2. Interpretive signs were not included 

as an impact as the assumption is that signs do not displace habitat. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

photography, and interpretation are projected to increase under the Preferred Alternative 2. Given 

this, future disturbance effects are likely to be somewhat higher than present. Most studies cited 

above have demonstrated immediate, rather than long-term responses to disturbance. Long-term 

responses are inherently more difficult and expensive to determine. Given that wildlife observation, 

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

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

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

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

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

behavioral response (DeLong 2002). 

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

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

disturbance from wildlife photographers. 

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

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

habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge would limit access to areas where unacceptable 

impacts occur (see stipulations). 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

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

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

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

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Availability of Resources section. 

Public Review and Comment: 

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

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

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period.

 Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Motorized vehicles and bicycles would be limited to designated public roads and parking 

lots. Bicycles would not be allowed. 

 Registration would be required for organized groups of 15 people or more. 

 Electric wheelchairs shall be allowed on trails for persons with disabilities. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

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

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

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

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

 Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions from refuge staff and volunteers would promote 

appropriate use of facilities to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

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

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

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

avoid or limit activities in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. 

Justification: 

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

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

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

uses would be expected to have a minor direct impact on refuge resources. The associated 

disturbance to wildlife from these activities under Alternative 2, though larger than at present, is also 

expected to be minor. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources 

and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not be measurably lessened 

from allowing these activities to occur. The relatively limited number of individual animals and 

plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause populations to materially decline, the 

physiological condition and production of refuge species would not be impaired, their behavior and 

normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing wildlife photography, observation, interpretation to occur under 

the stipulations described above would not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established or the refuge mission. Wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation provide visitors with the joy of experiencing wildlife on their public lands, and as such, 

help fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

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

uses): 

 2027 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

References: 

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

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343. 

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

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

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

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

pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary 

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

Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

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

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

104:22-31. 

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

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

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

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

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Page 286 in: 

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecological Institute. Boulder, 

CO. 

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

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

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

30(3):655-657. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Unit, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 

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

21:31-39. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-13 

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

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

Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

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

Animal Behavior 34:561-566. 

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

34:887-897. 

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

nesting cycle? Auk 103:318-327. 

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

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

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

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts, eds. 

Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement, and management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third 

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

Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium. Seattle, WA. 

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

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

University, Medford, MA. 

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

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

environmental assessment, Wildlife Center and visitor services facilities, Washington 

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

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-15 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17 

B.3 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting at Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Waterfowl hunting 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

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

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

Refuge Purpose(s): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

The Service proposes to allow hunting of ducks, geese, coots, and snipe in accordance with state and 

Federal regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. A youth waterfowl hunt would be 

conducted on the Oleson parcel of the Riverboat Unit, and general waterfowl hunting would be 

conducted at Wapato Lake on the Wapato Lake Unit once restoration activities are completed and 

infrastructure for hunting is in place. It is estimated that up to 48 youth hunters per year would 

participate in youth hunts, and up to 1,920 hunters per year would participate in waterfowl hunting at 

the Wapato Lake Unit. Youth waterfowl hunting would occur on approximately 50 acres in the 

Riverboat Unit, or on about 2 percent of refuge lands. Waterfowl hunting at the Wapato Lake Unit 

would likely occur on no more than 800 acres, or about 37 percent of current refuge lands. 

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

but dates are subject to change annually. Youth hunts would be conducted on selected Saturdays 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

only, on no more than two days per month. General waterfowl hunting at Wapato Lake would be 

conducted no more than three days per week. Youth hunting would be allowed using two to five 

blinds on the Riverboat Unit. A maximum of two youth and two supervising (but nonhunting) adults 

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

each hunt date. At the Wapato Lake Unit, it is anticipated that there would be up to 20 hunting 

blinds. Blinds would be assigned via lottery or on a first-come first-served basis. Although dogs are 

generally prohibited for all other uses on the refuge, they are a vital part of the waterfowl hunting 

tradition and can reduce the loss of waterfowl, thus reducing the overall impact to the resource. 

Because of their role in retrieving waterfowl, dogs used for waterfowl retrieval purposes are allowed 

on the refuge during hunting. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost. The habitat and wildlife objectives for Wapato Lake Unit are very likely to support quality 

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

opportunities would be offered consistent with relevant state hunting regulations, and with 

management plans for applicable species and the Pacific Flyway Council’s (PFC’s) plans for 

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

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

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

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

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

support the mission of the Refuge System. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-19 

Availability of Resources: 

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

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

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

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

regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. A portion of the funding to support this program 

could be provided by monies collected as part of a hunt lottery or by blind fees charged to 

participants. Funding associated with facilities maintenance (roads, parking areas, signs, etc.) is 

included in other refuge programs requiring the same support. 

Increased volunteer assistance, stronger existing partnerships, and new partnerships would be sought 

to support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff would increase 

volunteer recruitment efforts. Volunteers, interns, and various user groups when provided appropriate 

training can assist the refuge with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and 

maintenance projects. With additional assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected 

to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Costs to Administer and Manage Hunting under the Preferred Alternative 

Category and Itemization for Waterfowl Hunting Program One-time 

Expenses 

Annual 

Expenses 

Develop youth hunting program opening package $10,000 

Develop general hunting program opening package $10,000 

Construct youth hunting blinds (Riverboat Unit) $15,000 

Construct general hunting blinds (Wapato Lake Unit) $50,000 

Develop signage and brochures $5,000 $1,000 

Administration and management $20,000 

Maintenance $4,000 

Law enforcement staff $25,000 

Total one-time expenses for youth hunt $25,000 

Total one-time expenses for general hunt $65,000 

Total annual expenses for waterfowl hunting program $50,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: 

Short-term impacts include disturbance to wetland habitat to install hunting blinds. Blinds would be 

installed during late summer when wetland water levels are low or dry, migratory waterfowl are not 

present, and locally nesting birds have hatched their young. Short-term impacts would also include 

disturbance of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife during hunting activities. Direct take of 

waterfowl would occur, and take of some non-target species might also occur. The presence of 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

hunters and dogs, sounds of gunfire, and the sight of hunters traveling to and from hunt areas can 

disturb wildlife species such as pied-billed grebe, great blue heron, bald eagle, and tundra swan, 

which forage in refuge wetlands. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, 

may result in some wildlife species altering their behavior or moving to other areas. Hunting would 

occur outside of the breeding season. No significant effects are expected for refuge fish populations. 

Long-term Impacts: 

Long-term impacts include loss of some vegetation surrounding hunting blinds and impacts to 

migratory waterfowl and other wildlife species from repeated disturbance. The hunting blind itself 

would have a “footprint” of vegetation disturbance and trampling of vegetation by hunters using the 

blind. Migratory waterfowl and other wildlife species would be disturbed during times when hunting 

is occurring, and to some extent some would avoid the hunt area during nonhunting days as well. 

Annual maintenance of hunting blinds would also cause disturbance to both habitat and wildlife in 

the vicinity of the blinds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered 

by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, compels 

waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 

1995; Wolder 1993). Disturbance levels from hunting activity outside Chincoteague Refuge were 

found to be high enough to force wintering black ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21 

surrounding salt marsh and diurnal resting within refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a, 

1989b). Unhunted populations have been documented to behave differently from hunted ones (Wood 

1993). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the waterfowl season. 

Cumulative Impacts: 

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

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

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

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

the Pacific Flyway. 

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

migratory gamebird species are addressed by the programmatic document Final Supplemental 

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the 

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

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

significant impact. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

comment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hours, and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive 

but not more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each state 

depends on the annual status of waterfowl populations. 

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

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

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

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

migratory bird hunting. 

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

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

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

waterfowl and general hunters would harvest 5,760. The total estimated annual harvest of both 

programs would be about 1 percent and 0.002 percent of the Oregon and Pacific Flyway harvests, 

respectively. 

The cumulative effects of disturbance to nonhunted birds and other species under the proposed action 

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

reproduction would not be reduced by hunting. Disturbance to foraging or resting migrating or 

resident birds might occur, but would be minor because of the small amount of area allowed for these 

hunts relative to the size of the refuge and the limited time parameters for hunting. Disturbance to 

other taxa would be unlikely or negligible. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall 

would be few and should not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. 

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

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

legal for the season would not be permitted. 

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

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

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

Wapato Lake Unit general waterfowl hunt would be conducted in the Wapato Lake lake bed, and 

future other priority public uses would be managed with waterfowl hunting to minimize user 

conflicts. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opportunity for a high-quality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens regardless of economic 

standing. Many individual refuges have developed extensive public information and education 

programs bringing hunters into contact with refuge activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife 

issues beyond hunting. 

Summary of Effects: 

The Service believes that hunting on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, as proposed under 

Alternative 2, would not have a significant impact on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl 

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

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

populations would continue to be monitored and future harvests would be adjusted as needed under 

the existing flyway and state regulatory processes. 

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

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

harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges is only 6 percent (USDOI 2009); 2) there are no 

waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual 

hunting regulations within the United States are established at levels consistent with the current 

population status; 4) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal 

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

hunting to 40 percent of the available area. 

Public Review and Comment: 

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

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

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

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

regulations. 

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

 Hunting would only be allowed from established blinds or blind sites. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 The hunting program would be conducted as outlined in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA and follow 

a step-down hunting management plan. 

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

necessary. 

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

state, Federal, and refuge regulations. 

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

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

engaging in other refuge programs. Information would be provided at interpretive kiosks, on 

the refuge website, and in refuge offices. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires would be prohibited. 

Justification: 

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

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

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

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

opportunity to harvest waterfowl. Despite the direct and indirect impacts associated with waterfowl 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

acres of important waterfowl habitat, including land in the Wapato Lake Unit—these lands support 

waterfowl and many other wildlife species, and are usually open to hunting (USFWS 2011g). Thus, 

allowing waterfowl hunting under the stipulations described above would not materially detract from 

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

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

uses only): 

 2027 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25 

References Cited: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

University. Logan, UT. 

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

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

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

final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary 

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

Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

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

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

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

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

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

California, Davis. 200 pp. 

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

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management 48:371-380. 

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

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

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

Portland, OR. 54 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

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

Wildlife Service. Laurel, MD. 68 pp. 

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

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

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

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

waterbird symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, Canada. 

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

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

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

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

Migratory Bird Management. Portland, OR. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011f. Hunting – What do hunters do for conservation? 

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

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

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

USFWS. 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: avid, casual, and intermediate participation trends. 

Report 2001-5. Arlington, VA. 48 pp. 

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

33:113-118. 

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

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

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

Society Bulletin 21:91-95. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-29 

B.4 Compatibility Determination for Research, Scientific Collecting, and 

Surveys at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: Research, scientific collecting, and surveys 

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

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

Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

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

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

Refuge Purposes: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Uses: 

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

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

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

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

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

species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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

environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of 

paleontological specimens, wilderness character, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, 

and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific or refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge lands to larger 

landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) and issues and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies and Appropriate Refuge Uses policies indicate 

priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats as well as their natural 

diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs for resource and/or wilderness 

management goals and objectives, where applicable, would be given a higher priority over other 

requests. 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys may be conducted on any and all refuge-managed lands 

during any part of the year as appropriate. Research, scientific collecting, and surveys may be 

conducted in cooperation with other Federal, state, or local agencies; colleges and universities; 

nonprofit organizations; consultants; or individuals. These studies are conducted to better inform 

refuge management decisions and increase general knowledge about the flora, fauna, and abiotic 

factors affecting refuge habitats. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities would primarily be limited to the 

following: review of proposals, preparation of SUPs and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and 

monitoring of project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable 

levels (compatible) over time. Additional administrative, logistical, and operational support may also 

be provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., SUP preparation) 

and annually recurring tasks by refuge staff and other Service employees would be determined for 

each project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of the refuge must be available to 

cover expenses for these projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support necessary 

to administer each project on the refuge would be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

that is currently taking place on refuge lands (see table below). Any substantial increase in the 

number of projects would create a need for additional resources to oversee the administration and 

monitoring of the investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional costs above those listed 

below may result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are offset by the investigator(s), 

sponsoring agency, or organization. 

Current Refuge Staffing and Funding to Support and Monitor Research

Category and Itemization One-time 

Expenses 

Annual 

Expenses 

Administration and management $10,000 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-31 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scope of fieldwork. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

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

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

requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would have short-term impacts. To reduce 

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

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) would be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another researcher examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

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

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

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

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

to adversely affect” determinations would be considered compatible. 

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

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

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

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

still expected to occur, the project would be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation 

plan. 

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

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

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

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigators enter areas closed to the public 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compatible. If allowed and found compatible after approval, all projects would also be assessed 

during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels. 

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

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources 

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

approval, projects would also be monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts 

remain within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

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

ensure that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

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

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

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

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

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

Public Review and Comment: 

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

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

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

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

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

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

progress reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33 

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

available and applicable. 

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

permits for their projects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

refuge manager. 

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

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

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

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

refuge project. 

 Refuge staff would be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database 

format) at the conclusion of the project. 

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

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

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

be stipulated in the SUP(s). 

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

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

clearly identified in the project proposal would require submission of a subsequent proposal 

for review and approval. In addition, a new SUP would be required for additional project 

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

memorandum of understand would be necessary. 

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

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

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

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

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

written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

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

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

access and travel on the refuge. 

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

Justification: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated that monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Allowing the use as described above would not materially detract 

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

System. 

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

uses only): 

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

 2022 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37 

B.5 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito and Disease Vector 

Management on Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito and disease vector management 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

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

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

Refuge Purpose(s): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

With the spread of mosquito-borne diseases across the country, national wildlife refuges have come 

under increasing pressure to manage mosquito populations that are bred or harbored within refuge 

boundaries. The Service has produced interim guidance for refuges (USFWS 2005b) to be used until 

the Service policy document is finalized. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge would adhere to 

the interim guidance, and our mosquito management program would follow the response matrix 

presented in the following table. The refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support this 

use. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Example of Mosquito-borne Disease Health Threat and Response Matrix 

Current Conditions Threat 

Level 

Refuge Response 

Health Threat 

Category1

Refuge Mosquito 

Populations2

No documented existing 

or historical health 

threat/emergency 

No action threshold 1 Remove/manage artificial mosquito 

breeding sites such as tires, tanks, 

or similar debris/containers. Allow 

compatible monitoring. 

Documented human 

health threat/emergency 

Below action threshold 2 Response as in threat level 1, plus: 

evaluate compatible nonpesticide 

management options such as water 

level management and vegetation 

removal to reduce mosquito 

production. 

Above action threshold 3 Response as in threat level 2, plus: 

allow compatible site-specific 

larviciding of infested areas as 

determined by monitoring. 

Officially determined 

existing human health 

emergency 

Below action threshold 4 Response as in threat level 2, plus: 

increase monitoring and disease 

surveillance. 

Above action threshold 5 Response as in threat levels 3 and 

4, plus: allow compatible sitespecific larviciding, pupaciding, or 

adulticiding of infested areas as 

determined by monitoring data. 

Identify ways to minimize 

treatment area to avoid non-target 

effects 

1 Health threat/emergency as determined by Federal and/or state/local public health or wildlife 

management authorities with jurisdiction inclusive of refuge boundaries and/or neighboring public health 

authorities. 

2

 Action thresholds represent mosquito population levels that may require intervention measures. 

Thresholds would be developed in collaboration with Federal and/or state/local public health or wildlife 

management authorities and vector control districts. They must be species- and life stage-specific. 

Annual precipitation and water management fill many wetlands on the refuge. This water and 

vegetation provides egg-laying sites for mosquitoes. When high water levels recede, the eggs hatch, 

larvae grow rapidly, and adults feed for two weeks or more until they breed, lay eggs, and then die. 

Under certain conditions the refuge may provide suitable habitat for multiple hatches of mosquitoes 

in a single summer.

Arboviral (arthropod-borne viral) diseases are a potential concern. These include West Nile virus, 

western equine encephalitis, and St. Louis encephalitis. Between 1964 and 2010 there has only been 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39 

one reported case of human infection by western equine encephalitis in Oregon (Centers for Disease 

Control [CDC] 2012a). St. Louis encephalitis in a human was documented in Oregon in 2003, the 

first case in more than 30 years (Oregon Department of Human Services 2012). 

Although West Nile virus was first documented in the eastern states, it has been moving west since 

that time. West Nile virus first appeared in Oregon in 2004. The first human, avian, and equine West 

Nile virus cases in Oregon were all diagnosed in August 2004. In 2010, no humans were diagnosed 

with West Nile virus infection (Oregon Health Authority Office of Disease Prevention and 

Epidemiology 2011). Moreover, less than 1 percent of humans who are exposed to and infected with 

West Nile virus become seriously ill. The fatality rate of those who do develop serious illness is 3 to 

15 percent. Most human infections of West Nile virus are asymptomatic or characterized by mild flulike symptoms. The elderly (persons over 50 years of age) are more likely to develop severe illness 

(CDC 2012b). 

The refuge, in cooperation with Washington County Health and Human Services (HHS) and Yamhill 

County Public Health (YCPH), proposes to monitor and control larval mosquito species that have 

been determined to have a negative effect on public health adjacent to the refuge. Monitoring 

generally takes place between early April and late September. 

The HHS/YCPH staff proposes to monitor and control mosquito larvae with Bacillus thuringiensis 

var. israelensis, which is frequently referred to as B.t.i. (EPA Registration No. 73049-10), when 

established thresholds are exceeded and human health risks exist as indicated through monitoring.

Monitoring and larval treatments would be restricted to shallowly flooded (<8 inches) vegetation that 

represents mosquito breeding habitat. From 2005 through 2008, refuge staff conducted monitoring 

for mosquito larvae on the Atfálat’i, Tualatin River, and Riverboat Units of the refuge (Figure D-1), 

and the results were given to Washington County’s vector control. 

To protect sensitive resources such as eagle nesting and roosting areas and listed plant species, and to 

reduce the spread of invasive plant species, sampling periods and frequency as well as type of access 

(four-wheel-drive vehicle, ATV, foot traffic only) would be determined by the refuge in late 

winter/early spring. Because the locations of sensitive resources may change over time, the refuge 

would establish sampling and treatment stipulations on an annual basis through the SUP process. 

The HHS/YCPH may also monitor adult mosquito populations from May to September using dry ice 

traps, or other approved methods, as part of the county-wide surveillance for the presence of 

mosquito-borne human health diseases. 

The protocol for mosquito control when monitoring wetlands for mosquito larvae is to treat with the 

larvicide B.t.i. when the larvae reach established threshold levels and a human health threat has been 

documented. The treatment threshold used by the HHS/YCPH would be determined and specified in 

the annual SUP. 

Mosquito larvae numbers within the refuge are affected by a number of factors such as weather 

conditions, precipitation, and time of year. The primary factor contributing to the production of 

mosquitoes, however, is the water level fluctuation along shorelines, where mosquitoes lay their 

eggs. Water level fluctuations are primarily due to precipitation and refuge water management 

activities. Due to the uncertainty of water levels resulting from the above factors, and subsequent 

mosquito hatches, the total amount of larvicide to be used and the times, dates, and exact locations of 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

application (magnitude and frequency) cannot be predicted. In some cases, certain areas may need 

repeated treatments. 

Figure D-1. Mosquito monitoring locations. 

The refuge and the HHS/YCPH would establish larval abundance thresholds associated with human 

health threats through the SUP process to protect public health and reduce impacts to fish and 

wildlife populations. If mosquito larvae dip numbers reach threshold levels and a human health risk 

is present, HHS/YCPH staff would request approval from the refuge manager to apply B.t.i, at a rate 

of 2.5 to 5 lbs/acre; this would be done as soon as possible after a threat to human health is 

documented. 

As proposed, B.t.i may be applied (2.5 to 5 lbs/acre) as often as once every two to three weeks until a 

human health threat is removed. The bacteria are grown on high-protein bases (fishmeal, soy flour), 

which are then formulated onto corncob pellets, enabling them to be broadcast over the treatment 

area by a handheld or ATV-mounted spreader. B.t.i. is a selective microbial insecticide targeting 

mosquito larvae; however, studies during the mid-1990s in the Midwest (Hershey et al. 1995) found 

that other Dipteran species (flies) can also be impacted, including chironomids, an important fish and 

wildlife food source. B.t.i. has practically no acute or chronic toxicity to mammals, fish, birds, or 

vegetation (EPA 1998a). It produces protein endo-toxins that, when ingested by the susceptible 

insect, cause paralysis of cells in the gut, interfering with normal digestion and feeding. 

All applications are required to be reported to the refuge and included in an annual report submitted 

to the refuge by the HHS/YCPH. The extent and frequency of treatments is likely to vary annually in 

response to water levels, weather conditions, and larvae distribution. 

In accordance with the 2005 Interim Mosquito Management Policy and the response matrix (see 

table titled Example of Mosquito-borne Disease Health Threat and Response Matrix), the Service 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-41 

may also permit the use of approved adulticides and/or pupacides on refuge lands in response to a 

declaration of a human health threat or emergency by a Federal, state, or local public health agency. 

A health emergency indicates an imminent risk of serious human disease or death and represents the 

highest level of mosquito-associated health threats. Health emergencies would be determined by 

Federal, state, or local public health authorities and documented with local and current mosquito 

population and disease monitoring data. With the exception of vaccines to protect horses against 

West Nile virus and western equine encephalomyelitis, there are no vaccines that provide specific 

protection against these diseases. Mosquito control is the only practicable method currently available 

to protect the public from these diseases. 

To date, refuge staff has not needed to permit the application of larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides 

due to public health concerns. 

The refuge would continue to evaluate measures to control mosquitoes that pose a threat to human 

health while limiting the risk associated with the use of chemical control. Water level manipulation is 

possible in many refuge wetland basins where mosquito larvae have been found. In the event that a 

human health emergency is declared and the use of pesticides is authorized, the refuge would work 

with the HHS/YCPH to identify which portions of the refuge are supporting species of mosquitoes 

that may serve as disease vectors and reduce the treatment area to the extent practicable. 

Availability of Resources: 

The HHS/YCPH is responsible for staffing and expenditures for sampling and pesticide applications 

(mainly B.t.i.). Refuge staff resources are needed to review annual proposals, prepare SUPs, and 

monitor HHS/YCPH personnel to ensure compliance (see table below). 

Costs to Administer and Manage Vector Control Programs at the Refuge. 

Activity or Project One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Development and issuance of SUP $500.00 

Total $500.00 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

This use has three principal, potential impacts on refuge lands, waters, or interests. 

1. The disturbance of wildlife caused by monitoring efforts and application of pesticides. 

2. The impacts on wildlife from periodic elimination of mosquito larvae from the wetland 

community. 

3. The impacts of pesticides on non-target organisms. 

Impacts Associated with Disturbance of Wildlife Caused by the Monitoring Efforts: 

Disturbance of wildlife by HHS/YCPH staff is minimized to the extent practicable by restricting 

access to sensitive areas and by controlling the type of access (four-wheel-drive vehicle, ATV, or 

foot traffic). Impacts anticipated from the logistical activities resulting from proposed monitoring and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

treatment actions on wildlife are minimal. One or two HHS/YCPH employees would conduct these 

activities, and they would be restricted to refuge service roads and a minimum of off-road areas. The 

speed limit for HHS/YCPH staff using vehicles on service roads is 15 miles per hour and ATVs are 

restricted to 5 miles per hour. Any necessary treatments would occur as soon as possible after 

monitoring activities. These activities cause short-term and temporary disturbance to wildlife. In the 

event of an identified public health threat or emergency by the Oregon Health Authority, the data 

from these monitoring efforts would be used by the refuge for determining an appropriate course of 

action. 

Impacts Associated with Application of Pesticides: 

Where necessary and in accordance with the response matrix (see table titled Example of Mosquitoborne Disease Health Threat and Response Matrix), pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, and adulticides) 

would only be used on refuge lands for mosquito control after approval of a Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUP). The Service’s Pest Control Policy (7 RM 14) requires preparation and approval of a PUP 

before pesticides can be applied on refuge lands. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands 

would only be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish 

and wildlife as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed 

and non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in chemical profiles. These profiles would include threshold values for 

quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental fate that 

represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only pesticide 

uses with appropriate best management practices on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, 

temporary, or localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not 

exceeded) would be approved. However, pesticides may be used on refuge lands where substantial 

effects to species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to protect 

human health and safety when a documented threat exists (e.g., mosquito-borne disease). The Service 

does not anticipate any short-term effects of the proposed use directly on non-target invertebrates or 

indirectly to fish. 

The refuge has developed an integrated pest management (IPM) plan (see Appendix G) to manage 

mosquito populations. Based on adult mosquito control conducted in Washington County, 

pyrethroids such as Anvil are the most likely adulticides to be used to address a human health 

emergency. Pyrethroids are synthetic molecules that mimic natural pyrethrins that are extracted from 

plants in the chrysanthemum family. Pyrethroids are generally less toxic to terrestrial wildlife than 

other families of adulticides such as organophosphates. However, they are toxic to fish and aquatic 

invertebrates. The county has not used pupacides in recent years. Methoprene, a commonly used 

pupacide, is an insect growth regulator that prevents pupae from metamorphosing into adults. 

Methoprene has been found to be practically nontoxic to people and terrestrial vertebrates and poses 

minimal chronic and acute risk to fish, freshwater invertebrates (other than mosquitoes and closely 

related chironomids), and estuarine species at the doses tested (EPA 2001). Detailed mapping of 

areas where disease-carrying mosquitoes are present and the use of an ultra-low volume fogger 

would reduce the impacts to nontarget organisms. Other practices to reduce impacts to nontarget 

wildlife include application in the evening hours (when many insect pollinators are less active) and 

conducting applications when wind speeds are steady and low, and temperatures are lower. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43 

Impacts on Wildlife from Periodic Elimination of Mosquito Larvae from the Wetland Community: 

The Service does not anticipate long-term impacts to result from the proposed use. Hershey et al. 

(1995) conducted a 6-year study on 27 wetlands in Wright County, Minnesota, consisting of three 

years of pretreatment sampling of aquatic invertebrates and other parameters, followed by 3 years of 

treatment with B.t.i. Insect densities and diversity were reduced by 57 to 83 percent in the second and 

third years of treatment, respectively. During this study, 179 genera of aquatic insects were 

examined, with chironomids (primarily midges) representing about half of the insect genera present 

at the beginning of the study. By the end of the study, however, only one to six genera dominated the 

treatment sites. Adverse impacts were primarily observed in the invertebrate tribes Chironomini and 

Tanytarsini. These tribes are ubiquitous and are represented in almost every wetland with 

chironomids. Although Hershey et al. (1995) found negative effects of B.t.i. on nontarget 

invertebrates; this study is not applicable in the case of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge for 

the following reasons. 

1. Entire wetlands were treated with B.t.i. multiple times within and over several 

consecutive years in the Minnesota study. In contrast, the treatment area at Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge would likely only include wetland margins where vegetation 

interfaces with open water. 

2. Because of fluctuating water levels changing the location of the shallow flooded 

shoreline, it is unlikely B.t.i. applications would occur in the same area more than three 

times in a single year, and most areas would receive a single application. Stipulations in 

the SUP would limit the number of applications in a specific location during one season. 

Recently completed invertebrate and salmonid research along the south Franz Lake shoreline (Franz 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Washington) has provided valuable information regarding the 

cumulative impacts of mosquito treatment and control measures that are applicable to the program at 

this refuge. The invertebrate study was conducted during the latter part of the application period (July 

to September). During this study, stable water levels from July to September resulted in three 

applications of B.t.i. to the same locations. No impacts to non-target invertebrates were reported as a 

result of these applications. Consequently, it is unlikely there would be negative cumulative direct 

impact on the invertebrate community or indirectly on fish and wildlife. Because there were no 

impacts to non-target invertebrates from B.t.i. treatment at Franz Lake, it is unlikely that native fish 

would be impacted from applications at the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Although mosquito larvae were reduced as a result of B.t.i. treatments at Franz Lake, there were no 

significant differences in the numbers of over 40 taxa of invertebrates, with 50 percent of the taxa 

being other insects that had been represented at shallow water sites. Based on results of the 

invertebrate survey, it would be expected that alternative prey would be available for native fishes 

(including salmonids), as well as other wildlife that depend on larval or adult mosquitoes as forage. 

Consequently, the Service believes that the proposed monitoring and subsequent applications of B.t.i. 

would not have substantial short-term, long-term, or cumulative impacts on refuge fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Impacts to Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health: 

Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health can be simply defined as native fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as natural processes that support them. As described above, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

the impacts from larvicide application to most fish, wildlife, and plants would be temporary and 

localized. Mosquito populations that are part of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the refuge would be impacted from control actions. Although numbers of mosquitoes would 

be temporarily and locally reduced, there would likely be no long-term or cumulative effects to 

mosquitoes and the species that feed upon them at the refuge. As part of the refuge’s mosquito 

management plan, the refuge would assess the impacts of adulticide applications on biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. Written comments on 

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 The HHS/YCPH must apply for and receive an SUP annually from the refuge manager. The 

permit would specify conditions including, but not limited to, access restrictions, timing of 

applications, and measures required to limit the spread of invasive plants. 

 Mosquito management would follow an IPM approach, and any compatible cultural and/or 

mechanical control methods would be identified and implemented before chemical control is 

permitted. 

 Larvae control is to be conducted only when the HHS/YCPH determines that breeding in 

specific units is widespread and poses a documented threat to human health. 

 Only Service-approved pesticides may be applied on refuge wetlands and only after PUPs 

have been approved. 

 The HHS/YCPH would contact the refuge manager at least one day in advance of each 

application. The refuge manager has final approval over all pesticide treatments. 

 The HHS/YCPH would notify the refuge manager in the event that virus activity is detected 

within or near the refuge and would work with the refuge to determine whether additional 

surveillance or control actions are necessary. 

 The HHS/YCPH must provide the refuge manager with a monthly report of all control 

activities on the refuge. 

 The refuge may rescind this CD at any time based on future Service policy determinations or 

scientific studies of the effects of pesticides on the environment or nontarget organisms. 

 This CD would be reviewed when the Service finalizes its pending policy on mosquito 

management, and a new CD would be issued if this CD is not in full compliance with the 

new policy. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45 

Justification: 

Several suburban communities exist near the refuge within the flight range of adult mosquitoes (5 to 

10 miles). Mosquito species capable of transmitting diseases to people may be present on the refuge, 

though the risk of transmission is generally low. The refuge’s mosquito control program is consistent 

with the Service’s 2005 Interim Mosquito Management Policy and would help manage mosquito 

populations that pose a threat to human health. 

The refuge would ensure that its mosquito management program is consistent with national policies 

for disease control and would work with the HHS/YCPH to continue to identify new ways to use 

compatible mechanical and cultural control methods, reduce larvicide applications, and avoid 

impacts to sensitive resources. 

In the event that compatible mechanical and cultural control methods are not effective or practicable, 

the use of the larvicide B.t.i. would help avoid ecologically significant impacts to nontarget 

organisms and help the HHS/YCPH avoid the need to apply adulticides, which are generally more 

toxic to nontarget organisms. For the following reasons, mosquito monitoring and B.t.i. treatments 

for control of mosquitoes on the refuge would not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling 

the Refuge System mission or achieving refuge purposes. 

 Under the worst-case scenario, a maximum of 18 acres or less than 1 percent of the total 

refuge acreage would be impacted by mosquito monitoring and treatment activities annually 

from April 1 through September 30. 

 The invertebrate B.t.i. study indicated that no impacts to nontarget invertebrates were 

associated with three B.t.i. treatments for control of mosquito larvae on the shallowly flooded 

south shoreline of Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

 Although mosquito larvae would be reduced from B.t.i. treatments, over 40 taxa of 

invertebrates, with 50 percent of the taxa represented by other insects, were found at shallow 

water sites (where treatments would occur) after treatment. Therefore, alternative prey is 

likely available for fish and other wildlife species. 

 Monitoring and treatment activities would likely result in only temporary and localized 

disturbance to fish and wildlife. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

________ Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2022 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 2012a. Western equine encephalitis virus neuroinvasive disease 

cases reported by state, 1964-2010. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/arbor/arbocase/wee_600px.jpg. Accessed January 3, 2012. 

CDC 2012b. West Nile Virus: questions and answers. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/who_risk.htm. Accessed July 3, 2012. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

EPA. 1998a. Re-registration eligibility document. Bacillus thuringiensis. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA738-98-004. Washington, D.C. 157 pp. 

EPA. 2001. Pesticide fact sheet—methoprene. Washington, D.C. 9 pp. 

Hershey, A.E., L. Shannon, R. Axler, C. Ernst, and P. Mickelson. 1995. Effects of methoprene and 

Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) on non-target insects. Hydrobiologia 308:219-

227. 

Oregon Department of Human Services. 2012. News release: Oregon records first St. Louis 

Encephalitis case in 30 years. Available at: 

http://www.oregonjobs.org/DHS/news/2003news/2003-0926.shtml. Accessed January 3, 

2012. 

Oregon Health Authority. 2011. Selected reportable communicable disease summary. Portland, OR. 

110 pp. 

USFWS. 2005b. Interim guidance for mosquito management on national wildlife refuges. 

FWS/ANRS-NR-WR/020301. Washington D.C. 20 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49 

B.6 Compatibility Determination for Fishing at Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Fishing 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

Fishing is one of the priority public uses that promote traditional outdoor recreation opportunity for 

the surrounding community. Very few opportunities exist on the Tualatin River for public fishing, in 

particular for disabled anglers. Fishing in the Tualatin River would be implemented at the existing 

River Overlook on the Atfálat’i Unit of the refuge—a cantilevered platform would provide access to 

fishing on the river below. 

A wide variety of fish inhabit the Tualatin River mainstem, including warm-water, cold-water, and 

anadromous species, and the river would support a fishery for these species. Fisheries in the Tualatin 

River could include cold-water species such as rainbow trout and cutthroat trout; anadromous species 

such as the upper Willamette River steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon; and warm-water 

species such as white crappie, bluegill, bullhead, and large-mouthed bass (Leader 2001). Generally, 

from May to August, under current Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) regulations, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

fishing could occur in the Tualatin River for trout species and coho salmon as identified in the special 

regulations for Tualatin River; a wide variety of warm-water species; crayfish; and bullfrogs. For 

purposes of regulations, ODFW considers rainbow trout over 20 inches to be steelhead (ODFW 

2011d). 

Recreational fishing would be allowed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations of the 

State of Oregon; however, access would be limited to daylight hours only and cleaning of fish on-site 

would be prohibited. Access to the River Overlook from the public parking lot would be via the 

existing year-round trail. No other areas of the refuge would be open to fishing. The overlook and 

associated facilities would be provided during daylight hours and would be fully accessible to users 

under the guidelines of the Architectural Barriers Act. Limited removal or trimming of vegetation 

near the overlook would be necessary to minimize tangling of fishing lines. The overlook would 

comfortably accommodate three to four anglers at a time, plus up to 15 other visitors when fishing is 

not occurring. The maximum number of anglers anticipated annually would be 1,000, some of whom 

may be participants in special fishing events and clinics hosted by the refuge. Events would focus on 

fishing ethics and techniques, natural resource conservation, and environmental education. 

Availability of Resources: 

Direct annual recurring costs to administer and maintain a recreational fishing program are primarily 

in the form of staff time, publication of leaflets, and maintenance of overlook and trail facilities. 

Alternative 2 of the draft CCP/EA proposes that the desirability of a user fee be explored to help 

operate the fishing program and maintain and repair associated facilities. The refuge currently has 

sufficient staff and funding to offer the use. 

Costs to Administer and Manage Fishing under the Preferred Alternative 

Activity or Project One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Development of fishing plan $5,000 

Administration and maintenance of program $15,000 

Total $5,000 $15,000 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

General Impacts: 

A general assessment of impacts resulting from fishing uses has been compiled from the literature 

and is briefly summarized below. 

Disturbance to Wildlife: Fishing as a solitary and stationary activity tends to be less disturbing to 

wildlife than hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). Fishing has the potential to cause 

disturbance to birds and other wildlife using open waters and tributaries where fishing occurs. 

Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities as well as distribution, 

abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Bell and Austin 1985; Bordignon 1985; Bouffard 1982; 

Bouffard and Hanson 1997; Cooke 1987; Edwards and Bell 1985; Tydeman 1977). Anglers often 

fish in shallow, sheltered bays and creeks that birds prefer, which can negatively impact distribution 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-51 

and abundance of waterfowl, grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated 

shoreline activity have been found to discourage waterfowl from using otherwise suitable habitat 

(Jahn and Hunt 1964). When compared to non-fishing days and/or non-fishing rivers, anglers 

influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites along 

the Skagit and Toutle Rivers in Washington, disrupted feeding, and increased energy expenditure 

through avoidance flights (Knight and Knight 1984; Knight et al. 1991). 

Stream Fishing Impacts: Shoreline activities related to stream fishing, such as human noise, would 

cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. Waterbirds and waterfowl in particular use shorelines 

seasonally for resting, feeding, and nesting. Furthermore, anglers frequently show long periods of 

inactivity interspersed with short periods of rapid movements, which has the potential to disturb 

nearby wildlife (Bell and Austin 1985).

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

Anglers accessing and using the River Overlook may occasionally disturb resident mammals, but the 

impact would likely not exceed that which already occurs from other pedestrians using the trail. 

Neotropical migratory songbirds and resident birds may be disturbed, but would likely remain in the 

general area. Waterfowl and shorebirds would likely experience minimal disturbance due to the 

dense tree and shrub buffer planting that separates the trail and overlook area from seasonal 

wetlands. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

Upper Willamette River steelhead and Chinook salmon were both listed as threatened species in 

August and March 1999, respectively (Federal Register 1999a, Federal Register 1999b), and critical 

habitat was designated in 2005 (Federal Register 2005) in the upper Tualatin River Basin (roughly 

defined as the Tualatin River and its tributaries upstream of Highway 219 near Hillsboro, excluding 

Rock Creek). The proposed use would not occur in designated critical habitat. No other listed species 

are known to exist in the area that would be designated for fishing. The recreational fishing program 

and associated facility are anticipated to have no effect on threatened species if anglers are held in 

compliance with ODFW and refuge regulations. The designated time for fishing for trout and coho 

salmon according to ODFW regulations is generally May 31 to October 31. During the winter, listed 

species are migrating upstream to spawn, and then in late winter and early spring, the smolts would 

be outmigrating. The spring-summer-early fall period proposed for fishing, especially at our location 

on the river, is too warm for these species to survive. By the end of April the temperature in our part 

of the river is reaching a lethal range for salmonids. Local rainbow and cutthroat trout move up into 

the tributaries that have cooler and oxygenated water for them to survive.

Impacts to Nonlisted Species: 

The majority of fish species expected to be caught are nonlisted fish such as small-mouth bass and 

bluegill. It is anticipated that there would be some mortality of these nonnative species as a result 

from handling. However, with proper care and quick releases, these impacts are expected to be 

minimal. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Fishing is expected to result in occasional disturbance to other visitors. In addition, anglers may 

inadvertently flush wildlife that are being observed by other visitors. Occasional crowding may occur 

on the overlook due to multiple public uses occurring simultaneously. No significant effects to roads, 

trails, and other infrastructure from the fishing program are foreseen. Normal facility maintenance 

would continue to be necessary. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. Written comments on 

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Fishing would be opened only after a fishing package is completed in coordination with 

ODFW and draft and final regulations are published in the Federal Register. 

 Fishing would be allowed only during daylight hours. 

 Fires, off-trail use, and littering are prohibited. 

 Information signs and/or publications would be provided to ensure anglers have access to all 

regulations that apply to the refuge and to fishing activities. 

 All persons fishing shall be required to have a valid Oregon State fishing license and follow 

all applicable state regulations. 

 Law enforcement patrols would be conducted on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with 

state and refuge regulations. 

 Access to fishing would be limited to foot traffic along the existing trail. Persons with 

disabilities who are unable to access the River Overlook to fish would be accommodated on a 

case-by-case basis. This would require prior notification to the refuge. 

 If disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat results in unacceptable levels, the refuge 

would limit fishing access to reduce impacts. 

 If conflict with other priority public uses, or overcrowding by anglers occurs, the refuge may 

institute techniques to reduce negative impacts to visitor experience. These may include 

limiting fishing to specific days and/or times; developing signage to inform visitors of fishing 

program opportunities; developing a permit system for anglers; and/or other methods as 

appropriate to the situation. 

Justification: 

As a wildlife-dependent recreational use, fishing receives enhanced consideration in the CCP 

planning process. Despite direct and indirect impacts associated with fishing, refuge riparian and 

riverine species and their habitats are unlikely to be affected significantly by the fishing program on 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53 

the refuge at the levels of use anticipated in Preferred Alternative 2. Other riparian and stream areas 

not subject to fishing disturbance would be maintained on other portions of the refuge. State 

regulations, including bag limits, ensure that harvesting of fish does not harm long-term populations. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places, and 

their abundance and use of the refuge would not be measurably lessened from disturbance by fishing. 

The relatively limited number of individual animals and plants expected to be adversely affected 

would not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of refuge species would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns 

would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, 

allowing fishing to occur under the stipulations described above would not materially detract from or 

interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 2027 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_______Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturb antropico su una popolazinoe di germane reale Anas 

platyrhynchos (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas 

platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Bouffard, S. and M.A. Hanson. 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:146-157. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Graftham Water. In P.S. Maitland and A.K. 

Turner, eds. Angling and wildlife in fresh waters. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Symposium 

19:15-22. 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446 (7 March):19-21. 

Federal Register. 2005. Endangered and Threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 12 

evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, 

and Idaho. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2005/09/02/05-

16391/endangered-and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-12-

evolutionarily-significant. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Federal Register 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing of nine evolutionarily 

significant units of Chinook salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-08-02/pdf/99-19712.pdf. Accessed 

July 10, 2012. 

Federal Register. 1999b. Endangered and threatened species; threatened status for three Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and endangered 

status for one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-03-24/pdf/99-6815.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 33. 212 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48(3):999-1004. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of avian scavenging guild to anglers. 

Biological Conservation 56:195-205. 

Leader, K.A. 2001. Distribution and abundance of fish, and measurement of available habitat in the 

Tualatin River Basin outside of the urban growth boundary. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 63 pp. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011d. Oregon sport fishing regulations. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us Salem, OR. 110pp. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57 

B.7 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education at Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Environmental education 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

Environmental education refers to formal, curriculum-based education opportunities primarily for 

students and organizations. Environmental education fosters an aware and involved citizenry that 

takes an active role in conservation. The environmental education program at the refuge would be 

administered as described in Goal 13 of the draft CCP/EA. Environmental education could occur in 

any season at the refuge. In practice, most environmental education would occur between September 

and June, during the school year. The total number of people served by the environmental education 

program is expected to grow to 10,000 over the 15-year life of the CCP. The program would continue 

to rely on volunteers for full implementation. 

Environmental education activities would take place primarily within designated facilities designed 

to support the program. These include the year-round and seasonal trails, including overlooks; five 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

trailside environmental education study sites; the environmental education shelter; an environmental 

education classroom, and the Wildlife Center. Refer to Section 5.2 of the draft CCP/EA for a 

complete description of current facilities. An off-trail study area proposed in Alternative 2 of the 

draft CCP/EA would only be used by students who are participating in refuge lesson plans that 

include off-trail activities. This area would be clearly marked for student use only, and the use would 

be overseen by trained refuge staff and/or volunteers. Additional off-trail use may include occasional 

refuge-led field trips to areas generally closed to the public that would provide educational value not 

available in the designated public use areas. Examples include activities such as, but not limited to, 

access for secondary or collegiate-level students studying hydric soils along wetland edges, students 

accompanying refuge staff on biological monitoring activities such as bird banding, and habitat 

surveys such as conducting vegetation transects. A nature explore area for young children proposed 

in Alternative 2 of the draft CCP/EA would be limited to less than 1 acre, be located adjacent to the 

year-round trail in an area where limited additional wildlife disturbance would occur, be bound by a 

barrier to contain the use, be primarily constructed with natural and/or sustainable materials, and be 

signed appropriately to guide the use. 

Students and educators of all ages and grade levels would participate in curriculum-based education 

on the refuge. In addition to formal classroom participants, the environmental education program 

would serve home-school groups/families, pre-school groups, youth groups such as scouts, afterschool clubs, and other informal organized groups such as summer youth programs. Generally, no 

more than 100 students (plus teachers and chaperones) would be visiting any given unit of the refuge 

at any given time, and advance reservations would be required. Educators wishing to bring K-8 

students would be required to attend a teacher workshop prior to the field trip or have trained 

volunteers and/or refuge staff accompanying the group. Educators bringing high school and 

collegiate students would be required to consult with refuge staff prior to their visit to both register 

and to obtain approval for planned activities. In all cases, educators would be instructed in how to 

teach and are expected to enforce “field trip etiquette” that is designed to minimize wildlife and 

habitat disturbance. To the greatest extent possible, the refuge would provide staff and/or volunteers 

to welcome and accompany field trips to the refuge. 

The refuge would provide approved curricula and guidance to all teachers conducting education on 

the refuge. Activities generally fall into the same guidelines that are expected of all other visitors 

(refer to CD for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation). However, additional activities 

may occur as part of refuge-approved lesson plans and when conducted by a trained volunteer or 

refuge staff. These may include, but are not limited to, capture, study, and release of small animals 

such as macroinvertebrates, frogs, snakes, insects, worms, etc; handling and return of features such as 

leaves, scat, and feathers; and collection of water, seeds, and soil taken either to the classroom or offsite for further study and analysis. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the environmental education program as envisioned under Alternative 2 

are displayed in the following table. With assistance from Friends of the Refuge, grants, volunteers, 

and other partners, the refuge currently has sufficient staff and funding to support these programs at 

their current levels. Additional resources would be needed to fully implement the uses and strategies 

described in the CCP. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-59 

Costs to Administer and Manage Environmental Education under the Preferred 

Alternative 

Activity or Project One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Environmental Education Specialist 67,500 

Environmental Education Intern 25,000 

Develop curricula resources for educators 10,000 2,000 

Conduct annual teacher workshops 5,000 

Provide and maintain educational equipment and 

materials 

10,000 5,000 

Conduct annual volunteer training 2,000 

Maintain environmental education facilities 20,000 

Develop additional signage and publications 5,000 1,000 

Design and construct nature explore area 50,000 2,000 

Program oversight: Visitor Services Manager 20,000 

Total 158,500 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

General Impacts: 

A general assessment of impacts resulting from environmental education uses has been compiled 

from the literature and is briefly summarized below. 

Disturbance Impacts: In general, impacts that could occur from environmental education programs 

would be similar to those expected from wildlife observation, photography, or interpretation 

activities. Such impacts would be expected to include temporary damage to vegetation resulting from 

trampling, disturbance to nesting birds, and disturbance to feeding or resting birds or other wildlife in 

the vicinity. Environmental education programs generally accommodate groups of participants, and 

studies have shown that increasing group size has an impact on wildlife (Beale and Monaghan 2004; 

Remacha et al. 2011). In addition to group size, loudness has also been found as an important 

variable to disturbance of wildlife, and loudness of people present can be more important than the 

number of people present (Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Studies showed that reducing group size, 

allowing safe distances, and reducing noise levels helps minimize negative impacts on wildlife 

(Beale and Monaghan 2004; Burger and Gochfeld 1998; Remacha et al. 2011). An unpublished study 

examined the effect of environmental education site activities at Blackhorse Lake on the Turnbull 

National Wildlife Refuge (Jose 1997). The study was designed to compare waterfowl presence and 

behavior patterns between the times when environmental education activities were occurring and 

when environmental education classes were not on-site. The study results indicated that fewer 

waterfowl were present in the study area when environmental education classes were on-site as 

compared to control times. The study also found more short flights undertaken by birds when classes 

were on-site. Redheads displayed the highest number of flight responses, followed by mallards. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Ruddy ducks almost never flew but had the highest increase in directional swimming away from 

classes. The study recommended that sites heavily used by smaller bodied birds, such as ruddy 

ducks, buffleheads, and teal, not be used as environmental education sites. 

Conservation Benefits: Environmental education provides indirect beneficial impacts for visitors 

engaged in environmental education programs and activities. One study found that animal-oriented 

activities have an impact on the knowledge and attitudes of students involved in environmental 

education. Direct instruction methods in which children examined the anatomical and behavioral 

characteristics of live spiders and snakes promoted a positive attitude toward these animals (Kellert 

and Westervelt 1983; Kress 1975). Eighth graders engaged in wildlife-oriented activities were found 

to be more likely to recognize the importance of lower forms of animal life and preserving 

endangered species and to have greater tolerance for predators (LaHart 1974). Another study 

concluded, “if one were to try to change attitudes, education without an experiential component 

might not be very effective” (Baird and Tolman 1982:12). 

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

Environmental education activities would be more localized and would occur less frequently than 

general wildlife observation. Larger group sizes would likely result in greater magnitude of 

disturbance to feeding, resting, or nesting birds or other wildlife in the vicinity; however, having 

groups accompanied by staff or trained naturalists would help mitigate this disturbance. Most of the 

sites to be used by environmental education groups are already regularly used by other wildlife 

viewers, so the additional impact by the environmental education program would likely be small. 

However, to the extent that students are encouraged to conduct hands-on studies of vegetation, 

insects, water, or less mobile wildlife, more off-trail use would be expected for this activity than for 

any other non-consumptive use, with attendant impacts that could be higher than for more typical 

wildlife observation activity. 

Participation in environmental education programs is growing throughout Oregon and Washington. 

With the growth of participation in environmental education programs and the emphasis on these 

programs under Preferred Alternative 2, future effects can be expected to be higher than present. 

Nonetheless, environmental education activities would occur outside of wintertime sanctuary areas 

and outside of fragile habitats. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

No direct impact to listed species is anticipated to occur as a result of the environmental education 

program. Any unanticipated future impacts would be reduced by ensuring that environmental 

education groups avoid or severely limit activity in areas hosting rare species. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Environmental education may result in disturbance to other visitors. School groups, especially those 

dominated by younger primary school children, may be loud and may flush wildlife being enjoyed by 

other visitors. This effect is expected to be fairly minimal, since the majority of other visitors use the 

refuge on weekends and school groups would generally be present on weekdays. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. Written comments on 

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Environmental education facilities and activity areas shall be designated and/or constructed 

in locations that consider the site’s potential for contributing to a diverse and rich curriculum 

and minimizing impacts to sensitive resources, including listed species and wintering 

waterfowl. 

 Advance reservations would be required for all groups participating in environmental 

education activities. 

 Educators would be required to use refuge-approved curricula and/or lesson plans. 

 Adult supervision would be required for students up to twelfth grade. 

 All groups would be instructed in trail and off-trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife and 

habitat disturbance during a “welcome” session. During “teach the teachers” workshops, 

instructors would review trail etiquette and how to minimize wildlife disturbances. 

 Generally, no more than 100 students (plus teachers and chaperones) would be allowed on 

any given unit of the refuge at any given time. Classes would be asked to break up into 

smaller groups averaging 15 students. 

 Signs, pamphlets, and verbal instructions from refuge staff and volunteers would promote 

appropriate use of facilities to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 Periodic monitoring and evaluation of sites and programs would be conducted to assess if 

objectives are being met and ensure the resource is not being unacceptably degraded. If 

disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge would 

avoid or limit environmental education activities in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. 

Justification: 

As a wildlife-dependent recreational use, environmental education receives enhanced consideration 

in the CCP planning process. Environmental education can provide students with the joy of 

experiencing wildlife on their public lands, and as such, helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System. Based on the analysis presented above, this use would be expected to have a minor direct 

impact on refuge resources. By limiting the size of groups and locating environmental education 

activities in areas that are already regularly used, the additional disturbance to wildlife, though larger 

than at present, is also expected to be minor. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find 

sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not 

be measurably lessened from education activities. The relatively limited number of individual 

animals and plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of refuge species would not be 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing environmental education activities 

to occur on selected areas of the refuge under the stipulations described above would not materially 

detract from or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the Refuge 

System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 2027 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

References: 

Baird, D.D. and R.R. Tolman. 1982. Attitudes of high school students and biology teachers towards 

animals. Unpublished manuscript. Field Museum of Natural History, Division of Mammals. 

Chicago, IL. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93:259-265. 

Jose, J. 1997. Evaluation of the effect of environmental education classes on waterfowl behavior. 

Unpublished report. Biology 454 class, Eastern Washington University. Cheney, WA. 

Kellert, S.R. and M.O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors towards 

animals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office 1983 0-405-

522/1101. 

Kress, S.W. 1975. A study of the modification of children’s negative attitudes towards animals. 

Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 

LaHart, D.E. 1974. The influence of knowledge on young people’s perceptions about wildlife. Final 

project report to the National Wildlife Federation. College of Education, Florida State 

University. Tallahassee, FL. 

Remacha, C., J. Pérez-Tris, and J.A. Delgado. 2011. Reducing visitors’ group size increases the 

number of birds during educational activities: implications for management of nature-based 

recreation. Journal of Environmental Management 92(6):1564-1568. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65 

B.8 Compatibility Determination for Cooperative Farming at Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative farming 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]). 

Description of Use: 

Cooperative farming is an interim tool, and an effective one, that allows the refuge to manage 

invasive species while at the same time providing forage for wildlife. Prior to and during restoration 

of native habitats, invasive species can outcompete native plants, therefore reducing the success of 

native plants to become established. Cooperative farming would allow the refuge to control invasive 

plants, which would give native plants a greater chance of success when restoration occurs. 

The refuge manages small grain croplands and pastures to: 

 Provide wildlife habitat for migratory birds and other resident wildlife, and 

 Prevent invasive plants from dominating the landscape prior to restoration of the land to 

native habitats. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Invasive plants have the potential to reduce habitat quality and forage opportunity and have been 

identified as one of the most serious threats to refuge habitats. Preventing infestation is the most 

effective strategy because if left without refuge intervention, agricultural lands acquired by the refuge 

would most likely convert to invasive weed parcels. Species such as reed canarygrass and Himalayan 

blackberry pose serious threats. The refuge continually monitors for new invasive plants as well. A 

variety of methods, including mechanical, herbicidal, and cultural treatments, are used to manage 

these invasive plant species. The refuge uses an IPM approach to control weeds (Appendix G), 

whereby management options are selected based on on-site conditions and not implemented until 

established thresholds are exceeded. 

Various methods would continue to be evaluated for efficiency and appropriateness to treat invasive 

species. If one particular method is not expected to be effective or may have undesirable 

consequences (such as impacting grassland nesting birds), then the refuge would evaluate other 

methods until one is deemed appropriate for a particular situation. 

Approximately 800 acres of the Wapato Lake and Onion Flats Units would be maintained in 

cooperative farming until restoration begins. The farming would occur through a cooperative farming 

program in which croplands would typically be planted and maintained by local area farmers who 

operate according to farming agreements. Farming typically occurs with planting in the late spring 

and early summer with harvesting in late summer and early fall. Cooperative farming agreements are 

a negotiated agreement between the refuge and the private farmer to manage the lands for both 

parties. To benefit wildlife, the refuge’s share of 30 percent would be left in the field where it would 

be available to wildlife, primarily waterfowl. The types of small grain crops and pasture grasses 

proposed under the cooperative farming program include, but are not limited to, plantings of corn, 

spring and winter wheat, and clover. Implementation of cooperative farming is dependent on weather 

and other environmental conditions. Determination of location, small grain crop species or pasture 

grasses, and timing of farming are made annually dependent on refuge needs. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the cooperative farming program as envisioned under Preferred 

Alternative 2 are costs associated with administrative functions and are displayed in the following 

table. These administrative functions include the personnel required to review farming proposals, 

execute cooperative agreements, and monitor the program. The refuge currently has sufficient staff 

and funding to support this use. 

Costs Associated with Operation of Cooperative Farming Program 

Category and Itemization One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Administrative support 0 $5,000 

Total expenses 0 $5,000 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Approximately 800 acres of land would be cooperatively farmed under Preferred Alternative 2 at the 

Wapato Lake and Onion Flats Units. These units would be farmed to manage for invasive species 

until such time that restoration begins. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67 

General Impacts: 

Direct impacts of cropland management include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from 

farm machinery. During tillage, the soil is left bare prior to planting. The bare soil is exposed for 

much of the year to environmental factors that may alter its quality. Wind, heat, and precipitation are 

the most damaging factors that may affect the soil. Wind and precipitation can both lead to 

displacement of soil, increasing the rate of erosion, and heat can effectively bake the soil, causing it 

to become inhospitable to seed banks; it may even cause the soil to become dry and compacted, 

making it impossible for any vegetation to grow if tillage is not performed. 

Compaction of the soil can also result from the use of farming equipment for seeding, causing 

undesirable increases in bulk density, while tilling may prevent the accumulation or accelerate the 

decomposition of organic matter and diminish earthworm populations. 

Farming may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from 

herbicide and pesticide use. Weed issues may greatly increase from ground disturbance and from 

movement of cultivating and harvesting equipment from field to field, therefore spreading invasive 

species’ seeds. In addition, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians may be subject to mortality 

from farm equipment, and nesting birds may be disrupted and have nests destroyed. 

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

There would be no loss of native habitats due to farming since areas proposed for farming were 

already in production prior to refuge acquisition. There would be some continued impact to soil 

quality, but Preferred Alternative 2 would reduce the acreage under cultivation; thus, there would be 

a minor beneficial impact on soil and water quality, compared to the present. There would be a minor 

negative impact on farming as the amount of land under cultivation would decrease. 

The introduction and spread of weeds is expected to be minimal through proper decontamination 

practices such as equipment cleaning, mowing to prevent seed set and dispersal, and treatments to 

any source populations that have the potential to infect a field. Early detection and rapid response 

methods would be employed to ensure any new populations are treated and eradicated immediately. 

Cooperators would be required to clean their equipment prior to moving it both on to the refuge and 

across units of the refuge. This would help minimize the spread of undesirable plants. The refuge 

would continue to monitor farming sites for invasive weeds and would maintain an aggressive 

approach to invasive species control. In addition, the refuge would work with the County Weed 

Board to prevent, identify, and eradicate new infestations. 

For weed species that are or become established, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls would 

be evaluated as methods of treatment. If these methods are not expected to be effective, then 

herbicidal applications may be necessary. Chemical applications would be subject to the provisions 

of the IPM plan. This plan directs the refuge to select the most effective herbicide that would have 

the least environmental degradation to soils, surface water, and groundwater, and the least impact to 

native wildlife and vegetation. Each approved herbicide used would undergo a chemical profile 

analysis; active ingredients would be analyzed for their risk quotient and this value compared to a 

Level of Concern for surrogate species, as established by the EPA. All applications of herbicides 

would conform to the specific pesticide label requirements. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Employment of this approach would provide for a moderate to minor risk from chemical exposure. 

However, some risks may still occur from factors not assessed under current protocols, such as 

intermingling of unlike chemicals in the field; species-specific sensitivity that differs from surrogate 

species; exposure through inhalation; exposure through ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil; and 

other factors as described in the IPM plan. 

Positive short-term effects are also anticipated. In addition to providing high-carbohydrate forage for 

wintering waterfowl, crop fields can benefit other bird species by providing some foraging habitat for 

a variety of seed-eating migratory bird species. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

Currently there are no listed species inhabiting farm fields. Should conflicts occur in the future, 

measures such as erecting protective barriers and/or transplanting listed populations out of harm’s 

way would be enacted. Additionally, if deemed necessary, the cooperative farming program would 

be halted until all protective measures can be evaluated and implemented as necessary. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Farming on the refuge does not occur in areas that are open to the public; therefore, there are no 

impacts to public uses. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. Written comments on 

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Cooperative farming agreements would be established with the cooperator per agency policy.

 Genetically modified seeds and other organisms would not be permitted for use in the 

farming program.

 Weeds would be controlled in accordance with the refuge’s IPM program using methods 

such as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, biological controls, and approved pesticides.

 Herbicide applications may only be applied with prior refuge approval, and applicators must 

meet all state, Federal, and agency requirements. 

 Equipment of cooperating farmers would be cleaned prior to being moved onto the refuge 

and between fields when working in areas with weed infestations.

 Cooperators would provide a record of herbicides used, including chemical name, amount 

used, date, location, and method of application.

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69 

 Best management practices would be used to avoid fertilizer runoff into wetlands or leaching 

into groundwater and to minimize sedimentation of streams and water bodies. For example, 

nitrogen fertilizer applications would be avoided in the fall to help avoid waste and prevent 

fertilizer from leaching into groundwater, and buffer strips of dense vegetation would be left 

between farmland and wetlands to filter runoff and prevent sedimentation. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program would be performed by qualified refuge staff.

Justification: 

Cropland farming has been shown to be an effective habitat management practice performed to 

prevent invasive species from infesting a highly disturbed area until restoration of native vegetation 

can occur. Additionally, cropland farming provides high-quality food for wildlife species at the 

refuge. Wintering and migratory birds readily use agricultural crop fields to help meet their energy 

needs. 

Although these large monocultures of planted grasses are not native, and do not support the diversity 

of species that native habitats do, it is critical to maintain these areas in production to keep them from 

becoming infested with noxious weeds. By conducting the farming program under the practices and 

stipulations above, it is anticipated that the program would contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the refuge. As a 

result, cooperative farming contributes to achieving refuge purpose(s), contributes to the mission of 

the Refuge System, and helps maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the refuge. Allowing the use as described above would not materially detract from or interfere 

with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2022 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses)
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71 

B.9 Compatibility Determination for Commercial Visitor Services at Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial visitor services 

Station Name: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1992 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742a. et seq.) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901-3932) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“ ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

“ ... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and 

conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C 668dd et seq.] 

Description of Use: 

This CD addresses nonconsumptive commercial uses related to wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education. This CD does not address consumptive 

uses such as commercial guiding for hunting and fishing, nor activities that are not related to natural, 

historical, or cultural subjects. Additionally, a variety of nonprofit and for-profit organizations, 

educational institutions, and individuals engage in leading natural resource- and environmental 

education-based activities on the refuge. Some of these organizations may request to charge fees for 

services they intend to provide. This CD covers the fee collection and program quality aspects of 

commercial visitor services. Refer to the CDs for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

interpretation and for environmental education for a complete compatibility examination of the 

wildlife-dependent activities that apply to commercial visitor services. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

By regulation, the Service may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural resources 

of any national wildlife refuge, where it is determined that the use contributes to the achievement of 

the refuge’s purpose or the Refuge System mission. Refuge System policy on management of 

specialized uses states that when monetary gain (profit) is the objective of a refuge recreational use, 

the use is to be managed as an economic and commercial use. 

Commercial visitor services on the refuge cover a broad range of wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education activities that are led by any organization or individual that charges a fee to participate in 

the activity. Activities could include, but are not limited to, birding tours, plant identification, 

wildlife photography, art, interpretive programs, guided trail walks, training workshops, summer 

youth camp, nature classes, and other similar nonconsumptive uses. These uses would occur in areas 

and facilities that are open to the public and would support the identified wildlife-dependent public 

uses of the refuge. Organizations conducting commercial visitor services would require an SUP, 

except for the Friends of the Refuge commercial activities, which are governed by statute under an 

existing MOU. 

Commercial visitor services most often would be expected to occur in groups. These uses may occur 

year-round on the refuge. They may be conducted on existing public use trails and overlooks and at 

times inside the Wildlife Center. It is not expected that uses would occur on closed areas of the 

refuge, unless specifically authorized and approved by the refuge manager. 

An SUP would be required for all uses by organizations and/or individuals wishing to collect fees for 

services, regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status, with the exception of Friends of the Refuge. 

Friends of the Refuge fundraising and/or fee collection for providing programs would be governed 

by existing the MOU and/or partnership agreements between the Service and the Friends of the 

Refuge, except when the refuge manager determines that a proposed use falls outside the scope of 

any agreement. In such a case, an SUP would be required. In all cases, the refuge manager would 

require that any organization (including Friends of the Refuge) and/or individual requesting to charge 

a fee for visitor services complete a written request that includes the activity type, date(s) and time(s) 

requested, group size, purpose of visit, proposed fee structure, where the activity would occur, and 

other details determined necessary by the refuge manager. 

The refuge would have the option to accompany any group on their activity to assess program 

quality, adherence to refuge regulations and SUP stipulations, and safety guidelines. The refuge may 

also provide training and/or materials to requestors to ensure that program participants and visitors 

are receiving high-quality information and services. 

Refer to the Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility section in this document for more 

information. 

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated costs for operating the commercial visitor services program as envisioned under 

Alternative 2 are displayed in the following table. These costs are to perform, review, and administer 

proposals and SUPs, and monitor those SUPs during the proposed action. With assistance from 

Friends of the Refuge, volunteers, and other partners, the refuge currently has sufficient staff and 

funding to support this use. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-73 

Costs to Administer and Manage Commercial Visitor Services 

Activity or Project One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expenses ($/year) 

Visitor Services Manager and management of 

SUPs 

 $5,000 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

The anticipated impacts of use are fully discussed in the CDs for wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and interpretation, and for environmental education. 

Refuge-specific Impacts: 

Disturbances to wildlife and their habitats would be the same as those discussed in the CDs for 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation and for environmental education. If 

disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge would limit 

access to areas where unacceptable impacts occur (see stipulations). 

It is expected that many organizations could offer high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education activities on the refuge. These services may enhance visitor experience, learning, and 

appreciation of the refuge and its natural and cultural resources. These types of services, if provided 

in a high-quality manner, would likely reach more people than the refuge can. 

Impacts to Listed Species: 

No direct impact to listed species is anticipated to occur as a result of commercial visitor services. 

Any unanticipated future impacts would be reduced by ensuring that the public avoids or severely 

limits activity in areas hosting rare species. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses: 

Both refuge visitation and the number of facilities and emphasis devoted to wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, interpretation, and education are projected to increase under Preferred 

Alternative 2. Conflict between commercial visitor services groups would be expected to increase. If 

conflict between user groups reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge would limit access to areas 

where unacceptable impacts occur (see stipulations). 

No significant effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from commercial visitor services are 

expected. Normal road, trail, and facility maintenance would continue to be necessary. Additional 

facility construction or upgrade, if needed, is addressed in the Availability of Resources section. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Various opportunities were provided for the public to engage with the planning process. Appendix K 

details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP/EA. Written comments on 

this draft compatibility determination are welcome during the public comment period. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination (check one below): 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

General Stipulations 

 Stipulations in the CDs for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation and 

for environmental education apply to commercial visitor services. 

 Visitors are restricted to designated trails, sites, or facilities as determined by refuge staff. 

Use is open daily from dawn to dusk. 

 All refuge rules and regulations apply, including group size and management, and safety 

guidelines. 

 Commercial photographers/videographers should ensure proper credit is given to the refuge 

and the Service. 

 Collection of natural objects such as plants, animals, minerals, antlers, and cultural resources 

is prohibited. 

 If disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat reaches unacceptable levels, the refuge would 

limit uses in areas where unacceptable impacts occur. Monitoring would be conducted to 

ensure that high-quality habitat for wildlife feeding, resting, and breeding is maintained. 

 The refuge may provide training and/or materials to requestors to ensure that program 

participants and visitors are receiving high-quality information and services. 

Special Use Permit 

 An SUP would be required for all commercial visitor services. Guiding for hunting and 

fishing is not allowed on the refuge. 

 Fee-based activities conducted by Friends of the Refuge would require approval by the 

refuge manager as governed by MOUs and/or partnership agreements. 

 A standard permit form stipulating dates, times, and locations of use would be made available 

prior to the visit. 

 SUPs for areas open to the public may be granted on a case-by-case basis or for up to 1 year, 

at the refuge manager’s discretion. 

 Special permission requests to closed habitat/wildlife sanctuary areas or other special 

considerations (e.g., access to the refuge after normal public visitation hours, setting up 

temporary equipment, requiring additional resources or staff) would require an SUP and 

permit fee, and may be granted on a case-by-case basis with no renewal. 

 The SUP would be required to be readily available while conducting the permitted use on the 

refuge. 

 Requests must demonstrate a means to enhance education, appreciation, and/or understanding 

of the refuge and the Refuge System. Failure to abide by any part of the SUP or regulations 

would be considered grounds for immediate revocation of the permit and could result in 

denial of future permit requests. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-75 

 Refuge can deny use for any reason such as to minimize crowding, avert conflict with other 

activities/visitors, and, if disturbance is excessive, the refuge reserves the right to scale the 

use appropriately. 

 The refuge would have the option of accompany any group on their activity to assess 

program quality, adherence to refuge regulations and SUP stipulations, and safety guidelines. 

Justification: 

By allowing commercial visitor services as an economic use to occur under the stipulations described 

above, it is anticipated that wildlife species, which could be disturbed during the use, would find 

sufficient resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not be 

measurably lessened. Additionally, it is anticipated that use of SUPs would provide the refuge a tool 

for managing uses; protecting natural and cultural resources; reducing user conflicts; and mitigating 

disturbance impacts. The SUPs would also create an opportunity for communication and outreach 

between the refuge staff and users to increase knowledge and awareness of refuge regulations and 

ethical behavior. Commercial visitor services would provide visitors an organized and educational 

opportunity to view wildlife safely under the use stipulations. Additionally, providers of commercial 

visitor services may create end products that would provide an educational opportunity to a much 

broader distribution of people. Thus, the use would not materially interfere with or detract from the 

Refuge System mission, or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses): 

______Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2022 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures: 

Prepared by: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _______________________________ 

(Signature) (Date) 
Appendix C

Implementation

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation Plan C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Overview and Historical Funding Picture 

A comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) provides long-term guidance for management decisions, 

sets forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes, and identifies the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service’s; USFWS’s) best estimate of future needs. Often, a CCP 

provides detailed program planning levels that are substantially above current budget allocations and, 

as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. A CCP 

does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or 

funding for future land acquisition. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative of the CCP requires increased funding, which would be 

sought through an increase in base funding (Congressional allocations), partnerships (both private 

and public), and grants. Activities and projects identified would be implemented as funds become 

available. 

C.1.1 Operating Funds History 

Operational management of refuge lands is accomplished by permanent and temporary staffing, 

volunteers, and partnerships. Operational management includes managing public use, law 

enforcement, cultural resources, biology, fire, maintenance, administration, and habitat/wildlife 

restoration/maintenance management programs. 

In fiscal year 2011, the majority of the station’s operating funds came from Congressional allocated 

base funding. This funds salaries and benefits for six permanent full-time employees, annual 

maintenance, and overhead expenses associated with maintaining public use and administrative 

facilities. 

Other funding sources include the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA’s) Fish and Wildlife 

Program, Migratory Birds Program, and Refuge Roads Program, and American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) youth programs. Without these additional funds, the majority of work in 

the habitat restoration and environmental education program that is accomplished each year would 

not happen.

C.1.2 Revenue Sharing 

In lieu of property taxes, the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) annually provides 

revenue-sharing payments to Yamhill and Washington Counties. The U.S. Congress each year 

determines what percent of funds will be appropriated for all appraised Federal lands. Counties are 

not restricted in the use of these funds. If the refuge expands through the purchase of inholdings 

(privately owned lands within the current approved boundary) or through an expanded refuge 

boundary, additional payments in lieu of tax would be made to the counties. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

C.2 Step-Down Plans 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is one of several plans necessary for refuge management. The 

CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several refuge program 

areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans 

will be developed for individual program areas within approximately 5 years after CCP completion. 

All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance; implementation may require additional 

permits. Step-down plans for the refuge follow. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA 

compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. 

Table C-1. Refuge Step-Down Plans 

Step-Down Management Plans Status (Date Completed and/or Date to be 

Prepared/Updated 

Wapato Lake Unit Habitat Management Plan Contingent on acquisition and results of 

planning study 

Cultural Resources Museum Management Plan 2015 

Visitor Services Plan update 2017 

Hunt Plan – youth waterfowl 2015 

Hunt Plan – adult waterfowl Contingent on Wapato Lake Unit restoration 

Fishing Plan 2016 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2012 (prepared concurrently with CCP, 

Appendix G) 

Wildland Fire Management Plan 2012 (prepared concurrently with CCP, 

Appendix O) 

Elk Management Plan Will be prepared concurrently with Willamette 

Valley NWR Complex 

Disease Contingency Plan 2015 

Facilities Management Plan 2017 

Inventorying and Monitoring Plan 2015 

C.3 Future Needs 

C.3.1 Future Sources of Funds 

Projects listed below were drawn from the goals, objectives, and strategies and could be implemented 

during the next 15 years. Many of these projects would be included in either the Refuge Operational 

Needs System (RONS) or the Refuge Management Information System (RMIS). Both are used to 

request funding from Congress. 

Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists on the refuge. In 2010, the deferred 

maintenance backlog for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge was $1,450,347. Reduction of 

the backlog is an ongoing goal and is included here in the analysis of funding needs. The RONS 

documents proposed new projects to implement the CCP to meet refuge goals and objectives and 

legal mandates. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation Plan C-3 

Several infrastructure and facility projects would be eligible for funding through construction, 

deferred maintenance, or Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) funds (i.e., Refuge Roads program). 

Funds for other “one-time costs” (see below) would be sought through increases in refuge base 

funding, special project funds, grants, Refuge Roads, or Federal Highway Administration funding. 

C.3.2 Spending Priorities 

Priorities are designated in Table C-1 for one-time and ongoing (recurring) projects (strategies) 

identified in the CCP. Priorities are designated as High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L). The rankings 

were determined according to the following criteria: 

 A “high”-ranked project/strategy is ongoing, needed immediately, or should be considered in 

the near future to successfully manage habitat and public use on refuges. It should directly 

support the “refuge purpose” or a “big six” public use activity, and/or restore a “threatened or 

endangered” species or rare/unique habitat (oak savanna, wet prairie, etc.). 

 A “medium”-ranked project/strategy is of a lesser degree of urgency, but also directly 

supports the “refuge purpose” or a “big six” public use activity, and/or maintains and restores 

a “threatened or endangered” species or rare/unique habitat (oak savanna, wet prairie, etc.). 

 A “low”-ranked project/strategy maintains restored habitat or species and/or addresses a “big 

six” public use activity that is not as widely sought out by the public as other “big six” public 

use activities.

C.3.3 Operational Costs to Implement CCP by Alternative 

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for various projects by alternative. 

Recurring costs reflect the future operational and maintenance costs associated with the project. 

One-time Costs: One-time costs are project costs that have a startup cost associated with them, such 

as purchasing a new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring or designing and installing an 

interpretive sign. Some are full project costs for those projects that can be completed in 3 years or 

less. These projects do not include permanent operational costs (staff salary and support). They can, 

however, include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. Salary for 

new positions and operational costs are reflected in operational or “recurring” costs. Table C-1 

compares both one-time and recurring costs across the three alternatives. 

Operational and Maintenance (Recurring) Costs: Operational and maintenance costs reflect refuge 

spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as recurring costs and are usually 

associated with day-to-day operations and projects that last longer than 3 years. Operational costs use 

base funding in Service codes 1261, 1262, 1263, and 1264. 

Maintenance includes preventive maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, 

components, or items of equipment; adjustments, lubrication, and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of 

equipment; painting; resurfacing; rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other actions to 

ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. Maintenance also includes maintaining public 

use, administrative, historical, and shop buildings and facilities. Due to normal use and weather 

conditions, buildings and facilities need annual maintenance and repairs. Maintenance of habitat 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

throughout the refuge as a result of the threat of invasive plants and animals and succession, and 

protection of threatened and endangered species is an annual occurrence. 

Operational costs includes all costs associated with the operation of all programs including supplies 

and materials need to support these programs, such as field supplies, brochures, media, and other 

interpretative materials, volunteer supplies, herbicide, fuel, overhead costs (electricity, phone, natural 

gas, office supplies, alarm systems for security and fire monitoring), training for staff and volunteers, 

and safety materials. These costs do reflect salaries for temporary positions, but do not include 

permanent staff salary. 

Table C-1 displays estimated operating and maintenance costs by alternative for the major project 

items identified in the CCP. Alternative 1 is based on an estimate of costs for implementing the CCP 

under current management. Alternatives 2 and 3 reflect increased funding needs for proposed 

increases in public uses and facilities, increased habitat restoration and conservation activities, and 

other strategies proposed in Chapter 2.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

Table C-2. Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative for the Major Project Items Identified in the CC

Goal/Obj

ective 

Strategy Onetime 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

(annual) 

Priority Cost/Unit Units/Total 

Cost 

Alternative 

1 

A

1/1.1 Maintenance of riparian 

forest (integrated pest management [IPM], monitoring) 

 X M $100 Acres 349 32

Cost $34,900 $3

1/1.2 Restore riparian forest 

(pretreatment, planting, seeding, mechanical methods) 

X H *$6,400 Acres 39 14

Cost $249,600 $8

2/2.1 Maintenance of mixed 

forest (IPM, prescribed fire, monitoring, snag creation) 

 X L $250 Acres 49 46 

Cost $12,250 $1

2/2.2 Restore mixed forest 

(pretreatment, planting, seeding, mechanical methods) 

X L *$3,000 Acres 0 15

Cost $0 $4

3/3.1 Maintain oak savanna 

(prescribed fire, IPM, mowing, tree thinning, monitoring) 

 X H $250 Acres 149 11

Cost $37,250 $2

3/3.2 Restore oak savanna 

(pretreatment, plantings, seeding, prescribed fire) 

X H *$910 Acres 0 11

Cost $0 $1

4/4.1 Maintain wet prairie 

(planting, IPM, prescribed fire, mowing/haying, monitoring) 

 X M $200 Acres 27 15 

Cost $5,400 $3
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

C-6 Append

Table C-2. Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative for the Major Project Items Identified in the CC

Goal/Obj

ective 

Strategy Onetime 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

(annual) 

Priority Cost/Unit Units/Total 

Cost 

Alternative 

1 

A

4/4.2 Restore wet prairie 

(pretreatment, planting, seeding, monitoring) 

X H $1,000 Acres 0 11

Cost $0 $1

5/5.1 Maintain herbaceous 

wetlands (irrigation, water manipulation, mowing/discing, IPM, contouring of wetlands, pest management, prescribed fire) 

 X M $250 Acres 294 18

Cost $73,500 $4

5/5.2 Enhance scrub-shrub 

wetlands (IPM, mowing/discing, pest management, planting, seeding) 

X H $2,000 Acres 0 A

70m

Cost $0 $1

5/5.3 Maintain scrub-shrub 

wetlands (IPM, prescribed fire, logs/trees for basking and resting structures, monitoring) 

 X M $150 Acres 20 20 

Cost $3,000 $3

5/5.3 Restore scrub-shrub 

wetlands (pretreatment, creating swales, plantings, fish passageways) 

X H **$2,350 Acres 0 18

Cost $0 $8

av

6/6.1 Maintain streams and 

sloughs (install fish passageways, remove fish 

 X L $1,000 Miles 7.2 7.

Cost $7,200 $7
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

Table C-2. Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative for the Major Project Items Identified in the CC

Goal/Obj

ective 

Strategy Onetime 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

(annual) 

Priority Cost/Unit Units/Total 

Cost 

Alternative 

1 

A

barriers, plantings, erosion control, IPM, best management practices [BMPs]) 

6/6.2 and 6.3 

Restore streams and sloughs (topographical surveys, heavy equipment work, removal of barriers, plantings, erosion control) 

X H $10,000 Miles 0 4.

Cost $0 $4

7/7.1 Cooperative farming 

(administration) 

 X L Acres 909 0 

Cost $2,000 $0 

8/8.1 Inventorying and 

monitoring surveys (develop and continue surveys for refuge) 

 X H Cost $100,000 $2

8/8.2 Conduct research (studies 

and investigations toward water quality, soils, IPM techniques, fishery resources, climate change) 

X L Cost $300,00 $2

9/9.1 Inventory, evaluate, 

monitor, and protect cultural resources 

 X L Cost $2,500 $3

9/9.2 Cultural resources 

interpretation (tribal partnerships, 

X M Cost $0 $1
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

C-8 Append

Table C-2. Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative for the Major Project Items Identified in the CC

Goal/Obj

ective 

Strategy Onetime 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

(annual) 

Priority Cost/Unit Units/Total 

Cost 

Alternative 

1 

A

interpretative media and exhibits) 

10/10.1 Provide interpretive 

information to visitors (media, brochures, signs) 

X H Cost $0 $1

10/10.2 Outreach and special 

events 

 X M #Events 4 4 

Cost $6,500 $6

10/10.3 Evaluation of visitor 

services 

X M Cost $0 $2

10/10.4 Public access (partnership 

on trails, safe highway access) 

 X L Cost $0 $2

10/10.5 Volunteer program 

(develop/provide manuals, bunkhouse, and recreational vehicle [RV pads) 

X M Cost $0 $5

11—all Environmental education 

(develop curricula, materials, and install nature explore area) 

X H Cost $0 $7

 Environmental education 

(programs/workshops and materials) 

 X H Cost $40,000 $1

12/12.1 and 12.2 

Wildlife observation, photography, and 

X M Cost $0 $3
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

Table C-2. Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative for the Major Project Items Identified in the CC

Goal/Obj

ective 

Strategy Onetime 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

(annual) 

Priority Cost/Unit Units/Total 

Cost 

Alternative 

1 

A

interpretation (kiosks, signs, photo blinds, bunkhouse for volunteers) 

 Wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation (new positions, facilities maintenance) 

 X H Cost $30,000 $2

12/12.3 and 12.5 

Waterfowl hunting—complete hunting package 

X M Cost $0 $9

 Waterfowl hunting—

manage program 

 X M Cost $0 $5

12/12.4 Fishing—complete 

fishing package 

X L Cost $0 $5

 Fishing—manage fishing 

program 

 X L Cost $0 $1

All Develop step-down plans X M $15,000 # Plans 0 5 

Cost $0 $7

*Cost was estimated from previous restoration contracts that included labor, plants (trees and grass), protective tree coverin**Since the acreage is undetermined for restoration at the Wapato Lake Unit due to a pending hydrological study, cost was mean acreage. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

C-10 Appendix C. Implementation Plan 

C.3.4 Staffing Needs To Implement CCP by Alternative 

Personnel are needed to manage and enhance the quality and diversity of indigenous wildlife habitats 

on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. With the proper staffing to implement this plan, 

habitat management practices can be implemented and monitoring of flora and fauna responses to 

management can be applied, which would allow us to apply adaptive management strategies so 

crucial for long-term success in meeting the mission, goals, and objectives of the refuge. Staff would 

interact with the public for education purposes and to provide for public safety. Maintenance staff 

would maintain facilities and equipment. Training of staff and coordination among staff, volunteers, 

and refuge partners would ensure that the mission and guiding principles of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System endure. 

Table C-2 shows costs for permanent and seasonal staff needed each year. It does not include staff 

costs associated with special projects; these are summarized in Table C-1. Table C-2 is related to the 

Refuge Annual Performance Plan. The section of the table titled “Present Core Staff” shows 

permanent full-time staff and temporary staff funded with base budgets and other Federal funding. It 

is important to note that partnerships with other organizations are crucial to achieving baseline 

objectives as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 and 3 staffing positions demonstrate 

additional staff needed to succeed with the proposed goals for those alternatives. 

The proposed full development-level staffing plan would achieve optimum refuge outputs within this 

planning period (15 years). The rate at which this station achieves its full potential to fulfill the 

objectives and strategies contained in the CCP is dependent upon receiving adequate funding and 

staffing. 

Table C-3. Staffing Needs by Alternative for Major Project Items in CCP 

Staff-Refuge 

Operations 

Status* Position* Justifying 

Objective 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Present core staff 

Project Leader PFT GS-0485-13 Current X X X 

Deputy Project 

Leader 

PFT GS-0485-12 Current X X X 

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-11 Current X X X 

Visitor Services 

Manager 

PFT GS-0025-11 Current X X X 

Maintenance 

Worker 

PFT WG-4749-8 Current X X X 

Administrative 

Officer 

PFT GS-0399-5 

SCEP 

Current X X X 

Biological 

Technician 

TEMP GS-0401-5 Current X X X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation Plan C-11 

Table C-3. Staffing Needs by Alternative for Major Project Items in CCP 

Staff-Refuge 

Operations 

Status* Position* Justifying 

Objective 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 2 and 3 staffing positions

Biological 

Technician 

PFT GS-0401-6/7 1.1 X X 

Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

PFT GS-0485-

7/9/11 

5.3 X X 

Park Ranger (law 

enforcement) 

PFT GS-0025-9 10.1 X X 

Volunteer 

Coordinator 

PFT GS-0025-6/7 10.5 X X 

Environmental 

Education 

Specialist 

PFT GS-0025-7/9 11.1 X X 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

PFT WG-5716-8 1.2 X X 

*Status and Position definitions: 

PFT: Permanent full time 

TEMP: Temporary position 

GS: General schedule Federal employees 

WG: Wage grade scale 

Volunteer Program: The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge has a very active volunteer 

program that supports all programs of the refuge. During fiscal year 2011, more than 225 volunteers 

donated over 14,640 hours of their time to accomplishing the goals of refuge programs, including 

maintenance, public use, biological support, environmental education, habitat restoration and 

management, and administrative duties (Table C-3). The refuge provides transportation, training, 

supplies, equipment, and housing as needed in support of the volunteer program. The number of 

hours donated in 2010 was equivalent to $21.79 per hour as estimated by the Independent Sector 

(2011). The value of time donated equated to $327,000, or seven full-time employees. 

Table C-3. Volunteer Contributions over a 5-year Time Frame (2007-2011) 

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Volunteers 340 558 477 205 226 

Hours 6,629 13,178 14,309 15,065 14,641 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix D

Wilderness Review

© Ed Bustya

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.1 Background 

The Wilderness Act (Act) became Federal law in 1964 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 1131-1136). In 

Section 2(a) of the Act, the U.S. Congress expressed concern that “ ... an increasing human 

population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization ... [should not be 

allowed to] ... occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no 

lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition ....” The Act also 

established the National Wilderness Preservation System (Wilderness System) and stated that areas 

in the Wilderness System “ ... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American 

people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to 

provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the 

gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness....” 

Section 2(c) of the Act defined a wilderness area as one that “ ... in contrast with those areas where 

man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and 

its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. 

An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally 

appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to 

make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain 

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” 

Section 3 of the Act required a review of Federal lands to determine their suitability for designation 

as a unit(s) of the Wilderness System. The U.S. Congress reserved to itself the authority to officially 

designate wilderness areas. 

A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine whether to recommend lands or 

waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for designation as wilderness. A 

wilderness review is required for refuges as part of the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

planning process. Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness (610 FW 4) are 

identified in the CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

For a refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all or part of the refuge must: 

 Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint substantially 

unnoticeable; 

 Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

 Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres or be sufficient in size to make practical its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to wilderness character 

through appropriate management, at the time of review; or 

 Be a roadless island. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.2 Conclusion 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) is not recommended for further study for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System because it does not meet the above criteria. The refuge is only 

2,137 acres in size and the largest roadless block is approximately 800 acres. The size of this block is 

insufficient to make practicable its preservation and use as wilderness. The refuge also has 

considerable evidence of past human use, does not have outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and is not a roadless island. 

 
Appendix E

Biological Resources

of Concern

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-1 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.1 Introduction and Background 

Management direction of individual refuges is driven by refuge purposes and statutory mandates, 

coupled with species and habitat priorities. Management on a refuge should first and foremost 

address the individual refuge purposes. Additionally, management should address maintenance, 

follow policy and, where appropriate, restore biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

(BIDEH) (Table E-1) and manage for National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) Resources 

of Concern (ROCs). With this approach, the refuge contributes to the goals of the Refuge System and 

achievement of its mission. 

In concert with this approach, and as an initial step in planning, the comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) planning team for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) identified ROCs 

for the refuge. As defined in the policy on Habitat Management Plans (620 FW 1G) ROCs are: 

All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern 

on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern 

under terms of the respective endangered species acts. 

To provide a framework for development of goals and objectives in the CCP, the planning team 

identified ROCs following the process outlined in the handbook Identifying Refuge Resources of 

Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009c). 

E.2 Comprehensive Resources of Concern 

A comprehensive list of potential ROCs was created early in the planning process. The planning 

team identified species, species groups, and communities of concern, based upon a review of the 

refuge’s establishing history and purposes, a description of the key habitat types existing at the 

refuge, and a review of numerous conservation plans (see Sections 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 of the draft 

CCP/Environmental Assessment), many of which highlight priority species or habitats for 

conservation. The comprehensive ROCs list is contained in Table E-2. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

E-2 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-1. Summary of BIDEH for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitats (plant 

communities) that 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes (age class, 

structure, seral stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

These Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

Forest—Bottomland 

Riparian 

Native overstory trees 

include Oregon ash, grand 

fir, big-leaf maple, 

Douglas-fir, and black 

cottonwood. 

Native subcanopy trees 

include black hawthorn, 

vine maple, cascara, Pacific 

ninebark, hazel, red alder, 

and Pacific yew. 

Native shrub layer includes 

snowberry, rose, red-osier 

dogwood, Douglas spirea, 

blue and red elderberry, 

red-flowering currant, 

Carex, and sword fern. 

Generally within the 100-

year floodplain. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: beaver, mink, 

downy woodpecker, 

northern red-legged frog, 

pileated woodpecker, 

Swainson’s thrush, western 

wood peewee, wood duck, 

and yellow warbler. 

Functioning 

floodplain: infrequent 

major flood events 

(flood heavily once 

every 3-5 years), 

scouring of 

trees/herbaceous 

layers, deposition of 

silts. Frequent shortterm flooding (may 

flood for a few days 

two to three times per 

year). Deposition of 

large woody debris in 

both the forest floor 

and river/stream 

channel. 

Flooding is the 

primary natural 

disturbance regime in 

Tualatin River Basin 

bottomland riparian 

forest. 

Non-functioning 

floodplain and altered 

hydrology in refuge 

watershed. 

Floodplain alterations 

including ditching and 

tile drains associated 

with agricultural 

practices, urban and 

rural development 

leading to increased 

runoff, and summer 

water withdrawals for 

agriculture, industrial, 

and urban uses. Climate 

change may cause 

further changes in 

weather and/or flooding 

patterns. 

Invasive species such as 

reed canary grass, 

Himalayan blackberry, 

English hawthorn, 

English ivy, and holly. 

Forest—Mixed 

Coniferous/deciduous 

Upland 

Native overstory trees 

include Douglas-fir, 

western red-cedar, big-leaf 

maple, western hemlock, 

Garry oak, Pacific 

Madrone, and some grand 

fir. 

Native subcanopy trees 

include black hawthorn, 

vine maple, cascara, hazel, 

Relatively undisturbed 

forest with openings 

caused by wind 

storms. 

Infrequent fires. 

Cool, wet winters and 

mild summers. 

Habitat fragmentation 

from agricultural and 

urban development. 

Invasive species such as 

Himalayan blackberry, 

English hawthorn, 

English ivy, and holly. 

Species composition 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-3 

Table E-1. Summary of BIDEH for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitats (plant 

communities) that 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes (age class, 

structure, seral stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

These Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

serviceberry, Pacific 

dogwood, and red alder. 

Native shrub layer includes 

snowberry, Oregon grape, 

Indian plum, Mock orange, 

red-flowering currant, and 

sword fern. 

Generally occurs above the 

100-year floodplain. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: brown creeper, 

chestnut-backed chickadee, 

Pacific slope flycatcher, 

black-tailed deer, olivesided flycatcher, 

Swainson’s thrush, and 

pileated woodpecker.

may change with 

changes in precipitation 

or temperature due to 

climate change. Forest 

diseases such as Swiss 

needle cast may also 

increase due to climate 

change. 

Prairie—Wet Meadow Few to no woody shrubs 

and trees. Native 

herbaceous species include 

sedges, rushes, tufted 

hairgrass, popcorn flower, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, 

and other forbs. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: American kestrel, 

northern harrier, common 

yellowthroat, Nelson’s 

checker-mallow, western 

meadowlark, Wilson’s 

snipe, and sora.

Periodic fire, poorly 

drained soils, and 

seasonal flooding. 

Typically a transition 

area between upland 

and wetland. Periodic 

grazing by large 

ungulates. 

Invasive species 

especially reed canary 

grass and Himalayan 

blackberry. 

Fire suppression 

facilitates encroachment 

of woody species 

especially Oregon ash. 

With elk being removed 

from Willamette Valley 

habitats, no grazing by 

large ungulates. 

Draining and conversion 

to agriculture and urban 

development. 

Oak Savanna Widely scattered Garry 

oaks and/or Willamette 

Frequent 

(approximately every 

Agricultural and urban 

developments. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

E-4 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-1. Summary of BIDEH for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitats (plant 

communities) that 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes (age class, 

structure, seral stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

These Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

Valley ponderosa pine. 

Very few shrubs. 

Dominated by native 

grasses and forbs including 

Roemer’s fescue, California 

oatgrass, California brome, 

blue wildrye, and meadow 

barley. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: downy 

woodpecker, white-breasted 

nuthatch, western bluebird, 

western gray squirrel, and 

coyote. 

5 years) low-intensity 

fire; absence of 

ground disturbance; 

presence of acorndispersing animals 

(squirrels, jays, acorn 

woodpeckers); light 

grazing/browsing by 

native ungulates. 

Oak habitats were 

formerly maintained 

by Native Americans 

with fires of various 

frequencies. 

Fire suppression causing 

conifer encroachment 

and competition by 

native trees and shrubs. 

Invasive species such as 

Himalayan blackberry 

and non-native grasses. 

Wetland—

Herbaceous 

Seasonal, semipermanent, 

and permanent wetlands 

characterized by annual 

vegetation and perennial 

emergent and submerged 

aquatic wetland plants. Few 

trees and shrubs. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: waterfowl, 

canvasback, dusky and 

cackling Canada geese, 

tundra swans, shorebirds, 

sora, northern pintail, 

northwestern pond turtle, 

American bittern, and piedbilled grebe. 

Hydric soils flooded at 

least part of the year 

from rainfall 

accumulation or 

overflow from rivers 

and streams in the 

floodplain. Fluctuating 

water levels and 

deposition of 

sediments from flood 

waters. Infrequent fire. 

Consumption of 

vegetation by large 

concentrations of 

waterfowl. 

Functioning 

floodplain: infrequent 

major flood events 

(flood heavily once 

every 3-5 years), 

scouring of woody 

species, deposition of 

silts, and reduction of 

emergents. 

Non-functioning 

floodplain and altered 

hydrology in the refuge 

watershed. 

Floodplain alterations 

including ditching and 

tile drains associated 

with agricultural 

practices, urban and 

rural development 

leading to increased 

runoff, and summer 

water withdrawals for 

agriculture, industrial, 

and urban uses. 

Encroachment of woody 

species. 

Invasive species 

including reed canary 

grass, velvetleaf, 

knotgrass (Bermuda 

grass), common 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-5 

Table E-1. Summary of BIDEH for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitats (plant 

communities) that 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes (age class, 

structure, seral stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

These Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

cocklebur, and nutria. 

Urban development 

with draining and filling 

of wetlands. 

Wetland—Scrubshrub Dominated by willow 

species, red-osier dogwood, 

rose, and spirea generally 

less than 20 ft. tall. 

Herbaceous plants include 

common cattail, sedges, and 

rushes. 

Typically characterized by 

deep organic peat soils. 

Potential Conservation 

Species: willow flycatcher, 

common yellowthroat, 

American bittern, northern 

red-legged frog, and sora.

Hydric soils flooded 

for a large part of the 

year from rainfall 

accumulation or 

functional floodplain 

causing overflow from 

rivers and streams.

Urban development 

with draining and filling 

of wetlands. 

Many of these habitat 

types were drained and 

converted to agriculture 

through draining, 

ditching, and tiling. 

Invasive species such as 

reed canary grass 

outcompete native 

plants. 

Rivers, Streams, and 

Backwater Sloughs 

Lower Tualatin River 

mainstem is characterized 

as low-gradient (about 1 

foot/mile drop) and slowflowing with riparian 

vegetation along the banks. 

Tributary streams may be 

low- to high-gradient. 

Sloughs may be inundated 

year-round or seasonally. 

Vegetation may include 

native riparian plant species 

such as Oregon ash, redosier dogwood, willows, 

snowberry, twinberry, and 

Pacific ninebark. 

Periodic flooding, 

scouring and 

movement of 

river/stream channel, 

inputs of coarse 

woody debris and 

leafy detritus, and 

occasional 

catastrophic flooding. 

Dams; water removal 

for agricultural, 

industrial, urban, and 

rural uses; and ditching, 

tiling, and draining of 

adjacent lands. Changes 

in frequency, duration, 

and intensity of flood 

events. Poor water 

quality, such as water 

with low dissolved 

oxygen, high 

phosphorus, and high 

temperature. Climate 

change may exacerbate 

flooding frequency 

and/or water quality 

issues. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

E-6 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-1. Summary of BIDEH for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitats (plant 

communities) that 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes (age class, 

structure, seral stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

These Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

Potential Conservation 

Species: anadromous fish, 

beaver, mink, northwestern 

pond turtle, and wood duck.

Tualatin River channel 

is deeply incised and 

some tributary streams 

are highly modified into 

channelized sections 

with steep banks. 

Artificial fish passage 

barriers such as culverts 

and water diversion 

structures. 

Invasive species such as 

reed canary grass 

outcompete native 

plants. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Acorn Woodpecker 

 FS 

X 

 X 

Aleutian Canada Goose 

X 

Allen’s Hummingbird 

 X X 

American Acetropis Grass Bug 

 FS 

American Bittern X X American Coot X American Kestrel X X X American Wigeon 

X GBBDC 

Anadromous Fish X Backwater Streams and Sloughs 

X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-8 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Bald Eagle X X ST X X Band-tailed Pigeon 

 FS X GBBDC X X 

Barn Owl X Beaver X X Belted Kingfisher X Bewick’s Wren X Black-capped Chickadee 

X 

Black-headed Grosbeak 

X 

Black-tailed Deer X X Black-throated Gray Warbler 

X 

Bradshaw’s Lomatium 

FE SE 

X 

Brown Creeper X X X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Bullock’s Oriole X Bushtit X X Cackling Canada Goose 

X GBBDC X 

California Myotis X Canvasback X GBBDC Chestnut-backed Chickadee 

 X 

X 

Chinook Salmon (Upper Willamette Evolutionarily Significant Unit [ESU]) 

X FT 

X 

Chipping Sparrow X 

 X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-10 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Chorus Frog X X Coho Salmon X Common Garter Snake 

X 

Common Yellowthroat 

X 

Cooper’s Hawk X X X Coyote X Cropland/Pasture X Cutthroat Trout (coastal) 

X FS 

Downy Woodpecker 

X X 

Dunlin X X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Dusky Canada Goose 

X X GBBDC 

X X

Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

 X FE SE 

X 

Forest—Bottomland Riparian 

X X 

X 

 X 

Forest—Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Upland 

X X 

Fringed Myotis FS Garry Oak X X Golden Paintbrush 

 FT SE 

X 

Grasshopper Sparrow X 

 X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-12 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Great Blue Heron X X X Great Egret X Greater Scaup GBBDC X Greater Yellowlegs 

X 

X 

Green-winged Teal 

X 

Hermit Warbler X Hooded Merganser 

X 

Horned Lark (strigata ssp. only) 

 X FC X BCC/B

CR 

X 

 X 

House Wren X Hutton’s Vireo X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Killdeer X ST X Kincaid’s Lupine X FT ST X Least Sandpiper X Lesser Goldfinch X Lesser Scaup X GBBDC X Lesser Yellowlegs 

 X 

X 

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

 X FS X X BCC/N X X 

Long-billed Curlew 

 X BCC/N 

X 

Long-billed Dowitcher X Long-legged Myotis 

 FS 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-14 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Mallard X GBBDC Mink X X Mourning Dove GBBDC Nelson’s Checker-mallow 

X X FT ST 

X 

Neotropical Landbirds—Breeding 

X 

Northern Flicker X Northern Harrier X X BCC/N X Northern Pintail X X GBBDC X Northern Pygmy Owl 

X 

Northern Redlegged Frog X X FS X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Northern Sawwhet Owl X Northern Spotted Owl 

 FT ST FT X 

Northwestern Pond Turtle 

X X FS 

X 

Northwestern Salamander 

X 

Olive-sided Flycatcher 

X X FS X X X X 

Orange-crowned Warbler 

 X 

Oregon Ash X X Oregon Chub FE SE X X Pacific Lamprey X FS X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-16 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 

 X X X 

Pale Larkspur (Delphinium leucophaeum) 

 FS SE 

Peacock Larkspur (Delphinium pavonaceum) 

X FS SE 

X 

Peregrine Falcon X X X BCC/N X Pied-billed Grebe X X Pileated Woodpecker 

X X 

Ponderosa Pine (Willamette) 

X 

Prairie—Dry Meadow 

X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Prairie—Wet Meadow 

X X 

X 

Purple Finch X X Purple Martin X FS X X Red Crossbill X Red-breasted Sapsucker 

X 

Red-eyed Vireo X X Red-naped Sapsucker 

 BCC/N X 

Red-shouldered Hawk 

 X 

Red-tailed Hawk X X Red-winged Blackbird 

X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-18 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Ring-necked Duck 

X GBBDC 

Ring-necked Pheasant 

X 

River Otter X X Rufous Hummingbird 

 X X BCC/N X 

Sandhill Crane Savanna—Oak/Pine 

X X 

X 

 X 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

 X 

Shorebirds—Migrating 

X 

Short-billed X BCC/N 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Dowitcher Short-eared Owl X X Silver-haired Bat FS Solitary Sandpiper 

 X 

Song Sparrow X Sora X X X Spotted Sandpiper 

X 

Steelhead (Upper Willamette ESU) 

X X FT 

X 

Steller’s Jay X Swainson’s Thrush 

X X X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-20 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly 

 FC 

X 

Thin-leaved Peavine (Lathyrus holochlorus) 

 FS 

Townsend’s Western Bigeared Bat 

 FS 

X 

Tree Swallow X Tricolored Blackbird 

 FS X 

Trumpeter Swan GBBDC Tundra Swan X X X Varied Thrush X X X X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Vaux’s Swift X X X Vesper Sparrow (affinis ssp. only) 

 FS X BCC/B

CR X 

 X 

Virginia Rail X X Wapato X X Warbling Vireo X Water Howellia FT Waterfowl—Cavity Nesting 

X 

Waterfowl—Migrating 

X 

Waterfowl—Wintering 

X X 

X 

Wayside Aster (Eucephalus 

 FS 

X 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-22 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

vialis) Western Bluebird X X X Western Brook Lamprey X Western Canada Goose 

 X 

Western Gray Squirrel 

 X 

X 

Western Meadowlark 

X X 

X 

 X 

Western Painted Turtle X Western Screech Owl 

X X X 

Western Toad 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Western Wood Pewee 

X X 

Wetland X X X X X X X Wetland—Forested 

X X 

Wetland—Herbaceous 

X X 

Wetland—Scrubshrub X X White Rock Larkspur 

X SE 

X 

White-breasted Nuthatch 

 X 

X 

 X 

White-fronted Goose 

X GBBDC 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-24 Appendix E. Biolog

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

White-topped Aster 

 ST 

X 

Willamette Daisy FE SE X Willamette Floater (Anodonta wahlametensis) X Willamette Valley Larkspur (Delphinium oreganum) 

 FS SC 

Willow Flycatcher 

X X FS X X 

X 

 X 

Wilson’s Snipe X X X Wood Duck—Breeding 

X X GBBDC 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-2. Potential Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

BIDEH 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

State Threatened and Endangered 

Bird Conservation Region 5 (2008) 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

Region 1 Status 2005 

Oregon Chub Recovery Plan 

Oregon Conservation Strategy 

PIF—Oregon/BCR 5, 2004 

PIF: Conservation Strategy—Landbirds 

1999, 2000 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Canada Geese 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: 

Western Population Tundra Swans 

Pacific Flyway Mgt. Plan: Cacklers 

Shorebird Plan 1

Waterbird Plan 2

Waterfowl Plan 3

Yellow Warbler X X Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

 FC X BCC/R X 

Yellow-breasted Chat 

X FS 

X 

 X 

Yellow-rumped Warbler 

X 

Yuma Myotis FS Possible Focal Species 

Key: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species State Threatened and Endangered Species FE = Federal Endangered SE = State Endangered FT = Federal Threatened ST = State Threatened FC = Federal Candidate SC = State Candidate FS = Federal Species of Concern SS = State Sensitive 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

E-26 Appendix E. BiologBMC Region 1 Designation Codes: BCC/N = Birds of Conservation Concern/National BCC/R = Birds of Conservation Concern/Regional BCC/BCR = Birds of Conservation Concern/Bird Conservation Region GBBDC = Gamebirds Below Desired Condition GBADC = Game Birds Above Desired Condition T/E = Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act 1 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) 2 Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) 3 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 2004) 4 Pacific Flyway Management Plan (Pacific Flyway Council 1998) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-27 

E.3 Priority Resources of Concern 

The Comprehensive Resources of Concern list was further culled in developing a more targeted 

assemblage of Priority Resources of Concern (Table E-3). The Priority Resources of Concern table 

is comprised of 14 focal species, including birds and fish that were selected as representatives or 

indicators for the overall condition of important refuge habitats. Most of the biological emphasis of 

the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these priority resources. 

Several different conservation focal species may be listed for specific habitats to cover the variety of 

habitat structures and plant associations. In addition, species with specific “niche” ecological 

requirements may be listed as a focal species. Other species utilizing the habitat will generally be 

expected to benefit as a result of management for the focal species. 

Definitions for the column headings in Table E-3 are as follows: 

 Focal Species: Species selected as representatives or indicators for the overall condition of the 

conservation target. In situations where the conservation target may include a broad variety of 

habitat structures and plant associations, several different conservation focal species may be 

listed. In addition, species with specific “niche” ecological requirements may be listed as a focal 

species. Management will be focused on attaining conditions required by the focal species. 

Other species utilizing the conservation target will generally be expected to benefit as a result of 

management for the focal species. 

 Habitat Type: The general habitat description utilized by the focal species. 

 Habitat Structure: The specific and measurable habitat attributes considered necessary to 

support the focal species. 

 Life History Requirement: The general season of use for the focal species. 

 Other Benefiting Species: Other species that are expected to benefit from management for the 

selected focal species. The list is not comprehensive; see the Table of Potential Resources of 

Concern for the Refuges for a more complete list. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

E-28 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-3. Priority Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefitting 

Species 

Pacific slope 

flycatcher 

Forest—

bottomland 

riparian 

Early to mid-successional forest 

with shrub understory (Sakai and 

Noon 1991) associated with 

deciduous trees (Pearson and 

Manuwal 2001). Canopy trees >12 

ft. tall with <20% tree canopy 

cover, where canopy is Oregon 

ash-dominated, with willow, redosier dogwood, bigleaf maple, and 

hazel (Altman 2000). Shrub cover 

30-80%. 

Breeding 

Yellow warbler, 

song sparrow, 

willow flycatcher, 

and rufous 

hummingbird 

Swainson’s 

thrush 

Mid- to late-successional forest 

with shrub understory. Oregon ash, 

Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, cascara 

as overstory species with >50% 

canopy closure. Swamp rose, 

snowberry, elderberry, and 

salmonberry; >50% shrub cover 

with >60% native species (PIF 

2000). 

Breeding, yearround for 

benefitting 

species 

Beaver, northern 

red-legged frog, 

anadromous fish 

(coho and 

steelhead), yellowbreasted chat, and 

black-capped 

chickadee 

Brown 

creeper 

Old-growth and mature forest 

types (Anthony et al. 1996). 

Oregon ash, bigleaf maple, 

Douglas-fir with canopy height 

>33 ft. and canopy closure >50%. 

Subcanopy cover >10% by 

snowberry, Pacific yew, cascara, 

some grand fir. Habitat patches 

>50 meter wide (PIF 2000). 

Breeding and 

year-round 

Chestnut-backed 

chickadee, 

anadromous fish, 

western wood 

pewee, downy 

woodpecker, and 

pileated woodpecker 

Orangecrowned 

warbler 

Forest— 

mixed 

coniferous/ 

deciduous 

upland 

Douglas-fir-dominated canopy 

with mixtures of grand fir, western 

red-cedar, western hemlock, 

bigleaf maple, Garry oak, Pacific 

dogwood, Pacific yew, and red 

alder. Understory consists of 

snowberry, hazel, sword fern, and 

other shrubs. Understory trees <15 

ft. and >30% cover (Altman 1999). 

Breeding and 

year-round for 

benefitting 

species 

Bewick’s wren, 

spotted towhee, 

downy woodpecker, 

olive-sided 

flycatcher, and 

pileated woodpecker 

Wilson’s 

snipe 

Prairie—wet 

meadow 

Dominated by sedges and native 

grasses with very few shrubs or 

trees (NatureServe 2010). Grasses 

may be >3 ft. tall (e.g., 

Deschampsia sp.). A wide variety 

Breeding, 

wintering for 

waterfowl 

species 

American bittern, 

savanna sparrow, 

western 

meadowlark, 

northern harrier, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-29 

Table E-3. Priority Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefitting 

Species 

of sedges and rushes should be 

represented. May retain water at 

the soil surface more than 6 

months during the year. 

dusky Canada 

goose, migrating and 

wintering waterfowl, 

and Nelson’s 

checker-mallow 

Western 

bluebird 

Oak savanna 

Early successional stages 

(restoration areas) dominated by 

native grasses and forbs with 

scattered sapling Garry oak trees. 

Trees may range from <3 ft. tall to 

>15 ft. 

Breeding, yearround 

Chipping sparrow, 

coyote, grasshopper 

sparrow, mourning 

dove, and rufous 

hummingbird 

Whitebreasted 

nuthatch 

Trees dominated by widely spaced 

(Vesely and Tucker 2004) mature 

Garry oak >25 inches diameter at 

breast height (DBH) with cavities. 

Some areas with scattered 

ponderosa pine large enough (>25 

inches) to provide nest cavities, 

and <1 snags/acre >1 ft. DBH. 

Native grass and forb understory 

<30 inches with few to no shrubs. 

Tree and shrub cover <10% with 

variable grass heights. Patch size 

>200 acres (PIF 2000). 

Breeding, yearround 

Western gray 

squirrel, acorn 

woodpecker, 

western bluebird, 

black-tailed deer, 

and lesser goldfinch 

Northern 

pintail 

Herbaceous 

wetland 

Shallow water depths averaging 4-

18 inches over 75% of wetland 

basins. Dominated by seedproducing annual plants (e.g., 

smartweeds, plantain), and native 

emergent plant species (e.g., 

sedges, rushes), with few 

encroaching trees. 

Wintering, 

migrating 

Tundra swan, 

cackling Canada 

goose, wintering 

waterfowl, river 

otter, mink, 

northwestern pond 

turtle; bald eagle and 

peregrine falcon 

(foraging) 

Greater 

yellowlegs 

Declining water depths producing 

saturated mud flats to mostly 

drained during summer. Migrating and 

year-round or 

breeding for 

benefitting 

species 

Least sandpiper, 

dunlin, killdeer, 

lesser yellowlegs, 

long-billed 

dowitcher, spotted 

sandpiper, tree 

swallow, and great 

blue heron 

Virginia rail Water depths averaging 12-30 

inches over 25-75%. Dominated 

Breeding and 

year-round for 

Wintering 

waterfowl, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

E-30 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-3. Priority Resources of Concern for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefitting 

Species 

by emergent plant species such as 

spike rush, wapato, softstem 

bulrush, and common cattail. 

benefitting 

species 

American bittern, 

sora, common 

yellowthroat, 

common garter 

snake, and chorus 

frog 

Pied-billed 

grebe 

Water depths averaging 24-48 

inches over 50-75%. Open water 

>50%. Plant species dominated by 

submergent plants such as 

Potamogeton sp., Callitriche sp., 

and emergent plants such as 

Scirpus sp., softstem bulrush, and 

common cattail. 

Breeding and 

year-round for 

benefitting 

species 

Diving ducks, redwinged blackbird, 

wood duck, Vaux’s 

swift, mink, purple 

martin, northwestern 

pond turtle, and 

northwestern 

salamander 

Willow 

flycatcher 

Wetland—

scrub-shrub 

Water depths typically 3-10 ft. 

with some water remaining during 

most of the year. Vegetation 

dominated by willow, rose, and 

Douglas spirea with some Oregon 

ash, redosier dogwood, and black 

cottonwood. 

Breeding and 

year-round 

American bittern, 

sora, Virginia rail, 

red-winged 

blackbird, common 

yellowthroat, 

northern red-legged 

frog, and 

northwestern 

salamander 

Coastal 

cutthroat 

trout, winter 

steelhead 

Rivers, 

streams, and 

backwater 

sloughs 

Barrier-free river, stream channels, 

and sloughs. Shaded along the 

banks, and with coarse woody 

debris for in-stream structure. 

Migration 

corridor for 

migrating fish, 

off-channel 

winter refuge 

for juvenile 

fish 

Northwestern pond 

turtle, mink, beaver, 

belted kingfisher, 

spring Chinook, 

coho, and Pacific 

lamprey 

Cackling 

Canada 

goose 

Cropland 

Cultivated cereal grains including 

corn, barley, wheat, oats, etc. 

Green browse pastures with 

annual/perennial ryegrass, fescue, 

legumes, etc. Mowed to <4 inches 

before October 1. 

Migrating and 

wintering 

waterfowl, 

year-round for 

benefitting 

species 

Tundra swan, dusky 

Canada goose, 

northern pintail, 

American wigeon, 

northern harrier, and 

western meadowlark 
Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

© Gordon Wildman

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-1 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Washington County, 

Oregon 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP). 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), as Amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.)

The planning process has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) implementing procedures, with U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) procedures, and in coordination with the affected public. The requirements of 

NEPA (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508 have been satisfied in the procedures used to reach decisions. These 

procedures included the development of a range of alternatives for the CCP; analysis of the likely 

effects of each alternative; and public involvement throughout the planning process. The start of the 

scoping period was announced through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local newspapers, 

the Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. The draft CCP/environmental 

assessment (EA) was released for a 30-day public comment period. The affected public was notified 

of the availability of the document through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local 

newspapers, the Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. Copies of the draft 

CCP/EA and/or planning updates were distributed to an extensive mailing list. In addition, the 

Service participated in a variety of public outreach efforts throughout the planning process (see 

Appendix K). 

The CCP is programmatic in many respects and specific details of certain projects and actions cannot 

be determined until a later date depending on funding and implementation schedules. Certain projects 

or actions may require additional NEPA compliance. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) 

The management of the archaeological and cultural resources of the refuge would comply with the 

regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Under the proposed action, 

historic properties would be maintained and repaired as funding becomes available. Maintenance and 

improvement of historic resources would result in positive impacts to cultural resources; however, 

determining whether a particular action has the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing 

process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project plans are developed. Should additional 

historic properties be identified or acquired in the future, the Service would comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to affect these properties. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

F-2 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review 

Coordination and consultation with affected Tribal, local, and state governments, other Federal 

agencies, and the landowners has been completed through personal contact by refuge staff or 

supervisors, and/or by inclusion of the appropriate entities on the CCP mailing list. 

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

As required under the Secretary of the Interior Order 3206—American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal 

Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act—the project leader notified and 

consulted interested Tribes. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-income Populations 

All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, disproportionally high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the United States. Actions in all 

alternatives were evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects were identified for 

minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq.) 

The Service has evaluated the suitability of the refuge for wilderness designation through the 

“inventory” phase according to the guidelines of the Wilderness Review process as described in 610 

FW 4. In this inventory, no areas on the refuge were found to meet the minimum wilderness criteria 

for size, naturalness, or outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation 

(see Appendix D for additional details). 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as Amended (42 U.S.C. § 4151 et seq.) 

The Architectural Barriers Act requires access to Federal facilities for people with disabilities. 

Access for persons with disabilities has been considered during the planning process, and actions 

related to access are found in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA. 

National Wildlife Refuge SystemAdministration Act of 1966, as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 668dd668ee) 

This Act requires the Service to develop and implement a CCP for each refuge. The CCP identifies 

and describes refuge purposes; the vision and goals for the refuge; fish, wildlife, and plant 

populations and related habitats on the refuge; archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; issues 

that may affect populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and 

improve biological diversity on the refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, as 

required by the Act. 

During the CCP development process, the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed uses at 

the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) are considered 

automatically appropriate under Service policy and are thus exempt from appropriate uses review. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-3 

Compatibility determinations have been prepared for all uses found appropriate (see Appendices A 

and B of the CCP/EA). 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

This Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. A provision of the Order directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their activities, 

especially in reference to birds on the Service’s list of Birds of Conservation Concern. It also directs 

agencies to incorporate conservation recommendations and objectives in the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by Partners in Flight into agency 

planning as described in Chapter 1. The effects to refuge habitats used by migratory birds from 

habitat, public use, and cultural resources actions were assessed within the CCP/EA. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) 

This Act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants by Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. Documentation is 

required under Section 7 of the Act. Refuge policy requires the refuge manager to document issues 

that affect or may affect endangered species before initiating projects. Consultation on specific 

projects would be conducted prior to implementation to avoid any adverse impacts to these species 

and their habitats. See section 4-5 for discussion of federally listed species. 

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands 

The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because CCP implementation would protect any 

existing wetlands. 

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management 

Under this Order, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.” The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11988 because 

CCP implementation would maintain and enhance riverine, riparian, wetland, and wet prairie habitats 

located within floodplains on the refuge, which would minimize flood impacts and continue to 

contribute to the natural and beneficial fish and wildlife resource values unique to the area. 

Integrated Pest Management, 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has 

been adopted to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species on the refuge. In accordance 

with 517 DM 1, only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 

full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as 

provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by the EPA may be applied on lands and waters 

under refuge jurisdiction. 

 _______________________________ _________________________ 

Chief, Division of Planning, Visitor 

Services, and Transportation 

Date 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

F-4 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

 Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix G

Integrated Pest

Management Program

© Erin Rowland

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-1 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.1 Background 

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an interdisciplinary approach using methods to prevent, 

eliminate, contain, and/or control pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) 

in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve wildlife and 

habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is a scientific adaptive management process where 

available scientific information and best professional judgment of the refuge staff and other resource 

experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate management strategies that can be 

modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, site-specific management of pest species to 

achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46.145, 

adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be uncertain, and 

future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation decisions. 

After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of refuge 

resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations thereof, 

would be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of nontarget resources, including 

native species (fish, wildlife, and plants) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) personnel, 

Service-authorized agents, volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding would be 

considered when determining feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) strategies 

(see Chapter 2 of this CCP/Environmental Assessment [EA]) in an adaptive management context to 

achieve resource objectives of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge). To satisfy 

requirements for IPM planning as identified in the Service director’s memo (dated September 9, 

2004) titled Integrated Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, 

and an Online Database, the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this 

CCP: 

 Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

 Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses presented in 

Chapter 6 (Environmental Consequences) of this CCP/EA. Only pesticide uses that likely would 

cause minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality 

with appropriate best management practices (BMPs), where necessary, would be allowed for use on 

the refuge. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process of evaluating potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to 

refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides would be 

similar to the process described in this appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-2 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) can be controlled 

to ensure balanced wildlife and fish populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat 

management objectives. Pest control on Federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under 

the following legal mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S. Code 

[U.S.C.] 668dd-668ee); 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.); 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136-136y); 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “... living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” according to 

Department Policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy), published by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as “ ... invasive plants and introduced 

or native organisms, that may interfere with achieving our management goals and objectives on or 

off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species 

as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Throughout the 

remainder of this CCP/EA, the terms pest and invasive species are used interchangeably because both 

can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife and habitat objectives and/or degrade 

environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests on the refuge would conserve and protect the nation’s fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 569 FW 1, animal or plant species 

that are considered pests may be managed if the following criteria are met: 

 There is threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of 

damage by the pest has been exceeded, or state or local government has designated the pest 

as noxious; 

 It is detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan 

(e.g., CCP, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the refuge are the following: 

 Protect human health and well being; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important refuge resources; 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-3 

 Protect newly introduced or reestablished native species; 

 Control nonnative (exotic) species to support existence of populations of native species; 

 Prevent damage to private property; and 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the refuge: 

 “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

 “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species ....” 

Animal species damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management 

program of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control 

Operations). For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., 

clogging with subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats 

(e.g., removing woody species from existing or restored riparian areas) managed on refuge lands may 

be conducted without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are a native species and most of 

their activities on refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. 

Exotic nutria, whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, 

can also be controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a 

pest control proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of refuge staff, volunteers, contractors, and public driving on structurally 

compromised levees and dikes can be threatened by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. Disposed 

wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public institutions. Donation or loans of resident 

wildlife species would only be made after securing state approval (50 CFR 31.11 [Donation and 

Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens may be sold alive or butchered, dressed, 

and processed subject to Federal and state laws and regulations (50 CFR 31.12 [Sale of Wildlife 

Specimens]). 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing, or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed 

of in the interest of public safety and protection of wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed of by 

the most humane method available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). 

G.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the refuge for each pest species: 

 Prevention. This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management 

option for pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-4 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

established pests to uninfested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to 

reduce the likelihood of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

planning can be used to determine if current management activities on a refuge may 

introduce and/or spread invasive species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for 

prevention. See http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill, 

exclusion methods (e.g., barriers), and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent 

reintroductions by various mechanisms including vehicles and personnel. Because invasive 

species are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention would require a 

reporting mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick response to 

eliminate any new pest populations. Prevention would require consideration of the scale and 

scope of land management activities that may promote pest establishment within uninfested 

areas or promote reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with preventing 

initial introduction, prevention would involve halting the spread of existing infestations to 

new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason for prevention would be to keep pest-free 

lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for 

prevention with respect to managing pests. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge 

lands: 

o Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., discing, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge 

staff would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential 

invasion vicinity. Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in 

uninfested areas before working in pest-infested areas. 

o Refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid 

or minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict travel to those periods when 

the spread of seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

o Refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate identify, sanitation 

sites where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, refuge staff would 

clean equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This 

practice does not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area 

that would remain on roadways. Refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts 

from project equipment before moving it into a project area. 

o Refuge staff would clean all equipment before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. Refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate identify, sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

o Refuge staff, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, 

inspect, remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on 

their clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant 

parts and then properly disposing of them. 

o Refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict traffic on sites with 

ongoing restoration of desired vegetation. Refuge staff would revegetate disturbed 

soil (except travelways on surfaced projects) to optimize native plant establishment 

for each specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, 

seeding, fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff 

would use native material where appropriate and feasible. They would also use 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-5 

certified weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified materials are 

reasonably available. 

o Refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. They would educate them about 

pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures. 

o Refuge staff would require grazing permittees to use preventative measures for their 

livestock while on refuge lands. 

o Refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

o Refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance 

activities. 

The following methods would be used to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into 

refuge waters: 

o Refuge staff would inspect boats, trailers, other boating equipment, and waders or 

boots. Where possible, refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or mud 

before leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge 

staff would drain water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land 

before leaving the site. If possible, the refuge staff would wash and dry boats, 

anchors, nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, trailers, and other boating equipment 

to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. Waders and boots would be cleaned and 

disinfected as necessary. 

o Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a l00-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around 

culverts, canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, refuge staff would inspect and 

clean equipment before moving to new sites or from one project area to another. 

 Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the 

growth of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these 

treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tools (manual), or power tools (mechanical) 

and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/discing, cutting, swathing, grinding, shearing, 

girdling, mowing, and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use 

mechanical/physical methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management 

activity. Based upon 50 CFR 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife 

populations for a “balanced conservation program” in accordance with Federal or state laws 

and regulations. In some cases, non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge 

sites with prior approval from the state. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. 

In general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. 

However, to control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout 

and continue to grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of 

destroying a perennial plant’s root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., discing, 

plowing) may damage root systems, they may also stimulate regrowth producing a denser 

plant population that may aid in the spread depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-6 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be major factors that can limit the 

use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be very effective at controlling perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic 

herbicide often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment 

alone. 

 Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest 

mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level 

manipulation, mulching, planting winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize 

pest impact, prescribed burning (which facilitates revegetation, increases herbicide efficacy, 

and removes litter to assist in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, 

trap crops, crop rotations that include nonsusceptible crops, moisture management, addition 

of beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding 

desirable species to shade or outcompete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance 

desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. 

 Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to 

reduce pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest 

species in the United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, 

which are free from natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a 

competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often 

allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to 

crops or outcompete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species 

population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be costprohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations 

have become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no 

longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits include reducing 

pesticide use, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost 

per acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to 

hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts would develop resistance to agents. 

Disadvantages include limited availability of agents from their native lands, the dependence 

of control on target species’ density, the slow rate at which control occurs, biotype matching, 

the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host specificity 

when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, 

and efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does 

work well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental 

conditions to survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood, whereas others are 

only partially understood or not understood at all. 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control 

agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent’s population level or 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-7 

survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, 

the population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a 

natural cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) tend to persist for several years 

after a biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, 

inefficiencies in the agent’s search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the 

agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters includes diseases, 

invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (the most common group). 

Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest 

problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive 

weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. John’s wort 

(Klamath weed), and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, 

diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. However, 

historically, each new introduction of a biological control agent in the United States has only 

about a 30 percent success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely 

related plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997; 

Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

Refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under FIFRA, most biological control agents are 

regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). State departments of agriculture and, 

in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or weed districts have additional approval 

authority.

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrol agents 

from another state. Form 526 may be obtained through the Internet at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html. 

The Service strongly supports the development and legal and responsible use of appropriate, 

safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and nonindigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or 

they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. 

Commercial sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and 

Noxious Weeds to release specific biological control agents in a state and/or county. 

Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific 

epithet, subspecies, and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite-free, pathogen-free, and biotic and 

abiotic contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 Refuge Manual (RM) 8 (Exotic Species 

Introduction and Management). In addition, refuge staff would follow the International Code 

of Best Practice for Classical Biological Control of Weeds 

(http://invasives.wsu.edu/Code.htm) as ratified by delegates to the Tenth International 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-8 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds in Bozeman, Montana, on July 9, 1999. This 

code states the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents, 

o Use the most effective agents, 

o Document releases, and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species, and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the EPA (e.g., 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis [B.t.i.]) are also subject to pesticide use proposal 

(PUP) review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. 

Systematic monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also 

recommended. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents regarding biological and other 

environmental effects of biological control agents prepared by another Federal agency, where 

the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents include the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service, the USDA-APHIS, and the military 

services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing 

document(s) from the review. Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique 

used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA 

document, which only must identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In 

addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent 

necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an understanding of the relevance of 

the referenced material to the current analysis. 

 Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including 

mode of reproduction), the size and distribution of pest populations, site-specific conditions 

(e.g., soils, topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to 

use BMPs to reduce/eliminate potential effects to nontarget species and sensitive habitats, 

and prevent contamination of surface and groundwater. All pesticide use (pesticide, target 

species, application rate, and method of application) would comply with the applicable 

Federal (FIFRA) and state regulations pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, disposal, 

and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on refuge 

lands and waters, PUPs would be prepared and approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP 

records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and target-specific description of the proposed 

use of pesticides on the refuge. All PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and 

stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), which is a centralized database only 

accessible on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees 

would be authorized to access PUP records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests 

while minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-9 

(e.g., backpack sprayer, roller, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other targetspecific equipment used to apply pesticides include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping 

vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular 

pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial 

spraying (e.g., fixed-wing or helicopter) would only be used where access is difficult (due to 

remoteness) and/or the size and distribution of infestations precludes practical use of groundbased methods.

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and 

reproduce, multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for 

treatments on refuge lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications 

within years and/or over a growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance 

and restoration activities to achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and nonchemical controls also are highly effective, where practical, because pesticide-resistant 

organisms can be removed from the site.

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different 

product would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the 

least potential to degrade environmental quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as 

well as the least potential effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats would be acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM 

approach. 

 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge 

habitats associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for longterm prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting 

desirable plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, 

and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Brooks et al. 2004; 

Masters et al. 1996; Masters and Sheley 2001). The following three components of 

succession could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site 

availability, species availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). 

Although a single method (e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species 

in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further 

invasion by the species and/or other invasive plants. On degraded sites where desirable 

species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and 

legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant community recovery, and achieve 

site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The selection of appropriate species for 

revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors including resource objectives and 

site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade 

conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of establishment, seed production, and 

competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

G.4 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests on a refuge, it is essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. Highest 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-10 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

priority treatments are focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate infestations of new 

pests, if possible. This is especially important for aggressive pests potentially impacting species, 

species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated with the refuge purpose(s), Refuge System 

resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, and interjurisdictional fish), and native 

species important for maintaining/restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested 

areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. 

The lowest priority would be treating large infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of wellestablished pests. In this case, initial efforts would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed 

by work to control/eradicate the established infested area. If containment and/or control of a large 

infestation is not effective, then efforts would focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing 

source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found that treating fewer populations that are sources 

represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce total number of invasive populations and 

decreasing population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always be of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, reed 

canarygrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter wetland plant composition 

by forming monotypic stands. Pest control would likely require a multiyear commitment from refuge 

staff. Essential to the long-term success of pest management would be pretreatment and 

posttreatment monitoring, assessment of the successes and failures of treatments, and development of 

new approaches when proposed methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

G.5 Best Management Practices 

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable BMPs also would 

likely ensure that pesticide uses do not adversely affect federally listed species and/or their critical 

habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR 402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and used, where feasible, based upon target- and 

site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. 

G.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple-rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-11 

 The refuge staff would triple-rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health and fish and wildlife, 

and preventing soil and water contamination. 

 Refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

G.5.2 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate state certification to safely and 

effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

 Refuge staff would comply with all Federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Departmental, Service, and Refuge System pesticide-related policies. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and 

PUPs for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), required 

personal protective equipment (PPE), and other requirements listed on the pesticide label. 

 Low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) would be used rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., 

boom sprayer other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications would be used where low-impact 

methods described above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness 

and ensure correct and uniform application rates. 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average <7 miles per hour [mph] and 

preferably 3 to 5 mph) and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures 

(typically <80°F). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions), which can cause large-scale herbicide 

drift to nontarget areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30 percent forecast for rain within 

6 hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-12 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential overspray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment setup and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. Refuge staff would only apply pesticide adjacent to sensitive areas when the 

wind is blowing in the opposite direction. 

 Refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, all-terrain vehicle [ATV], tractor) would be thoroughly 

cleaned and PPE would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to 

eliminate the potential spread of pests to uninfested areas. 

G.6. Safety 

G.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific PPE identified on the pesticide label. The appropriate PPE 

would be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and application. PPE can include the following: 

disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or 

a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirator. Because 

exposure to concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while 

preparing pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long 

gloves, an apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing, and disposing of pesticide 

containers would be consistent with label requirements, EPA and Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements, and Service policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical examination 

(including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of the 

respirator. 

G.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after application after which someone 

may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents of the 

Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide-treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-13 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, signs 

would also be posted on the perimeter of treatment areas and at other likely locations of entry. 

Refuge staff would also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, 

including any private individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to 

contact nearby individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

G.6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically monitoring 

if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to concentrations at or 

above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 242 FW 4); pesticide 

use is considered “frequent pesticide use”; or pesticide use requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for 

respirator use requirements). According to 242 FW 7.7A, “frequent pesticide use means when a 

person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of 3 or 

higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more hours in any 30-day period.” Under some 

circumstances, individuals who use pesticides infrequently, experience an acute exposure (sudden, 

short term), or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2 may also be medically monitored. 

This decision would consider the individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health 

risks, and the potential risks from other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., 

cooperative farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be 

responsible for their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

G.6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying, or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities, would be trained and state or federally licensed 

to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW 7.18A and 569 FW 1.10B, 

certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon EPA regulations. For safety 

reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides also 

are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. New staff 

unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing of 

pesticides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 

G.6.5 Record Keeping 

G.6.5.1 Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets 

Pesticide labels and MSDSs would be maintained at the refuge shop. A written reference (e.g., note 

pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be mixed would be kept in the mixing area for 

quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database 

typically contain website links to pesticide labels and MSDSs. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-14 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.6.5.2 Pesticide Use Proposals 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable.

In accordance with Service guidelines (Service Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), refuge staff 

may receive up to 5-year approvals for Service Washington Office and field-reviewed proposed 

pesticide uses based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where 

necessary (see http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan 

(requirements described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a 

habitat management plant (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are 

adequately addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 

G.6.5.3 Pesticide Usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge project leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other Federal agencies, state and county governments, and nongovernment 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

desiccants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs) 

 Target pest(s) 

 Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pretreatment and posttreatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation density, percent cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife 

response to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat 

Management Database), preferably a georeferenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands 

Geographic Information System [GIS]) to facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In 

accordance with adaptive management, data analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be 

modified or changed over time, as necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific 

conditions in conjunction with habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify 

short- and long-term impacts to natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM 

treatments in accordance with adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-15 

G.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management and croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

nonlisted species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments and characteristics 

of environmental fate and potential of pesticides to degrade environmental quality would be 

documented in chemical profiles (see Section G.7.6). These profiles would include threshold values 

for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental fate 

that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only 

pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section G.5) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

G.7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazards, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment of 

pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the EPA (2004). 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the EPA to meet regulatory requirements under 

FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated with 

short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, freshwater 

fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly available 

would also be used for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and 

environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources 

can be found in Section G.7.6. 

G.7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using the EPA’s ecological risk assessment process (EPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-16 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates relevant for 

managing units of the Refuge System. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) 

calculated by dividing the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized 

toxicological endpoints or published effects (Table G-1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

Table G-1. Ecotoxicity Tests Used to Evaluate Potential Effects to Birds, Fish, and 

Mammals to Establish Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Quotient Calculations 

Species Group Exposure Measurement Endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1 

Fish 

Acute LC50 

Chronic NOEC or NOAEC2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic NOEC or NOAEC3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, 

number of offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 

2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to 

hatch, growth, and time to swim-up. 

3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, 

evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA 

synthesis and DNA repair. 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by the EPA (1998b) (Table G2). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening potential adverse effects to fish 

and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following are four exposure-species group 

scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish and wildlife on the refuge: acutelisted species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Table G-2. Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals (EPA 1998b) 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute 

Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.5 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-17 

Table G-2. Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals (EPA 1998b) 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Nonlisted Species 

 Fish 1.0 1.0 

 Mammals 1.0 1.0 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed adverse effect concentration 

(NOAEC) or no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as 

toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a 

NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. For listed species, potential adverse effects would be 

assessed at the individual level because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally 

impact a species. In contrast, risks to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. 

A RQ<LOC would indicate the proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

individuals (listed species) and it would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to 

populations (nonlisted species) for each taxonomic group (Table G-2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC 

would indicate a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for listed species, and it would also pose 

unacceptable ecological risk for adverse effects to nonlisted species. 

G.7.2.1 Environmental Exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides that would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

nontarget vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the soil 

into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to lower 

soil layers and groundwater (Baker and Miller 1999; Butler et al. 1998; Extension Toxicology 

Network [EXTOXNET] 1993; Pope et al. 1999; Ramsay et al. 1995). Pesticides that would be 

injected into the soil may also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are 

by no means complete, but do indicate that movement of pesticides in the environment is very 

complex, with transfers occurring continually among different environmental compartments. In some 

cases, these exchanges occur not only between areas that are close together, but may also involve 

transportation of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004; Woods 2004). 

G.7.2.1.1 Terrestrial Exposure 

The ECC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an EPA screening-level 

approach (EPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation because 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-18 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

it evaluates pesticide active ingredient (a.i.). This approach would vary depending upon the proposed 

pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

G.7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial—spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (EPA 

2004, 2005a; Pfleeger et al. 1996) through the EPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) 

version 1.2.3 (EPA 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on short grass (<20 

centimeter [cm] tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX input 

variables would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application rate 

(pounds a.i. [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although there are other 

food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and fruits, pods, seeds and large 

insects), short grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 parts per million 

[ppm] per lb a.i./acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for 

carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure through 

the diet of avian and mammalian prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a 

conservative screening tool for pesticides that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table G-3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would yield 

a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table G-3. Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species Frequently used in Research to Establish Toxicological 

Endpoints (Dunning 1984) 

Species Body Weight (kilogram [kg]) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1,000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-19 

G.7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial—granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units, which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species that 

actively seek and pick up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also 

be consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs, or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which 

the granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of a.i. exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area equal to 1 square foot 

by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table G-3). An adjustment 

to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and in-furrow applications. An 

adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of the granules. 

Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100 percent of the granules remain on the soil 

surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the soil 

surface, but the granules are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil 

during band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15 

percent of the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1 percent 

of the granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/feet2

)for comparison to the EPA LOC (EPA 1998b). The 

T-REX version 1.2.3 (EPA 2005b) contains a submodel that automates Kanaga exposure calculations 

for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas would be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular 

pesticide application: 

 In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1 percent granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./feet

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 

feet

2

/acre)/(row spacing (feet))] / (row spacing (feet)} 

or 

mg a.i./feet

2 

= [(lbs product/1,000 foot row)(% a.i.)(1,000 foot row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./feet

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15 percent of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-20 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

mg a.i./feet

2 

= [(lbs. product/1,000 row feet)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1 − % incorporated)]/(1,000 

feet)(band width (feet)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./feet

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100 percent of granules, bait, and seeds 

are unincorporated. 

mg a.i./feet

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)]/(43,560 feet

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./feet

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

 % of pesticide biologically available = 100 percent without species-specific ingestion rates 

 Conversion for calculating mg a.i./feet

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb./16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table G-3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

G.7.2.1.2 Aquatic Exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 

the refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of aquatic 

habitats for habitat management treatments, whereas no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be used for 

croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

G.7.2.1.2.1 Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table G-4) would be 

derived from Urban and Cook (1986), which assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1 foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the 

maximum application rate (acid basis). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-21 

G.5.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during actual 

treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100 percent overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or 

the PUP may be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ = LOC). 

Table G-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations of 

Pesticides in Aquatic Habitats (1 foot depth) Immediately after 

Direct Application (Urban and Cook 1986) 

Lbs/acre EEC (parts per billion (ppb) 

0.10 36.7 

0.20 73.5 

0.25 91.9 

0.30 110.2 

0.40 147.0 

0.50 183.7 

0.75 275.6 

1.00 367.5 

1.25 459.7 

1.50 551.6 

1.75 643.5 

2.00 735.7 

2.25 827.6 

2.50 919.4 

3.00 1,103.5 

4.00 1,471.4 

5.00 1,839 

6.00 2,207 

7.00 2,575 

8.00 2,943 

9.00 3,311 

10.00 3,678 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-22 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force (SDTF), which is a joint project of 

several agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From 

this database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy EPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. The SDTF AgDRIFT model version 

2.01 (AgDRIFT 2001; SDTF 2003) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift of pesticides 

to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the high water 

mark. The SDTF AgDRIFT model is publicly available at http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, 

click “AgDRIFT 2.0,” followed by “Download Now,” and follow the instructions to obtain the 

computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: maximum application rate (acid basis), low boom (20 

inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-foot distance (buffer) from 

treated area to water. 

G.7.2.2 Use of Information on Effects of Biological Control Agents, Pesticides, 

Degradates, and Adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another Federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents include the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, 

National Park Service, USDA-APHIS, and the military services. It might be appropriate to 

incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 

1502.21) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a 

Service NEPA document, which only would identify the documents that are incorporated by 

reference. In addition, relevant portions would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the 

extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the 

referenced material to the current analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the USFS 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the final environmental impact statement titled Pacific Northwest Region 

Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005) and Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.120(d), use of existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, 

or adopting previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and unnecessary 

paperwork. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-23 

As a basis for completing chemical profiles for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, ecological 

risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the USFS would be 

incorporated by reference: 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethoxylate (NPE)-based surfactants 

As a basis for completing chemical profiles for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, ecological 

risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated with 

pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants 

G.7.2.3 Assumptions for Ecological Risk Assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with use of the EPA’s (2004) process. These assumptions 

may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or under-estimation of risk from pesticide exposure 

depending upon site-specific conditions. The following describes these assumptions, their application 

to the conditions typically encountered, and whether they may lead to recommendations that are risk 

neutral, or that underestimate or overestimate ecological risk from potential pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-24 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Nontarget organisms may be 

exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the formulation 

as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information for both the 

active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the greatest 

potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (EPA 2004). As a 

result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk characterization from 

pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. Sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for coastal 

environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity to 

mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide assessments. 

As a result of this uncertainty, data are selected for the most sensitive species tested within a 

taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is acceptable. If 

additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are available, the 

selected data would not be limited to the species previously listed as common surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide or the length of exposure, or some combination 

of both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an 

organism to several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, 

weeks, months, years, or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-

week exposure phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data 

are usually not available for inclusion in risk assessments. Without time response data it is 

difficult to determine the concentration that elicits a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimation of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimation of 

risk. TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they would be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for underestimation or overestimation of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds an LOC may influence the suitability of a pesticide use. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-25 

The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the LOC, the greater the ecological risk. 

This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to reviewers’ expertise in ecological risk 

assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates, and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides that do not bioaccumulate may 

achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs would require justification and would not exceed the duration of exposure 

in the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as biphasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and can be misleading, particularly if the compound is 

prone to “wash-off.” Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be used, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (EPA 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil is not considered in the 

EPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15 percent of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion would not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists of a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted on food items. 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the EPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, 

and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The EPA (1990) 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-26 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable 

route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable 

particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 

microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios 

indicate that less than 1 percent of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. 

This route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution 

for ground pesticide applications is restricted to American Society of Agricultural Engineers 

(ASAE) medium or coarser drop size distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs postapplication, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The EPA is 

currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dust contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation-specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, with the exception of dermal toxicity values for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice), which are common. The EPA is currently evaluating 

protocols for modeling dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for 

this route of exposure, particularly with high-risk pesticides such as some organophosphates 

or carbamate insecticides. If protocols are established by the EPA for assessing dermal 

exposure to pesticides, they would be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment 

protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew, or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water-soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff, and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soil types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The EPA is actively developing protocols to quantify 

drinking water exposure from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the EPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols would be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-27 

spills represent a potential underestimation of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and 

mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual continuing 

education. 

 The EPA relies on Fletcher et al. (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The EPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify.” Fletcher et al.’s (1994) research suggests 

that the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the EPA represent a ninetyfifth percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates 

EPA residue assumptions for short grass were not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) 

compared the EPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for 

the EPA’s Uptake, Translocation, Accumulation, and Biotransformation (UTAB) database. 

Overall residue selection levels would tend to overestimate risk characterization. This is 

particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have selected a variety of food 

items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be contaminated with pesticide 

residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is important to recognize 

differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume whole aboveground 

plant material, but others preferentially select different plant structures. Also, species may 

preferentially select a food item although multiple food items may be present. Without 

species-specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior, characterizing ecological risk other 

than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure and adverse abiotic and biotic 

factors), and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist 

at some level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually 

characterized in the published literature in only a general manner, limiting their value in the 

risk assessment process.

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no 

habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-28 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 

in an underestimation or overestimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occur at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older, more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. For pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species LOC, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be a 

limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation, and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through evaporative loss. This limitation may have 

the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as ephemeral 

wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have low rates of 

degradation and volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event and analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of the invertebrate life cycle or fish early life stage tests 

(e.g., 21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency 

of effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the EPA 

relies on chronic exposure, and toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, 

the potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results 

of an acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration 

of exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological conditions, 

runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-29 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations be 

overestimated or underestimated. 

 The EPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same way within an 

organism. Currently, the EPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the 

organophosphate insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and 

chloroacetanilide herbicides. 

G.7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or a plant regulator, defoliant, 

desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must be 

identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol is used as a solvent in a pesticide formulation, then 

it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert ingredients identified as 

hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of all inert ingredients, must 

be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as hazardous are not required 

to be identified. 

The EPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (EPA 2012): 

 List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

 List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

 List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

 List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some of 

the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDS or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-30 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the USFS (2005) found that mixtures of 

pesticides used in forest management likely would not cause additive or synergistic effects to 

nontarget species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding toxicological effects and 

interactions of agricultural chemicals (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] 

2004). Moreover, information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the 

availability of and access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

 Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, and Environmental Series (TOMES) (a proprietary 

toxicological database including EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the 

Hazardous Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances 

[RTECS]) 

 EPA’s Ecotoxicology (ECOTOX) database, which includes Aquatic Information Retrieval 

(AQUIRE) (a database containing scientific papers published on the toxic effects of 

chemicals to aquatic organisms) 

 TOXLINE (a literature searching tool) 

 MSDSs from pesticide suppliers 

 Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredients. 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less mobile 

and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 2003). 

Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides and 

degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a less 

toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater effects 

on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates for 

many pesticides represents a source of uncertainty for assessing risk.

An EPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action is 

common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to mixtures 

would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to assess 

potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-31 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, and products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the refuge. This is especially relevant 

when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an effect(s) 

associated with an individual pesticide. Use of a tank mix under these conditions would increase the 

level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides, and the EPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray adjuvants. 

Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In general, adjuvants 

compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection of adjuvants with 

limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential for the adjuvant to 

influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

G.7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996): 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50 percent 

of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be 

categorized as the following: nonpersistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data are usually available for aquatic and terrestrial 

environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site, whereas half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As with half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation times are the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-lives are the most common persistence data 

cited in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data are not available, soil half-life data may 

be used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism 

would be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-32 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is expressed 

as the soil adsorption coefficient. The Koc is measured as micrograms of pesticide per gram of soil 

(μg/g), which can range from near zero to the thousands. Pesticides with higher Koc values are 

strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L) or ppm. As pesticide solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site 

movement. 

The GUS is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s potential to move in the 

environment. It uses soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the following formula. 

GUS = log10(t1⁄2) × [4 − log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would be considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0 to 2.0 would have low potential, 2.0 to 3.0 would have moderate potential, 3.0 to 4.0 would have 

high potential, and >4.0 would have a very high potential to move toward groundwater. 

GUS, water solubility, half-life, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the Oregon 

State University (OSU) Extension Pesticide Properties Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. 

Many of the values in this database were derived from the Soil Conservation Service/Agricultural 

Research Service/Cooperative Extension Service (SCS/ARS/CES) Pesticide Properties Database for 

Environmental Decision Making (Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse-textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 

and are generally more permeable than fine-textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The more 

permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller pore size would lower the likelihood and rate that water would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water-holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated structures that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-33 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile, resulting 

in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter, which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would result in runoff rather than 

infiltrate into the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical 

activity in soil, which effects pesticide degradation. 

 Soil pH influences chemical reactions that occur in the soil, which in turn determines whether 

a pesticide would degrade, the rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which degradation 

products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate BMPs (see below) would be used in an IPM framework to 

treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be 

dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides 

in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The 

rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide 

concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also 

would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), 

which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the 

mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly 

the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching 

would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to 

runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. 

In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-34 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

they persist. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

G.7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure, 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I × 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize, whereas pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (OSU 1996). Vapor pressure values for pesticides 

are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) pesticide database. 

G.7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete chemical profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with the EPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., toxicological endpoints, 

environmental fate) would be completed for a chemical profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete chemical profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed chemical profiles would provide a structured decision-making process using quantitative 

assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used to evaluate 

potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological risk 

assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to determine 

whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application rate 

specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments 

pertaining to refuges. Where the worst-case scenario likely would only result in minor, temporary, 

and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section G.5), the 

proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any application 

rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a chemical profile. In some cases, the 

chemical profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled rate in order to 

protect refuge resources. As necessary, chemical profiles would be periodically updated with new 

scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed for use on the 

refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

chemical profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with chemical profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-35 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the chemical profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product from among several pesticides with the 

same active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with 

the same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or MSDS for an active ingredient. The common name of a pesticide is listed as the 

active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following the trade name, and the 

MSDS Section 2: Composition/Information on Ingredients. A chemical profile is completed for each 

active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, desiccant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, piscicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): The EPA Reg. No. appears on the title page of the label and MSDS 

Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA Establishment Number, 

which is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. No. for each trade 

name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components usually 

contains this number immediately prior to or following the percent composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation that are not listed as active 

ingredients but are described as toxic or hazardous, or are regulated under the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), OSHA, State 

Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in MSDS sections titled 

“Hazardous Identifications,” “Exposure Control/Personal Protection,” and “Regulatory Information.” 

If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds identified as toxic or 

hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the chemical profile by trade 

name. MSDSs may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s website or from an online 

database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list below). 

G.7.6.1 Toxicological Endpoints

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-36 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded as the data 

entry. Throughout the chemical profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) would be 

cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. The most common 

test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would 

be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals 

(see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). The 

most common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found 

for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], NOAEC) in mg/kg-bw or 

mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., generational studies [preferred], fertility, newborn 

weight). The most common test species available in scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest 

NOEC, NOAEC, LOEL, or NOAEL test results found for a rat would be used as a toxicological 

endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. The most common test species available 

in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). The most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). The most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

LOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. The most common test species available in the scientific 

literature are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game 

species may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section 

G.7.2). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-37 

Fish Early Life Stage/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the scientific 

literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, lowest 

observed adverse effect concentration [LOAEC]) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, 

life cycle). The most common test species available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow 

trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for other game species may also be available. The lowest test 

value found for a fish species (preferably freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for 

RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.2). 

Other: For test invertebrate and nonvascular and vascular plant species available in the scientific 

literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or EC50 

(environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. The most common test invertebrate species 

available in scientific literature is the honey bee. Green algae and pondweed are frequently available 

test species for aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, wildlife 

may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. The 

EPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. This 

database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various Federal and state 

agencies and non-government organizations. Information included in an incident report is date and 

location of the incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

G.7.6.2 Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1,000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). As 

pesticide Sw increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and 

leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below). 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical’s mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see

Potential to Move to Groundwater below).
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-38 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life, which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in the soil. Based upon the half-life value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If soil half-life ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil half-life >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil half-life values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater 

by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Field dissipation time would be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment because it is based upon field studies, unlike soil half-life, which is 

derived in a laboratory. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data available in the 

published literature. If field dissipation data are not available, soil half-life data would be used in a 

chemical profile. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation 

mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-39 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil half-life) would be used in evaluating the 

potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if 

available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic half-life, which represents 

the length of time required for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in water. Based upon the aquatic half-life value, aquatic persistence would be categorized 

as one of the following: nonpersistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If aquatic half-life ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

If aquatic half-life >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically 

to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50 percent of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate), whereas, aquatic half-life describes the rate for 

degradation only. As with aquatic half-life, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized 

as one of the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-40 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: GUS = log10(soil t1⁄2) × [4 − log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is 

available, it would be used rather than a t1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS score. Based upon the GUS

value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as one of the following 

categories: extremely low potential <1.0, low potential 1.0 to 2.0, moderate potential 2.0 to 3.0, high 

potential 3.0 to 4.0, and very high potential >4.0. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs)” section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect air 

quality. 

If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the “Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

 Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

 Apply large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

 Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85°F. 

 Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

 Where identified on the pesticide label, soil should incorporate pesticide as soon as possible 

during or after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-41 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If the potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate is not high in aquatic species, then the PUP would be 

approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not be approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: Bioaccumulation is the physiological process where pesticide 

concentrations in tissue increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they 

are metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low = 0 to 300, 

moderate = 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If BAF or BCF >1,000, then a PUP would not be approved, except under unusual circumstances 

where approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Maximum Application Rates (acid equivalent [ae]): Service personnel would record the highest 

application rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities 

maintenance treatments in this data field of a chemical profile. These rates can be found in Table 

CP.1 under the column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv 

basis).” This table would be prepared for a chemical profile from information specified in labels for 

trade name products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write 

“NS” for “not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated EEC represents potential exposure to fish and wildlife (birds and mammals) 

from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel using an EPA screening-level 

approach (EPA 2004). For each maximum application rate (see previous paragraph), Service 

personnel would record two EEC values in a chemical profile; these would represent the worst-case 

terrestrial and aquatic exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments. For terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see the description for data entry under 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, the next field in a chemical profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic RQs for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular formats for habitat 

management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in a chemical profile 

would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section G.7.2 for a discussion 

regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish, and the EEC would be 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-42 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

derived from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100 percent overspray to an entire 1-foot-deep water 

body using the maximum application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish, and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFTmodel version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate (ae 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section G.7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for 

habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the EPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables would 

include the following: max application rate (ae basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil 

to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items for terrestrial 

vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section G.7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be 

used to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with LOCs established by the EPA (see Table 

G-2 in Section G.7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in brackets inside the 

table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable risk) to federally 

listed (threatened or endangered) species and non-listed species. See Section G.7.2 for detailed 

descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the “Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs)” section to reduce 

potential risk to nonlisted or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs. 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based on 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label would provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-43 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a chemical profile. Where necessary and 

feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality are outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section G.5 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information for 

a chemical profile. They would use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical 

profile. 

The following online data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental 

Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Washington, D.C. 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. EXTOXNET Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort of University of California-Davis, 

Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and University of Idaho 

through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) specifications and evaluations for plant protection 

products. Pesticide Management Unit, Plant Protection Services, FAO, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, USFS, USDA. (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land Management, 

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, and USFS, USDA. 

(http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide fact sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide fate database. EPA, Washington, D.C. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-44 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 10. Pesticide product labels and MSDSs. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. 

(http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by agrichemical 

companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and amphibian toxicology literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet—New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and Registration 

Fact Sheet. EPA, Washington, D.C. (http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Invasive 

Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife contaminants online. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-45 

Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-46 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best Management 

Practices (BMPs): 

References: 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessmen

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade Namea Treatment Typeb Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre or gal/acre) Max Product Rate - Single Application (lbs/acre - AI on acid equiv basis) Max Number of Applications Per Season Max Product Rate Per Season (lbs/acre/season or gal/acre/season) 

a From each label for a pesticide identified in PUPs, Service personnel would record application information associated with possible/kn

lands.

b Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is labeled for both types of treatments 

separate data for H and CF applications. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-48 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.8. References 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2004. Guidance manual for the 

assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology. 62 pp + appendices. 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and 

Risk Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA. 358 

pp. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 15 pp. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and transformation 

products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land 

Management. Reno NV. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. 

BioScience 54:77-88. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service. Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: Lewis 

Publishers. 

 Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A., Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological control. Pages 245-263 in: Strangers in 

paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington D.C.: 

Island Press. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 49 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. West Lafayette, ID. 

EPA. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to 

microbial pest control agents by the respiratory route to nontarget avian species. EPA/600/3-

90/070. Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 

EPA. 1998b. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from pesticides and their uses: background, 

methodology and case study. Environmental Fate & Effects Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, D.C. 105 pp. 

EPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S EPA. Endangered and threatened species effects determinations. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Washington, D.C. 101 pp. 

EPA. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment. Analysis phase: exposure 

characterization; approaches for evaluating exposure; granular, bait, and treated seed 

applications. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

EPA. 2005b. User’s guide TREX v1.2.3. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA. Washington, D.C. 22 

pp. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

Accessed June 2012. 

EPA. 2012. Pesticide inert ingredients. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html. 

Accessed June 2012. 

EXTOXNET (The Extension Toxicology Network). 1993. Movement of pesticides in the 

environment. Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell 

University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, University of California-Davis, and 

the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. 4 pp. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kanaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-50 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pp. 

Masters, R.A, and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive plant 

species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

OSU (Oregon State University). 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, pesticide 

information profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington: protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension. Pullman, WA. 12 pp. 

SDTF (Spray Drift Task Force). 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray Drift 

Task Force. Macon, MO. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. Office of Pesticide 

Programs, EPA. Washington D.C. 94 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota: current understanding 

of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program: preventing and 

managing invasive plants. Final environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. 359 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 51 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 8 

pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

G-52 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix H

Glossary of Terms, Phrases,

Abbreviations, and 

Acronyms 

© Barbara Scoles

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-1 

Appendix H. Glossary of Terms, Phrases, Abbreviations, 

and Acronyms 

H.1 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAR After Action Review 

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

AHM Adaptive harvest management 

a.i. Active ingredient 

AMR Appropriate management response 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

ATV All-terrain vehicle 

BAF Bioaccumulation factors 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCF Bioconcentration factors 

BCR Bird Conservation Region 

BI Burning Index 

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

BMC Birds of Management Concern 

BMPs Best management practice(s) 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

B.t.i. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis

CCP Comprehensive conservation plan 

CD Compatibility determination 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License 

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CIG Climate Impacts Group (University of Washington) 

CO Carbon dioxide 

COA Conservation Opportunity Areas 

CWS Clean Water Services 

DBH Diameter at breast height 

DEM Digital elevation model 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon) 

DSL Department of State Lands 

DSM Division of Smoke Management 

EA Environmental assessment 

EDRR Early detection and rapid response 

EEC Estimated environmental concentration 

EMDS Ecosystem Management Decision Support 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-2 Appendix H. Glossary 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

FCR Fire-cracked rock 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FmHA Farmers Home Administration 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FMU Fire Management Unit 

GBADC Game Birds Above Desired Condition 

GBBDC Gamebirds Below Desired Condition 

GHGs Greenhouse gases 

GIS Geographic information system 

GLO General Land Office 

GPS Global positioning system 

GUS Groundwater ubiquity score 

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HAR Height above river 

HHS Health and Human Services 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IC Incident commander 

IFQS Interagency Fire Qualification System 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated pest management 

IQCS Incident Qualification and Certification System 

IRPG Incident Response Pocket Guide 

KFF Ken Foster Farm 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

LCP Land Conservation Plan 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LOC Level of Concern 

LOEC Lowest Observed Effect Concentration 

LOEL Lowest Observed Effect Level 

MIST Minimum impact suppression tactics 

MOA Memorandum of agreement 

MOU Memorandum of understanding 

mph Miles per hour 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MSL Mean sea level 

MYA Million years ago 

NAAEE North American Association for Environmental Education 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act 

NAS National Audubon Society 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-3 

NBC National Business Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFDRS National Fire Danger Rating System 

NGO Nongovernmental organization 

NH3 Ammonia 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAEC No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration 

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

OCCRI Oregon Climate Change Research Institute 

OCS Oregon Conservation Strategy 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Pb Lead 

PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture 

PFC Pacific Flyway Council 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers 

ppb parts per billion 

PPE Personal protective equipment 

ppm parts per million 

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal 

PUPS Pesticide Use Proposal System 

REI Restricted entry interval 

RMIS Refuge Management Information System 

ROCs Resource(s) of Concern 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RQ Risk quotient 

RV Recreational vehicle 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

SDTF Spray Drift Task Force 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SUP Special Use Permit 

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants 

T/E Threatened and endangered species 

TMDL Total maximum daily load 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-4 Appendix H. Glossary 

TRWC Tualatin River Watershed Council 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TVFR Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 

TVID Tualatin Valley Irrigation District 

TWA Time-weighted-average 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA APHIS-PPQ U.S. Department of Agriculture—Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

USDOI U.S. Department Of Interior 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USHCN United States Historical Climatology Network 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 

WID Wapato Improvement District 

YCPA Yamhill County Public Health 

YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association 

H.2 Glossary 

Accessible. Without fences or vegetative barriers (tall, dense vegetation) at its margins.

Adaptive management. “The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that 

uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels” (620 FW 1). 

A “ ... decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of 

uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. 

Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust 

policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes 

the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not 

a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does 

not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. 

Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals; increases 

scientific knowledge; and reduces tensions among stakeholders” (522 DM 1). 

Alternative. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission, and resolving 

issues (602 FW 1.6). The “no action” alternative is current refuge management, while the “action” 

alternatives are all other alternatives. 

Anadromous fish. Fish that are born in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to grow into adults, and 

return to fresh water to spawn. 

Appropriate use. “A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following 

four conditions. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-5 

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11” (603 FW 1). 

Approved Acquisition Boundary. National wildlife refuge boundary approved by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service director for potential acquisition of lands by the Service. 

Approved Refuge Boundary. A national wildlife refuge boundary approved by the national or 

regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) director. Within this boundary, the Service may 

negotiate with landowners to acquire lands not already owned by the Service. 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and culture. 

Benefiting resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for a Resource of Concern. 

Big Six. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses under Refuge System Improvement Act. The big sixes 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Birds of Conservation Concern. A category assembled by the USFWS Division of Migratory Birds 

identifying the migratory and nonmigratory species (beyond those already designated as federally 

threatened or endangered) that represent the division’s highest conservation priorities. 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the variety 

of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (601 FW 3). The Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, 

and ecological processes. 

Biological integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historical conditions, including the natural biological processes 

that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (601 FW 3). 

Candidate species. Plant or animal species for which USFWS or NOAA Fisheries has on file 

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened (USFWS Endangered Species Glossary). 

Categorical exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

(40 CFR 1508.4). 

Climate change. A “... change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using 

statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-6 Appendix H. Glossary 

extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal 

processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the 

atmosphere or in land use” (IPCC 2008). 

Compatible use. A “ ... wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge” (602 FW 3). 

Compatibility Determination. A written determination signed and dated by the refuge manager and 

regional chief signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible 

use or is not a compatible use. The director makes this delegation through the Regional Direction 

(603 FW 2). 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future conditions 

of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve 

the purpose(s) of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where 

appropriate, restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and 

the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if 

appropriate; and meets other mandates (USFWS Habitat Management Planning Policy, 602 FW 1.4). 

Concern. See Issue. 

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move 

across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of 

appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation.

Conservation Targets (also see Resources of Concern; Priority Species, Species Groups, and 

Communities). Term used by land management agencies and conservation organizations to describe 

the resources (ecological systems, ecological communities, species, species groups, or other natural 

resources) selected as the focus of conservation actions. 

Consumptive use. Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing, that involve harvest or 

removal of wildlife or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

Contaminants or environmental contaminants. Chemicals present at levels greater than those 

naturally occurring in the environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes that 

potentially result in changes to biota at any ecological level (U.S. Geological Survey, Assessing 

Environmental Contaminant Threats). They are pollutants that degrade other resources upon contact 

or mixing. 

Cooperative agreement. An official agreement between two parties. 

Cover. The estimated percent of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, that is occupied by a 

particular plant species. 

Cultural resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways that 

connect us to our nation’s past (USFWS no date). 

Cultural resource inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-7 

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify 

all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (614 

FW 1.7). 

DM. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. 

Decadence. Marked by decay or decline, used for plants showing little or no new growth. 

Deciduous. Trees and shrubs that shed all of their leaves each year. 

Depredation. Causing serious damage to agricultural, horticultural, and fish cultural interests 

(Adapted from 50 CFR 21.42). 

Direct Loss. Loss of food or loss of habitat as nonnative species outcompete natives.

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition, or of the behavior of wildlife. 

May be a natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused event (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated nonliving environment. 

Ecosystem management. Management of natural resources using systemwide concepts to ensure 

that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 

Effect (impact). A direct result of an action that occurs at the same time and place; or an indirect 

result of an action that occurs later in time or in a different place and is reasonably foreseeable; or the 

cumulative results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other 

actions (40 CFR 1508.8). 

El Niño/La Niña - Southern Oscillation. A quasiperiodic climate pattern that occurs across the 

tropical Pacific Ocean. The Southern Oscillation refers to variations in the temperature of the 

surface of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean (warming and cooling known as El Niño and La Niña

respectively) and in air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific. The two variations are 

coupled: the warm oceanic phase, El Niño, accompanies high air surface pressure in the western 

Pacific, while the cold phase, La Niña, accompanies low air surface pressure in the eastern Pacific. 

Endemic. In the conservation context, exclusively native to a place. For example, kangaroos are 

endemic to Australia. 

Environmental assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with NEPA, that 

briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action and alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental harm. Environmental harm by pest species refers to a biologically substantial 

decrease in environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-8 Appendix H. Glossary 

native species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or 

altered ecological processes. 

Endangered Species (Federal). An animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in a state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations of these 

species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant 

degree. 

Environmental education study sites. Outdoor locations where groups of students engage in handson activities within an environmental education curriculum. 

Environmental health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historical conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (601 FW 3). 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native 

species. 

Ethnographical. The study and systematic recording of human cultures; also: a descriptive work 

produced from such research. 

Executive Order. A president’s or governor’s declaration, which has the force of law, usually based 

on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature. 

Exotic. See Nonnative species.

Experimental population. A population (including its offspring) of a listed species designated by 

rule published in the Federal Register that is wholly separate geographically from other populations 

of the same species. An experimental population may be subject to less stringent prohibitions than 

are applied to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. 

Focal Species (also Priority Resources of Concern or Focal Conservation Target). A suite of 

conservation targets that for purposes of planning are sorted and condensed to represent threats to 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge level. 

Friends of the Refuge. Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, the official, 

nonprofit, volunteer organization supporting the refuge. 

Geocaching. Known as letter boxing, an outdoor activity in which participants use a global 

positioning system (GPS) to recover techniques to hide and seek containers. 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (620 FW 1.6). 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. It is the place where an organism typically lives. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-9 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that provides refuge managers a decision-making process; 

guidance for the management of refuge habitat; and long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for 

habitat management on refuge lands (USFWS Habitat Management Planning Policy 620 FW 1.4). 

Habitat restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Historical conditions. Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human related changes to the landscape (601 FW 3). 

Hydrology. A graph of waterflows in a river or stream. A hydrograph provides a way of seeing 

seasonal and yearly changes in the flow or discharge of a waterway. 

Important Bird Areas. A site designated by the National Audubon Society that provides essential 

habitat for one or more species of bird and that is recognized as being important on a global, 

continental, or state level. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the 

status of the key ecological attribute; something that serves as a sign or symptom. 

Indigenous knowledge. The “ ... knowledge that an indigenous (local) community accumulates over 

generations of living in a particular environment. This definition encompasses all forms of 

knowledge—technologies, know-how skills, practices and beliefs—that enable the community to 

achieve stable livelihoods in their environment” (United Nations Environment Programme 2012). 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an approved refuge boundary that are not owned by the Service. 

These can be private lands or lands owned by a city, county, state, or other Federal agencies. 

Integrated Pest Management. A “ ... sustainable approach to managing pests by combining 

biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and 

environmental risks” (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

“Examples of tools listed in the IPM definition include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(1) Biological tools - predators, parasites, and pathogens; 

(2) Cultural tools - crop rotation, alterations in planting dates, and sanitation; 

(3) Physical tools - barriers, traps, hand-pulling, hoeing, mowing, and tilling; 

(4) Chemical tools - pesticides, such as herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides” (517 DM 1). 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating 

explanation. Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

Invasive species. An “ ... alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health” (EO 13112). 

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 

Inviolate Sanctuary. The original intent of the term “inviolate sanctuary” is found in the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (first passed in 1918 as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and amended in 1934 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-10 Appendix H. Glossary 

and 1938). This Act originally required that all refuges be inviolate sanctuaries and deemed that 

refuges’ primary purposes were as breeding grounds and habitat for migratory birds. Migratory bird 

hunting was prohibited on migratory waterfowl areas by the Act, but most other human uses were not 

addressed. The 1938 amendment to the Act gave refuge managers authority to decide if, when, and 

how bird hunting would be allowed. After World War II, public demand for opening refuges to 

recreation increased. The 1949 Duck Stamp Act allowed waterfowl hunting on refuges, but restricted 

the percentage of each refuge open to hunting. Current policy states that portions of a refuge are 

considered “inviolate sanctuaries” if they were (a) acquired with the approval of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission for the purpose of an inviolate sanctuary; (b) acquired with MBCC 

approval or Land and Water Conservation Fund funds to protect a threatened or endangered species; 

or (c) established by an instrument or document that states the intent to manage the area as an 

“inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” or to fulfill the purpose of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act. Policy further allows migratory game bird hunting on no more than 40 percent of the area 

considered inviolate sanctuary if compatible with a refuge’s purposes and mission. Inviolate 

sanctuary classification imposes no limits on hunting nonmigratory birds, fur bearers, or other game 

species. 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, for example, an initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (620 FW 1.6). 

Key ecological attributes. Those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or 

patterns of biological structure and composition that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of 

the target. These key ecological attributes are further divided into measurable indicators. 

Keystone species. Species that enrich ecosystem function in a unique and significant manner through 

their activities, and have an effect that is disproportionate to their numerical abundance. Their 

removal initiates changes in ecosystem structure and often loss of diversity. These keystone species 

may be habitat modifiers (e.g., Cottonwoods, beavers), predators (e.g., bobcat, coyote), or herbivores 

(e.g., elk). 

Kalapuya. It-galapu ywi-yu-ks, A Chinookan term for the Willamette Valley people, consisting of 

eight Tribes speaking three different languages, formerly inhabiting the valley of the Willamette 

River in Oregon. 

Land Protection. The acquisition of fee title, easement, or lease of a given land parcel to protect 

important natural resource values on the land from incompatible land uses. 

Listed Species (Federal). Species that have been formally listed under the Endangered Species Act 

as threatened or endangered. Also includes candidate and proposed species. An endangered species is 

one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened 

species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Proposed species include 

taxa for which the Service or National Marine Fisheries Service has published a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. Candidate species include those taxa for which the 

Service has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structures, and capitalized equipment necessary 

to realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-11 

periodic condition assessment; periodic inspections, adjustment, lubrication and cleaning 

(nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and 

other actions to ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Metro. Regional government for the Portland metropolitan area, including Clackamas, Multnomah, 

and Washington Counties and associated municipalities. Metro coordinates regionwide land-use 

planning; provides garbage, recycling, and transportation services; acquires, restores, and manages 

natural areas; and operates cemeteries, event facilities, and the zoo. 

Migration. Seasonal movement of wildlife from one area to another and back. 

Migratory birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 CFR 10.13 (as defined by various treaties) 

(720 FW 1, Policies and Responsibilities of the Migratory Bird Program). 

Mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. Forest that has a mixture of Douglas-fir, oak, and maple, with a 

shrub understory. 

Moist soil plants. Plants that are adapted to periodic flooding and drying conditions. 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375). A Federal law 

that requires all Federal agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of 

their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision 

making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Register of Historic Places. The nation’s master inventory of known historic properties 

administered by the National Park Service. Includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts 

that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the national, 

state, and local levels (USFWS no date). 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all 

lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; 

game ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee). A Federal law that provides guidance on the administration and management of the national 

wildlife refuge system. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). A Federal law 

that amended and updated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668). 

Native. “With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem” (601 FW 3). 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-12 Appendix H. Glossary 

Nonconsumptive recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal, or 

consumption of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources. 

Nonnative species. A species that is present in the planning area but was not known to exist prior to 

Euro-American settlement of the Americas. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or state law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insect or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. According to the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or has adverse 

effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to the public health. 

Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable (620 FW 

1.6). 

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of the functions for which a facility or item 

of equipment is intended to be used. Costs such as utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, janitorial 

services, window cleaning, rodent and pest control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, waste 

management, and personnel costs for operating staff are generally included within the scope of 

operations. 

Outreach. The process of providing information to the public on a specific issue through the use of 

the media, printed materials, and presentations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The Pacific 

Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. 

Permanent Wetland. Wetlands or portions of refuge that retain water throughout the year. 

Permanently flooded waters are generally occupied by submergent wetland plants such as 

pondweeds. 

Pest. “(1) any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or (2) any other form of terrestrial or aquatic 

plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other 

micro-organisms on or in living man or other living animals) which the [U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency] Administrator declares to be a pest under section 25(c)(1)” (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136

et seq.). 

“...living organisms, including invasive plants and introduced or native organisms, that may interfere 

with achieving our management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human 

health or safety” (569 FW 1). 

Planning Team. The primary Service staff and others who played a key role in developing and 

writing the CCP/EA for a refuge. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a planning team leader, the refuge manager and staff biologists, a state 

natural resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-13 

scientists, ecologists, recreation specialists). We also ask other Federal and Tribal natural resource 

agencies to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the CCP and 

appropriate NEPA documentation (620 FW 1.6). 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species that is unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental 

influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

and denotes a general kind of climax plant community (e.g., Oregon white oak woodland). 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best achieve the 

refuge purpose, vision, and goals; to best contribute to the Refuge System mission; to best address 

the significant issues; and to be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Preplanning. The first phase of the CCP planning process. It includes identifying the planning area 

and data needs; establishing the planning team and planning schedule; reviewing available 

information; preparing a public involvement plans and conducting internal scoping. 

Priority Public Uses. Defined in Improvement Act as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Priority Resources of Concern. See Resources of Concern and Focal Species definitions. 

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian Tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who may 

be affected by Service decisions. 

Public Land Order. Public lands consist of that class of land remaining from the original public 

domain that was acquired by the United States by treaty, purchase, or cession from a foreign power. 

Quality. A national wildlife refuge public use program is considered high quality if it:

A. “Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities; 

B. Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior; 

C. Minimizes or eliminates conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or 

objectives in an approved plan; 

D. Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation; 

E. Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners; 

F. Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people; 

G. Promotes resource stewardship and conservation; 

H. Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources; 

I. Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 

J. Uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting; and 

K. Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.” (General Guidelines for 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation, 605 FW 1).

Refuge. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-14 Appendix H. Glossary 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs 

required to meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal mandates. 

It is used as a planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and staffing needs of 

the Refuge System. 

Refuge purpose(s). The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of 

the refuge (620 FW 1.6). 

Refuge System. National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Resource of Concern (ROC). All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities 

specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), Refuge System mission, or international, national, 

regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are 

ROCs on a refuge whose purpose is to protect “migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.” Federal or state 

threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern under terms of 

the respective endangered species acts (Habitat Management Planning Policy, 620 FW1.4). 

Restore. To bring back to a former or original condition. 

Riparian habitat. Refers to an area of habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic 

ecosystems; including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated 

soils that have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly 

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, 

“riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For example 

riparian vegetation includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly 

influenced by the stream. 

Riverine. Flowing perennial to intermittent waters bounded by a channel. This habitat encompasses a 

river or stream, its channel, and the associated aquatic vegetation. 

Sanctuary. At the Willamette Valley Complex, the term sanctuary is used colloquially to mean areas 

that are closed to all public uses during a portion or all of the year. Also see Inviolate Sanctuary. 

Semipermanent Villages. Lasting or intended to last for a long time but not permanent 

Seasonal Wetlands. Areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at 

some time during the growing season (but not year-round). 

Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Scoping. The phase of notifying the public of the opportunity to participate in the planning process to 

help identify issues, concerns, and opportunities related to the project early in the planning process. 

Significant Effect. Use of the term in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity (40 

CFR 1508.27). Context means the significance of an action must be analyzed in its current and 

proposed short- and long-term effects on the whole of a given resource (e.g., affected region). 

Intensity refers to the severity of the effect. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Glossary H-15 

Species of Concern (Federal). Taxa whose conservation status is of concern to the Service (many 

were previously known as Category 2 candidates), but for which further information is still needed. 

Such species receive no legal protection and use of the term does not necessarily imply that a species 

will eventually be proposed for listing. 

Step-down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives (620 FW 1.6). 

Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (620 FW 1.6). 

Thatch. The dense covering of cut grass that remains after mowing. Thatch inhibits growth of new 

grass and also inhibits goose foraging. 

Threatened Species (Federal). An animal or plant species, listed by the Service, as likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species identified by a state wildlife agency as likely 

to become endangered in a state within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

TriMet. Local agency that provides public transportation in the Portland area via bus, commuter rail, 

light rail, and street car. 

Upland prairie/oak savanna. Characterized by widely spaced Oregon oak trees with grassland 

habitats (upland prairie) occurring between them. 

Vegetation type (habitat type, forest cover type). A land classification system based upon the 

concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

The vision statement for the refuge is tied to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the 

refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; and other mandates (620 FW 1.6). 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, 

carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, that 

participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/def_voc.htm)

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Water Quality. A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

Watershed. The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature 

that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often 

a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River Basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-16 Appendix H. Glossary 

Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the 

growing season of each year (660 FW 2; Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Wildlife-dependent recreational use. A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the Administration Act, as amended. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public uses, are those that 

depend on the presence of wildlife. The Service will consider these other uses in the preparation 

of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (620 FW 1.6). 
Appendix I

Contributors to

the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix I. Contributors I-1 

Appendix I. Contributors to the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

I.1 Core Planning Team 

Name Title Organization 

Erin Holmes Project Leader, Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge (TRNWR) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

John Gahr Deputy Refuge Manager, TRNWR USFWS 

Pete Schmidt Wildlife Biologist, TRNWR USFWS 

Kim 

Strassburg 

Visitor Services Manager, TRNWR USFWS 

Valerie 

Morgan 

Biological Technician, TRNWR USFWS 

Tom Miewald Geographer, Division of Refuge Information, Region 1 USFWS 

Scott 

McCarthy 

Planner, Division of Planning and Visitor Services, 

Region 1 

USFWS 

Chris Lapp Former Deputy Refuge Manager, TRNWR (transferred) USFWS 

Ralph Webber Former Project Leader, TRNWR (retired) USFWS 

I.2 Extended Planning Team, Reviewers, and Subject Matter 

Experts 

Name Area of Assistance Organization 

Anderson, Eric Visitor services USFWS 

Austin, Heather City planning City of Sherwood, Oregon 

Bales, Brad Migratory game birds Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) 

Ball, Gary Hydrology USFWS 

Barnes, Susan Nongame wildlife ODFW 

Beall, Jock Wildlife biology, habitat restoration USFWS 

Buerger, Ted Wildlife biology, contaminants USFWS 

Carver, Erin Economic analysis USFWS 

Carver, Kenny Mosquito control Washington County, Oregon 

Christy, John Wetlands ecology Oregon Natural Heritage 

Information Center 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

I-2 Appendix I. Contributors 

Name Area of Assistance Organization 

Engler, Joe Biological goals and objectives USFWS 

Flores, Bob General review USFWS 

Gonzales-Rogers, 

Patrick 

Tribal coordination USFWS 

Grafe, Dawn Visitor services USFWS 

Green, Mike Migratory birds USFWS 

Hagedorn, Greg Fire management plan USFWS 

Harrison, Ben General review USFWS 

Hasti, Matt Visitor services USFWS 

Heimowitz, Paul Climate change USFWS 

Houghten, Chuck CCP quality and consistency USFWS 

Humphreys, 

Brandy 

Tribal interests Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde 

Irvine, Kolleen Law enforcement USFWS 

Kier-Haggenjos, 

Kay 

Writing, editing USFWS 

Kilbride, Kevin Biological goals and objectives, integrated 

pest management 

USFWS 

Lohr, Sam Fisheries biology USFWS 

MacCorkle, Staci Consultant SWCA Environmental 

Consultants 

Mares, Carmella Realty USFWS 

Marxen, Mike Visitor services USFWS 

Mayer, Tim Climate change USFWS 

McCarthy, 

Nicole 

Writing, editing USFWS 

Moore, Steve Consultant Bigfoot Consulting 

Moss, Berk Environmental education Friends of Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Murphy, Maren Visitor services USFWS 

Murtagh, Tom Fisheries biology ODFW 

Nebeker, Mark Wildlife biology ODFW 

Newell, Avis Water quality Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

O’Hara, Kevin National Environmental Policy Act USFWS 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix I. Contributors I-3 

Name Area of Assistance Organization 

Parks, Virginia Cultural resources USFWS 

Patte, David Climate change—Senior Advisor USFWS 

Pearl, Chris Wildlife biology U.S. Geological Survey 

Pendergrass, 

Kathy 

Botany Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

Porter, Laura Water quality Clean Water Services 

Raymond, Anan Cultural resources USFWS 

Rounds, Stuart Hydrology U.S. Geological Survey 

Rutledge, Joe Water management (agricultural) Tualatin Valley Irrigation 

District 

Saul, Susan Consultant Cusy Coyllur Communications 

Schweizter, John Maintenance, facilities USFWS, TRNWR 

Seal, Chris Wildlife biology, habitat restoration USFWS 

Smith, Steve Wildlife biology, habitat restoration USFWS 

Turner, Jim Fisheries biology National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Valentine, Nick Cultural resources USFWS 

Vandebergh, Don Wildlife biology ODFW 

Wall, Lacey CCP quality and consistency USFWS 

West, Robin General review USFWS 

Zonick, Curt Natural resources Metro 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

I-4 Appendix I. Contributors 

Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix J

Acquisition History

© Ed Bustya

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-1 

Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

December 

20, 1991 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

(USFWS; 

Service) 

Urban 

Refuge 

Policy 

Policy: Acquire lands and waters in or adjacent to metropolitan 

statistical areas to protect fish and wildlife resources and habitats that 

will provide the public wildlife-oriented recreation, education, and 

interpretive opportunities. Purpose: Primary purpose for establishment 

of new urban refuges will be to foster environmental awareness and 

outreach programs to develop an informed and involved citizenry that 

will support fish and wildlife conservation. General policy and purpose 

applies to all tracts within the 3,060-acre approved acquisition boundary 

of the refuge. 

February 13, 

1992 

Tualatin 

River 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge 

(Refuge) 

Land 

Protection 

Plan 

Authority: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S. Code 

[U.S.C.] 715 et. seq.). Established a Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. 

Purpose: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds ...” 

Authority: Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

742a-742j). The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to take such steps 

as may be required. Purpose: “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” 

Authority: Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99-645; 100 Stat 3582). Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land 

and Water Conservation Fund monies. Purpose: “for the conservation 

of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...” 

Authority: Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 460L 4-11). Provides funding through receipts 

from the sale of surplus Federal land, appropriations from oil and gas 

receipts from the outer shelf, and other sources for land acquisition 

under several authorities, including the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. General 

authorities and purposes apply to all tracts within the 3,060-acre 

approved acquisition boundary of the refuge. 

February 13, 

1992 

Refuge Land 

Protection 

Plan and 

Environment

al 

Assessment 

(EA) 

Purpose: Established the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge to 

protect, enhance, and manage upland, wetland, and riparian habitats for 

a variety of migratory birds and resident fish and wildlife, as well as for 

the enjoyment of people. 

Oregon’s Natural Heritage Program has referenced Oregon ash and 

Oregon white oak habitats as well as scrub-shrub wetland as among the 

rarest that remain in the Tualatin River Valley, and suggests they be 

considered highest in priority for protection because of their historical 

status and range of importance for promoting biological diversity. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-2 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

General purpose applies to all tracts within the 3,060-acre approved 

acquisition boundary of the refuge. 

December 

31, 1992 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 31a (12.0 acres) donated by Brenner et al. under authority of the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the 

Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

March 21, 

1994 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 59 (9.7 acres) purchased from Cerenghino et al. under authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. 

March 21, 

1994 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 70 (45.8 acres) purchased from Gerda Cerenghino Estate under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

July 22, 

1994 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 84 (99.03 acres) purchased from Naujock Family Trust under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

July 29, 

1994 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 53 (3.8 acres) purchased from Charles Desmond under authority 

of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

October 26, 

1994 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 78, 78a, and 78b (totaling 48.77 acres) purchased from the Claus 

family (Robert J., Susan., Douglas C., Christine E., and R. James) under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-3 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

July 6, 1995 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 40 (47.22 acres) purchased from Edna and David Parr under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Life use of the property was retained under easement. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. 

May 6, 1999 Easement Tract 40 (47.22 acres) purchased from Edna and David Parr under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Life use of the property was purchased under easement. General 

purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land 

Protection Plan and EA. 

August 7, 

1996 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 16 (140.98 acres) purchased from Daniel Dennis under authority 

of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. More specific purposes for management 

are found within the Refuge Mitigation Plan and Compatibility 

Determination for Granting of Easement to Washington County 

Department of Land Use and Transportation. Addressed are 

compensatory mitigation and compatibility requirements for a right-ofway roadway improvement project granted to Washington County, 

Department of Land Use and Transportation. Mitigation was performed 

to offset direct impacts to wetland and upland habitats causing a 

reduction in floodplain capacity and decline in water quality from 

stormwater runoff, and indirect impacts causing wildlife disturbance 

and displacement. Specifically, development conditions were satisfied 

by the County upon 1) restoring and creating 33 acres of emergent and 

forested wetland in a managed basin, 2) creating and restoring 12 acres 

of riparian woodland and emergent wetland swale, 3) restoring 1.5 acres 

of riparian forest swale to enhance backwater habitat for anadromous 

fish, and 4) expanding the floodplain adjacent to the managed wetland 

resulting in no net loss of water-storage capacity. At least 5.1 acres are 

to be managed in perpetuity as the following habitats: 2.99 acres 

forested wetland, 0.8 acre emergent wetland, 1.5 acres riparian forest, 

1.75 acres floodplain habitat. 

September 

5, 1996 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 41 (369.0 acres) purchased from Erhardt Steinborn et ux. under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

September Easement Tract 41c (30.5 acres) purchased from Erhardt Steinborn et ux. under 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-4 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

5, 1996 authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

June 30, 

1997 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 41a (30.5 acres) donated by Erhardt Steinborn et ux. under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ....” General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge 

Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

December 

10, 1998 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 49 (7.99 acres) purchased from Charles Foster under authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. 

February 24, 

1999 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 56 and 56a (totaling 36.51 acres) purchased from Gary White 

under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge 

Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

February 24, 

1999 

Easement Tract 56R (0.2 acre) purchased from Gary White under authority of the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. 

August 1, 

2000 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 89 (131.5 acres) purchased from Larry Oleson, Trustee of the 

Trusts of Alden O. Oleson and Oleta W. Oleson, under authority of the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 1 (48 Stat/401 as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Section 7 

(16 U.S.C. 742f [a][4]), which permit acceptance of funds for the 

acquisition and enhancement of real property. General purpose derived 

from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and 

EA. More specific purposes for acquisition and management are found 

within the memorandum of agreement between USFWS and Bonneville 

Power Administration (BPA) for Refuge Real Property Acquisition and 

Enhancement, and the Oleson Tracts I and II Five-Year Restoration and 

Management Plan. 

October 20, 

1999 

Agreement The agreement provided a mechanism for BPA to fund and USFWS to 

implement projects for the mitigation, enhancement, and permanent 

protection of wildlife habitat to help fulfill BPA’s responsibilities under 

the Northwest Power Act. BPA will receive full credit for Habitat 

Units, including those from both the acquisition of real property 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-5 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

interests and from habitat enhancement activities that are a direct result 

of BPA funding. A five-year restoration and management plan and a 

habitat evaluation procedure analysis were both completed as required 

by BPA. Restoration and enhancement of historically rare seasonal and 

scrub-shrub wetlands, wet meadow prairie, Oregon ash riparian forest, 

mixed coniferous/deciduous forests, and oak savanna communities 

provided an opportunity to compensate for wildlife habitat losses 

resulting from construction and inundation activities at Dexter and 

Detroit Dams. The habitat evaluation procedure analysis for the Oleson 

parcels determined how many habitat units for specific species could be 

credited to BPA. Species targeted for analysis included mink, yellow 

warbler, black-capped chickadee, wood duck, beaver, western 

meadowlark, Wilson’s snipe, mallard, red-tailed hawk, American 

kestrel, ring-necked pheasant, and the black-tailed deer. In general, the 

success of providing beneficial attributes for these species is dependent 

upon achieving goals to restore 30 acres of seasonal emergent wetland, 

15 acres of riparian forest, 10 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, and 120 

acres of oak savanna. 

October 20, 

1999 

Easement Tract 89R (0.5 acre) purchased from Larry Oleson, Trustee of the Trusts 

of Alden O. Oleson and Oleta W. Oleson, under authority of the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 1 (48 Stat/401 as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Section 7 (16 

U.S.C. 742f [a][4]), which permit acceptance of funds for the 

acquisition and enhancement of real property. General purpose derived 

from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and 

EA. More specific purposes for acquisition and management are found 

within the memorandum of agreement between USFWS and BPA for 

Refuge Real Property Acquisition and Enhancement, and the Oleson 

Tracts I and II Five-Year Restoration and Management Plan. 

February 8, 

2001 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 97 (98.25 acres) purchased from Oleson Trusts under authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 1 (48 Stat/401 as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 

Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 742f [a][4]), which permit acceptance of funds for 

the acquisition and enhancement of real property. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. More specific purposes for acquisition and management 

are found within the memorandum of agreement between USFWS and 

BPA for Refuge Real Property Acquisition and Enhancement, and the 

Oleson Tracts I and II Five-Year Restoration and Management Plan. 

December 

23, 1999 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 88 (32.01 acres) purchased from Jack Harmon et ux. under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

February 4, Warranty Tracts 57b and 57c (totaling 30.92 acres) purchased from Dennis Reese 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-6 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

2000 Deed under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge 

Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

February 4, 

2000 

Easement Tracts 57R-1 and 57R-2 (totaling 1.5 acres) purchased from Dennis 

Reese under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge 

Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

February 16, 

2000 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 80 (31.82 acres) purchased from Betty Bissell under authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. General purpose 

derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection 

Plan and EA. 

March 13, 

2000 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 27 (20.4 acres) purchased from Ron and Joann Bump under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

August 8, 

2001 

Agreement Tract 5M (50.0 acres) (Morand property) owned by Metro and managed 

by USFWS under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 

U.S.C. 742) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 

661-667). General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and 

the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. More specific purposes for 

management are found within the intergovernmental agreement 

between USFWS and Metro on behalf of the refuge, and in the 

Restoration Plan for Metro—Morand Property. The intergovernmental 

agreement establishes a framework for managing a portion of the 

Morand property located within the refuge boundary to be administered 

by the Service as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System). As designated land manager, the Service desired to restore and 

manage habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. The 

property is to be managed as open space in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) developed by the refuge, and 

the restoration and management plan for the Morand property. The 

Service is responsible for the designated property on a perpetual basis 

through agreement renewal, as referenced in the Service’s North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act grant application submitted in 

July 1997. The plan articulates a partnership with Metro for the purpose 

of restoring and managing 50 acres of floodplain bottomland on the 

Morand property. The plan states that Morand project objectives are to 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-7 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

restore 13 acres of grassland/savanna, 6 acres of seasonal emergent 

wetland, and 3.5 acres of mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. 

July 9, 2003 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 25 (15.1 acres) purchased from John and Dawn Westphal under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 

Land Protection Plan and EA. 

July 9, 2003 Easement Tract 25R (10.0 acres) donated by John and Dawn Westphal under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge 

Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. 

October 21, 

2005 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 23 (88.3 acres) purchased from Lynn S. and Jane Henriksen under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

The tract is managed under authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, Section 1 (48 Stat/401 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et 

seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 742f 

[a][4]), which permit acceptance of funds for the enhancement of real 

property. General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and 

the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. More specific purposes for 

acquisition and management are found within the memorandum of 

agreement between USFWS and BPA for Refuge Real Property 

Acquisition and Enhancement, and the Oleson Tracts I and II Five-Year 

Restoration and Management Plan. 

October 21, 

2005 

Easement Tracts 23M and 23R (totaling 1.3 acres) purchased from Henriksen 

under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. The tracts are managed under authority of the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 1 (48 Stat/401 as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Section 7 (16 

U.S.C. 742f [a][4]), which permit acceptance of funds for the 

enhancement of real property. General purpose derived from the Urban 

Refuge Policy and the Refuge Land Protection Plan and EA. More 

specific purposes for acquisition and management are found within the 

memorandum of agreement between USFWS and BPA for Refuge Real 

Property Acquisition and Enhancement, and the Oleson Tracts I and II 

Five-Year Restoration and Management Plan. 

December 1, 

2006 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 98 (2.28 acres) purchased from Robert M. Burchfield et ux. under 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Urban Refuge Policy and the Refuge 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-8 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

Land Protection Plan and EA. More specific purposes for acquisition 

and management are found within the Project Summary and Decision 

for the Burchfield Addition. The project land acquisition supported and 

complemented conservation actions of other partners, specifically those 

of the BPA, which funded an adjacent restoration project enhancing 

biological diversity and native landscape habitats for wintering 

waterfowl, breeding songbirds, migrating shorebirds, marshbirds and 

other waterbirds, and habitats supporting federally listed and sensitive 

classified species of fish and wildlife. The addition is a critical link to 

successfully meeting habitat goals in the most effective manner for 

restoring 30 acres of seasonal emergent wetland. 

Purpose and Acquisition History of Establishment Tualatin River NWR – 

Wapato Lake Unit 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

June 11, 1992 Easement 

Deed 

Tract 610c (32.77 acres) transferred from U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Farmers Home Administration to the Service under 

authority of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 

U.S.C. 1981, 1985, and 2002, Section 331, 335, and 354); Executive 

Order 11990; and Executive Order 11988, “providing for the protection 

of wetlands” and “providing for the management of floodplains.” 

August 28, 

1992 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 610a and 610b (totaling 97.16 acres) transferred from USDA 

FmHA to the Service under authority of the Food Security Act of 1985 

(Public Law 99-198) conveying lands suitable as surplus, of marginal 

value for agricultural production, and environmentally sensitive or 

having special management importance for administration as part of the 

Refuge System. 

October 6, 

1992 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 610 (10.98 acres) transferred from USDA FmHA to the Service 

under authority of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198) 

conveying lands suitable as surplus, of marginal value for agricultural 

production, and environmentally sensitive or having special 

management importance for administration as part of the Refuge 

System. 

February, 

2007 

Wapato Lake 

Addition 

Land 

Conservation 

Plan (LCP) 

and EA 

Authority: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. 

seq.). Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to 

approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for 

acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Purpose: “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General authority and purpose applies to all tracts 

within the 4,310-acre approved acquisition boundary of the refuge unit. 

February, 

2007 

Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP 

Purpose: The purpose of the Wapato Lake Unit is to protect, manage, 

and restore habitats for migratory birds, fish, and other native fish and 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-9 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

and EA 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. The Wapato Lake wetland complex supports a variety of 

regionally and nationally important resources benefitting 1) patches of 

remnant rare native habitat such as emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, 

upland and wet meadow prairies, and Oregon ash riparian hardwood 

forests; 2) important migratory bird habitat, especially for wintering 

waterfowl and breeding neotropical songbirds; 3) habitat for 

anadromous fish such as upper Willamette River winter-run steelhead 

and spring-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Pacific lamprey, and 

coastal cutthroat trout; and 4) cultural resources of historical importance. 

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture and Regional Shorebird Management 

Plans identified and targeted Wapato Lake for acquisition and 

restoration due to its historical importance to waterfowl of the 

Willamette Valley and as habitat for shorebirds. Oregon’s Natural 

Heritage Program has referenced Oregon ash and Oregon white oak 

habitats as well as scrub-shrub wetland as among the rarest that remain 

in the Tualatin River Valley, and suggests they be considered highest in 

priority for protection because of their historical status and range of 

importance for promoting biological diversity. 

General purpose applies to all tracts within the 4,310-acre approved 

acquisition boundary of the refuge unit. 

 Wapato Lake 

Migratory 

Bird 

Conservation 

Commission 

Memo #1 

Purpose: Purpose of acquisition is to manage lands as a migration and 

wintering area for waterbirds with special emphasis on tundra swans and 

on developing a breeding area for neotropical migratory birds. Important 

goals of the unit are to restore and protect rare native habitats such as 

wetlands, meadow prairies, and bottomland forests; manage and protect 

migratory bird habitat, especially for wintering waterfowl and breeding 

neotropical migratory birds; and provide opportunities for high-quality 

priority public uses of the Refuge System, including hunting and fishing. 

The unit supports wetlands, prairies, and a riverine complex of 

bottomland forest, all considered imperiled wildlife habitats. 

June 11, 2008 Unique organic peat soils support a relic shrub wetland community 

fringed by Oregon ash and dense stands of wapato, an important food 

source for tundra swan. Imperiled habitats support regionally and 

nationally important wildlife species including waterfowl, shorebirds, 

marshbirds, federally listed anadromous fish, raptors, and breeding 

neotropical migratory birds. Specifically, the Wapato Lake area supports 

populations of tundra swan, mallard, northern pintail, canvasback, ringnecked duck, lesser scaup, and Canada geese including dusky, cackling, 

and Aleutian subspecies. Pacific white-fronted geese use the area as 

well. 

General purpose applies to all tracts within the 4,310-acre approved 

acquisition boundary of the refuge unit. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-10 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

November 12, 

2008 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 662 (40.0 acres) purchased from McCready Family Trust under 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

November 12, 

2008 

Easement Tract 662R (0.8 acre) purchased from McCready Family Trust under 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

December 1, 

2008 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 664 (15.32 acres) purchased from J.A. Watenpaugh et ux. under 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

March 2, 

2009 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 644, 644a, and 644b (totaling 115.14 acres) purchased from 

Dennis Reese et ux. under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by 

the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo 

#1. 

May 4, 2009 Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 656a and 656b (totaling 25.91 acres) purchased from William 

Crop et al. under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo 

#1. 

July 10, 2009 Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 634b and 634c (totaling 24.04 acres) purchased from Bates Farm 

Family Limited Partnership under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-11 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or 

for any other management purpose, for migratory birds ...” General 

purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific 

purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memo #1. 

July 10, 2009 Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 660 and 660a (totaling 33.73 acres) purchased from Ronald H. 

Bates under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

(16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary 

of the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the 

Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the 

Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

July 10, 2009 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 716 (47.01 acres) purchased from Ronald Bates et al. under 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

September 14, 

2009 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 653a and 653c (totaling 48.72 acres) purchased from Furukawa 

Family Trust under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived 

from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo 

#1. 

September 14, 

2009 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 662 (40 acres) purchased from the McCready Family Trust under 

the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

January 25, 

2010 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 646 (3.66 acres) purchased from Gary and Joy Losey under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. 

Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-12 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

February 16, 

2010 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 677 (71.44 acres) purchased from James and Marilyn Beecher 

under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of 

the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

April 20, 

2010 

Personal 

Representativ

es’ Deed 

Tracts 658 a-c (142.63 acres) purchased from the Spry Estate under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using BPA mitigation funds. General purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memo #1. 

May 19, 2010 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 683 (21 acres) purchased from Sandra Childress under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using BPA mitigation funds. General purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memo #1. 

May 19, 2010 Warranty 

Deed 

Tracts 659 a-b (28.76 acres) purchased from Richard and Georgann 

Adamson under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for 

the development, advancement, management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife resources ...” using BPA mitigation 

funds. General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP 

and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

May 19, 2010 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 650a (25.66 acres) purchased from Alvin Van Dyke under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” using BPA mitigation funds. General purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose 

derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memo #1. 

July 11, 2011 Warranty 

Deed 

Tract 717 (32 acres) purchased from William Crop under the authority 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) 

to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for 

acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund “for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Addition LCP 

and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission Memo #1. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Acquisition History J-13 

Date Legal 

Document 

Direction 

January 3, 

2012 

Warranty 

Deed 

Tract X (27.5 acres) purchased from Henry and Roma Ruth Leuthold 

under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715 et. seq.) to approve areas recommended by the Secretary of 

the Interior for acquisition with the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds ...” General purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Addition LCP and EA. Specific purpose derived from the Wapato Lake 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memo #1. 

 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

J-14 Appendix J. Acquisition History 

Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix K

Public Involvement

© Barbara Scoles

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix K. Public Involvement K-1 

Appendix K. Public Involvement 

Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the Tualatin River National Wildlife 

Refuge comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), starting in November 2010. Public involvement 

strategies included communication with federally elected officials (or their aides), Tribal 

governments, key agencies, local refuge users, and the general public. 

Three planning updates were mailed to a mailing list that included over 800 recipients representing 

Federal, local, and state agencies; congressional representatives; state and local elected officials; 

Tribal representatives; nongovernment organizations; businesses; learning institutions; media; private 

landowners; and individual citizens. The refuge also maintained a website where CCP information 

could be found and where the public could provide comments during the scoping phase. 

Two public meetings and one agency meeting were held inviting discussion and soliciting feedback. 

Below is a brief summary of the events, meetings, and outreach tools that were used in our public 

involvement efforts. 

Federal Register Notice 

 November 3, 2010. Federal Register published the Notice of Intent to Prepare a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment; and the Request for 

Comments. 

Coordination with Congressional Representatives and/or Their Aides 

 November 1, 2010. Letter sent to Oregon’s two U.S. Senators and five U.S. Representatives. 

Letter described the start of the CCP process; invited coordination during initial public 

scoping; and provided public meeting dates and times. 

 November 30, 2010. John Valley, aide to U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, attended public open 

house. 

Coordination with Tribes 

 November 1, 2010. Letter to Tribal Chairwoman, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. 

Letter described the start of the CCP process, invited coordination during initial public 

scoping through attendance at public meetings, and/or supplemental meetings directly with 

the Tribe. 

 March 16, 2011. Letter to Tribal Chairwoman, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Letter 

invited Tribe to a face-to-face meeting with refuge staff to discuss tribal input to the CCP. 

 April 13, 2011. Letter to Tribal Chairwoman, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Letter 

invited Tribe to a face-to-face meeting with refuge staff to discuss tribal input to the CCP. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

K-2 Appendix K. Public Involvement 

Coordination with State, Regional, and Local Agencies 

 November 1, 2010. Letter to state, regional, and local agency stakeholders, including Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives. Letter described the start of the CCP 

process; invited coordination during initial public scoping; invited participation in an agency 

scoping meeting; and provided public meeting dates and times. 

 November 16, 2010. Meeting with agency representatives. Refuge hosted a round-table 

discussion to solicit input and feedback on identified issues, opportunities, and concerns. 

Planning Updates 

 November 2010. Planning Update Number 1 described planning process, preliminary issues 

to be considered, and announcement of public meetings. 

 April 2011. Planning Update Number 2 summarized public scoping results, presented draft 

refuge vision statement, and presented draft refuge goals. 

 October 2011. Planning Update Number 3 summarized preliminary alternatives. 

Public Open Houses/Scoping Sessions 

 November 30, 2010 (evening). Public open house for CCP scoping. Sherwood, Oregon. 

 December 2, 2010 (evening). Public open house for CCP scoping. Forest Grove, Oregon. 

Meetings with Local Community Organizations on CCP Issues 

 March 21, 2011. Presentation about the CCP process to the Friends of Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Outreach and Media 

 October 8, 2010. Press release sent to media. Announcement of upcoming public meetings 

published in several regional and community newspapers and newsletters, including The 

Oregonian. 

 October 2010 to present. Website (http://www.fws.gov/tualatinriver/refugeplanning.htm) 

featuring CCP information, public involvement opportunities, reports, and progress. 
Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling L-1 

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling 

L.1 Introduction/Overview 

To identify habitat alternatives, the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge developed a habitat 

modeling exercise to determine what habitats would likely develop if the refuge relied solely on 

natural (flows as they currently exist) flows from the Tualatin River. The essential question that we 

attempt to answer in this analysis can be framed as: Given our current ecological understanding and 

best available data, how much support do we have that current habitat patch x will develop into 

future habitat type y if the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge managed the refuge using the 

current natural flows of the Tualatin River?” 

The refuge was interested in modeling four floodplain habitat types for the refuge: emergent wetland, 

wet prairie, bottomland riparian forest, and scrub-shrub wetland. 

L.2 Methods 

L.2.1 Overview of Methods 

The methods for this modeling exercise incorporate Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 

topographic data, hydrological data from the Farmington Gaging Station, a hydrological model to 

understand the potential future conditions on the refuge under different alternatives, and a decision 

support modeling framework to use the best existing knowledge on soils and current and historical 

vegetation to predict future habitat types (Figure L-1). 

Figure L-1. Steps taken in the modeling process. 

1) Develop 

Terrain Model

2) Collect 

Hydrological 

Data

3) Floodplain 

Modeling

4) Develop 

Decision 

Support 

Model

5) Review and 

Refine

6) Develop 

Alternatives
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

L-2 Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling 

L.2.1.1 Develop a Terrain Model 

LiDAR topographic data were acquired over the entire refuge as part of the Portland Metro LiDAR 

acquisition of 2005-2007. A digital elevation model (DEM) was produced that provides a terrain 

model of these data. 

The LiDAR data were acquired during the fall of 2005. Thus, several of the wetland ponds were full 

of water during the acquisition. This made terrain modeling across the wetland ponds impossible. A 

mixture of ground-based surveys and engineering as-built data provided a data source to “fill-in” the 

flat areas caused by water. These data were collected and “burnt-in” to the LiDAR-based DEM. 

L.2.1.2 Collect Hydrological Data 

Daily data were gathered over a 20-year period from the Farmington Gaging Station located about 8 

miles upstream of the nearest refuge unit. From this, we developed hydrographs (Figure L-2) that 

depict the frequency that river levels on the Tualatin reached for particular heights. 

Figure L-2. Average and peak river level at Farmington Gage. 

L.2.1.3 Floodplain Modeling 

Hydrological modeling was conducted using a set of ArcGIS tools for floodplain and riparian areas, 

the Riparian Topography Toolbox (Dilts et al. 2009). This method works primarily by developing 

height above river (HAR) layers. The HAR outputs can be used to calculate ecologically important 

variables such as inundation area with some knowledge of the terrain, high-resolution LiDAR data, 

and information on the stream gage. 

Average and Peak River Level at Farmington Gage 

2002 - 2010

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

120.00

125.00

130.00

135.00

140.00

1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep

Date

River Elevation

Flood Stage

Average Stage

Peak flow 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling L-3 

The first step was to develop a HAR layer. For this, we needed the LiDAR DEM and a binary 

stream/not-stream data layer. A kernel size of 3,500 meters was used to determine the height of the 

surrounding landscape above the river. Larger kernel sizes mean that larger stretches of river are 

being averaged. HAR is estimated by subtracting the elevation from the weighted average of the river 

elevation. The elevation was simply subtracted from the river elevations to come up with HAR. 

Then, flood scenarios were developed for different river elevations at an increment of 0.5 foot, 

starting at 118 feet (see Figures L-3 to L-5), which is normal river winter flow. 

The Riparian Topography Toolbox has an algorithm that takes the flows of the river at a given height 

and develops a flow model based upon least cost path estimates. For the water to flow realistically 

across the landscape, we had to refine the LiDAR DEM. This included doing typical “hydroenforcement,” or removing structures that impede the flow of water on the LiDAR data such as 

levees and culverts. 

Figure L-3. Floodplain model at 118 feet. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

L-4 Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling 

Figure L-4. Floodplain model at 128 feet. 

Figure L-5. Floodplain model at 132 feet. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling L-5 

L.2.1.4 Decision Support Modeling 

The process outlined above provides modeling for the planners to know how frequently a patch of 

vegetation is flooded by the flows of the Tualatin River. The next step involved incorporating these 

data with other information including soils and vegetation. 

Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) provides a flexible tool for managers to assess 

various scenarios with a quantifiable amount of certainty that an outcome will occur. From a 

geographic information system (GIS) perspective, it provides many advantages to traditional overlay 

analyses. In concept, EMDS provides functionality that is similar to combining different layers into 

an index. However, it uses formal logic operators, combined with methods and concepts from fuzzy 

logic and knowledge-based decision support (Reynolds et al. 2000). Using EMDS, a “knowledge 

base” is developed that articulates formal logic specifications of how attributes relate to a 

proposition. For example, one of our propositions is that “scrub-shrub wetlands will develop over 

time.” The attributes in our knowledge base to support this proposition are flooding frequency, soils, 

and current and historical vegetation. EMDS allows the user to specify the “good” and “poor” 

qualities of these attributes to support the proposition. For example, we know that areas that are not 

flooded are “poor” for supporting scrub-shrub wetland. Instead of merely a binary “good” and 

“poor,” EMDS allows fuzzy gradations between good and poor, which is more realistic in the real 

world. 

The decision support model was developed with the refuge biologist. The initial exercise involved 

the refuge biologist providing suitability scores for soils, historical vegetation, current vegetation, 

and flooding frequency. These scores were translated to the EMDS system. A score of +1 indicates 

“Full Support” for the proposition, and a score of −1 indicates “No Support” for the proposition, with 

varying levels of support in between. 

 For example, if the refuge biologist determined that a high frequency of flooding was highly suitable 

in terms of supporting scrub-shrub wetlands, then that characteristic would get a +1. If the biologist 

determined that a certain soil type would never support scrub-shrub wetlands, then that characteristic 

would receive a score of −1. Or, if the current vegetation type is an indicator that scrub-shrub 

wetlands are not likely, but would be possible if other characteristics were favorable, then an 

intermediate score of .25 or .50 would have been given to that attribute. 

As noted, four attributes were used in the decision support model. Below is a list of the attributes, 

their rationale, and source data. 

 Flood Frequency 

o Rationale: Predicted flood frequency is a primary influence on potential wetland 

types. 

o Data source: Described in the water modeling section. 

 Soils 

o Rationale: Soil types are a good indicator of potential vegetation types. For example, 

Labish Mucky Clays are very likely to support scrub-shrub wetlands. 

o Data source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soils Survey data (SSURGO), 

Washington County. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

L-6 Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling 

 Current Vegetation 

o Rationale: Current vegetation type provides some support for what could develop. It 

also provides support for where habitat will not develop. For example, developed 

areas will remain developed in the future. 

o Data source: Vegetation map developed by the refuge in 2007. 

 Historical Vegetation 

o Rationale: Historical vegetation provides another piece of evidence to support the 

habitat propositions. For example, if an area was historically oak savanna, it would 

provide low support for an emergent wetland proposition. 

o Data source: Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

Each patch of vegetation was given a score that is a summary of the four different attributes. 

L.2.1.5 Review and Refine the Model 

The results are spatial depictions of the amount of support for the different habitat types of interest. 

This could be interpreted as a suitability model. It is similar in concept, but what is being quantified 

is the amount of support for a given proposition. Higher scores from −1 to 1 indicate higher support. 

Figures L-6 to L-9 provide spatial depictions of all the different habitat types that were assessed. 

L.2.1.6 Development of Alternatives 

Refuge staff spent a day going over the modeling results. This provided the science-based data that 

facilitated the decision-making process. 

Figure L-6. Decision support for emergent wetland. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling L-7 

Figure L-7. Decision support for wet prairie 

Figure L-8. Decision support for bottomland riparian forest. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

L-8 Appendix L. Hydrological Modeling 

Figure L-9. Decision support for scrub-shrub wetland. 

L.3 Conclusion 

It is important to note that the modeling exercise didn’t make the decision, but rather provided 

support for the final alternative decisions. Models and data played an important role in the alternative 

development dialogue. 
Appendix M

References

© Eric Vogt

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-1 

Appendix M. References 

Adamcik, R.S., E.S. Bellantoni, D.C. DeLong, Jr., J.H. Schomaker, D.B. Hamilton, M.K. Laubhan, 

and R.L. Schroeder. 2004. Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 34 pp. 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

Akcakaya, H.R., S.H.M. Butchart, G.M. Mace, S.N. Stuart, and C. Hilton-Taylor. 2006. Use and 

misuse of the IUCN Red List Criteria in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity. 

Global Change Biology 12:2037-2043. 

Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 120 pp. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 169 pp. 

Anderson, S.H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. Pages 157-168 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

Anthony, R.G., G.A. Green, E.D. Forsman, and S.K. Nelson. 1996. Avian abundance in riparian 

zones of three forest types in the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 108(2):280-

291. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2004. Guidance manual for the 

assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology. Atlanta, GA. 62 pp + 

appendices. 

Bachelet, D., B.R. Johnson, S.D. Bridgham, P.V. Dunn, H.E. Anderson, and B.M. Rogers. 2011. 

Climate change impacts on western Pacific Northwest prairies and savannas. Northwest 

Science 85(2):411-429. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.085.0224. 

Accessed June 2012. 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and 

Risk Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA. 358 

pp. 

Baird, D.D. and R.R. Tolman. 1982. Attitudes of high school students and biology teachers towards 

animals. Unpublished manuscript. Field Museum of Natural History, Division of Mammals. 

Chicago, IL. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-2 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 15 pp. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and transformation 

products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343. 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management lands in 17 western states, programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land 

Management. Reno NV. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturb antropico su una popolazinoe di germane reale Anas 

platyrhynchos (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas 

platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Bouffard, S. and M.A. Hanson. 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:146-157. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

Branscomb, A. 2002. In: D. Hulse, S. Gregory, and J. Baker, eds. Willamette River basin planning 

atlas. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. 

BioScience 54:77-88. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan, 

2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. 60 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-3 

Buccola, N.L., M. Doyle, J. Goldman, and S.A. Rounds. ca 2010. Wapato Lake water management 

planning study: draft proposal. U.S. Geological Survey, Oregon Water Science Center. 

Portland, OR. 10 pp. 

Buckley, P.A. and F.G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially 

nesting waterbirds. National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office. Boston, MA. 52 

pp. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effects of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93:259-265. 

Burger, J., C. Jeitner, K. Clark, and L.J. Niles. 2004. The effect of human activities on migrant 

shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environmental Conservation 31(4):283-288. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service. Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: Lewis 

Publishers. 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 2012a. Western equine encephalitis virus neuroinvasive disease 

cases reported by state, 1964-2010. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/arbor/arbocase/wee_600px.jpg. Accessed January 3, 2012. 

CDC 2012b. West Nile Virus: questions and answers. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/who_risk.htm. Accessed July 3, 2012. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A., Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological control. Pages 245-263 in: D. 

Simberloff, D. Schmitz, and T. Brown. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of 

nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Chawla, Louise. 1988. Children’s concern for the natural environment. Children’s Environments 

(5)3. 

Christy, J.A., A. Kimpo, V. Marttala, and N.L. Christy. 2006. Rare plants and vile weeds: urbanizing 

flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2006. Native Plant Society of Oregon, Occasional Paper 

Number 3. Eugene, OR. 238 pp. 

CIG. (Climate Impacts Group). 2008. Climate change scenarios. Joint Institute for the Study of the 

Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) Center for Science in the Earth System (CSES), University 

of Washington. Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/ci.shtml#anchor2. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-4 Appendix M. Bibliography 

GIG. 2011. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Available at: 

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/. Accessed June 2012. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University. Logan, UT. 

Colvin, R., G.R. Guillermo, J. Li, K.L. Boyer, and W.J. Gerth. 2009. Fish use of intermittent 

watervourses draining agricultural lands in the upper Willamette River Valley, Oregon. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1302-1313. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Graftham Water. In P.S. Maitland and A.K. 

Turner, eds. Angling and wildlife in fresh waters. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Symposium 

19:15-22. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Creative Methods. 2011. U.S. air quality gradebook: emission gradesheets. Available at: 

http://www.creativemethods.com/airquality/emission/index.htm. Accessed August 1, 2011. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468. 

CWS (Clean Water Services). 2011. Tualatin River flow management technical committee – 2010 

annual report. Available at: 

http://www.co.washington.or.us/watermaster/surfacewater/upload/flowreport2010.pdf. 222 

pp. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978). Environmental 

Reporter 11:873. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix L in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and 

boundary revision, volume II. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 1. Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2001. Appendix I - Tualatin River subbasin water 

quality management plan. 76 pp. 

DEQ 2011a. Request for comment – proposed settlement for former Frontier Leather and Ken Foster 

farm sites. Available at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/publicnotices/uploaded/110629_4349_PN%20Frontier%20L

eather%20KFF%20Settlement%20Request%20Comment%20-

%20Final%20Draft%20(DEQ)%20.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2011. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-5 

DEQ. 2011b. Public review – proposed consent judgment. Available at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/Webdocs/Controls/Output/PdfHandler.ashx?p=9c2ef86d-6f23-

4f33-b165-94f35b829b90.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2011. 

DEQ. 2011c. 2010 Oregon air quality data summaries. Available at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/2010annualReport.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2011. 

DEQ. 2011d. Fact sheet – working for clean water in the Tualatin River sub-basin. Available at: 

http:www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/factsheets/tmdls/TualatinFactSheet.pdf. Accessed 9 July 

2012. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon Magazine: Jan-Feb. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Drut, M. and J. Buchanan. 2000. Northern Pacific Coast regional shorebird management plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 30 pp. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association, Monograph No. 1. West Lafayette, ID. 

Dwyer, N.C. and G.W Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson Bulletin 

104:22-31. 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446 (7 March):19-21. 

Elsner, M.M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J.S. Deems, A.F. Hamlet, J.A. Vano, K.E.B. Mickelson, S. Lee, and 

D.P. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of 

Washington State. Climate Change 102:225-260, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9855-0. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to 

microbial pest control agents by the respiratory route to nontarget avian species. EPA/600/3-

90/070. Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 

EPA. 1998a. Re-registration eligibility document, Bacillus thuringiensis. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA738-98-004. Washington, D.C. 157 pp. 

EPA. 1998b. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from pesticides and their uses: background, 

methodology and case study. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Washington, D.C. 105 pp. 

EPA. 2001. Pesticide fact sheet—methoprene. Washington, D.C. 9 pp. 

EPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S EPA. Endangered and threatened species effects determinations. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Washington, D.C. 101 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-6 Appendix M. Bibliography 

EPA. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment. Analysis phase: exposure 

characterization; approaches for evaluating exposure; granular, bait, and treated seed 

applications. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

EPA. 2005b. User’s guide TREX v1.2.3. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. 22 pp. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. Accessed 

June 2012. 

EPA. 2012. Pesticide inert ingredients. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html. 

Accessed June 2012. 

Erwin, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

EXTOXNET (Extension Toxicology Network). 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. 

Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, 

Oregon State University, University of Idaho, University of California-Davis, and the 

Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. 4 pp. 

Federal Register. 2005. Endangered and threatened species: designation of critical habitat for 12 

evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, 

and Idaho. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2005/09/02/05-

16391/endangered-and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-12-

evolutionarily-significant. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Federal Register 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: listing of nine evolutionarily 

significant units of Chinook salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead. Available 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-08-02/pdf/99-19712.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Federal Register. 1999b. Endangered and threatened species: threatened status for three Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and endangered 

status for one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-03-24/pdf/99-6815.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kanaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Fordham, D.A., H.R. Akcakaya, M.B. Araujo, J. Elith, D.A. Keith, R. Pearson, T.D. Auld, C. Mellin, 

J.W. Morgan, T.J. Regan, M. Tozer, M. Watts, M. White. B.A. Wintle, C. Yates, and B.W. 

Brook. 2012. Plant extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range shifts alone a 

good indicator of species vulnerability to global warming? Global Change Biology 

18(4):1357-1371. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald 

eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Page 286 in: 

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-7 

and J. Woodling, eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted 

western wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium. Boulder, CO: Thorne Ecological 

Institute. 

Friends of the Refuge. 2011. The friends. Available at: 

http://www.friendsoftualatinrefuge.org/The_Friends/index.cfm. Accessed July 12, 2011. 

Gedalof Z., D.L. Peterson, and N.J. Mantua. 2005. Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls on 

extreme wildfire years in the Northwestern United States. Ecological Applications 15:154-

174. 

Geist, C., J. Liao, S. Libby, and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Does intruder group size and orientation 

affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28(1):69-73. 

Glinski, R.L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: the need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 

30(3):655-657. 

GLO (General Land Office). 1852. Survey plat, T2S, R1W. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView1_2.php?path=POR&name=t020s010w

_001.jpg. 

Goose Depredation Task Force – SB 622. 2010. Final Recommendations. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/OGCTF/docs/Final_Recomendations_Goose_%20Depred

ation_%20Task%20Force.pdf. 

Grist.org. Urban outfitters: The Nature Conservancy goes to the city. Greg Hanscom. February 9, 

2012. Available at: http://grist.org/cities/urban-outfitters-the-worlds-largest-conservationgroup-goes-to-the-city/. 

Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:500-511. 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on 

flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43:W06427, 

doi:10.1029/2006WR005099. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Heitmeyer, M.E. and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in 

California. Final report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La 

Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of 

California, Davis. 200 pp. 

Hellmann, J.J., J. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Duke. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3):534-543. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-8 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Henning, J.A., R.E. Gresswell, and I.A. Fleming. 2007. Use of seasonal freshwater wetlands by 

fishes in a temperate river floodplain. Journal of Fish Biology 71:476-492. 

Hershey, A.E., L. Shannon, R. Axler, C. Ernst, and P. Mickelson. 1995. Effects of methoprene and 

Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) on non-target insects. Hydrobiologia 308:219-

227. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationship between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 

House of Representatives. 1997. Report 105-106 on National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Refuges/policiesandbudget/HR1420_part1.html. 

Huber, M. and R. Knutti. 2011. Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s 

energy balance. Nature Geoscience (published online):December 4, 2011. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pp. 

Independent Sector. 2011. Value of volunteer time. Available at: www.independentsector.org. 

Accessed June 28, 2012. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007a. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds.]. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and 

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

IPCC. 2007b. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III 

to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Geneva, 

Switzerland. 104 pp. 

IPCC. 2008. Climate change 2007 synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to 

the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, 

Switzerland. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 33. 212 pp. 

Jeffres, C.A., J.J. Opperman, and P.B. Moyle. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best 

growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environmental Biology 

of Fish 83:449-458. 

Jerrick, N. 2001. Restoring a river of life: the Willamette restoration strategy. Recommendations for 

the Willamette Basin supplement to the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Willamette 

Restoration Initiative. Portland, OR. 29 pp. 

Jose, J. 1997. Evaluation of the effect of environmental education classes on waterfowl behavior. 

Unpublished report. Biology 454 class, Eastern Washington University. Cheney, WA. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-9 

Keller, V. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in an 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58:213-228. 

Kellert, S.R. and M.O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors towards 

animals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pp. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 103 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48(3):999-1004. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of avian scavenging guild to anglers. 

Biological Conservation 56:195-205. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986a. Methodological problems in studies of avian nest defense. 

Animal Behavior 34:561-566. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986b. Nest defense in the American goldfinch. Animal Behavior 

34:887-897. 

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986c. Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the 

nesting cycle? Auk 103:318-327. 

Kress, S.W. 1975. A study of the modification of children’s negative attitudes towards animals. 

Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. 

Kushlan, J.A, M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, 

R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002 

Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Washington, D.C., 78 pp. 

LaHart, D.E. 1974. The influence of knowledge on young people’s perceptions about wildlife. Final 

project report to the National Wildlife Federation. College of Education, Florida State 

University. Tallahassee, FL.
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-10 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Larsen, D. 2003. Interpretive process model – meaningful interpretation: how to connect the hearts 

and minds to places, objects, and other resources. Eastern National and National Parks 

Service. 

Lawler, J.J., M. Mathias, A. Yahnke, and E. Girvetz. 2008. Oregon’s biodiversity in a changing 

climate. Prepared for the Climate Leadership Initiative, University of Oregon. University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 55 pp. 

Leader, K.A. 2001. Distribution and abundance of fish, and measurement of available habitat in the 

Tualatin River Basin outside of the urban growth boundary. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 63 pp. 

Leung, L.R., Y. Qian, X. Bin, W.M. Washington, J. Han, and J.O. Roads. 2004. Mid-century 

ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States. Climatic Change 

62:75-113. 

Loomis, J.B. 1993. Integrated public lands management: principles and applications to national 

forests, parks, wildlife refuges and BLM lands. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 

Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah, editors. 2005. Climate change and biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. 

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature deficit disorder. New York, 

NY: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Mannan, W.R. and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Bird populations and vegetation characteristics in managed 

and old-growth forests, northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1219-

1238. 

Martin, T.E. and J.L. Marin. 2012. Climate impacts on bird and plant communities from altered 

animal-plant interactions. Nature Climate Change 2:195-200. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-11 

Miller, R.E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Clinton. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. IMPLAN system (2008 data and software). Stillwater, MN. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Morton, J.M., R.L. Kirkpatrick, M.R. Vaughan, and D.F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and 

movements of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:390-400. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts, eds. 

Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement, and management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third 

edition. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council 

Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(1):39-49. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salathé. 2009. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter 1 in: J. Littell, 

M.M. Elsner, L.W. Binder, A. Snover, eds. The Washington climate change impacts 

assessment. Seattle, WA: Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 102(1-

2):29-50. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive plant 

species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education). 2004. Environmental 

education materials: guidelines for excellence. Washington, D.C. 30 pp. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Global surface temperature. Available at: 

https://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#globaltemp. Accessed March 2012. 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-12 Appendix M. Bibliography 

NAWMP (North American Waterfowl Management Plan) Committee. 2004. North American 

waterfowl management plan 2004. Strategic guidance: strengthening the biological 

foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Secretaria de 

Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 22 pp. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011a. A paleo perspective on global 

warming. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html. Accessed 

July 11, 2011. 

NOAA. 2011b. The instrumental record of past global temperatures. Available at: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html. Accessed July 11, 2011. 

Norling, B.S., S.H. Anderson, and W.A. Hubert. 1992. Roost sites used by sandhill crane staging 

along the Platte River, Nebraska. Great Basin Naturalist 52(3):253-261. 

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a 

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological Service, Biological 

Report 28. 95 pp. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Healthy parks healthy people US: strategic action plan. National 

Park Service Health and Wellness Executive Steering Committee. 27 pp. 

OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules). 2011. OAR 603-073-0001, Division 73. Plants: wildflowers 

and endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Available at: 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_603/603_073.html. Accessed 

September 28, 2011. 

OCCRI (Oregon Climate Change Research Institute). 2010. Oregon climate assessment report. In: 

K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote, eds. Oregon climate assessment report. College of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. Available at: 

http://www.occri.net/OCAR. Accessed 12 July 2011. 

ODA (Oregon Department of Agriculture). 2012. Noxious weed policy and classification system 

2012. Salem, OR. 10 pp. 

ODA. 2011. 2007 census data. Available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/news/090422rankings.shtml. Accessed August 1, 2011. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. Oregon’s elk management plan. Portland, 

OR. 58 pp.

ODFW. 2006. Oregon conservation strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. 

375 pp + appendices. 

ODFW. 2008. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. 12 pp. 

ODFW. 2011a. 2011 trout stocking sites. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/trout_stocking_schedules/2011/willamette/2011

_NWWD_Stocking_Sites.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2011. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-13 

ODFW. 2011b. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife history, 1792-2000. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/history.asp. Accessed August 2, 2011. 

ODFW. 2011c. ODFW radio-tagging coho bound for upper Willamette. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2009/september/093009.asp. Accessed August 10, 2011. 

ODFW. 2011d. Oregon sport fishing regulations. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us. Accessed 

June 2012. Salem, OR. 110 pp. 

OPRD (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department). 2008. Outdoor recreation in Oregon: the 

changing face of the future. 2008-2012 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan. Salem, OR. 64 pp. Available at: 

http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/docs/scorp/2008_Scorp_Final_Web.pdf. 

OPRD. 2011. Bald peak state scenic viewpoint. Available at: 

http://www.oregonstateparks.org/park_110.php. Accessed July 12, 2011. 

Oregon Department of Human Services. 2012. News release: Oregon records first St. Louis 

encephalitis case in 30 years. Available at: 

http://www.oregonjobs.org/DHS/news/2003news/2003-0926.shtml. Accessed January 3, 

2012. 

Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force. 2010. Oregon environmental literacy plan: toward a 

sustainable future. Available at: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2886. 

Oregon Health Authority. 2011. Selected reportable communicable disease summary. Portland, OR. 

110 pp. 

OSU (Oregon State University). 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, pesticide 

information profiles. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

OSU. 2011. Washington County extension service. Available at: 

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/washington/agriculture. Accessed August 1, 2011. 

Otak, Inc. 2009. Cedar Creek trail feasibility study. Prepared for the City of Sherwood. Lake 

Oswego, OR. 54 pp. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Palmberg, I. and J. Kuru. 2000. Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal 

of Environmental Education 31(4):32-36. 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review 

of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37(1):637-669. 

Parmesan, C., C. Duarte, E. Poloczanska, A.J. Richardson, and M.C. Singer. 2011. Overstretching 

attribution. Nature Climate Change 1:2-4 doi:10.1038/nclimate1056. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-14 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Pearson, S.F. and D.A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding bird response to riparian buffer widths in managed 

Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 11(3) pp. 840-853. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proenca, R. Alkemade, J. P.W. Scharlemann, J.F. FernandezManjarrés, M.B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W.W.L. Cheung, L. Chini, H.D. Cooper, 

E.L. Gilman, S. Guénette, G.C. Hurtt, H.P. Huntington, G.M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. 

Revenga, P. Rodrigues, R.J. Scholes, U.R. Sumaila, M. Walpole. 2010. Scenarios for global 

biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496-1501. 

PFC (Pacific Flyway Council). 1998. Pacific Flyway management plan, northwest Oregon/southwest 

Washington. Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Control. Portland, OR. 53 pp. 

PFC. 1999. Pacific Flyway management plan for the cackling canada goose. Portland, OR. 60 pp. 

PFC. 2000. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific population of Western Canada geese. 

Portland, OR. 30 pp. 

PFC. 2001. Pacific Flyway management plan for the western population of tundra swans. Portland, 

OR. 47 pp. 

PFC. 2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the dusky canada goose. Dusky canada goose 

Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study Committee. Portland, OR. 54 pp. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA, and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

Popowski, T.A. 1996. Geology, structure, and tectonic history of the Tualatin Basin, northwestern 

Oregon. Master’s thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis. 142 pp. 

Portland Business Journal. 2011. Portland U.S’s 23rd largest metro area. Available at: 

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/2011/06/portland-uss-23rd-largest-metroarea.html?ed=2011-06-24&s=article_du&ana=e_du_pub. Accessed August 1, 2011. 

Raftovich, R.V., K.A. Wilkins, S.S Williams, H.L. Spriggs, and K.D. Richkus. 2011. Migratory bird 

hunting activity and harvest during the 2009 and 2010 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Laurel, MD. 68 pp. 

Rahel, F.J. and J.D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. 

Conservation Biology 22(3):521-533. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-15 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington: protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension. Pullman, WA. 12 pp. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Remacha, C., J. Pérez-Tris, and J.A. Delgado. 2011. Reducing visitors’ group size increases the 

number of birds during educational activities: implications for management of nature-based 

recreation. Journal of Environmental Management 92(6):1564-1568. 

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from 

human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9(1):89-99. 

Rosenzweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, et al. 2008. Attributing physical and biological impacts to 

anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453:353-357. 

Roth, E., B. Taylor, and E. Scheuering. 2004. Pacific Coast joint venture implementation plans: 

Willamette Valley (Draft). Prepared for Oregon Habitat Joint Venture. West Linn, OR. 26 pp. 

Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C. and J.A. Pounds. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57-60. 

Sakai, H.F. and B.R. Noon. 1991. Nest-site characteristics of Hammond’s and Pacific-slope 

flycatchers in northwestern California. Condor 93:563-574. 

Salathé, E.P., L.R. Leung, Y. Qian, Y. Zhang. 2010. Regional climate model projections for the State 

of Washington. Climatic Change 102(1-2):51-75. 

Schneider, S.H. and T.L. Root, editors. 2002. Wildlife responses to climate change, North American 

case studies. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

SDTF (Spray Drift Task Force). 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray Drift 

Task Force. Macon, MO. 

Sharp, J. 2000. Case teaching notes for “Something’s fishy in Paston Lake: speciation in 

sticklebacks.” British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Joslin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana chapter, Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Skagen, S.S. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 

Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. Seattle, WA. 

Smith, R.M. 1991. Urban refuge policy. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C. 3 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-16 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, 

J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. 

Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. 

Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, 

and D. Wratt. 2007. Technical summary. Pages 19-91 in: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, 

Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, eds. Climate change 2007: 

the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY and Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglasfir forests in Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNWGTR. Pacific Northwest Research Station No. 285. Corvallis, OR. 

Steel, Z.L., M. Wilkerson, P. Grof-Tisza, and K. Sulzner. 2011. Assessing species and area 

vulnerability to climate change for the Oregon Conservation Strategy: Willamette Valley 

Ecoregion. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Defenders of 

Wildlife. Conservation Management Program, University of California, Davis. 

Strauss, E.G. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a 

population of piping plovers subjected to human disturbances. Ph.D. dissertation. Tufts 

University. Medford, MA. 

SWCA (SWCA Environmental Consultants). 2010a. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge visitor 

services mini-review for the comprehensive conservation plan. Portland, OR. 32 pp. 

SWCA. 2010b. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Forest Grove public scoping meeting for the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Portland, OR. 31 pp. 

Taft, O.W. and S.M. Haig. 2003. Historical wetlands in Oregon’s Willamette Valley: implications for 

restoration of winter waterbird habitat. Wetlands 23(1):51-64. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Thilenius, J.F. 1968. The Quercus Garryana Forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Ecology 

49(6):1124-1133. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and 

waterbird symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, Canada. 

Titus, J.H., J.A. Christy, D. VanderSchaaf, J.S. Kagan, and E.R. Alverson. 1996. Native wetland, 

riparian, and upland plant communities and their biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. 

Report to Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, WA. 58 pp. 

Trouet, V., A.A. Taylor, A.M. Carleton, and C.M. Skinner. 2006. Fire-climate interactions in forests 

of the American Pacific Coast. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L18704. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-17 

Trust for Public Lands. 2003. The excellent city park system: what makes it great and how to get 

there. Written by Peter Harnik. Washington, D.C. 43 pp. 

TRWC (Tualatin River Watershed Committee). 1998. Tualatin River Watershed technical 

supplement. Available at: http://www.trwc.org/tualatininfo/documents/Tech_Supp_Report.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2012. 106 pp. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 

United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. Indigenous knowledge in Africa: what is indigenous 

knowledge? Available at: http://www.unep.org/ik/Pages.asp?id=About IK. Accessed June 

2012. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. Office of Pesticide 

Programs, EPA. Washington, D.C. 94 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. State and county quickfacts – Sherwood Oregon. Available at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4167100.html. Accessed December 15, 2011. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1982. Soil survey of Washington County, Oregon. USDA 

Soil Conservation Service. 138 pp. + appendices. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2011. Regional economic accounts, Washington, D.C. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Available at: www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htmw. Accessed 

November 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration restoration and development. Office of 

Science, Office of Fossil Energy. 26 pp. Available at: http://www.orni.gov/carbon_seq. 

USDOI (U.S. Department of Interior). 2009. Secretarial Order 3226, Amendment 1. Available at: 

http://206.131.241.18/app_so/act_getfiles.cfm?order_number=3226A1. Accessed July 11, 

2011. 

USDOI. 2009. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement: issuance of annual regulations 

permitting the hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Migratory Bird Management. Portland, OR. 

USDOI. 2011. Bureau of Reclamation. Available at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Scoggins+Dam&groupName=Overvie

w. Accessed July 12, 2011. 

USDOI, USFWS, and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, D.C. 163 pp. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program: preventing and 

managing invasive plants. Final environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. 359 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-18 Appendix M. Bibliography 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). No date. Considering cultural resources: a reference 

manual for employees. Region 1 Cultural Resources Team. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/HistoricPreservation/employeeTraining/pdfs/culturalResourcesOverview

.pdf. 

USFWS. 1992a. Environmental assessment, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 75 pp. 

USFWS. 1992b. Memorandum from field supervisor, Portland Field Station, Portland, OR, to 

assistant regional director, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Region 1, Portland, OR. Level I 

pre-acquisition contaminant survey. Portland, OR. 10 pp. 

USFWS. 1994. The Native American policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nativeamerican/PDFs/NAPolicy.pdf. Accessed March 2012. 

12 pp. 

USFWS. 1996. 341 FW 1: Policy and responsibilities, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

USFWS. 1998. Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) recovery plan. Portland, OR. 69+ pp. 

USFWS. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management. 

Arlington, VA. 99 pp. 

USFWS. 2002b. Wildland Fire Management Plan, Tualatin River NWR. Sherwood, OR. 51 pp. On 

file at refuge headquarters. 

USFWS. 2003a. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, environmental assessment, Wildlife 

Center and visitor services facilities, Washington County, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Portland, OR. 318 pp. 

USFWS. 2003b. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife Center: audiences and visitation. 

Fact sheet. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: avid, casual, and intermediate participation trends. 

Report 2001-5. Arlington, VA. 49 pp. Available at: 

http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2001_trends.pdf. 

USFWS. Dec 2005a. National Wildlife Refuge System, visitation estimation workbook. Arlington, 

VA. 80 pp. 

USFWS. 2005b. Interim guidance for mosquito management on national wildlife refuges. 

FWS/ANRS-NR-WR/020301. Washington, D.C. 20 pp. 

USFWS. 2007a. Pacific Region partners for fish and wildlife and coastal program strategic plan. 

Division of Ecological Services. Portland, OR. 169 pp. 

USFWS. 2007b. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Wapato Lake Unit addition, land 

conservation plan and environmental assessment, Washington and Yamhill Counties, 

Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 104 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-19 

USFWS. 2008a. National Wildlife Refuge System birder friendly refuge. USFWS. Arlington, VA. 2 

pp. 

USFWS. 2008b. Agency overview: conserving the nature of America. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pdfs/AgencyOverviewTransition2009.pdf. Accessed January 2012.

USFWS. 2009a. Fee collection at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, OR. Notice of intent to 

implement fee collection. 74(30) Federal Register 7471-7472. 

USFWS. 2009b. Visitor services standards: a handbook for evaluating visitor service programs, draft. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

USFWS. 2009c. Identifying resources of concern and management priorities for a refuge: a 

handbook. Draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 61 pp. 

USFWS. 2010a. Refuge annual performance plan. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. On file, 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Sherwood, OR. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 2010b. Recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern 

Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. xi + 241 pp. 

USFWS. 2010c. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

USFWS. 2010d. History of refuge establishment and preliminary purposes: Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge. On file, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Sherwood, OR. 25 pp. 

USFWS. 2011a. Willamette Valley conservation study area. Portland, OR. 4 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/OR/WVCS.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

USFWS. 2011b. Pacific Flyway data book – Draft 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, 

OR. 111 pp. 

USFWS. 2011c. Waterfowl population status, 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior, Laurel, MD. 79 

pp. 

USFWS. 2011d. The economic effects of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge’s comprehensive 

conservation plan: baseline and alternatives. Division of Economics. Arlington, VA. 17 pp. 

USFWS. 2011e. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges and the next generation vision document. 

Washington, D.C. 93 pp. 

USFWS. 2011f. Hunting – What do hunters do for conservation? Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html. Accessed November 28, 2011. 

USFWS. 2011g. 2010 annual report. Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/pdf/MBCC_2010.pdf. 50 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-20 Appendix M. Bibliography 

USFWS. 2012. Personal communication between Mary Lindenber and Gary Ball, USFWS Region 1 

Water Resources Division, and Erin Holmes, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, May 

22, 2012. 

USFWS and USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2010. National wildlife refuge system visitor survey. 

OMB Control Number #1018-0145. Fort Collins, CO. 12 pp. 

USGCRP (United States Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate change impacts in 

the United States. Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. National climate assessment, Pacific 

Northwest chapter. Available at: 

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/first-nationalassessment/475. Accessed June 2012. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota: current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. Sacramento, 

CA. 4 pp. 

USGS. 2008. Oregon Water Science Center active projects – PN356: Tualatin River Basin water 

quality assessment. Available at: http://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/pn356/pn356.html. 

Accessed July 9, 2012. 

Vesely, D. and G. Tucker. 2004. A landowner’s guide for restoring and managing Oregon white oak 

habitats. Pacific Wildlife Research. BLM Publication AE-05/008-5820. Salem, OR. 67 pp. 

Ward, D.L., ed. 1995. Distribution of fish and crayfish, and measurement of available habitat in the 

Tualatin River Basin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. ii + 68 pp. 

Waring, R.H., N.C. Coops, and S.W. Running. 2011. Predicting satellite-derived patterns of largescale disturbances in forests of the Pacific Northwest Region in response to recent climatic 

variation. Remote Sensing of Environment 115:3554-3566. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Weisbrod, G. and B. Weisbrod. 1997. Measuring economic impacts of projects and programs. 

Economic Development Research Group. Boston, MA. 11 pp. 

Westerling A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940-943. Available at: 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940. Accessed June 2012. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wilhelm, G. 2004. The realities of CO2: seeing through the smog of rhetoric and politics. 

Conservation Design Forum. Elmhurst, IL. 7 pp. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Bibliography M-21 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior technical guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf. Accessed May 2012. 

Wilkes, C. 1845. Narrative of the United States exploring expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 

1840, 1841, 1842. Volume IV. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Blanchard. 

Willis, C.G., B.R. Ruhfel, R.B. Primack, A.J. Miller-Rushing, J.B. Losos, and C.C. Davis. 2010. 

Favorable climate change response explains non-native species’ success in Thoreau’s woods. 

PLoS One 5(1): e8878. 

Wilson, D.C. 1998. Post-middle Miocene geologic evolution of the Tualatin Basin, Oregon. Oregon 

Geology 60(5):September/October. 

Wilson, R.A. 1997. The wonders of nature: honoring children’s ways of knowing. Early Childhood 

News 6(19). 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. 

Wood, A.K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest and wildlife population management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 21:91-95. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 8 

pp. 

Yalden, P.E. and D. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers (Pluvialis 

apricarious). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 

Zenk, H. 1976. Contribution to Tualatin ethnography: subsistence and ethnobiology. Master’s thesis, 

Portland State University, Department of Anthropology. Portland, OR. 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

M-22 Appendix M. Bibliography 

Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

© Wade Pettitt

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-1 

Appendix N. List of Refuge Species 

This is a list of species that have been documented currently on the refuge. More species are 

expected to be added to this list upon conducting additional surveys.

Birds 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Grebes (family Podicipedidae)

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Cormorants (family Phalacrocoracidae) 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets (family Ardeidae) 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Green Heron Butorides virescens 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Ibises and Spoonbills (family Threskiornithidae) 

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 

New World Vultures (family Cathartidae) 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks (family Anatidae) 

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Black Brant Branta bernicla nigricans 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Cackling Canada Goose Branta canadensis minima 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-2 Appendix N. List of Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Dusky Canada Goose Branta canadensis occidentalis 

Emperor Goose Chen canagica 

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Lesser Canada Goose Branta canadensis parvipes 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Tavener's Canada Goose Branta canadensis taverneri 

Tule White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons gambeli 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Western Canada Goose Branta canadensis moffitti 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Osprey (family Pandionidae) 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Kites, Hawks, and Eagles (family Accipitridae) 

Bald Eagle† Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-3 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 

Falcons and Caracaras (family Falconidae) 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Gallinaceous Birds (order Galliformes- families Odontophoridae, Phasianidae) 

California Quail Callipepla californica 

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Rails (family Rallidae) 

American Coot Fulica americana 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

Cranes (family Gruidae) 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 

Plovers (family Gruidae) 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Stilts and Avocets (family Recurvirostridae)

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

Sandpipers and Phalaropes (family Scolopacidae) 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-4 Appendix N. List of Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata 

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns (family Laridae) 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 

Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia 

California Gull Larus californicus 

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri 

Mew Gull Larus canus 

Stilts and Avocets (family Columbidae) 

Band-tailed Pigeon† Patagioenas fasciata 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Rock Pigeon Columba livia 

Barn Owls (family Tytonidae) 

Barn Owl Tyto alba 

Typical Owls (family Strigidae) 

Barred Owl Strix varia 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Northern Pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

Western Screech Owl Megascops kennicottii 

Swifts (family Apodidae) 

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi 

Hummingbirds (family Trochilidae) 

Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-5 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

Kingfishers (family Alcedinidae) 

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers (family Picidae) 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber 

Tyrant Flycatchers (family Tyrannidae) 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

Olive-sided Flycatcher† Contopus cooperi 

Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis 

Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus 

Willow Flycatcher† Empidonax traillii 

Shrikes (family Laniidae) 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireos (family Vireonidae) 

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii 

Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Crows, Jays, and Magpies (family Corvidae)

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Common Raven Corvus corax 

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

Western Scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica 

Swallows (family Hirundinidae) 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-6 Appendix N. List of Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Purple Martin† Progne subis 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

Titmice and Chickadees (family Paridae)

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens 

Bushtits (family Aegithalidae)

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus 

Nuthatches (family Sittidae) 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers (family Certhiidae) 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana 

Wrens (family Troglodytidae) 

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus 

Kinglets (family Regulidae) 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes (family Turdidae) 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius 

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Starlings (family Sturnidae) 

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris 

Wagtails and Pipits (family Motacillidae) 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-7 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Waxwings (family Bombycillidae) 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Wood Warblers (family Parulidae) 

Black-throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

MacGillivray's Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei 

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata 

Townsend’s Warbler Setophaga townsendi 

Wilson’s Warbler Cardellina pusilla 

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia 

Yellow-breasted Chat† Icteria virens 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata 

Tanagers (family Cardinalidae) 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Sparrows and Towhees (family Emberizidae) 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies (family Cardinalidae) 

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena 

Blackbirds and Orioles (family Icteridae) 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-8 Appendix N. List of Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Finches (family Fringillidae) 

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria 

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Old World Sparrows (family Passeridae) 

House Sparrow* Passer domesticus 

*=Introduced Species 

†= Species of Concern 

Mammals 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Brush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani 

California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Douglas Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii 

Eastern Fox Squirrel* Sciurus niger 

Feral Cat* Felis catus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Mouse-eared Bat Myotis spp. 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-9 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Nutria* Myocastor coypus 

Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

River Otter Lontra canadensis 

Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus 

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea 

Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Townsend's Chipmunk Tamias townsendii 

Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii 

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 

Virginia Opossum* Didelphis virginiana 

Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus 

Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama 

*=Introduced Species

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Alligator lizard Elgaria sp. 

Bullfrog* Rana catesbeiana 

Chorus Frog Pseudacris regilla 

Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii 

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum macrodactylum 

Northern Red-legged Frog† Rana aurora aurora 

Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile 

Red-eared Slider* Trachemys scripta elegans 

Red-spotted Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis concinnus 

Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 

Rubber Boa Charina bottae 

Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta belli 

Western Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata 

Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-10 Appendix N. List of Species 

*=Introduced Species 

†= Species of Concern 

Fish 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus

Catfish* Ictalurus sp. 

Coastal Cutthroat Trout† Oncorhynchus clarki ssp 

Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio 

Mosquito fish* Gambusia affinis 

Pacific Lamprey† Lampetra tridentata 

Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus 

Sculpin Cottus sp. 

Smallmouth Bass* Micropterus dolomieu 

Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 

Warmouth* Chaenobryttus gulosus 

Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni 

White Crappie* Pomoxis annularis 

*=Introduced Species 

†= Species of Concern 

Invertebrates 

Dragonflies and Damselflies (order Odonata) 

Common Name Species Name 

Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis 

California Darner Aeshna californica 

Cardinal Meadowhawk Sympetrum illotum 

Common Green Darner Anax junius 

Common Whitetail Plathemis lydia 

Eight-spotted Skimmer Libellula forensis 

Pacific Forktail Ischnura cervula 

Spot-winged Glider Pantala hymenaea 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-11 

Dragonflies and Damselflies (order Odonata) 

Common Name Species Name 

Striped Meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes 

Tule Bluet Enallagma carunculatum 

Twelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella 

Variegated Meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum 

Western Forktail Ischnura perparva 

Western Pondhawk Erythemis collocata 

Freshwater Mussels (family Margaritiferidae) 

Common Name Species Name 

Western Pearlshell Mussel Margaritifera falcata 

Aquatic Invertebrates (identified to order) 

Common Name Order 

Backswimmer Hemiptera 

Caddisfly Trichoptera 

Copepods Copepoda 

Cranefly Diptera 

Crawling Water Beetle Coleoptera 

Crayfish Decapoda 

Dobsonfly Neuroptera 

Fairy Shrimp Anostraca 

Fingernail Clam Veneroida 

Giant Waterbug Hemiptera 

Mayfly Ephemeroptera 

Mosquito Diptera 

Orb Snail Basommatophora 

Phantom Midge Diptera 

Predaceous Diving Beetle Coleoptera 

Scud Amphipoda 

Sowbug Isopoda 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-12 Appendix N. List of Species 

Aquatic Invertebrates (identified to order) 

Common Name Order 

Water Boatman Hemiptera 

Water Scavenger Beetle Coleoptera 

Water Scorpion Hemiptera 

Water Strider Hemiptera 

Whirligig Beetle Coleoptera 

Plants 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Velvetleaf* Abutilon theophrasti 

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 

Vanilla Leaf Achlys triphylla 

Pathfinder Adenocaulon bicolor 

Maidenhair Fern Adiantum pedatum 

Lanceleaf Water Plantain* Alisma lanceolatum 

Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica 

Field Garlic* Allium vineale 

Powell’s Amaranth* Amaranthus powellii 

Ragweed* Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Scarlet Pimpernel* Anagallis arvensis 

Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea 

Three-leaved Anemone Anemone deltoidea 

Corn Chamomile* Anthemis arvensis 

Stinking Chamomile Anthemis cotula 

Bur Chervil* Anthriscus caucalis 

Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium 

Red Columbine Aquilegia formosa 

Mouseear Cress* Arabadopsis thaliana 

Hairy Rockcress Arabis hirsuta 

Greater Burdock* Arctium lappa 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-13 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Wild Ginger Asarum caudatum 

Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina 

Fat Hen Atriplex patula 

Mexican Mosquitofern Azolla mexicana 

American Winter Cress Barbarea orthoceras 

English Daisy* Bellis perennis 

Nodding Beggarticks Bidens cernua 

Three-lobed Beggarticks Bidens tripartita 

Deer Fern Blechnum spicant 

Black Mustard* Brassica nigra 

Crown Brodiaea Brodiaea coronaria 

Clustered Moss Bryum pseudotriquetrum 

Pond Water-starwort Callitriche stagnalis 

Morning-glory* Calystegia microcarpus 

Small Camas Camassia quamash 

Shepherd’s Purse* Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Nuttall’s Bitter-cress Cardamine nuttallii 

Western Bitter-cress Cardamine occidentalis 

Few-seeded Bitter-cress Cardamine oligosperma 

Italian Thistle* Carduus pycnocephalus 

Slender-beaked Sedge Carex athrostachya 

Dense Sedge Carex densa 

Greensheath Sedge Carex feta 

Henderson’s Sedge Carex hendersonii 

Tapefruit Shortscale Sedge Carex leptopoda 

Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 

Chamisso Sedge Carex pachystachya 

Sawbeak Sedge Carex stipata 

One-sided Sedge Carex unilateralis 

Awlfruit Sedge Carex stipata 

Spotted Knapweed* Centaurea stoebe 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-14 Appendix N. List of Species 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Doubtful Chickweed* Cerastium dubium 

Big Chickweed* Cerastium fontanum 

Sticky Chickweed* Cerastium viscosum 

Coon’s Tail Ceratophyllum demersum 

Spotted Sandmat* Chamaesyce maculata 

Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium 

Lambsquarters* Chenopodium album 

Chicory* Cichorium intybus 

Enchanter’s Nightshade Circaea alpina 

Canada Thistle* Cirsium arvense 

Edible Thistle Cirsium edule 

Bull Thistle* Cirsium vulgare 

Farewell-to-spring Clarkia amoena 

Winecup Clarkia Clarkia purpurea 

Miner's-lettuce Claytonia perfoliata 

Candy Flower Claytonia sibirica 

Western Clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

Yerba Buena Clinopodium douglasii 

Poison-hemlock* Conium maculatum 

Field Bindweed* Convolvulus arvensis 

Candian Horseweed* Conyza canadensis 

Nursery Cotoneaster* Cotoneaster buxifolius 

Five-angled Dodder Cuscuta pentagona 

Strawcolored Flatsedge Cyperus erythrohizos 

Queen Anne’s Lace* Daucus carota 

Tansy Mustard Descurainia pinnata 

Deptford Pink* Dianthus armeria 

Northern Saitas Dichelostemma congestum 

Pacific Bleeding Heart Dicentra formosa 

Fuller’s Teasel* Dipsacus fullonum 

Showy Downingia Downingia elegans 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-15 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Willamette Downingia Downingia yina 

Whitlow Grass Draba verna 

False Dog Fennel Dyssodia papposa 

Needle Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis 

Ovate Spikerush Eleocharis ovata 

Common Spikerush Eleocharis palustris 

Small Spikerush Eleocharis parvula 

Fewflower Spikerush Eleocharis quinqueflora 

Autumn Willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum 

Chaparral Willowherb Epilobium minutum 

Tall Willowherb Epilobium palustre 

Swamp Willowherb Epilobium densiflorum 

Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre 

Giant Horsetail Equisetum telmateia 

Philadelphia Daisy* Erigeron philadelphicus 

Fleabane Daisy Erigeron strigosus 

Oregon Sunshine Eriophyllum lanatum 

Redstem Stork’s Bill* Erodium cicutarium 

Oregon Coyote Thistle Eryngium petiolatum 

Wormseed Wallflower* Erysimum cheiranthoides 

Giant White Fawnlily Erythronium oregonum ssp oregonum 

California Poppy Eschschoizia californica 

Petty Spurge* Euphorbia peplus 

Roughleaf Aster Eurybia radulina 

Japanese Knotweed* Polygonum cuspidatum 

Woodland Strawberry Fragaria vesca 

Coastal Strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 

Virginia Strawberry Fragaria virginiana 

Checker Lily Fritillaria affinis 

Cleavers Bedstraw Galium aparine 

Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-16 Appendix N. List of Species 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Oregon Bedstraw Galium oreganum 

Threepetal Bedstraw Galium trifidum ssp.columbianum 

Cut-leaved Geranium* Geranium dissectum 

Shiny Leaf Geranium* Geranium lucidum 

Dovefoot Geranium* Geranium molle 

Herb-Robert* Geranium robertianum 

Largeleaf Avens Geum macrophyllum 

Bluehead Gilia Gilia capitata 

Western Marsh Cudweed* Gnaphalium palustre 

Marsh Cudweed* Gnaphalium uliginosum 

Bractless Hedgehyssop Gratiola ebracteata 

English Ivy* Hedera helix 

Tawny Daylily* Hemerocallis fulva 

Cowparsnip Heracleum maximum 

Coral Bells Heuchera glabra 

Pacific Waterleaf Hydrophyllum tenuipes 

St. Johnswort* Hypericum perforatum 

Hairy Cat’s Ear* Hypochaeris radicata 

Orange Balsam* Impatiens capensis 

Douglas Iris Iris douglasiana 

Oregon Iris Iris tenax 

Tapertip Rush Juncus acuminatus 

Toad Rush Juncus bufonius 

Common Rush Juncus effusus 

Spreading Rush Juncus patens 

Poverty Rush Juncus tenuis 

Pointed Rush Juncus oxymeris 

Prickly Lettuce* Lactuca serriola 

Spotted Henbit* Lamium maculatum 

Purple Deadnettle* Lamium purpureum 

Nipplewort Lapsana communis 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-17 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Purple Peavine Lathyrus nevadensis 

Sweetpea* Lathyrus odoratus 

Leafy Pea Lathyrus polyphyllus 

Pacific Pea Lathyrus vestitus 

Duckweed* Lemna minor 

Fall Dandelion* Leontodon autumnalis 

Hairy Hawkbit* Leontodon taraxacoides 

Field Pepperweed* Lepidium campestre 

Oxeye Daisy* Leucanthemum vulgare 

Celeryleaf Licorice-root Ligusticum apiifolium 

Columbia Lily Lilium columbianum 

False-pimpernel Lindernia dubia 

Barestem Biscuitroot Lomatium nudicaule 

Orange Honeysuckle Lonicera ciliosa 

Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hispidula 

Twinberry Honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata 

Bird’s-foot Lotus* Lotus corniculatus 

Small-flowered Lotus Lotus micranthus 

Spanish-Clover Lotus purshianus 

Sicklekeel Lupine Lupinus albicaulis 

Miniature Lupine Lupinus bicolor 

Bigleaf Lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 

Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanus 

Spatulaleaf Loosestrife* Lythrum portula 

Purple Loosestrife* Lythrum salicaria 

Elegant Tarweed Madia elegans 

Small Tarweed Madia exigua 

Slender Tarweed Madia gracilis 

Coast Tarweed Madia sativa 

Feathery False Lily of the valley Maianthemum racemosum 

Starry False Lily of the Valley Maianthemum stellatum 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-18 Appendix N. List of Species 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Common Mallow* Malva neglecta 

Disc Mayweed* Matricaria discoidea 

Black Medick* Medicago lupulina 

Common Balm* Melissa officinalis 

Sweetclover* Melilotus alba 

Wild Mint* Mentha arvensis 

Pennyroyal* Mentha pulegium 

Stinky Mint Mentha villosa 

Seep Monkeyflower Mimulus guttatus 

Linearleaf Snapdragon Misopates orontium 

Largeleaf Sandwort Moehringia macrophylla 

Indianpipe Monotropa uniflora 

Blinking Chickweed Montia fontana 

Narrowleaf Minerslettuce Montia linearis 

Changing Forget-me-not* Myosotis discolor 

Bay Forget-me-not Myosotis laxa 

Spring Forget-me-not Myosotis verna 

Tiny Mousetail Myosurus minimus 

Western Watermilfoil Myriophyllum hippuroides 

Daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus 

Skunkbush Navarretia squarrosa 

Smallflower Nemophila Nemophila parviflora 

Water Parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa 

Sweetcicely Osmorhiza berteroi 

Redwood-Sorrel Oxalis oregana 

Suksdorf Woodsorrel Oxalis suksdorfii 

Yellow Glandweed* Parentucellia viscosa 

Rydberg’s Penstemon Penstemon rydbergii 

Gardner’s Yampah Perideridia gairdneri 

Fragrant Popcornflower Plagiobothyrus figuratus 

Scouler’s Popcornflower Plagiobothyrus scouleri 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-19 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Narrowleaf Plantain* Plantago lanceolata 

Common Plantain* Plantago major 

Shortspur Seabrush Plectritis congesta 

Water Knotweed Polygonum amphibium 

Prostrate Knotweed* Polygonum arviculare 

Japanese Knotweed* Polygonum cuspidatum 

Curlytop Knotweed* Polygonum lapathifolium 

Spotted Ladysthumb* Polygonum persicaria

Licorice Fern Polypodium glycyrrhiza 

Sword Fern Polystichum munitum 

Little Hogweed* Portulaca oleracea 

Leafy Pondweed Potamogeton foliosus 

English Cinquefoil* Potentilla anglica 

Slender Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis 

Drops-of-gold Prosartes hookeri 

Common Selfheal* Prunella vulgaris 

Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum 

Tall Buttercup Ranunculus acris 

Lesser celandine* Ranunculus ficaria 

Lesser Buttercup Ranunculus flammula 

Western Buttercup Ranunculus occidentalis 

Redbacked Buttercup Ranunculus orthorhynchus 

Smallflower Buttercup* Ranunculus parviflorus 

Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens 

Celery-leaved Buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus 

Little Buttercup Ranunculus uncinatus 

Cultivated Radish* Raphanus sativus 

Bluntleaf Yellowcress Rorippa curvipes 

Curvepod Yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua 

Bog Yellowcress Rorippa palustris 

Sheep Sorrel* Rumex acetosella 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-20 Appendix N. List of Species 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Curled Dock* Rumex crispus 

Toothed Dock* Rumex dentatus 

Mountain Sorrel Rumex pauciflorus 

Willow-leaved Dock Rumex salicifolius 

Redveined Dock* Rumex sanguineus 

Wigeon Grass Ruppia maritime 

Wapato Sagittaria latifolia 

Pacific Blacksnakeroot Sanicula crassicaulis 

Flaxleaf Plainsmustard* Schoenocrambe linifolia 

Softstem Bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Small-flowered bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 

Blue Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora 

Oregon Stonecrop Sedum oreganum 

Tansy Ragwort* Senecio jacobaea 

Old-man-in-the-Spring* Senecio vulgaris 

Meadow Checker-mallow Sidalcea campestris 

Nelson’s Checker-mallow† Sidalcea nelsoniana 

Dwarf Checkerbloom Sidalcea malviflora 

Sleepy Silene* Silene antirrhina 

Wild Mustard* Sinapis arvensis 

Hedgemustard* Sisymbrium officinale 

American Black Nightshade Solanum americanum 

Climbing Nightshade* Solanum dulcamara 

Buffalobur* Solanum rostratum 

Field Sowthistle* Sonchus arvensis 

Spiny Sowthistle* Sonchus asper 

Common Sowthistle* Sonchus oleraceus 

Simple-stemmed Bur-reed Sparganium emersum 

Hooded Lady’s Tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana 

Common Duckmeat Spirodela polyrrhiza 

Coastal Hedgenettle* Stachys chamissonis 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-21 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Mexican Hedgenettle Stachys mexicana 

Curled Starwort Stellaria crispa 

Chickweed* Stellaria stellaria 

Hall’s Aster Symphyotrichum hallii 

Douglas Aster Symphyotrichum subspicatum 

Common Tansy* Tanacetum vulgare 

Common Dandelion* Taraxacum officinale 

Bigflower Tellima Tellima grandiflora 

Fendler’s Meadow-rue Thalictrum fendleri 

Claspleaf Pennycress* Thlaspi perfoliatum 

Youth-on-age Tolmiea menziesii 

Pacific Poison Oak Toxicodendron diversilobum 

Goatsbeard* Tragopogon sp. 

Starflower Trientalis borealis 

Rabbitfoot Clover* Trifolium arvense 

Strawberry Clover* Trifolium fragiferum 

Alsike Clover* Trifolium hybridum 

Crimson Clover* Trifolium incarnatum 

White Clover* Trifolium repens 

Subterranean Clover* Trifolium subterraneum 

Arrowleaf Clover* Trifolium vesiculosum 

Pacific Trillium Trillium ovatum 

Smallflower Wakerobin Trillium parviflorum 

White Brodiaea Triteleia hyacinthina 

Broadleaf False Carrot* Turgenia latifolia 

Common Cattail Typha latifolia 

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica ssp. gracillis 

White Insideout Flower Vancouveria hexandra 

California False Hellebore Veratrum californicum 

Moth Mullein* Verbascum blattaria 

Common Mullein* Verbascum thapsus 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-22 Appendix N. List of Species 

Herbaceous (forbs) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American Speedwell Veronica americana 

Water Speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica 

Corn Speedwell* Veronica arvensis 

Threadstalk Speedwell* Veronica filiformis 

Neckweed Veronica peregrina 

Skullcap Speedwell Veronica scutellata 

Thymeleaf Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia 

American Vetch* Vicia americana 

Bird Vetch* Vicia cracca 

Tiny Vetch* Vicia hirsuta 

Garden Vetch* Vicia sativa 

Slender Vetch Vicia tetrasperma 

Hookedspur Violet Viola adunca 

Stream Violet Viola glabella 

Common Whipplea Whipplea modesta 

Canada Cocklebur* Xanthium strumarium 

False Carrot* Yabea microcarpa 

*=Introduced Species 

†= Species of Concern 

Grasses 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Spike Bentgrass Agrostis exarata ssp monolepsis 

Spike Bentgrass Agrostis exarata ssp exarata 

Silver Hairgrass* Aira caryophyllea 

Water Foxtail* Alopecurus geniculatus 

Meadow Foxtail* Alopecurus pratensis 

Pacific Foxtail Alopecurus saccatus 

Sweet Grass Anthoxanthum odoratum 

Wild Oat* Avena fatua 

Slough Grass* Beckmannia syzgichne 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-23 

Grasses 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Soft Brome* Bromus hordeaceus 

Ripgut Brome* Bromus rigidus 

Alaska Brome Bromus sitchensis 

California Brome Bromus carinatus 

Bermudagrass* Cynodon dactylon 

Orchardgrass* Dactylis glomerata 

California oatgrass Danthonia californica 

Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa 

Annual Hairgrass Deschampsia danthonoides 

Slender Hairgrass Deschampsia elongata 

Purple Foxglove* Digitalis purpurea 

Hairy Crabgrass* Digitaria sanguinalis 

Barnyard Grass* Echinochloa crusgallii 

Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus 

Tall Fescue* Festuca arundinacea 

Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 

Meadow Fescue* Festuca pratensis 

Red Fescue Festuca rubra 

Common Velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 

Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 

Meadow Barley Hordeum brachyantherum 

Foxtail Barley* Hordeum jubatum 

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Rice Cutgrass* Leersia oryzoides 

Italian Ryegrass* Lolium multiflorum 

Perennial Ryegrass* Lolium perenne 

Witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Knotgrass Paspalum disitichum 

Reed Canarygrass* Phalaris arundinacea 

Timothy Phleum pratense 

Idaho Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium idahoense 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-24 Appendix N. List of Species 

Grasses 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Golden Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium californicum 

Brome Fescue Vulpia bromoides 

*=Introduced Species 

Shrubs 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Vine Maple Acer circinatum 

Saskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 

Canadian Serviceberry* Amelanchier canadensis 

Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 

Redstem Ceanothus Ceanothus sanguineous 

Snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus 

European Centaury Centaurium erthraea 

Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea 

Beaked Hazlenut Corylus cornuta var. californica 

Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 

Red Hawthorn* Crataegus monogyna 

Scotch Broom* Cytisus scoparius 

Western Wahoo Euonymus occidentalis 

Salal Gaultheria shallon 

English Holly Ilex aquifolium 

Hollyleaved Barberry Mahonia aquifolium 

Cascade Barberry Mahonia nervosa 

Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis 

Mock-Orange Philadelphus lewisii 

Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 

Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 

Sticky Gooseberry Ribes lacustre 

Red-flowering Currant Ribes sanguineum 

Baldhip Rose Rosa gymnocarpa 

Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

Appendix N. List of Species N-25 

Shrubs 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Dwarf Rose Rosa pisocarpa 

Himalayan Blackberry* Rubus armeniacus 

Evergreen Blackberry* Rubus lacianatus 

Whitebark Raspberry Rubus leucodermis 

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 

Trailing Blackberry Rubus ursinus 

Narrowleaf Willow Salix fluviatilis 

Geyer Willow Salix geyeriana 

Dune Willow Salix hookeriana 

Pacific Willow Salix lucida 

Scouler’s Willow Salix scouleriana 

Northwest Sandbar Willow Salix sessilifolia 

Sitka Willow Salix sitchensis 

Black Elderberry Sambucus nigra 

Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa 

Climbing Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 

Buffalobur Nightshade Solanum rostratum 

Douglas Spiraea Spiraea douglasii var. douglasii 

White Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 

Creeping Snowberry Symphoricarpos hesperius 

Red Huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium 

Common Viburnum Viburnum ellipticum 

*=Introduced Species 

Trees 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Grand Fir Abies grandis 

Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 

Red Alder Alnus rubra 

Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 

N-26 Appendix N. List of Species 

Trees 

Common Name Scientific Name 

European White Birch* Betula pendula 

Incense Cedar* Calocedrus decurans 

Pacific Dogwood Cornus nuttallii 

Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 

Black Walnut* Juglans nigra 

Pacific Crab Apple Malus fusca 

Engelmann Spruce* Picea engelmannii 

White Spruce* Picea glauca 

Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 

Longleaf Pine* Pinus australis 

Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera trichocarpa 

Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides 

Bitter Cherry Prunus emarginata 

Cultivated Cherry* Prunus mahaleb 

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Common Pear* Pyrus communis 

Garry Oak Quercus garryana 

Weeping Willow* Salix sepulcralis 

Pacific Yew Taxus brevifolia 

Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 

Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 

California Laurel Umbellularia californica 

*=Introduced Species
Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

USFWS

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Page 1 of 40

 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

2012
Page 2 of 40

Prepared By: 

__________________________________________ _________ 

Greg Hagedorn, Zone Fire Management Officer Date 

Submitted By: 

__________________________________________ _________ 

Erin Holmes, Project Leader Date 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Review: 

__________________________________________ _________ 

Pam Ensley Date 

Regional Fire Management Coordinator 

Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Concurrence: 

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Bob Flores, Refuge Supervisor Date 

 Pacific Region, National Wildlife Refuge System 

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Robin West, Regional Chief, Date 

Pacific Region, National Wildlife Refuge System 

 

Approved: 

__________________________________________ _________ 

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director Date 

Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Page 3 of 40

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Purpose of the Fire Management Plan .................................................................... 5

1.2. General Description of the Area in the Fire Management Plan .............................. 6

1.3. Significant Values to Protect .................................................................................. 8

1.3.1. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 8

1.3.2. Fish and Wildlife..................................................................................................... 8

1.3.3. Structures and Facilities .......................................................................................... 9

2. Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships ................................................ 9

2.1. Implementation of Fire Policy ................................................................................ 9

2.1.1. Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy .............................................................. 9

2.1.2. National Fire Plan ................................................................................................. 10

2.1.3. U.S. Department of Interior Fire Policy ................................................................ 10

2.1.4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Fire Policy ........................................................................ 10

2.2. Land/Resource Management Planning ................................................................. 11

2.2.1. Land resource management documents ................................................................ 11

2.2.2. Compliance with Regulatory Acts ........................................................................ 11

2.3. Fire Management Partnerships ............................................................................. 11

2.3.1. Internal Partnerships ............................................................................................. 11

2.3.2. External Partnerships ............................................................................................ 12

3. Fire Management Units Characteristics ....................................................................... 12

3.1. Area-Wide Considerations .................................................................................... 12

3.1.1. Fire Management Organization ............................................................................ 12

3.1.2. The History of Prescribed Fire at the Refuge ....................................................... 12

3.1.3. Management Goals, Objectives, and Constraints in the CCP ............................... 12

3.1.3.1. Goals for Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge .................................. 12

3.1.3.2. Specific Resource Management Goals Related to Fire Management ....... 13

3.1.3.3. Objectives for Fire Management at the Refuge ........................................ 14

3.1.3.4. Specific Fire Management Objectives ...................................................... 14

3.2. Fire Management Units ......................................................................................... 15

3.2.1. Fire Management Units—Specific Descriptions .................................................. 15

3.2.2. FMU 1—Sherwood ............................................................................................... 15

3.2.3. FMU 2—Wapato Lake ......................................................................................... 16

4. Wildland Fire Operational Guidance ........................................................................... 17

4.1. Preparedness ......................................................................................................... 18

4.2. Detection ............................................................................................................... 19

4.3. Communications ................................................................................................... 19

4.4. Dispatch, Initial Response and Initial Attack ....................................................... 19

4.5. Extended Attack and Large Fire Management ..................................................... 20

4.6. Aviation Operations .............................................................................................. 20

4.7. Reviews and Investigations................................................................................... 20

4.8. Reports .................................................................................................................. 20

4.9. Hazardous Fuels Management .............................................................................. 21
Page 4 of 40

4.9.1. Prescribed Fire Program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitat Restoration ............... 21

4.9.1.1. Program Overview .................................................................................... 21

4.9.1.2. Prescribed Burn Program Objectives ........................................................ 21

4.9.1.3. Effect of National and Regional Preparedness Levels .............................. 22

4.9.1.4. Project Planning ........................................................................................ 22

4.9.1.5. Project Implementation ............................................................................. 23

4.9.1.6. Smoke Management .................................................................................. 23

4.9.1.7. After Action Reviews and Escaped Fire Reviews .................................... 24

4.9.1.8. Reports ...................................................................................................... 24

4.9.2. Non-Fire Hazard Fuels Treatment Program ......................................................... 24

4.9.3. Process to Identify Hazard Fuels Treatments ....................................................... 24

4.10. Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation ................................... 24

4.11. Prevention, Mitigation and Education .................................................................. 25

4.11.1. Prevention/Mitigation ........................................................................................... 25

5. Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................ 26

5.1. Fire Management Plan Monitoring ....................................................................... 26

5.1.1. Annual Fire Management Plan Review ................................................................ 26

5.2. Hazard Fuels Treatment Monitoring ..................................................................... 26

5.3. Fire Critiques ........................................................................................................ 26

5.4. Fire Management Terminology ............................................................................ 26

Appendix A. Directory (update annually) ...................................................................... 27

Appendix B. Fire Management—Roles and Responsibilities ........................................ 28

Appendix C. Fire Danger Indices ................................................................................... 31

Appendix D. Dispatching Plans ..................................................................................... 34

Appendix E. Memorandum of Understanding, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue ......... 35

Appendix F. Memorandum of Understanding, Gaston Rural Fire Department ............ 36

Appendix G. Example: Delegation of Authority to Incident Commanders ................... 37

Appendix H. Annual Review Check List ....................................................................... 38

Appendix I. Zone FMO Area of Responsibility ........................................................... 39

Figures

Figure 1: Tualatin River NWR ....................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Regional Vicinity Map of Tualatin River NWR ............................................................. 6

Figure 3: Sherwood Units Land Status on Tualatin River NWR .................................................... 7

Figure 4: Land Status Wapato Lake on Tualatin River NWR ........................................................ 8

Figure 5: FMU 1 (Sherwood) ....................................................................................................... 16

Figure 6: FMU 2-Wapato Lake ..................................................................................................... 17
Page 5 of 40

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE OF THE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

This Fire Management Plan (FMP) is written to meet the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(USDOI) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; the Service) requirement that every area 

with burnable vegetation have an approved FMP (620 DM 1.4). It also enables the Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge) to meet the Service requirement that refuges review 

and/or revise the FMP at a minimum of 5-year intervals or when significant land use changes are 

proposed (621 FW 2). 

The goal of wildland fire management is to plan and implement actions that help accomplish the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). That mission is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (095 FW 3.2). 

The approval of this FMP enables the refuge to consider a full range of appropriate suppression 

strategies and to conduct prescribed fires; without this FMP, prescribed fires cannot be 

conducted and only wildfire suppression strategies may be implemented. 

This plan outlines both wildland fire suppression and prescribed fire activities on the refuge 

within the context of an approved comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). The CCP planning 

process began in 2010 and is scheduled to be completed by December 2012. The FMP defines a 

program to manage wildland fires and to ensure that wildland fire management goals and 

components are coordinated and in compliance with all required direction. 

Figure 1: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 
Page 6 of 40

1.2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA IN THE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, which includes both the Sherwood Units and the 

Wapato Lake Unit, is located within the Tualatin River Basin in the northern portion of the 

Willamette Valley, in Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. The refuge preserves a 

wetland ecosystem and provides a Wildlife Center in the shadow of Oregon’s largest 

metropolitan area, Portland. The overall management focus cited for the Sherwood Units in the 

Land Protection Plan (1992) is to “protect, enhance, and manage upland, wetland, and riparian 

habitats for a variety of migratory birds and resident fish and wildlife, as well as for the 

enjoyment of people.” The Wapato Lake Unit serves a similar purpose as the Sherwood Units 

and supports many of the same types of habitats. The approved acquisition boundary of the 

refuge totals approximately 7,370 acres. The refuge may purchase any lands within the boundary 

from willing sellers (Figures 3 and 4). 

Figure 2: Regional Vicinity Map of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 
Page 7 of 40

Figure 3: Sherwood Units Land Status on Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Current acreage owned or managed by the refuge is distributed among six management units 

(Table 1). The Tualatin River Valley consists of low foothills, terraces, alluvial fans, and 

floodplains. The refuge’s landscape is predominately flat bottomland bordered by uplands with 

elevations ranging from 105 to 300 feet above sea level. Habitats consist of rivers and streams; 

herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands; riparian forests; wet prairie; oak savanna, and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forested uplands. 

 

Table 1: Management Units on Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Management Unit Acres 

Riverboat 355 

Tualatin River 229 

 Atfálat’i 561 

Onion Flats 129 

Rock Creek 75 

Wapato Lake 816 

Total 2,165 
Page 8 of 40

Figure 4: Land Status of Wapato Lake Unit on Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

1.3. SIGNIFICANT VALUES TO PROTECT

1.3.1. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Three pre-European sites have been recorded on the refuge. They are not listed but may be 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Two post-European sites 

have not been evaluated, but may also qualify for listing on the NRHP. Ground disturbance will 

be avoided if possible during suppression activities on all archeological sites. The regional 

archeologist will be notified of any suppression actions taken on refuge lands. 

1.3.2. FISH AND WILDLIFE

The diverse habitat types found on the refuge host a variety of fish and wildlife. Over 165 

species of birds have been recorded on the refuge. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have 

not been inventoried on the refuge, but a diverse number of species breed, migrate, or forage on 

refuge properties. Large concentrations of waterfowl including Canada geese, northern pintails, 

and green-winged teal occur during late fall and winter. In spring and summer, numerous species 

of neotropical migrant songbirds migrate through or nest on the refuge. Two federally listed 
Page 9 of 40

threatened species, the bald eagle and upper Willamette steelhead, are potentially present yearround on the refuge, although no known bald eagle nesting territories occur or have been located 

on the refuge. In addition, peregrine falcons are present during fall through early spring. Western 

pond turtles and red-legged frogs use many of the refuge wetlands. 

1.3.3. STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES

There are numerous refuge facilities that serve both the visitor services and biological programs 

and range from boundary fencing, barns, outbuildings, and numerous water control structures to 

residences and public use facilities, such as the Wildlife Center and environmental education 

shelter. In addition, there are structures that serve as offices for other Service programs, such as 

the Office of Law Enforcement and Cultural Resources. 

There is a mixture of properties adjacent to the refuge. Many of the properties adjacent to the 

Sherwood Units have a rural agricultural nature as well as highly urbanized components. Many 

of the rural lots have single-family homes with other structures such as barns. The urban areas 

include closely spaced single- and multi-family residences and commercial businesses of various 

types. Adjacent and in the vicinity of refuge boundaries are large subdivisions within the urban 

growth boundary Properties adjacent to the Wapato Lake Unit are mostly rural in nature with 

some single-family homes. 

2. POLICY, LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING, AND PARTNERSHIPS

2.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF FIRE POLICY 

2.1.1. FEDERAL INTERAGENCY WILDLAND FIRE POLICY

This FMP implements these guiding principles of Federal wildland fire policy: 

 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. 

 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent has 

been incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency land and resource 

management plans set the objectives for the use and desired future condition of the 

various public lands. 

 FMPs, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their 

implementation. 

 Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. Risks and 

uncertainties relating to fire management activities must be understood, analyzed, 

communicated, and managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing an 

activity. 

 Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. 

 FMPs and activities are based upon the best available science. 

 FMPs and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. 

 Federal, state, Tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation 

are essential. 
Page 10 of 40

 Standardization of policies and procedures among Federal agencies is an ongoing 

objective. 

2.1.2. NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

This FMP emphasizes the following primary goals of the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and 

the Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources: 

 Improving fire prevention and suppression 

 Reducing hazardous fuels 

 Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems 

 Promoting community assistance 

2.1.3. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FIRE POLICY 

This FMP incorporates and adheres to USDOI policy stated in 620 DM 1, by giving full 

consideration to use of wildland fire as a natural process and tool during the land management 

planning process and by providing for the following guidelines. 

Wildland fires, whether on or adjacent to lands administered by the USDOI, that threaten life, 

improvements, or are determined to be a threat to natural and cultural resources or improvements 

under the USDOI’s jurisdiction will be considered emergencies and their suppression given 

priority over other USDOI programs. 

Bureaus shall cooperate in the development of interagency preparedness plans to ensure timely 

recognition of approaching critical wildland fire situations; to establish processes for analyzing 

situations and establishing priorities; and for implementing appropriate management responses to 

these situations. 

Bureaus will enforce rules and regulations concerning the unauthorized ignition of wildland 

fires, and aggressively pursue violations. 

2.1.4. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FIRE POLICY 

This FMP addresses a full range of potential wildland fires and considers a full spectrum of 

tactical options (from monitoring to intensive management actions) for appropriate management 

response (AMR) to meet Fire Management Unit (FMU) objectives. It fully applies procedures 

and guidelines in the Service Fire Management Handbook and the National Interagency Fire 

Center’s Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations and affirms these key 

elements of Service fire policy: 

 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority of the wildland fire management program 

and all associated activities. 

 Only trained and qualified leaders and agency administrators will be responsible for, and 

conduct, wildland fire management duties and operations. 
Page 11 of 40

 Trained and certified employees will participate in the wildland fire management 

program as the situation requires, and noncertified employees will provide needed 

support as necessary. 

 Fire management planning, preparedness, wildfire and prescribed fire operations, other 

hazardous fuel operations, monitoring, and research will be conducted on an interagency 

basis with involvement by all partners to the extent practicable. 

 The responsible agency administrator must have coordinated, reviewed, and approved 

this FMP to ensure consistency with approved land management plans, values to be 

protected, and natural and cultural resource management plans, and to ensure that it 

addresses public health issues related to smoke and air quality. 

 Fire, as an ecological process, will be integrated into resource management plans and 

activities on a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, based upon the best available 

science. 

 Wildland fire will be used to meet identified resource management objectives and 

benefits when appropriate. 

 Prescribed fire and other treatment types will be employed whenever they are the 

appropriate tool to reduce hazardous fuels and the associated risk of wildfire to human 

life, property, and cultural and natural resources and to manage our lands for habitats as 

mandated by statute, treaty, and other authorities. 

 Appropriate management response will consider firefighter and public safety, cost 

effectiveness, values to protect, and natural and cultural resource objectives. 

 Staff members will work with local cooperators and the public to prevent unauthorized 

ignition of wildfires on our lands. 

2.2. LAND/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

2.2.1. LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS

The refuge is in the process of developing a CCP. The CCP will create a roadmap to guide 

refuge management over the next 15 years and beyond. An environmental assessment (EA) will 

be developed with the CCP to analyze the effects of the proposed plan and alternatives. 

2.2.2. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY ACTS

Compliance with regulatory acts (i.e., National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) associated 

with fire management activities will be documented in the CCP and associated EA. 

2.3. FIRE MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS 

2.3.1. INTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS 

The refuge does not have a dedicated fire position on the refuge. Fire management activities are 

coordinated by the zone fire management officer (FMO) stationed at the W.L. Finley National 

Wildlife Refuge. The Zone FMO is responsible for updating suppression agreements, providing 

fire management guidance in the event of a wildfire, and assisting with implementing prescribed 

fire projects identified by the refuge. The Zone FMO is also responsible for maintaining training 

records and ensuring that current policy and procedures are followed. 
Page 12 of 40

2.3.2. EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS 

A memorandum of understanding with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR) is in the process 

of being developed to cover suppression response in the Sherwood FMU (Appendix E of FMP). 

A similar agreement is also being developed with the Gaston Rural Fire Department to cover fire 

suppression on the Wapato Lake Unit (Appendix F of the FMP). 

3. FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS CHARACTERISTICS 

The intent of this portion of the FMP is to articulate and describe the general fire management 

situation within the local area and describe the specific fire management goals and objectives for 

the refuge. In addition, this portion of the FMP will describe the particular FMUs defined within 

the refuge. These FMUs attempt to categorize lands on the refuge based on fire suppression 

response and are not limited to vegetation type or fuel model. 

3.1. AREA-WIDE CONSIDERATIONS 

3.1.1. FIRE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

The refuge has no dedicated fire personnel. It relies on local fire departments for fire suppression 

and the Zone FMO to keep agreements for suppression up to date. The Zone FMO also provides 

program oversight for the development of annual dispatch plans and prescribed fire projects. 

3.1.2. THE HISTORY OF PRESCRIBED FIRE AT THE REFUGE

The earliest historical records indicate that Native Americans started fires that burned extensive 

areas of the Willamette Valley annually. What role fire played prehistorically is not known. In 

general, fire is considered beneficial to the native grassland areas and oak savanna uplands. Fire 

is considered essential in the prairie areas to maintain the grassland condition and suppress 

encroaching woody vegetation. Previous versions of the FMP for Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge only allowed for pile burning, and prescribed fire broadcast burning was not 

addressed. With the approval of this document, prescribed fire broadcast burning will be 

considered as a management tool available to managers. Each prescribed fire project will have an 

approved prescribed fire plan outlining procedures, notifications, and permits required for 

implantation of prescribed fire. 

3.1.3. MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONSTRAINTS IN THE CCP 

3.1.3.1. GOALS FOR TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

The following goals were derived from the refuge CCP that is currently being developed with 

expected completion in December 2012. 

1. Maintain, enhance, and restore bottomland riparian habitat to a historical range of 

variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in order to support breeding 

and migratory landbirds and other native species. 

2. Maintain, enhance, and restore mixed coniferous/deciduous upland habitat to a historical 

range of variability representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in order to support 

breeding and migratory landbirds and other native species. 

3. Maintain, enhance and restore oak savanna habitat to a historical range of variability 
Page 13 of 40

representative of the Willamette Valley ecosystem in order to support breeding and 

migratory landbirds and other native species. 

4. Maintain, enhance, and restore native Willamette Valley wet prairie habitat, with an 

emphasis on management for rare and listed plant species. 

5. Maintain, enhance, and restore a diversity of wetlands to support landbirds, waterbirds, 

and shorebirds with special emphasis on wintering waterfowl. 

6. Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore streams and off-water backwater slough 

habitats to benefit salmonids and other native aquatic species. 

7. Cultivate and maintain croplands as an interim measure to control nonnative invasive 

species. 

8. Collect scientific information (surveys, scientific assessments, and research) necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions that are associated with Goals 1 through 9 of the 

CCP. 

9. Protect and manage the refuge’s unique cultural resources for their cultural, scientific, 

and educational values, while consulting with appropriate Native American groups and 

preservation organizations and complying with historic preservation legislation. 

10. Provide visitors, local residents, volunteers, and partners with opportunities to understand 

and appreciate fish and wildlife conservation as well as the purpose, ecology, and 

management of the refuge and the Refuge System. 

11. Provide students and teachers from the greater Portland area with compatible and highquality opportunities to participate in environmental education. 

12. Provide refuge visitors with diverse, compatible, and high-quality opportunities to 

participate in wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. 

3.1.3.2. SPECIFIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS RELATED TO FIRE 

MANAGEMENT 

. 

 Objective 2.1 Enhance and maintain mixed coniferous/deciduous upland forest 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use common forest health practices including prescribed fire and mechanical removals to 

create variable age structure. 

Objective 2.2 Restore mixed coniferous/deciduous upland forest 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire as appropriate to control invasive species and reduce thatch. 

Objective 3.1 Enhance and maintain oak savanna habitat 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire during fall with burn interval of 3 to 5 years. 

Objective 3.2 Restore oak savanna habitat 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire during spring to control nonnative species prior to initial planting. 

 Use prescribed fire during fall with burn intervals of 3 to 5 years to reduce thatch and 

control invasive species. 
Page 14 of 40

Objective 4.1 Enhance and maintain native wet prairie 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire at burn intervals of 3 to 5 years. 

Objective 4.2 Restore native wet prairie 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire during spring to control nonnative species prior to initial planting. 

 Use prescribed fire at burn intervals of 3 to 5 years. 

Objective 5.1 Enhance and maintain herbaceous wetland 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire to reduce extent of emergent stands and/or remove encroaching woody 

species (e.g., willow). 

Objective 5.2 Restore native herbaceous wetland 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire during spring to control nonnative species prior to initial planting. 

Objective 5.3 Enhance and maintain scrub-shrub wetland 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire to increase diversity in older stands. 

Objective 8.2 Research 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Conduct study to evaluate timing of prescribed fire to best promote native herbaceous cover 

and control invasive plants. 

Objective 5.2 Restore native herbaceous wetland 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire during spring to help remove nonnative species prior to initial planting. 

Objective 5.3 Enhance and maintain scrub-shrub wetland 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

 Use prescribed fire to increase diversity in older stands. 

3.1.3.3. OBJECTIVES FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT AT THE REFUGE

The objectives for fire management at the refuge are: 

 Promote a program to ensure firefighter and public safety, reduce occurrence of humancaused fires, and ensure appropriate suppression response capability to meet expected 

wildland fire complexity. 

 Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and enhance and 

maintain wildlife habitat. 

3.1.3.4. SPECIFIC FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 

Promote a safety-oriented fire management program. 

Protect life, property, and resources from wildland fires at costs commensurate with 
Page 15 of 40

resource values at risk. 

Use appropriate suppression tactics and strategies that minimize long-term impacts of 

suppression actions. 

Use prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels and enhance and maintain native habitats. 

3.2. FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS

3.2.1. FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS—SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS 

FMUs are areas on a refuge that have common wildland fire management objectives and 

strategies, are manageable as units from a wildland fire standpoint, and are based on natural or 

human-made fuel breaks. An FMU may coincide with a prescribed fire burn block or treatment 

area or unit, but this is not always the case. Current acreage owned and managed by the refuge is 

distributed among six management units within the Sherwood and Wapato Lake Units. Five 

management units are located within the Sherwood Units and one on the Wapato Lake Unit. Due 

to the similarity in fire response within the management units, the refuge is categorized into two 

FMUs. Other factors, including the geographic separation within the urban setting, allow for the 

simple organization of the refuge into two FMUs. 

The two FMUs at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge are: 

FMU 1: Sherwood; 

Riverboat Unit (355 acres) 

Tualatin River Unit (229 acres) 

Atfálat’i Unit (561 acres) 

Onion Flats Unit (129 acres) 

Rock Creek Unit (75 acres) 

FMU 2: Wapato Lake (816 acres) 

3.2.2. FMU 1—SHERWOOD

The Sherwood FMU is 1,349 acres and includes the Riverboat, Tualatin River, Atfálat’i, Onion 

Flats, and Rock Creek Units (Figure 5). These management units are defined in the CCP, and 

would elicit a similar response in the event of a wildfire. FMU 1 is predominately flat 

bottomland bordered by uplands. It has oak savanna habitat, mixed coniferous/deciduous 

forested uplands, riparian forests, scrub-shrub wetlands, and wet prairies. In the event of a fire 

within this FMU, suppression actions would include using existing natural and human-made fire 

breaks to catch the fire at the smallest possible size. The lands surrounding the Sherwood FMU 

are primarily a mix of urban and agricultural lands. The City of Sherwood abuts the southern and 

western edge of the Sherwood FMU. The City of Tualatin is to the east, and King City is to the 

northeast. 
Page 16 of 40

Figure 5: FMU 1 (Sherwood) 

3.2.3. FMU 2—WAPATO LAKE

The Wapato Lake FMU is approximately 816 acres (Figure 6). The Wapato Lake Unit was 

established in 2007. This unit serves a similar purpose as the Sherwood Units and supports many 

of the same types of habitats. Current ownership is primarily of a historical lake bed where a 

series of dikes and levees were built in the 1930s to support irrigation of onion farming practices. 

The City of Gaston is adjacent to the western boundary of the Wapato Lake FMU and Forest 

Grove sits to the north. 
Page 17 of 40

Figure 6: FMU 2 (Wapato Lake) 

4. WILDLAND FIRE OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 

The procedures used to implement the FMP for the refuge are covered in this section. 

Information pertaining to this management is either directly provided or references are cited. 

Interagency standards for fire and fire aviation operations have been developed, and are 

documented and available for reference in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Operations (National Interagency Fire Center’s National Fire Equipment System [NFES] No. 

2724). 

Structural fire suppression is the responsibility of local governments. USFWS may assist with 

exterior structural protection activities under formal Fire Protection Agreements that specify 

mutual responsibilities, including funding (Redbook 01-3). 

All wildfires will be supervised by a qualified incident commander (IC), through a delegation of 

authority (0 of FMP) from the project leader. The IC is responsible for the following: 
Page 18 of 40

 Assessing the fire situation and making a report to dispatch as soon as possible. 

 Using guidance in this FMP and/or a delegation of authority to determine and implement 

an appropriate management response. 

 Determining organization, resource needs, strategy, and tactics. 

 Preparing brief incoming and assigned resources on the organization, strategy and tactics, 

weather and fire behavior, LCES, seasonal and historical ERCs, and radio frequencies. 

 Advising dispatch of resources needed for the appropriate management response. 

 Managing the incident until relieved or until the fire is suppressed. 

The FMP and a delegation of authority can provide a general strategy to an IC, who has the 

discretion to select and implement appropriate tactics within the limits described for the FMU, 

including when and where to use minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST), unless otherwise 

specified. 

All resources, including mutual aid resources, will report to the IC, in person or by radio and 

receive an assignment prior to tactical deployment. 

The refuge is dedicated to providing for the safety of each visitor and all residents and property 

adjacent to the refuge’s boundary. Residents adjacent to the refuge will be notified with as much 

advance warning possible of any wildfire that poses the threat of burning outside refuge 

boundaries. A contact list can be found in Appendix A of this FMP. 

4.1. PREPAREDNESS

Preparedness is the work accomplished prior to fire occurrence to ensure that the appropriate 

response, as directed by the FMP, can be carried out. Preparedness activities include budget 

planning, equipment acquisition, equipment maintenance, dispatch planning, equipment 

inventory, personnel qualifications, and training. The preparedness objective is to have a welltrained and equipped fire management organization to manage all fire situations within the 

refuge. Preparedness efforts are to be accomplished outside the normal fire season dates. The 

general fire season recognized by the Oregon Department of Forestry runs from June 10 through 

October 15. 

Wildland fire training, experience, and position qualifications information will be maintained 

through the Service’s Incident Qualification and Certification System (IQCS) database. The 

information will be updated annually. 

The minimum qualification will be Firefighter Type 2 (FFT2), which requires the annual 

firefighter refresher. Specific training and certification requirements can be found in the 

Redbook Chapter 13. 

Fire lines consisting of vegetation-cleared area will be constructed around the perimeter of the 

refuge annually. Work on these lines will begin after July 16. Fire lines will consist of 

combination mow and disc lines, and will be cleared to make them accessible to Type 6 engines. 
Page 19 of 40

There are two apparatus available at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge (35 miles to the 

south of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge) for suppression and prescribed fire. 

Equipment is primarily designed and maintained for use in support of prescribed fire activities 

on-refuge. They are: 

 Type 6 engine (E-76 fire-ready) 

 Type 4 engine (unmaintained) 

E-76 is a Type 6 engine and will be maintained fire-ready during the specified fire season. The 

Type 4 engine requires an operator with a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and will be 

maintained for fire suppression and used if qualified personnel are available to operate it. 

Personal protective equipment (PPE) will be assigned to qualified personnel. Assigned PPE will 

be inspected annually as part of the annual fire refresher. 

Additional equipment and supplies are available through cooperators and the interagency cache 

system and would be ordered through the Coastal Valley IACC.

4.2. DETECTION

Most wildland fires at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge are caused by human-related 

activities. Many times the person who started the fire will call refuge headquarters for help or the 

local fire department if the refuge office is closed after hours. Fires are typically reported through 

911 emergency services, and the refuge is contacted along with the TVFR. 

4.3. COMMUNICATIONS

Cellular phones are the primary means of communication on the refuge. All immediate 

emergency notifications and contacts can be found in Appendix A of the FMP. During 

emergency fire operations, local radio frequencies will be used. Frequencies that will be used are 

found in Table 2. 

Table 2: Radio Frequencies 

Channel Name Assignment Tx: Rx: 

ODF Red Net Command 151.3400 151.3400 

ODF White Net Air to Ground 151.3100 151.3100 

NIFC Tac 1 Tactical 168.0500 168.0500 

NIFC Tac 2 Tactical 168.2000 168.2000 

NIFC Tac3 Tactical 168.6000 168.6000 

4.4. DISPATCH, INITIAL RESPONSE, AND INITIAL ATTACK 

Upon report of wildfire, qualified refuge personnel will respond initially and provide the dispatch 

center with a fire update. These procedures and criteria for status reports are outlined in the 

dispatch plan (Appendix D of FMP). Qualified and available refuge staff should respond to assist 

with tasks such as securing the point of origin, fire suppression, protecting visitors at risk, and 

implementing necessary closures. In most cases, initial attack (IA) resources will respond from 
Page 20 of 40

TVFR. The refuge will use the Incident Command System (ICS) as a guide for suppression 

organization and actions. 

4.5. EXTENDED ATTACK AND LARGE FIRE MANAGEMENT

If the fire exceeds the capabilities of IA resources and transitions into extended attack, additional 

resources and logistics will be handled through TVFR. The required incident analysis, 

delegations of authority, and briefing regarding incoming resources will be initiated by the Zone 

FMO. Specific incident management procedures for transition into extended attack can be found 

in the Redbook Chapter 11. 

4.6. AVIATION OPERATIONS 

All fire-related aviation operations will follow applicable guidelines of the USDOI National 

Business Center Aviation Management Directorate. Aviation requests and operations will be 

coordinated with regional office staff. 

Aircraft may be used in all phases of fire management operations. All aircraft must be approved 

by the National Business Center (NBC) or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). An OAS Aviation 

Policy Department Manual will be provided by OAS. 

Helicopters may be used for reconnaissance, bucket drops, and transportation of personnel and 

equipment. Natural helispots and parking lots are readily available in most cases. Clearing for 

new helispots should be avoided where possible. Improved helispots will be rehabilitated 

following a fire. 

As in all fire management activities, safety is the primary consideration. Qualified aviation 

personnel will be assigned to all flight operations. 

4.7. REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS

Reviews and investigations are used by wildland fire and aviation managers to assess and 

improve the effectiveness and safety of organizational operations. Brief descriptions of various 

reviews and associated procedures and requirements, including those for serious wildland fire 

accidents, entrapments, and trespass are listed in the Redbook Chapter 18. 

4.8. REPORTS 

The Zone FMO will complete and file an individual fire report (DI-1202) for the following types 

of fires within 10 days of a fire being declared out: 

 All wildfires on Service lands. 

 Wildfires threatening Service lands on which Service personnel take action. 

 All escaped prescribed fires. When a fire exceeds prescription, it must be declared a 

wildfire and a separate new report filed to report acres burned by the wildfire from the 

time of declaration to the time of being declared out. 

 All false alarms responded to by field office staff. 
Page 21 of 40

DI-1202s are required regardless of who takes action, whether it is a Service engine, cooperator, 

or contractor. When we take IA off our lands, the agency with jurisdiction over where the fire 

occurs will file a report and we will file a limited report to document our response and to support 

potential billing to non-Federal entities for trespass fires. 

4.9. HAZARDOUS FUELS MANAGEMENT 

4.9.1. PRESCRIBED FIRE PROGRAM FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS AND HABITAT RESTORATION

The annual prescribed fire and fuels treatment schedule should be prepared in February/March 

and included as an important aspect in the annual work plan. Prescribed fire plans (i.e., burn 

plans) should be completed and submitted prior to the burn season. 

4.9.1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

All prescribed fires must comply with NEPA requirements. An EA for management actions 

associated with prescribed fire was completed as part of the CCP development process. The CCP 

recognizes prescribed fire as a necessary tool for habitat management and restoration. All 

prescribed fire activities must also adhere to Service requirements, which can be found in the 

Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference Guide in 

Chapter 17 of the USFWS Fire Management Handbook and the Redbook. 

The fire management program consults with the refuge wildlife biologist to formulate a 

prescribed fire program for the annual work plan that: 

 Identifies the annual target acreage scheduled for treatment. 

 Designates the burn units to be treated. 

 Determines prescribed burn unit complexities. 

 Identifies the preferred treatment interval (this can vary by fuel type). 

 Recommends the approved method of treatment (fire, fire/mechanical/chemical, etc.). 

 Recommends an effective treatment sequence (rotation). 

 Identifies the type of monitoring and frequency. 

4.9.1.2. PRESCRIBED BURN PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Prescribed fire is a useful tool for restoring and maintaining natural conditions and processes. 

The goals of prescribed fire are to: 

Restore and maintain native wetland prairies and oak savanna using fire to set back and 

reduce woody vegetation, such as Douglas-fir. 

Enrich soil nutrients that benefit vegetation. 

Provide benefits to specific rare plant species, such as Nelson’s checker-mallow 

(Sidalcea nelsoniana). 

Provide opportunities for research of fire-dependent species and plant communities. 

Remove unwanted accumulations of residual vegetation in association with wetland 

restoration. 

Realize beneficial effects upon native prairie plant species. 
Page 22 of 40

Upland grasslands are burned to maintain an open oak savanna habitat by inhibiting the 

encroachment of shrubs and woody vegetation, and to invigorate native plant species. Wetland 

habitats on the refuge may be burned to remove dense stands of reed canarygrass, which 

dominate the shallow moist soil areas. Some areas may be treated with herbicide post-burn, as 

reed canarygrass sprouts quickly following fire. The increase in sunlight and exposed soil will 

allow native species to germinate, thereby promoting and supporting a healthy wetland 

ecosystem. 

The Willamette Valley native prairies evolved under a regime of fire. There are no known 

ecological equivalents to the use of fire, although mowing can be used to mimic some of the 

effects. Mowing is used as a restoration tool as it provides a disturbance. Timing of mowing 

allows nonnative species to be targeted prior to the development of seed heads. Mowing is used 

as an alternative treatment type to burning if burn windows are not available during a given field 

season. 

4.9.1.3. EFFECT OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PREPAREDNESS LEVELS

Prescribed fires may be ignited during National Preparedness Levels 4 or 5 as specified in the 

National Interagency Mobilization Guide. 

The program relies on interagency cooperators from the USFS, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to accomplish prescribed fire projects. Elevated 

preparedness levels are indicative of an active fire season, and resource availability may be 

limited due to local resources being committed to ongoing incidents. 

4.9.1.4. PROJECT PLANNING

Prescribed fire will be used to reduce hazard fuel accumulations, restore fire-dependent 

ecological communities, improve conditions for federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, improve wildlife habitat, and contribute to research. All prescribed fire activity will 

comply with applicable Federal, state, and local air quality laws and regulations. 

Prescribed fire plans for the units to be treated will be prepared and approved prior to treatment. 

Prescribed fire plans should be prepared well enough in advance to allow for as much time as 

possible for review prior to the start of a burn season or burn execution phase. 

A smoke management section is required and must contain adequate information to meet Oregon 

State requirements. No permits are required. 

All burn plans are prepared by a qualified burn boss, reviewed by a technical reviewer and the 

Zone FMO, and then approved by the project leader. 

Which qualified burn boss will be assigned burn boss duties is determined near the time of the 

burn by the Zone FMO or designated member of the Zone FMO’s staff. The approved burn plan 

must be reviewed and signed by the designated burn boss before implementation. Procedures for 
Page 23 of 40

prescribed fire implementation are covered within the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. 

4.9.1.5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Site-specific treatment objectives are developed to guide project operations. Prescribed fire 

objectives describe what a treatment must accomplish in order to meet a resource management 

objective. Each prescribed burn plan contains objectives for the project that are quantifiable and 

measurable. 

The Zone FMO shall assign the burn boss appropriate to the complexity level of the planned 

burn. The burn boss will follow all the guidelines and procedures that are contained in the 

prescribed fire plan. 

Cooperators, contractors, and administratively determined emergency hires may be used to 

implement prescribed fires. All individuals working on Federal agency prescribed fires must 

meet the Fire Management Handbook and Wildland Fire Qualification Guide (published by the 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group [NWCG], PMS 310-1) standards unless local agreements 

specify otherwise. The complexity of each prescribed burn determines the organization needed to 

safely achieve the objectives specified in the burn plan. Further information on qualifications is 

found in Chapter 17 of the 2008 Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. 

The Zone FMO will be responsible for ensuring that refuge personnel maintain the qualifications 

necessary to implement prescribed fire programs. 

A prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire by those identified in the burn plan when those 

person(s) determine that the contingency actions have failed or are likely to fail and cannot be 

mitigated by the end of the next burning period. An escaped prescribed fire must be declared a 

wildfire when the fire has spread outside the project boundary, or is likely to do so, and cannot 

be contained by the end of the next burning period. A prescribed fire can be converted to a 

wildfire for reasons other than an escape. An appropriate management response will be made to 

such incidents. A formal analysis using a required wildfire decision support tool will be 

undertaken when needed. The refuge manager and project leader will be notified of an escaped 

prescribed fire. 

The public will be informed of prescribed fires through news releases, interpretive messages, and 

educational programs. Individual prescribed fires should not be conducted without informing 

agencies and members of the public likely to be impacted. 

4.9.1.6. SMOKE MANAGEMENT 

All grass burning in the Willamette Valley is strictly regulated by the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) through the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Smoke Management (DSM), to comply with smoke dispersal requirements in the Willamette 

Valley. DSM decides, on a daily basis, whether burning will be allowed and how many acres 

may be burned. No prescribed burns are conducted without DSM approval. Approval is obtained 

by contacting DSM on the morning of a proposed burn. In addition to smoke management by 

DSM, the refuge lands are also constrained by fire danger ratings for the area. If the fire danger 
Page 24 of 40

rating is extreme, then no prescribed burning will be allowed even when weather conditions are 

favorable for smoke dispersion. 

4.9.1.7. AFTER ACTION REVIEWS AND ESCAPED FIRE REVIEWS

The burn boss will ensure an informal After Action Review (AAR) is conducted for each 

operational period on a prescribed fire, as described in the Incident Response Pocket Guide 

(IRPG). 

All prescribed fires declared a wildfire will have an investigative review initiated by the refuge 

manager or project leader. The level and scope of the review will be determined by policy and 

procedures of the Redbook and the USFWS Fire Management Handbook. 

4.9.1.8. REPORTS

Burn plans will specify information to be included in a project file. The burn boss will ensure 

this information is provided to the refuge manager and/or Zone FMO as specified. This includes 

documenting conditions and fire behavior during the prescribed fire to assess how well actual 

fire characteristics fit those predicted, documenting any unanticipated difficulties encountered 

during implementation, and assessing how well the fire accomplished the intended objectives. 

The burn boss will complete an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) with the Zone FMO, who will 

file an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) electronically within 10 days of the fire being declared 

out. 

4.9.2. NON-FIRE HAZARD FUELS TREATMENT PROGRAM

Many activities associated with normal habitat maintenance are similar to pre-suppression fire 

activities. Mowing is a regular tool used to treat invasive species of grasses and shrubs and to 

mimic a fire disturbance. These activities may not be funded through the fire program but 

directly benefit the fire program as well as the habitat. Mowing is used in pretreatment of 

prescribed fire units to lower flame lengths near the control lines. These areas may not be 

classified as hazardous fuels but their treatment would aid in suppression if a fire were to occur 

on the refuge. 

4.9.3. PROCESS TO IDENTIFY HAZARD FUELS TREATMENTS

Due to the difficulty of access to areas within the refuge, most hazardous fuels treatments are 

identified to aid in creating defensible space and engine access. An annual site visit is conducted 

with the project leader, refuge biologist, and the Zone FMO to identify areas that would benefit 

ecologically as well as aid in suppression in the event of a wildfire. 

4.10. EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND BURNED AREA REHABILITATION

Immediate post-wildfire actions are needed to minimize the threat to life and health and prevent 

unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources (see Interagency Burned Area 

Emergency Response Guidebook). Required repair of damage resulting for wildland fire 

activities will be completed before crews and resources are released from assignment to the 

incident. 
Page 25 of 40

Rehabilitation and restoration efforts will be undertaken to protect and sustain ecosystems, 

public health, and safety, and to help communities protect infrastructure. Natural recovery is the 

preferred emergency stabilization or burned area rehabilitation (BAR) treatment. 

The goal of the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) Plan is to promote public 

safety, stabilize and prevent further degradation of natural and cultural resources, and rehabilitate 

the stability, productivity, diversity, and ecological integrity of refuge lands after a wildland fire 

as described in approved refuge management plans. The ESR Plan is tiered to the refuge CCP, 

FMP, and operations or step-down plans. Development of ESR Plan objectives is guided by 

resource management objectives, general management practices, and constraints identified in an 

approved CCP, habitat management plan, and/or supporting step-down plans. 

If burned area ESR is required to reduce the effects of a wildland fire, then the refuge should 

request appropriate funding through the ESR fund. The Service representative at the National 

Interagency Fire Center administers the ESR fund. A rehabilitation and restoration survey, plan, 

and request must be prepared and submitted according to agency guidelines. Smaller incidents 

may only need simple plans prepared by refuge staff. Larger incidents with extensive 

rehabilitation efforts should employ an ESR team. An ESR team is composed of personnel who 

specialize in key disciplines of resource management and are experts in ESR Plan preparation. A 

formal request for an ESR team should be made in consultation with the Incident Management 

Team as soon as it appears that damage may be significant. Instructions for ESR team 

mobilization can be found in the NWCG mobilization guide. Delays in making a request may 

hinder funding approval and magnify the damage. Once an ESR team is employed, the project 

leader or their representative should provide guidance to the ESR team leader with expectations. 

The project leader, biologist, and Zone FMO will review all ESR plans. The final plan will be 

submitted to the Regional Office for review prior to submission to the Washington Office. 

Direction on ESR guidelines can be found in the Service Fire Management Handbook. 

4.11. PREVENTION, MITIGATION AND EDUCATION 

4.11.1. PREVENTION/MITIGATION 

The objective of fire prevention activities is to prevent human-caused wildfires. The inadvertent 

or intentional ignition of wildland fuels by humans is illegal. All human-caused wildfires will be 

investigated at the earliest possible time. The investigation may range from a documented 

determination of cause by the IA crew to criminal investigation by a qualified arson investigator. 

Educating the public on the value of fire as a natural process is important to increasing public 

understanding and support for the fire management program. The refuge will use the most 

appropriate and effective means to explain the overall future of the fire and smoke management 

programs. This may include supplemental handouts, signage, personal contacts, auto tour routes, 

or media releases. When deemed necessary, interpretive presentations will address the fire 

management program and explain the role of fire in the environment. 

The public information program would include the following options. 
Page 26 of 40

1. The concepts of the prescribed burn program will be incorporated, as appropriate, in 

publications, brochures, and handouts. 

2. During periods when prescribed burns are ignited, handouts will be prepared and 

distributed to all visitors entering areas of fire activity. 

3. The fire management program may be incorporated into visitor contacts. Particular 

attention will be given when fires are conspicuous from roads or visitor use areas. 

4. News releases will be distributed to the media as appropriate. 

5. The public information outlets of neighboring and cooperating agencies and the Regional 

Office will be provided with all fire management information. 

6. The fire management program will be discussed in informal talks with all employees, 

volunteers, residents, and neighbors. 

5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The intent of this section is to document the processes for determining whether the FMP is being 

implemented as planned and fire-related goals and objectives are being achieved. Information 

obtained from monitoring is used to update the FMP and land management plans. 

5.1. FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING

5.1.1. ANNUAL FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

This FMP will be reviewed annually and updated as needed, upon local agency administrator 

approval. Revisions of FMPs with regional review and concurrence are required every 5 years 

and following completion of a new (or significantly revised) CCP or habitat management plan. 

5.2. HAZARD FUELS TREATMENT MONITORING

Any prescribed fire treatment will be monitored according the 2010 Pacific Region Hazardous 

Fuels Monitoring Framework. At a minimum, a perimeter will be collected of the treatment area 

and archived in the regional database. 

5.3. FIRE CRITIQUES

Fire reviews will be documented and filed with the final fire report. The Zone FMO will retain a 

copy for the refuge files. 

5.4. FIRE MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY 

Terms in the FMP are defined by the NWCG, at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary. 
Page 27 of 40

Appendix A. Directory (update annually) 

Name Position Office Phone Extension Cell Phone Home 

Erin Holmes Project Leader (503) 625-5944 221 (503) 816-1227 (971) 400-4405 

John Gahr Deputy Project Leader (503) 625-5944 223 (503) 816-1666 (971) 239-9122 

Greg 

Hagedorn 

Zone Fire Management 

Officer 

(541) 757-7236 205 (541) 740-5613 (503) 913-2883 

Kolleen Irvine Law Enforcement 

Officer 

(503) 625-5944 230 (971) 832-1730 N/A 

Sarah Gray Administrative 

Assistant 

(503) 625-5944 226 N/A N/A 

Kim 

Strassburg 

Visitor Services 

Manager 

(503) 625-5944 228 (503) 539-5194 N/A 

Pete Schmidt Refuge Biologist (503) 625-5944 231 (503) 816-2007 N/A 

John 

Schweitzer 

Equipment Operator (503) 625-5944 N/A (503) 329-8384 N/A 

Wildlife 

Center 

N/A (503) 625-5945 N/A N/A N/A 
Page 28 of 40

Appendix B. Fire Management—Roles and Responsibilities 

Agency Administrator/Project Leader 

 Is responsible for implementation of all fire management activities within the refuge, and 

will ensure compliance with USDOI, Service, and refuge policies. 

 Selects the appropriate management responses to wildland fire. 

 Coordinates refuge programs to ensure personnel and equipment are made available and 

utilized for fire management activities including fire suppression, prescribed burning, and 

fire effects monitoring. 

 Ensures that the fire management program has access to refuge and resources when 

needed. 

 Ensures that staff consider the fire management program during refuge-related planning 

and implementation. 

Refuge Biologist 

 Identifies prescribed burn units and biological objectives to the Zone FMO, notifies Zone 

FMO of prescribed fire project constraints, and ensures that refuge resources are 

available to accomplish prescribed fire and fire suppression objectives. 

 Acts as the primary refuge resource management specialist during fire management 

planning and operations. 

 Drafts wildland fire rehabilitation plans for project leader. 

 Coordinates through project leader to provide biological input for the fire program to the 

Zone FMO. 

 Assists in design and implementation of fire effects monitoring for the Zone FMO. 

 Participates, as requested, and is appropriately trained in prescribed burning and wildland 

fire suppression. 

Fire Management Officer 

 Maintains oversight and review role for fire management activities on refuge lands. 

 Responsible for all fire-related planning and implementation. 

 Responsible for implementation of this FMP. This responsibility includes coordination 

and supervision of all prevention, pre-suppression, detection, wildland fire, prescribed 

fire, suppression, monitoring, and post-fire activities involving refuge lands. 

 Prepares burn plans. 

 Integrates biological refuge objectives into all fire management planning and 

implementation. 

 Solicits program input from the project leader. 

 Supervises prescribed fire planning. 

 Responsible for planning, coordinating, and directing preparedness activities including 

fire training, physical fitness testing, and Interagency Fire Qualification System (IFQS) 

data entry, fire cache and equipment inventory accountability, maintenance, and 

operation, and cooperation with cooperative agencies. 

 Responsible for setting up rural fire assistance agreements and grants. 
Page 29 of 40

 Responsible for setting up and overseeing WUI and hazardous fuels treatment contracts. 

 Responsible for preparation of fire reports following the suppression of wildland fires and 

for operations undertaken while conducting prescribed fires. 

 Prepares an annual report detailing fire occurrences and prescribed fire activities 

undertaken in each calendar year. This report serves as a post-year fire management 

activities review, as well as provides documentation for development of a comprehensive 

fire history record for the refuge. 

 Submits budget requests and monitors FIREBASE funds. 

 Nominates personnel to receive fire-related training, as appropriate. 

 Responsible for interagency coordination. 

 Ensures fire management policies are observed. 

 When available, may serve as prescribed fire burn boss and propose prescribed fire 

projects. 

 Prepares refuge fire prevention plan, and coordinates fire prevention with other 

employees. 

 Assists in updates of this FMP, maintains fire records, reviews fire reports (DI-1202) for 

accuracy, and enters fire reports into FMIS. 

 Maintains engines and fire-related equipment in state of readiness. 

Fire Management/Suppression Personnel 

 Consists of all refuge personnel, whether permanent or seasonal, who meet the minimum 

standards set by the NWCG for firefighters. 

 Are fully equipped with proper PPE, have taken and passed the minimum classroom 

training, and meet physical fitness standards required. 

 Undertake fire management duties as assigned by the qualified IC on each suppression 

action or by the prescribed fire burn boss on each prescribed fire project. 

 Responsible for their PPE and physical conditioning, qualifying annually with the work 

capacity test. 

Incident Commander

ICs (of any level) use strategies and tactics as directed by the project leader and WFDSS where 

applicable to implement selected objectives on a particular incident. A specific Delegation of 

Authority (0 of FMP) will be provided to each IC prior to their assuming responsibility for an 

incident. Major duties of the IC are given in the NWCG Fireline Handbook. 

Initial Attack Teams 

IA teams consist of experienced, fully qualified firefighters. Teams will be prepared and 

equipped with hand and power tools as needed and will be dispatched self-sufficient to function 

up to 24 hours without additional support. 

Employees participating in any wildland fire activities on Service or cooperator lands will meet 

fitness requirements established in PMS 310-1, except where Service-specific fitness 

requirements apply. 
Page 30 of 40

Resource Advisor 

Resource advisors (RAs) are technical specialists appointed by the agency administrator; they 

report to the IC or designee and provide guidance for natural and cultural resource protection 

from suppression operations. The RA provides input to the IC in the development of fire 

suppression strategies and tactics to minimize or mitigate the expected impacts of fire and fire 

suppression actions upon natural and cultural resources. The RA also provides input required for 

the development of rehabilitation plans. RA responsibilities include providing analysis, 

information, and advice to fire managers for areas of concern, including: 

 Critical watersheds, riparian areas, fisheries, and water sources 

 Threatened or endangered species 

 Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and cultural landscapes 

 Fuelbreaks—locations and specifications 

 Urban interface impact—structures and improvements 

 Hazardous materials 

The RA also: 

 Assists the planning function in developing fire maps and identifying areas of concern, 

 Determines environmental restrictions commensurate with FMP resource protection in 

the fire area, 

 Provides recommendations to fire management personnel and agency administrators for 

fire suppression rehabilitation needs, 

 Documents potential and actual suppression/fire-related resource impacts and the 

rationale for protection of priority areas, and 

 Provides resource information to local IA ICs, dispatchers, or other fire personnel during 

pre-season training and planning meetings (NWCG 1996). 
Page 31 of 40

Appendix C. Fire Danger Indices 

The fire season at Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge can begin in July and continue 

through October during drought years. Fire season can be influenced by both moist Pacific 

weather systems and drying trends created through a warm easterly flow. The wettest months are 

November through March, when over 70 percent of the precipitation occurs. There is a 

pronounced warm, dry period beginning in mid-July and running through late September. This 

period accounts for less than 10 percent of the average annual precipitation. During this period, 

temperatures are generally at their highest levels (80 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit) and relative 

humidity at the lowest (20% to 30%).

Wildland fire danger in the United States is characterized by a system called the National Fire 

Danger Rating System (NFDRS). This system has indices that are used to display and provide 

context to fire danger on a subregional scale. The most accurate way of displaying the 

relationship of weather and fuels to fire danger in the short term at the refuge is through the 

NFDRS Burning Index, or BI. The BI is an estimate of the potential difficulty of containment of 

a wildland fire as it relates to the flame length at the head of the fire. The BI value is a function 

of the spread component (how fast the fire could spread) and the energy release component (how 

hot the fire could burn). The BI is scaled such that a BI value of 40 would indicate a predicted 

average flame length of 4 feet. Wildland fires where the flame length exceeds 4 feet are judged 

to be too hazardous for hand crews and engines to attack along the direct edge of the fire. The BI 

may also communicate the relative fire danger in a rating area. The ninetieth percentile defines 

the index that 90 percent of all BIs are at or below for the time period calculated, and the same is 

true for the ninety-seventh percentile. When overlaid with historical fire occurrence, a 

relationship with fire weather can assist with more accurate preparedness planning. A 

representative NFDRS fire weather station is located 70 miles south of the refuge area at W.L. 

Finley National Wildlife Refuge. The following graphs display seasonal fire danger trends for 

the period from 2003 to 2009. 
Page 32 of 40
Page 33 of 40
Page 34 of 40

Appendix D. Dispatching Plans 

FIRE DISPATCH PLAN 2012 

TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

To comply with Service policy these procedures should be followed for wildland fire initial response on our 

refuges. 

1. Call 911 for emergency management services for assistance. Provide dispatcher with fire size up. 

2. Inform refuge project leader or refuge manager. 

3. Utilize qualified engine bosses that are responding from our interagency partners to supervise suppression 

activities. 

4. Engines require two qualified firefighters to operate. If responding alone, scout fire and complete fire size-up 

documentation and wait for assistance. 

5. Be safe; no fire is worth risking your safety and well being. 

You cannot legally participate in any extended attack or prescribed fire activities until you have cleared the work 

capacity process and fire refresher for 2011. 

Elements of Initial Fire Size-up: 

 Location of smoke or fire: (plot on map if possible) 

 Location, name, and telephone # of reporting party 

 Estimated size 

 Fuel type: (1) Grass (2) Brush (3) Timber (4) Slash 

 Fire behavior: (1) Smoldering (2) Creeping (3) Running (4) Torching (5) Crowning 

 Structures threatened: (1) Yes (2) No 

 Weather conditions: temperature, sky/cloud cover, wind/speed/direction 

 Slope: (1) 0-25% (2) 26-40% (3) 41-55% (4) 56+% 

 Potential for spread: (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High 

 Additional resources needed for control 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

Name Position Office Phone Extension Cell Phone Home 

Erin Holmes Project Leader (503) 625-

5944 

221 (503) 816-1227 (971) 400-4405 

John Gahr Deputy Project Leader (503) 625-

5944 

223 (503) 816-1666 (971) 239-9122 

Greg 

Hagedorn 

Zone Fire Management Officer (541) 757-

7236 

205 (541) 740-5613 (503) 913-2883 

Kolleen 

Irvine 

Law Enforcement Officer (503) 625-

5944 

230 (971) 832-1730 N/A 

Pam Ensley Regional Fire Management 

Coordinator 

(503) 231-

6174 

n/a (503) 781-7978 N/A 

Brian Gales Regional Fire Operations 

Specialist 

(503) 231-

6769 

n/a (541) 778-0372 N/A 

Brett Fay Regional Fuels Specialist (503) 872-

2756 

n/a (503) 347-8194 N/A 
Page 35 of 40

Appendix E. Memorandum of Understanding, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 
Page 36 of 40

Appendix F. Memorandum of Understanding, Gaston Rural Fire Department 
Page 37 of 40

Appendix G. Example: Delegation of Authority to Incident Commanders 

Subject: Delegation of Authority to Manage Type VI and Type V Incidents 

To: ICT5, ICT5(T), ICT4, ICT4 (T) Fill in Name 

From: ********, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

You are delegated authority to manage the suppression of Type V Incidents to which you are 

assigned and qualified as Incident Commander, in accordance with the following guidelines, 

priorities, and constraints, until such time as you are relieved of command by my representative 

or me. 

Goals and constraints for managing Type V Incidents are as follows: 

 Ensure the safety of firefighters and the public. 

 Adhere to the 10 Standard Fire Orders, LCES, and 18 Situations at all times. 

 Protect life and property. 

 Be cost efficient when ordering resources. 

 Follow all guidelines that pertain to the use of retardants and foam. 

 Maintain communication with Hanford Fire Dispatch and Complex Duty Officer at all 

times. 

 Be considerate of cooperating agency policies when assisting in fire suppression on nonService lands. 

 Use appropriate management response suppression tactics as defined in the Fire 

Management Plan. 

 Maintain accurate records for fire reporting and documentation. 

 Protect fire origin and order an investigation on fires where cause may be other than 

lightning. 

 Conduct regular tailgate safety sessions to discuss job hazards and what measures are 

necessary to mitigate accidents to injuries. Document, as needed and submit any safety 

records to Chris Schulte, or his acting. 

 Utilize information/processes in the “Incident Response Pocket Guide” and “Wallet 

Card.” 

Fire Management Officer, Greg Hagadorn, or his designee have been assigned as my 

representative. He, or his acting, is authorized to make decisions and recommendations regarding 

the management of Type V and Type VI Incidents within the level of authority delegated to me. 

/s/****** 

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project Leader 
Page 38 of 40

Appendix H. Annual Review Check List 

Element Yes No Comment 

1. Date FMP was approved ___________ 

 Annual Review yrs 1 – 4 by Refuge Manager 

 Year 5 of Plan, Contact Complex FMO. FMP requires revision and 

Regional Director approval. 

 

2. Will the FMP continue to adequately provide for firefighter and public 

safety as the first priority in every fire management activity this year? 

3. Does this FMP continue to support land and resource management Plans? 

 Completion of CCP or new habitat management plan might require 

more extensive FMP revision. 

 

4. Were there any significant fire management activities from the previous 

year that were not adequately addressed within the scope of this FMP? 

5. Does the direction in this Plan remain economically viable given the values 

needing protection, and the costs to administer? 

6. Does this FMP continue to be based on best available science? 

7. Does the FMP provide for adequate response to wildland fire (wildfire) and 

prescribed fire (if applicable)? 

 Directories/Contact List(s) updated 

 Agreements and Operating Plans current 

 Staffing/equipment meet Service policy and ready 

 Annual work and Prescribed Burn Plans completed 

 Seasonal Assessment made by Complex FMO 

 

8. Were there additional lands added to the refuge last year? 

 Total acres to amend ___________ 

 Burnable acres ______________ 

 

9. If additional lands were added, will environment compliance requirements 

(EA for this FMP) adequately allow for fire management program activities 

to be conducted if appropriate? 

 

10. Based on FMO advice, are there changes in national fire policy or 

direction that now conflict with direction within the FMP? 

 Policy changes warrant an amendment. 

 Policy changes are significant – need for immediate revision. 

 Policy changes can be incorporated within the 5-year 

revision. 

 

11. Considering the responses above, can this FMP be amended without 

further review? 

 If yes, attach amended information, including maps. Refuge 

Manager approval. Notify the Complex FMO. 

 If no, most likely the FMP and/or environmental compliance require 

Plan revision and Regional Director approval. Contact Complex 

FMO for assistance. 

 
Page 39 of 40

Appendix I. Zone FMO Area of Responsibility 
Page 40 of 40

Document continues on the following page. 
Appendix P

Maps

© Guy Larson

Appendix A

Appropriate Use Findings 

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Biological Resources of Concern

Appendix F

Statement of Compliance

Appendix G

Integrated Pest Management

Appendix H

Glossary

Appendix I

Contributors

Appendix J

Acquisition History

Appendix K

Public Involvement

Appendix L

Hydrological Modeling

Appendix M

References

Appendix N

List of Refuge Species

Appendix O

Fire Management Plan

Appendix P

Maps

Eugene

Gresham

Portland

Vancouver

Salem Willamette River

Willamette Valley Ecoregion, Regional Context

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date: 2/08/2012 File:12-160-1.mxd

0 25 50

Miles

LEGEND

Tualatin River NWR Approved Boundary

USFWS Refuges

Tualatin River Watershed

Urban Growth Boundary

Water

Willamette Valley Ecoregion

Map 1

0 25 50

km

Sherwood Units

Baskett Slough NWR

Ankeny NWR

W.L. Finley NWR

Wapato Lake

Unit

Tualatin 

River 

NWR

Pacific 

Flyway

Tualatin R.

84

26

26

233

18

22

18

20

99

5

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 1
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2 Appendix P. Maps 
Willamette Valley, Historical (1850) and Current Land Cover

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-2.mxd

Map 2

Salem

Eugene

Gresham Portland

Vancouver

Legend

TRNWR Approved Refuge Boundary

Closed forest; Riparian & Wetland

Closed forest; Upland

Woodland

Emergent wetlands

Prairie

Oak Savanna

Shrubland

Water

Disturbed Forest or Shrub

Cultivated or Pasture

Developed

Historical, 1850 Current

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles 0 10 20 30 5

km

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 3
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

4 Appendix P. Maps 
Map 3 Tualatin River Watershed and Conservation Lands

Conservation Lands in the 

Tualatin River Watershed

5

5

84

205

Willamette River Columbia River

Tualatin River

Farmington

Gage

McKay Creek

Beaverton Creek

West Fork

Creek

Dairy

Fanno

Creek

Dairy Creek

Rock Creek

Scoggins Creek

East Fork Dairy Creek

Gales Creek

122°40'0"W

122°40'0"W

122°50'0"W

122°50'0"W

123°0'0"W

123°0'0"W

123°10'0"W

123°10'0"W

123°20'0"W

123°20'0"W

123°30'0"W

123°30'0"W

45°40'0"N

45°40'0"N

45°30'0"N

45°30'0"N

45°20'0"N

45°20'0"N

Legend

NWR Approved Boundary

Acquired NWR Land

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

City and Regional Parks

Oregon Dept. of Forestry

State Fish and Wildlife

State Parks & Recreation

Urban Growth Boundary

Conservation Easements

99

Wapato Lake 

Unit

Sherwood

Units

Hagg Lake

Willamette River

26

0 52.5

Miles

0 52.5

km

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 5
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental A

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6 
Cedar Creek

Rock

Creek

Chicken Creek

Tualatin River

Goose Creek

Historic

Chicken

Creek

West Fork

Chicken

Creek

Rock Creek

122°50'0"W

122°50'0"W

Sherwood Units, Land Status

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-2.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 4

0 1 2

km

Rock Creek Unit

Onion Flats 

Unit

Atfálat’i Unit

Tualatin River Unit

Riverboat Unit

Legend

Headquarters & Visitor Center

Approved Boundary

Managed by the Refuge

Easements

Major Highways

Other Roads

210

Tualatin River

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 7
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

8 Appendix P. Maps 
Harris Creek

Hill Creek

Goodin Creek

Wapato Creek

Christensen

Creek

Ayers Creek

Tualatin River

South Fork

Hill Creek

Little

Russell

Creek

Scoggins Creek

O'Neil Creek

Black Jack Creek

123°10'0"W

123°10'0"W

Wapato Lake Unit, Land Status

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-2.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 5

0 1 2

km

Legend

Approved Boundary

Managed by the Refuge

Natural Resource Conserservation Service Easement

Major Highways

Other Roads

47

Tualatin River

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 9
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

10 Appendix P. Maps 
Cedar Creek

Rock

Creek

Chicken Creek

Tualatin River

Goose Creek

Historic

Chicken

Creek

West Fork

Chicken

Creek

Rock Creek

122°50'0"W

122°50'0"W

Sherwood Units, Hydrology

Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-6.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 6

0 1 2

km

Legend

Stream/River

Canal/Ditch

Herbaceous Wetland

Water Control Structures

Approved Boundary

Managed by the Refuge

Easements

99

210

Tualatin River

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 11
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

12 Appendix P. Maps 
Hill Creek Wapato Creek

Ayers Creek

Goodin Creek

South Fork Hill Creek

Little Russell Creek

lack Jack Creek

Graver Creek

McFee Creek

123°5'0"W

45°25'0"N

45°25'0"N

0 2

Miles

0 2 4

km

Legend

Stream/River

Canal/Ditch

Water

Historical Lakebed

Levee

Natural Levee

Water Control Structures

Acquisition Boundary

Managed by the Refuge

Ayers Creek

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

13
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental A

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________14 
Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

0 1 2

Miles

Map 8

0 1 2

km

Sherwood Units, Habitat Alternative 1

Legend

Habitat Currently in Restoration

Water

Herbaceous Wetland

Prairie - Wet

Riparian Forest

Mixed Forest

Scrub-Shrub Wetland

Oak Savanna & Prairie

Ruderal Wetland

Ruderal Upland

Cultivated

Developed

Approved Boundary

Ruderal communities are vegetation resulting from succession following anthropogenic disturbance of an area. They are generally characterized by unnatural combinations of

native species or primarily invasive nonnative species, such as disturbed range lands

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 15
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

16 Appendix P. Maps 
Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-2.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 9

0 1 2

km

Sherwood Units, Habitat Alternative 2

Legend

Developed

Herbaceous Wetland

Mixed Forest

Oak Savanna & Prairie

Prairie - Wet

Riparian Forest

Scrub-Shrub Wetland

Approved Refuge Boundary

Restored Streams

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 17
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

18 Appendix P. Maps 
Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-10.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 10

0 1 2

km

Sherwood Units, Habitat Alternative 3

Legend

Developed

Herbaceous Wetland

Mixed Forest

Oak Savanna & Prairie

Prairie - Wet

Riparian Forest

Scrub-Shrub Wetland

Approved Refuge Boundary

Restored Streams

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 19
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

20 Appendix P. Maps 
Atfálat’i Unit, Public Use

Tualatin Ri

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-11.mxd

0 0.5

Miles

Wildlife Center

Trails

Approved Refuge Boundary

Outside of Appro

Inside Approved 

Map 11

0 500

meters

Restroom

Trailhead

Observation Deck

Photo Blind

Study Site

Bus Stop

Visitor Info

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix P. Maps 21
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

22 Appendix P. Maps 
Tualatin River NWR Draft CCP/EA

Map Date:2/08/2012 File: 12-160-12.mxd

0 1 2

Miles

Map 12

0 1 2

km

Youth Waterfowl 

Hunting Area

with 2-5 Blinds

1-3 Wildlife Photography Blinds

Nature Explore

Area

Fishing

Area

Environmental Education 

Off-Trail Study Area

Sherwood Units, Public Use Opportunity Areas for Alternative 2 

Legend

Wildlife Center

Approximate Public Use Opportunity Areas

ExistingTrails

Approved Refuge Boundary

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix P. Maps 23
_Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment_ 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

24 Appendix P. Maps 
© Linda McPherson
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Tualatin River

National Wildlife Refuge

19255 SW Pacific Highway

Sherwood, OR 97140

Phone: 503/625 5944

Fax: 503/625 5947

October 2012

Cover Photo

Rough-skinned newt

© Mary Campbell

Inside Cover Photo

Osprey

© Louann Goodrich