Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Waterfowl Hunting Plan

January 2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 19255 SW Pacific Highway Sherwood, Oregon 97140

Submitted By: Larry Klimek, Project Leader

______Signature Date

Concurrence: Charlie Stenvall, Refuge Supervisor

______Signature Date

Approved: Kevin Foerster, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System

______Signature Date

Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………...……………………………………………4

II. Statement of Objectives…………………..……………………………………….7

III. Description of Hunting Program………………………………………………....8

A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting…………………………………..8

B. Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods, Hunting Access………....9

C. Hunter Permit Requirements (if applicable)……………………..9

D. Consultation and Coordination with the State……………………9

E. Law Enforcement...... ……………………………...... 10

F. Funding and Staffing Requirements …………………………….10

IV. Conduct of the Hunt Program...…………………………………………………..11

A. Hunter Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable).……………………...... 11

B. Refuge-Specific Regulations ……………………………………..11

C. Relevant State Regulations ……………………………………….12

D. Other Rules and Regulations for Hunters…………………………13

V. Public Engagement

A. Outreach Plan for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt……...... 13

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program…………….13

C. How Hunters Will be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations………………………………………………………..13

VI. Compatibility Determination……………………………………………………..14

References ……………………………………………………………………….14

Appendix A, Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Waterfowl Hunting Plan………………………………………15

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Appendix B, Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Draft Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting...………………………………………………………………………...39

List of Tables

Table 1. Costs to Administer and Manage the Waterfowl Hunting Program on Wapato Lake NWR ………………………………...…………………………….11

List of Maps

Figure 1. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary and current acquired lands………………………………………………….…………5

Figure 2. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge proposed waterfowl hunting area. The Private lands found within the lake bed are highlighted in orange and are not considered as part of the Refuge acres for hunting and non-hunting (sanctuary) areas…………………………………………………………………..8

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

WAPATO LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DRAFT WATERFOWL HUNTING PLAN

I. Introduction

National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/Refuge) is located adjacent to the town of Gaston, Oregon, in Washington and Yamhill Counties, approximately 20 miles west of Portland, the largest city within a 30-mile radius of the Refuge. First established in 2007 as a Unit of the Tualatin River NWR to restore the historic lakebed and surrounding lands for the purpose of improving habitat conditions for a number of native species. In 2013, this Unit was established as Wapato Lake NWR. Wapato Lake NWR is administered and managed under the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). With a total acquisition boundary of 4,370 acres, the Service currently owns and/or manages 958 acres at Wapato Lake NWR (Figure 1). A total of 522 acres of the 958 acres was acquired through the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et.s/* eq.) “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds”. As such, at a minimum, 60% or 313 acres must be maintained as a non-hunting sanctuary. The funding to support the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended by the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, is generated through the purchase of the federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps. Ninety-eight percent of the funds from the sale of every duck stamp goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase or lease wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion in the NWRS.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Figure 1. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary and current acquired lands.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Hunt Plan 3

The Refuge was established pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. The primary purposes of the refuge are for:

● “ … 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). ● “ … 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).

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

“... 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”

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS.

In addition, Secretarial Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation stated purpose is to increase outdoor recreation and improve the management of game species and their habitat. Secretarial Order 3347 directs the Department of the Interior to identify specific actions

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

to (1) expand access significantly for recreational hunting and fishing on public lands; and (2) improve recreational hunting and fishing cooperation, consultation, and communication with state wildlife managers.

Furthermore, Secretarial Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories, in part, stated purpose is to increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans in greater collaboration with state partners, including opportunities to hunt.

This hunt plan will provide visitors with recreational opportunities to pursue waterfowl hunting in an area where there are limited opportunities to hunt on public lands.

II. Statement of Objectives

The Complex completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in 2013 (USFWS 2013). The CCP outlines the goals, objectives, and implementation strategies for all refuge activities. Wapato Lake NWR was a unit of the Tualatin River NWR at the time the CCP was completed. Management of this unit remained conceptual in the CCP since further analysis of the area was required before making specific management decisions. The CCP further states that “while there are many unknowns for the future of Wapato Lake…the refuge will provide public use and focus on habitat restoration.” The Service determined that Wapato Lake Unit would be opened for public use, including hunting. In 2019, the Wapato Lake NWR Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019) was completed, providing detailed information regarding the habitat restoration on the Refuge.

The objectives of a waterfowl hunting program on Wapato Lake NWR are to:

● Provide the public with an opportunity to experience wildlife on more Refuge lands and increase opportunities for waterfowl hunters; ● Provide wildlife-dependent public recreation as mandated by and according to Service law and policy; ● To provide greater alignment with the State as mandated by Secretarial Orders Number 3347 and 3356; ● Provide a quality hunting experience, with uncrowded conditions and a reasonable opportunity for harvest, that meets Refuge guidelines and policies; ● Provide manageable and enforceable hunt boundaries that reduce conflicts with other users, reduce confusion for hunters, and provide sufficient wildlife sanctuary where waterfowl and other animals can feed and rest with minimal disturbance; ● Promote safety and minimize conflicts between waterfowl hunters and other visitors, such as hikers, wildlife viewers, and photographers; and ● Minimize conflicts with refuge management and operations.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

III. Description of Hunting Program

A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting

A total of 275 acres of the northern portion of the Refuge will be open to waterfowl hunting (Figure 2). Hunting will be from designated blinds placed on or adjacent to the interior levee surrounding Wapato Lake.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

The lakebed has been intensively manipulated for agricultural purposes for nearly a century and is largely void of native flora. The Service is actively working on the re-establishment of native herbaceous and woody plant communities. As mentioned previously, the Wapato Lake NWR Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019) provides habitat restoration information that will inform public uses for the Refuge. In addition to hunting, the Service is also considering opening the Refuge to other public uses which will be addressed in a separate Visitor Services Plan.

B. Species to be Taken, Hunting periods, Hunting Access

Waterfowl Hunting: Geese, ducks, and coots will be taken by waterfowl hunters in accordance with state, federal, and Refuge-specific regulations. Bag limits and hunting seasons on the Refuge will coincide with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) waterfowl hunting regulations, unless otherwise noted.

Hunting will occur three days per week: Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, during the state designated waterfowl season. Shooting hours would follow state regulations. Two to twelve semi-permanent blinds would be placed at designated locations. The blinds would be approximately 250 yards apart with up to 4 hunters per blind. The Service may adjust dates and locations of blinds if necessary.

C. Hunter Permit Requirements (if applicable)

Hunters must comply with all state, federal, and Refuge-specific regulations regarding waterfowl hunting.

D. Consultation and Coordination with the State

Discussions with ODFW staff over potentially opening a hunt program at Wapato Lake NWR specific to waterfowl hunting have been ongoing for many years. More recent discussions, were focused on Refuge staff soliciting advice from ODFW on what they saw as viable options for hunting at Wapato Lake NWR. ODFW responded by providing recommendations regarding waterfowl hunting and some additional thoughts for potential upland hunting opportunities. Those recommendations were used in developing the waterfowl hunt plan and the proposed alternative in this EA. In addition, the staff met with ODFW hunter recruitment specialists on February 13th 2019 to discuss potential opportunities to collaborate and explore future opportunities. On January 29th, 2020, Refuge staff is hosting a Wapato Lake NWR waterfowl hunting plan session with key partners, including ODFW staff. In attendance will be Mark Nebeker, Manager of the Sauvie Island Wildlife Area, Brandon Reishus, Migratory Game Bird Coordinator, and Brandon Dyches, Hunter Recruitment Specialist from ODFW. All participants have been provided with advanced draft copies of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Waterfowl Hunting Plan, Compatibility Determination and proposed Hunting Plan.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

E. Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement on National Wildlife Refuges, including Wapato Lake NWR, is the responsibility of commissioned Federal Wildlife Officers. The Complex shares a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) with two other Complexes and the Zone LEO’s area of responsibility includes all of western Washington and western Oregon. Therefore, an effectively managed hunt will require coordination and assistance from State law enforcement and with LEOs from other refuges. Other LEOs, Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents, and the local Sheriff’s Department may assist the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex in providing law enforcement support for the proposed hunt.

The following methods are used to control and enforce hunting regulations:

● Refuge and hunt area boundaries would be clearly posted; ● The Refuge would provide a brochure that shows hunt areas on the Refuge website and at the Refuge headquarters; ● Service law enforcement staff would randomly check hunters for compliance with federal and state laws as well as Refuge-specific regulations pertinent to the hunt; ● Service law enforcement staff would coordinate with applicable law enforcement agencies; and ● Information would be made available at the Refuge headquarters and Refuge website.

F. Funding and Staffing Requirements

The waterfowl hunt will require some infrastructure and facilities. Access to hunting areas will be walk-in only and generally involve the use of the existing trails on the levee system from designated parking areas. The Refuge is coordinating with the City of Gaston to provide parking on City owned lands adjacent to the Refuge. Approximately 30 parking spaces for public access will be available. Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) are being followed for both access and participating in the hunts. There will also be ADAAG blind(s) constructed and a trail constructed to facilitate access. Trails to the remaining blinds will not be constructed, however, paths will be mowed and directional signs installed from the levee system.

Administering the waterfowl hunt would require Refuge staff time to coordinate with the City of Gaston, ODFW, and other cooperators, neighbors, and hunting volunteer groups; produce brochures and news releases; respond to hunter inquiries; conduct hunter and visitor outreach; minimize conflicts among users; conduct law enforcement; maintain boundary posting and visitor information sites; monitor impacts to wildlife and habitat and visitor use; and ensure public safety.

The estimated cost to operate a waterfowl hunt program at Wapato Lake NWR would be approximately $98,500 in one-time costs and $20,000 in annual costs, including salaries and maintenance expenses (see Table below). Initial one-time costs consist of developing access and parking, building and placing blinds, and developing materials for education and outreach. Additionally, annual funds are required to maintain posts and signs around the hunt area perimeter. Law enforcement staffing would be needed during the hunt season to conduct license,

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

bag limit, and access compliance checks. Refuge staff and trained volunteers would administer the hunt and may check harvested game. The Refuge would pursue participant fees related to the management of the program. Anticipated fees may include application fee and hunter recreation fee for selected and participating hunters. Other funding sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding.

Category and Itemization for Waterfowl Hunting Program First Recurring Year Annual Expenses Expenses Develop hunting program opening package $10,000 Construct hunting blinds $25,000 Develop signage and brochures/tear out sheet with maps and regulations $2,000 $500 Construct ADAAG blind(s) and trail $20,000 $500 Develop Parking lot $35,000 Survey and post hunt area boundary $1,000 Administration and management $11,500 Maintenance-blinds and portable restrooms $500 $2,000 Law Enforcement staff time $4,500 Outreach, education, and monitoring $5,000 $1,000 Total first year expenses for waterfowl hunting program $98,500 Total recurring annual expenses for waterfowl hunting program $20,000

IV. Conduct of the Hunting Program

A. Hunter Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures

Hunters will be randomly selected, through a lottery system. The application and selection process will occur during the pre-season in August/September. Hunt dates would be based on seasons set by ODFW. Selected hunters will be notified in September. In addition, they will receive a permit to hunt waterfowl on select hunt dates, and the permit would need to be signed and carried on the hunter’s person while hunting. As stated above, the Refuge would pursue participant fees related to the management of the program.

B. Refuge-Specific Hunting Regulations

Listed below are Refuge-specific regulations that pertain to hunting on Wapato Lake NWR as of the date of this plan. These regulations may be modified as conditions change or if Refuge expansion continues/occurs.

 A maximum of four hunters will be allowed per hunting blind.  Disabled hunters must possess an Oregon Disabilities Hunting and Fishing Permit issued by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to qualify for preference in using the ADAAG blind (See http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/disability for further information) or Federal Access pass.  Blinds will be assigned by a random drawing or lottery system from applications.  Hunt days will be on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, within the state waterfowl

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

season.  The hunt area will be open for access 2 hours before and after legal shooting hours.  Decoys and other personal property must be removed daily.  Littering (including empty shotgun hulls), abandoning, discarding, or otherwise leaving personal property unattended is prohibited.  Dogs are allowed for retrieving waterfowl, they must be engaged in hunting activity and under the immediate control of a licensed hunter (see 50 CFR 26.21(b)).  Possession of shot size larger than BB will be prohibited.  Only federally-approved non-toxic shot will be permitted.  All hunters must hunt from designated blinds except to retrieve downed birds.  Hunting from levees is prohibited.  Vehicles are restricted to designated parking areas, no overnight camping or parking.  Harvest of waterfowl must be reported to the refuge.  Possession of alcohol and illegal drugs by any person in the hunt area is prohibited.  Baiting of any wildlife, trapping, falconry, or netting is prohibited.

C. Relevant State Regulations

ODFW: Waterfowl hunting is permitted in accordance with all state regulations found at: https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/waterfowl

 Age (if restrictions are imposed by the state) Age requirements will be in accord with ODFW regulations.

 Allowable equipment (dogs, blinds, sporting arms, ammunition) Requirements will be in accord with ODFW, federal, and Refuge regulations.

 License and permits All duck and goose hunters must have a valid, current Oregon hunting license with all applicable validation, stamps, and permits. Federal stamp not required for youth under 16.

 Reporting harvesting Hunters must fulfill all ODFW reporting requirements. All hunters of migratory game birds (ducks, geese, doves, coots, and snipe) are required to complete a Harvest Information Program (HIP) survey at a license dealer and possess a state migratory bird permit as evidence of compliance with this requirement when hunting migratory game birds.

 Hunter training and safety Hunters must fulfill all ODFW requirements for training and hunter safety classes.

 Hunting Hours Official hunting hours for migratory game birds can be found at http://www.eregulations.com/oregon/game-bird/shooting-hours/

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Hunting

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited;  Use of ATVs, bicycles, and other off-road vehicles is prohibited. Access for hunting is from designated parking areas by foot only;  Use of drones is prohibited;  No boats are allowed; and  Commercial guiding for hunting is prohibited.

V. Public Engagement

A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting Program

The Refuge has a standard communication plan that will be implemented. Notices would be posted on the Refuge website, at the Refuge Visitor Center, and other appropriate locations. Local media will be contacted and provided with press releases. A press release announcing the waterfowl hunting opportunities would be sent out prior to the first hunting season, and a yearly announcement thereafter.

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program

Extensive public participation occurred during the development of the Tualatin River NWR CCP. Most comments received regarding the Wapato Lake Unit were in support of opening the Unit to hunting. Refuge goals and objectives aim to provide a high quality experience, minimize wildlife disturbance, provide wildlife sanctuary, reduce conflicts with other visitors, and reduce confusion for hunters.

Nationally, there is a component of the population that is opposed to hunting, and some organizations are opposed to hunting, or at least the expansion of hunting on National Wildlife Refuges and other public lands. Additionally, when the Tualatin River NWR opened a youth waterfowl hunt in 2015, some visitors objected to the activity. However, the Refuge staff believes that hunting opportunities on Wapato Lake NWR will be supported by the local community.

C. How Hunters Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations

General information regarding hunting, regulations, maps, and other wildlife-dependent public uses can be obtained at Tualatin River NWR Complex Headquarters at 19255 SW Pacific Hwy, Sherwood, OR or by calling (503) 625-5944 or email [email protected]. Hunting regulations and maps will be available on the website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Wapato_Lake/

ODFW hunting information is available at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, Main Phone (503) 947-6000 or (800) 720- ODFW (6339). Hunting resources are also available on the ODFW website at:

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/waterfowl/

VI. Compatibility Determination

Hunting and all associated program activities proposed in this plan are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. See attached Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting on Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019a. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment for Waterfowl Hunting Plan. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting at Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Proposed Wapato Lake Unit. Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Appendix A. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Waterfowl Hunt Expansion

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Washington and Yamhill County, Oregon

Environmental Assessment

for the

Proposed Waterfowl Hunting Plan

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 19255 SW Pacific Hwy Sherwood, Oregon 97140

January 2020

Introduction: This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS) to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509), and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Proposed Action: The Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for waterfowl on the Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/Refuge) in accordance with the Refuge’s Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Wapato Lake Unit, Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2007) and Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2013). The purpose of this proposed action is to provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, specifically hunting, on Wapato Lake NWR. The proposed action would also address Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356 by opening a new refuge to hunting, and establish regulations that align closely with state regulations. The hunt area being considered is within approximately five miles of levees that surround the 800-acre wetland basin known as Wapato Lake. More specifically, the area will be adjacent to and include the levees in the northern portion of the lakebed. A proposed action is often iterative and may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The proposed action will be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2020-2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to hunting until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to hunting (link to FR notice for rule when available). Background: National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Wapato Lake NWR is located adjacent to the town of Gaston, Oregon, in Washington and Yamhill Counties, approximately 20 miles west of Portland, the largest city within a 30-mile radius of the Refuge. First established in 2007 as a Unit of the Tualatin River NWR to restore the historic lakebed and surrounding lands for the purpose of improving habitat conditions for a number of native species. In 2013, this Unit was established as Wapato Lake NWR. The Refuge is administered and managed under the Tualatin River NWR Complex (Complex). The total acquisition boundary of Wapato Lake NWR is 4,370 acres. The Service currently owns and/or manages 958 acres (Figure 1). A total of 522 acres of the 958 acres was acquired through the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et.seq.) “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds”. As such, at a minimum, 60% or 313 acres must be maintained as a sanctuary area for migratory birds. The funding to support the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended by the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, is generated through the purchase of the federal migratory bird

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 2

hunting and conservation stamps. Ninety-eight percent of the funds from the sale of every duck stamp goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase or lease wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Figure 1. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary and current acquired lands.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 3

The Refuge was established pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. The primary purposes of the refuge are for: ● “ … 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). ● “ … 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). The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans”

The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the National Wildlife Refuge System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)): ● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS; ● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; ● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out; ● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located; ● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife; ● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and ● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS. Wapato Lake NWR is currently closed to wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, including hunting. However, the Refuge will be evaluating potential recreational opportunities where compatible and safe, while assessing potential conflicts between uses. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: The purpose of this proposed action is to provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, specifically hunting, on Wapato Lake NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 4

Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). Alternatives Considered Alternative A – Opening Waterfowl Hunting on Wapato Lake NWR [Proposed Action Alternative]: The Refuge has prepared a Wapato Lake NWR Hunting Plan (USFWS 2019a), which is incorporated herein by reference and attached to this document to provide more details regarding the Proposed Action Alternative. Additionally, a Wapato Lake NWR Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019b) provides habitat restoration information that will inform potential public uses within the wetland basin. The Service is also considering opening the Refuge to other public uses which will be addressed in the appropriate future document(s). Under the Proposed Action Alternative, Wapato Lake NWR would be open to waterfowl hunting. Hunting would be restricted to areas adjacent to the inside portions of the levee surrounding the northern portion of Wapato Lake and occur from designated blind locations (see Figure 2). In addition, access would be via the levee system. Hunters would be subject to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Service, and any additional Refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulations. Hunting would occur three days per week, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, during the state-approved waterfowl season. Two to twelve semi- permanent blinds would be placed at designated areas approximately 250 yards apart. Considering the anticipated demand for waterfowl hunting on the Refuge and the proximity to a large population center, a lottery system would be used to randomly select hunters versus establishing free-roam hunting. Hunt dates would be based on seasons set by ODFW. The application and selection process would occur during the pre-season, typically in August. Successfully selected hunters would be notified in September. Selected hunters would receive a permit to hunt waterfowl on assigned hunt dates. The issued permit must be signed and carried on the hunter’s person while hunting. The estimated cost to operate a waterfowl hunt program is estimated to be approximately $20,000.00 annually, with initial cost totaling $98,500. Under this alternative the Law Enforcement Officers would conduct license, bag limit, and access compliance checks. Refuge staff and trained volunteers would administer the hunt and may check harvested game. Hunts would occur on the northern portions of the lake side levee system of Wapato Lake. The Refuge has not been opened to public use, but the Service is in the process of developing a public use plan and Environmental Assessment to evaluate these uses, including wildlife observation and photography, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. If the Refuge is opened to other public uses, measures would be taken to separate non-consumptive uses from consumptive uses during the hunting season. Sections of the levee would be closed to other public uses to accommodate hunting and provide safe access to all our visitors. This would minimize conflict between hunting other wildlife dependent public uses. This alternative offers new opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of Wapato Lake NWR and the mission of the NWRS (USFWS 2019c).

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 5

Figure 2. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge proposed waterfowl hunting area. The Private lands found within the lake bed are highlighted in orange and are not considered as part of the Refuge acres for migratory bird hunting and non-hunting (inviolate sanctuary) areas.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 6

Alternative B – Maintain Status Quo - No Hunting [No Action Alternative]: Wapato Lake NWR is currently not open to public use, including hunting. The Service is considering opening the Refuge to other public uses which will be considered separately from this document. The Refuge would continue to implement restoration of Wapato Lake as outlined in the Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019b). Hunting would not be permitted under this alternative. Alternative(s) Considered But Dismissed From Further Consideration No alternatives were considered but dismissed from further consideration. Affected Environment The Refuge, located 7 miles south of Forest Grove, Oregon and adjacent to the town of Gaston, Oregon, spans both Washington and Yamhill Counties, with a 4,370 acre acquisition boundary. Wapato Lake NWR currently consists of 958 acres of fee-simple and conservation easement lands (See Figure 1). The Refuge is bounded by State Highway 47 to the west, Spring Hill Road to the east and north, and Flett Road to the south. Lands within Wapato Lake NWR’s acquisition boundary are primarily agricultural and ruderal (non- native, disturbed) lands, and include approximately three miles of the Tualatin River and numerous tributary streams, remnant fragments of palustrine forested, scrub shrub and emergent wetlands, and an approximately 800 acre degraded wetland basin known as Wapato Lake. Since 2013, the Refuge has been working to manage and restore 748 acres of palustrine wetlands within the lakebed and approximately 210 acres of palustrine wetlands and associated uplands on non-lakebed lands. The proposed action is located on or adjacent to the five miles of levee surrounding Wapato Lake. See map of the general area and proposed hunting zone in Figure 2. The land cover for the proposed public use areas consists of a natural surface dike trail, ruderal and agricultural lands, modified creek channels, and palustrine forested, shrub-scrub and emergent wetlands. For more detailed information regarding the affected environment, please refer to Wapato Lake NWR Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019b). Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource”. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. Tables 1-4 provide: 1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; 2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects. Table 5 provides a brief description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives.

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place;

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 7

● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable; and ● Cumulative impacts result 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. Table 1. Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives

NATURAL RESOURCES

Waterfowl

The most abundant avian taxon currently observed at Wapato Lake is waterfowl. Waterfowl numbers (both geese and ducks) peak between mid-November to mid-December, when weekly counts document an average of 21,000 birds utilizing the lakebed (USFWS unpublished data). Notable waterfowl surveys where numbers far exceeded the mid-winter average include counts during December 2006 and November 2016 where an estimated 66,000 and 40,000 pintail, respectively, were observed on the lakebed (USFWS unpublished data). In addition, during January 2017, over 8,000 ring-necked ducks and 400 canvasbacks were observed at Wapato Lake (USFWS unpublished data). Furthermore, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, American wigeon, mallards, ruddy ducks, bufflehead, American coot and cackling geese also utilize Wapato Lake during the wintering period. While not abundant, nor legal to harvest in Oregon, dusky Canada geese, and tundra and trumpeter swans use Wapato Lake and the surrounding landscape during fall and winter.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Hunting at Wapato Lake NWR will result in direct mortality of waterfowl. Given this is a new hunting opportunity, we cannot accurately quantify the number of hunter-days or waterfowl harvest over the course of the season. In order to estimate hunter participation and harvest, we make the following assumptions. A maximum of 12 blinds will be established with a maximum occupancy of 4 hunters per blind. With 3-hunt days per week over the 16 week waterfowl season (excluding special goose season), this equates to a maximum of 2,304 hunters. Assuming a 2 bird/hunter harvest, based on the 55-year (1964-2019) bird per hunter average at the nearby Sauvie Island Wildlife Area, managed by the ODFW, an estimated 4,608 birds would be harvested annually at Wapato Lake NWR. In addition to harvest mortality, noise from gunfire, and associated hunter presence and movement, would disrupt waterfowl use (feeding and resting) near blinds within the hunting area during legal (daylight) shooting hours and likely cause dispersal. Since this is a new hunt, dispersal patterns cannot be predicted, and would also be influenced by habitat conditions on the surrounding landscape and hunting pressure on private lands adjacent to the Refuge. What is known, however, is that 61% of the Service owned wetland portion within the Wapato Lake area would remain closed to waterfowl hunting, thus providing 434 acres of wetland where birds would not be subjected to harvest mortality or disturbance on hunt days (see Figure 2). A total of 275 acres of the northern portion of the Refuge would be open to hunting. Since hunting would only occur from the designated hunt blinds located along the levee system, limiting the disturbance area to approximately 150 to 200 yards from the levee, the interior portion within the

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 8

hunt area would also have minimal disturbance. Additionally, the Refuge would be closed to waterfowl hunting for 4-days during the week. In the context of the annual statewide harvest of ducks and geese, which approaches 500,000 and 80,000 birds, respectively, adverse impacts to waterfowl populations is expected to be minor, but occur annually during the fall and winter over the long-term. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would not cause any direct or indirect impacts to waterfowl because it would maintain the status quo and not result in hunting actions that would disturb and/or displace migrating birds, or cause bird mortality.

Wildlife and Aquatic Species

Systematic surveys of other wildlife and aquatic species have only recently begun and not quantified to date, anecdotal information is presented below. Further, habitat availability at Wapato Lake for other wildlife and aquatic species is fairly limited currently due to the historic agricultural land use of the site. Over the next 5 years, ecological restoration actions will dramatically improve palustrine emergent, shrub-scrub and forested plant communities, providing improved habitat for a broad diversity of wildlife and aquatic species. Birds: To date, secretive marsh bird use of Wapato Lake has been low. American bittern and Sora have been observed during the breeding season where emergent wetland conditions persist, and are expected to increase in abundance post-restoration of Wapato Lake, along with other species such as Virginia rail and pied-billed grebe. Great blue heron and great egrets are observed year-round in low numbers, but like secretive marsh birds, are expected to become more abundant post-restoration of Wapato Lake. Although scrub-shrub and forested wetland cover is sparse, Wapato Lake does support a number of breeding neotropical migrants. Olive-sided flycatcher, willow flycatcher, rufous hummingbird and yellow-breasted chat have all been observed in remnant forest patches associated with the lakebed. Common year-round passeriformes include the song sparrow and white-crowned sparrow. Restoration actions are expected to improve habitat conditions for these species. Raptors such as red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and red-shouldered hawk are commonly observed in and around Wapato Lake. One known active bald eagle nest is located just outside the southern end of the lakebed in an Oregon ash dominated forest and one active osprey nest exists on a man-made platform that sits atop a power pole in the northwestern portion of the lakebed. Bald eagles are observed utilizing Wapato Lake during the winter as well. Shorebird use of Wapato Lake is generally low and expected to remain low post-restoration. Species such as greater yellowlegs, western and least sandpipers, black-bellied plover, long-billed dowitcher, semi-palmated plover, and black-necked stilt, have been observed in small numbers during fall and spring migrations. Species such as killdeer and spotted sandpiper are present year- round and nest along the outer edge of the lakebed in small numbers. In total, 191 species of birds from 45 families have been documented using the Wapato Lake area. Mammals: While observed infrequently, it is not uncommon to see small herds of black-tailed deer and the occasional coyote. Periodically, a herd of approximately 80 Roosevelt elk use Wapato Lake. Smaller rodents, such as western pocket gopher, vagrant shrew, and Pacific

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 9

jumping mouse, have also been observed. Aquatic mammals observed at Wapato Lake include the North American beaver, North American river otter, and the non-native nutria. Reptiles and Amphibians: Fourteen species of reptiles and amphibians have been documented in the Wapato Lake area (USFWS unpublished data); however, little is known regarding species abundance. They include Pacific chorus frog, Northwestern salamander, rough-skinned newt, Northwestern garter snake, common garter snake, and two Oregon state sensitive species: Northern red-legged frog and Western pond turtle, and the invasive, non-native bullfrog. Non-listed Fish and Other Aquatic Fauna: Fourteen species of fish have been observed in the watershed, however, due to the presence of the levee system, most of these species do not occupy Wapato Lake. Many native non-salmonid species are present in streams within the watershed surrounding Wapato Lake, including sculpin, lamprey, dace, coarse-scale sucker, and red-side shiner. Introduced, non-native species include bluegill, common carp, smallmouth and largemouth bass, yellow perch, and bullhead catfish. Carp and bullhead catfish have been observed in Wapato Lake. During summer 2015, Refuge staff and staff from the Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Working Group documented the presence of native western floater mussels and non-native Asian clams in the canal system that surrounds the lakebed and in Wapato Creek just north of the lakebed.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Non-game wildlife (including birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) may be temporarily disturbed by hunters entering and leaving Wapato Lake, as well as by gunfire. This disturbance, especially when repeated over the course of the waterfowl season, may result in some wildlife species temporarily altering foraging habits or moving to other areas on and off the Refuge. However, waterfowl hunts would occur in the fall/winter when most if not all of the reported species at Wapato Lake are not breeding or nesting, when young are highly mobile, when many species are less active (e.g. amphibians and reptiles), and occur in designated areas where few larger mammals frequent. While bald eagles begin breeding activities during the winter, hunter access could be restricted to prevent disturbance to the active nest located at the southern end of Wapato Lake. Further, due to the limited number of hunters that would be allowed on the Refuge at any given time, the seasonality of proposed hunts, restricting hunting to 3-days per week, and the availability of adjacent habitat for dispersal, adverse impacts to other wildlife and aquatic species is expected to be minor and localized, but occur annually during the fall and winter over the long-term. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would not cause any direct or indirect impacts to Wildlife and Aquatic Species because it would maintain the status quo and not result in any actions that would disturb and/or displace wildlife, or cause wildlife mortality.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species

There are two ESA-listed threatened or endangered species under National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; NMFS 2016) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS 2018a) jurisdiction that may occur near the proposed action area (i.e. Wapato Creek); Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Chinook salmon and Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Steelhead. Threatened Lower Columbia River coho may be present; however, they are not ESA- listed in the Willamette Basin above Willamette Falls. Critical habitat has been designated for these species, but none occurs in the proposed action area.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 10

According to NOAA Fisheries (personal communication Annie Birnie, September 5, 2018) Chinook are present downstream of the proposed action in the Tualatin River, however, they do not utilize any portion of the proposed action area. Adult and juvenile steelhead could be present in close proximity to the proposed action area in Wapato Creek, which is a degraded, low- gradient, soft substrate stream channel unsuitable for spawning. Other steelhead life history stages, excluding spawning, could be supported by Wapato Creek. Temporal Use of the Tualatin River by adult and juvenile steelhead (personal communication Annie Birnie NOAA Fisheries, September 5, 2018 and ODFW https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/FHD_FPB_Viewer/index.html): • Upstream adult migration occurs primarily from mid-January through April. • Adult holding occurs primarily from mid-January through April. • Adult spawning occurs primarily from mid-February through May. • Juvenile rearing can occur year round. • Juvenile downstream migration occurs primarily from March until mid-August. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, potential adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) are also analyzed. Pacific salmon EFH is designated for Chinook salmon and coho salmon which are found in Wapato Creek, adjacent to Wapato Lake wetland basin.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): While it is possible that multiple life history stages of listed steelhead and Chinook may be supported in areas adjacent to the proposed action area throughout the year, the probability of occurrence is low (personal comm. Tom Murtagh ODFW). More importantly, steelhead and Chinook would not occupy Wapato Lake, where the proposed hunt would occur, due to the presence of the levee system that separates Wapato Creek from Wapato Lake. Although critical habitat has been designated for Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Chinook salmon and Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Steelhead, no critical habitat designation occurs for Chinook within the Tualatin River Basin and the closest critical habitat designation for Steelhead is in the Tualatin River and Gales Creek 3.5 + miles to the north of the proposed action area. The proposed action will therefore have no effect on critical habitat given the distance to the nearest critical habitat designation for listed fish. Finally, the Wapato Creek area on the outside of the Wapato Lake levee system is designated as EFH for Chinook salmon; however, it is located outside of the proposed waterfowl hunt area. The proposed action will therefore have no effect on Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Chinook salmon and Threatened (Upper Willamette River ESU) Steelhead, and no effect on critical habitat or EFH. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would have no effect on Threatened and Endangered Species because it would maintain the status quo and not result in any negative actions.

Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern)

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 11

As a result of past and current land use, the lakebed and surrounding area are a patchwork of agricultural and ruderal lands and in-tact, remnant wetland and uplands. Prior to 2017, Wapato Lake had been drained annually and farmed for nearly a century, largely eliminating native wetland plant communities from the lakebed. Since 2017, Wapato Lake has lied fallow and currently supports a mosaic of non-native and native wetland plant species, including barnyard grass, reed-canary grass, purple loosestrife, smartweed spp., willow spp., rice cutgrass, water plantain, Wapato, cattail and bulrush. Scattered patches of native woody vegetation exist in the lakebed along levee toes. For example, a few mature black cottonwood trees exist at the northern and northwestern edge of the lakebed, while willow spp., Nootka rose, and Douglas spirea are common along the entire levee system. Overall, the levee system is dominated by reed- canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, common teasel, and poison hemlock. The banks of the canal system on the northern half of the lakebed’s exterior support a similar plant community composition to the interior portions of the levee as described above, while the canal banks in the southern half are generally more wooded and with narrow bands of closed canopy forest dominated by Oregon ash and black cottonwood and an associated slough sedge understory. The exterior canals themselves are perennially inundated; however, their ecological value is generally limited. The canals are steep-banked and flow is representative of a low-gradient creek. The canal bottom is comprised of soft, mucky substrate, and woody vegetative is absent from most of the banks. Plant community composition will change dramatically over the course of the next 3-5 years as a result of planned ecological restoration work at Wapato Lake. Once non-native plant cover is reduced and revegetation of native plant communities occur, the side slopes of the 5+ miles of levee that surround Wapato Lake will support native shrub species, while the lakebed will support a mosaic of palustrine emergent, shrub-scrub and forested wetlands.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Under this alternative, access to hunting areas would be walk-in only and generally involve the use of existing trails and levee system from parking lots. Fires, overnight camping, and use of boats and off-road vehicles by hunters would be prohibited. However, walking off-trail to reach desired hunting areas would be eliminated by developing trails from the levee system to blind locations. Minimal disturbance of native vegetation is expected as hunters navigate the landscape to hunting areas. Given the nature of soils surrounding wetlands (e.g., likely exposed and wet) some compaction of soils would be expected. Likewise, some trampling of wetland vegetation near the wetland edges would be expected during normal hunting activities (access, decoy setup, bird retrieval, etc.). Waterfowl hunting will be limited to designated blind locations which will be accessed from designated walking trail, and occur during the vegetative dormant season, disturbance to vegetation is expected to be minimal, even considering the possibility that unimproved access trails develop over time. Another concern is the possibility that waterfowl hunters could unintentionally serve as a vector for non-native, invasive plant establishment at Wapato Lake, particularly Ludwigia peploides, which is now considered the worst aquatic invasive plant species in the state of Oregon (Oregon Department of Agriculture). Despite this concern, waterfowl hunters may pose no greater risk than other potential vectors such as wildlife. The Refuge would reduce the probability of

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 12

unintentional invasive plant introductions through outreach and education efforts with the waterfowl hunting community and by implementing an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) prevention protocol, aimed at annual monitoring and elimination of high priority invasive plant species like Ludwigia. The footprint of disturbance is expected to be minimal as a result of hunters accessing Wapato Lake, and a tentative plan has been developed to address the potential for invasive plant introductions, adverse impacts are expected to be minor and localized, but occur annually during the fall and winter over the long-term. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would have no effect on vegetation because it would maintain the status quo and not result in any actions that would affect vegetation.

Table 2. Affected Visitor Use and Experience and Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

While the Refuge is currently closed to public use, the Service is in the process of completing an Environmental Assessment to assess public access and visitor use in addition to hunting in the future. Visitors may potentially participate in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation programming along the 5-mile levee and a variety of special programs and events. Wildlife viewing will be available from the levee. The anticipation is that the levee will be popular among non-hunting visitors, even during the hunting season.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Conflicts can occur between hunting and other potential uses such as bird watching, photography and wildlife viewing. The preferred alternative would be managed in a way to minimize potential conflict with other compatible public uses. If the Refuge is opened to other public uses, during the hunting season, measures would be taken to separate non-consumptive uses from consumptive uses. Sections of the levee would be closed to other public uses to accommodate hunting and provide safe access to all our visitors. Alternative B (No Action): The no action alternative would preclude hunting, on the Refuge resulting in no conflict with other potential future public uses.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The abundant waterfowl, rich Labish soils, accessible water, and the lake’s eponymous wapato root vegetable, have been contributing resources to people and wildlife for thousands of years, including agricultural use of the lake during the 20th and 21st centuries. At the time of contact with Euro-Americans, the watersheds of the Tualatin and Yamhill Rivers were home to the Atfalat’i or Tualatin Indians, sometimes referred to as the Wapato Lake Indians. During the mid- 19th century the Native Americans living around Wapato Lake were removed to a reservation to become part of The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. The environment also made the area attractive to Euro-American settlement, including Joseph Gaston, who worked to bring a railroad to the area and developed Wapato Lake as an agricultural enterprise. The soils of the drained

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 13

lakebed have been excellent for the production of onions (Allium cepa L.). For more detailed information regarding cultural resources in the proposed area, please refer to Wapato Lake NWR Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2019b).

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): The Service has determined that opening hunting opportunities for waterfowl is the type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (36CFR800.3.a.1. the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act - NHPA). No ground disturbing activities are proposed and opening the area would not alter, directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a historic property. The undertaking may proceed without further consideration of NHPA Section 106. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would have no effect on Cultural Resources because it would maintain the status quo and not result in actions that would disturb any existing cultural resources.

Table 3. Affected Refuge Management and Operations and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives

REFUGE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS

Administration

The Tualatin River NWRC, which includes Wapato Lake NWR, is supported by 5 full time permanent employees. A Project Leader (Refuge Manager), Deputy Project Leader, a Wildlife Biologist, Administrative Support Assistant, and a Maintenance professional. The general Refuge annual base budget is approximately $750,000.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Estimated costs to implement the preferred alternative are $98,500 for the first year expenses and $20,000 recurring annually. In addition, it will also result in Refuge employees spending 2% (approximately 40 hours) to 8% (approximately 160 hours) of their time overseeing and implementing the proposed action on the Refuge (for example, administering the hunt lottery system). The employees most affected would include the Project Leader, Deputy Project Leader, Biologist, Park Ranger, Refuge Law Enforcement Officer, and Maintenance. While this would impact the administration of the Refuge, it would not be significant because the Refuge would still be able to carry out its other priority actions and obligations in meeting the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the NWRS, such as restoration and management, visitor services, etc. The action would also facilitate the development of a public use program at Wapato Lake NWR. Alternative B (No Action): The no-action alternative would have no effect on the administration of the Complex because it would maintain the status quo and not result in any actions that would affect the budget or employee time.

Table 4. Affected Socioeconomics and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 14

SOCIOECONOMICS

Local and regional economies Wapato Lake NWR is located in Gaston, Oregon, which has a population of about 700. Forest Grove, approximately 7.5 miles to the northwest, is the largest city in proximity to the Refuge, with a population of about 24,000. The Refuge lies within both Washington and Yamhill Counties. The population in Washington County has been experiencing one of the most rapid growth rates in the country. Between 1950 and 2018, Washington County’s population has increased from 61,269 to 597,695, a rate faster than both the state and national average (USCB 2019). Yamhill County is also experiencing growth, but at a slower rate than neighboring Washington County, increasing from 33,484 in 1950 to 107,002 in 2018 (USCB 2019). In 2018, Washington County farm and ranch gross sales totaled nearly $292 million, placing the county seventh in the State in total farm sales; Yamhill County sales were over $269 million, placing ninth in the State (Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service 2012–2013). In nursery and greenhouse crops, Washington County ranked third with sales of nearly $147 million, while Yamhill County ranked fourth at nearly $86 million. While agriculture comprises the main economic activity in and around the Refuge, the growth and diversification of the non-farm economy has likely reduced the relative contribution agriculture makes to both counties’ total economies.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Implementation of the preferred alternative will have minor positive impacts on the local economy of Gaston, Oregon from an increase of visitors patronizing local businesses for the duration of the hunt season. Alternative B (No Action): The no action alternative would result in a neutral impact on local and regional economies.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or alternative. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed activity or the no action alternative. Alternative B (No Action): See above

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 15

The Refuge lands, especially the wetland basin, represent an important area for the local Native American population, especially the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): There are no Indian Trust Resources on this Refuge and this action will not impact any Indian Trust Resources. However, given the historical nature of this area to local Tribes, the Refuge will continue to collaborate with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde on the actions taken. Alternative B (No Action): See above

INHOLDINGS

There are inholdings owned by private landowners within the lakebed. These areas are excluded from consideration. On the west side of the lakebed an access easement exists that provides ingress and egress across Refuge lands for one owner of the approximately 30-acre inholding located in the center of the lakebed. Another inholding is located on the southern portion of the lake which includes private land inside and outside of the lakebed.

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (Proposed Action): Implementation of the preferred alternative could have some impacts on the landowners for the duration of the hunt season. The adjacent landowners include private residences, businesses, and active agricultural farms. The impacts may include noise disturbance from gunfire and associated hunter presence and movement. In addition, some adjacent landowners also engage in hunting on their properties. Alternative B (No Action): The no action alternative would result in a neutral impact on local landowners.

Cumulative Impact Analysis: Cumulative impacts are defined as “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” (40 CFR 1508.7). For more information on the national cumulative impacts of the Service’s hunting and fishing program on the National Wildlife Refuge System, see the Cumulative Impact Report for the 2020- 2021 Sport Hunting and Fishing Proposed Rule.

Table 5. Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 16

Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected Environment

Wildlife-dependent recreation

To date, an extensive, well established trail and road system have not been developed in and around the Refuge, however, scattered, relatively small, County and City owned nature parks do provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. The Tualatin River does support a water trail, however, current use is low. Over the course of the next decade, however, it is anticipated that close to 2000 new acres of land will be accessible to the public between opening portions of Wapato Lake NWR and a large Metro owned nature park in the Chehalem Mountains (northeast of the Refuge). In addition, a Rails to Trails system between McMinnville and Gaston is being proposed, and would ultimately tie into Wapato Lake and the Metro owned Chehalem property. Collectively, these actions will likely attract increased numbers of visitors interested in wildlife-dependent recreation from in and around the Portland Metro region.

Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts The proposed action is anticipated to compliment future wildlife dependent recreation at Wapato Lake NWR and thus would ultimately increase public use in the greater Tualatin River watershed. While this increase in public use could increase the risk of invasive plant proliferations and wildlife disturbance events, the impacts would be minor in the context of past, present and future actions in the basin tied to wildlife dependent recreation. Further, the proposed action’s impacts associated with wildlife dependent recreation can be mitigated. For example, the Integrated Pest Management Plan does address invasive plant concerns and wildlife disturbance events will be minimized as public use is evaluated through the NEPA process and a visitor services plan developed. Finally, the benefits that wildlife dependent recreation provide to local and regional economies and the public support that can be garnered for conservation through access to wildlife dependent recreation outweigh the associated risks.

Waterfowl

Under the preferred Alternative, approximately 250 acres (26% of the refuge area) would be open to waterfowl hunting. Anticipated waterfowl harvest is expected to be approximately 4,608 birds per year. Raftovich et. al. (2019) report that 492,200±16% ducks and 81,100±18% geese were harvested in the state of Oregon during the 2018-19 waterfowl season, based on preliminary harvest estimates. Therefore, if harvest mortality associated with the new waterfowl hunt at Wapato Lake NWR were additive, it would represent only a small fraction of waterfowl harvest state-wide.

Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts 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 hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. Annual waterfowl assessments are based on the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and includes

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 17

the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America. The Report is a cooperative effort by the Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, various State and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision-making protocols. These AHM reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season. In Oregon, the ODFW selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options using guidance in these reports. Their selections can be more restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than the AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each State increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations. The cumulative impacts to hunted ducks and geese are considered during the establishment of the Migratory Bird Frameworks from which States choose hunting seasons and bag limits. Refuges then choose to reflect State regulations or establish more restrictive specific regulations if necessary, thereby ensuring Refuge hunting will not lead to any adverse cumulative impacts. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges open to waterfowl hunting is only 6 percent; 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 the Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area. As such, the proposed action is anticipated to have a negligible impact on waterfowl populations.

Climate Change

Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts Climate change is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. The combination of increasing mean temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns could alter the amount, type, and quality of available wildlife habitat on the Refuge and surrounding areas, and potentially lead to secondary effects such as changes in frequency or severity of wildlife disease outbreaks. However, the proposed action is not anticipated to contribute to the impacts of climate change.

Monitoring The Service would maintain compliance with hunting regulations through Service law enforcement officers. Hunters would report harvest of waterfowl to the Refuge. The Refuge would continue biological monitoring at Wapato Lake NWR in accordance with the Refuge’s approved Inventory and Monitoring Plan. Summary of Analysis: The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Alternative A – Proposed Action Alternative As described above, Alternative A would result in minor, long-term adverse impacts on waterfowl. Waterfowl would be subjected to harvest mortality, and may be periodically displaced from feeding

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 18

and resting areas as a result of hunting actions; however, this could be partially offset with the establishment of inviolate sanctuary and limiting hunting to only 3-days per week. Further, adverse impacts resulting from harvest mortality at any given location such as a National Wildlife Refuge or State Wildlife Area, are considered negligible at the population level and are considered during the annual process to establish migratory bird season frameworks. Alternative A would also result in minor, long-term adverse impacts to native vegetation and other wildlife and aquatic species as a result of hunters navigating to and from blind locations, but the footprint of any permanent vegetation disturbance would represent a small percentage of the total area of Wapato Lake, and disturbance to other wildlife would be of short duration and seasonal in nature, and not occurring during the breeding life history stage for most species observed in and around Wapato Lake. While Alternative A would result in minor, short-term increases in wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the Refuge, as summarized above, none of the impacts, even when accumulated, would be significant on the human environment. Alternative A is the Service’s proposed action because it offers the best opportunity for providing public hunt opportunities that would result in a minimal impact on physical and biological resources. Opening the Refuge to these hunts as proposed under this alternative would meet the need of the Refuge under the NWRSAA to provide for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities while helping to fulfill Secretarial Orders 3447 and 3356. Based on the above analyses, the Service has determined that Alternative A, the Service’s proposed action alternative, would not have any significant impact on the human environment.

Alternative B – No Action Alternative As described above, under Alternative B, the Refuge’s current public non-access would remain unchanged. No hunting would occur on the Refuge. No hunt opportunities would be provided and the Refuge would not come closer to aligning Refuge hunt regulations with state regulations. Alternative B would result in neural impacts to the Refuge’s Wapato Lake wetland basin and upland habitats. State Coordination: Discussions with ODFW staff over potentially opening a hunt program at Wapato Lake NWR specific to waterfowl hunting have been ongoing for many years. More recent discussions, were focused on Refuge staff soliciting advice from ODFW on what they saw as viable options for hunting at Wapato Lake NWR. ODFW responded by providing recommendations regarding waterfowl hunting and some additional thoughts for potential upland hunting opportunities. Those recommendations were used in developing the waterfowl hunt plan and the proposed alternative in this EA. In addition, the staff met with ODFW hunter recruitment specialists on February 13th 2019 to discuss potential opportunities to collaborate and explore future opportunities. On January 29th, 2020, Refuge staff hosted a Wapato Lake NWR waterfowl hunting plan session with key partners, including ODFW staff. In attendance were Mark Nebeker, Manager of the Sauvie Island Wildlife Area and Brandon Dyches, Hunter Recruitment Specialist from ODFW. All participants had been provided with advanced draft copies of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Waterfowl Hunting Plan, Compatibility Determination and proposed Hunting Plan.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 19

Tribal Consultation: Tribal interests are an integral part of the restoration of Wapato Lake wetland basin and recreational opportunities on the Refuge, including hunting. The Refuge staff will continue to coordinate and collaborate with the local Tribes. Discussions with members of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde regarding opening Wapato Lake NWR to public use including hunting and ongoing restoration have been ongoing. More recently, on December 17th, 2019, Refuge staff met on site with Tribal Chairwoman Cheryle A. Kennedy, Council Member Denise Harvey, and Cultural Policy Analyst Greg Archuleta. Also, on October 18th, 2019, Project Leader Larry Klimek met with Mr. Archuleta. In addition, on February 19th, Refuge staff meet with Greg Archuleta and Michael Karnosh to discuss public use, including hunting, plantings, and future gathering opportunities. The Tribe participated in the development of the Tualatin River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2013) which addresses the future potential for public use, including waterfowl hunting, at Wapato Lake NWR. The Tribe has been provided a copy of this Draft EA and Hunt Plan and invited to provide comments, prior to issuance of the Draft EA and Hunt Plan for public comment.

Public Outreach: This Draft EA and Hunt Plan will be posted on the Refuge website and public comments will be solicited. Comments or requests for additional information may be submitted through any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]. Include “Wapato Lake Hunt” in the subject line of the message. Fax: Attn: Wapato Lake NWR Hunt (503) 625-5944. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Eva Kristofik, Deputy Project Leader, 19255 SW Pacific Highway, Sherwood, OR 97140 All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record. We will handle all requests for such comments in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the CEQ’s NEPA regulations in 40 CFR 1506.6(f). The Service’s practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Mark Nebeker, Manager, Sauvie Island Wildlife Area Brandon Dyches, Hunter Recruitment Specialist Tom Murtagh, North Willamette Watershed District Fish Biologist Mark Newell, former Outdoor Skills Education Coordinator Don VandeBergh, North Willamette Watershed District Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI Columbia-Pacific NW Region: Larry Klimek, Project Leader, Tualatin River NWR Complex Eva Kristofik, Deputy Project Leader, Tualatin River NWR Complex Richard Curt Mykut, Wildlife Biologist, Tualatin River NWR Complex Todd McKinney, Park Ranger, Tualatin River NWR Complex Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 20

Eric Anderson, Acting Project Leader, Ridgefield NWR Complex Laila Lienesch, Regional Hunting and Fishing Chief Ken Morris, Conservation Planner, DOI Columbia-Pacific NW Region Kevin O’Hara, Conservation Planner, DOI Columbia-Pacific NW Pacific Region List of Preparers: Eva Kristofik, Deputy Project Leader, Tualatin River NWR Complex Larry Klimek, Project Leader, Tualatin River NWR Complex Richard Curt Mykut, Wildlife Biologist, Tualatin River NWR Complex Todd McKinney, Park Ranger, Tualatin River NWR Complex References: Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. https://www.census.gov/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019a. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Plan. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019b. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019c. Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting at Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Proposed Wapato Lake Unit. Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Data

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex; Unpublished weekly winter waterfowl survey data.

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 21

Determination: This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment.

☐ The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact”.

☐ The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Preparer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title/Organization: ______

______

Reviewer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title: ______

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 22

APPENDIX 1

OTHER APPLICABLE STATUES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 activities, or other activities that might disturb undocumented paleontological, archaeological, or historic Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 sites. CFR Part 3 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810 Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)

Fish & Wildlife Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as There are no known federal threatened or endangered amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 species on the Refuge (See Appendix 4, ESA Section 7 Consultation). Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21 Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 23

Natural Resources The Service has evaluated the suitability of Wapato Lake Refuge for wilderness designation and concluded that the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401- Refuge does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the 7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, National Wilderness Preservation System. and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. Wapato Lake Refuge for wild and scenic river designation Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et and concluded no streams meet the basic criteria for seq. inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. The proposed action would have negligible effects to air Reg. 6183 (1999) quality. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species.

Water Resources Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. The Refuge does not lie in a coastal zone, and contains no rivers, harbors, or navigable waters. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 on water quality or water resources. (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 The Refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and supply drinking water to any community. 328 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 11990 because implementation of the Hunt Plan would U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, protect existing wetlands. 321, 322, and 333 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f 11988, because implementation of the Hunt Plan would not et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148 result in the modification or destruction of floodplains. Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977) Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)

Wapato Lake NWR Draft EA 202001 Page | 24

Appendix B. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting

Wapato Lake NWR Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Appendix B. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting

Use: Waterfowl hunting

Station Name: Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2013

County and State: Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

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 plans to allow hunting of waterfowl in accordance with state and Federal regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. A waterfowl hunt will be conducted on the northern portion of the Wapato Lake.

Hunting will take place during regular state seasons, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Hunting will be allowed using two to twelve blinds placed adjacent to the interior levee surrounding the northern part of the Wapato Lake, but this may change depending on hunting conditions. A maximum of four hunters will be accommodated in each blind. Blind assignments will be

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations determined via lottery prior to the season in August/September. 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. Do to their role in retrieving waterfowl, dogs used for waterfowl retrieval purposes are allowed on the refuge for waterfowl 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. (2019) there were approximately 29,300±8% active waterfowl hunters in Oregon during 2018. 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 Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) than any other topic (USFWS 2013). The Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/Refuge) is administered and managed under the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). In particular, the community has expressed a very strong interest in sharing hunting traditions with youth. Opening the refuge to waterfowl hunting will 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 the Wapato Lake NWR are very likely to support quality waterfowl hunts as the refuge will be restoring habitat used by waterfowl (USFWS 2019). Refuge hunting opportunities will be offered consistent with state hunting regulations and 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 will tend to promote and support the mission of the Refuge System.

Wapato Lake NWR was established under, or to fulfill the purpose of, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715a-715r), 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 will be beneficial to the species (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations maintained annually. The Complex shares a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) with two other Complexes and the Zone LEO’s area of responsibility includes all of western Washington and western Oregon. Therefore, an effectively managed hunt will require coordination and assistance from State law enforcement and with LEOs from other refuges. Other LEOs, Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents, and the local Sheriff’s Department may assist the Complex in providing law enforcement support for the proposed hunt to ensure compliance with state and Federal regulations and refuge-specific special conditions. 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 will be sought to support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will 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 CCP

Category and Itemization for Waterfowl Hunting Program First Year Recurrin Expenses g Annual Expenses Develop hunting program opening package $10,000 Construct hunting blinds $25,000 Develop signage and brochures/tear out sheet with maps and $2,000 $500 regulations Construct ADAAG blind(s) and trail $20,000 $500 Develop Parking lot $35,000 Survey and post hunt area boundary $1,000 Administration and management $11,500 Maintenance-blinds and portable restrooms $500 $2,000 Law Enforcement staff time $4,500 Outreach, education, and monitoring $5,000 $1,000 Total first year expenses for waterfowl hunting program $98,500 Total recurring annual expenses for waterfowl hunting $20,000 program

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term Impacts:

Short-term impacts include disturbance to wetland habitat to install hunting blinds. Blinds will 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 will also include disturbance of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife during hunting activities. Direct take of waterfowl will occur, and accidental take of some non-target species might also occur. The presence of hunters and dogs, sounds of gunfire, and the sight of hunters traveling to and from hunt areas may also 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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations a period of time, may result in these species altering their behavior or moving to other areas. Hunting will 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 will have a footprint of vegetation disturbance and trampling of vegetation by hunters using the blind. Migratory waterfowl and other wildlife species will be disturbed during times when hunting is occurring, and to some extent some will avoid the hunt area during nonhunting days as well. Annual maintenance of hunting blinds will also cause disturbance to both habitat and wildlife in the vicinity of the blinds.

Although hunting directly impacts individuals within a population, the amount of waterfowl harvest at Wapato Lake is not expected to change or to have a measurable effect on refuge, Willamette Valley, or Pacific Flyway populations namely because the Service and state wildlife agencies regulate hunting in concert with Canada, Mexico, and multi-state flyway councils, so that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels.

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl include 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 will 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 dogs. 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 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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 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). Since this is a new hunt, dispersal patterns cannot be predicted, and would also be influenced by habitat conditions on the surrounding landscape and hunting pressure on private lands adjacent to the Refuge. What is known, however, is that 61% of the Service owned wetland portion within the Wapato Lake area would remain closed to waterfowl hunting, thus providing 434 acres of wetland where birds would not be subjected to harvest mortality or disturbance on hunt days. A total of 275 acres of the northern portion of the Refuge would be open to hunting. Since hunting would only occur from the designated hunt blinds located along the levee system, limiting the disturbance area to approximately 150 to 200 yards from the levee, the interior portion within the hunt area would also have minimal disturbance. Additionally, the Refuge would be closed to waterfowl hunting for 4-days during the week.

Cumulative Impacts:

The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a science-based 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). The updated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds was released in 2013 (USDOI 2013). 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 will not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Framework 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

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 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 greater 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 Framework published annually in the Service’s regulations on migratory bird hunting.

According to Raftovich et. al. (2019) report that 492,200±16% ducks and 81,100±18% geese were harvested in the state of Oregon during the 2018-19 waterfowl season, based on preliminary harvest estimates. Therefore, if harvest mortality associated with the new waterfowl hunt at Wapato Lake NWR were additive, it would represent only a small fraction of waterfowl harvest state-wide.

The cumulative effects of disturbance to nonhunted birds and other species under the EA are expected to be minor. Hunting seasons will not coincide with the nesting season; thus, reproduction will not be reduced by hunting. With one exception, an active bald eagles nest is in close proximity to the vicinity, however the effects should be minor. Disturbance to foraging or resting migrating or resident birds might occur, but will 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 will be unlikely or negligible. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall will 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 are not permitted in the hunt area, and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season will not be permitted.

The Refuge will be evaluating potential recreational opportunities where compatible and safe, while assessing potential conflicts between uses. Hunts would occur on the northern portions of the lake side levee system of Wapato Lake. This would minimize conflict with other wildlife dependent public uses by locating the activities in different portions of the Refuge. If the Refuge is opened to other public uses, during the hunting season, measures would be taken to separate non-consumptive uses from consumptive uses.

Waterfowl hunting provides a priority public big six use, and this use is currently not provided at the refuge. Providing opportunities for waterfowl hunting is an important initiative in the Service and helps address a public desire to see more hunting opportunities.

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

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 Federal Duck Stamps. Additionally, 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 concludes that hunting on the Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge, as planned under the Waterfowl Hunting Plan (USFWS 2019a), will 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, will be a small fraction of estimated populations. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored and future harvests will be adjusted as needed under the existing flyway and state regulatory processes.

This hunt will not add to cumulative impacts to waterfowl stemming from hunting on national wildlife refuges. Several points support this conclusion: 1) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively on national wildlife refuges; 2) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at levels consistent with the current population status; 3) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 4) refuges purchased with funds derived from Federal Duck Stamps must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area.

Public Review and Comment:

Extensive public participation occurred during the development of the Tualatin River NWR CCP. Most comments received regarding Wapato Lake were in support of opening the Unit/Refuge to hunting.

Public review and comments for this Draft Compatibility Determination will be solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft Waterfowl Hunting Plan for Wapato Lake NWR (USFWS 2019a) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service policy, before implementing the waterfowl hunting program.

Determination (check one below):

____Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The Refuge hunting program is designed to provide a safe, quality experience with reasonable harvest opportunities, while ensuring that waterfowl and other wildlife have adequate sanctuary where they can feed and rest during the hunting season, and avoiding significant impacts to other users and non-target wildlife resources. The Refuge has developed the following stipulations to

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations reduce impacts to non-target wildlife resources, ensure adequate waterfowl sanctuary, and promote safety:

• Hunting will be conducted in accordance with all Federal, state, and refuge-specific regulations. • Only waterfowl may be taken in accordance with state regulations. • Hunt days will be on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, within the state waterfowl season. • Hunting will only be allowed from established blinds. • Dogs are allowed for retrieving waterfowl, they must be engaged in hunting activity and under the immediate control of a licensed hunter (see 50 CFR 26.21(b)). • Only federally-approved non-toxic shot will be permitted. • The hunting program will be conducted as outlined in the Wapato Lake NWR Waterfowl Hunting Plan. • Hunting program leaflets and 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 32 will be updated as necessary. • Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with state, federal, and Refuge regulations. Law enforcement officers will also monitor and collect data on hunting activities in the field to ensure limited conflicts with other wildlife-dependent public uses. If necessary, the program will be modified accordingly. • The refuge will 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 will be provided at interpretive kiosks, on the refuge website, and the Tualatin River NWRC office. • Possession of alcohol and illegal drugs by any person in the hunt area is prohibited. • Baiting of any wildlife, trapping, falconry, or netting is prohibited. • Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. • Use of ATVs, bicycles, and other off-road vehicles is prohibited. Access for hunting is from designated parking areas by foot only. • Use of drones is prohibited. • No boats are allowed. • The Service will conduct periodic biological and social monitoring and evaluation of the hunting program, including feedback from users to determine if objectives are being met, and reserves the right to modify existing programs to accommodate existing or changing conditions. • Habitat will be managed for the benefit of wildlife.

Justification:

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, hunting is a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, which received enhanced consideration in the 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

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations using an established annual regulatory process as described above. Limited hunt days, no-hunt zones, and established winter sanctuary on the majority of the acreage of the Wapato Lake 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.

Signature: Project Leader:______Date:______

Concurrence: Regional Chief:______Date:______

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

2035 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)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: X Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

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.

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

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.

Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

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. 2013. Final 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. Washington, D.C.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: avid, casual, and intermediate participation trends. Report 2001-5. Arlington, VA. 48 pp. USFWS. 2013. Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

USFWS. 2019. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS. 2019a. Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Plan. Sherwood, OR: Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

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.

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations