Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Ankeny, Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Finding of No Significant Impact
for the
Ankeny, Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Marion, Polk, Benton, and Linn Counties, Oregon
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Ankeny, Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuges). The CCP will guide management of the Refuges for 15 years.
The CCP/EA describes our proposals for managing the Refuges and their effects on the human
environment under three alternatives, including the no action alternative.
Decision
Based on our comprehensive review and analysis in the CCP/EA, we selected Alternative 2 for
implementation, because it will guide management of the Refuges in a manner that:
 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes, vision, and
goals of the Refuges.
 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the Refuges’ habitats and populations.
 Addresses the important issues identified during the CCP scoping process.
 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuges.
 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered
species recovery.
 Facilitates priority public uses appropriate and compatible with the Refuges’ purposes and
the Refuge System mission.
Summary of the Actions to be Implemented
Implementing the selected alternative will have no significant impacts on the environmental
resources identified in the CCP/EA. Refuge management under the selected alternative will protect,
maintain, and enhance habitat for priority species and resources of concern, and improve the public’s
opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
Under Alternative 2, an emphasis on providing habitat for wintering geese would remain. Green
forage for geese would continue to be provided primarily through cooperative farming agreements
with local farmers. Cooperative farming could be impacted; however, the Refuges would pursue
measures to help retain the services of cooperative farmers, such as providing enhanced irrigation
capabilities (these would help the farmers to better establish green forage crops and perhaps grow
other cash crops); providing additional lure crops such as corn or other grains; the Refuges taking
over farming on certain high goose use fields; the Service offsetting a portion of the costs to
cooperative farmers; etc. Goose use should be no less than Alternative 1 and could increase if
specific goose management strategies are implemented. Wetland habitat management and
restoration activities would also be intensified to improve habitat for geese and other wildlife.
Management and enhancement would continue in remnant native habitats and recently restored areas.
In addition, approximately 845 additional acres on the three Refuges would be restored to wetland,
wet prairie, riparian, oak woodland, or upland prairie/oak savannah habitats, over the next fifteen
years. Threatened and endangered species management would continue to be a priority, guided by
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
recovery plans where applicable. Existing populations of several threatened and endangered species
would be strengthened through habitat management activities, and several new populations would be
established on the three Refuges.
Wildlife observation and interpretation would continue to be emphasized as the cornerstone of the
public use program. Several new trails and viewing facilities would be added. Interpretive signs/
materials, including online materials, would be developed and added. Major special events would
occur at a frequency of about 3-4/year and monthly weekend interpretive programs would occur.
Environmental education efforts would be expanded with an objective of reaching more students and
schools, particularly at W.L. Finley Refuge. Outdoor classroom shelters would be added. In
addition, funding would be sought to construct an Environmental Education Center, indoor
classroom facilities, and an interpretive exhibit area on W.L. Finley Refuge.
A new option to hunt either sex deer would be added on W.L. Finley. In addition, new upland
locations would be available for deer hunting during a portion of the restricted firearms season; this
will require closure of two hiking trails for a week in November. The restricted firearms season
would be shortened and shifted to later in the State season. A youth waterfowl hunt and a September
goose hunt would be provided at Baskett Slough Refuge. Fishing would be promoted at the
Willamette River by developing safe fishing access and a canoe launch at Snag Boat Bend.
The current area closed to public access would remain in effect to provide sanctuary during the
wintering waterfowl season on the three Refuges with the exception that major portions of the Snag
Boat Bend Unit would be open year-round.
The Refuges would develop an elk management plan cooperatively with ODFW after completion of
the CCP (within 1-2 years of CCP implementation). The Refuges would continue to expand
conservation partnerships, volunteer programs, and outreach to local communities. Proactive cultural
resource management would occur by repairing/maintaining the historic structures on W.L. Finley
Refuge and by adding associated interpretive facilities.
This alternative also proposes protection, conservation, and management of additional lands within
the Willamette Valley that could contribute to the Refuges’ purposes and goals by providing
wintering habitat and forage for Canada geese, providing protection, enhancement, and restoration of
native habitats and rare Willamette Valley species, and providing opportunity for additional wildlife-dependent
public use. The Refuges would undertake a subsequent land protection planning process to
identify specific tracts of lands for these purposes.
Public Involvement and Changes Made to the Selected Alternative Based on Comments
We incorporated a variety of public involvement techniques in developing and reviewing the
CCP/EA. This included two open houses, several planning updates, numerous meetings with
partners and elected officials, and public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EA. The details of
our public involvement program are described in the CCP in Appendix A.
Based on the public comments we received and considered, Alternative 2 as described in the
CCP/EA has been slightly modified.
 The archery deer hunt dates have been changed to late August to September 30.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
Supporting References
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2011. Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.
Note: This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are available for public
review at the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 26208 Finley Refuge Road,
Corvallis, Oregon 97333 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning, Visitor Services,
and Transportation, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97232. These documents can also be
found on the Internet at http://pacific.fws.gov/planning/. Interested and affected parties are being
notified of our decision.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Significance of the Willamette Valley Refuge Complex ........................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Setting .................................................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................ 1-4
1.7 Refuge System Laws and Directives ........................................................................................................... 1-5
1.7.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ......................................................................... 1-6
1.7.2 Other Laws, Policies, and Orders .......................................................................................................... 1-8
1.8 Willamette Valley Refuges Establishment History and Refuge Purposes ................................................ 1-8
1.8.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose ............................................................................................ 1-8
1.8.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Act .......................................................................................................... 1-8
1.8.3 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes .................................................................................... 1-9
1.8.4 William L. Finley Refuge..................................................................................................................... 1-10
1.8.5 Ankeny Refuge .................................................................................................................................... 1-13
1.8.6 Baskett Slough Refuge ......................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.9 Refuge Ownership and Land Status .......................................................................................................... 1-15
1.10 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans ................................................................................ 1-16
1.10.1 Previous Plans .................................................................................................................................... 1-16
1.10.2 Future Planning .................................................................................................................................. 1-16
1.11 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning and Assessment Efforts .................................................... 1-17
1.11.1 Willamette Valley Region .................................................................................................................. 1-17
1.11.2 Migratory Birds.................................................................................................................................. 1-18
1.11.3. State Plans ......................................................................................................................................... 1-19
1.11.4. Other Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 1-19
1.12 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................ 1-19
1.13 Issue Background ............................................................................................................................... 1-20
1.14 Key Issues to Address in the CCP ........................................................................................................... 1-20
1.14.1 The Role of the Willamette Valley Refuge Complex in Wintering Goose Habitat ....................... 1-20
1.14.2 Restoration and Maintenance of Native Habitats of the Willamette Valley ................................... 1-22
1.14.3 Maintenance and Recovery of Listed and Rare Species .................................................................. 1-23
1.14.4 Management of Roosevelt Elk, especially on William L. Finley Refuge ....................................... 1-24
1.14.5 Water and Wetland Management ...................................................................................................... 1-25
1.14.6 Providing Compatible and Sustainable Wildlife-Dependent Recreation for Public Enjoyment ... 1-26
1.14.7 Maintaining Historical Properties and Cultural Resources at the Refuges ..................................... 1-28
1.14.8 Managing Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 1-29
1.14.9 Maintaining On-going Refuge Programs and Commitments in an Era of Tight Budgets ............. 1-30
1.14.10 Realty Issues .................................................................................................................................... 1-30
1.15 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA ................................................................................................ 1-31
1.16 References .......................................................................................................................................... 1-31
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii Table of Contents
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Alternative 1 – No Change ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Alternative 2 (Service Preferred) – Improved Balanced Approach ....................................................... 2-2
2.4 Alternative 3 – Restore Selected Agricultural Fields to Native Habitats as Resources Permit;
Provide Limited Improvements in Public Use Programs ....................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Features Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 2-9
2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Developed ......................................................................................... 2-12
2.7 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Overview ......................................................................................... 2-13
Goal 1. Provide agricultural crops for Canada geese. ............................................................................ 2-15
Goal 2. Maintain, enhance, and restore a diversity of wetland habitats ................................................. 2-19
Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and restore native Willamette Valley wet prairie habitats ............................ 2-23
Goal 4. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the native upland prairie/oak savannah habitats.......... 2-28
Goal 5. Maintain oak woodland habitats. ............................................................................................... 2-34
Goal 6. Maintain mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. ............................................................................ 2-35
Goal 7. Protect, maintain and restore a diversity of native riparian floodplain habitats ........................ 2-37
Goal 8. Protect and maintain riverine habitats. ...................................................................................... 2-40
Goal 9. Contribute to the protection and recovery of Federally threatened and
endangered species .............................................................................................................................. 2-42
Goal 10. Provide compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for visitors. ........................ 2-49
Goal 11. Protect, preserve, evaluate and interpret the cultural heritage and resources
of the Refuges..................................................................................................................................... 2-62
Goal 12. Protect, restore and maintain off-Refuge habitats .................................................................... 2-64
Goal 13. Collect scientific information .................................................................................................. 2-66
2.8 References ............................................................................................................................................. 2-73
CHAPTER 3. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Geology .................................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Origins and development.................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.2 Recent Geologic Events ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.4 Climate ................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.1 Temperature .................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.2 Precipitation .................................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.3 Wind ................................................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5.2 Trends in Pacific Northwest Climate Indicators and Factors ........................................................... 3-7
3.5.3 Projections Next 50-100 years in Temperature and Precipitation ................................................... 3-8
3.5.4 Use in the CCP ................................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.6 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 3-10
3.6.1 Regional Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.6.2 Refuge-specific Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 3-11
3.7 Water Quality and Environmental Contaminants .................................................................................. 3-11
3.7.1 Overview - Willamette River and Basin ........................................................................................ 3-11
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents iii
3.7.2 Pesticides on Refuges ..................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.7.3 Nutrients in Water on Refuge ......................................................................................................... 3-13
3.7.4 Other Water Quality Pollutants on the Refuges ............................................................................. 3-13
3.8 References ............................................................................................................................................ 3-15
CHAPTER 4. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Croplands ............................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley ............................................................ 4-3
4.2.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.3.2 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.3 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley ............................................................ 4-4
4.3.4 Refuge-specific Sites ....................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.5 Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Wet Prairie ............................................................................................................................................. 4-5
4.4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 4-5
4.4.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley ............................................................ 4-6
4.4.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.4 Refuge-specific Sites ....................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.5 Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................................... 4-8
4.5 Upland Prairie/Oak Savanna ................................................................................................................... 4-8
4.5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 4-8
4.5.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley ............................................................ 4-9
4.5.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................. 4-10
4.5.4 Refuge-specific Sites ..................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.5.5 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................................... 4-10
4.6 Oak Woodlands .................................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.6.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley .......................................................... 4-12
4.6.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................. 4-12
4.6.4 Refuge-specific Sites ..................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.6.5 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................................... 4-13
4.7 Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Forests ................................................................................................... 4-13
4.7.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4-13
4.7.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley .......................................................... 4-13
4.7.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................. 4-13
4.7.4 Refuge-specific Sites ..................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.7.5 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................................... 4-14
4.8 Riparian ................................................................................................................................................ 4-14
4.8.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.8.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Willamette Valley .......................................................... 4-15
4.8.3 Refuge-specific Sites ..................................................................................................................... 4-15
4.8.4 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................. 4-16
4.8.5 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................................... 4-16
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv Table of Contents
4.9 Riverine ................................................................................................................................................ 4-16
4.9.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4-16
4.9.2 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................................. 4-16
4.9.3 Refuge-specific Sites ..................................................................................................................... 4-16
4.9.4 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................................... 4-17
4.10 Canada Geese and Other Waterfowl ................................................................................................... 4-17
4.10.1 Geese .......................................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.10.2 Ducks .......................................................................................................................................... 4-18
4.10.3 Swans ......................................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.11 Waterbirds and Shorebirds ................................................................................................................... 4-20
4.11.1 Waterbirds .................................................................................................................................. 4-20
4.11.2 Shorebirds................................................................................................................................... 4-20
4.12 Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species ........................................................................................ 4-21
4.12.1 Federally Listed Plants ................................................................................................................ 4-21
4.12.2 Federally Listed Wildlife and Fish .............................................................................................. 4-22
4.12.3 Other Rare Species ...................................................................................................................... 4-23
4.13 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................. 4-24
4.14 Other Wildlife and Plants ..................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.14.1 Landbirds .................................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.14.2 Other Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 4-26
4.15 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species .............................................................................................. 4-28
4.15.1 Exotic and Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................ 4-28
4.15.2 Exotic Wildlife Species ............................................................................................................... 4-30
4.16 References .......................................................................................................................................... 4-30
CHAPTER 5. REFUGE FACILITIES, PUBLIC USE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Administrative Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Recreation Overview ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Entrances and Access Points ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Roads, Trails, and Parking Areas .................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.3 Open and Closed Areas ................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.4 Annual Recreation Visits................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.2.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs to Disabled Persons ............................................. 5-5
5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.1 Ankeny ........................................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.2 Baskett Slough ................................................................................................................................ 5-6
5.3.3 William L. Finley ............................................................................................................................ 5-7
5.4 Interpretation .......................................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.1 Ankeny ........................................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.2 Baskett Slough ................................................................................................................................ 5-9
5.4.3 William L. Finley ............................................................................................................................ 5-9
5.5 Environmental Education ...................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.5.1 Ankeny ......................................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.5.2 Baskett Slough ............................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.5.3 William L. Finley .......................................................................................................................... 5-11
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents v
5.6 Hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 5-12
5.6.1 Waterfowl Hunting ........................................................................................................................ 5-12
5.6.2 Big Game Hunting ........................................................................................................................ 5-12
5.7 Fishing.................................................................................................................................................. 5-14
5.8 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation ..................................................................................................... 5-14
5.9 Illegal Uses and Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 5-15
5.10 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities........................................................................................... 5-15
5.11 Recreation Trends ............................................................................................................................... 5-15
5.12 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 5-17
5.12.1 Native American Overview ......................................................................................................... 5-17
5.12.2 Euroamerican Overview .............................................................................................................. 5-20
5.12.3 Current Knowledge of Local Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 5-22
5.12.4 Museum Property ........................................................................................................................ 5-24
5.13 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................................................. 5-24
5.14 Special Designations ........................................................................................................................... 5-24
5.14.1 National Natural Landmark ......................................................................................................... 5-24
5.14.2 Research Natural Areas ............................................................................................................... 5-25
5.14.3 Important Bird Areas ................................................................................................................... 5-25
5.14.4 Oregon Scenic Bikeway .............................................................................................................. 5-26
5.15 Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................................. 5-26
5.15.1 Overview of Regional Economic Setting .................................................................................... 5-26
5.15.2 Regional Demographic Information ............................................................................................ 5-26
5.15.3 Local Industries ........................................................................................................................... 5-29
5.16 References .......................................................................................................................................... 5-30
CHAPTER 6. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
6.1 Overview of Effects Analysis ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Effects to Canada Geese and Migratory Waterfowl ................................................................................ 6-2
6.2.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ........................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.2 Effects from Public Use Actions (not including hunting) ............................................................... 6-3
6.2.3 Effects from Hunting ....................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.4 Overall Effects to Waterfowl........................................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Species .............................................................................. 6-4
6.3.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ........................................................................................................... 6-4
6.3.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ............................................................................................. 6-6
6.3.3 Overall Effects ................................................................................................................................ 6-6
6.4 Effects to Wet Prairie Habitats and Associated Species .......................................................................... 6-6
6.4.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ........................................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ............................................................................................. 6-8
6.4.3 Overall Effects ................................................................................................................................ 6-9
6.5 Effects to Upland Prairie/Oak Savannah Habitats and Associated Species ............................................ 6-9
6.5.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ........................................................................................................... 6-9
6.5.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ........................................................................................... 6-11
6.5.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................... 6-11
6.6 Effects to Oak Woodland Habitats and Associated Species ................................................................. 6-11
6.6.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ......................................................................................................... 6-11
6.6.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ........................................................................................... 6-12
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi Table of Contents
6.6.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................... 6-13
6.7 Effects to Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Habitats and Associated Species .......................................... 6-13
6.7.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ......................................................................................................... 6-13
6.7.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ........................................................................................... 6-14
6.7.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................... 6-14
6.8 Effects to Riparian Habitats and Associated Species ............................................................................ 6-15
6.8.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ......................................................................................................... 6-15
6.8.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ............................................................................................ 6-15
6.8.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................... 6-16
6.9 Effects to Riverine Habitats and Associated Species ............................................................................ 6-16
6.9.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ......................................................................................................... 6-16
6.9.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ........................................................................................... 6-17
6.9.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................... 6-17
6.10 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 6-18
6.10.1 Effects to Prairie Species (Kincaid’s lupine, Fender’s blue butterfly, Willamette daisy,
Bradshaw’s lomatium, and Nelson’s checker-mallow) ........................................................................... 6-18
6.10.2 Effects to Oregon Chub ............................................................................................................... 6-20
6.10.3 Effects to Steelhead and Chinook salmon ................................................................................... 6-20
6.11 Social Effects - General ...................................................................................................................... 6-21
6.11.1 Effects from New Facilities ......................................................................................................... 6-21
6.11.2 Changes in Visitation .................................................................................................................. 6-21
6.12 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and
Environmental Education Experiences ........................................................................................................ 6-22
6.12.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ....................................................................................................... 6-22
6.12.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ......................................................................................... 6-22
6.12.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-25
6.13 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Hunting and Fishing Experiences .............................................. 6-25
6.13.1 Effects from Habitat Actions ....................................................................................................... 6-25
6.13.2 Effects from Public Recreational Use ......................................................................................... 6-25
6.13.3 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-25
6.14 Effects to Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 6-26
6.14.1 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-26
6.15 Effects to Soil Resources .................................................................................................................... 6-26
6.15.1 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-28
6.16 Effects to Water Resources and Water Quality ................................................................................... 6-28
6.16.1 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-29
6.17 Effects to Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 6-29
6.17.1 Overall Effects ............................................................................................................................. 6-30
6.18 Economic Effects ................................................................................................................................ 6-30
6.18.1 Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives....................... 6-30
6.18.2 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 6-32
6.18.3 Impacts from Public Use and Access Management ..................................................................... 6-32
6.18.4 Impacts from Refuge Administration ........................................................................................... 6-35
6.18.5 Other Management Activities – Cooperative Farming ................................................................. 6-39
6.18.6 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 ........................................................................ 6-40
6.18.7 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 ........................................................................ 6-41
6.18.8 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 ........................................................................ 6-42
6.18.9 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 6-42
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents vii
6.19 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................. 6-44
6.19.1 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities ................................................. 6-44
6.19.2 Potential Effects from Climate Change ....................................................................................... 6-44
6.19.3 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from Others ............................................. 6-46
6.20 References .......................................................................................................................................... 6-47
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B. Appropriate Refuge Uses ......................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations.................................................................................................. C-1
Appendix D. Resources of Concern .............................................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Implementation ........................................................................................................................ E-1
Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management .................................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G. Hunt Plan ................................................................................................................................ G-1
Appendix H. Wilderness Review .................................................................................................................. H-1
Appendix I. Contributors ............................................................................................................................... I-1
Appendix J. Glossary .................................................................................................................................... J-1
Appendix K. Environmental Education Center............................................................................................. K-1
Appendix L. Comments on Draft CCP/EA and Service Responses ........................................................... L-1
Appendix M. Statement of Compliance ..................................................................................................... M-1
MAPS (end of document)
Map 1. Willamette Valley NWRC Local Area
Map 2. Refuge Land Status
Map 3. Special Designations and Historical Features
Map 4. Ankeny NWR Habitat Alternatives
Map 5. Baskett Slough NWR Habitat Alternatives
Map 6. William L. Finley NWR Habitat Alternatives
Map 7. Snag Boat Bend Unit Habitat Alternatives
Map 8. Ankeny NWR Public Use Alternatives
Map 9. Baskett Slough NWR Public Use Alternatives
Map 10. Baskett Slough Hunt Plan
Map 11. William L. Finley NWR Public Use Alternatives – Alternative 1
Map 12. William L. Finley NWR Public Use Alternatives – Alternative 2
Map 13. William L. Finley NWR Public Use Alternatives – Alternative 3
Map 14. William L. Finley NWR Hunt Plan Alternatives
Map 15. Snag Boat Bend Unit Public Use Alternatives
Map 16. Habitat Subcategories
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
viii Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Hierarchy of Guidance in the National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................ 1-6
Figure 3-1. Annual Mean Temperature at Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1915-2006 .......................... 3-4
Figure 3-2. March Maximum Temperatures at Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1889-2006 ................... 3-4
Figure 3-3. Carbon Dioxide Concentrations and Global Temperature over last 450,000 Years.................... 3-5
Figure 3-4. Trends in Regional Average Annual Temperatures (1920-2000) ............................................... 3-7
Figure 3-5. Trends in Regional Average Annual Precipitation (1920-2000) ................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-6. Projected Warming in the Pacific Northwest, 2000-2100 ........................................................... 3-8
Figure 4-1. Mid-Winter Waterfowl Aerial Survey Results for the Willamette Valley (1999-2010) ........... 4-20
Figure F-1. Chemical Profile Data Sheet .................................................................................................... F-55
Figure MP1. Headquarter’s Area Master Plan Site Plan ............................................................................... K-3
Figure MP2. Headquarter’s Area Master Plan – Detail Site Plan ................................................................. K-4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status ............................................................................................................... 1-16
Table 2-1. Alternatives Comparison for Willamette Valley Refuge Complex .............................................. 2-4
Table 2-2. Acres in Each Habitat Type, by Refuge, by Alternative ............................................................... 2-8
Table 4-1. Existing Habitats – Willamette Valley Refuges (Acres) .............................................................. 4-2
Table 4-2. Willamette Valley Refuge Complex: Mid-winter Waterfowl Counts (1999-2010) ................... 4-19
Table 5-1. Existing Roads and Trails, Willamette Valley Refuges ................................................................ 5-2
Table 5-2. Number of Visits to the Refuge Complex (2005-2009) ................................................................ 5-4
Table 5-3. Black-tailed Deer Hunt Summary (2005-2009) .......................................................................... 5-13
Table 5-4. Top Ten Oregon Outdoor Recreation Activities – State Residents ........................................... 5-16
Table 5-5. Local and Regional Population Estimates and Characteristics .................................................. 5-27
Table 5-6. 2006 Full-time and Part-time Employment for Counties near the Refuges ............................... 5-28
Table 5-7. Income, Unemployment, and Poverty Estimates ....................................................................... 5-29
Table 6-1. Annual Refuge Visits, Projected in 15 Years, by Alternative ................................................... 6-23
Table 6-2. Soil Quality Indicators ............................................................................................................... 6-27
Table 6-3. Annual Impacts from Refuge Complex Revenue Sharing Payments (All Alternatives) ........... 6-32
Table 6-4. Estimated Annual Refuge Complex Visitation by Activity (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) .............. 6-34
Table 6-5. Annual Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) ................................ 6-36
Table 6-6 Current Approved Staff (Alternative 1) and Additional Positions for Alternatives 2 and 3 ....... 6-37
Table 6-6. Annal Local Economic Impacts of Salary Spending by Refuge Staff ....................................... 6-37
Table 6-8. Local Economic Impacts of Refuge-Related Purchases (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) ................... 6-38
Table 6-9. Estimated Acres and Costs Associated with Cooperative and Refuge Farming
(Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) ..................................................................................................................... 6-40
Table 6-10. Economic Impacts of Refuge Complex Management Activities (Alternative 1) .................... 6-41
Table 6-11. Economic Impacts of Refuge Complex Management Activities (Alternative 2) .................... 6-41
Table 6-12. Change in Economic Impacts Under Alternative 2 Compared to Alternative 1 ...................... 6-42
Table 6-13. Economic Impacts of Refuge Complex Management Activities (Alternative 3) .................... 6-43
Table 6-14. Change in Economic Impacts Under Alternative 3 Compared to Alternative 1 ...................... 6-43
Table C-1. List of Refuge Uses, Determinations Made in this CCP, and Year for Re-evaluation .............. C-2
Table C-2. Costs Associated with Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation Uses ............... C-6
Table C-3. Costs Associated with Waterfowl Hunting Use ....................................................................... C-17
Table C-4. Harvest and Populations at Flyway, State, and Local Scales: Ducks and Geese .................... C-20
Table C-5. Costs Associated with Deer Hunting Use ................................................................................ C-27
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents ix
Table C-6. Costs Associated with Fishing Use .......................................................................................... C-33
Table C-7. Costs Associated with Environmental Education Use ............................................................. C-40
Table C-8. Site Additions, Modifications, Footprint, and Associated Habitat Loss or Gain Associated with
New Environmental Education Center at W.L. Finley Refuge ......................................................... C-42
Table C-9. Costs Associated with Operation of the Cooperative Farming Program ................................. C-51
Table C-10. Costs Associated with Forest Management Use .................................................................... C-57
Table C-11. Costs Associated with Research Use ..................................................................................... C-65
Table D-1. Willamette Valley Refuges Table of Potential Resources of Concern ...................................... D-2
Table D-2. Willamette Valley Refuges Priority Resources of Concern ....................................................... D-9
Table E-1. Funding History for the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2006-2010.... E-2
Table E-2. Operational (Materials, Supply, Equipment and Contract) Costs by Alternative ...................... E-5
Table E-3. Annual Costs of Salaries and Benefits Associated with Staff, by Alternative ......................... E-10
Table E-4. Volunteer Numbers and Hours Contributed at Willamette Valley Refuges (2006-2010) ........ E-13
Table F-1. Summary of Invasive Plant Species and Possible Control Methods to be Used ...................... F-26
Table F-2. Ecotoxicity Tests Used to Establish Toxicological Endpoints ................................................ F-34
Table F-3. Levels of Concern and Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish and Mammals ...... F-35
Table F-4. Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species Frequently Used in
Research to Establish Toxicological Endpoints ................................................................................ F-37
Table F-5. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of Pesticides in Aquatic Habitats ................. F-40
Table G-1. Early Season Goose Hunt Proposed Program ........................................................................... G-5
Table G-2. Youth Duck Hunt Proposed Program ........................................................................................ G-5
Table G-3. Deer Archery Hunt Proposed Program ...................................................................................... G-6
Table G-2. Restricted Firearms Hunt Proposed Program ............................................................................ G-6
Table G-5. Anticipated Effects of the Waterfowl Hunt ............................................................................... G-9
Table G-6. Anticipated Effects of the Deer Hunts ..................................................................................... G-10
Chapter 1
Introduction, Issues,
Concerns, Opportunities
 Introduction and Background
 Significance of the Willamette Valley Refuge Complex
 Proposed Action
 Purpose and Need for Action
 Setting
 The National Wildlife Refuge System
 Refuge System Laws and Directives
 Willamette Valley Refuges Establishment History and Refuge
Purposes
 Refuge Ownership and Land Status
 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning and Assessment
Efforts
 Planning Process
 Issue Background
 Key Issues to Address in the CCP
 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA
 References
Photo © Joe Staff
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Background
“[it deserves] all the praises Bestowed on it as it is the finest country I have ever seen.”
John McLoughlin, 1832, remarking on the Willamette Valley
Within a few short decades of Lewis and Clark’s famed expedition to the Pacific, Euroamerican
settlers flooded into Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Favorable missionary accounts in religious
journals lured many. At the same time, various politicians and publicists began to actively promote
occupation and settlement of the Oregon Country; the Northwest was repeatedly described as a “New
Eden,” or earthly paradise, in eastern newspapers.
While in 1841, the population of whites, Canadians, and mixed race persons was estimated at only
700-800, by 1860 the estimated Euroamerican population in the Willamette Valley numbered 52,000
(Oregon History Project). The settlers were intent on farming and met with little resistance from the
native Kalapuyans, most of whom already been decimated by diseases brought by earlier explorers
and fur traders. Provisional land laws allowed claims of up to 640 acres for married white or half-breed
couples (after 1850 this was cut to 320 acres). To gain title, improvements needed to be made
on the lands (Oregon History Project, www.ohs.org.).
In 1848 gold was discovered along the American River in California’s Sierra Nevada; in 1851 more
gold was found in the area of Yreka, California. Historians estimate that within seven years of the
first discovery, the gold rush attracted 300,000 people to California. This huge influx of people
created instant markets for Oregon products – specifically wheat and lumber. The stage had been set
for the loss and modifications of the Willamette Valley’s original habitats. The Valley’s wet prairie,
oak savanna, wetlands, and riparian habitats were of little inherent value to settlers, so they remained
essentially unprotected by any network of public lands until another hundred years had passed. Even
today, 96 percent of the Valley’s land ownership is private (ODFW 2006).
A system of National Wildlife Refuges (refuges or NWRs), managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), was established in the mid-Willamette Valley during the 1960s. The immediate
concern preceding refuge establishment was protection of a small sub-species of Canada goose called
the dusky Canada goose. In response to this concern, the Migratory Bird Commission approved
establishment of three refuges: Ankeny, Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley.
Decisions made today for refuge management will have far-reaching consequences for the hundreds
of species dependent on these habitats, as well as for the millions of current and future inhabitants of
the Valley. This document is a plan for the next fifteen years. We have attempted to think through
the critical resources and public-use issues carefully, so as to design a plan that can best meet the
conservation and recreation challenges of the coming years.
1.2 Significance of the Willamette Valley Refuge Complex
The refuge’s seasonal wetlands and farmed agricultural fields provide important resting and feeding
areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds within the Pacific Flyway, and support the core
populations of wintering geese in the Valley. In particular, the refuges hold the largest number of
wintering dusky Canada geese within their range. At peak numbers, the refuges also hold more
wintering ducks than any location in western Oregon south of the Columbia River (USFWS 2010b).
The refuges support some of the largest and most ecologically significant blocks of native habitat in
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
the Willamette Valley. At W.L. Finley NWR, the Muddy Creek floodplain and tributaries cover one
of the most intact riparian floodplain woodlands remaining. The tract of wet prairie found in the
Willamette Valley Floodplain Research Natural Area (RNA) is the largest remaining example of this
habitat found in the state. The prairies of Baskett Slough NWR support the largest population of the
endangered Fender’s blue butterfly within its range, and support some of the largest concentrations of
declining grassland birds as well as several listed and rare plant species. Oak woodlands are another
important habitat found on the refuges and are managed to support a diversity of wildlife species,
especially migratory songbirds.
The combination of native and agricultural habitats on the Willamette Valley refuges results in a
diversity of lands which support more than 300 species of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and
amphibians, 9 of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered. Overall, the refuge lands are
key to healthy populations of wildlife dependent on these rare habitats and are critical to the recovery
efforts underway for several listed species.
For human visitors, the Valley provides a welcome recreational destination that showcases Valley
habitats in a relatively flat, accessible setting. There are very few public lands available for
recreation in the Valley. Finally, the historic resources allow visitors to learn about the ways of life
of Euroamerican settlers in the 19th century.
1.3 Proposed Action
The Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Ankeny,
Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuges, each located in the Willamette
Valley of Western Oregon. Ankeny is located within Marion County, Baskett Slough is located
within Polk County, and William L. Finley (also referred to as W.L. Finley throughout this
document) is located within Benton County. This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the three Refuges. The CCP sets forth management
guidance for the Refuges over the next 15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 688dd -688ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997). The Improvement Act mandated that CCPs be developed for all
refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The proposed action in the CCP/EA is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified as the
Service’s Preferred Alternative. This CCP/EA explores two other options (alternatives) for the CCP
and discloses anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Alternatives are presented in Chapter 2,
and effects are analyzed in Chapter 6. Appendices provide supporting information.
The goals, objectives, and strategies under Alternative 2 best achieve the purpose and need for the
CCP while maintaining balance among the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2
addresses the issues and relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and
wildlife management. For details on the specific components and actions comprising the range of
alternatives, see Chapter 2.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-3
1.4 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically-grounded guidance for ensuring that
over the next fifteen years, the refuges:
 Maintain areas to contribute to healthy, viable wintering Canada goose populations (especially
dusky Canada geese) in the Willamette Valley while reducing depredation on private agricultural
lands in the Valley;
 Enhance and restore native habitats representative of the historic Willamette Valley (including
wet prairies, wetlands, upland prairies, oak savannas, oak woodlands, mixed forests, and riparian
and riverine habitats), and provide for the plants and wildlife that utilize these habitats, i.e.,
ducks, swans, neotropical migratory birds, wading birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
fish;
 Contribute to the protection and recovery of federally threatened and endangered species and
their habitats within the Willamette Valley;
 Provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for visitors, fostering an
appreciation and understanding of the refuges’ fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats;
 Protect and interpret the cultural heritage and resources of the refuges;
 Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, or scientific assessments)
necessary to support adaptive management decisions; and
 Actively engage in off-refuge conservation efforts in the Willamette Valley.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these are the need to review the
appropriate role of these refuges within the context of the entire Lower Columbia/Willamette Valley
wintering Canada goose area and to ensure that the refuges continue to provide plentiful and reliable
forage supplies for the goose population and minimal disturbance during the wintering period. In
addition, the CCP is needed to determine where and how additional on-refuge native habitat
restoration work should best occur, to determine the desired habitat conditions to be achieved in
these native habitats over the next fifteen years, and to identify and deal with key threats to these
habitats, including invasives. The CCP is also needed to determine which actions will best maintain
and increase populations of rare species, as well as to design a strategy, in concert with other
affected/involved parties, for elk management.
The CCP is needed to analyze the refuges’ public-use programs, and to ensure that adequate
consideration of the six Refuge System wildlife-dependent uses (wildlife observation, wildlife/nature
photography, environmental education, interpretation, hunting, and fishing) has occurred. In
addition, the CCP is needed to determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the
current programs and services offered to Refuge visitors, especially in light of a growing regional
population, changing demographics, desired outcomes for visitor experiences, and new compatibility
requirements.
There is also a need to determine how best the refuges should manage and maintain historic and other
cultural resources on the refuges. Finally, the CCP is needed to address the question of managing
ongoing refuge programs and commitments with limited budgetary and staffing resources.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
1.5 Setting
The Willamette Valley Refuges are situated within the Willamette Valley in Western Oregon (Map
1). The Willamette Valley is the most heavily-settled area in Oregon and is the site of much of the
State’s industry, agriculture, and government. Approximately 180 miles long, the Valley includes
the lower mainstem of the Willamette River, the nation’s 13th largest river, as well as numerous
tributaries.
The refuges, measuring 11,110 acres, comprise a tiny percentage of the overall Valley acreage of
approximately 2.5 million acres, but they are disproportionately important as reservoirs of the
Valley’s biological diversity. Further information regarding the Valley’s geology, soils, climate, and
hydrology is found in Chapter 3 of the Draft CCP/EA.
1.6 The National Wildlife Refuge System
The 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System, NWRS) encompasses 551
national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. The
Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside specifically for
conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the Refuge System has
grown to encompass refuges in all 50 states and waterfowl production areas in 10 states. More than
36 million visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in
environmental education and interpretive activities, on these national wildlife refuges.
The System is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Department of
the Interior. The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and
enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission: The mission of the Service is “working with others, to
conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.” National natural resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and
protection include migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish,
wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces
federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state
fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals: The mission of the Refuge System is “to
administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (16 U.S.C. 688dd -688ee, as
amended).
Conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes Policy (601 FW1) are:
• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-5
• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully
managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented
in existing protection efforts.
• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
1.7 Refuge System Laws and Directives
Refuges are guided by various federal laws and executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of
the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other documents
establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. The hierarchical relationship of these documents in
regards to refuge-specific planning and management are illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 688dd -688ee), the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Title 50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. These regulations govern general
administration of units of the Refuge System.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
Figure 1-1. Hierarchy of Guidance in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Applicable Federal laws and executive orders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
Refuge Purposes
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission*/Goals/Policies
Ecosystem Vision/Goals/Objectives
Refuge Vision
Refuge Goals
Refuge Objectives
Refuge Strategies
Developed or
revised as part of
the CCP process
Projects
Developed as part
of the CCP or with
Step-down
Management Plans
* established by law
1.7.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the Refuge Administration Act
undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(Improvement Act) amended the Refuge System Administration Act in 1997 by including a unifying
mission for all national wildlife refuges as a System, a new process for determining compatible uses
on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, developed in an open public process.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-7
The Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish,
wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the System as well as ensure that the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained. House Report 105–106
accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘… the
fundamental mission of our System is wildlife
conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must
come first.’’ Biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health are critical components of wildlife
conservation. As later made clear in the Biological
Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (601
FW 3) “the highest measure of biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those
intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations
that existed during historic conditions.”
Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System
mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Refuge Administration
Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
Additionally, the Refuge Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses for
the Refuge System: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education
and interpretation. Under the Refuge Administration Act, the Service is to grant these six wildlife-dependent
public uses special consideration in the planning for, management of, and establishment
and expansion of units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The overarching goal of wildlife-dependent
public use programs is to enhance opportunities and access to quality, wildlife-dependent
visitor experiences on refuges while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their
habitats. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume priority
status among all uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate
priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and
economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or
occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or
continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is
one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals or
objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound
professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. Updated appropriate
use and compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for the Willamette Valley
Refuges are in Appendices B and C of this Draft CCP/EA.
The Refuge Administration Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the
CCP must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the
public play a role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and together
with the formal guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. It is Service policy
that CCPs are developed in an open public process and that the agency is committed to securing
public input throughout the process. Appendix A of the Draft CCP/EA details public involvement
that has been undertaken during the CCP process.
“Big Six”
The six wildlife-dependent recreational
uses identified under the Refuge System
Improvement Act are hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education and
interpretation. These uses are to receive
enhanced consideration over other uses
in planning and management.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
1.7.2 Other Laws, Policies, and Orders
Many other laws govern the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge System lands. A list and
brief description of each can be found at http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html. In addition,
over the last few years, the Service has developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s Orders
to reflect the mandates and intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3); the Compatibility
Policy (603 FW 2); the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Policy (602 FW 3); Mission, Goals,
and Purposes (601 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses
(605 FW 1); Wilderness-Related policies (610 FW 1-5) and the Director’s Order for Coordination
and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. These policies and others in draft or under development can be
found at http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html.
In developing a CCP, refuges must consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge
System and ecosystem goals and visions. The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the
Refuge purpose. Figure 1-1 illustrates the hierarchy of planning guidance in the Service.
1.8 Willamette Valley Refuges Establishment History and Refuge
Purposes
1.8.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose
The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning.
Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. The purposes of a refuge are
specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order,
donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge,
refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which
they depend take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit.
Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more
specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired
under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes
on the purpose of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose of the addition.
By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between the
Refuge System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede
the Refuge System mission. Within a CCP, refuge purposes are the driving force in the development
of the vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies and are critical to determining the
compatibility of all existing and proposed refuge uses.
1.8.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Act
With passage of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 1929 (16 U.S.C. §§ 715-715r, as amended),
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission was established to approve land acquisitions from the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the National Wildlife Refuge System that are considered
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-9
important to waterfowl. The commission was established largely in response to public concern over
plummeting waterfowl populations during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1920s and 30s, reflecting the
National Wildlife Refuge System's early commitment to waterfowl protection. Since its inception,
the commission has approved more than 4.5 million acres of land acquisitions for the 150 million
acre National Wildlife Refuge System.
The commission's responsibilities increased significantly with passage of the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, which provides funding to encourage partnerships to protect,
enhance, and restore wetlands and other habitats for migratory birds and wildlife in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico.
The commission meets three times each year to review proposals for refuge acquisitions and
wetlands conservation projects. Members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission are the
Secretary of the Interior, who serves as chairman; two members of the U.S. Senate; two members of
the U.S. House of Representatives; the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
While its importance to waterfowl remains, the refuge system today hosts a variety of habitats
supporting all kinds of wildlife, including many of the Nation's endangered species, big game
animals such as buffalo and elk, prairie wildflowers, forests, trophy trout, and tiny butterflies.
1.8.3 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes
The first evidence of official interest establishing a refuge for waterfowl in the Willamette Valley
was within a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission memorandum dated January 12, 1937
(MBCC Memorandum # 17, Willamette Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, Marion County, Oregon).
This memorandum requested the Commission to fund the purchase of ten parcels, totaling 317.76
acres, seven miles north of Salem for the Bureau’s cooperative game management school at Oregon
State University.
Serious consideration of establishing national wildlife refuges in the Valley began in the late 1950s
and early 1960s. Biologist David Marshall, Chairman for Region 1’s Land Acquisition Refuge
Committee for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, conducted a two-year study of land and
water resources of the Willamette Valley for the purpose of implementing the Pacific Flyway
Waterfowl Management Plan (historical document, unknown date, referred to within the Willamette
National Wildlife Refuge management plan of 1967). In 1963, former Regional Director Paul T.
Quick stated in a letter to Honorable Wayne L. Morse, United States Senator, “An important aspect
of the [Pacific Flyway Waterfowl Management] plan is the acquisition of lands suitable for
development and management to protect a basic breeding population of ducks and geese; control
waterfowl damage to crops which occurs in the absence of suitable feeding and resting grounds; and
make more adequate provision for recreational enjoyment and use of the waterfowl resource,
including public hunting.” Regional Director Quick also stated, “It was determined that three to four
areas aggregating between 10,000 and 13,000 acres should be acquired to accomplish the waterfowl
management plan objective.
At present waterfowl are concentrated at the north and south ends of the valley to a degree which
seriously limits opportunities for recreational use of the resources.” Marshall identified 17 sites in
his assessments. In 1963, the region decided to pursue five of them for acquisition, and three
eventually became part of the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
1.8.4 William L. Finley Refuge
Purposes for Establishing this National Wildlife Refuge:
• “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds...” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.).
Supporting Documentation for establishing this National Wildlife Refuge: A memo of interest from
Biologist Marshall to Acting Regional Refuge Supervisor, dated April 11, 1961, regarding the area
later acquired as the Muddy Creek Division, stated, “The Muddy Creek area has many refuge
qualities not inherent with other Willamette Valley sites. It has an abundance of deer, furbearers,
upland game and migratory bird species, in addition to waterfowl. The college is interested in it from
the standpoint of it providing them with an outdoor laboratory for wildlife students. These qualities
should be given attention in as much as an increasing amount of our refuge use is geared around [the]
student and nature enthusiast. Some of our most ardent supporters of this proposed project are most
interested in these aspects. We would thus not want to develop the entire proposed Muddy Creek
acreage as a goose and duck area. On the contrary, some of its brush, trees and other cover should be
left in its present condition.”
Regional Director Quick stated in a letter dated February 11, 1963, to Congresswomen Edith Green,
“The wetlands in the Muddy Creek drainage of Benton County have been, and continue to be, a focal
point for ducks and geese.” The Regional Director also wrote in his letter, “The Cabell estate which
for some 60 years has been used for agricultural and hunting purposes represents about 60% of the
project acreage.” He continued, “In addition there have been discussions with the Benton County
Park Commission, sportsmen’s organizations, and other groups, for the purpose of developing a
coordinated approach to inter-related plans for management of land, water and wildlife resources,
and proposals for outdoor recreation. As a result of these meetings, we are aware that there is a great
deal of public support for the project.”
On May 11, 1962, an Ascertainment Report prepared by Service biologist David Marshall for the
proposed Muddy Creek National Wildlife Refuge (present William L. Finley NWR) was submitted
to the Director of the Service by the Regional Director in Portland, Oregon. This report stated the
purpose to acquire these lands was, “to provide wintering habitat and protection for migratory
waterfowl – principally the western Canada goose.” Continued remarks included in this report
stated, “This proposed refuge will be the nucleus of a group of small refuges considered necessary to
provide habitat for western Canada geese and other waterfowl wintering in the Willamette Valley.
There is a demonstrated need for [a] closed refuge area for protection of the resource and for use in
controlling crop depredations. At the same time there is need for additional opportunity for public
hunting. Waterfowl habitat is continually being lost as the result of flood control, drainage and
reclamation accomplishments in the Willamette drainage. Many are small private enterprises but in
the aggregate the area affected is substantial.”
On February 19, 1963, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the acquisition of the
Muddy Creek Division (later renamed the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, after the early
twentieth century renowned wildlife photographer) of the Willamette National Wildlife Refuge (later
renamed the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex). Memorandum #4 of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission justification for the purchase of lands for the Muddy
Creek Division, dated February 19, 1963, stated, “Recent inventories indicate that of a total
population of 21,000 geese of this species, 14,000 winter in the Willamette Valley. According to
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-11
Oregon State Game Commission personnel, harvest of the western Canada goose is heavy. Hunting
pressure in the Valley on weekends causes the birds to literally spend the daylight hours on the wing.
The acquisition of the proposed Willamette Refuge will provide some protection for these geese.
Large numbers of ducks, swans, and water birds use the area. Mourning doves and band-tailed
pigeons water and roost on the west side of Pigeon Butte and have been nearly eliminated by over-hunting.
Thus the area is of value for the protection of other migratory birds as well. Establishment
of refuge areas will make possible some opportunity for public hunting.” (The Commission was
referring to the dusky Canada goose, which at that time was referred to by some biologists as the
western Canada goose.)
In 1972, there was a need to return to the Migratory Bird Commission to obtain additional funds to
continue acquisition, as land values in the area had risen. Commission notes from that meeting
redefined the purpose of the Refuge as “to provide (1) feeding and nesting areas for migratory
waterfowl; (2) wintering range primarily for the dusky Canada goose; and (3) production habitat for
several species of ducks.” (MBCC Memo #9, Mar. 10 1972.) In David Marshall’s memoirs, he
reminisced that Henry Cabell, the owner of one of the main tracts at Finley, wanted to see the estate
remain intact and saw its value as an outdoor classroom for Oregon State College.
There was some opposition from Benton County and other counties in establishing a refuge. The
main issue was the removal of land from the county tax roll. Benton County’s disapproval of the
refuge resulted in a bill passed by the Oregon legislature which made state approval for a refuge
acquisition conditional upon county approval. Dave Marshall stated in his memoirs, “This bill faced
much lobbying against it by the Oregon Audubon Society and Oregon Duck Hunters Association.”
Dave Marshall also stated that his first wife Betty, together with Mirth Tufts representing the
Audubon Society, met with former Governor Mark Hatfield and presented their case opposing this
bill. The Governor viewed this matter from a legal standpoint, thinking that it was not good for a
county to have the power to nullify a matter that might be in the interest of the state as a whole. The
Governor then vetoed the bill. So acquisition of the first national wildlife refuge in the Willamette
Valley began with the purchase of eventually 5,325 acres.
Conclusion: The various MBCC memos and other supporting documentation converge on the
management direction for W.L. Finley as protection of wintering areas for dusky Canada geese and
other migratory waterfowl. The concern was motivated by the loss of historic waterfowl habitat in
the Willamette Valley and the excessive hunting pressure on geese, especially duskies. After review
by the planning team, specific management practices mentioned in the MBCC memos are not
interpreted as primary management direction because better methods for providing food, water, and
sanctuary for wintering waterfowl exist today and will continue to be developed as we learn more
about the interrelated ecology of the area. Ancillary public benefits were foreseen from the
establishment of the refuge, including a reduction in crop depredation, the potential for recreational
enjoyment of the waterfowl resource, including some opportunity for hunting, and the opportunity
for the nearby colleges and universities to use the area as an outdoor laboratory for wildlife students.
These are also not interpreted as refuge purposes because the establishment history documentation
points to the primary reason for refuge establishment as protection for the geese and other birds. If
well-planned and executed, these other uses can be provided for under refuge management plans.
Finally it should be noted that production habitat for ducks was mentioned. Strategies for enhancing
wintering habitats, such as creating dewatered or very shallow water during spring/summer to
provide for optimal growth of annual seed-bearing plants, conflict with management practices
emphasizing brood production. From a review of the establishment history it was determined that
any production habitat should be incidental and secondary to the more primary intent to manage the
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
refuge for the benefit of wintering birds.
Snagboat Bend Unit (part of William L. Finley) Purpose:
• “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds...” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.).
Supporting Documentation for Establishing this Unit: A fourth national wildlife refuge was proposed
in the mid-1960s to help reach a target goal of 13,000 acres needed for the protection of the dusky
Canada goose wintering population, as specified under the Pacific Flyway Waterfowl Management
Plan and approved by the Oregon Game Commission. The proposal was to acquire an additional
2,387 acres for a fourth national wildlife refuge. During Biologist David Marshall’s initial biological
assessment of the Willamette Valley for establishing a national wildlife refuge, he identified “Peoria”
as a potential site. He stated, “It comprises about 1000 acres extending 3 miles south from the town
of Peoria on both sides of River Road. It is listed because of its ideal location and possibilities for
water developments, probably on a pump basis, on the west side of the area. The east side which is
much higher would be of value for dry land waterfowl food crops. Gravel bars along the Willamette
River in the vicinity of Peoria have long been favorite Canada goose hunting spots.”
In December 1999, a Conceptual Management Plan proposed Snag Boat Bend as an addition to the
William L. Finley NWR. This area is along the Willamette River floodplain, a few miles south of the
town of Peoria, in Linn County. In 2000, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved
acquiring 341 acres of land from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to establish this new unit of the
William L. Finley Refuge. In June 2006, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved
acquiring an additional 35 acres through a purchase of the Conte Tract adjacent to the northeast
corner of this unit. Primary management goals for the Snag Boat Bend unit were established in the
Conceptual Management Plan written during the acquisition of this unit (USFWS 1999). These are
interpreted as management direction further elaborating upon the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
purposes specific to W.L. Finley Refuge, and apply only to the Snag Boat Bend Unit.
• Provide high-quality, wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, especially dabbling ducks
(emphasizing mallards and wood ducks), Canada geese, and tundra swans.
• Protect, restore, and develop a diversity of habitats for all migratory birds such as neotropical
songbirds, raptors, wading birds, and shorebirds.
• Protect, restore, and develop habitats for and otherwise support recovery of federally listed,
endangered, and threatened species, and help prevent the listing of candidate species and
species of management concern.
• Protect and restore a diversity of native habitats for indigenous fish, wildlife, invertebrates,
and plant species of the Willamette Valley ecosystem.
• Provide high-quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental
education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge fish,
wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-13
1.8.5 Ankeny Refuge
Purposes for Establishing this National Wildlife Refuge:
• “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds…” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.).
Supporting Documentation for Establishing this National Wildlife Refuge: Marshall had concerns
that providing only one large refuge, such as Muddy Creek, would not suffice in the protection of the
western Canada goose population in the Willamette Valley. Marshall identified “Ankeny Bottoms”
in a memorandum dated July 18, 1961, as a potential site for a national wildlife refuge. In his
memoirs written some 45 years later (Marshall 2008), Marshall explained that the site had had no
history of goose use but was devoted to ryegrass production, an important goose food. However, he
had felt strongly that if water was made available, geese would begin to use it. In 2007, Marshall
mused that his premonitions had proved correct: after 45 years as a wildlife refuge and after
numerous projects providing seasonal and permanent water at the site had been constructed, he wrote
“Never in my wildest dreams did I expect Ankeny Bottoms to be such a successful refuge.”
A Land Ascertainment Report, L.A.I., Step II, signed by Regional Director Barnaby, dated April 8,
1964, stated, “Ankeny Bottoms is one of three refuges planned for the Willamette Valley. It is an
area frequented by both the dusky and western Canada geese, and important for a segment of
wintering waterfowl populations in the Pacific Flyway. Under development and management, the
area should become a good feeding area for spring and fall migrants, and restore a secondary nesting
area. It is of sufficient size to protect a good waterfowl population, yet furnish an attractive site for
public hunting.”
On June 24, 1964, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the acquisition of the
Ankeny Division of the Willamette National Wildlife Refuge, later renamed the Ankeny National
Wildlife Refuge. The Commission authorized the Service to acquire 12 tracts in Marion County,
Oregon, totaling 2,857 acres at a price of $774,751, “to provide wintering habitat for dusky Canada
geese and other waterfowl. The location of the Ankeny Division is strategic to provide additional
protection for these geese. This new division will also create better distribution of waterfowl and aid
in reducing crop depredations.” Once all lands were purchased, the total acreage for Ankeny NWR
was 2,796.
In 1968, there was a need to return to the Migratory Bird Commission to obtain additional funds to
continue acquisition, as land values in the area had risen. Commission notes from that meeting
redefined the purpose of the refuge as “to provide (1) feeding and nesting areas for migratory
waterfowl; (2) wintering range primarily for the dusky Canada goose; and (3) production habitat for
several species of ducks.” (MBCC Memo #8, November 1968.)
Conclusion: The various MBCC memos and other supporting documentation converge on the key
management direction for Ankeny Refuge – the protection of wintering areas for dusky Canada geese
and other migratory waterfowl. The concern was motivated by the loss of historic waterfowl habitat
in the Willamette Valley and the excessive hunting pressure on geese, especially duskies. After
review by the planning team, specific management practices mentioned in the MBCC memos are not
interpreted as primary management direction because better methods for providing food, water, and
sanctuary for wintering waterfowl exist today and will continue to be developed as we learn more
about the interrelated ecology of the area. Finally, it should be noted that production habitat for
ducks was mentioned. Strategies for enhancing wintering habitats, such as creating dewatered or
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
very shallow water during spring/summer to provide for optimal growth of annual seed-bearing
plants, conflict with management practices emphasizing brood production. From a review of the
establishment history, it was determined that any production habitat should be incidental and
secondary to the more primary and original intent to manage the Refuge for the benefit of wintering
birds.
1.8.6 Baskett Slough Refuge
Purposes for Establishing this National Wildlife Refuge:
• “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds…” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715 et. seq.).
Supporting Documentation for Establishing this National Wildlife Refuge: Biologist David Marshall
identified Baskett Slough in an assessment on April 11, 1961: “Past thinking has revealed the
desirability of an area on Baskett Slough near Rickreall. This is an area having good goose use at
present and would be excellent, providing we could obtain an area there which would meet water and
other requirements.”
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Memorandum #3, Willamette National Wildlife Refuge,
Polk County, described the justification and proposed management of Baskett Slough NWR as
follows, “A recent aerial reconnaissance flight over the proposed area disclosed 8,000 dusky Canada
geese on the area. This represents more than half of the wintering population of this important
species. Hunting pressure in the valley on weekends causes the birds to literally spend the daylight
hours on the wing. Band returns from this general area represent about 58 percent of the Pacific
Flyway returns. Acquisition of this area, together with the rest of the proposed and existing State and
Federal areas in the valley will provide important protection for these birds. Inventories of the
Baskett Slough area indicate a spring duck population of about 5,000. Under proposed development
and management duck and goose populations could be expected to double and duck nesting, which is
presently very slight, could be expected to increase greatly.” Concerning proposed management
activities for this refuge, the above memorandum stated, “The area will be managed primarily for
dusky Canada geese. Cultivated lands not left in permanent pastures or planted to rye grass or Sudan
grass will be farmed on a sharecrop basis. It is estimated that 800 tons of hay will be produced and
5,000 AUMs of grazing will be available. Timbered uplands should be managed as wildlife habitat
and for watershed protection. Fishing will be available in existing or subsequent permanent
impoundments and waterfowl, upland game and deer hunting will be permitted on parts of the area.”
On March 25, 1965, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the acquisition of the
Baskett Slough Division of the Willamette National Wildlife Refuge, later renamed the Baskett
Slough National Wildlife Refuge. Total acreage for Baskett Slough NWR was 2,492 acres.
During the latter half of the 1960’s, the General Accounting Office (GAO) initiated an investigation
of refuge acquisition procedures for areas purchased with “duck stamp” funds. According to Dave
Marshall’s memoirs, “William L. Finley and Baskett Slough refuges immediately came under close
scrutiny.” “The GAO pointed out that we had acquired uplands at both refuges with duck stamp
funds. While not illegal, they argued that this was not done in the spirit of testimony that then
Director Dan Janzen made before Congress supporting the loan on the duck stamp for wetland
acquisitions.” The GAO report made it to the front page of The Oregonian and created local bad
press for the Service. Marshall defended the purchase partly on the grounds that the original owners
had been asked if they would sell the wetland portions of the properties only and they had refused.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-15
In addition, he pointed out the ecological value of the uplands. Although these arguments were not
well received at first, when Ira Gabrielson, former Service Director, came to tour the Refuge, he
seemed to agree with Marshall’s position. Eventually the GAO investigation was closed and no
more was said about the purchase of these lands.
In 1967, there was a need to return to the Migratory Bird Commission to obtain additional funds to
continue acquisition, as land values in the area had risen. Commission notes from that meeting
redefined the purpose of the Refuge as “to provide (1) feeding and nesting areas for migratory
waterfowl; (2) wintering range primarily for the dusky Canada goose; and (3) production habitat for
several species of ducks.” (MBCC Memo #8, October 1967.)
Conclusion: The various MBCC memos and other supporting documentation converge on the key
management direction for Baskett Slough Refuge as protection of wintering areas for dusky Canada
geese and other migratory waterfowl. The concern was motivated by the loss of historic waterfowl
habitat in the Willamette Valley and the excessive hunting pressure on geese, especially duskies.
After review by the planning team, specific management practices mentioned in the MBCC memos
are not interpreted as refuge purposes because better methods for providing food, water, and
sanctuary for wintering waterfowl exist today and will continue to be developed as we learn more
about the interrelated ecology of the area. Ancillary public benefits were foreseen from the
establishment of the refuge, including the potential for fishing and hunting.
Fishing is not interpreted as management direction because the only semi-permanent impounded
water is Morgan Reservoir, which only collects water from rainfall and off the slopes of the butte.
The dam impedes any upstream movement of fish and is occasionally drained for repairs. There is
no fish stocking program for the refuge. Fish cannot enter this unit, unless illegally. Hunting is not
interpreted as management direction because the establishment history documentation points to the
primary reason for refuge establishment as protection for the geese and other birds. If well-planned
and executed, this use may be provided for under refuge management plans. Finally it should be
noted that production habitat for ducks was mentioned. Strategies for enhancing wintering habitats,
such as creating dewatered or very shallow water during spring/summer to provide for optimal
growth of annual seed-bearing plants, conflict with management practices emphasizing brood
production. From a review of the establishment history it was determined that any production habitat
should be incidental and secondary to the more primary and original intent to manage the refuge for
the benefit of wintering birds.
1.9 Refuge Ownership and Land Status
Table 1-1 and Map 2 show the lands associated with each of the three refuges. The acreage figures
for fee and easement properties are based on realty deeds. The approved refuge boundary indicates a
national wildlife refuge boundary approved by the national or regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Director for potential acquisition of lands by the Service.
In addition to the three refuges, the Complex manages a 113-acre property at Oak Creek, which is
managed primarily for its population of Bradshaw’s lomatium. The Complex also has responsibility
for 5 FmHA Conservation Easement properties, which range in size from 12 acres to 185 acres.
Some agricultural and a variety of native habitats are found on the easements, including oak/ash
riparian forest, oak woodland, wetlands, mixed deciduous-coniferous forest. Except for general
recommendations made in Section 2.5, the CCP does not address the FmHA properties. As apparent
from Table 1-1, GIS acres can vary by a certain amount from Realty acres, which are based on
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
survey or deed records. Realty acres should be viewed as the most accurate source. However, a
variety of analyses was conducted utilizing GIS during the CCP process. Quantitative analysis
henceforth in the CCP is based on GIS estimates, which may slightly over- or under-estimate actual
acres or lengths.
Also note that habitat was not mapped and included in habitat summaries (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2 in
Chapter 2) for a portion of Snag Boat Bend unit (part of William L. Finley Refuge) within its
approved refuge boundary. This is because management of the area is thought to be still under the
authority of the Oregon Division of State Lands. See Section 1.14.10 for further clarification on this
realty issue.
Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status
Approved Refuge
Boundary Acres1
Acres
Owned in
Fee2
Acres in
Easements,
Agreement, or
Lease 3
Ankeny 2,814 2,796.33 0
Baskett Slough 2,522 2,492.33 0
William L. Finley 5,791 5,706.00 8.94
Total Acres of
Willamette Valley
Refuge Complex
11,127 10,994.66 8.94
1 Acres generated from GIS, rounded to nearest acre. 2 Acres from Realty data (USFWS 2009)
3 Acres from Realty data (USFWS 2009)
1.10 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
1.10.1 Previous Plans
In December 1980, the Refuge released program objectives and guidelines for land management at
the three refuges (USFWS 1980). The plan includes a chronological summary of major
developments and events at the three refuges. The document also makes reference to a previous
planning effort conducted in 1971.
Parts 1 & 2 of Refuge Management Planning, conducted in the 1980s, included step-down Integrated
Pest Management, Nuisance Species, Wildlife Monitoring, Fire Management, Public Use, and
Habitat Management Plans.
1.10.2 Future Planning
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that
changes are needed to achieve the refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides
guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge program areas but may lack some
of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore be
developed for individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down
plans require appropriate NEPA compliance.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-17
1.11 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning and Assessment
Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national,
regional, state, and ecosystem plans and/or assessments. The CCP is expected to be consistent, as
much as possible, with existing plans and assist in meeting their conservation goals and objectives
(602 FW 3). This section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by members of the core team
while developing the CCP.
1.11.1 Willamette Valley Region
Willamette Valley Ecoregional Assessment: This assessment (Floberg et.al. 2004) identifies priority
areas for conserving the biodiversity of the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin
ecoregion. Conservation targets identified in the plan include representatives from all taxa.
Willamette Restoration Strategy: This plan is the “Willamette chapter” of the Oregon Plan for
Salmon and Watersheds. The plan recommends 27 actions to restore the health of the Willamette
Basin. In particular, the Strategy (Jerrick 2001) focuses on actions for water quality, water quantity,
riparian protection, floodplains, and fish passage. The plan was developed through a collaborative
process involving over 150 partners and participants.
Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) has
overseen the development of plans for each of the 60 interior tributary subbasins of the Columbia
River. Subbasin plans are expected to assess the biological potential of the subbasin and to describe
opportunities for restoration. Plans also describe the amount of habitat change that has occurred
within the subbasin and limiting factors (analogous to stresses/sources in this plan). The plans are
the basis for review of proposals for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) each year by the fish
and wildlife agencies and tribes, the Independent Scientific Review Panel, and the Council. This
plan evaluates fish, wildlife, and habitat condition within the Willamette Sub-basin. The plan’s
overall objective is to increase fish & wildlife population trajectories. The plan identifies more than
35 strategies needed to meet its objectives. The priority conservation themes identified in the plan
are:
• Deal with the dams—change flow regimes and establish fish passage.
• Fix culverts and diversions to allow fish passage.
• Focus on valley and foothills wildlife.
• Restore lowland riparian areas.
• Restore low-cost, high-return areas of the Willamette River floodplain.
• Let the river cool itself by seeping through streamside gravels, alcoves, and islands.
• Ensure that all priority themes above are taken up and supported in an organized way at the
local level.
The Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Synthesis Project: The primary goals of the Synthesis Project
are to delineate priority terrestrial and freshwater sites where investment in conservation or
restoration would best contribute to (1) the health of historically significant and functional habitats,
(2) the survival or recovery of imperiled plants and wildlife dependent on those habitats, (3)
improved floodplain connectedness to benefit water quality for aquatic biodiversity and (4) overall
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
watershed health. The Synthesis condenses multiple Willamette Basin assessments into a single
synthesis map that can guide the conservation or restoration of key sites in the Willamette Basin.
1.11.2 Migratory Birds
Birds of Conservation Concern: Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three major bird
conservation efforts (Partners In Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan), this report (USFWS 2002) identifies, by Service region and
by Bird Conservation Region (BCR), the bird species most in need of conservation attention. The
Willamette Valley Refuges are located within BCR 5, for which 27 species are listed; however
several of these are seabirds that do not utilize the refuges.
Partners in Flight (PIF): The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the
Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) is to ensure long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. Specific management activities and
strategies are recommended.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: This plan, first formulated in 1986, provides a
strategy to protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations
through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan was updated in 2004 with an
emphasis on strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding
partnerships. The 2004 update contains species-specific population objectives and evaluations of
whether the continental population is currently short or over the target. There are also flyway goals
for production by species, but the plan did not target population objectives for wintering or migratory
waterfowl by area (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004). Implementation of this
plan is accomplished at the regional level by partnership within 11 Joint Venture areas. The
Willamette Valley Refuges are located within the area of the Pacific Coast Joint Venture. Many of
the projects identified to achieve the NAWMP objectives are eligible for funding under the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). NAWCA authorizes Congressional funding for
projects fostering public/private partnerships that support the conservation and restoration of wetland
habitats and associated wildlife resources. Given the extent of historic wetlands and ongoing
public/private partnerships in the Willamette Valley, this act has been (and continues to be) a
tremendous resource for the conservation community in the Valley.
Pacific Flyway Plans: Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed to
help state and Federal agencies cooperatively manage migratory game birds. Several flyway
management plans pertain to the Willamette Valley Refuges, especially those for the Dusky Canada
Goose (Pacific Flyway Council 2008) and other Canada Geese. In addition, the Plan for Northwest
Oregon/Southwest Washington Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Control (Pacific Flyway
Council 1998) details specific strategies and guidance by management area for reducing depredation
by Canada geese within the Lower Columbia Region/Willamette Valley.
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan/Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management
Plan: These plans (Brown et al. 2001, Drut and Buchanan 2000) identify numerous landscapes
within the northern Pacific coast that provide important habitat for shorebirds. The diversity of
wetland habitat types in the Willamette Valley are specifically highlighted as being of regional
importance for several species including dunlin, snipe, and killdeer.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 1-19
Pacific Coast Joint Venture Willamette Valley Implementation Plan: This plan (Roth et al. 2004) is
intended to provide a strategic framework for site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects
within the Willamette Valley. Primary focus is on migratory birds and their habitats including
waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds.
1.11.3 State Plans
Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS): This document, authored by the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (2006), is an overarching strategy for conserving fish and wildlife within the state. The
Strategy identifies specific Conservation Opportunity Areas where high-priority species and habitat
conservation may be most efficiently addressed. Strategy (high-priority) habitats identified by the
OCS within the Willamette Valley include grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian, and wetlands/wet
prairies. Three mammals, 10 plants, 5 herptiles, 4 invertebrates, 23 fish species, populations, or
segments, and 14 birds are listed as strategy (high priority) species within the OCS; many of these
are found on the Willamette Valley Refuges.
Oregon Elk Management Plan: This plan (ODFW 2003) outlines elk management guidelines within
the state of Oregon. ODFW manages elk based on management objectives for winter population size
and post-season bull ratios in each Wildlife Management Unit in the state. The current management
objective size for Roosevelt Elk in the Willamette Valley is zero.
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): The 2003 – 2007 Oregon SCORP (Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department 2003) includes a comprehensive overview of state recreational
trends based on regions.
1.11.4 Other Plans
Willamette Valley Basin Recovery Plan: This plan (USFWS 2010) outlines the main recovery areas,
actions, and population objectives for the five listed Willamette Valley plants and the Fender’s blue
butterfly.
Oregon Chub Recovery Plan: This plan (USFWS 1998) outlines the main recovery areas, actions,
and population objectives for the Oregon chub.
Oregon Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program: Statewide Strategic Plan 2007-2011: This plan
(USFWS 2007) identifies the ecological importance of the habitats that occur within the Willamette
Valley Focus Area. Continued emphasis will be placed on conservation of rare and unique habitats
that support declining species on private lands within the Willamette Valley through collaborative
partnerships with private landowners, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies.
1.12 Planning Process
Planning Team: A core planning team, consisting of a project leader, deputy project leader,
biologist, public use planner, the Refuge Managers, and a regional planner, began developing the
CCP in 2006. An extended team assisted in development, particularly in providing comments at key
milestones. The extended team consisted of various professionals from other agencies and within the
Service. A list of core and extended team members, and their experience, is located in Appendix I.
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction, Issues, Concerns, Opportunities
Resources of Concern: Early in the planning process, the team cooperatively identified species,
species groups, and communities of concern for these refuges. A comprehensive list of these
resources was compiled based upon review of the plans referenced above, many of which highlight
priority species or habitats for conservation. The list was further culled in developing a more
targeted assemblage of Priority Resources of Concern. The Priority Resources of Concern table
includes 23 focal species that were selected as representatives or indicators for the overall condition
of important refuge habitats. Most of the biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining
and restoring these priority resources. See Appendix D for the Comprehensive Resources of Concern
and Priority Resources of Concern.
Public Use Planning: Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives, and strategies
around the Big Six uses. Other non-wildlife dependent uses that currently occur were also addressed.
Public Involvement: Public scoping began in January of 2008. Scoping meetings were held in Salem
and Corvallis. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning update to the
refuges’ mailing list, refuge visitors, and other interested parties. A complete summary of public
involvement is in Appendix A.
An internal draft was distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers and members of the extended team,
including States and Tribes, in March 2010. All changes requested by reviewers and extended team
members and actual changes made were documented.
1.13 Issue Background
Refuge planning policy defines an issue as "any unsettled matter that requires a management
decision." The primary intent of a planning process is to make sound decisions and to better address
problems and concerns. Thus a key component of the planning process is a structured definition of
the issues (problems, concerns, opportunities) that lay before us in the current and future
management of the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge