Any Questions or Concerns?

Contact Us!

Doug Spencer, Project Leader

Phone: (541) 757-7236

Email: FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov

In this issue:

A summary of the 

comments we 

received is provided.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex

26208 Finley Refuge Road

Corvallis, Oregon 97333

Visit Our Website at: http://www.fws.gov/willamettevalley/ccp

Have you moved? If so, please send 

us your updated address information. 

Thank You

4

A young refuge 

visitor enjoying 

wildlife observation / USFWS

The next steps in the CCP process include:

Developing Alternatives: A preliminary set of alternatives, 

with detailed objectives and strategies by goal, is under 

development by the planning team and will be reviewed 

internally by October 2008. 

Reviewing Preliminary Alternatives with the Public: A planning 

update will be distributed that includes summaries of the 

preliminary alternatives by December 2008. 

Preparing a Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment: A draft CCP with 

accompanying environmental analysis will be released for public 

review by August 2009.

Next Steps for the CCP
several respondents and hunting 

was suggested as a tool to limit 

populations. Another person 

suggested that elk hunting should 

rarely be used because viewing elk

is a popular refuge activity. Others 

suggested non-hunting population 

control methods, including limiting 

field sizes, developing cropping 

systems, and predators.

Facilities. A number of respondents 

suggested improvements to 

refuge facilities, especially trails. 

The condition, placement and 

availability of restroom facilities, 

viewing sites, interpretive materials, 

blinds and other facilities also 

generated several suggestions. 

Habitat Management. Many people 

urged the Service to maintain, 

expand and improve native 

habitats. Invasive species were also 

mentioned as a problem by several. 

Other suggestions were made in the 

area of wetlands management and 

water quality. Several people urged 

attention to climate change. 

Public Uses. A number of 

respondents urged us to discourage 

certain uses. Many felt hunting 

should be discouraged. Others 

suggested that boating, bicycling, 

driving, dog-walking, fishing, jogging

Hunting. Hunting generated more 

commentary than any other topic. 

More than half of all respondents 

mentioned it. Many people urged us 

to expand hunting programs at the 

refuges, particularly for waterfowl 

or elk. The most common reason 

cited was that since duck stamp 

fees support refuges, refuges should 

provide hunting opportunities.

Other reasons mentioned included: 

hunting access to other lands is 

limited, hunting might disperse 

birds more through the Valley, 

and hunting would benefit youth. 

One person expressed concern 

that geese concentrated on refuge 

wetlands could spread disease. 

Many others expressed dislike of 

the idea of hunting on the refuges 

and felt that the special role the 

refuges play in providing sanctuary 

and disturbance-free areas for 

wildlife should be respected. 

Some people suggested that in case 

of conflict, non-consumptive uses 

should prevail over consumptive 

uses. Others expressed concern 

that hunting on the refuges could 

worsen off-refuge depredation by 

dispersing geese onto private lands. 

Elk damage on nearby lands 

was mentioned as a concern by 

trapping, and teenage drinking 

and drag-racing be banned and 

laws prohibiting illegal activities be 

enforced more effectively (many 

of these uses are banned already). 

Others asked the refuges to provide 

more access for canoeing and dogwalking. A few people urged greater

emphasis on environmental education. 

Planning, Collaboration, and 

Outreach. Several people made 

suggestions regarding the 

planning process and analysis or 

information to be included in the 

CCP. A number of people urged 

us to continue collaboration and 

outreach with others, specifically 

Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Oregon State University, 

conservation organizations, birding 

groups, tribal governments, and 

the general public. Several people 

offered volunteer assistance or ideas 

for better utilizing volunteers.

Refuge Boundary Expansion. 

Several comments were made 

regarding expanding the refuges’ 

boundaries and acquiring more land 

to better accomodate wintering 

geese and assist native habitat 

conservation.

For a comprehensive look at all the 

comments we received, go to our website at 

www.fws.gov/willamettevalley/ccp.

“I think you are managing the dusky wrong. The first month 

(November) the geese stay on the refuge. After that, it is fed 

out to a point that they use the refuge ponds at night to roost 

and return to farmer’s fields to feed during the day. I contend 

that if you managed the grass crop to be at peak goose food 

during the spring and used hunters to disperse the birds in 

the fall and winter, there would be less crop damage.”

“I have a special interest in seeing that 

these three beautiful refuges are maintained primarily for conservation and 

wildlife habitat preservation and for 

assurance of the greatest possible access 

to the public for wildlife observation.”

continued from page 1

2 

What Were Your Concerns?

Elk at W.L. 

Finley NWR 

Photo by 

Joe Staff
several respondents and hunting 

was suggested as a tool to limit 

populations. Another person 

suggested that elk hunting should 

rarely be used because viewing elk

is a popular refuge activity. Others 

suggested non-hunting population 

control methods, including limiting 

field sizes, developing cropping 

systems, and predators.

Facilities. A number of respondents 

suggested improvements to 

refuge facilities, especially trails. 

The condition, placement and 

availability of restroom facilities, 

viewing sites, interpretive materials, 

blinds and other facilities also 

generated several suggestions. 

Habitat Management. Many people 

urged the Service to maintain, 

expand and improve native 

habitats. Invasive species were also 

mentioned as a problem by several. 

Other suggestions were made in the 

area of wetlands management and 

water quality. Several people urged 

attention to climate change. 

Public Uses. A number of 

respondents urged us to discourage 

certain uses. Many felt hunting 

should be discouraged. Others 

suggested that boating, bicycling, 

driving, dog-walking, fishing, jogging

Hunting. Hunting generated more 

commentary than any other topic. 

More than half of all respondents 

mentioned it. Many people urged us 

to expand hunting programs at the 

refuges, particularly for waterfowl 

or elk. The most common reason 

cited was that since duck stamp 

fees support refuges, refuges should 

provide hunting opportunities.

Other reasons mentioned included: 

hunting access to other lands is 

limited, hunting might disperse 

birds more through the Valley, 

and hunting would benefit youth. 

One person expressed concern 

that geese concentrated on refuge 

wetlands could spread disease. 

Many others expressed dislike of 

the idea of hunting on the refuges 

and felt that the special role the 

refuges play in providing sanctuary 

and disturbance-free areas for 

wildlife should be respected. 

Some people suggested that in case 

of conflict, non-consumptive uses 

should prevail over consumptive 

uses. Others expressed concern 

that hunting on the refuges could 

worsen off-refuge depredation by 

dispersing geese onto private lands. 

Elk damage on nearby lands 

was mentioned as a concern by 

trapping, and teenage drinking 

and drag-racing be banned and 

laws prohibiting illegal activities be 

enforced more effectively (many 

of these uses are banned already). 

Others asked the refuges to provide 

more access for canoeing and dogwalking. A few people urged greater

emphasis on environmental education. 

Planning, Collaboration, and 

Outreach. Several people made 

suggestions regarding the 

planning process and analysis or 

information to be included in the 

CCP. A number of people urged 

us to continue collaboration and 

outreach with others, specifically 

Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Oregon State University, 

conservation organizations, birding 

groups, tribal governments, and 

the general public. Several people 

offered volunteer assistance or ideas 

for better utilizing volunteers.

Refuge Boundary Expansion. 

Several comments were made 

regarding expanding the refuges’ 

boundaries and acquiring more land 

to better accomodate wintering 

geese and assist native habitat 

conservation.

For a comprehensive look at all the 

comments we received, go to our website at 

www.fws.gov/willamettevalley/ccp.

“I think you are managing the dusky wrong. The first month 

(November) the geese stay on the refuge. After that, it is fed 

out to a point that they use the refuge ponds at night to roost 

and return to farmer’s fields to feed during the day. I contend 

that if you managed the grass crop to be at peak goose food 

during the spring and used hunters to disperse the birds in 

the fall and winter, there would be less crop damage.”

“I have a special interest in seeing that 

these three beautiful refuges are maintained primarily for conservation and 

wildlife habitat preservation and for 

assurance of the greatest possible access 

to the public for wildlife observation.”

continued from page 1

2 

What Were Your Concerns?

Elk at W.L. 

Finley NWR 

Photo by 

Joe Staff
Any Questions or Concerns?

Contact Us!

Doug Spencer, Project Leader

Phone: (541) 757-7236

Email: FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov

In this issue:

A summary of the 

comments we 

received is provided.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex

26208 Finley Refuge Road

Corvallis, Oregon 97333

Visit Our Website at: http://www.fws.gov/willamettevalley/ccp

Have you moved? If so, please send 

us your updated address information. 

Thank You

4

A young refuge 

visitor enjoying 

wildlife observation / USFWS

The next steps in the CCP process include:

Developing Alternatives: A preliminary set of alternatives, 

with detailed objectives and strategies by goal, is under 

development by the planning team and will be reviewed 

internally by October 2008. 

Reviewing Preliminary Alternatives with the Public: A planning 

update will be distributed that includes summaries of the 

preliminary alternatives by December 2008. 

Preparing a Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment: A draft CCP with 

accompanying environmental analysis will be released for public 

review by August 2009.

Next Steps for the CCP