U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

3888 State Route 101

Ilwaco, WA 98624-9707

Phone: 360/484 3482

Fax: 360/484 3109

http://www.fws.gov

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 2010

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

is working with others to conserve, protect, and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Cover Photos:

Black brant / © David Pitkin

River otters / © Dmitri Azovtsev

Snowy plover / © Peter LaTourrette

Chum salmon / © Rudy Schuver

Pacific giant salamander / California State University, Chico
A Vision of Conservation

Within this beautiful coastal and bay setting, incoming tides mix with 

nutrient laden freshwaters to create one of the most pristine and productive 

estuarine environments along the Pacific coastline. 

The distinctive habitats found within the Refuge include coastal dunes, salt 

marshes, mudflats, open water with eel grass beds, grasslands, and old 

growth western red cedar forest. 

Visitors explore and enjoy a variety of wildlife from Roosevelt elk and the 

Pacific giant salamanders on Long Island to flocks of birds containing tens 

of thousands of shorebirds along the beach at Leadbetter Point. 

Refuge management activities focus on protecting and restoring 

historic habitat conditions: second growth forests to healthy old growth 

forests, managed manmade freshwater wetlands to historic salt marsh 

habitat, threatened and endangered species to healthy sustained wildlife 

populations. 

Success with these management activities is attained through partnerships 

with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, local, state, and federal agencies, local 

organizations, communities, and individuals. 

Community stewardship for these natural resources helps to sustain the 

healthy naturally functioning ecosystems of the Willapa Bay region for 

current and future generations to enjoy.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management 

decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish 

refuge purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimates 

of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used 

for strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not 

constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

Dunlin and sanderlings / © Rudy Schuver
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Pacific County, Washington 

Type of Action: Administrative 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director 

For Further Information: Charlie Stenvall, Project Leader 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

3888 SR 101 

Ilwaco, Washington 98624 

Abstract: We developed alternatives, including preferred and no action alternatives, as required by National 

Environmental Policy Act regulations, for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. We addressed issues, 

opportunities, and Refuge management options in the alternatives. Summaries of the alternatives follow. 

Alternative 1 (No Action). Under Alternative 1 we would maintain current Refuge management programs and 

where feasible, restore habitats, including implementing the forest management plan, enhancing wetland and 

beach dune habitats, and improving habitats for federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education, boating, and 

camping, would continue. The Presidential Proclamation Boundary would remain closed to waterfowl hunting. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2 we would maintain current wildlife and habitat 

management, with the following improvements: The Refuge’s managed pastures and impoundments would be 

restored to historic estuarine conditions, creating approximately 749 acres of open water, intertidal flats, and 

salt marsh habitats; an avian and mammalian predator management would be implemented on the Leadbetter 

Point Unit as necessary, to help meet Western snowy plover recovery goals; and grassland restoration of 15-33 

acres would include establishing the early blue violet, a host plant that would serve the future reintroduction of 

the endangered Oregon silverspot butterfly. Managed freshwater wetlands would remain solely on the Tarlett 

Unit. An expanded approved Refuge boundary is proposed to include 6,803 acres in the Nemah, Naselle, South 

Bay, and East Hills areas. We would divest the Cape Shoalwater and Wheaton properties from the Refuge. 

Improvements to wildlife-dependent public uses would include: Developing a wildlife observation deck and 

interpretive trail along the South Bay connecting to the proposed Tarlett Unit visitor facility; expanding 

waterfowl hunting opportunities on approximately 6,058 acres of restored estuary; developing a cartop boat 

launch access point in the South Bay; conducting a special-permit elk hunt on Leadbetter Point Unit; and 

expanding elk/deer hunting on South Bay units. 

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3 we would maintain current wildlife and habitat management, with the 

following improvements: The Refuge’s managed pastures and impoundments would be restored to historic 

estuarine conditions, creating approximately 429 acres of open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh habitats. 

On the Leadbetter Point Unit avian predator management would be implemented as necessary, to help meet 

Western snowy plover recovery goals. Grassland restoration of 33 acres would include establishing the early 

blue violet, a host plant that would serve the future reintroduction of the endangered Oregon silverspot 

butterfly. Managed freshwater wetlands would remain on the Riekkola and Tarlatt units. An expanded 

approved Refuge boundary is proposed to include 4,895 acres in the South Bay and East Hills areas. We would 

divest the Cape Shoalwater and Wheaton properties from the Refuge. Improvements to wildlife-dependent 

public uses would include: Developing a wildlife observation deck and interpretive trail along the South Bay 

connecting to the proposed Tarlett Unit visitor facility; expanding waterfowl hunting opportunities on 

approximately 5,450 acres of restored estuary; conducting a special-permit elk hunt on Leadbetter Point Unit; 

and expanding elk/deer hunting on South Bay units. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

3888 SR 101 

Ilwaco, Washington 98624 

November 2010 

 
This page left blank intentionally 
Table of Contents i

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... ES-i 

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

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

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

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ........................................... 1-2

1.4 Content and Scope of the Plan ............................................................................................ 1-5

1.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and 

Directives ........................................................................................................................ 1-6

1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ....................................................................... 1-6

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................ 1-6

1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ................................................ 1-6

1.5.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ................................................. 1-7

1.5.5 Planning and Management Guidance ........................................................................... 1-8

1.5.6 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans ...................................................... 1-8

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes ...................................................................... 1-9

1.6.1 Acquisition History and Purposes ................................................................................ 1-9

1.6.2 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Willapa Refuge .............. 1-12

1.6.3 Special Land Status .................................................................................................... 1-13

1.6.4 Other Laws, Policies, and Orders ............................................................................... 1-13

1.7 CCP Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts ................................................. 1-14

1.7.1 Applicable Recovery Plans ........................................................................................ 1-14

1.7.2 Migratory Bird Conservation ..................................................................................... 1-14

1.7.3 Waterbird Conservation Planning .............................................................................. 1-17

1.8 The Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 1-21

1.9 Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ................................................................................. 1-21

1.9.1Wildlife and Habitat .................................................................................................... 1-22 

1.9.2 Land Protection Planning ........................................................................................... 1-23 

1.9.3 Public Use and Access ............................................................................................... 1-23 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................. 2-1

2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design ................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Draft Alternative Descriptions ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Alternative 1: Continue Current Management Activities ........................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Healthy Wildlife Habitats, Endangered Species and Biodiversity 

Gains, Focused Refuge Expansion, Expanded Public Use .......................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Partial Restoration of Habitats, Endangered Species Recovery, 

Limited Refuge Expansion, Moderate Public Use ....................................................... 2-8

2.3 Features Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-9

2.3.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability ......................................................... 2-9

2.3.2 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment ............................................................................... 2-9

2.3.3 Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan ...................................................................... 2-10

2.3.4 Oregon Silverspot Recovery Plan .............................................................................. 2-10
ii Table of Contents 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.3.5 Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet ................................................................... 2-11

2.3.6 Forest Landscape Restoration Plan ............................................................................ 2-11

2.3.7 Willapa NWR Fire Management Plan ....................................................................... 2-11

2.3.8 Tribal Coordination .................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.9 Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.10 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ......................................................................... 2-11

2.3.11 Monitor the Effects of Public Use Programs on Wildlife ........................................ 2-12

2.3.12 Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................ 2-13

2.3.13 Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities .............................................................. 2-13

2.3.14 State Coordination .................................................................................................... 2-13

2.3.15 Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................... 2-13

2.3.16 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................. 2-13

2.3.17 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities ........... 2-14

2.3.18 Reintroduction of Flora and Fauna .......................................................................... 2-14

2.3.19 Presidential Proclamation Boundary ........................................................................ 2-14

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.1 Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and restore ecologically functional late-successional 

forest habitats (mature and old-growth forest) characteristic of the low-elevation 

temperate forests in the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of 

endangered and threatened species, migratory and resident birds, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. ........................................................................... 2-16

2.4.2 Goal 2. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats historically characteristic 

of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of salmonids, Pacific 

brant, other waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species. ............................................................................................................ 2-22

2.4.3 Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and restore freshwater habitats historically 

characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of 

migratory birds, salmonids, amphibians, mussels, lamprey, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. ........................................................................... 2-28

2.4.4 Goal 4. Protect, maintain, and restore coastal beach and dune habitats 

historically characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the 

benefit of the western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, pink sandverbena, 

Oregon silverspot butterfly, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. ........ 2-33

2.4.5 Goal 5. Provide short-grass fields (improved pastures) and grasslands for the 

benefit of Canada geese, Pacific jumping mouse, and other grassland-dependent 

species and restore grasslands for the Oregon silverspot butterfly. ........................... 2-37

2.4.6 Goal 6. Promote the recovery of federally threatened and endangered as well as 

Federal candidate and state-listed species. ................................................................. 2-39

2.4.7 Goal 7. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, 

assessments, and studies) in support of adaptive management decisions on the 

Refuge under Goals 1 through 6. ............................................................................... 2-43

2.4.8 Goal 8. Foster a connection between refuge visitors and nature. Visitors will 

have the opportunity to participate in safe, quality, wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities located throughout Willapa NWR. These activities and programs 

include wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, environmental education, 

interpretation, and photography. ................................................................................ 2-45
Table of Contents iii

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.9 Goal 9. Protect and preserve the cultural resources of the Refuge for the benefit 

of present and future generations. .............................................................................. 2-53

2.4.10 Goal 10. Contribute to the protection of the long-term environmental health of 

the Willapa Bay ecosystem. ....................................................................................... 2-53

2.4.11 Goal 11. Provide support for off-refuge conservation efforts in southwest 

Washington in partnership with private landowners, agencies, and 

nongovernmental organizations. ................................................................................ 2-55

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

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.1 Projected Temperature Changes .................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.2 Projected Precipitation Changes .................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.3 Projected Change in El Niño/La Niña Events .............................................................. 3-3

3.3.4 Projected Change in Coastal Water Properties ............................................................ 3-3

3.3.5 Sea Level Rise .............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.3.6 Potential Changes to the Refuge Due to Climate Change ............................................ 3-4

3.4 Geology and Topography ................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.1 Willapa Hills ................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.4.2 Long Island Unit .......................................................................................................... 3-7

3.5 Hydrology and Bathymetry ................................................................................................ 3-7

3.5.1 Riekkola Unit ............................................................................................................... 3-8

3.5.2 Lewis 1, Lewis 2, and Porters Point Wetland Units .................................................... 3-9

3.5.3 Leadbetter Point Unit ................................................................................................... 3-9

3.5.4 Tarlett Unit ................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.5.5 Wheaton Unit ............................................................................................................. 3-10

3.6 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.6.1 Headquarters Unit (Current) ...................................................................................... 3-10

3.6.2 Bear River Unit .......................................................................................................... 3-11

3.6.3 Long Island Unit ........................................................................................................ 3-11

3.6.4 Tarlatt Unit ................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.6.5 Riekkola, Lewis, and Porter Point Units .................................................................... 3-13

3.6.6 Leadbetter Point Unit ................................................................................................. 3-13

3.6.7 Wheaton Unit ............................................................................................................. 3-13

3.7 Environmental Contaminants ........................................................................................... 3-14

3.7.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 3-14

3.7.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 3-14

3.8 Surrounding Land Uses and Roads .................................................................................. 3-17

3.8.1 Proposed Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facility Site Context and 

Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................... 3-19

3.9 Effects to Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 3-20

3.9.1 Habitat Management .................................................................................................. 3-20

3.9.2 Public Use .................................................................................................................. 3-24

3.9.3 Refuge Boundary Expansion ...................................................................................... 3-25
iv Table of Contents 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

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

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern and Analysis ............................................ 4-3

4.3 Habitats and Vegetation.................................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.1 Upland Forest–Sitka Spruce Zone ............................................................................. 4-22

4.3.2 Forested Wetland and Riparian Forest–Sitka Spruce Zone ....................................... 4-25

4.3.3 Estuarine Open Water ................................................................................................ 4-25

4.3.4 Intertidal Flats ............................................................................................................ 4-26

4.3.5 Salt Marsh .................................................................................................................. 4-27

4.3.6 Riverine ...................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.3.7 Seasonal, Managed Freshwater Wetlands .................................................................. 4-29

4.3.8 Permanent/Semi-permanent Natural Freshwater Wetlands ....................................... 4-30

4.3.9 Coastal Dunes and Beaches ....................................................................................... 4-32

4.3.10 Grasslands and Short-grass Fields ........................................................................... 4-33

4.4 Fish ................................................................................................................................... 4-34

4.4.1 Salmonids ................................................................................................................... 4-34

4.4.2 Forage Fishes ............................................................................................................. 4-36

4.4.3 Sturgeon ..................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.4.4 Other Fishes ............................................................................................................... 4-37

4.5 Birds ................................................................................................................................. 4-37

4.5.1 Waterbirds .................................................................................................................. 4-37

4.5.2 Raptors ....................................................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.3 Shorebirds .................................................................................................................. 4-43

4.5.4 Seabirds ...................................................................................................................... 4-44

4.5.5 Land Birds .................................................................................................................. 4-45

4.5.6 Rare or Extirpated Species ......................................................................................... 4-45

4.6 Mammals .......................................................................................................................... 4-47

4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................. 4-47

4.8 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................... 4-48

4.8.1 Shellfish ...................................................................................................................... 4-48

4.8.2 Gastropods .................................................................................................................. 4-49

4.8.3 Native Freshwater Mussels ........................................................................................ 4-49

4.8.4 Other Invertebrates ..................................................................................................... 4-50

4.9 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ 4-51

4.9.1 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) .................................................................... 4-51

4.9.2 Western Snowy Plover, Pacific Coast Population* (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus) ...................................................................................................................... 4-51

4.9.3 Marbled Murrelet* (Brachyramphus marmoratus) ................................................... 4-56

4.9.4 Streaked Horned Lark* (Eremophila alpestris strigata) ........................................... 4-61

4.9.5 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ................................................... 4-62

4.9.6 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) .......................................... 4-63

4.10 Special Designation Areas .............................................................................................. 4-64

4.10.1 Formally Designated Natural Areas ......................................................................... 4-64

4.10.2 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) ................................................................................... 4-66

4.11 Effects to Species and Habitats ...................................................................................... 4-66

4.11.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives (IPM) ............................................................. 4-66
Table of Contents v

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4.11.2 Effects to Fish .......................................................................................................... 4-67

4.11.3 Effects to Birds ......................................................................................................... 4-68

4.11.4 Effects to Mammals ................................................................................................. 4-82

4.11.5 Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians ......................................................................... 4-85

4.11.6 Effects to Invertebrates ............................................................................................ 4-87

4.11.7 Effects to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................... 4-88

4.11.8 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Wildlife .............................................. 4-91

4.11.9 Effects to Riparian and Upland Habitats and Associated Wildlife .......................... 4-93

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic 

Environment ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Public Use Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities..................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 East Hills Units ............................................................................................................ 5-2

5.2.2 Leadbetter Point Unit ................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.3 Long Island Unit .......................................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.4 Shoalwater and Wheaton Units .................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.5 South Bay Units ........................................................................................................... 5-5

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

5.3.1 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ................................................. 5-6

5.3.2 Overview of Refuge Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses ................................................ 5-8

5.3.3 Overview of Refuge Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses ...................................... 5-13

5.3.4 Impact of Illegal Uses ................................................................................................ 5-14

5.4 Cultural and Historical Resources .................................................................................... 5-14

5.4.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape .................................................... 5-14

5.4.2 Euro-American Exploration and Settlement .............................................................. 5-15

5.4.3 Archaeological Resources and Historic Properties .................................................... 5-17

5.5 Special Designation Areas ................................................................................................ 5-17

5.5.1 Washington State Research Natural Area .................................................................. 5-17

5.5.2 American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Areas .................................... 5-18

5.5.3 National System of Marine Protected Areas .............................................................. 5-19

5.5.4 Presidential Proclamation Boundary .......................................................................... 5-20

5.6 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 5-20

5.7 Environmental Consequences........................................................................................... 5-22

5.7.1 Projected Future Public Uses ..................................................................................... 5-23

5.7.2 Opportunities for Quality Waterfowl Hunting ........................................................... 5-23

5.7.3 Opportunities for Quality Big Game Hunting ............................................................ 5-24

5.7.4 Opportunities for Quality Fishing .............................................................................. 5-26

5.7.5 Opportunities for Quality Shellfish Harvesting ......................................................... 5-26

5.7.6 Opportunities for Visitor, Administrative, and Maintenance Facilities ..................... 5-27

5.7.7 Opportunities for Interpretive Trails .......................................................................... 5-28

5.7.8 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................ 5-28

5.7.9 Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education and Interpretation .................... 5-29

5.7.10 Opportunities for Quality Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation .............................. 5-30

5.7.11 Illegal Uses ............................................................................................................... 5-30

5.7.12 Effects to Cultural and Historic Resources .............................................................. 5-31
vi Table of Contents 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5.7.13 Social and Economic Effects ................................................................................... 5-31

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects ...................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Effect Ratings Description ................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Summary of Potential Effects ............................................................................................. 6-2

6.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-5

6.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6-5

6.3.2 Cumulative Impacts Wildlife and Habitat .................................................................... 6-5

6.3.3 Other Wildlife Management Actions within the Willapa Bay Watershed ................. 6-21

6.3.4 Potential Beneficial Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 6-22

6.3.5 Potential Irretrievable and Irreversible Effects .......................................................... 6-22

6.4 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .................................................................. 6-23

6.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ........................................................................................... 6-23

Maps 

Map 1. Regional Context. ............................................................................................................ 1-3

Map 2. Land Status—Alternative 1. .......................................................................................... 2-60

Map 3. Land Status—Alternative 2. .......................................................................................... 2-61

Map 4. Land Status—Alternative 3. .......................................................................................... 2-63

Map 5. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats—Alternative 1. ......................................... 2-65

Map 6. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats—Alternative 2. ......................................... 2-67

Map 7. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats—Alternative 3. ......................................... 2-69

Map 8. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status—Alternative 1. ............................................ 2-71

Map 9. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status—Alternative 2. ............................................ 2-73

Map 10. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status—Alternative 3. .......................................... 2-75

Tables 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Summary Table for the Willapa CCP/EIS ........................................... 2-57

Table 4-1. NWRS Resources of Concern for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge ....................... 4-4

Table 4-2. BIDEH - Natural Plant Communities at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge: 

Characteristics, Natural Processes Involved in Sustaining Community and Limiting Factors. 4-15

Table 4-3. Priority Resources of Concern for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge ..................... 4-17

Table 4-4. Habitat Types and Acreages within the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge ............ 4-21

Table 5-1. Ranking of Major Activity Areas ............................................................................... 5-7

Table 5-2. Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation 

Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 5-8

Table 5-3. Selected Population and Associated Social Statistics .............................................. 5-21

Table 5-4. 2009 Pacific County Economic Summary by Industry ............................................ 5-21

Table 6-1. CCP Alternatives Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives-Willapa NWR ...... 6-2

Figures 

Figure 4-1. Typical brant use in Willapa Bay and Dungeness Bay, Washington (data from 

surveys conducted during the 1989-1990 season). .................................................................... 4-39

Figure 4-2. Number of snowy plover chicks fledged per adult male from 2007-2009 for all 

Washington nesting sites combined ........................................................................................... 4-53
Table of Contents vii

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan ............................ A-1

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations ........................................................................... B-1

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. CCP Team Members ............................................................................................. D-1

Appendix E. Public Scoping Report ............................................................................................ E-1

Appendix F. Implementation Plan ............................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge ......................... G-1

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program ........................................................ H-1

Appendix I. Statement of Compliance .......................................................................................... I-1

Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary........................................................................................... J-1

Appendix K. South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan ......... K-1

Appendix L. Draft Predator Management Plan ........................................................................... L-1

Appendix M. Hunting Plan ........................................................................................................ M-1

Appendix N. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... N-1

Appendix O. Estuarine Restoration Plan .................................................................................... O-1

Appendix P. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Draft Site Plan ........................... P-1 
viii Table of Contents 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-i 

Executive Summary 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located on Willapa Bay along the southern 

Washington coastline. The Refuge was established in 1936 to protect migrating and wintering 

populations of brant, waterfowl, shorebirds, other migratory birds, and for other conservation 

purposes. It encompasses approximately 16,000 acres of tidelands, temperate rainforest, ocean 

beaches, sand dunes, rivers, and small streams. The Refuge also preserves several rare remnants of 

old growth coastal cedar forest, habitat for spawning wild salmon, hundreds of thousands of 

migrating shorebirds, and threatened and endangered species such as the Western snowy plover and 

Marbled murrelet. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages the Refuge as part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

We developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

(CCP/EIS) in coordination with our partners, for public review and comment. In Chapter 2, we 

describe three alternatives for future management of the Refuge, and analyze each alternative’s 

potential effects on the biological, cultural, recreational, and economic environment. The alternatives 

are consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and relevant mandates, and 

address the issues we identified during public scoping. 

We initiated public scoping on April 9, 2008, by publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register, distributing Planning Update 1 and a press release, and announcing public meetings. The 

key issues we identified follow. 

 Is tidal marsh restoration a desirable action? If so, which Refuge units should be considered, 

and which units if any should remain under current management practices? 

 Should expansion of the Refuge boundary be considered, and if so, which properties and for 

what reasons should the Service consider expanding the approved Refuge boundary? 

 What management actions should be implemented to protect Western snowy plovers from 

disturbance and predation while measures to protect and restore habitat are ongoing? 

 What management actions should be implemented to alleviate threats to rare plants and 

animals caused by elk on the Leadbetter Unit? 

 What forest management practices would restore forest complexity and biodiversity?

 Should the Refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreational uses be expanded or modified? Which 

public uses are compatible with conserving wildlife resources?

 Should we consider a new visitor/administrative/maintenance facility 

All three alternatives meet the Refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System’s mission. We identified 

Alternative 2 as our preferred alternative, because it would best achieve these benchmarks and allow 

for public uses as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended. 

A summary of each draft alternative follows. 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative). No changes to current Refuge management programs would 

occur under Alternative 1. The Refuge staff would continue programs and operations at current 

levels, based on funding and staffing levels. The Refuge would continue to maintain, and where 

feasible, restore forest, wetland, and beach dune habitats, and habitat for federally and State listed 

threatened and endangered species. We would continue to implement the forest management plan 

with our partners. Existing public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, environmental education, boating, and camping—would continue. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

ES-ii Executive Summary 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2 (our preferred alternative), current 

wildlife and habitat management programs would be maintained. In addition, of the three 

alternatives, the highest level of habitat improvements would occur under this alternative. The 

intensively managed pastures and impoundments would be restored to historic estuarine conditions, 

creating approximately 749 acres of open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh habitats. We would 

continue to implement the forest management plan with our partners. On the Leadbetter Point Unit, a 

predator management program would be implemented as necessary, to control avian and mammalian 

predators and help meet Western snowy plover recovery goals. Grassland restoration on 15-33 acres 

would include establishing the early-blue violet, a host plant that would serve the future 

reintroduction of the endangered Oregon silverspot butterfly. Managed freshwater wetlands would 

remain on the Tarlett Unit. An expanded approved Refuge boundary is proposed to include 6,803 

acres located in the Nemah and Naselle areas, South Bay, and the East Hills. The Cape Shoalwater 

and Wheaton properties would be divested from the Refuge. 

Improvements to the wildlife-dependent public use program would include a new interpretive trail 

and wildlife observation deck along the South Bay. The new trail would tie into our proposed Tarlett 

Unit visitor/administrative/maintenance facility. The area where waterfowl hunting is conducted in 

accordance with the State’s season would expand to include approximately 6,058 acres after the 

proposed estuarine restoration is completed. A cartop boat launch would be developed to access the 

South Bay. An expanded special permit elk hunt is proposed for the Leadbetter Point Unit. Elk and 

deer hunting would be expanded and conducted in South Bay Units in accordance with State seasons. 

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, the Refuge’s intensively managed pastures and impoundments 

would be restored to historic estuarine conditions, creating approximately 429 acres of open water, 

intertidal flats, and salt marsh habitats. The proposed estuarine restoration project would occur on the 

Lewis and Porter Point units only. On the Leadbetter Point Unit, predator management would be 

implemented as necessary, to control avian predators and help meet Western snowy plover recovery 

goals. Staff would continue to implement the forest management plan with partners. Grassland 

restoration on 15-33 acres would include establishing the early-blue violet, a host plant that would 

serve the future reintroduction of the endangered Oregon silverspot butterfly. Managed freshwater 

wetlands would remain on the Riekkola and Tarlett units. An expanded land acquisition boundary is 

proposed, to include 4,895 acres located in South Bay and the East Hills. The Cape Shoalwater and 

Wheaton properties would be divested from the Refuge. 

Improvements to the wildlife-dependent public use program would include a new interpretive trail 

and wildlife observation deck along the South Bay that would tie into our proposed Tarlett Unit 

visitor/administrative/maintenance facility. The area where waterfowl hunting is conducted in 

accordance with the State’s season would expand to include approximately 5,450 acres after the 

proposed estuarine restoration is completed. Hunting opportunities would expand at the Leadbetter 

Point Unit to include a permit-only regulated elk hunt. Elk and deer hunting opportunities would 

occur in the South Bay Units in accordance with the State seasons. 

We encourage you to review and comment on the Draft CCP/EIS; comments will be addressed in the 

Final CCP/EIS. When the CCP is completed, it will provide guidance and direction for managing the 

Refuge for 15 years. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

and Background

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Old growth forest

USFWS
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located on Willapa Bay along the southern 

Washington coastline (Map 1). The Refuge was established in early 1937 by President Franklin 

Roosevelt in order to preserve and manage the important habitats and wildlife of Willapa Bay. 

The Refuge currently manages approximately 16,000 acres including sand dunes, sand beaches, 

intertidal mudflats, saltwater and freshwater marshes, grassland, open water, and forested lands. 

The Refuge’s wetland habitats support wintering populations of waterfowl such as black brant, 

trumpeter swans, Canada geese, scaup, canvasback, bufflehead, scoters, and American wigeon. 

The Refuge also hosts some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the Pacific Coast 

during their spring and fall migrations. These large concentrations of migrating shorebirds and 

the habitats that support them are now recognized as globally significant. The western snowy 

plover, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, nests along the Refuge beaches. 

Marbled murrelet, black bear, black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, bats, bobcats, and grouse can be 

found in the forests and upland habitats. The cool, wet climate of the Willapa hills makes the 

area a “hotspot” of amphibian diversity; habitats on the Refuge support up to 13 of the 24 native 

amphibians that occur in Washington. Coastal rivers and streams on the Refuge provide habitat 

for western brook lamprey; western pearlshell mussels; Chinook, coho, and chum salmon; 

steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or the Service) is proposing to adopt and implement 

a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. This combined CCP/EIS will set forth management guidance 

for the Refuge for the next 15 years as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS 

or the Refuge System) Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 688dd688ee). 

A CCP is required by the Refuge Administration Act to address “1) the purposes of the refuge; 2) 

the fish, wildlife and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural values 

found on the refuge; 3) significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and 

habitats and ways to correct or mitigate those problems; 4) areas suitable for administrative sites 

or visitor facilities; and 5) opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation.” 

The Service has developed and analyzed the draft alternatives for future refuge management. 

The alternatives address the major issues and relevant mandates identified in the CCP process 

and are consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The Service 

evaluated three draft alternatives for the Refuge and has identified Alternative 2 as the preferred 

alternative. 

The Service selected the draft preferred alternative because it represents the best balanced 

approach for achieving the Refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals; contributing to the NWRS 

mission; and addressing relevant issues and mandates consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management. However, the draft preferred alternative may be modified between the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

draft and final documents depending upon comments received from the public or other agencies 

and organizations. The Regional Director for the Service’s Pacific Region will decide which 

alternative will be adopted for implementation. For details on the specific components and 

actions making up the range of alternatives, see Chapter 2. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Service, the Refuge System, our partners, and the 

public with a long-term (15-year) management plan. This plan will integrate the goals, 

objectives and strategies (refuge management actions) set forth in this document. An approved 

CCP/EIS will ensure that the Service manages the Refuge to achieve the refuge purposes, vision, 

goals, and objectives to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. This CCP: 

 Sets a long term vision for the Refuge; 

 Establishes management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Refuge and its units; 

 Provides the Refuge with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats; 

 Defines compatible public uses; 

 Develops a plan that, when fully implemented, will achieve Refuge purposes, help fulfill 

the mission of the Refuge System, and maintain and, where appropriate, restore 

ecological integrity; 

 Communicates the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge; and 

 Provides a basis for budget needs to support staffing, operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvements. 

The plan was developed to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving 

the Refuge’s habitats for the long-term conservation of native plants and wildlife species. It 

identifies appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of 

the Refuge, and threatened, endangered, or rare species. Another purpose of the plan is to 

evaluate the priority public use programs on the Refuge, which may include hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

The CCP/EIS is the needed to identify and set the long-term management priorities for the 

Refuge, which include: 

 Improving Refuge habitat conditions through: 

o Management of young forest stands to create maximum trajectory toward 

establishing healthy old-growth stands; 

o Decommissioning and stabilization of old forest logging roads; 

o Removal of highly managed artificial freshwater wetlands by re-establishing the 

historic salt marsh habitat; 

o Restoration efforts for improving grasslands and dune habitats for the benefit of 

extirpated species, threatened wildlife, and other wildlife and plant species; and 

o Working with private land owners to improve habitat conditions on lands outside 

the refuge boundary. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3 

Map 1. Regional Context. 

CAPE MEARES

NWR

!`

!`

!a

!b

!b

!

b

CALI FORNI A

WASHI NGTON

OREGON

IDAHO

Pacific Ocean

LEWIS & CLARK

NWR

Salem

Eugene

Tacoma

Seattle

Olympia

Portland

OREGON

ISLANDS

NWR

COPALIS

NWR

QUILLAYUTE

NEEDLES

NWR

FLATTERY

ROCKS

NWR

JULIA BUTLER HANSEN

REFUGE FOR THE COLUMBIAN

WHITE-TAILED DEER

RIDGEFIELD

NWR

WILLIAM L. FINLEY NWR

ANKENY NWR

NISQUALLY

NWR

BASKETT SLOUGH NWR

GRAYS

HARBOR

NWR

NESTUCCA

BAY NWR

DUNGENESS 

NWR

STEIGERWALD LAKE NWR

Willapa NWR

BANDON

MARSH

NWR

SAN JUAN 

ISLANDS 

NWR

THREE ARCH

ROCKS NWR

PROTECTION

ISLAND

NWR

TUALATIN

RIVER 

NWR

SILETZ BAY

NWR

FRANZ LAKE NWR

PIERCE NWR

Data Sources: Highways, State and Country Boundaries from ESRI; Cities from USGS; USFWS Ecoregions and Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1

Area

Enlarged

Pacific

Flyway

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge

North Pacific Coast Ecoregion UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

0 Miles 100

0 Kilometers 100
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

 Analyzing the Refuge’s wildlife-dependent priority public uses, to determine what 

improvements or alterations could be made in the pursuit of higher quality programs for: 

o Continued and expanded quality hunting opportunities; 

o Improved environmental education and interpretation opportunities; 

o Expanded and improved wildlife observation opportunities with a new trail in the 

South Bay; 

o Expanded waterfowl hunting opportunities after habitat restoration activities in 

the South Bay; and 

o Maintenance of quality fishing opportunities. 

 Constructing a visitor/administrative and maintenance replacement facility for the public 

and the Refuge staff and volunteers which would: 

o Improve visitor access to facilities and staff; 

o Expand environmental education and interpretation programs/opportunities; 

o Improve access to view wildlife of the bay with a new trail and car-top boat 

launch; 

o Consolidate Refuge maintenance facilities; and 

o Improve staff and volunteer office facilities, creating a healthy work site. 

 Landscape habitat planning and for potential Refuge boundary expansion for: 

o Providing future opportunities to work with private landowners and 

nongovernmental organizations to acquire lands as funding and willing seller 

opportunities arise; and 

o Working with landowners to develop cooperative land management agreements. 

1.4 Content and Scope of the Plan 

This draft CCP provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and 

administration of public uses on Refuge lands and waters. Information included in the draft CCP 

includes: 

 An overall vision for the Refuge, its role in the local ecosystem, and its relationship to 

other plans and the refuge purposes (Chapter 1). 

 Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and public use programs, as well as 

strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2). 

 A description of the physical environment (Chapter 3). 

 A description of the conservation targets (habitats and wildlife), their condition and 

trends on the Refuge and within the local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired 

ecological conditions for sustaining the targets, and a short analysis of the threats to each 

conservation target (Chapter 4). 

 An overview of the Refuge’s public use programs and current facilities, a list of desired 

future conditions for each program and proposed new facilities, and other management 

considerations (Chapters 2 and 5). 

 An analysis of the effects of the proposed projects described in the plan (Chapter 6). 

 Draft Land Protection Plan; strategies for acquisition boundary expansion (Appendix A) 

 Evaluations of existing and proposed public and economic uses for appropriateness and 

compatibility (Appendices B and C). 

 Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan (Appendix H). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 DraftForest Landscape Plan (Appendix K). 

 Draft Predator Management Plan (Appendix L). 

 Draft Hunt Plan (Appendix M). 

 Draft Estuarine Restoration Plan (Appendix O). 

1.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Laws and Directives 

1.5.1 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 regarding importing and exporting wildlife, assists with 

state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation 

programs. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife 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 550 National Wildlife Refuges in all 50 states, 

and waterfowl production areas in 10 states, covering more than 150 million acres of public 

lands. More than 40 million visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, or 

participate in environmental education and interpretive activities on National Wildlife Refuges. 

1.5.3 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. In 1997, the Refuge System Administration Act was 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act; it included a unifying 

mission for all National Wildlife Refuges as a system, a new process for determining compatible 

uses on refuges, and a requirement for each refuge to be managed under a CCP, developed in an 

open public process. 

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 that ‘‘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 (section 1.5B), “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.” 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed under an approved CCP 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 on each refuge. 

Additionally, the Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Under the Refuge Administration Act, the Service is 

to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration during planning, 

managing, establishing, and expanding units of the Refuge System. The overarching goal is to 

enhance wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and provide access to quality visitor 

experiences on refuges, while managing the refuge to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats. 

New and ongoing recreational uses should help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural 

resources. These uses should provide an opportunity to make visitors aware of resource issues, 

management plans, and how the refuge contributes to the Refuge System and Service’s mission. 

When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, the six priority 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 purpose(s), 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 Willapa Refuge are in Appendices B and C. 

A CCP must be developed with the participation of the public, as required by the Refuge 

Administration Act and other formally established guidance. 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 to develop CCP’s in an open public process. The Service is committed to 

securing public input throughout the CCP planning process. 

1.5.4 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 (NWRS Administration Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Wildlife 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. 

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

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

ranges. 

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

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

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

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

education and interpretation). 

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

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

1.5.5 Planning and Management Guidance 

Refuges are guided by various Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international 

treaties. Fundamental to the management of every refuge are the mission and goals of the 

NWRS, and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, 

executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are derived from the NWRS Act of 1966 as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), 

as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), and the Service Manual. The 

NWRS Administration Act is implemented through regulations covering the NWRS, published in 

Title 50, subchapter C of the C.F.R. and policies contained in the Service Manual. These 

regulations and policies govern general administration of units of the Refuge System. 

1.5.6 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans 

The final CCP will be revised every 15 years or sooner if monitoring and evaluation findings 

determine that changes are needed to achieve the Refuge’s purposes, visions, goals, or 

objectives. 

The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge programs 

areas but may in some cases lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down 

management plans may, therefore, be developed for individual program areas as needed, 

following completion of the CCP. Step-down plans may require appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. 

Planning has been part of the Refuge’s operations since it was established. Although not all past 

planning processes were carried out in a comprehensive fashion, with the level of public 

participation considered adequate today, a considerable number of plans have been completed 

over the years to guide refuge managers. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

A list of various Refuge management plans and the year they were completed follows. Plans 

marked with an asterisk are covered through this CCP/EIS. 

 Habitat and Public Use Management (Quarterly/Annual Action Summary) 

 Station Safety Plan (updated annually) 

 Continuity of Operations Plan (2006) 

 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan (2006) 

 Fire Management Plan (2004) 

 Marsh and Water Management Plan (1990)* 

 Refuge Habitat Management Plan (2005)* 

 Public Use Management/Development Plan (1988)* 

 Willapa Refuge Hunting Plan and Environmental Assessment (1986)* 

 Refuge Management Plan (1986)* 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes 

The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of major importance in refuge 

planning. Refuge purposes form the foundation for planning and 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 Refuge System 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 a new refuge unit is acquired under an authority different from the original refuge’s 

establishing authority, the new unit takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original 

unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the new addition. 

By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between the 

Refuge System’s mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge’s purpose may 

supersede the Refuge System’s mission. 

Refuge purposes are also the driving force in the development of a refuge’s vision statements, 

goals, and objectives in the CCP. The purposes are critical to determining the compatibility of all 

existing and proposed refuge uses. 

1.6.1 Acquisition History and Purposes 

The refuge purposes refer to the justification for the establishment of a Refuge within the NWRS 

as a place owned by the American people and cared for on their behalf. The following purposes 

form the foundation for management decisions and the planning process for the Willapa NWR, 

including the development of the goals and objectives. 

With passage of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 1929, the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission (MBCC) was established to approve land acquisitions from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for the NWRS that are considered important to waterfowl. The commission 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

was established largely in response to public concern over plummeting waterfowl populations 

during the Dust Bowl days of the 1920s and 1930s, reflecting the NWRS’s early commitment to 

waterfowl protection. It was the MBCC that set the stage for the establishment and purchase of 

lands for the Willapa NWR. 

The MBCC (acting under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) on May 

7, 1936, approved the acquisition of 24 tracts totaling 4,825 acres in Pacific County, Washington, 

authorizing the establishment of the Willapa Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. At that meeting, 

1,642 acres were approved for purchase, which included 15 tracts. Specifically the MBCC 

meeting memorandum no. 16 also identified the tidal marsh around Long Island as: 

...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the 

Washington Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, 

and thereby has been for years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for 

Black Brant. 

The memo also states that Washington ranked fourth in the nation in duck stamp sales and 

further states that: “it is essential for the preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration 

program provide adequate sanctuary facilities for migratory birds in that state.” 

The meeting minutes also note the management vision by Mr. Gabrielson (Department of 

Interior): “what we planned to do is to close by executive order the shallow water here where the 

birds feed. The mud flats are a concentration area.” 

On October 14, 1936, 196 acres were purchased establishing the Refuge and the refuge purposes 

were derived from the earlier MBCC meeting memorandum no. 16. 

On January 12, 1937, three months after the first property was purchased, President Franklin 

Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7541, Establishing Public Domain lands. The refuge was 

called Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge. “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” These land tracts (1 and 1a) are currently known as the Shoalwater 

Bay Unit of Willapa NWR. 

Later that year President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7721, enlarging Willapa Harbor 

Migratory Bird Refuge “in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222).” The executive order states: 

The following lands and accretions, comprising approximately 5,000 acres either 

acquired or be acquired are reserved and set apart subject to existing rights for the use of 

the Dept. of Agriculture as an addition to the Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge 

established by EO 7541. 

Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a part of the 

refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

A few years later, in July 1940, a presidential proclamation was issued which changed the name 

from the Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge to Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 

Later that same year in a letter to the President from the Acting Secretary of Interior E.K. Burlew 

(dated October 22, 1940) introducing a request for an Executive Order he states: “after careful 

consideration of the exigencies of the migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds resident 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

upon the and reporting to the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, it has been determined that to 

allow the hunting, taking, capturing, or killing of such migratory birds on the lands and waters in 

Willapa Bay adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Refuge would defeat the protections sought to be 

extended to such migratory birds by the establishment of the Willapa refuge.” The letter also 

states that this proposal is supported by local sportsmen and the Washington State Game 

Commission. It proceeds with the purpose for the proclamation, which is “to extend jurisdiction 

of the Department of Interior over these lands and waters by making them a closed area under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755).” 

Later that year on November 7, 1940, the President issued another Proclamation (No. 2439): 

Regulation Designating As Closed Area under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Certain Lands and 

Waters Adjacent to and in the Vicinity of the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Washington. 

 As lands were acquired into the refuge, with purposes derived from the earlier Executive 

Order it is also made clear in several MBCC Memoranda that “A Proclamation closes to 

hunting the water surrounding the island.” That “island” refers to Long Island in south 

Willapa Bay. The Refuge maintains the Presidential Proclamation Boundary specifically 

prohibiting hunting around Long Island. 

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the lands approved for purchase were under the purposes 

derived from Executive Order 7541. 

 On April 7, 1967, in the Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Reservation of Land, the 

purposes of the Leadbetter Point unit were described: “The applicant desires to use the 

land for the management of migratory birds and other wildlife as an extension of the 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge.” One year later (April 16, 1968), Leadbetter Point 

Unit was added to the refuge by Public Land Order 4403. 

Beginning in 1978 through today, expansion of the Refuge identified specific habitat or wildlife 

attributes that were described in the environmental assessments (EAs) of those lands. In 1978, 

the EA for the acquisition of Long Island described its purposes: 

 A grove of virgin western red cedars and western hemlock. 

 Supports one of largest nesting colonies of great blue herons (150 nests on Burlington 

Northern land) in the Pacific NW. 

 Five plants are listed as endangered by a Smithsonian report: Aster chilensis hallii, 

Erythronium oregonum, Aster curtus, Arenaria paludicola, and Lasthenia minor 

maritime. 

An EA in 1983 derived the purposes for the Burlington Northern Land Exchange, Pacific 

County, Washington Tract: 12, Long Island Unit (92.2 acres): “1. To preserve and protect unique 

ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay. 2. To provide for maximum use and production by 

migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special emphasis on bald eagles and marsh 

and wading birds.” Land was exchanged for 175 acres on Little Pend Oreille NWR. Mineral 

rights were held by Burlington Northern Santa Fe. 

In December 1999, the Willapa Addition EA/Land Protection Plan and Conceptual Management 

Plan describe the purposes for the future boundary expansion of 2,278 acres for the Bear River, 

Teal Slough, and Tarlatt Slough areas. The purposes follow. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 Protect habitat for old-growth dependent species including the threatened marbled 

murrelet and threatened northern spotted owl. 

 Protect and restore upland forest and associated stream habitat in order to protect and 

enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat trout, and Chinook, coho, 

and chum salmon runs. 

 Protect and restore coastal wetlands to provide a diversity of habitats for migratory 

waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and songbirds. 

 Protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina-infested lands 

for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands. 

 Provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge lands in a 

contiguous Refuge boundary. 

 Provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities compatible with Refuge purposes. 

1.6.2 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Willapa 

Refuge 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation that 

established and added to Refuge lands. Because the Refuge was originally established to 

preserve an important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific 

Flyway, preservation of this waterfowl habitat represents a priority for management to achieve 

the Refuge’s purpose. In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original 

establishment of the Refuge retain this purpose. 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants, 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional lands 

also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management priorities to 

support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants: 

 Eelgrass beds 

 Gravel bars 

 Old-growth/mature forests 

 Riverine habitats 

 Intertidal mudflats 

 Sand dune habitat 

 Fish species: coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout 

 Amphibian diversity 

 Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

 Educational/research opportunities 

 Cultural resource sites 

1.6.3 Special Land Status 

1.6.3.1 Research and Natural Areas (Washington State) 

The refuge has three state-registered natural areas that are in the research natural area (RNA) 

category. These RNAs are owned and administered by the Service to 1) preserve examples of all 

significant natural ecosystems for comparison with those influenced by humans, 2) provide 

educational and research areas for ecological and environmental studies, and 3) preserve the 

genetic and behavioral diversity of native and endangered plants and animals. These areas 

consist of Diamond Point RNA (88 acres) and Cedar Grove RNA (264 acres), both of which are 

located on Long Island, and the Leadbetter RNA (1,705 acres). Detailed information regarding 

these areas can be found in Chapters 4 and 5. 

1.6.4 Other Laws, Policies, and Orders 

Many other laws apply to the USFWS and management of Refuge System lands. Examples 

include the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended. A list and brief description of each can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. 

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 NWRS Improvement Act. Some of 

these key policies include the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

(601 FW3); the Compatibility Policy; the Refuge Planning Policy; Mission, Goals, and Purposes 

(602 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses (605 FW 1); 

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. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

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

the Refuge purpose. 

1.7 CCP Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts 

One of the major purposes of this CCP is to ensure that refuge management is focused on 

achieving not only the Refuge’s purposes, but also to analyze and determine the appropriate role 

of the Refuge in relationship to national, regional, state, watershed districts, in meeting various 

goals and objectives for conservation of natural resources. These goals are stated in various 

plans that pertain to individual wildlife species and the Pacific Northwest. A brief summary of 

the major plans considered during development of this CCP follows. 

1.7.1 Applicable Recovery Plans 

The Service has prepared recovery plans that are intended to serve as guidance documents for 

agencies, landowners, and the public. Each plan includes recommendations for actions 

considered necessary to satisfy the biological needs and ensure the recovery of the listed species. 

These plans also emphasize opportunities for improved management of listed species on Federal 

and State lands. Recommended actions generally include protection, enhancement, and 

restoration of those habitats deemed important for recovery, monitoring, research, and public 

outreach. Recovery plans for federally listed species that occur at Willapa include: 

 Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997) 

 Revised Recovery Plan for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (USFWS 2001a) 

 Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (USFWS 

2007a) 

 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008a) 

The recommendations provided in the recovery plans for these listed species have been 

considered during the development of this CCP. 

1.7.2 Migratory Bird Conservation 

1.7.2.1 Birds of Management Concern (USFWS 2004c) 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) is a subset of all species protected by the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (50 C.F.R. 10.13) and includes those which pose special management challenges due 

to a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts with human interests, or societal 

demands). The BMC comprises both game birds below their desired condition and nongame 

birds. As indicated in its strategic plan (USFWS 2004c), the Migratory Bird Program places 

priority emphasis on these birds in its activities. 

Willapa NWR provides breeding, wintering, and/or stopover habitat for some of the birds 

identified as BMC with primary importance in the region. Habitats for 12 focal species are 

supported on this Refuge. Those species consist of the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), 

dusky Canada goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis), brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), 

northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), 

whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari), band-tailed pigeon 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15 

(Columba fasciata), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), 

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra). 

1.7.2.2 Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008b) 

The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the USFWS to 

“identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without 

additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” The publication Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC) is the 

most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The BCC identifies the migratory and nonmigratory bird species, beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered, 

that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. BCC species are a select group of 

birds appearing on the BMC list. 

Thirteen BCC species within the U.S. portion of the Northern Pacific Forest, Bird Conservation 

Region regularly occur at Willapa NWR: northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi), bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), whimbrel, marbled 

godwit (Limosa fedoa), red knot, short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), Caspian tern 

(Sterna caspia), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), olive-sided flycatcher, willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and, purple 

finch (Carpodacus purpureus). 

1.7.2.3 Partners in Flight, North American and State Landbird Conservation Plans 

Partners in Flight (PIF) is an international coalition of government agencies, conservation 

groups, academic institutions, private organizations, and citizens dedicated to the long-term 

maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. The goal of PIF’s landbird conservation 

plans is to focus resources on the improvement of monitoring and inventory, research, 

management, and education programs involving birds and their habitats. PIF’s strategy is to 

stimulate cooperative public- and private-sector efforts in North America and the Neotropics to 

meet these goals. 

Specific strategies for accomplishing the goals are contained in regional landbird conservation 

plans. These plans describe priority habitats and species and provide recommended management 

actions to conserve those habitats and species. The regional plans applicable to the Refuge are 

entitled Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and 

Washington (Altman 2000) and Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of 

Western Oregon and Washington (Altman 1999). The lowlands and valleys plan identifies three 

priority habitats: grassland/savannah, oak woodland, and riparian. Two of these habitats, 

grassland/savannah and riparian, are found within the Refuge. All forest conditions identified in 

the coniferous forest plan, except the unique classifications, are found on the Refuge. In 

addition, over 40 focal species identified in the two plans occur on the Refuge. 

1.7.2.4 Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (USFWS 2005a) 

The California Current System is one of the most ecologically complex habitats. A diverse 

assemblage of organisms inhabits the California Current, including 60 species of seabirds, many 

of which breed or migrate through the coastal waters around Willapa NWR. The purpose of the 

Seabird Conservation Plan is to identify priorities for seabird management, monitoring research, 

outreach, planning and coordination (USFWS 2005a). The plan provides guidance and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

recommendations for conservation actions addressing a prioritized group of species occurring at 

a regional scale. Specific information on ecology, population, status, distribution, threats, and 

conservation needs is provided for species breeding in the region. 

Although the Refuge does not manage habitats that provide for seabird breeding, many species 

of marine birds occur in the surrounding coastal waters. 

1.7.2.5 USFWS Regional Marine Bird Policy (USFWS 1985) 

This policy was enacted to recognize the significance of maintaining healthy, viable populations 

of marine birds in the Pacific. It is intended to guide the Service in implementing provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act relative to marine birds. Specifically, the policy sets directives to 

1) Utilize current programs and resources to maintain seabird populations at or above current 

levels, in a naturally diverse state and on native habitats throughout their range; 2) Achieve a 

goal of establishing and actively protecting colonies, roosts, loafing sites, and adjacent waters as 

sanctuaries; 3) Encourage the development of comprehensive management plans and appropriate 

regulations aimed at developing offshore petroleum and mineral resources and the safe transport 

of such resources that adequately protect marine birds and their habitats; 4) Promote research, 

survey, and monitoring programs focusing on seabirds and marine ecosystems, especially longterm monitoring that identifies declining species that may require future listing without 

immediate intervention; and 5) Remove non-native predators from seabird colonies on all 

National Wildlife Refuges, and encourage their removal from colonies on all other lands. 

1.7.2.6 Northern Pacific Coast Region, Shorebird Conservation Plan (Drut and Buchanan 

2000) 

Willapa NWR is also located within the Northern Pacific Coast Region, as defined by the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2000). The Northern Pacific Coast Region is an 

important wintering area for shorebirds that breed in the arctic and temperate zones, but it is also 

important during migration, particularly for arctic breeding species. There are also important 

breeding populations in the region. The major regional goal of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan is “to ensure that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to 

support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through each region.” 

The Northern Pacific Coast Region Shorebird Conservation Plan (NPCRSCP) includes several 

conservation priorities that are relevant to Willapa NWR. These relevant priorities include 

increasing the breeding population of the highly imperiled western snowy plover to 250 breeding 

adults within the Oregon and Washington Recovery Unit; increasing and/or maintaining the 

breeding population of the western snowy plover and killdeer by restoring, enhancing, and 

creating nesting habitat; and increasing migratory and wintering populations of all key shorebird 

species in the region using various protection, restoration, enhancement, and management 

strategies. The NPCRSCP identifies tidal flats and sand beaches as important shorebird habitat 

within the coastal areas of Washington. Willapa Bay includes the largest remaining area of tidal 

mudflat habitat and the most coastal salt marsh habitat in southwestern Washington. Leadbetter 

Point has the greatest extent of mostly isolated, sparsely vegetated, sand beach on the entire 

southern Washington coast. Therefore, the NPCRSCP’s habitat goals for tidal wetlands and 

coastal sand beaches are relevant to this Refuge. These goals include restoring tidal flats and 

estuarine marshes to benefit shorebirds; enhancing tidal action in existing wetlands through the 

removal and maintenance of introduced cordgrass; and managing a sufficient amount shallow 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17 

open water habitat to support shorebird populations; and limiting human disturbance to 

shorebirds in all seasons. The NPCRSCP recommends restoration and enhancement of sparsely 

vegetated sand beach habitat by removing and controlling introduced beach grass. The 

NPCRSCP also includes goals for managed freshwater wetlands, which call for improving and 

maintaining the value of managed freshwater wetlands to benefit shorebirds. 

In the NPCRSCP, Willapa Bay has been proposed as a site of international significance 

supporting more than 100,000 shorebirds, or 15% of the Pacific Flyway total (Drut and 

Buchanan 2000). The Refuge provides breeding, wintering, and/or stopover habitat for most of 

the shorebirds identified in the NPCRSCP as having primary importance within the region. Of 

the 20 species of highest concern for which coastal habitats in the Northern Pacific Coast Region 

are especially important, 11 species—the western snowy plover, black-bellied plover (Pluvialis 

squatarola), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), 

whimbrel, marbled godwit, red knot, sanderling (Calidris alpina), dunlin (Calidris alpina), shortbilled dowitcher, and western sandpiper (Calidris mauri)—are supported on this Refuge. 

1.7.3 Waterbird Conservation Planning 

1.7.3.1 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) 

An independent partnership was created to develop a plan that sustains or restores the 

distribution, diversity, and abundance of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds of 

North and Central America and the Caribbean region (Kushlan et al. 2002). The primary goal of 

the council formed from this partnership was to develop and facilitate implementation of the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP). Completed in 2002, the NAWCP 

outlines a continental-scale conservation and management strategy for over 200 aquatic bird 

species of the Northwestern Hemisphere. The NAWCP identifies vulnerabilities and threats to 

species and their habitats. Habitat and site-based conservation actions throughout the Americas 

and the North Pacific are promoted by the NAWCP. Conservation priorities, information needs, 

resources, and infrastructure are identified at regional and local levels in a step-down process 

through regional working groups. 

1.7.3.2 North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international action plan to 

conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The goal of the NAWMP is to return 

waterfowl populations to their levels in the 1970s by conserving wetland and upland habitat. 

Canada and the United States signed the NAWMP in 1986, in reaction to critically low numbers 

of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The NAWMP is a 

partnership of Federal, provincial, state and municipal governments, nongovernmental 

organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working toward achieving better 

wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. 

Transforming the goals of the NAWMP into on-the-ground actions is accomplished through 

partnerships called joint ventures. Joint ventures are made up of individuals, corporations, 

conservation organizations, and local, state, provincial, and Federal agencies. There are 

currently 11 habitat joint ventures in the United States and four in Canada endorsed by the 

NAWMP committee. One of the habitat joint ventures has international status (Canada/United 

States). Partners from Canada and the United States also jointly support three species joint 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

ventures. Habitat joint ventures restore and enhance wetlands and associated upland habitats. 

The species joint ventures address monitoring and research needs of black ducks, Arctic nesting 

geese, and seaducks. 

The Pacific Joint Venture’s (PJV) partners work within a planning framework that links local 

conservation priorities to the regional goals of the Pacific Coast and Intermountain West Joint 

Ventures. Focus areas are identified within the region. Within the Southern Washington Coast 

Focus Area, the Pacific Joint Venture is dedicated to ensure habitat objectives are met and 

sustained through the following recommended actions: 

1) Key coastal wetlands are protected for the long term through means such as fee title 

acquisition, easements, conservation covenants, government land transfers, and 

management agreements. 

2) Degraded or converted wetlands are restored to re-establish ecological relationships 

that more closely represent the site’s original conditions. PJV partners frequently 

collaborate to restore former agricultural land, tidal marshes, and riparian 

communities. Examples of restoration projects include re-establishing riverine 

channels and riparian habitat; planting native vegetation; and, restoring tidal flow to 

diked agricultural areas. 

3) Enhancement projects increase the wildlife values of specific habitats on secured 

lands. One way this is accomplished is through projects that control invasive and 

non-native plants. 

1.7.3.3 Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

The Pacific Flyway Council is an administrative body that forges cooperation among public 

wildlife agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory game birds in western 

North America. The council is generally composed of one member from the public wildlife 

agency in each state and province in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

Biologists from state, Federal, and provincial wildlife and land-management agencies, university 

students and faculty, and others develop management plans for the cooperative management of 

migratory game bird populations in the Pacific Flyway. Biologists from the Central Flyway, 

Canada, Mexico, and Russia contribute to these plans. The following management plans pertain 

to refuge habitats and associated waterfowl species. 

1.7.3.4 Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Aleutian Cackling 

Goose 

The goal of this plan is to identify needs and responsibilities necessary to cooperatively manage 

the number and distribution of Aleutian cackling geese, to provide for optimal aesthetic, 

educational, scientific, and hunting uses throughout their range (Pacific Flyway Council 1999a). 

The refuge lies within the primary wintering area of cackling geese in northwestern Oregon and 

southwestern Washington. Willapa NWR and surrounding fields adjacent to Willapa Bay 

provide the principal migratory stopover habitat in Washington State (Kraege 2005). The Refuge 

typically supports several hundred wintering cackling geese. Refuge practices discussed in the 

CCP, including mowing of pasture, estuarine restoration, and freshwater wetland management, 

provide considerable goose foraging habitat. The Refuge also provides sanctuary from 

disturbance. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

1.7.3.5 Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Brant 

The Pacific brant subspecies breeds in the western Arctic of North America. In the early 1980s a 

dramatic decline and redistribution of Pacific brant occurred in western Alaska, a particularly 

important breeding region for this population. The three-year mean population estimate for 

Pacific brant is 88% of the Plan goal. The Pacific brant population is presently considered 

stable. A population objective of 12,000 wintering birds was established, and the 2008 

population estimate based on an index derived from midwinter surveys totals 24,972. 

1.7.3.6 Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Dusky Canada Goose 

The goal of this management plan is to maintain and enhance the dusky Canada goose 

population. The objectives of the plan include 1) sustaining a population of between 10,000 to 

20,000 geese, as measured by indices of geese on Copper River Delta and Middleton Island; 2) 

managing and improving breeding ground habitat conditions to achieve average annual 

production of 20% young, measured as the most recent 10-year average; and 3) maintaining and 

enhancing wintering and migration habitats in sufficient quantity and quality; and 4) managing 

wintering habitat to provide optimum food, water, and sanctuary conditions, and to provide 

optimum geographical distribution, with an emphasis on habitat objectives outlined in the 

Northwest Oregon/Southwest Washington Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Control Plan 

(Pacific Flyway Council 1998). 

1.7.3.7 Washington Natural Heritage Plan 

The Washington Natural Heritage Plan is a product of the Washington Natural Heritage Program, 

whose mission is to conserve the full range of Washington’s native plants, animals, and 

ecosystems through voluntary and cooperative action. The program uses science to identify 

high-quality and representative examples of native Washington habitats and species and works to 

protect these natural treasures through voluntary and cooperative habitat conservation 

agreements. 

The Washington Natural Heritage Plan and Program: 

 Describe the components of Washington’s natural heritage and biodiversity; 

 Identify natural areas of exceptional value for conservation; 

 Provide opportunities for voluntary conservation on both public and private lands; 

 Emphasize creating partnerships to enhance the capacity to have a positive conservation 

impact. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, local 

preserves, and other public lands with management plans that adequately protect Washington’s 

natural heritage are now included with RNAs and preserves as providing complete or partial 

protection for some ecosystems and species. For National Wildlife Refuges, the plan 

recommends that RNAs be established to protect natural areas of exceptional value (particularly 

those areas that are unique, and have no similar examples protected elsewhere). Leadbetter 

Point, Diamond Point, and the Cedar Grove are all designated RNA sites on the Refuge. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.7.3.8 Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy/Washington Wildlife 

Action Plan 

In response to two Federal programs—the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and 

the State Wildlife Grant Program—the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 

prepared a wildlife action plan (WAP) as part of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. The WAP includes information on the distribution and abundance of priority wildlife 

and habitats; provides strategies for conserving and monitoring wildlife and habitat; and provides 

for coordination with Federal, state, Tribal, and local agencies, and the public. The WAP 

emphasizes proactive measures to conserve declining species and habitats, and to maintain the 

status of common species. 

At least 32 species identified as “species of greatest conservation need” in the Washington 

Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2005) occur on the Refuge, including the streaked horned lark, 

western snowy plover, marbled murrelet, Dunn’s salamander, Van Dyke’s salamander, Columbia 

torrent salamander, and western pearlshell mussel. 

1.7.3.9 South Willapa Bay Conservation Area—Forest Landscape Restoration Plan 

In July 2003, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Willapa NWR began a collaborative effort 

to design and develop a mutual forest management plan with goals and objectives on properties 

managed by both parties in Pacific County, Washington. The South Willapa Bay Forest 

Landscape Restoration Plan (Churchill et al. 2007) states the intent of management within the 

South Willapa Bay Conservation Area (SWBCA) is to restore self-sustaining, natural, ecological 

processes and healthy forest and stream systems, as opposed to engineering or manipulating 

habitats to meet specific structural or compositional targets. 

Restoration actions, or active management, will primarily include: 

1) Carefully designed density management (i.e., thinning) within young-managed forest 

stands (< 90 years old) to promote forest growth and the development of habitat 

complexity, 

2) Removal, or repair of high risk forest roads, and 

3) Improvement to the existing forest road network to minimize impacts to water 

quality. 

Refuge goals related to forest management include: 

1) To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay. 

2) To manage for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered animals 

in their natural ecosystems. 

Under these goals the Refuge has developed specific objectives related to the forest management 

program. 

1) Restore ecological function to Refuge forests by creating a natural distribution of 

stand structure, composition, and successional stages while promoting old-growth/late 

successional characteristics to benefit forest dependent wildlife—especially the 

marbled murrelet. 

2) Decommission unnecessary forest roads to reduce/eliminate stream impacts and 

fragmentation of forest habitat. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21 

3) Adopt forest management practices designed to change fire-prone thickets of western 

hemlock over a period of time to something that structurally resembles old-growth 

and reduces fuel loads. 

4) Protect, and where appropriate, restore associated stream habitat to prevent further 

declines of anadromous fish stocks and enhance native amphibian populations and 

other stream-dependent wildlife species. 

5) Reduce risk from insects and disease where epidemics are likely. 

1.8 The Planning Process 

A core planning team, consisting of a project leader, biologist, public use planner, the refuge 

manager, and a regional refuge conservation planner, began developing the CCP in 2008. An 

extended team assisted in development, particularly in providing comments at key milestones. 

The extended team consisted of various professionals from other agencies (WDFW, Washington 

Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]) and within Service. A list of the core team members 

and their experience is located in Appendix D. 

Early in the planning process, the team identified the priority species, groups, and communities 

for this Refuge. These priorities were also called “conservation targets,” and most of the 

biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these targets. 

Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives, and strategies around the wildlifedependent public uses. Other non-wildlife-dependent uses that currently occur were also 

addressed. 

Public scoping began in March of 2008. Scoping meetings were held in South Bend and Ilwaco, 

Washington. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning update to 

the Refuge’s CCP mailing list, refuge visitors, and other interested parties. A complete summary 

of public involvement can be found in Appendix E. 

1.9 Issues, Concerns and Opportunities 

Issues are defined as matters of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource 

management activities, the environment, land uses or public use activities. Issues are important 

to the planning process because they identify topics to be addressed in the CCP, pinpoint the 

types of information to gather, and help to define alternatives for the CCP. Various issues, 

concerns, and opportunities were raised by the public as well, and all are addressed in some 

manner in the draft CCP. 

It is the Service’s responsibility to focus planning and EIS analysis on the major issues. Major 

issues typically suggest different actions or alternative solutions and are considered within the 

Refuge’s jurisdiction. The major issues may have either a positive or negative effect on the 

resource. Major issues will influence the decisions proposed in the plan. 

The core planning team discussed and presented preliminary issues to the public during public 

scoping. These preliminary issues were thought to be potential issues of concern for the public. 

Some of the preliminary issues presented to the public may have been revised or played a minor 

role or were eliminated from further consideration as a major issue. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Although CCPs are comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. One issue 

identified as being outside the current plan is Spartina eradication; the Service has implemented 

the Spartina Eradication Control Plan. 

Presented below are a brief series of questions presented to the public, designed to open up 

discussion for each topic. Following the questions were brief descriptions of the major issues, 

concerns, and opportunities, some of which are presented below. These and other issues 

identified are later addressed in greater detail within this CCP/EIS. 

1.9.1Wildlife and Habitat 

1.9.1.1 Estuarine Restoration 

Is estuarine (tidal marsh) restoration a desirable action? If it is, on which refuge units should 

restoration be considered? Which units, if any, should remain under current management 

practices? 

Estuarine restoration is being considered as part of this CCP. This is being considered so that the 

Refuge can restore a more naturally functioning ecosystem to the bay. To date, we have restored 

tidal marshes at Headquarters, Bear River tributaries, and on Long Island. One of the larger 

refuge units, which consists of approximately 800 acres of former tideland located in the South 

Bay, is protected by dikes and tide gates. This area is managed primarily for waterfowl, and in 

some cases for salmonids and amphibians. In this draft CCP/EIS, the Refuge will be looking at 

the implications of restoring this area to a native salt marsh. 

1.9.1.2 Western Snowy Plover Protection 

What management actions would better protect western snowy plovers from disturbance and 

predation, while measures to protect and restore habitat are occurring? 

The western snowy plover is threatened throughout its range by loss and disturbance of habitat 

and nesting sites. The primary threats to the snowy plover are habitat degradation caused by 

human disturbance, urban development, beach grass introduction, and predators. The plovers 

nesting on the Leadbetter Point Unit face direct losses of nests and fledglings due to predation, 

particularly by crows and ravens, resulting in poor hatching and fledging success rates for 

western snowy plovers. 

1.9.1.3 Forest Management 

What forest management practices should be implemented to restore forest complexity and 

biodiversity? 

Forest lands in the Willapa Bay area, including the Refuge, are dominated by second- and/or 

third-growth forests, very little old-growth or late-successional forest exists. The quantity, 

distribution, and quality of the forest community has been significantly altered due to past timber 

harvest practices. These changes have invariably affected the structure of the wildlife 

community associated with this forest landscape. A variety of wildlife is dependent on these 

forest types, including the federally threatened marbled murrelet. The lack of latesuccessional/old-growth forest habitat is one reason for the disappearance of the spotted owl 

from the Refuge. Forest streams also provide habitat for anadromous fish such as Chinook, 

coho, and chum salmon, and sea-run cutthroat trout, making stream restoration a necessary part 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23 

of forest management efforts. Due to the degraded nature of the Refuge’s forests, and those in 

the surrounding areas, a major effort is needed to restore these forests to a semblance of their 

natural state. 

1.9.2 Land Protection Planning 

1.9.2.1 Refuge Boundary Expansion 

Should expansion of the refuge boundary be considered, and if so, what lands and under what 

circumstances should the Service consider boundary expansion? 

Willapa Refuge currently encompasses approximately 16,000 acres in fee title and includes 

easements located primarily in the South Bay and on the tip of Leadbetter Peninsula. In 1999, 

the Service expanded the Refuge’s acquisition boundary by 2,200 acres. Since then we have 

acquired approximately 1,700 acres from willing sellers. A large increase in the amount of land 

acquired by nonprofit organizations for conservation purposes has occurred in Pacific County, 

and many groups have expressed interest in strategically expanding the Refuge’s boundary to 

include sensitive habitats in need of protection. 

1.9.3 Public Use and Access 

1.9.3.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses 

Should the Refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreational uses be expanded or reduced? What 

opportunities are available that would satisfy public needs while conserving resources? 

The refuge currently provides opportunities for high-quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

that highlight the coastal dunes, open bay waters, salt marshes, mudflats, grasslands, and oldgrowth forests. The refuge is open to the public for a variety of uses, including hiking trails, 

hunting programs (waterfowl, deer, elk, and bear), wildlife observation, clamming, fishing, 

beach activities, and camping. An opportunity exists to expand and provide additional quality 

elk hunting opportunities by opening the Leadbetter Point Unit, South Bay Units, and other areas 

to be included in Washington State’s elk hunting season. School groups enjoy environmental 

education programs both on and off the Refuge. Visitors are introduced to the Refuge’s 

resources through various interpretive exhibits located on the Refuge. A proposed visitor/office 

and maintenance facility would allow for increased on-site interpretation and environmental 

education programs. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 
Chapter 2

Alternatives, Goals,

Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Western pearlshell mussel

USFWS
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design 

During development of the CCP alternatives presented in this chapter, the Service reviewed and 

considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for 

managing the Refuge. As is appropriate for a National Wildlife Refuge, resource considerations 

were fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the NWRS 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) states that “the fundamental mission of our 

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The Service planning team reviewed and used available scientific information (reports and 

studies) to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for 

species and habitats. The team also met with staff from local, state, and Federal agencies, and 

elected officials to ascertain priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff also 

met with refuge users, nonprofit groups, and community organizations to ensure their comments 

and ideas were considered during CCP development. 

The details of public participation can be found in the Scoping Report (Appendix E). During 

development of the alternatives, the planning team considered the actions detailed below. 

2.2 Draft Alternative Descriptions 

Each alternative describes a combination of habitat and public use management prescriptions 

designed to achieve the Refuge’s purpose, goals, and vision. These alternatives provide different 

ways to address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities 

identified during the planning process. All of the major issues, activities, and management 

concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative and are shown in the corresponding 

maps found in this chapter. A summary of the key differences between the alternatives is 

presented in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter. 

2.2.1 Alternative 1: Continue Current Management Activities 

This alternative assumes no change in current ongoing management programs and is considered 

the baseline (status quo) from which to compare other alternatives in this plan. Under this 

alternative, all refuge management programs consistent with available funding and staffing 

would continue. No significant changes would be initiated by the Service. Current refuge 

management programs are described throughout the draft CCP/EIS. Although the Refuge 

currently has no integrated plan to guide the management of all of its resources and programs, 

current management efforts on the Refuge focus on the protection of the Service’s trust species 

(e.g., threatened and endangered species, migratory birds), the continued 

maintenance/enhancement of their habitats, and the management of wildlife-dependent 

recreational use of refuge lands. Current management of the Refuge is guided by the following 

existing plans: 

1) Forest Management Plan (2007) 

2) Water Management plan (annual) 

3) Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan (2006) 
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4) Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan 

5) Habitat Management Plan (2005) 

6) Refuge Hunt Plan 

7) Refuge Safety Plan 

8) Refuge Public Use Plan 

In addition to the refuge plans listed above, other existing documents have provided management 

direction for the Refuge including the Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet 

(USFWS 1997a), The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover (USFWS 2007a), Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark Assessment and Preliminary 

Conservation Strategy (Pearson and Altman 2005), Conservation Strategy for Pink Sandverbena 

(Kaye 2003), Oregon Silverspot Butterfly revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001a), and other 

regional and state plans such as those used in Table 4-1. 

2.2.1.1 Habitat and Wildlife 

The Refuge maintains approximately 5 miles of constructed dikes in the south end of the bay. 

This area was constructed and has been extensively managed since the 1950s for freshwater 

wetlands to support migratory waterfowl. This area supports a regulated waterfowl hunting 

program, with approximately 500 hunter visits using these wetland areas during the waterfowl 

hunting season. 

At 270 acres, the Long Island Unit has one of the largest remaining contiguous tracts of oldgrowth forest in southwest Washington. Most of the island forest was extensively logged prior to 

refuge ownership. Today, the refuge staff in partnership with TNC have developed and 

implemented a Forest Management Plan (Appendix K). The ongoing forest restoration efforts 

set the stage for enhancing the trajectory toward old-growth forest qualities for all the secondand third-growth forests currently on the Refuge and adjoining TNC lands. Forest road 

decommissioning is also a large part of this restoration plan. 

The western snowy plover (a federally threatened species) uses local beaches and refuge lands 

for migrating overwintering and for nesting habitat in the summer months. In recent years, the 

Refuge has restored and maintained over 200 acres of coastal dunes that has increased the 

available nesting habitat for these birds. Refuge staff have maintained nest exclosures (a type of 

wire cage with openings for western snowy plover) to reduce predation from avian and 

mammalian predators. In Washington, the Refuge supports the greatest nesting population of 

western snowy plover but the fledgling success rate is likely low primarily due to predation 

issues (Pearson et al. 2009; USFWS 2007a). Other impacts to the nesting success of these birds 

are identified and described in detail in Chapter 4. An added benefit to the restoration of the 

dune habitat was the discovery of pink sandverbena (threatened plant species) formerly thought 

to be extirpated from the state of Washington and now is found throughout this restoration site. 

2.2.1.2 Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facilities 

Under the No Action Alternative, a replacement headquarters facility would not be constructed, 

and the Willapa Refuge would continue to operate with deficient and inadequate facilities at its 

current location. Local water supplies would continue to be undrinkable and purchased drinking 

water would be provided for staff use. Visitor restrooms would continue to be located in the 

parking area with a vault system that requires daily maintenance and routine pumping. Since the 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

current office facility is a 1930s home, many of the building systems are deteriorated, inefficient 

and extremely difficult to upgrade. Funds will be expended to make the office minimally 

acceptable; however, the current site does not justify a large investment of funds because of 

potential impacts to marbled murrelet habitat and the adjacent stream. The existing headquarters 

facility would continue to deteriorate over time and be prone to violating health and other state 

environmental regulations. 

Willapa Refuge staff would continue to experience space limitations, and the inefficiencies 

associated with working in a crowded, inadequate office environment. Vehicular traffic safety 

issues associated with the headquarters location on U.S. Highway 101 across from a public boat 

launch would continue to be of concern. Maintenance facilities and storage would continue to be 

located in three different sites on the Refuge which is inefficient and challenging for staff and for 

security. The Service has determined that this alternative does not meet the long-range facility 

requirements, or the Service’s mission and environmental goals related to conservation and 

management of wildlife habitat. 

2.2.1.3 Public Use and Recreation 

The Leadbetter Point Unit currently offers opportunities for public access to the ocean beach 

through several trails from the refuge parking lot. Visitors are introduced to the unit and its 

resources with an informational kiosk and refuge brochures. The cutthroat trout trail and salmon 

art trails along with trails on Long Island are described further in Chapter 5. The refuge 

currently supports wildlife-dependent public uses such as waterfowl and big game hunting 

programs; details of the current programs can be found in Chapter 5. 

2.2.1.4 Acquisition Boundary 

The Refuge’s current acquisition boundary (Map 2) encompasses approximately 16,000 acres, 

and there are approximately 750 acres within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary that are 

privately held lands. The Refuge will continue to pursue acquisition of these lands, if and when 

they are available and funding is available to purchase them. 

The Shoalwater Bay Unit was one of the first large units set aside in 1937. At the time, the 

habitat of this unit was upland and beach habitat located in the far north portion of the bay on the 

mainland. This area of the Refuge has since eroded away due to ocean and bay wave action over 

the past 73 years; it is now for the most part submerged under water. No management activities 

occur here. The Wheaton Unit (132 acres) was given to the Refuge through the Farmers Home 

Administration and was at one time a privately held farm; it is located approximately 42 miles 

from the Refuge. Currently there is a contract agreement to maintain the pastures on the 

Wheaton Unit through a grazing permit with a private farmer. 

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Healthy Wildlife Habitats, Endangered Species and 

Biodiversity Gains, Focused Refuge Expansion, and Expanded Public Use 

Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative. This alternative would expand upon 

Alternative 1 (current management activities) by implementing these additional programs and 

activities. 
2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.2.2.1 Habitat and Wildlife 

Alternative 2 would restore approximately 749 acres of historic estuarine habitats (open water, 

intertidal flats, and salt marsh) on refuge lands, by removal of all or strategic portions of the dike 

system in the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola Units. Short-grass fields at the Riekkola Unit 

(212 acres) would be restored to estuarine habitat and the remaining managed freshwater 

wetlands would be located solely at the Tarlatt Unit. 

The Refuge currently maintains and protects 33 acres of grassland habitat on the Tarlatt Unit; this 

alternative proposes 15-33 acres of grassland restoration for the benefit of the Oregon silverspot 

butterfly. Restoration activities would require establishment of a thriving self-sustaining 

population of the native, host plant species (i.e., early blue violet, tufted hairgrass, red fescue) on 

the Tarlatt Unit (future potential acreage at the Leadbetter Point Unit may be considered). 

Reintroduction of adult butterflies and larva would be initiated only when sufficient quality 

habitat has been restored and successfully established (based on expert knowledge). 

Under this alternative, predator management would be implemented annually for the protection 

of western snowy plovers, particularly nests and fledglings on Leadbetter Point. Initiating a 

predator management program would likely increase the fledgling success rate and adult survival 

of the federally threatened, state endangered species as described in detail in Appendix L, 

Predator Management Plan. 

In this alternative, avian and mammalian predators (i.e., crows, ravens, skunks, raccoons) present 

on Leadbetter Point Unit during nesting season March through August would be removed by 

(refuge staff, Wildlife Services) using lethal control methods. Current protection efforts and 

techniques including nest exclosures would also be used. Other benefiting species would include 

the Federal candidate, state endangered streaked-horned lark, which is a ground-nesting bird 

subject to the same predation threats as the western snowy plover (Pearson and Hopey 2005). A 

proposed increase in refuge law enforcement presence, educational outreach information, and 

boundary fencing and signage would be implemented to inform the public of the necessity to 

keep clear of and protect the bird nesting areas. 

Inventories, monitoring, research, and studies in support of refuge management decisions would 

receive greater emphasis. Staff would work to recruit students from universities (when feasible) 

to assist with necessary research and monitoring activities; research would be designed to 

support refuge resource management activities. 

2.2.2.2 Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facilities 

The preferred alternative proposes the construction and operation of a replacement headquarters 

complex, including a new Visitor/Administrative Building and a Maintenance Area, consisting of 

four shop and/or equipment storage buildings (see Draft Site Plan in Appendix P). It will serve 

as the new headquarters for the Willapa Refuge Complex to better manage the refuges that are 

part of the complex and provide increased accessibility for the visiting public. 

The proposed replacement headquarters facility would be located on a parcel owned by the 

Service on the Long Island Peninsula in Pacific County near the City of Long Beach, 

Washington (Map 3). The site is located within the Tarlett Unit along Sandridge Road south of 

the intersection with 95th Street. The site has approximately 1,250 linear feet of frontage along 

Sandridge Road and approximately 2,000 linear feet of frontage along 95th Street. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Approximately 29 acres of land area exists at the proposed replacement headquarters site which 

would be adequate for the relocated facilities proposed. The proposed site currently consists of 

grassland, emergent wetlands, estuarine wetlands associated with Tarlett Slough, and patches of 

native remnant woodland vegetation. Tarlett Slough winds through the property, generally 

flowing in a northerly direction, and makes a bend to the east within the property. It is a major 

stormwater drainage channel for Pacific County, draining the southeastern portions of the Long 

Beach Peninsula into Willapa Bay. It is anticipated that the total development zone would be 

approximately 5 acres. 

The alternative proposes to construct a new Visitor/Administrative Building. Based upon the 

USFWS’s Standard Suite of Facilities prototypes for a Small Visitor Facility and a Medium Twostory Administration Building, the new building size would be approximately 11,000 square feet. 

This facility would become the Willapa Refuge’s permanent administrative office with staff 

offices for up to 21 Service staff, not including interns. In addition, volunteers who are involved 

in day-to-day activities would be provided space in the building. The Visitor Center will house a 

gift shop, a substantial lobby area, and an orientation multi-purpose room for interpretive 

exhibits or events. The new facility would also be available to host community and 

environmental education events. 

It is anticipated that site development for the visitor/administrative building would require 

approximately 2 acres and would include the following supporting elements: 

 Entrance/welcome plaza space 

 Delivery/service/garbage area 

 Outdoor space for staff (near employee entrance) 

 Outdoor group gathering space with overhead shelter for up to 60 people 

 Outdoor nature play area 

 Five or six smaller breakout outdoor gathering spaces for smaller groups 

 Outdoor area to set up event tents 

 Outdoor interpretive display areas integrated with natural environment 

 Wildlife observation platform 

 Pedestrian bridge over Tarlett Slough 

 Paths and trails to connect to South Bay overlook and Dike System Trail 

 Entrance driveway and site circulation pavement 

 Vehicular circulation to accommodate up to a straight body truck 

 Staff parking area for approximately 10 cars 

 Visitor parking area for up to 55 cars 

 Three bus/RV parking spaces 

A new trail would be constructed from the new Visitor/Administration Building approximately 1 

mile to a new South Bay overlook, offering enhanced opportunities for wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretive/hiking trails in the South Bay. An additional parking lot and new 

boat launch (car-top boats only) would be located on 67th Street at Doman Creek for South Bay 

access. 

Construction of a new and consolidated Maintenance Area would require additional land 

development area of approximately 2.3 acres at the Sandridge Road site, including a bone yard 

area of approximately 5,800 square feet. Seven new buildings are proposed for the Maintenance 
2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Area. Building 1 is proposed to be a new Shop Building of approximately 4,800 square feet. 

This building would provide space for vehicle maintenance, a wood shop, and general Willapa 

Refuge maintenance functions, and would include two pull-through bays and one single access 

bay. Building 1 includes an open office component with four work stations and a conference 

room. Buildings 2 and 3 are proposed to be Equipment Storage Buildings of approximately 

4,900 square feet of space each. Building 4 is proposed to provide Boat Storage at 

approximately 5,670 square feet. Building 5 is proposed to provide additional Small Equipment 

Storage at approximately 1,260 square feet. Building 6 would be a carport utilized for fleet 

vehicles (2,600 square feet), and Building 7, at approximately 150 square feet, is proposed to 

house hazardous materials. 

Associated site development for the Maintenance Area would also include the following 

supporting elements: 

 Vehicular circulation to accommodate up to a conventional semi trailer 

 Site circulation pavement 

 Separate driveway entrance 

 Fleet parking for up to 20 vehicles 

 Staff parking for up to 15 vehicles 

 Equipment washing area (associated with Shop Building) 

 Fuel pumps: one with 550 gallons of gasoline and one with 1,000 gallons of off-road 

diesel 

A new headquarters would provide a more central location for Willapa Refuge management 

activities. Willapa Refuge management would benefit by consolidating the multiple maintenance 

facilities (shops, storage, warehouses) located in three areas of the Refuge. Having the 

equipment and staff centrally located would cut down on extensive building maintenance and 

utility expenses. The Sandridge Road site would provide safer highway access for large refuge 

vehicles as compared to the current headquarters site along U.S. Highway 101. The intersection 

of Sandridge Road and 95th Street would be improved to provide sufficient turning radii for 

large vehicles. 

Other potential off-site improvements would include a southbound left-turn lane and a 

northbound right-turn lane at required driveway access points onto Sandridge Road. A 

northbound right-turn taper on Sandridge Road at 95th Street may also be required. 

All of the replacement headquarters buildings would meet health and safety standards/ 

regulations providing for staff and visitor necessities (drinking water, sewer system, power, 

telecommunications, and data service). With a Pacific County Public Utilities District (PUD) 

substation and office bordering the site to the north, providing power to the site will be easily 

accomplished. Water can likely be obtained through rainwater harvesting and underground 

well(s), or through the extension of the water main along Sandridge Road. There are no public 

sewer mains in this region. Neighboring and surrounding properties use on-site septic systems to 

dispose of sanitary waste. The replacement headquarters project will be required to build a new 

septic system for the new building sewer services. Most likely a sanitary sewage treatment 

system with a sand mound drain field will be required. Stormwater runoff from the proposed 

development will need to be separated from sanitary flows. Stormwater management facilities 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

for detention and water quality will likely be required for this type of development and are easily 

facilitated on the site. 

Buildings at the replacement headquarters facility are proposed to be designed and constructed to 

meet or exceed energy efficiency standards for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Site design will strive to incorporate sustainable 

site design concepts such as integrating aboveground stormwater management facilities with site 

grading, minimizing overall site grading, and incorporating native or climate-adaptive (low water 

consumptive) plant materials into facility landscaping. Buildings and landscape will be designed 

to reflect the rural, coastal vernacular. Site design will include the enhancement of wetland 

buffer zones by revegetation with native plant materials, the relocation and mitigation of one site 

drainage feature, and the restoration of local woodland, shrub, and wetland plant communities on 

the site. This landscape and entry sequence through a restored natural environment will create a 

compelling setting for future visitor experiences at the Refuge. 

It is anticipated that the new headquarters at this site would attract a greater number of visitors 

due to the location in proximity to various peninsula communities and the main access road 

(Sandridge Road) to the Leadbetter State Park and the Refuge’s Leadbetter Point Unit. The 

Refuge anticipates an increase in visitors from approximately 60,000 to an estimated 150,000 

annually due to the increased visibility of the Refuge headquarters and future site use programs. 

In addition, site development would accommodate a pedestrian/bicycle connection on the site to 

the City of Long Beach most likely via Pioneer Street at the south end of the property. 

Prior to development, the Wetlands Reserve Program designation would be removed from the 

proposed headquarters complex land area. 

Upon completion of the replacement headquarters development, the existing headquarters 

complex would be deconstructed, decommissioned, and the site restored for wildlife habitat. The 

Salmon Art Trail at the headquarters site will remain. 

2.2.2.3 Public Use and Recreation 

The Refuge currently provides 2,894 acres available for waterfowl hunting on Leadbetter Point 

and the South Bay Units. Under this alternative, in the South Bay only, waterfowl hunting 

(geese included) would be expanded to 6,058 acres once the proposed estuarine restoration 

project is completed. 

The Refuge currently has 8,020 acres available for big game hunting. Under this alternative, 

Long Island would continue as currently opened to archery only for the take of grouse, bear, 

deer, and elk. All mainland properties and existing open portions of the Headquarters Unit and 

Bear River Unit would also continue as they are now open to the take of bear, deer, and elk in 

accordance with WDFW regulations. Expansion of elk and deer hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge under this alternative (see Appendix M) would include approximately 1,700 acres on the 

Leadbetter Point Unit (permit only muzzleloader hunt and as necessary an expanded permit only 

elk hunt); South Bay Units and East Hills Units would include elk and deer hunting as refuge 

expansion opportunities occur. All new hunting opportunities would be developed and 

implemented in coordination with WDFW. 

Under Alternative 2, the exisiting camping opportunities on Long Island would be maintained to 

facilitate archery hunting, photography, and other wildlife-dependent recreation experiences. 
2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.2.2.4 Acquisition Boundary 

Under this alternative, the land acquisition boundary would be adjusted to include 1,909 acres in 

the Nemah and Naselle areas and 561 acres in South Bay and 4,334 acres in the East Hills 

(Appendix A). This acreage is designed to provide maximum protection of the watershed and 

habitat adjacent to Willapa Bay and current refuge boundary. This expansion effort would 

maximize the opportunities for forest restoration efforts in a holistic landscape and ecosystem 

manner. 

The Shoalwater Bay Unit and Wheaton Unit would be divested from the Refuge. 

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Partial Restoration of Habitats, Endangered Species 

Recovery, Limited Refuge Expansion, Moderate Public Use 

This alternative would be the same as Alternative 1 (current management activities) with the 

following additional activities and programs. 

2.2.3.1 Habitat and Wildlife 

Under this alternative the Refuge would pursue estuarine (open water, intertidal and salt marsh) 

restoration at a reduced level of 429 acres, to benefit salmonids, Pacific brant and other 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. The proposed 

restoration efforts, which consist of breaching or removing dikes, would occur on the Lewis and 

Porter Point units only. 

The refuge currently has 878 acres of open water and channel habitat. Under this alternative, 

open water and channel habitat and 4,180 acres of intertidal flats within the Refuge would not 

change. Salt marsh habitat within the Refuge (1,636 acres) would be increased on the Refuge by 

429 acres by removing the dikes in the Lewis and Porter Point units only. 

By breaching or removing the dikes in the Lewis and Porter Point units, the remaining 25 acres 

of seasonal, managed freshwater wetlands would be located on the Riekkola and Tarlatt units. 

At the Leadbetter Point Unit in the coastal dune habitat, predator management would be initiated 

to increase the fledgling and adult survival of the federally threatened, state endangered western 

snowy plover and enhance survival of the streaked horned lark, a Federal candidate species and 

state endangered species. Only methods to manage avian predators would be used in this 

alternative. Use of predator exclosures would continue but could be reduced if other predator 

management actions are implemented (see Appendix L, Predator Management Plan). 

The Refuge currently has 33 acres of grassland habitat. Under this alternative, grassland 

restoration actions for enhancing the Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat would occur and would 

include habitat restoration at the Tarlatt Unit (10-33 acres) and potential additional acreage at the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. Reintroduction (see Section 2.4.6.2) of adult butterflies and larva would 

be initiated when sufficient quality habitat (see Section 2.4.5.2) has been established (based on 

expert knowledge). 

2.2.3.2 Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facilities 

Under this alternative, construction and operation of a replacement headquarters complex would 

be the same as described in Alternative 2, the preferred alternative. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.2.3.3 Public Use and Recreation 

The refuge currently has 2,894 acres available for waterfowl hunting at the Leadbetter and South 

Bay units. Under this alternative, waterfowl hunting would be expanded to 5,450 acres through 

estuarine restoration (Lewis and Porter Point units). The area within the Presidential 

Proclamation Boundary would remain closed to waterfowl hunting. 

The refuge currently has 8,020 acres available for big game hunting. Under this alternative, 

Long Island would remain archery only and continue to be open to bear, deer, and elk hunting. 

The Teal Slough Unit and existing open portions of the Headquarters Unit and Bear River Unit 

would be open to bear, deer, and elk hunting in accordance with state regulations. Expansion of 

elk hunting opportunities would occur at the Leadbetter Point Unit (approximately 1,700 acres) 

to include a regulated permit elk hunt, the same as under Alternative 2. Camping on Long Island 

would continue similar to the the other alternatives. 

2.2.3.4 Acquisition Boundary 

Under this alternative, within the approved land acquisition boundary, 561 acres would be 

acquired in the South Bay and 4,334 acres in the East Hills (Map 4). This acreage would protect 

the watershed and habitat adjacent to Willapa Bay. Opportunities for increased big game hunting 

would occur with future refuge additions in the East Hills and South Bay units. Under this 

alternative, the Shoalwater Bay and Wheaton units would also be divested from the Refuge. 

2.3 Features Common to All Alternatives 

All of the alternatives contain some common features. To reduce the length and redundancy of 

the individual alternative descriptions, common features are presented below. 

2.3.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability 

Under each alternative, actions would be implemented over a period of 15 years as funding 

becomes available. It is the intent of the planning team that annual priorities would follow the 

final CCP guidelines, although funding initiatives, unforeseeable management issues, and 

budgets, may vary from year to year. The CCP will be reviewed every five years and updated as 

necessary throughout its life. 

2.3.2 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment 

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

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

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

substitute payments; replacement housing payments under certain conditions; relocation 

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

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

the Federal government. 

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469), the Service would 

annually reimburse Pacific County for tax revenue which is lost as a result of the Services 

acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall 
2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

pay to each county in which any area acquired in fee title is situated, the greater of the following 

amounts: 

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

of the fee area that is located within such county. 

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

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

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

connection with the operation and management of such fee area during such fiscal year. 

If a fee area is located in two or more counties, however, the amount for each county 

shall be apportioned in relationship to the acreage in that county. 

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

governmental funding deficits. Congress may appropriate, through the budget process, 

supplemental funds to compensate local governments for any shortfall in revenue sharing 

payments. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires Service lands be reappraised every five 

years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. Payments under this Act 

would be made only on lands that the Service acquires in fee title. On lands where the Service 

acquires only partial interest through easement, all taxes would remain the responsibility of the 

individual landowner. 

2.3.3 Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan 

On March 5, 1993, the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover was listed as 

threatened under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) The Pacific coast population is defined as those individuals that nest within 50 miles of 

the Pacific Ocean on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of 

the United States and Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 2007a). Of the six Washington locations 

identified in the recovery plan as breeding areas, only two are currently occupied. The largest is 

located at the Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR. Recommendations and recovery actions 

identified in the western snowy plover recovery plan were considered in the development of this 

CCP and are described in further detail in Sections 2.5.6.1 and 4.9.2, and protection efforts are 

outlined in Appendix L. 

2.3.4 Oregon Silverspot Recovery Plan 

The federally threatened Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) previously 

inhabited coastal habitat from northern California to southern Washington. It is now extirpated 

from Washington State and is state listed as endangered. It is found on only a few sites in 

California and Oregon. No Oregon silverspot butterflies have been documented on the Long 

Beach Peninsula since 1990 (USFWS 2001a). The Service will work toward establishing one or 

more healthy sustainable populations of Oregon silverspot butterfly, in accordance with recovery 

goals described in the revised recovery plan (USFWS 2001a). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.3.5 Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Washington, Oregon, and 

California Populations) 

The Washington, Oregon, and California population segment of the marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) was federally listed as threatened on September 28, 1992 

(USFWS 1992a) due to the high rate of nesting habitat loss and fragmentation, and mortality 

associated with net fisheries and oil spills. The marbled murrelet is state listed as threatened in 

Washington. The Federal marbled murrelet recovery plan identifies southwest Washington as a 

significant gap in suitable nesting habitat along the Pacific Northwest Coast (USFWS 1997a). 

Increasing available habitat in this area is critical to expanding the geographic distribution of the 

murrelet within its threatened range (Raphael et al. 2008). Unlike most other regions within the 

range of the murrelet, this area has limited forested Federal ownership with large blocks of intact 

habitat. Therefore, improving both Federal and non-Federal forests in southwest Washington is 

critical to marbled murrelet recovery (Raphael et al. 2008). 

2.3.6 Forest Landscape Restoration Plan 

TNC and the Service have developed a forest landscape restoration plan in partnership, to restore 

young-managed forestlands at a landscape scale across TNC’s Ellsworth Creek Preserve and the 

neighboring Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. The plan is discussed in this CCP/EIS and is 

located in Appendix K. 

2.3.7 Willapa NWR Fire Management Plan 

The 2003 Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan details how the Refuge will 

respond to the threat of wildfire and determine what circumstances the refuge staff is to use fire 

as a tool on refuge lands. 

2.3.8 Tribal Coordination 

Regular communication with Native American Tribes that have an interest in the Refuge would 

be common to all alternatives. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe and the Refuge will coordinate and 

consult on a regular basis regarding issues of shared interest. The Service will also seek 

assistance from the Tribe as necessary for issues related to both the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

2.3.9 Wilderness Review 

The Service’s CCP policy requires that a wilderness review be completed for all CCPs. If it is 

determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the process moves on to the 

wilderness study phase. As part of the process for this draft CCP/EIS, the planning team 

completed an initial wilderness review (Appendix G) and found that currently there are no lands 

on the Refuge that meet the basic wilderness criteria. 

2.3.10 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach 

would be used, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species 

(herein collectively referred to as pests) on the Refuge. IPM would involve using methods based 
2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential 

effects to non-target species and the refuge environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, 

cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of 

providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide would be needed on 

refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species would be used 

unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude 

it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage would be further restricted because only 

pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in full 

compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in 

regulations, orders, or permits issued by USEPA may be applied on lands and waters under 

refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in 

environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in native 

species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or 

altered ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on 

native species including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing 

them from reproducing or killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest 

sites, or other vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few 

generations, few if any truly native individuals remain. In contrast, environmental harm can be 

the result of an indirect effect of pest species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result 

from invasive plant infestations reducing the availability and/or abundance of native wetland 

plants that provide forage during the winter. 

Environmental harm may also include detrimental changes in ecological processes. For 

example, cheatgrass infestations in shrub steppe greatly can alter fire return intervals displacing 

native species and communities of bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may 

also cause or be associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. 

For example, invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities 

eliminating or sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species can also 

greatly increase fire-fighting costs. 

For the Refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP/EIS, see Appendix 

H. Along with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the 

selective use of pesticides for pest management on these refuges, where necessary. Throughout 

the life of the CCP, proposed pesticide uses on these refuges would be evaluated for potential 

effects to biological resources and environmental quality. Pesticide uses with appropriate and 

practical best management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as cropland/ 

facilities maintenance would be approved for use on these refuges where there likely would be 

only minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon 

non-exceedance of threshold values in chemical profiles. However, pesticides may be used on a 

refuge where substantial effects to species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold 

values) in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquito-borne disease). 

2.3.11 Monitor the Effects of Public Use Programs on Wildlife 

Monitoring to ensure acceptable levels of effects for compatible public uses on refuge habitat 

and wildlife would be conducted contingent upon availability of resources. Areas and/or timing 

of public use will be modified, if necessary, to provide secure and adequately sized sanctuary 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

areas for western snowy plover, Oregon silverspot butterfly, pink sandverbena, and other 

sensitive plant and animal species. 

2.3.12 Regulatory Compliance 

All activities in all alternatives requiring review, permits and clearances (Section 106 of the 

NHPA, Section 7 endangered species consultation, 401 water quality permit, etc.) and will 

undergo appropriate review and obtain necessary permits and/or clearances as needed (Appendix 

I). 

2.3.13 Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities 

Periodic maintenance and upgrading of the refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary 

regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic maintenance and upgrading of facilities is 

necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs. 

2.3.14 State Coordination 

Under all alternatives, the Service will continue to maintain regular discussions and partnership 

with the State of Washington, Washington State Parks, and WDFW. Current topics for 

discussion continue to be the Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan and its continued 

implementation on Willapa NWR and the surrounding private and public lands, Pacific Flyway 

Management Plan for the Dusky Canada Goose (Pacific Flyway Council 2007), wildlife 

monitoring, hunting and fishing seasons and regulations, and listed species management. 

2.3.15 Volunteer Opportunities 

Volunteer opportunities occur in all alternatives. These are recognized as components of the 

successful management of public lands and may become vital to the implementation of refuge 

programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining budgets. Currently the Refuge has 

a formal and successful volunteer program, despite the rural nature of this Refuge, a small staff, 

and a large land base to manage. There are currently 20 volunteers. 

2.3.16 Adaptive Management 

Based upon 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management Implementation Policy), refuge staffs shall use 

adaptive management (AM) for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring lands 

and resources. Within 43 C.F.R. 46.30, AM is defined as a system of management practices 

based upon clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether management 

actions are achieving desired results (objectives). In the recently published DOI Adaptive 

Management Technical Guide, AM is defined as a decision process that “promotes flexible 

decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management 

actions and other events become better understood”. Adaptive management accounts for the fact 

that complete knowledge about fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and the ecological processes 

supporting them may be lacking. The role of natural variability contributing to ecological 

resilience also is recognized as an important principle for AM. It is not a “trial and error” 

process; rather, AM emphasizes learning while doing based upon available scientific information 

and best professional judgment considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on refuge 

lands. 
2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.3.17 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development 

Activities 

The Service will actively participate in environmental planning, protection and studies for 

ongoing and future development projects including regional land protection planning 

partnerships, identifying threats to natural resources, and other potential concerns that may 

adversely affect refuge wildlife resources, habitats, and/or environmental quality. The Service 

will actively cultivate partnerships with nongovernmental organizations; private landowners; 

Tribes; and county, state, and Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential 

developments, land protection opportunities and will use outreach and education techniques 

when necessary to raise awareness of each of the Refuge’s resources and dependence on the local 

environment. 

2.3.18 Reintroduction and Augmentation of Flora and Fauna 

The Service policy for Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (601 FW 3) 

allows for the reintroduction of native flora and fauna to their historic range. Throughout the life 

of this CCP, the Service may consider plant and animal reintroductions for the purpose of 

restoring species to areas where historic use has occurred or areas which are appropriate. As an 

example, the Refuge has introduced freshwater mussels to refuge streams to actively restore and 

expand freshwater mussels within their historic range. 

Guidelines exist that provide a scientific basis for planning, conducting, and monitoring 

reintroductions, which range from being nonspecific for taxa under consideration for 

reintroduction (IUCN 1998) as well as specifically for a group of taxa (e.g., freshwater fish, see 

George et al. 2009) or a species (e.g., bull trout, see Dunham and Gallo 2008). These guidelines 

are intended to assist in evaluating the feasibility of reintroductions, improving the success of 

management, and applying sound adaptive management, which confer conservation benefits to 

extirpated or depauperate populations. The Service will consider the appropriate guidelines and 

policies for reintroductions and augmentation of native flora and fauna in their historic range 

consistent with policies identified in the Refuge Manual 7, Section 12, Propagation and Stocking, 

and other appropriate policies and guidelines. 

Re-establishment or enhancement of native species in their historical habitat may occur in some 

instances where native populations are extirpated or depauperate. Emphasis will be placed on 

restoring native fauna to suitable habitats on the Refuge where, in some cases, previous 

detrimental land use practices have impacted or extirpated species, such as native mussels, 

lamprey, Oregon silverspot butterflies, pink sandverbena, and salmonids. 

2.3.19 Presidential Proclamation Boundary 

The Presidential Proclamation Boundary was established in 1937 Executive Order 7721for 

protection of all migratory birds within the designated area. As stated in the Federal Register 

(Volume 5, Number 221), “the hunting, taking, capturing, or killing of migratory waterfowl or 

other migratory birds, or the attempt to hunt, capture, or kill such waterfowl or other birds, or the 

taking of their nests or eggs therein or thereon, is not permitted.” Waterfowl hunting is 

prohibited within this area and is common to all alternatives within this plan. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify 

and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and 

the Refuge System Mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision 

broadly reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory 

requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support 

of the vision, followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps 

toward achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish 

objectives. 

In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an EIS. The EIS evaluates alternative 

sets of management actions derived from a variety of management goals, objectives and 

implementation strategies. 

The goals for the Willapa NWR to be implemented over the next 15 years under the CCP/EIS are 

presented on the following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that 

goal. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most 

reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. 

The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. The Implementation Plan articulates the 

current refuge priorities (Appendix F). 

Readers, please note the following: 

1) The objective statement indicates specific items that vary in the alternatives. How 

those items vary is displayed in the short table under each objective statement; as 

applicable. 

2) If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank box indicates that this 

objective is not addressed in that alternative. 

Finally, below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to 

accomplish the objectives. Again, note the following: 

1) Check marks alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. 

2) If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed 

strategy, it means that strategy would not be used in that alternative. 

A summary of the alternatives is found at the end of this chapter (Table 2-1). 
2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.1 Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and restore ecologically functional latesuccessional forest habitats (mature and old-growth forest) characteristic of 

the low-elevation temperate forests in the southwest Washington coastal 

region for the benefit of endangered and threatened species, migratory and 

resident birds, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. 

Objective 2.4.1.1 Protect and Maintain Late-successional Sitka Spruce Zone Forest 

Protect and maintain 557 acres of existing late-successional Sitka spruce zone forest 

representative of the unmanaged, forested landscape for the benefit of marbled murrelets, 

spotted owls (currently extirpated from the Refuge), bald eagles, other migratory and resident 

birds, bats, and a diverse assemblage of other forest-dependent native species. Latesuccessional Sitka spruce zone forest is characterized by the following: 

1) <80% canopy closure. 

2) Multi-aged, multi-layered, multi-species canopy: Sitka spruce, western red cedar and 

western hemlock. 

3) Dominant (old-growth and mature) trees 100-200+ years; average tree diameters >21 

inches; largest tree diameters ranging from 32 to >39 inches. 

4) Prevalence of large fallen trees and snags. 

5) A shrub layer composed of native species such as evergreen huckleberry, salal, and red 

huckleberry. 

6) Heavy ground cover composed of native herbaceous species such as oxalis, sword fern, 

deer fern, mosses, and lichens. 

Old-growth west of Cascade crest: Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered 

canopy with occasional small openings; with at least eight trees per acre >32 inches diameter 

at breast height (dbh) or > 200 years of age; and more than four snags per acre over 20 inches 

in diameter and 15 feet tall; with numerous downed logs, including four logs per acre >24 

inches in diameter and > 50 feet long (WDFW 2008b). 

Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 inches dbh; crown cover may be 

less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is 

generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade Crest. 

(WDFW 2008b) 

Late-successional Sitka spruce zone forest will be protected and maintained to aid in the 

recovery of the marbled murrelet, a federally threatened species. Attributes of marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat include: 

 Large diameter trees (western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, Douglas fir) 

32 to >39 inches. 

 Large flat moss-covered branches >7 inches in diameter. 

 Branches at least 50 feet above the ground. 

 Mean nest branch height equal to 120 feet. 

 High canopy closure over nest branches. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 557 557 557 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes to drive vegetative changes.   

C. Use fire suppression techniques (including use of fire-lines, hand 

tools, backpack and slip-on water pumps) to prevent catastrophic 

wildfire in forests. 

  

D. Maintain partnerships (e.g., TNC, State) to foster 

ecosystem/landscape approach to protect habitats. 

  

E. Within new approved refuge boundary, acquire lands/habitats 

from willing sellers as funds become available. 

  

F. Monitor presence/absence of marbled murrelets through protocol 

surveys. 

  

Rationale: 

Forestlands in the Willapa Bay area are dominated by commercial timberlands. In fact, most 

of the forested acreage within either the Refuge or Willapa Bay watersheds is second- or thirdgrowth timber. Very little late-successional forest exists. One estimate states that <1% of the 

original coastal old-growth remains in the 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed. The largest 

old-growth parcel in the Refuge is the 274-acre Cedar Grove located on Long Island (Maps 5-

7). This habitat type is important and a priority for maintaining biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health. 

These forests are a high priority due to their limited availability and high vulnerability to 

habitat alteration (WDFW 2006). 

A variety of wildlife use late successional forests including black bear, black-tailed deer, 

Roosevelt elk, salamanders, forest-dwelling bats and other small mammals, marbled murrelets, 

pileated woodpeckers and other forest birds, and a host of fungi and gastropods. 

Lack of late-successional/old-growth forest habitat is one reason for the disappearance of the 

spotted owl from the Refuge. Spotted owls use regenerated forest but depend on old-growth 

for nesting and prey species. 

According to the Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a), the major factors 

contributing to the threatened status of murrelets include loss of nesting habitats, and poor 

reproductive success in the habitat that does remain. Loss of high-quality nesting habitat and 

increased forest fragmentation are the main causes cited in the reduction of marbled murrelet 

populations and continue to threaten their recovery (Raphael et al. 2008; USFWS 1997a). The 

Federal marbled murrelet recovery plan identifies southwest Washington as a significant gap in 

suitable nesting habitat along the Pacific Northwest Coast (USFWS 1997a). Increasing 

available habitat in this area is critical to expanding the geographic distribution of the murrelet 

within its threatened range (Raphael et al. 2008). Unlike most other regions within the range 

of the murrelet, this area has limited forested Federal ownership with large blocks of intact 

habitat. Therefore, improving both Federal and non-Federal forests in southwest Washington 

is critical to marbled murrelet recovery (Raphael et al. 2008). With less than 1% of the 

original old-growth forest remaining, restoration is essential to increasing the viability and 

resilience of marbled murrelet populations in this area (Davis et al. 2009). 
2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Habitat fragmentation has also reduced nesting success for murrelets within the remaining 

habitat by reducing microhabitat quality and increasing rates of predation, especially near 

artificial edges (Malt 2007). It is thought that these effects should decline as adjacent forests 

mature. Large core landscapes dedicated to murrelet protection should help reduce the amount 

of fragmentation over time. Buffering of existing habitat by actively managing young adjacent 

forests will be an important strategy to improve microhabitat conditions within these core 

murrelet emphasis areas (Davis et al. 2009). 

The Washington, Oregon, and California population segment of the marbled murrelet was 

federally listed as threatened on September 28, 1992 (USFWS 1992) due to the high rate of 

nesting habitat loss and fragmentation, and mortality associated with net fisheries and oil 

spills. The marbled murrelet is state listed as threatened in Washington. 

The strategies outlined to achieve this objective are consistent with the goals of the Recovery 

Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a). 

The objective of the recovery plan is “to stabilize population size at or near current levels by 

(1) maintaining and/or increasing productivity of the population as reflected by changes in 

total population size, the adult: juvenile ratio, and nesting success by maintaining and/or 

increasing marine and terrestrial habitat and by (2) removing and/or minimizing threats to 

survivorship, including mortality from gill-net fisheries and oil spills” (USFWS 1997a). 

The marbled murrelet is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants (USFWS 1992); Policy on maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system 

(USFWS 2001b), Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a), The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s focal species strategy for migratory birds. Division of Migratory Bird Management 

(USFWS 2005b), Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Washington, Oregon, and 

California Populations) (USFWS 1997a), North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(Kushlan et al. 2002), Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005a), Washington’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), State of Washington Natural 

Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington Natural Heritage Program 

Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 

Objective 2.4.1.2 Restore Late-successional Sitka Spruce Zone Forest 

Initiate restoration activities to create a trajectory toward late successional Sitka spruce zone 

forest within portions of the 6,178 acres of this habitat type for the benefit of marbled 

murrelets, spotted owls (currently extirpated from the Refuge), bald eagles, migratory and 

resident birds, bats, and other native species. The following attributes characterize a latesuccessional Sitka spruce zone forest: 

1) <80% canopy closure. 

2) Multi-aged, multi-layered, multi-species canopy: Sitka spruce, western red cedar and 

western hemlock. 

3) Dominant trees 100-200+ years; average tree diameters >21 inches; largest tree 

diameters ranging from 32 to >39 inches. 

4) Prevalence of large fallen trees and snags. 

5) Shrub layer composed of native species such as evergreen huckleberry, salal, and red 

huckleberry. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6) Heavy ground cover composed of native herbaceous species such as oxalis, sword fern, 

deer fern, mosses, and lichens. 

Attributes of marbled murrelet nesting habitat found within the late-successional forest 

includes these characteristics: 

1) Large diameter trees (western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, Douglas fir) 

32 to >39 inches. 

2) Large, flat moss-covered branches >7 inches in diameter. 

3) Branches at least 50 feet above the ground. 

4) Mean nest branch height equal to 120 feet. 

5) High canopy closure over nest branches. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 6,178 6,178 6,178 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate forest management techniques (e.g., thinning, 

planting) to drive desired vegetative changes (Appendix K). 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes to drive vegetative 

changes. 

  

C. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

D. Use fire suppression techniques (including use of fire-lines, hand 

tools, backpack and slip-on water pumps) to prevent catastrophic 

wildfire in forests. 

  

E. Decommission roads and facilities to reduce fragmentation of 

forested habitat and maximize stream integrity and water quality. 

  

F. Maintain partnerships (e.g., TNC, State) to foster 

ecosystem/landscape approach to protect habitats. 

  

G. Within new approved refuge boundary acquire lands from willing 

sellers as funds become available. 

  

H. Monitor presence/absence of murrelets through protocol surveys, 

especially in restored habitats. 

  

Rationale: 

Forestlands in the Willapa Bay area are dominated by commercial timberlands. In fact, most 

of the forested acreage within either the Refuge or Willapa Bay watershed is second- or thirdgrowth timber. Very little late-successional forest exists. One estimate states that less than 

<1% of the original coastal old-growth remains in the 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed. 

The Refuge’s largest old-growth parcel is the 274-acre Cedar Grove located on Long Island. 

To describe the characteristics of late-successional forest above the team used several criteria 

from the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species List: 

Old-growth west of Cascade crest: 

 Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional 

small openings, with at least eight trees per acre >32 inches dbh or >200 years of age; 

 More than four snags per acre over 20 inches in diameter and 15 feet tall; and 
2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Numerous downed logs, including four logs per acre >24 inches in diameter and >50 

feet long. 

Mature forests: 

 Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 inches dbh; 

 Crown cover may be less than 100%; 

 Decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is 

generally less than that found in old-growth; and 

 80-200 years old west of the Cascade Crest. 

These forests are a high priority due to their limited availability and high vulnerability to 

habitat alteration (WDFW 2006). Due to the degraded nature of the refuge forests and those in 

the surrounding areas, a major effort is needed to restore these forests to their natural state. A 

variety of wildlife use late successional forests including black bear, black-tailed deer, 

Roosevelt elk, salamanders, forest-dwelling bats and other small mammals, marbled murrelets, 

pileated woodpeckers, other forest birds, and a host of fungi and gastropods. 

The lack of late-successional/old-growth forest habitat is one reason the spotted owl has 

disappeared from the Refuge. Spotted owls use regenerated forest but depend on old-growth 

for nesting and prey species. 

Late-successional Sitka spruce zone forest will be restored to aid recovery efforts for the 

marbled murrelet, a federally threatened species. According to the marbled murrelet Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1997a), the major factors contributing to the threatened status of murrelets are: 

Loss of nesting habitats and poor reproductive success in the habitat that does remain. 

Loss of high-quality nesting habitat and increased forest fragmentation are the main causes 

cited in the reduction of marbled murrelet populations and continue to threaten their recovery 

(Raphael et al. 2008; USFWS 1997a). The Federal marbled murrelet recovery plan identifies 

southwest Washington as a significant gap in suitable nesting habitat along the Pacific 

Northwest Coast (USFWS 1997a). Increasing available habitat in this area is critical to 

expanding the geographic distribution of the murrelet within its threatened range (Raphael et 

al. 2008). Unlike most other regions within the range of the murrelet, this area has limited 

forested Federal ownership with large blocks of intact habitat. Therefore, improving both 

Federal and non-Federal forests in southwest Washington is critical to marbled murrelet 

recovery (Raphael et al. 2008). With less than 1% of the original old-growth forest remaining, 

restoration is essential to increasing the viability and resilience of marbled murrelet 

populations in this area (Davis et al. 2009). 

The marbled murrelet recovery plan states that “silvicultural techniques may be appropriate to 

increase the area of suitable nesting stands and the rate at which they develop” within youngmanaged forests (USFWS 1997a). Given the lack of suitable habitat in this region, exploring 

forest restoration strategies intended to increase the amount of marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat is of particular importance. Habitat fragmentation has also reduced nesting success for 

murrelets within the remaining habitat by reducing microhabitat quality and increasing rates of 

predation, especially near artificial edges (Malt 2007). It is thought that these effects should 

decline as adjacent forests mature. Large core landscapes dedicated to murrelet protection 

should help reduce the amount of fragmentation over time. Buffering of existing habitat by 

actively managing young adjacent forests will be an important strategy to improve 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

microhabitat conditions within these core murrelet emphasis areas. Road decommissioning 

can also be accomplished to further address habitat fragmentation and re-establish large areas 

of intact forest. 

Thinning can be an important first step in speeding the development of suitable murrelet 

nesting habitat. If thinning is not conducted in dense coastal stands at this early stage, many 

stands will lose cedar and spruce cohorts to hemlock competition, diameter growth will be 

significantly slower, and tree crowns will begin to lift, often leaving stands susceptible to 

windthrow. Left untreated, development of suitable nesting habitat in these stands can be 

greatly delayed or may never occur (Davis et al. 2009). 

Recent scientific research concludes that it is possible to accelerate forest complexity and 

habitat development through the application of carefully applied silvicultural practices. 

Techniques such as variable density thinning, under planting, and the creation of large woody 

debris (snags and downed logs) have been shown to accelerate the development of complex 

habitat conditions in young managed stands. Habitat manipulation around isolated legacy 

trees that remain in young managed forest stands also enhances the forest canopy structure 

required by murrelets for nesting. Such techniques can be used to promote the development of 

trees with nesting platforms and canopy characteristics preferred by the murrelet while also 

benefitting other species of concern. Access to current legacy trees suitable for nesting may 

also be opened up through these techniques (Davis et al. 2009). 

The Washington, Oregon, and California population segment of the marbled murrelet was 

federally listed as threatened on September 28, 1992 (USFWS 1992) due to the high rate of 

nesting habitat loss and fragmentation, and mortality associated with net fisheries and oil 

spills. The marbled murrelet is state listed as threatened in Washington. The strategies 

outlined to achieve this objective are consistent with the goals of the Recovery Plan for the 

Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a). 

The objective of the recovery plan is “to stabilize population size at or near current levels by 

(1) maintaining and/or increasing productivity of the population as reflected by changes in 

total population size, the adult: juvenile ratio, and nesting success by maintaining and/or 

increasing marine and terrestrial habitat and by (2) removing and/or minimizing threats to 

survivorship, including mortality from gill-net fisheries and oil spills” (USFWS 1997a). 

The marbled murrelet is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants (USFWS 1992a); Policy on maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system 

(USFWS 2001b); Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a); Service’s focal species 

strategy for migratory birds (USFWS 2005b); Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet 

(Washington, Oregon, and California Populations) (USFWS 1997a); North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002); Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 

2005a); Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005); State of 

Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005); and State of Washington 

Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 
2-22 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.2 Goal 2. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats historically 

characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of 

salmonids, Pacific brant, other waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. 

Objective 2.4.2.1 Open Water Maintenance 

Annually protect and maintain 878 acres of open water and channel habitat within the refuge 

portion of Willapa Bay for the benefit of salmonids, Pacific brant, other waterfowl, and other 

native species. Open water and channel habitats are characterized by the following: 

1) Subtidal habitats that are continuously submerged. 

2) Substrates are typically sand and/or mud. 

3) Vegetated (e.g., eelgrasses) or Unvegetated. 

4) Minimal human disturbance. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 878 878 878 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Monitor water quality as warranted.   

C. Protect and promote natural processes that create and maintain 

aquatic habitats 

  

D. Maintain partnerships to protect ecological integrity of Willapa 

Bay and its wildlife resources. 

  

Rationale: 

The open water channels and sloughs of Willapa Bay are habitat for fish and a variety of 

invertebrate animals and aquatic plants. These aquatic areas serve as pathways and foraging 

areas for adult salmon, eulachon, lamprey, sea-run cutthroat trout, and steelhead migrating 

upriver to spawn, and for juveniles moving downstream to the ocean. Sturgeon forage in the 

deeper channels and holes. Clams, oysters, mussels, aquatic worms, amphipods, and other 

small organisms are found living along the bottom of this habitat and serve as a valuable food 

source for many species. The large expanse of open water provides necessary resting and 

foraging habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marsh and wading birds. 

Through an active role in local, state, and Federal partnerships, the refuge staff will work to 

maintain the ecological integrity and water quality of the Willapa Bay estuary. As with other 

natural estuarine habitats, this area is subject to natural processes, therefore, little if any 

physical management actions are appropriate for existing open water areas. A portion of the 

open water habitat of the Willapa Bay estuary is within the designated boundaries of the 

Refuge. The refuge staff will work in concert with the community and sister agencies to 

provide the necessary monitoring, protection, resources, and educational information, to 

maintain the Willapa Bay ecosystem in a healthy sustainable manner. 

Willapa Bay is a valuable habitat for migratory birds, juvenile fishes, eelgrass, and clams 

(Proctor et al. 1980). Estuarine areas on the Refuge have annually provided important habitat 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-23 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

for over 20,000 migrating ducks, tens of thousands of shorebirds, and 3,000 migrating geese at 

a time. Refuge open water habitat is essential to sustaining the estimated 2.2 million duck, 

400,000 Canada goose, 200,000 brant, and over 2 million shorebird use-days associated with 

the southern half of Willapa Bay (USFWS 1997b). 

Willapa Bay’s subtidal system of three main channels and associated complex of smaller 

drainage channels deliver oceanic nutrients and plankton to feeding areas on the tide flats. The 

side channels provide fish a route to access the mudflats as well as cover from large predators 

during low tides (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Objective 2.4.2.2 Open Water Restoration 

Restore 0.2 acre and annually protect and maintain open water and channel habitat within the 

refuge portion of Willapa Bay for the benefit of salmonids, Pacific brant, other waterfowl, and 

other native species. Open water and channel habitats are characterized by the following: 

1) Subtidal habitats that are continuously submerged. 

2) Substrates are typically sand and/or mud. 

3) Vegetated or unvegetated. 

4) Minimal human disturbance. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Alternative 0 0.2 0 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Breach or remove dikes.  

B. Reconnect tidal channels.  

C. Protect sanctuary of new open water habitat.  

D. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

E. Monitor water quality as warranted.  

F. Maintain partnerships to protect ecological integrity of Willapa 

Bay and its wildlife resources. 

  

Rationale: 

The open water channels and sloughs of Willapa Bay are habitat for fish and a variety of 

invertebrate animals and aquatic plants. These aquatic areas serve as pathways and foraging 

areas for adult salmon, eulachon, lamprey, sea-run cutthroat trout, and steelhead migrating 

upriver to spawn, and for juveniles moving downstream to the ocean. Sturgeon forage in the 

deeper channels and holes. Clams, oysters, mussels, aquatic worms, amphipods, and other 

small organisms are found living along the bottom of this habitat and serve as a valuable food 

source for many species. The large expanse of open water provides necessary resting and 

foraging habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marsh and wading birds. 

Willapa Bay is a valuable habitat for migratory birds, juvenile fishes, eelgrass, and clams 

(Proctor et al. 1980). Estuarine areas on the Refuge have annually provided important habitat 

for over 20,000 migrating ducks, tens of thousands of shorebirds, and 3,000 migrating geese at 

a time. Refuge open water habitat are essential to sustaining the estimated 2.2 million duck, 

400,000 Canada goose, 200,000 brant, and over 2 million shorebird use-days associated with 

the southern half of Willapa Bay (USFWS 1997b). 
2-24 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Willapa Bay’s subtidal system of three main channels and associated complex of smaller 

drainage channels deliver oceanic nutrients and plankton to feeding areas on the tide flats. The 

side channels provide fish a route to access the mudflats as well as cover from large predators 

during low tides (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

The most reliable method of estuarine restoration is dike removal or breaching. Once 

saltwater influence has been restored to diked wetlands, natural processes are initiated that 

eventually lead to enhanced habitat value (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Key ecosystem 

processes are changed when saltwater influence is restored, including tidal hydrology, cycling 

of organic matter, and sediment movements. New off-channel habitat will be available to fish. 

Organic nutrients will be added. New plant communities will grow and make organic matter 

and prey items available (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Breaching or removing the dikes 

would lead to reclamation of a portion of historical open water, maximizing the availability of 

this valuable habitat for wildlife resources. 

Objective 2.4.2.3 Intertidal Flats Maintenance 

Annually protect and maintain at least 4,178 acres of intertidal flats within the refuge portion 

of Willapa Bay for the benefit of Pacific brant and other waterfowl, shorebirds, marine 

mammals, salmonids, and a variety of native, estuarine species. Intertidal flat habitats are 

characterized by the following: 

1) Exposed mud to sandy substrate interspersed with eelgrass (Zostera spp.) beds. 

2) Sand bars provide roost sites for brown pelicans and haul-outs for marine mammals. 

3) No Spartina. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 4,178 4,189 4,180 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Allow natural processes to revegetate flats.   

Rationale: 

The expansive intertidal mudflats of Willapa Bay are among its most differentiating and 

defining features. They are also the basis for its unusual productivity for human communities. 

The intertidal zone supports a variety of habitats including mud and sand flats, oyster reefs, 

salt marsh habitat, and eelgrass meadows. Its oyster beds are currently the most productive 

growing grounds in the United States. Its mudflats are among the 10 most important fueling 

areas for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Intertidal mudflats are particularly valuable habitat for migratory birds, juvenile fishes, 

eelgrass, and clams (Proctor et al. 1980). Such areas on the Refuge have annually provided 

important feeding habitat for over 20,000 migrating ducks, tens of thousands of shorebird,s 

and 3,000 migrating geese at a time. Refuge tidelands are essential to sustaining the estimated 

2.2 million duck, 400,000 Canada goose, 200,000 brant, and over 2 million shorebird use-days 

associated with the southern half of Willapa Bay (USFWS 1997b). Extensive eelgrass 

(Zostera spp.) beds on intertidal mudflats are an important food source for Pacific brant as 

well as habitat for juvenile salmonids and invertebrates. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

In the Pacific Northwest, a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, 

channelization, dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 45% and 

62% of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). 

Objective 2.4.2.4 Intertidal Flats Restoration 

Restore ≤11 acres of intertidal flats within the refuge portion of Willapa Bay for the needs of 

Pacific brant and other waterfowl, seabirds, shorebirds, marine mammals, salmonids, and a 

variety of other benefiting species. Intertidal flat habitats are characterized by the following: 

1) Exposed mud to sandy substrate interspersed with eelgrass (Zostera spp.) beds. 

2) Sand bars provide roost sites for brown pelicans and haul-outs for marine mammals. 

3) No Spartina. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 0 11 2 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Breach or remove dikes using heavy equipment.  

B. Reconnect tidal channels.  

C. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to 

control invasive or undesirable plant species. 

 

Rationale: 

The expansive intertidal mudflats of Willapa Bay are among its most differentiating and 

defining features. They are also the basis for its unusual productivity for human communities. 

The intertidal zone supports a variety of habitats including mud and sand flats, oyster reefs, 

salt marsh habitat, and eelgrass meadows. Its oysterbeds are currently the most productive 

growing grounds in the United States. Its mudflats are among the 10 most important fueling 

areas for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Intertidal mudflats are particularly valuable habitat for migratory birds, juvenile fishes, 

eelgrass, and clams (Proctor et al. 1980). Such areas on the Refuge have annually provided 

important feeding habitat for over 20,000 migrating ducks, tens of thousands of shorebirds, 

and 3,000 migrating geese at a time. Refuge tidelands are essential to sustaining the estimated 

2.2 million duck, 400,000 Canada goose, 200,000 brant, and over 2 million shorebird use-days 

associated with the southern half of Willapa Bay (USFWS 1997b). Extensive eelgrass 

(Zostera spp.) beds on intertidal mudflats are an important food source for Pacific brant as 

well as habitat for juvenile salmonids and invertebrates. 

In the Pacific Northwest a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, 

channelization, dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 45% and 

62% of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). 

The most reliable method of estuarine restoration is dike removal or breaching. Once 

saltwater influence has been restored to diked wetlands, natural processes are initiated that 

eventually lead to enhanced habitat value (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Key ecosystem processes are changed when saltwater influence is restored including tidal 

hydrology, cycling of organic matter, and sediment movements. New off-channel habitat will 
2-26 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

be available to fish. Organic nutrients will be added. New plant communities will grow and 

make organic matter and prey items available (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Breaching or 

removing the dikes would lead to reclamation of a portion of the historical intertidal mudflats, 

maximizing the availability of this valuable habitat for wildlife resources. 

Objective 2.4.2.5 Maintain Salt Marsh Habitat 

Annually protect and maintain 1,636 acres of salt marsh within the refuge portion of Willapa 

Bay for the benefit of waterfowl, salmonids, wading birds, shorebirds and other native species. 

Salt marsh habitats are characterized by the following: 

1) Vegetation usually occurring within tidal range of 9 to 11 feet NGVD (National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum) dominated primarily by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), tufted 

hairgrass, seashore salt grass, seacoast angelica, gumweed, jaumea, seaside plantain, 

small spikerush, seaside arrowgrass, and Lyngbye’s sedge. 

2) Infrequently inundated except on highest high tides. 

3) Interspersion of tidal sloughs. 

4) No Spartina. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 1,636 1,636 1,636 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes to drive vegetative changes.   

Rationale: 

The tidal salt marshes on the Refuge provide habitat for a diverse array of species which 

include waterfowl and other waterbirds, fish, and invertebrates. Salt marshes provide a major 

source of nutrients for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. They also provide forage for waterfowl 

and hunting grounds for bald eagles, northern harriers, peregrine falcons, and other raptors. 

The management strategies identified for this habitat are focused on protection and restoration. 

Because about 30% of the original wetlands of Willapa Bay have been lost by diking and 

filling (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981), the existing salt marshes should be protected and 

maintained. In the Pacific Northwest, a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to 

diking, channelization, dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 

45% and 62% of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). 

In a recent comparative goose survey, use within two types of habitats—salt marsh (Porter 

Point Unit) and pasture lands (Riekkola Unit)—the migratory goose utilization of these areas 

as foraging habitat revealed a greater use by geese on the salt marsh to that of the adjacent 

managed pastures protected by dikes. Goose use of the salt marsh occurred regardless of the 

level of water coverage by the tides. Survey data suggests that migrating geese utilize salt 

marsh on average 8.6 times more than on the Riekkola Unit pastures (Patten et al. 2008). 

This salt marsh habitat is subject to natural processes and currently there is little physical 

management activity occurring outside the dikes. Control of invasive species would provide 

the best opportunity to improve habitat in the naturally occurring emergent tidal salt marsh. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-27 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.2.6 Salt Marsh Restoration 

Restore and then protect and maintain 429-749 acres of salt marsh within the refuge portion of 

Willapa Bay for the benefit of waterfowl, salmonids, wading birds, shorebirds, and other 

native species. Salt marsh habitats are characterized by the following: 

1) Vegetation usually occurring within tidal range of 9 to 11 feet NGVD (National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum) dominated primarily by pickleweed, tufted hairgrass, 

seashore salt grass, seacoast angelica, gumweed, seaside plantain, small spikerush, 

seaside arrowgrass, and Lyngbye’s sedge. 

2) Infrequently inundated except on highest high tides. 

3) Interspersion of tidal sloughs. 

4) No Spartina. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 0 749 429 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Breach or remove dikes.  

B. Reconnect tidal channels.  

C. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

 

Rationale: 

The tidal salt marshes on the Refuge provide habitat for a diverse array of species which 

include waterfowl and other waterbirds, fish, and invertebrates. Salt marshes provide a major 

source of nutrients for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. They also provide forage for waterfowl 

and hunting grounds for bald eagles, northern harriers, peregrine falcons, and other raptors. 

The management strategies identified for this habitat are focused on protection and restoration. 

A portion of refuge salt marsh habitat was eliminated by diking in the late 1940s and early 

1950s to create pasture lands and freshwater wetlands, believed to enhance overall waterfowl 

use of the Refuge and increase land available for agricultural production. About 30% of the 

original wetlands of Willapa Bay have been reclaimed by diking and filling (Hedgpeth and 

Obrebski 1981). 

In the Pacific Northwest, a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, 

channelization, dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 45% and 

62% of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). 

Loss of saltwater wetlands habitat is considered one of the most common limiting factors 

blamed for the decline of nearshore or estuarine salmon habitat. Wetland loss occurs when a 

dike is built isolating areas from the reach of tidal waters. 

According to Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC) calculations, Willapa Bay originally 

contained approximately 14,620 acres of saltwater wetlands. Now there are 5,277 acres. This 

represents a 64% loss of estuarine wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

In a recent comparative goose survey, use within two types of habitats; salt marsh (Porter Point 

Unit) and pasture lands (Riekkola Unit) the migratory goose utilization of these areas as 

foraging habitat revealed a greater use by geese on the salt marsh to that of the adjacent 
2-28 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

managed pastures protected by dikes. Goose use of the salt marsh occurred regardless of the 

level of water coverage by the tides. Survey data suggests that migrating geese utilize salt 

marsh on average 8.6 times more than on the Riekkola Unit pastures (Patten et al. 2008). 

The most reliable method of estuarine restoration is dike removal or breaching. Once 

saltwater influence has been restored to diked wetlands, natural processes are initiated that 

eventually lead to enhanced habitat value (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Key ecosystem processes are changed when saltwater influence is restored including tidal 

hydrology, cycling of organic matter, and sediment movements. New off-channel habitat will 

be available to fish. Organic nutrients will be added. New plant communities will grow and 

make organic matter and prey items available (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Breaching or removing dikes would restore valuable salt marsh habitat which is considered 

one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. 

Willapa NWR has previously pursued tidal restoration on other refuge properties 

(Headquarters, areas near the Bear River, and Long Island). The Refuge has approximately 

638.1 acres of former tideland located in the South Bay, which is cut off from the bay by dikes 

and tide gates. These areas can be returned to estuarine habitat and improve the Refuge’s 

value to waterfowl and native wildlife species. Restoring tidal influence would allow a 

recovery that will reflect the historical salt marsh habitat. Plan outlined in Appendix O. 

2.4.3 Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and restore freshwater habitats historically 

characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of 

migratory birds, salmonids, amphibians, mussels, lamprey, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. 

Objective 2.4.3.1 Protect and Maintain Riverine Habitats 

Protect and maintain 27 miles of riverine habitats containing characteristics that represent the 

historical landscape. A riverine system includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained 

within a channel, with two exceptions: 1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and 2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived 

salts in excess of 0.5% (Cowardin et al. 1979). Riverine systems containing salmonid habitat 

are characterized by (Knutson and Naef 1997; Kondolf and Wolman 1993; Laufle et al. 1986; 

USFWS 2004a): 

1) Periodic flooding with flooding energy variable depending on location of stream/river 

in landscape. 

2) Perennial water flows. 

3) Barrier-free passage for fish. 

4) At least one piece of large woody debris per channel width. 

5) Pool-to-riffle ratio of 1:1. 

6) Abundance of spawning gravel (6-128 mm) for salmonids. 

7) Low amounts of fine sediments. 

8) Cool temperatures (<73 ̊F) with preferred temperature range (40 ̊F-58 ̊F). 

9) Dissolved oxygen levels >5 parts per million. 

10) Intact riparian corridor providing stream surface shade of 60%-80%. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-29 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Miles to Achieve the Objective 27 27 27 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes that create and maintain 

aquatic habitats. 

  

Rationale:

An estimated 50%-90% of streams in the state of Washington are in a degraded state (Knutson 

and Naef 1997). 

Rivers and streams in the Willapa NWR support runs of anadromous fish such as chum, coho 

and Chinook salmon, and cutthroat trout. River and stream channels provide migration 

pathways for adult anadromous fish traveling to spawning grounds and juveniles traveling to 

the estuary and/or Pacific Ocean. 

Land use activities have impacted wildlife habitat values in and along rivers and streams in the 

Willapa Bay watershed. Historical stream processes in many areas have been altered. There 

has been a loss of connectivity to the estuary due to highway and dike construction. 

Hydrological regimes have been altered, fish passage barriers exist, there are water quality 

issues, and exotic species are present. There is a need to protect and maintain ecological 

processes and functions in streams and associated habitat. Positive effects of healthy streams 

include enhanced nutrient production and cycling, improved water quality, and support of a 

diverse riparian and estuarine plant and wildlife community. Optimal stream habitat provides 

protective cover, improved forage, and structural diversity that results in formation of instream riffles and pools for anadromous fish but will also benefit other stream-dependent 

wildlife species, including rare amphibian species and invertebrates, such as mollusks, and a 

large variety of aquatic insects (USFWS 2003a). 

Objective 2.4.3.2 Restore Riverine Habitats 

Conduct restoration activities within various reaches of the 27 miles of riverine habitat that 

mimic or promote natural processes that create and maintain aquatic habitat conditions 

representative of the historical landscape. Riverine systems containing salmonid habitat are 

characterized by: 

1) Periodic flooding with flooding energy variable depending on location of stream/river 

in landscape. 

2) Perennial water flows. 

3) Barrier-free passage for fish. 

4) At least one piece of large woody debris per channel width. 

5) Pool-to-riffle ratio of 1:1. 

6) Abundance of spawning gravel (6-128 mm) for salmonids. 

7) Low amounts of fine sediments. 

8) Cool temperatures (<73 ̊F) with preferred temperature range (40 ̊F-58 ̊F). 

9) Well-oxygenated water, with dissolved oxygen levels >5 parts per million. 

10) Intact riparian corridor providing stream surface shade of 60%-80%. 
2-30 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Restoration may include re-establishment or enhancement of native stream-dependent species 

in their historical habitat. This may occur in some instances where native populations are 

extirpated or depauperate. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Stream Miles Restored and Maintained. 27 27 27 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to 

control invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Compile watershed assessments.   

C. Re-establish large woody debris to mimic historical stream 

complexities. 

  

D. Removal of fish passage barriers.   

E. Use of stream restoration techniques (reconnect historic 

channels, riparian plantings, placement of large woody debris, 

etc.) as appropriate to improve stream conditions. 

  

Rationale: 

Stream restoration techniques will be used to maximize healthy stream characteristics. 

Because an estimated 50%-90% of streams in the state of Washington are in a degraded state, 

stream restoration is appropriate (Knutson and Naef 1997). 

Rivers and streams in the Willapa NWR support declining runs of anadromous fish such as 

chum, coho and Chinook salmon, and cutthroat trout. Barriers to fish passage and previous 

land management practices throughout the Willapa area have contributed to the decline of fish 

runs in Willapa Bay. 

Land use activities have also impacted other wildlife habitat values along refuge streams. 

Historical stream processes in many areas of the Refuge have been altered. Wood in many of 

the streams has previously been removed by early logging practices and “stream cleaning” 

efforts. In addition, the important components of gravel beds suitable for anadromous fish 

spawning as well as riparian vegetation have previously been compromised. In some areas, 

fish passage barriers are present. There is a need to restore historic ecological processes and 

functions in refuge streams and associated habitat. Positive effects of restoration efforts would 

include enhanced nutrient production and cycling, improved water quality and support of a 

diverse riparian and estuarine plant and wildlife community. Restored stream habitats would 

provide protective cover, improved forage, and structural diversity that results in formation of 

in-stream riffles and pools for anadromous fish but would also benefit other stream-dependent 

wildlife species, including rare amphibian species and invertebrates such as mollusks and a 

large variety of aquatic insects (USFWS 2003a). 

Re-establishment or enhancement of native stream-dependent species in their historical habitat 

may occur in some instances where native populations are extirpated or depauperate. 

Emphasis will be placed on restoring all native fauna to suitable habitat in refuge streams 

where previous detrimental land use practices have impacted or extirpated healthy salmonid 

runs as well as had impacts on other stream-dependent species, such as native mussels and 

lamprey. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-31 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.3.3 Seasonal, Managed Freshwater Wetlands 

Annually protect and maintain 17-317 acres of seasonal, managed freshwater wetland habitats 

for the benefit of waterbirds, native fish, and native amphibians. These seasonally managed 

wetlands will have the following attributes: 

1) >40% cover of desirable and native wetland plants and short emergent vegetation (e.g., 

bur-reed, spike rush, water pennywort, smartweed). 

2) <5% cover of invasive plant species (e.g., bog loosestrife, tussock). 

3) <40% cover of reed canarygrass and undesirable rushes. 

4) No bullfrogs. 

5) Variable water levels (6 inches to >4 feet). 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 317 17 25 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Soil disturbance (e.g., disking) to control undesirable plant 

species. 

  

B. Use and maintain infrastructure (e.g., water control structures, 

dikes) to maintain appropriate water levels and dewater. 

  

C. Water draw-downs by mid-June or July to promote germination of 

native aquatic and desirable moist soil plants and to control bullfrogs. 

  

D. Prolonged flood-up (>1 year) on an annual rotational basis on both 

large and small impoundments for habitat management. 

  

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

F. Remove non-native plant and animal populations as necessary.  

Rationale: 

Freshwater wetlands are important habitat for a variety of migratory and wintering waterfowl, 

wading birds, and shorebird species, as well as fish and native amphibians. 

Active management (which includes draw-downs and mechanical/chemical methods) ensures 

that these areas do not become dominated by invasive plants such as reed canarygrass and 

common rush (tussock). Desirable wetland plant species such as spike rush, smartweed and 

bur-reed are maintained by proper application and timing of draw-downs and flood-ups. 

Managed wetlands provide breeding habitat for native amphibians such as red-legged frogs, 

Pacific chorus (tree) frogs, and a variety of native salamanders. Proper timing of draw-downs 

also allows control of non-native bullfrog populations. 

Managed freshwater wetlands currently occur on the Tarlatt, Riekkola, Porter Point, and Lewis 

units. Under Objectives 2.4.2.2., 2.4.2.4., 2.4.2.6 the acreage of managed freshwater wetlands 

in the Porter Point, Lewis, and Riekkola units would be reduced due to restoration of estuarine 

open water, intertidal mudflat, and salt marsh habitat which represent the historical condition 

of these areas. Due to reduction in the amount of managed freshwater wetlands under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, problem non-native species such as reed canarygrass, bullfrogs, and 

nutria would be naturally reduced/eliminated due to loss of habitat in the conversion of 

managed freshwater wetlands to estuarine habitat. Managed freshwater wetlands would remain 

at the Tarlatt Unit. 
2-32 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.3.4 Permanent/Semi-permanent Natural Freshwater Wetlands (Includes 

Beaver Ponds and Interdunal Wetlands) 

Annually protect and maintain 610 acres of permanent and semi-permanent, naturally 

occurring freshwater wetlands (includes beaver ponds and interdunal wetlands) for the benefit 

of beaver, salmonids (beaver ponds), waterfowl, other waterbirds, landbirds, raptors, and 

native amphibians. These naturally occurring wetlands are characterized by the following 

plant communities: 

1) Submergents (e.g., pondweeds) in open water (beaver ponds). 

2) Desirable and native wetland plants and emergent vegetation (e.g., bur-reed, spike rush, 

water pennywort, slough sedge, creeping spearwort, cinquefoil and smartweed). 

3) Willow shrubs. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 610 610 610 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes to maintain wetlands.   

Rationale: 

Permanent and semi-permanent natural freshwater wetlands are important habitat for a variety 

of wildlife. 

Beaver ponds often contain snags standing in open water. These snags are important nesting 

habitat for wood ducks, tree swallows, and woodpeckers. They are also used as hunting 

perches by a variety of raptors. 

Cutthroat trout make extensive use of beaver ponds for overwintering and feeding (Johnson 

et.al. 1999), and coho often use these areas as winter habitat (Narver 1978 in McMahon 1983). 

Beaver ponds on Willapa NWR streams provide winter habitat for both juvenile cutthroat and 

coho. Maintaining beaver ponds on these streams should benefit cutthroat and coho by 

providing winter habitat as well as rearing and feeding areas (USFWS 2004a). 

At Leadbetter Point the deflation plain and dune trough communities containing semipermanent natural wetlands are of relatively high ecological integrity when compared to what 

remains of these habitats in Washington. Pockets of native plants in these areas are considered 

significant (Caicco 1989). Waterfowl, waterbirds, songbirds, and native amphibians use these 

wetlands. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-33 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.4 Goal 4. Protect, maintain, and restore coastal beach and dune habitats 

historically characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the 

benefit of the western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, pink sandverbena, 

Oregon silverspot butterfly, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. 

Objective 2.4.4.1 Protect and Maintain Coastal Dune Ecosystem 

Protect and maintain 1,581 acres of coastal dune habitat (Leadbetter Point Unit excluding 

wetlands). Coastal dune habitat will be maintained where appropriate for the western snowy 

plover, streaked horned lark, and pink sandverbena. Coastal dune habitat suitable for these 

species will be characterized by the following attributes: 

1) Sparsely vegetated habitat with a ground layer dominated by sand. 

2) Large areas of open sand with native beach plants, and shell patches/tidal debris 

suitable for plover nesting and chick fledging. 

3) Presence of native beach plants including pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellate 

brevifloria), beach morning glory (Convolvulus soldanella), gray beach pea (Lathyrus 

japonicus), and a native dune grass (Leymus mollis). 

4) Beach or dune habitat free of introduced beach grasses (Ammophila spp.) 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 1,581 1,581 1,581 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes.   

C. Propagation and planting/broadcast seeding native plant species.   

Rationale: 

Within approximately 1,581 acres of the coastal dune ecosystem, the Refuge has currently 

restored and maintained 121 acres. Up to an additional 229 acres of coastal dune habitat 

would be restored for plover nesting. Extensive areas (throughout the Pacific coastline and the 

Refuge) of formerly open or sparsely vegetated coastal dune habitat continue to be invaded by 

exotic beach grasses including introduced American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) and 

European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria). These grasses out-compete native vegetation, 

alter the dune ecosystem and form dense stands that reduce the amount and quality of nesting 

habitat for native wildlife, including the western snowy plover and streaked horned lark. The 

invasion of Ammophila has caused a dramatic reduction of coastal native plants and is a 

primary threat to pink sandverbena. 

The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal beaches from southern Washington to Baja 

California for food, shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific Coast populations of this 

species have been declining dramatically because of substantial habitat loss related to 

industrial, urban and recreational development, human disturbance, and encroachment of 

invasive plants. The coastal population of western snowy plover was listed as threatened by 

the USFWS in 1993 (USFWS 1993). It is listed as endangered by the State of Washington. 
2-34 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The Leadbetter Point Unit is one of the northernmost breeding sites for the western snowy 

plover on the Pacific Coast and is the largest and most significant snowy plover nesting area in 

Washington. The western snowy plover is listed as a resource of concern (see section 2.4.6.1) 

under the following documents: Northern Pacific coast regional shorebird management plan—

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000), Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Pacific Coast populations of the 

western snowy plover (USFWS 1993), Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s focal species strategy for migratory birds (USFWS 2005b), 

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus) (USFWS 2007a), Washington state recovery plan for the snowy plover 

(WDFW 1995), Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), 

State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of 

Washington Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 

The streaked horned lark is a candidate species for Federal listing under the ESA, an 

endangered species in Washington State under the Washington Endangered Species Act, and a 

priority species for conservation by Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Lark nesting 

habitat is low, sparse vegetation with an abundance of bare ground. The Range-wide Streaked 

Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Assessment and Preliminary Conservation 

Strategy (Pearson et al. 2005) prioritizes control of invasive beach grasses at coastal breeding 

sites. The streaked horned lark is likely to become extinct in Washington unless additional 

nesting areas are established and protected (WDFW 2005). 

The streaked horned lark is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (Altman 2000), Policy on maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system 

(USFWS 2001b), Birds of conservation concern (USFWS 2002a), Washington’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), Range-wide Streaked Horned 

Lark Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy (Pearson et al. 2005), State of 

Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington 

Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 

A habitat restoration area to create nesting habitat for the western snowy plover was initiated 

in 2002 and currently supports the only known population of pink sandverbena in Washington 

State. This plant species was thought to be extirpated in the state (Federal species of concern, 

Washington State endangered species). 

The pink sandverbena is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the 

national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 

2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington Natural Heritage Program Information 

Systems (WDNR 2007). 

A long-term goal is to protect and maintain the native coastal dune ecosystem at Leadbetter 

Point. Recovery needs of the western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and pink 

sandverbena are all directly supported by protecting and maintaining coastal dune habitat. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-35 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.4.2 Restore Coastal Dune Ecosystem 

Restore up to 229 acres of coastal dune habitat and the native species it supports, especially for 

the western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and pink sandverbena. Historically, coastal 

dunes were characterized by: 

1) Sparsely vegetated habitat with a ground layer dominated by sand. 

2) Large areas of open sand with native beach plants, and shell patches/tidal debris 

suitable for plover nesting and chick fledging. 

3) Native beach plants including pink sandverbena, beach morning glory, gray beach pea, 

and a native dune grass. 

4) Beach or dune habitat free of introduced beach grasses (Ammophila spp.) 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres of Dune Habitat Restored and Maintained 121 229 229 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

B. Protect and promote natural processes.   

C. Use fire suppression techniques (including use of fire-lines, hand 

tools, backpack and slip-on water pumps) to prevent catastrophic 

wildfire. 

  

D. Seeds will be collected for conservation insurance and placed in 

long-term seed storage. 

  

E. Propagation and planting/broadcast seeding of native plant 

species. 

  

Rationale: 

Within approximately 1,581 acres of the coastal dune ecosystem, the Refuge has currently 

restored and maintained 121 acres. Up to an additional 229 acres of coastal dune habitat will 

be restored for plover nesting. Extensive areas (throughout the Pacific coastline and the 

Refuge) of formerly open or sparsely vegetated coastal dune habitat continue to be invaded by 

exotic beach grasses including introduced American beachgrass and European beachgrass. 

These grasses out-compete native vegetation, alter the dune ecosystem, and form dense stands 

that reduce the amount and quality of nesting habitat for native wildlife, including the western 

snowy plover and streaked horned lark. The invasion of Ammophila has caused a dramatic 

reduction of coastal native plants and is a primary threat to pink sandverbena. 

Western snowy plover numbers have declined along the U.S. Pacific coast due to habitat 

degradation and expanding predator populations. One of the most significant causes of habitat 

loss for coastal breeding snowy plovers has been the encroachment of introduced beach 

grasses. Habitat restoration by removal of beachgrass is recommended in both the Federal 

(USFWS 2007a) and Washington State (WDFW 1995) recovery plans for the western snowy 

plover. The U.S. National Shorebird Conservation Plan: Northern Pacific Coast Working 

Group Regional Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000) also calls for the removal of 

Ammophila. 
2-36 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal beaches from southern Washington to Baja 

California for food, shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific Coast populations of this 

species have been declining dramatically because of substantial habitat loss related to 

industrial, urban and recreational development, human disturbance, and encroachment of 

exotic vegetation. On March 5, 1993, the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy 

plover was listed as threatened under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (USFWS 1993). It is listed as endangered by the State of 

Washington. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR is one of the northern-most breeding sites for the 

western snowy plover on the Pacific Coast. Leadbetter Point is the largest and most significant 

snowy plover nesting area in Washington. If Willapa NWR implements predator management 

and the plover population increases, then restored suitable habitat at Leadbetter Point would 

likely be needed by the growing population. 

The western snowy plover is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Northern Pacific coast regional shorebird management plan - U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000), Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination 

of threatened status for the Pacific Coast populations of the western snowy plover (USFWS 

1993), Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the 

national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s focal 

species strategy for migratory birds. Division of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS 

2005b), Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (USFWS 

2007a), Washington state recovery plan for the snowy plover (WDFW 1995), Washington’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), State of Washington Natural 

Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington Natural Heritage Program 

Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 

(For the snowy plover, see also Section 2.4.6.1.) 

The streaked horned lark is a candidate species for Federal listing under the ESA, an 

endangered species in Washington State under the Washington Endangered Species Act, anda 

priority species for conservation by Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Lark nesting 

habitat is low, sparse vegetation with an abundance of bare ground. The Range-wide Streaked 

Horned Lark Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy (Pearson et al. 2005) 

prioritizes control of invasive beach grasses at coastal breeding sites. The streaked horned lark 

is likely to become extinct in Washington unless additional nesting areas are established and 

protected (WDFW 2005). 

The streaked horned lark is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (Altman 2000), Policy on maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system 

(USFWS 2001b), Birds of conservation concern (USFWS 2002a), Washington’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), Range-wide Streaked Horned 

Lark Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy (Pearson et al. 2005), State of 

Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington 

Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-37 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The Leadbetter habitat restoration area supports the only known population of pink 

sandverbena in Washington State. This plant species was thought to be extirpated in the state 

(Federal species of concern, Washington State endangered species). In 2006, it was able to reestablish itself, from a long-term seed bank, because beachgrass had been removed from the 

site. In addition to removing Ammophila, further recovery actions for pink sandverbena 

include direct augmentation of the population by collecting seed, propagating individuals in a 

greenhouse, and transplanting those individuals back to the restoration area at Leadbetter or by 

broadcasting seed. The ultimate goal is to create a self-sustaining verbena population. 

The pink sandverbena is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the 

national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 

2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington Natural Heritage Program Information 

Systems (WDNR 2007). 

A long-term goal is to restore additional native coastal dune habitat at Leadbetter Point and 

then protect and maintain this habitat. Predation risks to plovers and larks are also expected to 

be somewhat alleviated by this action, thus reducing the detection of nests by predators that 

may be hunting the edges. 

Recovery needs of the western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and pink sandverbena are 

all directly supported by restoring coastal dune habitat. 

The current habitat restoration area at Leadbetter Point is approximately 121 acres. Additional 

restoration efforts would take place along the fore dunes and outer beach. 

 

2.4.5 Goal 5. Provide short-grass fields (improved pastures) and grasslands 

for the benefit of Canada geese, Pacific jumping mouse, and other grasslanddependent species and restore grasslands for the Oregon silverspot butterfly. 

Objective 2.4.5.1 Maintain Short-grass Fields (Improved Pastures) 

Annually maintain 33-250 acres of improved short-grass fields (pastures) on the Tarlatt Unit, 

providing quality foraging habitat for Canada geese and meeting the life history needs of other 

grassland-dependent wildlife. Short-grass fields will be characterized by the following: 

1) Short grasses (<4 inch) by October 1. 

2) Desirable mix of grasses and grass/legumes (e.g., orchard grass, rye grass, clover, 

birdsfoot trefoil, and native forbs). 

3) <50% cover of non-palatable/invasive plant species (e.g., reed canarygrass, thistle, 

tussock, tall fescue). 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 250 33 250 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Mow fields (when grazing livestock is not present) to a height of 4 

to 6 inches at least twice per year if feasible. Early mowing in May 

is desirable (if fields are dry enough), as is mowing in late 

September. 

  
2-38 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B. Graze livestock in fenced fields from mid-April to early October. 

Use rotational grazing to maintain a vegetation height of 4 to 6 

inches. 

 

C. Conduct soil testing. Apply fertilizer and lime as needed to the 

fields from May to October (at a time not impacting the grazing 

livestock with minimal disturbance to migratory birds). 

 

D. Aerate fields, as needed (approximately every five years).  

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to control 

invasive or undesirable plant species. 

  

F. As needed (1-5 years), inter-seed grass with desirable grass/pasture 

mix. 

 

Rationale: 

Canada geese (i.e., dusky, westerns, cackling) use the Refuge and forage exclusively in shortgrass fields and marshes. It is important to maintain grass in a short, immature growth form by 

repeated mowing or livestock grazing during the growing season prior to arrival of migrating 

waterfowl. Once grass matures, it becomes coarse, much less digestible, and has less protein. 

Mammals (elk, deer, bear, coyote, etc.) use the short-grass fields as foraging areas and/or travel 

routes to adjacent lands. Smaller mammals (voles, mice, etc.) thrive in short-grass fields. 

These smaller mammals serve as prey for raptors such as red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, 

American kestrels, and various species of owls, all of which use the short-grass fields as 

foraging grounds. Other songbird and shorebird species will use short-grass fields. 

Objective 2.4.5.2 Restore Grasslands 

Restore up to 33 acres of grassland habitat especially for the federally threatened Oregon 

silverspot butterfly and for a variety of other grassland-dependent species. Grassland habitat 

for the Oregon silverspot butterfly has the following attributes: 

Dominant plant species: 

1) red fescue 

2) tufted hairgrass 

3) early blue violet (host plant for the Oregon silverspot butterfly caterpillar) in 

patches of 25-35 violets per square meter 

Five native nectar plants at a density of no fewer than five flowering stems per square 

meter. Species include: pearly everlasting, yarrow, California aster, dune goldenrod, and 

dune thistle. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objective 0 33 33 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Utilize appropriate IPM techniques including mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix H) to 

control invasive or undesirable plant species. 

 

B. Use nurseries to raise plant stock.  

C. Transplant native grasses and forbs.  
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-39 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

D. Direct seeding of native grasses and forbs.  

E. Maintain partnerships to restore habitat suitable for the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly. 

 

F. Private lands biologist position will assist private landowners 

interested in pursuing management actions that support resources in 

this objective. 

 

Rationale: 

Suitable areas on the Refuge would serve as the focal point for restoration projects to create 

habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly (currently extirpated in Washington state). These 

areas would be managed long-term to maintain native, early successional grassland 

communities. The habitat needs of both larval and adult Oregon silverspot butterflies would 

be met. Habitat management and restoration efforts would provide early blue violet (larval 

host plant) and promote abundance, provide a minimum of five native nectar species dispersed 

abundantly throughout the habitat, flowering throughout the entire flight period, and reduce 

the abundance of invasive non-native plant species (USFWS 2001a). Creation of an 

appropriate number of acres of high quality habitat would allow reintroduction of this species 

to occur on the Refuge. 

Mammals (elk, deer, bear, coyote, etc.) use grasslands as foraging areas and/or travel routes to 

adjacent lands. Smaller mammals (voles, mice, etc.) thrive in grasslands. These smaller 

mammals serve as prey for raptors such as red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, American 

kestrels, and various species of owls, all of which ue grasslands as foraging grounds. Other 

songbird and shorebird species will use grasslands. 

For the Oregon silverspot butterfly, invasion by exotic species, natural succession, fire 

suppression, and land development have resulted in loss and modification of the species’ 

habitat. Land use practices have altered disturbance regimes needed to maintain existing 

habitats and create new habitats for species expansion. (For the Oregon silverspot butterfly, 

see also Section 2.4.6.2.) 

 

2.4.6 Goal 6. Promote the recovery of federally threatened and endangered as 

well as Federal candidate and state-listed species. 

Objective 2.4.6.1 Western Snowy Plover (Threatened)

Contribute to the recovery of the western snowy plover by protecting and maintaining a fiveyear average population of 40 breeding pairs of western snowy plovers producing >1.0 fledged 

chick per male on the Refuge at Leadbetter Point Unit. Ensure long-term protection and 

management of breeding, wintering, and migration areas to maintain the subpopulation sizes 

and average productivity; see also Section 2.4.4.1 (Protect and Maintain Coastal Dune 

Ecosystem) and Section 2.4.4.2 (Restore Coastal Dunes). 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

A. Monitor western snowy plover breeding and wintering 

populations. 

  

B. Monitor western snowy plover breeding productivity.   
2-40 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C. Research actions as needed.   

D. Seasonal beach closures and symbolic fencing.   

E. Install predator exclosures (type of cage) for nest protection 

from predators. 

  

F. As necessary, manage specific avian and/or mammalian 

predators on a seasonal basis during nesting season. 

Avian and 

mammalian 

predator 

control 

Avian 

predator 

control 

only 

G. In cooperation with WDFW, manage disturbance to nesting 

western snowy plover, and implement a regulated permit-only elk 

hunt for the Leadbetter Unit. 

 

H. Annually coordinate western snowy plover monitoring with 

Leadbetter State Park management. 

  

I. Limit and manage human disturbance to nesting western snowy 

plover by providing a law enforcement presence and educational 

resources. 

  

Rationale: 

The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal beaches from southern Washington to Baja 

California, Mexico for food, shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific Coast populations of 

this species have been declining dramatically because of substantial habitat loss related to 

industrial, urban and recreational development, human disturbance, encroachment of exotic 

vegetation, and the expansion of predator populations. On March 5, 1993, the Pacific Coast 

population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened under provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (1 6U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (USFWS 1993). 

Recovery plans were developed by state and Federal governments to protect this population 

and its habitat with the ultimate goal of full recovery of the species. 

The strategies outlined to achieve this objective are consistent with the goals of the Recovery 

Plan for Western Snowy Plover, Pacific Coast Population (USFWS 2007a) and the Washington 

State Recovery Plan for the Snowy Plover (WDFW 1995). 

Federal recovery plan recovery criteria for Washington and Oregon (recovery unit): 1) 

250 breeding adults, 2) A yearly average of productivity of at least one fledged chick per male 

has been maintained in each recovery unit in the last five years prior to delisting, 3) 

Mechanisms have been developed and implemented to ensure long-term protection and 

management of breeding, wintering and migration areas to maintain the subpopulation sizes 

and average productivity specific in 1) and 2) (USFWS 2007a). 

State recovery plan recovery criteria for the state of Washington: The snowy plover will 

be considered for down-listing to threatened status when the state supports a four-year average 

of at least 25 pairs, fledging at least one young per pair per year, at two or more nesting areas 

with secure habitat. Delisting will be considered when the average population reaches 40 

breeding pairs at three or more secure nesting areas (WDFW 1995). 

The states of Washington and Oregon are considered a combined recovery unit for the 

purposes of recovery planning. The Leadbetter Point Unit (see Maps 5-7) is one of the 

northern-most breeding sites for the western snowy plover on the Pacific Coast. Leadbetter 

Point is the largest and most significant western snowy plover nesting area in Washington. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-41 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The Refuge has recently restored and maintained 121 acres of degraded dune habitat with the 

primary purpose to enhance the opportunity for the nesting success of these birds. This habitat 

restoration project for the western snowy plover is discussed in Section 4.9.2 and is further 

supported in Section 2.4.4.1 (Protect and Maintain Coastal Dune Ecosystem) and Section 

2.4.4.2 (Restore Coastal Dunes). During the past four years the Refuge has annually supported 

approximately 30 breeding adults (95% Confidence Interval = 11-49). The resulting statewide 

estimated fledgling success rate is 0.71 young fledged per adult male. Further details can be 

found in Section 4.9.2. 

The primary threats to the snowy plover population on the Refuge at Leadbetter Point are 

habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, introduced non-native beachgrass 

(Ammophila spp.), and predators (USFWS 2007a). Additional disturbance and threats to the 

Western snowy plover nesting habitat and potentially individual nests on the Refuge includes 

an expanding elk population; herds of elk frequently feed on native and non-native plants and 

grasses within the dune habitat that supports the western snowy plover nesting. Elk have been 

observed to flush plovers from their nests and cause nest abandonment, and they have 

damaged exclosures (nest cages) that refuge staff place around the eggs/nests to protect them 

from predators. However, the most direct losses of nests and chicks are due to predation, 

particularly by crows and ravens, resulting in poor hatching and fledging success on the 

Refuge. 

The Western Snowy Plover is listed as a resource of concern under the following documents: 

Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan - U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000), Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the Pacific Coast populations of the western snowy 

plover (USFWS 1993), Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health of the national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s focal species strategy for migratory birds. Division of Migratory Bird 

Management (USFWS 2005b), Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western 

Snowy Plover (USFWS 2007a), Washington state recovery plan for the snowy plover (WDFW 

1995), Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), State of 

Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and State of Washington 

Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007. 

In Oregon, lethal predator control has occurred for many years with impressive results in 

increasing snowy plover productivity. The Refuge would pursue the feasibility of a predator 

control program targeting specific avian and mammalian predators (see Appendix L, Predator 

Management Plan). 

Objective 2.4.6.2 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Threatened; Extirpated from Washington 

State) 

Establish one or more healthy, sustainable populations of the Oregon silverspot butterfly. 

 200 to 500 butterflies for at least 10 years. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Implement strategies under Objective 2.4.5.3 to improve grassland 

habitat, expanding as needed to meet recovery population goals. 

  
2-42 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B. Partner with various entities as appropriate (i.e., Oregon Zoo, 

WDFW, Leadbetter State Park, Xerces Society, USFWS Ecological 

Services, and Willapa Refuge Friends) to establish larval host 

plant/adult nectar plant populations and reintroduce butterfly 

populations. 

  

C. Release larvae and/or adult butterflies when an appropriate 

amount of high-quality habitat has been established. 

 

Rationale: 

The federally threatened Oregon silverspot butterfly previously inhabited coastal habitat from 

northern California to southern Washington. It is now extirpated from Washington State and 

found only on a few sites in California and Oregon. No Oregon silverspot butterflies have 

been documented on the Long Beach Peninsula since 1990 (USFWS 2001a). The Oregon 

silverspot butterfly is state listed as endangered in Washington. 

For the Oregon silverspot butterfly, invasion by exotic species, natural succession, fire 

suppression, and land development have resulted in loss and modification of the species’ 

habitat. The Oregon silverspot inhabits a few areas south of the Refuge located in coastal areas 

of Oregon. 

The Willapa Refuge would identify the appropriate sites within the Refuge and work with 

partners to establish sustainable populations of the larval host plant, early blue violet (Viola 

adunca), and adult nectaring plants. Maintaining partnerships is critically important to build 

and maintain a successful long lasting effort for the reintroduction of this species to 

Washington State. 

The Refuge would establish high-quality butterfly habitat, meeting the needs of both larval and 

adult butterflies, to support a reintroduction effort. Prior to any reintroduction efforts of the 

butterfly suitable grassland habitat as described in Section.2.4.5.2 would be fully restored. 

Recovery criteria (local area only): Delisting can be considered when all of the following 

conditions have been met: 

1) At least one viable Oregon silverspot butterfly population exists in protected habitat in 

the following areas: Long Beach Peninsula, Washington, and Clatsop Plains, Oregon. 

2) Habitats are managed long-term to maintain and restore native, early successional 

grassland plant communities. 

3) This includes developing a management plan. 

4) Each population site supports a minimum viable population of 200 to 500 butterflies 

for at least ten consecutive years. 

The refuge will work toward establishing one or more healthy sustainable populations of 

Oregon silverspot butterfly by meeting recovery goals as outlined in the Federal recovery plan 

(USFWS 2001a). 

The Oregon silverspot butterfly is listed as a resource of concern under the following 

documents: Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health 

of the national wildlife refuge system (USFWS 2001b), Washington’s comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy (WDFW 2005), Olympic-Willapa Hills Wildlife Area Management Plan 

(WDFW 2006), State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update (WDNR 2005), and 

State of Washington Natural Heritage Program Information Systems (WDNR 2007). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-43 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.7 Goal 7. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, 

assessments, and studies) in support of adaptive management decisions on the 

Refuge under Goals 1 through 6. 

Objective 2.4.7.1 Scientific Information 

Conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring (survey) activities as well as research, 

assessments, and studies to enhance endangered and threatened species protection and 

recovery as well as habitat management and restoration activities. The gathering of scientific 

information will assist in evaluating resource management and public use activities to facilitate 

adaptive management and contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation and 

management of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off refuge lands. Specifically, 

they can be used to evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under 

Goals 1 through 6 in the CCP. These activities have the following attributes: 

 Data collection techniques would likely have minimal animal mortality or disturbance 

and minimal habitat destruction. 

 Minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements would be 

collected for identification and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or 

cumulative impacts. 

 Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary, would minimize the spread or introduction of invasive species. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Maintain both a full-time wildlife biologist and a career seasonal 

wildlife biologist at the Refuge to ensure biological information is 

gathered and analyzed for species recovery, management actions 

and regional/national data needs. 

  

B. Monitor the status of western snowy plover, marbled murrelet, 

streaked horned lark, and pink sandverbena, as well as fish, mammal 

and priority amphibian and invertebrate species on the Refuge. 

  

C. Continue restoration, maintenance, and monitoring of habitat for 

western snowy plover, streaked-horned lark, pink sandverbena, and 

marbled murrelet, as well as fish and priority amphibian and 

invertebrate species. 

  

D. Monitor priority vegetative habitats on the Refuge.   

E. Conduct watershed assessments as needed.   

F. Continue to partner with local universities, nongovernmental 

organizations, state and local agencies, and others to conduct 

research and monitoring activities that will advance the science of 

habitat management on refuge lands. 

  

G. Assist state and other Federal efforts as feasible (e.g., range-wide 

snowy plover breeding and winter window surveys, mid-winter 

brant surveys). 

  
2-44 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Rationale: 

The NWRS Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) requires that the 

Service “monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.” Surveys 

would be used primarily to evaluate resource response to assess progress toward achieving 

refuge management objectives (under Goals 1 through 6 in this CCP) derived from the NWRS 

mission, refuge purpose(s), and maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health (601 FW 3). Determining resource status and evaluating progress 

toward achieving objectives is essential to implementing adaptive management on Department 

of Interior lands as required by policy (522 DM 1). Specifically, results of surveys would be 

used to refine management strategies, where necessary, over time in order to achieve resource 

objectives. Surveys would provide the best available scientific information to promote 

transparent decision-making processes for resource management over time on refuge lands. 

Inventories, monitoring, research, assessments, and studies are essential to high-quality habitat 

and population management. Conducting population surveys for the western snowy plover 

and compiling data are critical to evaluate population status and measure progress toward 

goals stated in the Recovery Plan. Similarly, other wildlife populations, habitat conditions, 

and habitat management practices, including restoration efforts, must be monitored to evaluate 

their status and effectiveness. Population trends can be used to evaluate habitat effectiveness 

and guide management actions 

Refuges must collect site-specific information and conduct defensible research to provide 

information for devising, guiding, and adapting management practices. Monitoring habitat 

conditions provides valuable support and sound decision-making as applied to refuge resource 

management and also contributes to the Service’s ability to modify management practices 

(adaptive management). Applied research on the Refuge will help address management issues 

and questions, in theory, would result in improved management decisions for the Refuge and 

the region. The Refuge has always maintained a close working relationship with several state, 

Tribal, and local agencies and universities in order to advance the knowledge base of a variety 

of habitats and plant and wildlife species. 

Research is valuable for protecting and understanding refuge resources, determining natural 

resource components and their interactions, and understanding the consequences of 

management actions on the parts and the whole. Research is also necessary for the overall 

advancement of science and scientific inquiry. The Refuge and the surrounding area in 

conjunction with TNC have been recognized as a premier location to conduct forest restoration 

research due to the character of the forest environment. 

Applied research by universities and other entities will be encouraged and would help address 

management issues and answer questions, allowing an opportunity to improve management 

decisions. 

Invasive species are a major threat to high quality wildlife habitat, and poses a major problem 

in the restoration and recovery of rare and listed species. Efforts would be made to work with 

partners as much as possible in a combined effort to pinpoint infestations and plan and 

coordinate control efforts both on and off the Refuge. 

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-45 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.8 Goal 8. Foster a connection between refuge visitors and nature. Visitors 

will have the opportunity to participate in safe, quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR. These activities and 

programs include wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, environmental 

education, interpretation, and photography. 

Objective 2.4.8.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Provide visitors with the opportunity for self-guided wildlife observation and photography on 

the Leadbetter, Long Island, and Mainland units while limiting the impacts of noise and human 

activity to sensitive species and their habitats. 

1) Focusing on the major wildlife species and groups of wildlife species, including 

wintering waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans); other migratory birds such as wading 

birds; raptors including bald eagles, and neotropical songbirds; elk, deer, bear, etc. 

2) Incorporating most of the habitat types found on the Refuge. 

3) Emphasize opportunities on Long Island, Tarlatt, Riekkola, and the original 

Headquarters Unit on a year-round basis. 

4) Directly link opportunities to the environmental education and interpretation programs.

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Enhance and maintain opportunities for self-guided wildlife 

observation and photography on the Leadbetter, Long Island, and 

Mainland Units. 

  

B. Conduct wildlife observation and photography workshops/tours 

with Friends group, volunteers, and staff. 

  

C. Maintain one photo observation blind.   

D. Work with various partner groups, e.g., Friends and Audubon 

Society, and use the Youth Conservation Corps and volunteers to 

improve and maintain existing trails. 

  

E. Create a new trail based on the restoration along South Bay and 

new office/visitor information center design. 

 

F. Create one new wildlife observation site. 

Rationale: 

Wildlife observation is the primary visitor activity that occurs on the Refuge. Wildlife/nature 

photography promotes public understanding and appreciation for natural resources. The 

Refuge will continue to provide high-quality wildlife/nature viewing and photography 

opportunities. The program is designed to provide a diversity of wildlife viewing 

opportunities in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wildlife and their habitat. Developing 

a new trail and observation structure would enhance educational opportunities (associated with 

the restoration) highlighting the importance of salt marsh habitat in the South Bay, regionally 

and nationally. Wildlife observation opportunities will continue to be provided on the Refuge 

by maintaining existing trails and observation sites (Maps 8-10). In addition to the observation 

boardwalk (Salmon Art Trail), the Refuge offers visitors a photography blind (Tarlatt Unit) that 

may be used on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors and school groups may request guided 

hikes to enhance learning and wildlife/nature observation opportunities on the Refuge. 
2-46 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.8.2 Interpretive Trails 

Provide up to 3 miles of interpretive trails on the Refuge located on the Headquarters, 

Leadbetter Point, and Tarlatt units. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Miles of Trail to Achieve the Objective 3 4 4 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Establish a 1-mile, year-round trail and observation point on the 

Tarlatt Unit in conjunction with the office and visitor contact center. 

+ 1 

mile 

+ 1 

mile 

B. Work with various partner groups, e.g., Friends and Audubon 

Society, and use the Youth Conservation Corps and volunteers to 

improve existing and develop new trails. 

  

C. Enhance and maintain 11-12 miles of hiking trails.   

D. Develop partnerships (hiking groups, friends, volunteers) to 

maintain trails. 

  

Rationale: 

Interpretive trails are a popular component to the overall public use program on the Refuge. 

Trails provide visitors with a designated route of travel to view and learn about the Refuge’s 

natural resources, as well as providing protection for sensitive resources through proper 

routing and construction techniques. Through publications and signage, visitors would be 

encouraged to stay on the trail, and the interpretive messages will educate them as to why. A 

new interpretive trail accessing the South Bay in conjunction with the development of a new 

office/visitor contact station would highlight the salt marsh habitat and its wildlife. The new 

interpretive trail would be designed to be easily traversed by all age groups. 

While hiking is not a priority public use of the NWRS, it does support uses such as wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Hiking is a popular 

public use activity on the Refuge. Refuge units with trails include Long Island, Leadbetter 

Point, East Hills (at Teal Slough and Headquarters), and Tarlatt (Maps 8-10).Carefully planned 

hiking routes and/or hiking areas, together with use stipulations, can minimize impacts to 

wildlife while providing high-quality opportunities to experience and learn about the Refuge. 

Identifying parameters for hiking, such asresource protection needs, seasonal restrictions, 

group size limitations, facilities, and visitor information needswould be an important 

component of the trails design/route. 

 

Objective 2.4.8.3 Waterfowl Hunting 

Waterfowl hunters of all abilities will have the opportunity to participate in a quality, safe 

waterfowl hunt program that provides a variety of waterfowl hunting experiences that: 

1) Poses minimal conflict with wildlife/habitat objectives. 

2) Poses minimal conflict with other wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

3) Poses minimal conflict with neighboring lands. 

4) Is accessible to a broad spectrum of visitors. 

5) Promotes stewardship and conservation. 

6) Promotes understanding and appreciation of natural resources and USFWS role. 

7) Provides reliable/reasonable opportunity to experience wildlife. 

8) Uses accessible facilities that blend into landscape. 

9) Uses visitor satisfaction to define and evaluate programs. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-47 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres available to Waterfowl Hunting 2,894 6,058 5,450 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Maintain Presidential Proclamation closure to hunting.   

B. Retain limited regulated goose hunting on the managed pastures 

of the Riekkola and Tarlatt units (currently two days per week). 

 

C. Maintain limited access hunting in areas of the south Willapa 

Bay, Leadbetter Point, Stanley Point, and Porter Point to 

waterfowl hunting in accordance with state regulations. 

 

D. Limited expansion of hunting in areas of the south Willapa Bay 

to waterfowl hunting in accordance with state regulations 

(excluding the Presidential Proclamation Boundary area) and 

concurrently with tidal restoration. 

 

E. Open all areas of the south Willapa Bay to waterfowl and goose 

hunting in accordance with state regulations (excluding the 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary area). 



F. Construct car-top canoe/boat put-in to access to South Bay from 

Riekkola Unit. 



G. Create and enhance signage for changes in hunt programs. 

Rationale: 

Hunting is identified as a priority public use by the NWRS Improvement Act, when it is 

compatible with National Wildlife Refuge purposes. Public input during the CCP/EIS scoping 

period identified waterfowl hunting-related issues that included access, facilities, weapon and 

species restrictions, and the quality of information available on waterfowl and general hunting 

opportunities. 

Through participation in the waterfowl hunt program, hunters would have an opportunity to 

learn about and understand the Refuge’s purpose and resource management activities. 

Providing opportunities for youth is an important initiative in the USFWS and helps address a 

public desire to see more hunting opportunities for youth. 

Currently, within the state waterfowl hunting season, the Refuge provides waterfowl hunting 

three days per week and goose hunting two days per week. With the completion of the south 

Willapa Bay estuarine habitat restoration, the restored salt marsh would be open for waterfowl 

and goose hunting opportunities (in accordance with state regulations) eliminating the upland 

hunt restrictions. 

The Presidential Proclamation Boundary was established in 1937 to set aside a waterfowl and 

migratory bird sanctuary in Willapa Bay. This area will remain closed to all waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting activity (Maps 8-10). 

All hunting occurring on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is in accordance with Washington 

State regulations. 

 
2-48 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.8.4 Big Game Hunting 

Hunters will have the opportunity to participate in a quality, safe big game hunt (elk, deer, 

bear) program that provides a variety of hunting experiences. The big game hunt program will: 

1) Pose minimal conflict with wildlife/habitat objectives. 

2) Pose minimal conflict with other wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

3) Pose minimal conflict with neighboring lands. 

4) Be accessible to a broad spectrum of visitors. 

5) Promote stewardship and conservation. 

6) Promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and USFWS role. 

7) Provide reliable/reasonable opportunity to experience wildlife. 

8) Use accessible facilities that blend into landscape. 

9) Use visitor satisfaction to define and evaluate programs. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres Available to Big Game Hunting 6,999 11,380 10,326

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Expand potential hunting opportunities as lands are acquired 

from willing sellers as outlined in the Land Protection Plan 

(Appendix A). 

 

B. Expand elk hunting opportunities (permit only) to include a 

muzzleloader only hunt on the Leadbetter Point Unit. 

 

C. Maintain big game hunt program (elk, deer, bear) on Long 

Island and the East Hills Units (Maps 8-10). 

  

D. Create and enhance signage for changes in hunt programs.  

Rationale: 

Recreational hunting (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, as a priority public use, provided it is 

compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was established. The Act declares that 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate and appropriate priority general 

public uses of the Refuge System. The six wildlife-dependent recreational useshunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretationare to receive enhanced consideration in planning and management over all 

other general public uses of the Refuge System. When compatible, these wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are to be strongly encouraged. Public input during the CCP/EIS scoping 

period identified hunting-related issues that included access, facilities, weapon and species 

restrictions, and the quality of information available regarding general hunting opportunities. 

Across Washington, elk and deer are increasingly causing damage to private and commercial 

property including orchards and landscaping. As a result, there are few, if any places 

remaining in the state which are willing to accept relocated elk or deer. In addition, relocation 

has proven a costly option and funding is not available for a long-term solution. 

Willapa Refuge currently offers existing elk and deer hunting opportunities in the Long Island 

Unit and designated portions of the East Hills Units from the Bear River to Teal Slough (Map 

8). Proposed elk and deer hunting areas include the upland areas in the South Bay (Lewis, 

Porter Point, and Riekkola units and a portion of the Tarlatt Unit); and a proposed regulated 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-49 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

(permit only) elk hunt on the Leadbetter Point Unit; and any additional lands acquired, would 

be open to elk and deer hunting (Maps 9 and 10). 

Maintaining and/or expanding existing hunting opportunities on the East Hills Units, the South 

Bay Units and the Leadbetter Point Unit to hunting would complement state-permitted hunting 

activities locally. Specific species/numbers to be taken and hunting periods would be set by 

WDFW to reflect the adjacent areas open to elk and deer hunting. This would resolve 

potential problems over the exact position of the refuge boundary that would exist with an 

elk/deer hunt closure, and the associated enforcement of relevant laws and regulations. 

 

Objective 2.4.8.5 Fishing 

Anglers will have the opportunity to participate for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and shellfish 

fishing in accordance with state seasons, while minimizing disturbance and impacts to other 

resources. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Provide access for motorized and non-motorized boats by 

maintaining a ramp and providing parking. 

  

B. Maintain refuge portion of Willapa Bay and channel portion of 

Bear River open for fishing. 

  

C. Maintain public clam beds on Long Island.   

D. Allow bank fishing from the Wheaton Unit on the Willapa River.  

E. Fishing will be prohibited in all non-tidal refuge streams and 

wetlands not mentioned above. 

  

Rationale: 

Fishing is identified as a priority public use by the Improvement Act, as long as it is found 

compatible with National Wildlife Refuge purposes (Appendix C). Fishing is a popular visitor 

activity that occurs on the Refuge. Currently fishing is allowed on Willapa Bay within the 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary, accessible by boat. A boat launch facility is provided 

along Highway 101 across from the current refuge headquarters. 

Clamming is allowed on public tidelands found on the west side Long Island within the 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary. Areas identified in the “Recreational Shellfish 

Harvesting in Pacific County” booklet are Diamond Point and Pinnacle Rock. 

All fishing and clamming activities occurring within the refuge boundary are in accordance 

with Washington State fishing/shellfish regulations. 

Fishing will continue to be prohibited in all non-tidal refuge streams and wetlands not 

mentioned above. 

 

Objective 2.4.8.6 Environmental Education 

Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and foster a 

connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge annually. A 

high-quality program would: 

1) Fully support national and state academic learning standards. 
2-50 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2) Provide interdisciplinary opportunities that link natural resources through all subject 

areas. 

3) Involve local communities, Friends, volunteers, and other partners. 

4) Incorporate the importance of the NWRS and the purpose, goals, and objectives of the 

Willapa Complex Refuges. 

5) Incorporates current conservation issues and concerns. 

6) Provide experiences that are hands-on and integrate the habitats and associated plants, 

fish, and wildlife species found on the Refuge. 

7) Use various types of facilities including wildlife observation structures, interpretive 

exhibits, trails, outdoor classroom shelters, etc. 

8) Take place both on and off the Refuge. 

9) Involve all three of the Willapa Complex Refuges at varying levels. 

10) Be directly linked to wildlife observation and interpretation programs and balanced 

within the overall public use program. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Estimated No. of Students/yr 2,500 3,000 3,000 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Encourage the Friends of the Willapa Refuge and volunteers to 

assist with the Refuge’s environmental education program. 

  

B. Increase environmental education emphasis within the Youth 

Conservation Corps programs. 

  

C. Work with other Federal, state and county natural resource 

agencies, Tribes, nonprofit conservation organizations, and selected 

school districts within the local area to help define the specific roles 

and responsibilities for providing environmental education 

opportunities on the Refuge. 

  

D. Construct a visitor center and office facility that would include 

indoor/outdoor environmental education facilities. 

 

E. Establish an environmental education specialist position that 

would focus specifically on improving the Refuge environmental 

education program. 

 

F. Develop and provide site-specific materials and tools for 

educators’ use both on- and off-site. These materials should include 

information about the NWRS and the unique habitats and associated 

fish and wildlife species and management programs on the Refuge. 



Rationale: 

Environmental education activities can foster an understanding and appreciation for our 

natural resources. As such, environmental education is identified as one of the priority public 

uses of the NWRS. The Willapa Refuge has an opportunity to provide expanded 

environmental education programs for local schools. Students participate primarily from 

southwest Washington and northwest Oregon schools. The environmental education program 

will focus on integrating environmental concepts and concerns into structured activities on the 

Refuge, involving educators, students, and others in first-hand activities that promote 

discovery and fact-finding, developing problem-solving skills, and helping students develop 

their own ways of personal involvement and action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-51 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Objective 2.4.8.7 Camping 

To facilitate archery hunting, photography, and wildlife-dependent experiences, camping is 

available in five designated campgrounds on Long Island. These primitive conditions provide 

isolated vistas and an intimacy with nature. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Maintain five campgrounds with 21 campsites on Long Island.   

B. Update and provide brochures, website, and tear sheets with 

camping info. 

  

C. Provide trail network from several of the campgrounds to the 

Cedar Grove trail. 

  

D. Work with various partner groups, e.g., Friends and Audubon 

Society, and use the Youth Conservation Corps and volunteers to 

improve/maintain existing trails and campsites. 

  

Rationale: 

Public scoping indicated continued demand for camping opportunities on Long Island Unit. 

While camping is not a priority public use of the NWRS, on Long Island it does support 

wildlife-dependent public uses such as hunting, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. Maintaining a camping program is important for 

public safety reasons due to the tides and accessibility limits to and from the island. 

An appropriate use and compatibility determination have been applied to camping (see 

Appendices B and C). 

Access to Long Island’s trails and campsites requires some form of watercraft. Motorized and 

non-motorized boating (e.g., canoeing, kayaking) is currently constrained due to the tides 

(shallowness of the bay at low tides) as well as distance between the boat launch and camping 

access points. A main trail down the center of the island provides access to several of the 

campsites. Occasionally the refuge staff and volunteers need to maintain and rehabilitate some 

of the 21 campsites. 

Objective 2.4.8.8 Develop an Administrative/Maintenance and Visitor Facility 

Design and build a refuge administrative/maintenance and visitor facility to be constructed 

within the life of the CCP. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Partner with Friends of the Willapa Refuge, TNC, local 

community and the State. 

  

B. Locate the new facility on Tarlatt Unit.  

C. Create a facility recognized as the latest symbol of energy efficient 

design in southwest Washington using many partners. Design a 

facility using effective “green” energy efficient resources. 

 

D. Construct office space for a projected 21 staff.  

E. Develop approximately 12 acres of refuge lands for 

administrative, visitor, and maintenance facilities. 

 
2-52 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

F. Remove proposed headquarters development area from the 

wetlands reserve program according to Natural Resources 

Conservation Science (NRCS) regulations. 

 

G. Move refuge maintenance operations and equipment shop and 

storage from three existing sites to consolidate operations at proposed 

Tarlatt Slough headquarters HQ site. 

 

H. Develop HQ building and site to provide visitor parking for 55 

cars and 3 buses, 1 mile of trails; construct an 11,000 sf. office and 

visitor building, and construct site amenities to serve up to 150,000 

visitors per year. 

 

I. Restore current HQ site and dispersed maintenance facilities to 

protect, maintain and restore habitats characteristic of the Willapa 

Bay region for the benefit of migratory birds, salmonids, amphibians, 

mussels, lamprey, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. 

 

J. Maintain public access to the Willapa Interpretive Art Trail, 

parking lot, and public boat ramp on Highway 101 

 

K. Maintain current HQ and Maintenance facilities  

Rationale: 

The Refuge has been identified in the Service’s maintenance and management system (MMS) 

to receive a new visitor contact station and administrative/maintenance facility. Funding is 

expected within the life of the CCP (15 years). This CCP identifies partners, location, and 

design elements for the Service’s standardized facility. The current office/maintenance and 

visitor contact facility is located along Highway 101. This office building was formerly a 

home and was built in late 1930s. A change in location is preferable due to the lack of potable 

water, no sanitation service, electrical wiring issues (safety concerns), inadequate fire escape 

routes, and visitor access from the highway. Various potential locations were identified for the 

facility on the Refuge, yet due to constraints regarding accessibility of utilities and limited 

public access, the preferred location was identified on the Tarlatt Unit. 

The location of the proposed facilities would have city water and sewage. It is closer to the 

population center on the Long Beach Peninsula which would allow greater public access to 

Refuge visitor services. The facilities would meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) energy conservation and sustainability standards. A site plan combines 

creatively-designed visitor facilities with habitat restoration efforts in an attempt to provide the 

visitor with a natural and educational experience. Other features of the project include an 

outdoor classroom shelter and a new interpretive trail. The interpretive trail would be along an 

existing dike road from the new visitor information center to a new observation deck on the 

south bay, which would offer unparalleled views of the bay and migratory birds. Overall, the 

new facilities location would better serve the community, improve staff productivity, conserve 

crucial wildlife habitat, reduce annual operations and maintenance costs, and serve as an 

interpretive area for approximately 150,000 annual visitors. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-53 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

2.4.9 Goal 9. Protect and preserve the cultural resources of the Refuge for the 

benefit of present and future generations. 

Objective 2.4.9.1 Cultural Resources 

Implement cultural resource education and management programs that meet the requirements 

of the NHPA, state education/curriculum needs, consultation, identification, inventory, 

evaluation, and protection of all cultural resources. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and 

planned roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. 

Evaluate threatened and impacted sites for eligibility to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Prepare and implement activities to 

mitigate impacts to sites as necessary. 

  

B. Evaluate the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of 

those archaeological sites that may be impacted by refuge 

management activities or erosion. 

  

C. Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for 

interpretation displays/exhibits/brochures regarding cultural 

resources of the Refuge. 

 

D. Protect cultural resource sites through law enforcement patrols.   

Rationale: 

Interpretation of cultural resources can instill a sense of stewardship among the public and 

others who encounter these resources. The goals of the cultural resource education and 

interpretive program are: to inspire an appreciation for the Native American culture and 

perspective of the cultural resources on the Refuge, relate the connection between cultural 

resources and natural resources, and the role of humans in the environment (which is one of 

the goals of the NWRS), and inspire an understanding and the conservation of our cultural 

heritage, including archaeological sites. 

 

2.4.10 Goal 10. Contribute to the protection of the long-term environmental 

health of the Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

Objective 2.4.10.1 Refuge Boundary Expansion 

Within five years, begin implementing the new Land Protection Plan, recognizing the 

prioritized lands which provide habitat for endangered and threatened wildlife and the overall 

protection of the Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Acres to Achieve the Objectives 761 4,895 6,804 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. As funding becomes available, continue to acquire the identified 

priority lands from willing sellers through fee, easement, or 

agreement. 

  

B. Work with willing sellers within current acquisition boundary.   
2-54 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C. Work with partners and neighbors to identify, protect, and restore 

wildlife resources within the Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

  

D. Provide technical assistance and encourage best management 

practices for private land owners on conservation matters, using the 

Refuge’s private lands biologist. 

  

E. Work with the county, state, nongovernmental organizations, and 

other interested parties to address land protection needs. 

  

F. Divest Shoalwater and Wheaton units of the Refuge.  

Rationale: 

Land use activities have impacted fish and wildlife habitat values in the Willapa Bay area. 

Increased pressure from development for residential use as well as timber harvest make 

additional protection critical. There is a need to restore and increase the amount of latesuccessional forest, freshwater stream habitat, salt marsh, and other habitats currently at risk to 

further impacts. 

The Refuge contains portions of the typical habitats found in and around Willapa Bay. 

However, some of the refuge units are small in size and the ability of the Refuge to provide 

landscape-level benefits such as watershed protection and buffers to sensitive habitats are 

somewhat compromised. 

Acquisition efforts would increase land protection and allow habitat restoration efforts to take 

place for federally threatened species, anadromous fish, migratory birds, and other native 

wildlife. Efforts to protect and improve forests in the Willapa Bay area would provide habitat 

for the marbled murrelet and spotted owl, which are both federally listed as threatened 

(However, the spotted owl is currently extirpated from the Refuge.) Long-term protection of 

the watershed and water quality would also be provided through these efforts. 

Willapa Bay is often described as one of the most pristine water bodies along the western coast 

of the United States. Mariculture is a large fishing industry that relies completely on the good 

water quality of the bay. In addition to commercial shellfish operations and commercial 

fishing, recreational clamming, crabbing, and fishing are also supported by the excellent water 

quality and healthy tidelands of Willapa Bay. All are important industries and activities in 

Pacific County. 

Nonpoint source pollution in the bay may increase and degrade the water quality within the 

watershed as lands are cleared and developed with roads and homes constructed. Potential 

nutrient loads, sedimentation, concentrations of pollutants, with runoff in the future, may all 

contribute and degrade this important ecosystem and its fishery resources. 

Recovery efforts regarding the marbled murrelet and spotted owl would best be accomplished 

by large contiguous areas of late-successional forest in the Willapa Bay area. (Latesuccessional forests are forests in the mature and old-growth age classes). Currently, suitable 

late-successional forest habitat in the Willapa Bay area is isolated and highly fragmented. Less 

than 1% of the original old-growth forests remain in the 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed 

(Davis et al. 2009). 

Currently, second- and third-growth forests dominate the watershed. According to 

recommendations in the Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet, in order to 

maintain a well-distributed marbled murrelet population, recovery efforts should be directed 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-55 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

toward increasing the size and distribution of marbled murrelet populations between the 

southern Olympic Peninsula and the small populations in southwestern Washington. NonFederal lands in this area currently provide a limited amount of marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat and have the potential to be managed to increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat 

in the future (USFWS 1997). 

Since 2003, the Willapa Refuge and TNC have been collaborating to restore forests on their 

respective properties at a landscape scale, with a focus on marbled murrelet recovery as well as 

restoring ecological function to these former commercial forests. 

Efforts toward additional protection of the Willapa Bay watershed have been initiated between 

a number of entities including the Refuge and TNC, as well as State and County agencies and 

private landowners. 

2.4.11 Goal 11. Provide support for off-refuge conservation efforts in 

southwest Washington in partnership with private landowners, agencies, and 

nongovernmental organizations. 

Objective 4.11.1 Private Lands Program 

Work in partnership with private landowners, nongovernmental organizations, Tribes and other 

agencies for voluntary protection, enhancement, and restoration of native habitats and the 

associated fish, wildlife, and plants. 

Attributes of habitat and wildlife project assistance: 

 Occur on lands near or adjacent to the Refuge. 

 Provide a connection to active refuge projects. 

 Benefit and support the Service’s trust species and programs ( i.e., Birds of 

Conservation Significance, Birds of Management Concern). 

 Benefit threatened and endangered species. 

 Support state wildlife action plans. 

Alternatives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Strategies for Achieving the Objective 

A. Provide technical assistance and implementation for restoration 

projects. 

 

B. Provide financial assistance to landowners and organizations.  

C. Develop and maintain memorandums of understanding (and/or 

cooperative agreements) and other agreements with Federal agencies, 

Tribes, state, local governments, and private stakeholders to share 

equipment, staff, funds, and services. 

  

D. Implement the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Strategic 

Plan within the Willapa Bay and lower Columbia River estuary. 



Rationale: 

The decline of the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat around Willapa Bay has necessitated 

looking beyond the refuge boundaries to identify areas for protection and restoration. The 

private lands program provides the means to initiate partnerships with diverse groups and 
2-56 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

individuals to complete projects that protect and restore coastal habitats outside of refuge 

boundaries. These projects help to restore habitat connectivity and offset increased pressures 

from development for residential use as well as timber harvest that have impacted fish and 

wildlife habitat values around the Willapa Bay area. 

The private lands program provides opportunity to work with willing private landowners, 

nongovernmental organizations, and other government agency partners to protect and restore 

important wildlife habitat areas on a landscape level. This level of protection and restoration 

provides benefits such as watershed protection and buffers to sensitive habitats. Working with 

partners in the private lands program enables conservation to be delivered more effectively and 

leverage financial and technical resources from other conservation entities including other 

governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners. These 

projects would help to enhance the wildlife habitats currently exiting within the boundary of 

the Willapa Refuge Complex. 

Developing working relationships with landowners in the Willapa Bay area and outside refuge 

boundaries provides opportunity to restore and increase the amount of late-successional forest, 

freshwater stream habitat, salt marsh, and other habitats currently at risk and at a landscape 

level. Focusing on a landscape-scale approach to the protection and restoration of these 

unique habitats helps to offset the loss of and reduces the impacts to native habitats that would 

negatively affect federally threatened species, anadromous fish, migratory birds, and other 

native wildlife. Efforts to protect and improve forests in the Willapa Bay area will provide 

habitat for the marbled murrelet and spotted owl which are both listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. (However, the spotted owl is currently extirpated from the area 

surrounding Willapa Bay.) Long-term protection of the watersheds and water quality would 

also be provided through these partnership efforts. 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge contains portions of the typical habitats found in and 

around Willapa Bay. However, some of the refuge units are small, and the ability of the 

Refuge to provide landscape-level benefits such as watershed protection and buffers to 

sensitive habitats are somewhat compromised. 

Working with private landowners to restore and protect these unique coastal habitats ensures 

that protection and restoration is targeted at accomplishing these activities on 

watershed/landscape levels. To ensure the success of the private lands program and ultimately 

protect and restore habitat essential to the recovery of threatened and endangered wildlife 

species partnerships will be developed, projects identified that will enrich existing Refuge 

habitat and obtain funding for these projects to be planned, implemented and completed. The 

Partners and Coastal Programs enable conservation to be delivered more effectively by 

leveraging financial and technical resources from other conservation entities (other 

governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners). 

Willapa Bay is often described as one of the most pristine water bodies along the western coast 

of the U.S. Mariculture is a large fishing industry which relies completely on good water 

quality in the bay. In addition to commercial shellfish operations and commercial fishing, 

recreational clamming, crabbing and fishing are also supported by the water quality and 

healthy tidelands of Willapa Bay. All are important industries and activities in Pacific County. 

Nonpoint source pollution in the bay may increase and degrade the water quality within the 

watershed as lands are cleared and developed with roads and homes constructed. Potential 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-57 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

nutrient loads, sedimentation, concentrations of pollutants, with runoff in the future, may all 

contribute and degrade this important ecosystem and its fishery resources. 

Recovery efforts regarding the marbled murrelet and spotted owl would best be accomplished 

by large contiguous areas of late-successional forest in the Willapa Bay area. (Latesuccessional forests are forests in the mature and old-growth age classes). Currently, suitable 

late-successional forest habitat in the Willapa Bay area is isolated and highly fragmented. Less 

than 1% of the original old-growth forests remain in the 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed 

(Davis et al. 2009). Currently, second- and third-growth forests dominate the watershed. 

According to recommendations in the Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet, in 

order to maintain a well-distributed marbled murrelet population, recovery efforts should be 

directed toward increasing the size and distribution of marbled murrelet populations between 

the southern Olympic Peninsula and the small populations in southwestern Washington. NonFederal lands in this area currently provide a limited amount of marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat and have the potential to be managed to increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat 

in the future (USFWS 1997). 

Since 2003, the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and TNC have been collaborating to restore 

forests on their respective properties at a landscape scale, with a focus on marbled murrelet 

recovery as well as restoring ecological function to these former commercial forests. 

Efforts toward additional protection of the Willapa Bay watershed have been initiated between 

a number of entities including the Refuge and TNC, as well as State and County agencies as 

well as private landowners. 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Summary Table for the Willapa CCP/EIS 

Theme/Issue 

Alternative 1 

Continue Current Management 

Alternative 2 

Healthy Wildlife Habitats, 

Endangered Species and 

Biodiversity Gains, Focused 

Refuge Expansion, Expanded 

Public Use 

Alternative 3 

Partial Restoration of 

Habitats, Endangered 

Species Gains, Limited 

Refuge Expansion, 

Moderate Public Use 

Forest Habitat 

Latesuccessional 

Sitka spruce 

zone forest 

Protect and maintain 557 acres of 

existing late-successional Sitka 

spruce forest, while implementing 

forest management techniques 

where necessary to accelerate 

development of late-successional 

conditions in 6,178 acres of 

second-growth Sitka spruce forest 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Estuarine Habitats 

Open water Annually protect and maintain 

878 acres of open water and 

channel habitat 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

increase open water on Lewis, 

Porter Point, and Riekkola units 

to County Road (0.2 acre) 

Same as Alternative 1 

Intertidal flats Annually protect and maintain 

4,178 acres of intertidal flats 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

increase intertidal flats (11 

acres) 

Same as Alternative 1 

and increase intertidal 

flats (2 acres) 
2-58 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Theme/Issue 

Alternative 1 

Continue Current Management 

Alternative 2 

Healthy Wildlife Habitats, 

Endangered Species and 

Biodiversity Gains, Focused 

Refuge Expansion, Expanded 

Public Use 

Alternative 3 

Partial Restoration of 

Habitats, Endangered 

Species Gains, Limited 

Refuge Expansion, 

Moderate Public Use 

Salt marsh Annually protect and maintain 

1,636 acres of salt marsh 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

increase salt marsh (749 acres) 

Same as Alternative 1 

and increase salt marsh 

(429 acres) 

Freshwater Aquatic Habitats 

Riverine Protect, maintain and conduct 

restoration activities within the 27 

miles of riverine habitats 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Wetlands, 

seasonally 

managed 

Annually protect and maintain 

317 acres of seasonal, managed 

freshwater wetland habitats on 

Tarlatt, Riekkola, Porter Point, 

and Lewis units 

Annually protect and maintain 

17 acres of seasonal, managed 

freshwater wetland on the Tarlatt 

Unit 

Annually protect and 

maintain 25 acres of 

seasonal, managed 

freshwater wetland on 

Riekkola and Tarlatt 

units 

Wetlands, 

naturally 

occurring 

Annually protect and maintain 

610 acres of permanent and semipermanent, naturally occurring 

freshwater wetlands 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Coastal Habitat 

Coastal dune Maintain and protect 1,581 acres 

at Leadbetter Point Unit (not 

including wetlands) 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

restore 229 acres 

Same as Alternative 2 

Upland Field Habitats 

Short-grass 

fields

Maintain 250 acres of short-grass 

fields on Riekkola/Tarlatt units 

Restore pasture on the Riekkola 

Unit to salt marsh habitat 

Same as Alternative 1 

Grassland Maintain 33 acres of grassland 

habitat through IPM control at the 

Tarlatt Unit 

Establish 33 acres of habitat for 

Oregon silverspot butterfly at 

Tarlatt/Leadbetter Point units 

Same as Alternative 2 

Federal and State Listed Species 

Western snowy 

plover 

Protect western snowy plover 

and their habitat from nest 

predation, human disturbance, 

and invasive species 

Same as Alternative 1 and avian 

and mammalian predator 

management as necessary 

Same as Alternative 1 

and avian predator 

management as 

necessary 

Oregon 

silverspot 

butterfly 

Current management has limited 

management focus for this 

species 

Reintroduce Oregon silverspot 

butterfly to successful host plant 

habitat (33acres) 

Same as Alternative 2 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

Maintain opportunities for selfguided wildlife observation and 

photography on theLeadbetter 

Point, Long Island, and Mainland 

units 

Same as Alternative 1 plus 

expanded opportunities at Tarlatt 

Unit, new trail and South Bay 

observation deck, concurrent 

with tidal restoration 

Same as Alternative 1 

Interpretive 

trails 

Maintain 3 miles of existing 

interpretive trail 

Add 1 mile interpretive trail and 

South Bay observation deck, 

concurrent with tidal restoration 

Same as Alternative 1 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-59 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Theme/Issue 

Alternative 1 

Continue Current Management 

Alternative 2 

Healthy Wildlife Habitats, 

Endangered Species and 

Biodiversity Gains, Focused 

Refuge Expansion, Expanded 

Public Use 

Alternative 3 

Partial Restoration of 

Habitats, Endangered 

Species Gains, Limited 

Refuge Expansion, 

Moderate Public Use 

Waterfowl 

hunting 

Regulated goose hunting on 

Riekkola Unit (currently 2 days 

per week), Leadbetter Point/ 

Stanley Point (currently 7 days 

per week), Porter Point (currently 

3 days per/week), 2,894 acres 

available 

All areas of the Refuge 

(excluding the Presidential 

Proclamation Boundary and 

Tarlatt Slough) open in 

accordance with state season, 

6058 acres available 

Limited expansion of 

hunting on South Bay 

and regulated goose 

hunting on Riekkola 

Unit, 5450 acres 

available 

Big game 

hunting 

(archery only 

on long island) 

Long Island and mainland portion 

of the Refuge (excluding 

Headquarters) open 

Same as Alternative 1 plus 

expand elk and deer hunting in 

South Bay and permit-only elk 

hunt on Leadbetter Point Unit 

Same as Alternative 1 

plus limited elk and deer 

hunting in South Bay 

and regulated elk hunt on 

Leadbetter Point. 

Fishing Maintain refuge portion of 

Willapa Bay and channel portion 

of Bear River open for fishing 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Environmental 

education and 

Interpretation 

Maintain current program 

providing on- and off-site 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs 

Same as Alternative 1 with 

increased on-site environmental 

education program with addition 

of new visitor facility 

Same as Alternative 1 

Camping Maintain five campgrounds with 

21 campsites on Long Island 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Visitor/administrative and 

maintenance 

facility 

Maintain current site and existing 

facilities 

Construct new 

office/maintenance and visitor 

facility at Tarlatt Unit 

Same as Alternative 2 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural 

resource 

protection 

Protect cultural resource sites 

through best management 

practices 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Refuge Boundary Expansion 

North Bay Maintain ownership of Cape 

Shoalwater and Wheaton units 

Divest property Cape Shoalwater 

and Wheaton units 

Same as Alternative 2 

Nemah-Naselle No expansion of refuge 

acquisition boundary 

Proposed expansion 1,909 acres Same as Alternative 2 

East Hills No expansion of refuge 

acquisition boundary 

Proposed expansion 4,334 acres Same as Alternative 2 

South Bay No expansion of refuge 

acquisition boundary 

Proposed expansion 561 acres Same as Alternative 2 
2-60 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Map 2. Land Status—Alternative 1 

! !

! !

WASHINGTON

£¤101

ColumbiaRiver

Pacific Ocean

?y Willapa

Bay

WILLAPA

NWR

?w

AÅ

+p A¥

AÃ

WHEATON UNIT

£¤30

UV409

South Bend

Raymond

Naselle

Long Beach

VICINITY MAP

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

AÅ

Kt

Kt

Kt

?w

?y

AÃ

Stackpole Rd

AÃ

Joe Johns Rd

227th Pl

Bay Ave 

Cranberry Rd

Pioneer Rd

Shoalwater Unit

Leadbetter Point Unit

Long Island Unit

South Bay Units

East Hills Units

Willapa Bay

Naselle River

Willapa River

Pal ix Ri ver

Stanley Point

North Potshot

Potshot

Long Beach

Naselle

Raymond

South Bend

Tokeland

Land Status

Approved Refuge Boundary

Fee Title

Easement

Inholding

Public Land Survey

Township/Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to 3/2010; Roads from ESRI; Elevation from USGS; Imagery from 7/1/2001 Landsat

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

T15N

T14N

T14N

T13N

T12N

T11N

T11N

T10N

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

?y

Wheaton Unit

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

T14N

T13N

R8W R7W

R8W R7W

T14N

T13N

0 4 Miles

0 4 Kilometers Miles 10 0 10

Legend

GIS Acreage

Current Willapa NWR Approved Boundary 16408.247

Shoalwater Unit

Fee Title 808.107

Leadbetter Point Unit

Fee Title 1741.857

Long Island Unit

Fee Title 5451.804

Easement 1069.382

Inholding 16.833

South Bay Units (including South Bay, Tarlatt, 

Riekkola, Porter Point, and Lewis Units)

Fee Title 4289.815

Easement 64.762

Inholding 381.546

East Hills Units (including Teal Slough, 

Headquarters, and Bear River Units) and Potshot 

Tidelands

Fee Title 1834.684

Easement 387.04

Inholding 362.717

Wheaton Unit

Fee Title 132.588

Current Willapa NWR Acreages
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-61 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Map 3. Land Status—Alternative 2 

! !

! !

WASHINGTON

£¤101

ColumbiaRiver

Pacific Ocean

?y Willapa

Bay

WILLAPA

NWR

?w

AÅ

+p A¥

AÃ

WHEATON UNIT

£¤30

UV409

South Bend

Raymond

Naselle

Long Beach

VICINITY MAP

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

AÅ

Kt

Kt

Kt

?w

?y

AÃ

Stackpole Rd

AÃ

Joe Johns Rd

227th Pl

Bay Ave 

Cranberry Rd

Pioneer Rd

Shoalwater Unit

Leadbetter Point Unit

Long Island Unit

South Bay Units

East Hills Units

Willapa Bay

Naselle River

Willapa River

Pal ix Ri ver

Stanley Point

North Potshot

Potshot

Proposed Nemah/Naselle Area

Proposed East Hills Area

Proposed South Bay Area

Long Beach Naselle

Raymond

South Bend

Tokeland

Land Status

Approved Refuge Boundary

Fee Title

Easement

Inholding

Refuge Boundary Changes

Areas Considered for Refuge

Boundary Expansion

Areas Considered for Refuge

Boundary Deletion

Public Land Survey

Township/Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to 3/2010; Roads from ESRI; Elevation from USGS; Imagery from 7/1/2001 Landsat

?y

Wheaton Unit

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

T15N

T14N

T14N

T13N

T12N

T11N

T11N

T10N

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

T14N

T13N

R8W R7W

R8W R7W

T14N

T13N

0 4 Kilometers

0 4 Miles

Miles 10 0 10

Legend

GIS Acreage

Conceptual Willapa NWR Approved Boundary 22404.933

Leadbetter Point Unit

Fee Title 1741.857

Long Island Unit

Fee Title 5451.804

Easement 1069.382

Inholding 16.833

South Bay Units (including South Bay, Tarlatt, 

Riekkola, Porter Point, and Lewis Units)

Fee Title 4289.815

Easement 64.762

Inholding 381.546

East Hills Units (including Teal Slough, 

Headquarters, and Bear River Units) and Potshot 

Tidelands

Fee Title 1834.684

Easement 387.04

Inholding 362.717

Nemah/Naselle

Private Non-profit Conservation Organization 292.403

Other Private Ownership 1616.570

TOTAL 1908.973

South Bay

Local Government 12.514

Private Ownership 548.765

TOTAL 561.279

East Hills

State of Washington 658.099

Private Non-profit Conservation Organization 2117.207

Other Private Ownership 1558.936

TOTAL 4334.241

Shoalwater Unit

Fee Title 808.107

Wheaton Unit

Fee Title 132.588

Refuge Boundary Deletion

Refuge Boundary Changes - Alternative 2

Refuge Boundary Expansion
2-62 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-63 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Map 4. Land Status—Alternative 3 

! !

! !

WASHINGTON

£¤101

ColumbiaRiver

Pacific Ocean

?y Willapa

Bay

WILLAPA

NWR

?w

AÅ

+p A¥

AÃ

WHEATON UNIT

£¤30

UV409

South Bend

Raymond

Naselle

Long Beach

VICINITY MAP

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

AÅ

Kt

Kt

Kt

?w

?y

AÃ

Stackpole Rd

AÃ

Joe Johns Rd

227th Pl

Bay Ave 

Cranberry Rd

Pioneer Rd

Shoalwater Unit

Leadbetter Point Unit

Long Island Unit

South Bay Units

East Hills Units

Willapa Bay

Naselle River

Willapa River

Pal ix Ri ver

Stanley Point

North Potshot

Potshot

Proposed East Hills Area

Proposed South Bay Area

Long Beach Naselle

Raymond

South Bend

Tokeland

Land Status

Approved Refuge Boundary

Fee Title

Easement

Inholding

Refuge Boundary Changes

Areas Considered for Refuge

Boundary Expansion

Areas Considered for Refuge

Boundary Deletion

Public Land Survey

Township/Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to 3/2010; Roads from ESRI; Elevation from USGS; Imagery from 7/1/2001 Landsat

?y

Wheaton Unit

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

T15N

T14N

T14N

T13N

T12N

T11N

T11N

T10N

R11W R10W R10W R9W R9W R8W

T14N

T13N

R8W R7W

R8W R7W

T14N

T13N

0 4 Kilometers

0 4 Miles

Miles 10 0 10

Legend

GIS Acreage

Conceptual Willapa NWR Approved Boundary 20495.960

Leadbetter Point Unit

Fee Title 1741.857

Long Island Unit

Fee Title 5451.804

Easement 1069.382

Inholding 16.833

South Bay Units (including South Bay, Tarlatt, 

Riekkola, Porter Point, and Lewis Units)

Fee Title 4289.815

Easement 64.762

Inholding 381.546

East Hills Units (including Teal Slough, 

Headquarters, and Bear River Units) and Potshot 

Tidelands

Fee Title 1834.684

Easement 387.04

Inholding 362.717

South Bay

Local Government 12.514

Private Ownership 548.765

TOTAL 561.279

East Hills

State of Washington 658.099

Private Non-profit Conservation Organization 2117.207

Other Private Ownership 1558.936

TOTAL 4334.241

Shoalwater Unit

Fee Title 808.107

Wheaton Unit

Fee Title 132.588

Refuge Boundary Deletion

Refuge Boundary Changes - Alternative 3

Refuge Boundary Expansion
2-64 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability.
105

Leadbetter Point Unit

Shoalwater Unit

 

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit Tarlatt Unit (North)

Riekkola Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

101

101

pk cat S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

2 27 th Pl

103

Refuge B

Ref

(Fee 

Water Ma

Wat

Tide 

Culv

Fish 

Dike

Forest H

Sitk

Late

Sitk

Estuarine 

Wet

Mar

Inte

Ope

Freshwa

Wet

Wet

Rive

Coastal H

Veg

Unv

Upland F

Upl

Sho

Develope

Roa

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Hydrology from NHD USGS; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

1 2

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

Common to all alternatives:

-All Sitka Spruce Zone Forest managed to

 late-successional stage.

-Invasive species removal in all units

-Intergrated Pest Management in all units

Legen

Map 5. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats - Alternative 1

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-65
2-66 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Map 6. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats - Alternative 2

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-67

105

Leadbetter Point Unit

Shoalwater Unit

 

Experimental habitat host plant

Seasonal avian and mammalian

predator management, including

hazing and lethal control

plots and reintroduction of

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit Tarlatt Unit (North)

Riekkola Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

101

101

pk cat S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

2 27 th Pl

Experimental habitat host plant

plots and reintroduction of

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

103

Refuge B

Ref

(Fee 

Water Ma

Wat

Tide 

Culv

Fish 

Dike

Forest H

Sitk

Late

Sitk

Estuarine 

Wet

Mar

Inte

Ope

Freshwa

Wet

Wet

Rive

Coastal H

Veg

Unv

Upland F

Upl

Sho

Develope

Roa

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Hydrology from NHD USGS; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

1 2

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

Common to all alternatives:

-All Sitka Spruce Zone Forest managed to

 late-successional stage.

-Invasive species removal in all units

-Intergrated Pest Management in all units

Legen
2-68 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
105

Leadbetter Point Unit

Shoalwater Unit

 

Experimental habitat host plant

Seasonal corvid management,

including hazing and lethal control

plots and reintroduction of

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit Tarlatt Unit (North)

Riekkola Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

101

101

pk cat S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

2 27 th Pl

Experimental habitat host plant

plots and reintroduction of

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

103

Refuge B

Refu

(Fee T

Water Ma

Wate

Tide 

Culv

Fish 

Dike

Forest H

Sitka 

Late

Sitka 

Estuarine 

Wetl

Mars

Inter

Ope

Freshwa

Wetl

Wetl

Rive

Coastal H

Vege

Unve

Upland F

Upla

Sho

Develope

Road

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Hydrology from NHD USGS; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

1 2

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

Common to all alternatives:

-All Sitka Spruce Zone Forest managed to

 late-successional stage.

-Invasive species removal in all units

-Intergrated Pest Management in all units

Legen

Map 7. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Habitats - Alternative 3

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-69
2-70 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Shoalwater Unit 

Leadbetter Point Unit

Viewing

Platform

105

Beach Trail

(0.5 Miles)

Weath er B each Trail

(0.9 Miles)

Bay Loop Trail

(1.2 Miles)

Bearberry Trail (1.3 Miles)

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit

Riekkola Unit

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Tarlatt Unit (North)

2 27 th Pl

pkc at S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

103

101

Lewis Campground

3 campsites

Sand Spit Campground

3 campsites

Sawlog Campground

6 campsites

Smoky Hollow Campground

4 campsites

Pinnacle Rock Campground

5 campsites

Don Bonker 

Cedar Grove Trail

(1.0 Miles)

101

Car Top Boat 

and Foot Access

to Porter Point

Riekkola Parking Lot

Refuge Headquarters

Teal Slough Trail 

(0.26 Miles)

Tarlatt Slough

Photo Blind

Equipment Shop

Equipment Building

and Shop

Quarters 88 House and Barn

Salmon Art/Cutthroat Climb Trails

(0.79 Miles)

Legen

Refuge B

Refu

(Fee T

Proc

Public U

Head

Refu

Bath

Park

Boat 

Cam

Wild

Inter

Inter

Wild

Hun

Trail

Hunting 

Deer 

All St

Wate

All St

Arch

bear

Refug

Reg

Refug

Refu

clos

Area

1 2

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers 

Fishing is permitted from the shores of Willapa

Bay. Fishing is not permitted on refuge streams

or interior sloughs.

Map 8. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status - Alternative 1

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-71
2-72 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Shoalwater Unit 

Leadbetter Point Unit

Viewing

Platform

105

Beach Trail

(0.5 Miles)

Weath er B each Trail

(0.9 Miles)

Bay Loop Trail

(1.2 Miles)

Bearberry Trail (1.3 Miles)

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit

Riekkola Unit

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Tarlatt Unit (North)

2 27 th Pl

pkc at S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

103

101

Lewis Campground

3 campsites

Sand Spit Campground

3 campsites

Sawlog Campground

6 campsites

Smoky Hollow Campground

4 campsites

Pinnacle Rock Campground

5 campsites

Don Bonker 

Cedar Grove Trail

(1.0 Miles)

101

Teal Slough Trail 

(0.26 Miles)

New Refuge Headquarters

and Visitor Center

Tarlatt Slough

Photo Blind

New South Bay Wildlife

Observation Deck

Car Top Boat Access

at Doman Creek New Interpretive Trail

Relocate Refuge Headquarters

to Tarlatt Unit Equipment Shop

Quarters 88 House and Barn

Salmon Art/Cutthroat Climb Trails

(0.79 Miles)

Refuge B

Ref

(Fee 

Pro

Public Us

Hea

Ref

Bat

Par

Boa

Cam

Wild

Inte

Inte

Wild

Trai

Hunting 

Dee

All S

Wat

All S

Reg

Refu

Arc

blac

Refu

Ref

clos

Are

1 2

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers 

Fishing is permitted from the shores of Willapa

Bay. Fishing is not permitted on refuge streams

or interior sloughs.

Legen

Map 9. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status - Alternative 2

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-73
2-74 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Shoalwater Unit 

Leadbetter Point Unit

Viewing

Platform

105

Beach Trail

(0.5 Miles)

Weath er B each Trail

(0.9 Miles)

Bay Loop Trail

(1.2 Miles)

Bearberry Trail (1.3 Miles)

Pacific Ocean

WILL

NW

Lo

Stanley Point Tidelands

North Potshot Tidelands

Long Island Unit

Potshot Tidelands

Teal Slough Unit

Headquarters Unit

Porter Point Unit

Riekkola Unit

Lewis Unit

Bear River Unit

Tarlatt Unit (South)

Tarlatt Unit (North)

2 27 th Pl

pkc at S a o R el o d

C ranbe rry Road

Pione er Road

103

101

Lewis Campground

3 campsites

Sand Spit Campground

3 campsites

Sawlog Campground

6 campsites

Smoky Hollow Campground

4 campsites

Pinnacle Rock Campground

5 campsites

Don Bonker 

Cedar Grove Trail

(1.0 Miles)

101

Car Top Boat 

and Foot Access

to Porter Point

Riekkola Parking Lot

Teal Slough Trail 

(0.26 Miles)

Tarlatt Slough

Photo Blind

Equipment Shop

Equipment Building

and Shop

Quarters 88 House and Barn

Salmon Art/Cutthroat Climb Trails

(0.79 Miles)

New Refuge Headquarters

and Visitor Center

New South Bay Wildlife

Observation Deck

New Interpretive Trail

Relocate Refuge Headquarters

to Tarlatt Unit

Refuge B

Refu

(Fee 

Proc

Public Us

Hea

Refu

Bath

Park

Boa

Cam

Wild

Inte

Inte

Wild

Hun

Trai

Hunting 

Dee

All S

Wat

All S

Reg

Refu

Arch

blac

Refu

Reg

Refu

Refu

clos

Area

1 2

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery fom 07/01/2001 Landsat

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers 

Fishing is permitted from the shores of Willapa

Bay. Fishing is not permitted on refuge streams

or interior sloughs.

Legen

Map 10. Public Use Facilities and Hunting Status - Alternative 3

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-75
2-76 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Chapter 3

Physical

Environment

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Long Island and Willapa Bay

USFWS
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Introduction 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is located along U.S. Highway 101 extending from the 

Naselle River to Bear River and westward to Tarlatt Slough and areas north to Leadbetter Point 

and the Shoalwater Bay units. The Refuge encompasses approximately 16,000 acres in the 

approved refuge boundary, which includes the Presidential Proclamation Boundary waters in the 

south Willapa Bay area. 

3.2 Climate 

The Refuge has a mild marine climate characterized by moderate temperatures, high humidity, 

copious rainfall, and breezy winds. Temperature, wind, and snow fall representative of most of 

the Refuge have been historically measured at the U.S. Weather Station at North Head, 

Washington, about 14 miles southeast of the Refuge. Other historical climatic parameters, such 

as humidity and hourly wind, are measured at the Astoria Airport in Oregon. 

Area temperatures are mild. The average annual temperature in areas surrounding Willapa Bay 

is 51 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The annual average maximum and minimum temperatures for the 

Long Beach area from 1967 to 2000 were 57.8°F and 47.8°F respectively. Annual precipitation 

on the Refuge ranges from 80 to 115 inches and occurs mostly as rain in the winter. 

Thunderstorms over the area’s lower elevations occur on four to eight days each year and over 

the mountains on seven to 15 days. Damaging hailstorms rarely occur. 

Precipitation can be extreme at Willapa Bay. During the driest months of July and August, it is 

not unusual for two to four weeks to pass with only a few showers. In the wettest months of 

December and January, precipitation is frequently recorded on 20 to 25 days or more each 

month. The average annual total precipitation for the Long Beach area from 1967 to 2000 was 

82.18 inches. June, July, and August were the driest months in the period 1967 to 2000. The 

monthly average precipitation for the Long Beach area from 1967 to 2000 was 3.01 inches in 

June, 1.61 inches in July, and 1.78 inches in August. Periodic dry weather conditions in the fall 

typically prompt a temporary fire ban to be issued by Pacific County each fall that lasts about 

four to eight weeks. During the winter, rainfall is usually of light to moderate intensity and 

continuous over a period of time rather than heavy downpours for brief periods. Thunderstorms 

are unusual but occur periodically each year in summer. Fog and drizzle occur year round and 

often from October through June, particularly on the Long Beach Peninsula. Snowfall occurs 

almost yearly with an average of 1.6 inches annually. 

Onshore westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean are predominant year round at Willapa Bay. The 

average annual wind speed at the airport in Astoria, Oregon is 7.9 miles per hour (mph). Average 

monthly wind speeds in Astoria range from 6.8 mph in October to 9.1 mph in December. The 

prevailing wind direction in summer is northwest and in winter southwest and west. Drier east 

and southeasterly winds are uncommon but occur periodically each year and are often strong. 

Strong winds usually accompany annual winter storms, which can result in winds of 40 to 90 

mph, with gusts from 65 to over 100 mph. Winter storms often have sustained winds of 40 to 65 

mph and gusts that exceed 65 mph. Hurricane force winds (>74 mph) are experienced almost 

annually and occasionally produce a recognized hurricane. A hurricane with 120 mph winds 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

occurred on October 12, 1962 and a 100 mph wind storm on November 25 of the same year, 

resulted in approximately 1 million board feet of timber downed on Long Island (USFWS 

2003b). 

3.3 Climate Change 

A growing body of scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating that the world climate is 

changing and that changes in atmospheric composition due to human activity are the drivers for 

global warming (Bierbaum et al. 2007; IPCC 2007). Average annual air temperatures on the 

earth’s surface have increased by 1.3°F since the mid-nineteenth century. Furthermore, the 

increasing trend in global temperatures over the last 50 years is approximately twice the trend of 

the previous 50 years. Globally, 11 of 12 years from 1995 to 2006 surface temperatures are the 

warmest on record since 1850 (IPCC 2007). 

The global climate system, in turn, controls regional and local-scale climate conditions within 

the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon). Projected impacts to the region encompassing 

the Refuge include changes in seasonal temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather events, 

oceanic conditions, and sea level rise. 

3.3.1 Projected Temperature Changes 

Since 1920, the annual average temperature in the Pacific Northwest has risen 1.5°F (UWCIG 

2009). Further, all of the climate change models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) indicates that the future climate would be 

warmer than in the past and that the warming rates in the twenty-first century would be greater 

than those observed in the twentieth century. Averaged across 20 different climate models, the 

annual average temperature within the Pacific Northwest is projected to increase 2.0°F (range of 

projections from all models: +1.1°F to +3.3°F) by the 2020s, 3.2°F (range: +1.5°F to +5.2°F) 

by the 2040s, and 5.3°F (range: +2.8°F to +9.7°F) by the 2080s, compared with the average 

from 1970 to 1999. The rates of warming range from 0.2° F to 1.0°F per decade. Warming is 

expected to occur during all seasons with most models projecting the largest temperature 

increases in summer (Mote and Salanthe 2009). 

3.3.2 Projected Precipitation Changes 

Projected changes in annual precipitation vary considerably between climate change models and 

therefore are less certain than projected temperature changes (Salanthe et al. 2009). The range of 

models analyzed by University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (2009) project average 

annual precipitation increases within the Pacific Northwest of 1.3% (range of projections from 

all models: -9% to 12%) by the 2020s, 2.3% (range: -11% to 12%) by the 2040s, and 3.8% 

(range: -10% to 20%) by the 2080s, compared with the average from 1970 to 1999. Studies of 

twentieth-century climate variability suggest, however, that the relatively small trends in 

precipitation projected with climate change may be less than the range of precipitation associated 

with natural decadal-scale variability (Hamlet et al. 2005; Mote 2003). 

Some climate change models show large seasonal changes, especially toward wetter autumns and 

winters and drier summers. Both global and regional climate change models project increases in 

extreme high precipitation in western Washington (Salanthe et al. 2009). Additionally, projected 

temperature increases for the coming century are expected to increase the proportion of winter 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

precipitation falling as rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce snowpack, 

increase winter stream flow, result in earlier peak stream flow, and decrease late spring and 

summer stream flows (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999; Hamlet et al. 2007; Mote et al. 2003; Mote 

et al. 2005; Payne et al. 2004; Tague et al. 2008 cited in Lawler et al. 2008). 

3.3.3 Projected Change in El Niño/La Niña Events 

A seasonal change in the Pacific Ocean circulation brings the effects of the phenomenon known 

as El Niño to a wide region including the Pacific Northwest. A periodic weakening of the trade 

winds in the central and western Pacific, often occurring in December, allows warm water to 

invade the eastern Pacific. This seasonal change in the wind and ocean circulation can have 

global impacts to weather events. During an El Niño event, the winters of the Pacific Northwest 

tend to be warmer than usual. An El Niño cycle may be followed by a La Niña event, 

characterized by a cooler than normal ocean temperature. Likewise, La Niña also can have 

significant impacts on global weather. Within the Pacific Northwest, a La Niña brings cooler 

than normal winters. Collectively, this cycle is known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation 

(ENSO) (Conlan and Service 2000; Newton et al. 2003; Pidwirny 2006). The shift between the 

two conditions of the ENSO cycle takes about four years (Conlan and Service 2000). 

El Niño events are not caused by global climate change; however, global warming trends may 

exacerbate the impacts of these events. To address the relationship between El Niño and global 

warming, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2007) summarizes data 

from the IPCC’s 2001 climate change report, a 2001 report from the National Research Council, 

and the NOAA National Climatic Data Center’s own data as follows: 

Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El 

Niños have been present for hundreds, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of 

years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures 

can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more 

frequent and intense in recent decades. Recent climate model results that simulate the 

twenty-first century with increased greenhouse gases suggest that El Niño-like sea 

surface temperature patterns in the tropical Pacific are likely to be more persistent. 

3.3.4 Projected Change in Coastal Water Properties 

Coastal sea surface temperature helps determine the biological and physical conditions of the 

marine environment and estuaries of the Pacific Northwest. Climate models project warming in 

summer sea surface temperatures for the 2040s on the order of 2.2°F. This change is somewhat 

less than the warming projected in the 2040s for land areas (3.5°F) but is significant relative to 

the small inter-annual variability of the ocean (Mote and Salanthe 2009). 

How global climate change would influence the ocean currents and coastal upwelling (affecting 

the nearshore and offshore environments adjacent to Willapa Bay) is unknown. However, 

current climate model simulations indicate little change in coastal upwelling in any of the major 

regions of upwelling (Mote and Mantua 2002; Mote and Salanthe 2009). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.3.5 Sea Level Rise 

Sea level rise on the Washington coast and inland marine waters of the state is the result of four 

major forces: global mean sea level rise driven by the thermal expansion of the ocean, global 

mean sea level rise driven by the melting of land-based ice, local dynamical sea level rise driven 

by changes in wind which pushes coastal waters toward or away from shore, and localized 

vertical land movements driven primarily by tectonic forces (Mote et al. 2008). Mean sea level 

is defined as the average sea level over a 19-year period, about which other fluctuations (e.g., 

tides, storm surges, etc.) occur (Smerling et al. 2005). Global mean sea level rise has been in the 

range of 1.3 to 2.3 millimeters per year (mm/yr) between 1961 and 2003 (IPCC 2007). This 

global impact is primarily the result of general thermal expansion of the oceans (as warming 

occurs, the water volume expands) and ice field and glacier melt-off (Warrick and Oerlemans 

1990 as cited in Canning 2001). In addition, vertical land movements are occurring as the North 

American plate and the off-shore Juan de Fuca plate collide. Uplift occurs along the Washington 

coast while subsidence occurs off-shore. 

Based on monthly mean sea level data from 1973 to 2000, the linear mean sea level trend at Toke 

Point (North Willapa Bay) is +2.82 ±1.05 mm/yr (Mote et al. 2008). Estimates for sea level rise 

for central and southern Washington coast by 2050 range from 1 inch under the “very low” 

scenario to 5 inches under the “medium” scenario to 18 inches under the “very high” scenario. 

By 2100, estimates for sea level rise range from 2 inches under the “very low” scenario to 11 

inches under the “medium” scenario to 43 inches under the “very high” scenario. Both the “very 

low” and “very high” scenarios are considered low probability (Mote et al. 2008). 

3.3.6 Potential Changes to the Refuge Due to Climate Change 

The climate-induced changes to physical systems are anticipated to have cascading effects on the 

ecological systems and habitats of Willapa Bay. For example, wetland habitats within the 

Refuge would be threatened by altered spatial and temporal patterns of temperature and 

precipitation, increased tidal inundation, and salt water intrusion. The Sea Level Affecting 

Marshes Model, Version 5.0 (SLAMM 5.0) was run along the Pacific Coast from Willapa Bay 

through the Columbia River delta to just south of Tillamook Bay in northwest Oregon in order to 

simulate the dominant processes involved in wetland conversion and shoreline modification 

under long-term sea-level rise. 

The model assumes that global average sea level increases could increase by an average of 0.28 

meters (11.2 inches) by 2050 and by 0.69 meters (27.3 inches) by 2100. Some of the potential 

habitat losses that could occur by 2100 within this region under a conservative estimate of sea 

level rise follow (Glick et al. 2007). 

This region is predicted to lose at least 5,000 hectares (12,355 acres) of dry land. 

 There is likely to be extensive loss of tidal flat and area beaches, especially at higher rates 

of sea level rise. 

 Inland and tidal fresh marsh would be fairly vulnerable at this site to saltwater 

inundation. By 2100, the site could lose 32% of brackish marsh, 31% of tidal swamp, 

47% of estuarine beach, and 63% of tidal flats. 

Since a significant proportion of the Refuge consists of wetlands, a rise in water levels could 

impact the management of the Refuge and the type of species and numbers of wildlife that 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

inhabit the area. Additionally, refuge shorelines and spits are anticipated to be adversely affected 

by climate change. Likely effects due to sea level rise and other factors include increased 

inundation, erosion, and overwash during storm events, leading to losses of shoreline habitats 

(Huppert et al. 2009; Mote et al. 2008). Additionally, climate-driven changes in ocean currents, 

sea temperatures, salinity, and the timing of resource availability have the potential to affect 

intertidal communities (Menge et al. 2008) and eelgrass beds (Snover et al. 2005). 

For the forests occurring on Long Island and the East Hills, the responses to climate change 

would vary according to local topography, forest type, soil moisture, productivity rates, species 

distribution and competition, and disturbance regimes. However, based on the projected changes 

in the spatial and temporal patterns of temperature and precipitation associated with climate 

change, some general patterns affecting large-scale processes can be described (adapted from 

Aldous et al. 2007): 

 Species distributions are likely to change. Cool coniferous forests in the western part of 

the Pacific Northwest would contract and be replaced by mixed temperate forests over 

substantial areas (Mote et al. 2003). Douglas fir appears relatively sensitive to low soil 

moisture, especially on drier sites (Case 2004; Hessl and Peterson 2004; Holman 2004 

citations in UWCIG 2004). 

 Increasing temperature would generally increase forest fire frequency and extent. 

 Higher temperatures would increase rates of evapotranspiration, leading to greater water 

losses from forests. 

 The change in seasonality of precipitation could lead to a drier growing season, 

increasing water stress. 

 Warmer temperatures could lead to a change in the timing of reproduction, which may 

lead to asynchronies between flowering and pollinator activity, fruit ripening, and 

foraging by fruit-consumers or predator behavior by pest-eating species. 

 An increase in extreme weather events (e.g., wind storms) could change the frequency of 

disturbance, leading to a shift to forests that are younger and species that are more fastgrowing, short-lived, and disturbance-tolerant. 

 Warmer temperatures could increase development of insect and other pathogen 

outbreaks, as well as extend their growing season, potentially leading to an increase in the 

frequency and extent of outbreaks. 

 Some tree species may experience an increase in productivity if carbon dioxide acts as a 

fertilizer and allows trees to increase their water use efficiency. However, this increased 

productivity, coupled with warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, and prolonged 

drought, may also increase fire frequency and severity. 

Numerous other changes to the Refuge’s habitat and wildlife would likely result from increases 

in ambient temperature and precipitation over the next 50 to 100 years. However, until a more 

detailed analysis of the effects of global climate change can be completed on specific refuge 

units, more generalized modeling would continue to be used to assess how and what the Refuge 

should do to prepare for upcoming changes to the natural environment. While this CCP covers a 

15-year time span, it is clear that for the Refuge to adequately plan for climate change, staff 

would have to look further into the future. During the 15-year time span of this CCP, the Refuge 

would begin a focused effort to plan on how best to address climate change effects in the Willapa 

Bay estuary. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.4 Geology and Topography 

The areas covered by this plan each have distinct geological, topographic, and soil 

characteristics. Elevations on the Refuge range from sea level on Willapa Bay up to 1,715 feet at 

the highest point along the Bear River Ridge within the coastal hills area. 

3.4.1 Willapa Hills 

The Willapa hills have a rounded topography and the landscape is dissected with deep drainage 

ravines. The Refuge portion of the coastal hills includes the Bear River, Headquarters, and Teal 

Slough units. Approximately 1,700 acres of the current refuge boundary are included in the 

Willapa hills. 

This area of Pacific County and the Refuge is made up of marine sedimentary rock from the late 

Eocene through early Miocene (60 to 20 million year old), which underlies most of this zone and 

consists of thin-bedded, laminated tuffaceous siltstones and lesser amounts of sandstone (Wells 

1989). Middle Miocene intrusions of basalt also exist and are much more resistant to the forces 

of weathering than the surrounding sedimentary rocks. This contrast in rock hardness has 

resulted in the development of locally steeper slopes and higher relief and can be found on the 

Bear River Ridge (Wells 1989). 

Due to the lack of glaciation over the last two million years, soils and exposed bedrock are 

highly weathered. Thick soils have developed on the stable upland surfaces and the slopes range 

from a very gentle grade to very steep rocky cliffs. 

Three major geologic formations exist in this area: Lincoln Creek, Grand Ronde, and Shoalwater 

Bay. Each formation has corresponding observable geomorphic features. 

The Lincoln Creek formation consists of steep, dissected hill slopes west of the Bear River Ridge 

divide and west of Ellsworth Creek (Wegmann 2004) where the soils are primarily from the Palix 

and Narel Series. These deep, well-drained soils were generally formed in mixed slope deposits, 

which are derived from sandstone and siltstone consisting of silt loams and silty clay loams with 

10-30% pebble-sized rock fragments. Partly consolidated sandstone ranges in depth from 40 to 

60 inches and water moves readily through these soils. 

The Grand Ronde Basalt formation contains steep ridges and cliffs, which are found on the Bear 

River Ridge and are associated with the Columbia River basalt flows. The soils in this area are 

highly weathered basalts from the Vesta series on ridge tops and the Knappton series on side 

slopes. These deep, well-drained soils consist of silt loams and are gravelly with silt clay loams 

with 0-30% pebble sized rock fragments. Weathered fractured basalt ranges in depth from 40 to 

60 inches, and water moves readily through these soils. 

The Shoalwater Bay formation consists of moderately to low dissected hill slopes and bluffs west 

and north of Bear River Ridge that slope gently toward Willapa Bay. Soils are weathered 

sandstones and siltstones from the Palix, Illwaco, Leban, and Treham series, with some 

intrusions of Knappton soils. The Illwaco and Leban series are similar to the Palix series, while 

the Treham series is similar to Knappton. Intrusions of basalt, with more recent estuarine 

deposits mixed in, make for a very complex geology. 

All of the soils in the Willapa hills of the SWBCA are fine-textured soils, which, in combination 

with the abundant rainfall, give the area excellent soil productivity. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

The combination of steep slopes, bedrock types, and significant precipitation makes this area of 

the coastal hills very susceptible to landslides. While most landslides have been shallow rapid 

slides or debris flows, there have been some deep seated landslides that affect much larger areas 

and consist of poorly sorted colluvium and bedrock slump blocks. In general, Wegmann’s 

(2004) analysis found that forestry activities have greatly hastened landslide activity and roughly 

85% of the 319 landslides since 1958 were related to forestry activities within this region of 

Willapa Bay. 

3.4.2 Long Island Unit 

Long Island is considered its own watershed unit; the island is approximately 6,000 acres in size 

and is located in the southern portion of Willapa Bay. 

Long Island and other areas (Leadbetter Point) bordering Willapa Bay are composed of estuarine 

terraces and alluvial deposits that are generally flat to gently sloped (Wells 1989). They consist 

of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated mud and silt, layered with sand lenses. Terrace surfaces 

occur up to 260 feet above sea level on the approximately 6,000-acre island. 

The marine terraces consist of uplifted and wave cut terraces of highly stratified Willapa Bay 

estuarine sediments that were laid down over the last two million years, as sea levels fluctuated. 

These terraces occur on Long Island and parts of the mainland shoreline areas and often overlay 

older, consolidated sandstone that can be seen on Long Island cliffs. Basalt intrusions are also 

present. Due to rapid weathering, the geological history here is not well known. 

In estuaries, floodplains, and the low terraces of the major streams entering Willapa Bay, soils 

are derived from recent alluvial sediments. Soils from the Ocosta series are the most prevalent 

(Pringle 1986). These very deep, poorly drained soils occur in floodplains and the deltas of 

coastal bays and consist of silty clay loam and silty clay. The Aabab series occurs in terraces 

along streams and is a silt loam. The small area of the Refuge on Leadbetter Point consists of 

former sand dunes where soils are from the Netarts and Yaquina series (Pringle 1986). 

Soil productivity of marine terrace areas tends to be a little lower than in the coastal hills, but is 

still quite high as compared to most soil types. Risk of landslides is generally low, except on 

steep slopes along the edge of the Willapa Bay estuary, which have a history of land sliding in 

response to forest management activities. Both shallow-rapid and small deep-seated failures 

have occurred here on the slopes averaging 34%, indicating a lower slope threshold for landslide 

risk than in the coastal hills (Wegmann 2004). 

3.5 Hydrology and Bathymetry 

Estuaries are most commonly defined as semi-enclosed coastal bodies of water having a free 

connection with the open sea and within which seawater is diluted measurably by freshwater 

from land drainage (Litle and Parish 2003). 

As a transition zone between fresh water and marine ecosystems, estuaries are highly productive 

areas that offer habitat of special importance to the early life stages of the many marine animals. 

Estuaries are categorized according to their physical shape and the forces that created them. 

Oceanographers describe Willapa Bay as a coastal plain or a “drowned river” estuary, the type 

most common along the west coast of North America. Drowned river estuaries are remnant river 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

mouths submerged by sea level rise within the past 10,000 years (Little and Parish 2003). 

Bordered by the Long Beach Peninsula, a large bar formed from the Columbia River sediments, 

Willapa Bay’s estuary also has some of the features of a bar built estuary. 

The Willapa Bay and its surrounding basin lie in a region of cool, dry summers. The moderate 

winters are often accompanied by heavy rainfall with occasional snowfall in the lowlands. 

Annual precipitation on the beach ranges from 165 to 216 cm (65-85 inches), while areas in the 

Willapa Hills receive 254 cm or 100 inches per year. Mean annual runoff ranges from 127 cm 

(50 inches) in the west and north to about 305cm (120 inches) in the upper Naselle River Basin. 

Mean annual runoff for the entire basin is estimated to be 173 cm (68 inches) or 3,400,000 acrefeet per year. There are often winter floods of short duration and the mean maximum discharge 

at the mouth of the Willapa Bay is 1,600,000 cubic feet per second. Mean daily runoff, however, 

is estimated to be about 0.004% of the total volume of the bay. 

The tidal range in Willapa Bay is 4 to 5 m (14 to 16 feet). In some parts of the bay, there are 

strong rip tides and the incoming tide rises over the extensive tidal flats at an extremely fast 

speed. The volume of the Bay at mean higher high water is 56,585,900 cubic feet; the volume at 

mean lower low is 31,169,000 cubic feet. The difference, 25,416,900 cubic feet, is considered to 

be the tidal prism, which, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District 

(1975:20), “means that approximately 45 percent of the water in the Bay is emptied into the 

Pacific Ocean on a tidal cycle from M.H.H.W. to M.L.L.W.” This seems to suggest that there is 

only one tide per day, which is not the case; the mixed semi-diurnal tides of the Pacific coast 

waters result in a discrepancy in the tidal prism volume (i.e., successive tidal prisms are 

consistently unequal in volume). 

There are other factors that inhibit or change the tidal exchange in an estuary of the size of 

Willapa Bay, and the flushing rate (or residence time) remains to be determined, as indicated in 

the following: 

While it might appear that the large prism would bring about a fast turnover of the Bay 

water, this is not always the case. Conditions on the ocean determine how much of the 

water exiting the Bay will return on the next incoming tide. In the summer, strong 

northwesterly winds bring upwelled water from the ocean to the Bay, promoting a rapid 

turnover. Storms and high wave action will also promote mixing. At other times, the 

Columbia River plume, acting as a discrete water mass, prevents much mixing from 

occurring and the water from the Bay moves back and forth for days. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Seattle District 1975:20 

Willapa Bay is fringed by extensive wetlands, including mud flats and salt marshes. The tidal 

action, which enables regular exposure to air and light, has stimulated the growth of many shore 

plants, including buttercups, velvet-grass, monkey flower, bulrush, sedges, and tussocks. With 

the tidal action, these plants are eventually broken up and transported into the bay. This plant 

detritus is a significant contribution to the various filter feeders in the bay, especially clams and 

oyster (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981). 

3.5.1 Riekkola Unit 

Historically this refuge unit was tidally influenced and later was protected from tidal influence 

by a dike built in the 1940s, which was constructed for freshwater wetlands and the management 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

of waterfowl purposes. Active management through haying, grazing, mowing, and weed control 

provides habitat for geese. The four freshwater wetlands are actively managed by refuge staff. 

These activities include moist soil management and water control, timed annually to maximize 

the period for wildlife use; native amphibian development, plant development, shorebirds, and 

invasive plant control. 

Doman Creek crosses through the pastures and exits into South Bay via a double tide gate 

located along the dike. This tide gate creates a barrier to saltwater influence within this creek, 

maintaining the freshwater influence to the surrounding plants. 

3.5.2 Lewis 1, Lewis 2, and Porters Point Wetland Units 

The wetlands are recharged by the watershed immediately located to the south and are fed by 

Lewis and Porter Point streams. These streams are fed by seeps and rainfall. 

These three units are extensively managed by refuge staff and require annual flooding and drawdowns of the wetlands to accomplish moist soil management practices for wildlife purposes. 

Lewis 1 and Porter Point wetlands are on a two-year draw-down schedule opposite of each other 

for control of reed canarygrass, nonnative control and to offer wildlife an opportunity to find 

available habitat. The Lewis 2 wetland is drawn down annually in concert with the Lewis 1 or 

Porter Point draw-down. 

Draw-downs are timed to maximize the period for native amphibian development before the 

impoundment is completely dried out. The exposed mudflats during the draw-down also provide 

foraging areas for shorebirds. 

3.5.3 Leadbetter Point Unit 

Leadbetter is located on the far north end of the Long Beach Peninsula, north of Leadbetter State 

Park. This unit is approximately 1,700 acres in size and is affected by the tidal exchange in the 

estuary on the bay side. The west side of the unit is affected by the open ocean tides. Located 

throughout this unit are several ephemeral wetlands. 

3.5.4 Tarlett Unit 

Willapa Bay is the local collection basin for eastern Long Beach Peninsula storm drainage of the 

surrounding land and coastal hillsides. The proposed new headquarters site for the Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge is located along Sandridge Road south of the intersection with 95th 

Street in Pacific County. From this intersection, the USFWS has a larger land holding that 

extends south to 85th Street, and eastward, to land directly abutting other refuge property and 

Willapa Bay. Approximately 29 acres of the northeastern corner of the site is available for the 

new headquarters facility development. All of this land drains into Tarlett Slough, which winds 

through the property, generally flowing in a northerly direction before making a bend to the east 

within the property. 

Tarlett Slough is a major stormwater drainage channel for Pacific County, draining the 

southeastern portions of the Long Beach Peninsula into Willapa Bay. Historically, Tarlett Slough 

was tidally influenced but may not be now due to the downstream dike where it outlets into 

Willapa Bay. According to a recent wetland delineation performed on the new headquarters site, 

the vegetated edge along Tarlett Slough would also be considered a Category I estuarine wetland. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The source of hydrology for the large Category I wetland is Tarlett Slough (Key Environmental 

Solutions 2010). 

Several Category IV freshwater depressional wetlands are also found on the site. One hydrology 

source for the Category IV wetlands appears to be culverts draining from 95th Street onto the 

site. There is also drainage coming off of Sandridge Road down a slope and a high groundwater 

table found in the depressional areas (Key Environmental Solutions 2010). 

According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pacific County (FEMA 1985), much of the 

easterly portion of the property is considered to be within the 100-year floodplain. For planning 

purposes, the elevation of the 100-year flood occurrence on the property is estimated to be 13.2 

feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) (Parametrix 2009). However, flooding of the site 

during a significant event is unlikely due to a county owned dike and tidegate system that is 

currently in place. It is unlikely that the portions of the dike system that prevent flooding on this 

and adjacent properties will be removed in the future. 

3.5.5 Wheaton Unit 

The Willapa River and Mill Creek run through the Wheaton Unit, which is located east of 

Raymond, Washington. Both the river and creek are tidally influenced and are prone to floods 

during times of high rain/snow runoff. 

3.6 Soils 

Soils are the natural bodies of loose material on the earth’s surface. They are formed by the 

dynamics between climate and living matter acting on parent material. Five factors determine 

the properties of soil: the physical and mineral composition of the parent material; the climate 

under which the soil material has accumulated and existed since accumulating; the relief, or 

position of the land; living organisms; and the length of time the soil forming forces have acted 

on the parent material. 

The following soil information was taken from a soil survey of Grays Harbor, Pacific, and 

Wahkiakum counties, published by the Soil Conservation Service (Pringle 1986). 

3.6.1 Headquarters Unit (Current) 

The Headquarters unit is made up of Palix silt loam soils on slopes ranging from 8% to 90%. 

The Palix silt loam soils are deep, well-drained soils. These soils support productive western 

hemlock and Douglas fir forest, as well as red alder, Sitka spruce and western red cedar. Without 

vegetation the Palix silt loam soils are unstable, hard to pack, and subject to erosion when wet. 

The Omeara’s Point area, within the Headquarters Unit, is made up of several soil types: Palix, 

Ilwaco, Vesta, Knappton, and Montesa silt loams. Palix silt loam occurs on 30% to 90% slopes. 

Ilwaco silt loam is a very deep, well-drained soil occurring on broad ridge tops, small plateaus, 

shoulders, and the back slopes of uplands. The principal tree species found on Ilwaco silt loams 

is western hemlock where it grows well. 

Vesta silt loam occurs on 1% to 8% slopes over much of the Omeara’s Point area. Vesta silt loam 

is a very deep, well-drained soil formed from basalt parent material on ridge tops. Vesta silt 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

loams are slightly more productive for growing western hemlock than Palix and Ilwaco silt 

loams. 

Knappton silt loams generally support the growth of western hemlock and Douglas fir forest. 

Knappton silt loam is moderately permeable with a rapid runoff rate; therefore, the hazard of 

water erosion on this soil is severe. 

The Montesa silt loam occurs on alluvial fans, the broad fan-like deposits of soil at the mouth of 

small streams. These very deep, somewhat poorly drained deposits were formed from 

sedimentary and igneous sediments at low elevations (25 to 300 feet elevation). The seasonal 

water table occurs at 18 to 30 inches from fall to spring. Montesa silt loam typically produces 

red alder. 

3.6.2 Bear River Unit 

The Bear River area of the Refuge contains a diverse group of soils; including Knappton, Palix, 

Lebam and Nuby silt loams, and Ocosta silty clay loam, as well as smaller areas of Traham very 

gravelly loam and Orcas peat. Lebam silt loam is very deep, well-drained soil occurring on 1% 

to 30% slopes. It has slow runoff and does not easily erode from water, but does get muddy 

when wet. Nuby silt loam is a very deep, poorly drained soil occurring on floodplains, where it 

was deposited by the Bear River. The seasonal water table in this soil is at a depth of 24 to 36 

inches. Nuby soil is moderately permeable and occurs on flat (0% to 3% slope) areas that are 

subject to brief periods of winter flooding. Red alder is the principal forest species on Nuby 

soils. Traham loam soils are very rocky and this type occurs on a narrow ridge top. Traham soil 

occurs on 5% to 30% slopes and is a moderately deep, well-drained soil. Traham soil is 

generally used for forest production. Western hemlock is the principal tree species found on 

Traham soil. Tree root depth is limited to 24 to 36 inches, the depth at which fractured basalt is 

found. 

Two small areas of Orcas peat soil are present in the lower portion of the Bear River Area. Orcas 

peat is very deep, very poorly drained soil occurring in depressions. The native vegetation of 

Orcas peat is living sphagnum, bog Labrador tea, rushes and sedges. 

3.6.3 Long Island Unit 

Long Island is made up primarily of Willapa silt loam and Ilwaco silt loam, with lesser amounts 

of Newskah loam, Palix silt loam, and Ocosta silty clay loam. Willapa silt loam is very deep, 

moderately well-drained soil that supports the growth of western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western 

red cedar, and red alder in a major part of the island’s northern interior, north of Sawlog Slough. 

The soil surface is typically covered with about 1 inch of duff. Willapa silt loam has a seasonally 

high water table that is at a depth of 30 to 42 inches in winter. Runoff is slow and water erosion 

hazard is slight for this soil, although it is muddy when wet and can be damaged without its 

protective duff layer. 

Ilwaco silt loam is a very deep, well-drained soil on broad ridge tops, small plateaus, and 

shoulders. It has a 2-inch layer of duff on the surface, slow runoff, and slight hazard for erosion, 

except when steeply cut. Ilwaco silt loam primarily supports western hemlock and Sitka spruce 

and is the soil type in the old-growth cedar grove and other parts of the island south of Sawlog 

Slough. Newskah loam is a very deep, well-drained soil on terraces and back slopes of terraces, 

occurring south of Sawlog Slough. It supports primarily western hemlock and has a protective 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

surface covering of 3-inch-thick moss, needles, and twigs. Newskah loam erodes readily if 

steeply cut, wet or devoid of vegetation or its duff layer. Palix silt loam is a deep, well-drained 

soil that occurs along the island’s steep shorelines. Ocosta silty clay loam occurs near sloughs 

and marshes. 

3.6.4 Tarlatt Unit 

According to the Soil Survey for Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific County and Wahkiakum 

County, Washington (NRCS 2009), three soil types are found on the new headquarters property: 

Yaquina loamy fine sand (162), Netarts fine sand, 3% to 12% slopes (92), and Ocosta silty clay 

loam (104), with the Netarts find sand unit apparently occurring on slightly higher elevations. 

Yaquina loamy fine sand is typically found in depressional landforms and is considered 

somewhat poorly drained with a frequent occurrence of ponding. The Yaquina loamy find sand 

unit has a water table that is near the ground surface. Netarts fine sand is a deep, well-drained 

soil type found on dune formations with little to no occurrence of ponding. The Netarts fine sand 

unit has a depth to water table that is listed as more than 80 inches and no frequency of flooding. 

Ocosta silty clay loam is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on floodplains and deltas 

protected from tidal overflow. On the new headquarters site, the Ocosta silty clay loam unit is 

primarily associated with Tarlett Slough. 

All three soil types found on the site are listed on the hydric soils list for Washington (NRCS 

1995). However, the presence of mapped hydric soils does not necessarily correlate directly with 

the presence of mapped wetlands on this site. In order to classify an area as wetland, hydrology 

and hydrophytic vegetation must be present (Key Environmental Solutions 2010). 

Netarts fine sand and Yaquina loamy fine sand are also considered very limited for septic drain 

field construction: Netarts fine sand because of slope and Yaquina loamy find sand due to the 

depth to water table. Both soil types are also considered very limited for building site 

development. 

The proposed new headquarters site topography is relatively flat, and elevations are within 10 to 

20 feet above sea level. Slopes on the site are generally quite flat within the Yaquina loamy fine 

sand soil mapping unit, and a little steeper and higher in elevation within the Netarts fine sand 

unit. Actual elevations and grades have been surveyed for only part of the site: the area studied 

internally by the USFWS, which measures approximately 1,250 by 400 feet. There is a slight 

ridge running generally north and south through the surveyed portion of the site, apparently 

where the transition from dune landform to the depressional landform occurs on the site (also 

likely the transition between the two soil mapping units). Slopes on this ridge range from 2% to 

14%. Elsewhere on the site, slopes are generally flatter, in the 0% to 5% range. 

According to the soil survey for the site (NRCS 2009), a Netarts fine sand soil mapping unit can 

be found along 95th Street and east of the USFWS study area portion of the site. There is also an 

area of Netarts fine sand identified just south and east of the surveyed zone. It is possible that 

these land areas are slightly higher, with a greater depth to water table than the adjacent 

depressional areas within the Yaquina loamy fine sand unit. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

3.6.5 Riekkola, Lewis, and Porter Point Units 

Riekkola, Lewis, and Porter Point Units consist primarily of Ocosta silty clay loam in the diked 

pastures and marsh areas. Forested areas in the higher elevations surrounding the units, 

including Lewis Hill, consist of Palix silt loam and some Ilwaco silt loam. 

3.6.6 Leadbetter Point Unit 

Leadbetter Unit has five soil types. The outer beach above mean high tide is classified as beach, 

this area has no vegetation and is subject to continual wave action during high tide. Dune land 

makes up the majority of outer peninsula westward and north. The dune land is very deep fine 

sand, drains excessively, and is constantly shifted by strong coastal winds. The dune land 

topography consists of a primary foredune, an interdune area of dunes and hollows and foredune 

ridges that run parallel with prevailing winds from the shoreline (also called the foredune 

complex), and a relatively flat deflation plain still further inland. The water table is at the surface 

of the interdune area during the winter months. The beachgrass and lodgepole pine areas of the 

peninsula tip and interior of Grassy Island is Westport fine sand, which forms on slightly 

weathered stabilized sand dunes. Westport fine sand is covered in a thin mat of organic material 

and is also very deep and excessively drained. The protective organic layer of Westport fine sand 

is extremely fragile. The dune land and Westport fine sand are highly susceptible to wind 

erosion when exposed. 

The salt marsh and most of the southern portion of Grassy Island are Ocosta silty clay loam. The 

forested area near the Leadbetter parking area is Yaquina loamy fine sand, a very deep, 

somewhat poorly drained soil. The water table in winter is from 24 inches deep to the surface of 

this soil. The duff layer is half an inch thick (USFWS 2003b). 

3.6.7 Wheaton Unit 

Wheaton Unit has three soil types: Arta silt loam, Grehelam silt loam, and Rennie silty clay 

loam. Arta silt loam is a very deep, moderately well-drained soil present in the eastern hay field 

and higher areas of the homestead site and field. Runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion 

is slight in Arta soil. Arta soil supports hemlock and red alder forest but is presently maintained 

as pasture. Grehelam silt loam is also a very deep, well-drained soil found on the natural dikes 

of the floodplain, which makes up the majority of the unit and includes the west field that is 

across the Willapa River and the field that is between Mill Creek and the Willapa River. 

Grehelam soil is subject to brief periods of flooding in winter. Grehelam soil typically supports 

Douglas fir and red alder forest but is maintained as pasture. A small area of Rennie silty clay 

loam exists in the oxbow wetland on the north side of the Willapa River, near the bend in the 

boundary fence. Rennie soil is very deep, poorly drained soil occurring on the floodplain. 

Permeability is slow, the water table is high seasonally and runoff is very slow in this soil, 

resulting in the formation of small seasonal wetlands. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants 

3.7.1 Air Quality 

The air quality may be affected by various activities on and adjacent to the Refuge including: 

marine vessels, industrial facilities, automobiles, and other human caused activities such as 

outdoor burning, wood stoves, and operation of various vehicles and machines (e.g., gasoline 

powered equipment, motorboats). The refuge staff uses various types of equipment and 

transportation methods to achieve the refuge habitat conservation projects and research. Habitat 

improvement projects and daily monitoring activities may include the use of tractors, heavy 

equipment (bulldozer, backhoe, and excavator) and/or the operation of trucks, boats, or other 

vessels to access Long Island or other portions of the Refuge found in Willapa Bay. Refuge 

visitors generally drive their automobiles to visit the various units of the Refuge and others 

operate motor boats to visit Long Island or participate in wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities on the bay (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation). 

3.7.2 Water Quality 

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is responsible for water quality defined under 

Chapter 173-201A WAC, “Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of 

Washington.” Willapa Bay and its tributaries are classified as Class A excellent waters which 

shall meet or exceed the requirement for all or substantially all beneficial water uses (Seyferlich 

and Joy 1993). 

These water uses include: 

 Domestic consumption; 

 Primary and secondary contact recreation; 

 Fish and shellfish spawning, rearing, and harvesting; 

 Wildlife habitat; 

 Stock watering; 

 Commerce and navigation; and 

 Aesthetic enjoyment. 

Measuring bacteria is one of the common measures used to identify the waters ability to provide 

beneficial uses. In Class A freshwater (rivers, streams), fecal coliform organisms shall not 

exceeded a geometric mean value of 100 organisms per100mL, with no more than 10% of 

samples exceeding 200 organisms per 100mL. Class A marine waters shall not exceed a 

geometric mean value of 14 organisms per 100mL, with not more that 10% samples exceeding 

43 organisms per 100mL. In estuarine conditions (Willapa Bay) the marine criteria are 

applicable when ambient water salinity is equal or greater than 10 parts per thousand (WAC 173-

201A-060(2)). 

The overall water quality conditions in the bay are influenced by the tidal flushing 

characteristics. In Willapa Bay, tidal volumes are five to 10 times the watershed’s freshwater 

input, even during periods of high river discharge. Diurnal tidal ranges (mean higher high water 

[MHHW] to mean lower low water [MLLW]) are 8.1 to 10.2 feet (2.5 to 3.1 m) at locations 

within Willapa Bay. The volume of the bay at MHHW is 56,585,900 cubic feet (1,602,513 m3

); 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15 

the volume at MLLW is 31,169,000 cubic feet (88,271 m3). The difference, 25,416,900 cubic 

feet (719,807 m3

), is the tidal prism (Hedgpeth and Obreski 1981). 

The flushing rate of the bay is also influenced by coastal and oceanic processes. A low salinity 

plume (area where fresh water and salt water mix) from the mouth of the Columbia River is 

evident year-round and is carried north into Willapa Bay during the cooler and wetter months of 

October through April (Hedgepeth and Obreski 1981). The salinity and temperature data 

collected in Willapa Bay show that the Columbia River plume influence lowers salinity and 

increases water temperatures within the bay in the winter months relative to ocean conditions. 

The intrusion of colder, more saline oceanic waters may occur in the summer months when the 

increased plume influences are absent due to lower freshwater input/volume during drier summer 

months (unpublished Washington State Department of Fisheries data). The plume influence 

increases oceanic vertical stability, decreases vertical mixing, reduces upwelling, and diverts 

ocean currents. In this way the plume acts as a discrete water mass to limit oceanic mixing with 

Willapa Bay and may reduce the flushing rate of the bay (Strickland and Chasan 1989). 

The overall Willapa Bay estuary is 92 square miles (238 km3) at mean higher high water and the 

watershed is 1,100 square miles (2,850 km3

). The watershed’s influence on the bay’s water 

quality is evident by the rural nature of the surrounding land uses, which are primarily 

intensively managed forests for timber production. Over 20 tributaries are found within the 

watershed and water runoff drains the managed forest uplands, agricultural holdings, and urban 

areas located here, along the shoreline of the bay. Pacific County has a resources-based 

economy with no large industries and supports approximately 19,400 permanent residents. 

Tourism annually accounts for approximately 450,000-500,000 visitors to the Long Beach 

Peninsula alone (Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau 2010). 

The Refuge’s Presidential Proclamation Boundary (approximately 11,000 acres) is located in the 

southern portion of the bay surrounding the Long Island Unit. The Class A water quality of the 

bay is of importance because it supports a strong mariculture industry as well as the privately 

owned oyster beds within the Refuge’s Proclamation Boundary. The Refuge has approximately 

25 miles of shoreline along the bay. A continued goal for the Refuge is maintaining the high 

water quality for wildlife. 

3.7.2.1 Proposed Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Site Potable Water 

There is no public water distribution system serving the proposed project site. Neighboring and 

surrounding properties throughout the region use wells to meet domestic water demands. Well 

log data for the PUD substation facility adjacent to the site, just north of 95th Street, suggests 

that domestic water is supplied from a 20-foot-deep well on the PUD property and supplies 

approximately 20 gallons per minute. This would suggest that a well is viable for providing 

water to the new headquarters site (KPFF Consulting Engineers 2009). 

The closest public water distribution system is from the City of Long Beach. Conversations with 

the water district suggest that the pipe network ends approximately 1⁄2-mile south of the project 

site along Sandridge at 79th Street. The water system has sufficient capacity to serve the site and 

the long-range plan for the district is to extend the main along Sandridge Road and loop it back 

to the city system at Cranberry Road. This 12-inch water main at 79th Street can be extended 

north to serve the site but would require coordination with Pacific County for construction of the 

water main in the right-of-way. There may be an opportunity to approach adjacent property 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

owners for potential service connections under a Late-Comers Agreement process to offset the 

cost for construction (KPFF Consulting Engineers 2009). 

Since this region gets 120 inches of rain per year, a portion of the water demands, such as 

bathroom toilets, can be met by installing a rainwater harvesting system (KPFF Consulting 

Engineers 2009). 

Fire protection is currently provided by Pacific County Fire District 1. Without a public water 

distribution system, fire suppression is accomplished by transporting water to the site with tender 

trucks and pressurizing the hoses with pumper trucks. According to conversations with the 

District 1 fire chief, the tender trucks would be filled with water at the closest hydrant, which in 

this case is supplied by the City of Long Beach Water District. If the building size warrants a 

sprinkler system per code, then an appropriately sized water reservoir and fire pump would be 

required as part of the project improvements (KPFF Consulting Engineers 2009). 

3.7.2.2 Potential Threats to Water Quality 

As stated earlier the water quality of Willapa Bay and its tributaries is currently classified by the 

State of Washington as Class A, excellent quality. Identifying potential threats is an opportunity 

to correct whenever possible the potential future negative impacts to water quality. 

Potential nonpoint bacterial sources identified in various locations in the watershed include 

malfunctioning or inadequate on-site septic systems, urban storm-water, livestock, boats, and 

wildlife. Only on-site systems, urban storm-water, and livestock have been identified as serious 

threats to water quality. Boats and wildlife have been considered highly localized sources with 

unquantified contamination potential (Seyferlich and Joy 1993). 

Historical surveys and monitoring data have documented various nonpoint sources of bacteria in 

the Willapa Bay watershed. By far, fecal coliform has been the most common data collected for 

evaluation of bacterial contamination. Most of the bacterial sources are located in and around 

towns/cities and agricultural areas along the bay shoreline and in the river valleys. Although the 

interior hills make up most of the watershed area, only the wildlife and recreational land uses 

would be the likely candidates for generating additional bacterial loads on these lands. The areas 

that may contribute to the bacterial contamination around the bay include malfunctioning or 

inadequate on-site septic systems, urban/community stormwater runoff, livestock, and wildlife. 

The current refuge office site uses a septic system for office staff. 

Stormwater from developed communities and urban areas tend to increase the velocity and 

amount of water runoff, increasing peak flows in the constructed and localized natural drainage 

systems. Stormwater runoff from towns and cities can potentially carry a substantial load of 

various point and nonpoint source pollutants including toxic chemicals, bacteria, and pathogens. 

In older sewage collection systems stormwater can get mixed with sanitary wastewater. Some of 

the most serious threats to the water quality of the area may initiate from the communities 

located near or on the Willapa Bay and its tributaries. 

Livestock manure can be a major source of bacterial contamination and is considered a serious 

threat to the water quality of the bay. Implementing BMPs for pasturing and manure 

management may prevent waste and wastewater from reaching water courses (drainages, 

streams, rivers, and estuary). Agricultural areas with livestock and farming practices within the 

Willapa Bay watershed are primarily located along the river valleys and the bay. The Refuge 

integrates best management practices (i.e., grazing rotation, erosion control) within the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17 

Cooperative Land Management Agreements for all grazing activities on the refuge lands 

(currently on the Riekkola, Tarlatt and Wheaton units). 

Boats and wildlife have been considered highly localized sources with unquantified 

contamination potential (Seyferlich and Joy 1993). There are a total of six boating facilities with 

249 wet moorage slips available in Willapa Bay. Four major moorage areas are Bay Center, the 

Port of Nachotta, the Port of Willapa, and the Tokeland Marina. All of these moorage slips are 

occupied during the summer months. 

The refuge staff’s use of boats occurs for implementing specific projects and law enforcement 

patrols, all of which may require use of motorized boats on Willapa Bay and Bear River. 

Operations include the use of air boats, 12- to 18-foot skiffs, inboard and outboard motors, and 

motorized and non-motorized boats. Peak boat use occurs in the spring and summer for refuge 

conservation purposes. 

In addition to potential threats from humans to the water quality of the bay there are also 

naturally occurring impacts from wildlife. In Willapa bay there are 32 observed and documented 

seal haul-out sites on intertidal sand bars and mud flats (Beach et al. 1985). The estimated 

population of harbor seals in Willapa Bay is 4,000 to 6,000 (Jeffries 1992). The breeding season 

from May to August presents the largest gatherings, when over 2,000 seals congregate at the 

most popular sites. In August, after the end of the pupping season, the seals congregate in large 

haul-out groups on the entrance shoals along Pine Island Channel. Winter populations may be as 

high as a 1,000 or more at these sites (Beach et al. 1985). The harbor seal population in Willapa 

Bay had been increasing between 1976 and 1982 at approximately 10% annually. The high 

range estimates for fecal coliform production per adult per seal per day is 55×109

 bacteria 

(Caalambokidis et al. 1989). This implies a potential fecal coliform load from 6,000 seals could 

be as high as 33×1013 colony forming units per day. Seals use haul-outs on the South Bay and 

along the shores of Leadbetter Point. 

The list of year-round waterfowl in Willapa Bay includes mergansers, teal, wood duck, mallard, 

bald eagle, great blue heron, gulls, grebes, and more. These species do not occur in large 

populations. The dominant migratory species is the American wigeon. The highest quarterly 

loadings of fecal coliform from birds occur in April through June. The October through 

December period has the second highest quarterly loading (Seyferlich and Joy 1993). 

3.8 Surrounding Land Uses and Roads 

Directly adjacent to the Willapa NWR Headquarters Unit is TNC Ellsworth Creek Preserve. 

TNC is an international nonprofit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve plants, 

animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting the 

lands and waters they need to survive. TNC of Washington began acquiring properties as part of 

the Ellsworth Creek Preserve in 1998. Currently, the Ellsworth Creek Preserve is approximately 

7,436 acres in size, encompassing almost the entire Ellsworth Creek watershed, and includes 

upland forest and estuarine habitats, and freshwater stream systems. 

Primary goals for the Ellsworth Creek Preserve include: 

1) Restoring ecologically functional estuarine, freshwater, and upland forest habitats that 

support species and ecological processes representative of those found within unmanaged 

late-successional forest landscapes of the Pacific Northwest coast. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

2) Developing and implementing restoration strategies that accomplish ecological goals in a 

cost effective and financially replicable manner. 

3) Maximizing opportunities for learning how coastal forest landscapes respond to 

restoration treatments and exporting those lessons to other forest resource managers. 

4) Managing the preserve with exemplary stewardship that earns respect and builds 

productive relationships within the local community and amongst resource management 

partners. 

5) Attaining and maintaining Forest Stewardship Council certification. 

6) Serving as a contributor to positive carbon sequestration. 

The Refuge and TNC have formed a forest landscape restoration partnership and work closely 

together protecting, managing, and restoring the forest landscapes within the watershed. 

One of the larger tributaries that drains into Willapa Bay is the Naselle River. Along the banks of 

this river is the small community of Naselle, which is currently an unincorporated town of 

approximately 400 residents with approximately 1,400 people living within the school district. 

Primary economic activity centers on timber production and commercial fishing and 

decreasingly on farming (The Nature Conservancy and USFWS 2007 South Willapa Bay 

Conservation Area, Forest Landscape Restoration Plan. Final Draft). 

Land use patterns in largely rural Pacific County are dominated by private forestland dedicated 

to commercial timber production. Private homes are generally located on large lots and are 

scattered along major highways and secondary county roads. This pattern is consistent within 

the immediate vicinity of the Refuge. That is, neighboring lands are, by in large, commercial 

timber holdings with limited numbers of home sites adjacent to county roads. The commercial 

timberlands directly adjacent to the Refuge are largely owned by investment groups and 

managed by timber investment management organizations. The Campbell Group and Hancock 

Investments manage adjacent forestland for investment return purposes. 

The city of Long Beach is located in Pacific County, south of the Leadbetter Point unit and west 

of Tarlatt Slough unit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), the community 

encompasses a total area of 1.26 square miles of land on the Long Beach Peninsula. The main 

industry to this area is tourism. The Long Beach Peninsula includes the communities of Long 

Beach, Ilwaco, Seaview, Nahcotta, Ocean Park, and Oysterville. There are approximately 

450,000 to 500,000 visitors to the peninsula on an annual basis (Long Beach Peninsula Visitors 

Bureau 2010). The local communities offer many tourist attractions. 

Cape Disappointment State Park is located in the area of the historical military Fort Canby, with 

two lighthouses and several opportunities for hiking, biking, kayaking, fishing, beach coming, 

bird watching, horseback riding, and clam digging. Local museums include the Cranberry 

Museum and the World Kite Museum. The Washington State International Kite Festival, held in 

the late summer every year, draws kite flyers from all over the world. In late April or early May, 

the Blessing of the Fleet is held in Ilwaco in conjunction with Loyalty Day Celebrations. The 

annual Northwest Garlic Festival takes place in June, and the Annual Sand Stations sand 

Sculpture Contest is held in July. Salmon derbies also take place throughout the year (Long 

Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau 2010). 

A small unincorporated town, Oysterville is located on Willapa Bay side of the Long Beach 

Peninsula. This town was placed on the Register of National Historic Districts in 1976 and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19 

encompasses about 80 acres. The historic and current mariculture industry (production and 

harvest of oysters and clams and crabs) has sustained the economy of this community for over a 

century. The high quality of the annual harvest is due to the overall water quality of Willapa 

Bay. Willapa Bay oysters are shipped to restaurants and enjoyed all over the world. 

3.8.1 Proposed Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facility Site Context 

and Surrounding Land Use 

The proposed new headquarters site is generally north and east of the municipality of Long 

Beach, Washington, in unincorporated Pacific County, and is considered to be outside of the 

urban growth boundary of this community. Approaching the site from the south along Sandridge 

Road, the project vicinity has a rural-residential quality. Agricultural land uses are readily visible 

in the locale, such as cranberry farming, cattle grazing, and a horse arena. Large-lot singlefamily residences dot the landscape directly across the street from the site along Sandridge Road. 

The land surrounding the site is predominantly zoned agricultural. The site itself is zoned 

conservation district. As such, all U.S. government facilities are permitted outright within the 

conservation district. Pacific County code also allows nature parks and interpretive centers 

including buildings, trails, parking areas, interpretive areas, and signs describing natural history, 

cultural history, and/or natural habitat. 

The property is abutted on the north by a Pacific County PUD substation. A series of 115 kV 

transmission lines enter and leave the substation along both sides of 95th Street, and along the 

east side of Sandridge Road. The 115 kV is owned and maintained by Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA) along 95th Street, and according to BPA personnel, the 115 kV line along 

Sandridge Road is PUD owned. Distribution voltage (15 kV) circuits exit the substation 

underground and daylight at PUD utility poles along Sandridge Road. There is additional underbuild along the common transmission/distribution pole line on the east side of Sandridge Road 

that fronts the west edge of the site (PAE Consulting Engineers 2010). 

With the multi-service pole line along the east edge of Sandridge Road, electrical and 

telecommunications services to the new headquarters development will be readily available. The 

transmission lines will have the largest easements associated the overhead systems, and while a 

100-foot easement is common for this voltage, actual size and location are unknown at this time. 

According to the PUD, new building structures should be no closer than 25 feet to the pole line, 

and trees should be no closer than 40 feet to their pole line along Sandridge Road (PAE 

Consulting Engineers 2010). 

Pacific County governs the roadways in the direct vicinity and would be expected to be the lead 

review agency from a transportation perspective. Pacific County has the discretionary authority 

to require a traffic study in conjunction with future development activities. Based upon 

preliminary conversations with county staff, a few traffic studies have been completed in the area 

in the past few years. The initial inclination of county staff is that a full traffic study would not 

likely be required but the county will not make a determination until a conceptual site plan can 

be reviewed. The county also governs the location of any driveway(s) that will serve the new 

headquarters site. The county will require that an access permit be obtained for any driveway 

(Kittelson & Associates 2009). 

Pacific County classifies Sandridge Road as a major collector, the highest level facility 

designation the county employs. Pioneer Road is located south of the site and connects 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Sandridge Road with Highway 103 and downtown Long Beach. Pioneer Road is also classified 

as an east-west major collector on the peninsula. Within the vicinity of the new headquarters 

site, both roadways have a two-lane cross section (one travel lane in each direction) with gravel 

shoulders. No sidewalks or bicycle lanes are currently provided. County staff have indicated 

that the county is planning to provide a sidewalk and bicycle lanes on Pioneer Road in the future 

(Kittelson & Associates 2009). 

Preliminary review of Pacific County Road Standards indicates that some off-site roadway 

improvements may be required to improve safety in the vicinity of the proposed site when 

developed. A 100-foot-long northbound right-turn deceleration taper on Sandridge Road at 95th 

Street as well as a 55-foot radius may be required based upon the county’s standard intersection 

design of the road standards. This widening would help facilitate large equipment maneuvers 

accessing the site but the area required could interfere with a large power pole located on the 

southeast corner of the intersection (Kittelson & Associates 2009). 

Based upon the review of other intersections and driveways in the site vicinity along Sandridge 

Road, a southbound left-turn lane may also be warranted at the site access point. The need for a 

separate southbound left-turn lane on Sandridge Road at the site driveway (or at 95th Street) 

could be evaluated in conjunction with a transportation impact analysis for the project (Kittelson 

& Associates 2009). 

Right-of-way improvements, such as sidewalks and landscape strips with street tree plantings, 

are likely not required for this project, since this site is within a rural district and there are no 

frontage improvements along adjacent properties. Pacific County does not have any specific 

requirements set up for implementing frontage improvements at this site (KPFF Consulting 

Engineers 2009). 

Long Beach Peninsula and Pacific County are Pacific Ocean coastal communities and, as such, 

have been engaged in tsunami evacuation planning. On Pacific County Emergency Management 

maps, the project site is shown to be within the greatest risk tsunami hazard zone, although a 

boundary of this zone is just south of the site, near the intersection of Sandridge Road and 

Pioneer Street. The evacuation route for the site is well established to be southbound on 

Sandridge Road. The nearest designated assembly area is located south and east of the new 

headquarters site at 67th Place, east of Sandridge Road (Kittelson & Associates 2009). 

3.9 Effects to Physical Environment 

This section provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

alternatives as described in Chapter 2, specifically as they relate to the physical environment. 

Topics not covered consist of climate, climate change, and geology, because these areas would 

not be affected by management activities proposed in the alternatives. A summary of the 

cumulative effects is presented in Chapter 6. 

3.9.1 Habitat Management 

3.9.1.1 Effects to Hydrology 

Alternative 1: Under this alternative, current maintenance and management actions would 

continue as defined by the refuge purposes, and no significant changes to the hydrology are 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21 

anticipated. Actively managed freshwater wetlands would be maintained for use by waterfowl, 

shorebirds, amphibians, and associated wildlife. If predicted trends and models on climate 

change continue, with sea level rise in time, dike maintenance would prove much more difficult, 

and extensive repairs may be required. Some limited improvements in water management may 

occur in time as a result of water structure replacement or installation activities. 

Alternative 2: Under this alternative, the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola dike would be 

removed, historical tidal flow regimes would be re-established, and previously disconnected 

sloughs would be reconnected. Alternative 2 would maximize the restoration processes 

specifically increasing 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt 

marsh. The dike would be restored to grade, borrow ditches would be filled, and deeper 

connector channels created in the restored areas. The seasonally flooded and highly managed 

freshwater wetlands and pastures would transition to tidal influences and the historic estuarine 

habitat conditions of the South Bay would return. 

The proposed action under alternatives 2 and 3 for the proposed new headquarters facility at the 

Sandridge Road/ 95th Street may impact site wetland resources. Careful facility planning and 

site design will minimize wetland impacts. Where wetland impacts are unavoidable in order to 

accommodate the area required for new facilities, these will be mitigated on site with the in kind 

construction of replacement wetlands. As previously mentioned, dike removal within the refuge 

would not likely affect flood levels on the new headquarters site. Pacific County Flood Damage 

Prevention Ordinance No. 116B will require that the lowest floors, including the basement, be 

elevated one foot or more above the elevation of the base flood. Where elevating a structure is 

considered impractical due to site constraints, three other criteria must be met, as follows: floodproofing, structurally designing facilities to resist flood pressures, and certification by a 

registered professional engineer. However, it may be possible to make the case that the 

remaining dike system left in place will prevent a flood of 100-year magnitude from ever 

reaching the developable portions of the new headquarters site. 

Alternative 3: Under this alternative, the Lewis and Porter Point dike would be removed, 

historical tidal flow regimes would be re-established, and previously disconnected sloughs would 

be reconnected. Alternative 3 is a more limited scope of restoration which includes 0.2 acres of 

open water, less than 11 acres intertidal flats, and 430 acres of salt marsh. The Riekkola and 

Tarlatt units would remain managed pastures. 

3.9.1.2 Effects to Soil 

Alternative 1: Under this alternative, current maintenance and management actions would 

continue as defined by the refuge purposes, with no significant changes to the soils or sediments 

on the Refuge. Extensive dike repairs would be required in time, to prevent dike failure and 

retain the freshwater impoundments. Repairs to the dike may require topping and stripping 

materials, installing erosion control fabric, filling areas with gravel, filling seeps, among other 

measures. Some disturbance to existing soils or sedimentation due to maintenance or 

construction of added fill would occur during repairs of dike. 

Alternative 2 and 3: The effects to soils would largely be due to the activities and the changes 

from seasonally flooded and highly managed freshwater wetlands and pastures as they would 

transition to the tidal influences and the historic estuarine conditions of the South Bay. Saltwater 

influences would dramatically change the soil salinity and the sedimentation in the areas 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

impacted by the dike removal and restoration proposed. The project timing, extent, and 

contouring would be designed to minimize the erosion and sediments in water runoff. Fewer 

impacts to soils would occur in Alternative 3 due to the limited scope of the restoration project. 

During construction of the proposed new headquarters facility, soils would be disturbed to form 

graded surfaces and adequate foundations for proposed buildings and paved areas. Equipment 

and material staging areas would be identified to minimize soil disturbance and compaction on 

the site. The collective footprint of the facility—buildings, parking lots, vehicle access routes 

and maintenance yard facilities—would occupy approximately 10 acres. 

On-site soils would be used to the extent possible. Required fills would be balanced with 

required excavations. Given that much of the site is currently considered to be below the 100-

year flood elevation, it is possible that site grading would be required to result in no net change 

in storage volume on the site. 

Topography can also affect buildable area facility development and septic suitability. From a 

constructability perspective, slopes of less than 5% are the easiest to build on and can readily 

accommodate ADA access. Slopes of 5% to 10% are still workable for road or path construction 

but would involve some grading to create functional solutions and building pads. The facility 

would be designed to minimize extensive grading. Erosion control measures would be 

incorporated into site development plans to reduce or eliminate loss of site soils during 

construction. 

The effects to soils due to the implementation of the forest restoration activities (Appendix K) on 

current refuge lands and proposed lands (Appendix A) would most likely eliminate soil erosion 

caused by direct forest management practices and road decommissioning. Best management 

practices are utilized to minimize soil erosion from occurring. Future land acquisitions would in 

the long-term eliminate soil erosion caused by road building and maintenance, and commercial 

logging activities on these proposed lands. 

3.9.1.3 Effects to Air Quality 

Alternative 1: No significant effects in air quality are anticipated with Alternative 1. Some 

factors that could affect air quality in habitat management may include the use of mechanized 

equipment (including mowing, disking, and heavy equipment). These activities can cause 

periodic increases in dust and vehicular emissions during field operations but would not change 

from current conditions. 

Alternative 2 and 3: The restoration activities may result in a slight temporary increase in 

emissions due to the proposed estuarine restoration identified under these alternatives. During 

the restoration and construction projects, a temporary increase in emissions would occur; 

however, once the projects are completed and natural processes are restored there would be no 

need for further active management or to access these areas with equipment or vehicles. A 

modest increase in vehicular emissions could be expected due to an increase in visitation with 

the proposed construction of a visitor/administrative facility. 

3.9.1.4 Effects to Water Quality and Salinity 

Alternative 1: There would not be any direct change to the water quality or salinity parameters 

of the bay or freshwater wetlands. Water chemistry, temperature, and risk of contaminant release 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-23 

would remain unchanged. Some localized, short-term effects might occur associated with dike 

repairs. Management within the diked areas would continue. Indirect benefits would occur with 

efforts to strengthen the watershed protection through partnerships and education programs 

outside the refuge boundary. There will be continued water quality and septic sewer 

contamination issues at the existing refuge headquarters site. 

Alternatives 2 and 3: With the implementation and removal of the dike, the tidal inundation 

would change the fresh water to salt water and change soil characteristics and the associated 

flora. Short-term effects to water quality are expected in terms of the biological oxygen demand 

and would likely increase locally as die back of decaying plant matter would result from the tidal 

restoration. There are no anticipated long-term effects to water quality. 

The proposed action of extending the 12-inch water main along Sandridge Road would supply 

the proposed new headquarters site with adequate potable water supplies and benefit the local 

community by providing a high-quality water supply to adjacent land owners. The potential 

installation of a rainwater harvesting system would supplement a portion of water demands with 

a sustainable water source. The stored water could be used to flush toilets, thereby reducing 

domestic water usage. Extension of the public water main as discussed above would provide 

water to the site and also negate the need for the reservoir and fire pump. There are no 

anticipated long-term effects to water quality. 

Implementation and completion of the proposed forest restoration activities on current refuge 

lands and proposed lands (Appendix A), downstream water quality is likely to improve by 

eliminating the need for road building and maintenance, and commercial logging activities. 

3.9.1.5 Effects to Surrounding Land Uses 

Alternative 1: There is no effect to the surrounding land uses as the Refuge would not seek 

expansion beyond the current acquisition boundary. The refuge boundary would remain, and 

current maintenance and management actions would continue as defined by the refuge purposes. 

Alternative 2: Under this alternative, land uses would change (upon acquisition from willing 

sellers) on 6,804 acres, resulting in a change away from commercial timber production to 

managed forest harvest activities needed for long-term ecological restoration. 

Land uses in Pacific County would not change by implementing the proposed 

Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facility proposed as part of Alternatives 2 and 3. All 

U.S. government facilities are permitted outright at the Sandridge Road site, and Pacific County 

code allows for interpretive centers and natural areas, with related amenities such as buildings, 

parking, trails, and signage. 

A new headquarters located along Sandridge Road would provide a more central location for 

Willapa Refuge management activities. Willapa Refuge management would benefit by 

consolidating the multiple maintenance facilities (shops, storage, warehouses) located in three 

separate areas of the Refuge. Having the equipment and staff centrally located would cut down 

on extensive building maintenance and utility expenses, and on travel within Pacific County 

between the various facilities. The Sandridge Road site would provide safer highway access for 

large refuge vehicles, compared to the current headquarters site along U.S Highway 101. 

It is anticipated that off-site roadway improvements to Pacific County roads would be necessary 

to accommodate refuge vehicles and provide safe ingress/egress to the new headquarters site. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The intersection of Sandridge Road and 95th Street would be improved to provide sufficient 

turning radii for large vehicles. Other potential roadway improvements would include a 

southbound left-turn land and a northbound right-turn lane at required driveway access points 

onto Sandridge Road. A northbound right-turn taper on Sandridge Road at 95th Street may also 

be required. These types of roadway improvements were recently implemented on Sandridge 

Road for another site development north of the project site and would be considered typical for 

site development in this area. When developed, site design should address potential impacts to 

local residents along the west side of Sandridge Road. Care should be taken to locate any site 

driveway in a manner that avoids headlight glare into residential homes. If the primary access 

point is the intersection of Sandridge Road and 95th Street, these impacts would be minimal. 

Sandridge Road is currently used by refuge visitors to reach the Leadbetter Point Unit. 

Relocating the refuge headquarters to the Sandridge Road site may result in increased visitation 

to the facility, which may increase local traffic on the county roadway. However, traffic impacts 

have not been studied. 

Pioneer Road can potentially serve as a primary route from the refuge headquarters to the city of 

Long Beach. The future provision of sidewalk and bicycle facilities by Pacific County along 

Pioneer Road would create an opportunity to better link downtown Long Beach with the existing 

Cranberry Museum (on Pioneer Road, west of the site), and the new refuge headquarters site. 

Relocating the refuge headquarters to the Sandridge Road site also offers future opportunities for 

local residents and environmental education groups to access Willapa Bay via the system of dike 

trails, which wind around the eastern portions of the site. When developed, the overlook feature 

will offer spectacular views of Willapa Bay, as well as wildlife observation, environmental 

education, and interpretive opportunities. A trail system will be provided through the Sandridge 

Road site that links the local community to this invaluable natural resource. Site planning and 

design will need to consider the possible need for evacuation in the future event of a tsunami. 

Alternative 3: Under this alternative, land uses would change (upon acquisition from willing 

sellers) on 4,895 acres, resulting in a shift away from commercial timber production to managed 

forest harvest activities needed for long-term ecological restoration. The visitor/administrative 

office facility proposal would remain the same as decribed in Alternative 2. 

3.9.2 Public Use 

3.9.2.1 Effects to Geology and Hydrology and Soils, Air and Water Quality, Environmental 

Contaminants 

Alternative 1: Changes in the public use program are not expected to cause changes in geology, 

hydrology, soils, air quality, water quality, or environmental contaminants. Minor changes and 

maintenance in the trail system would still require repairs and soil disturbance along with 

possible water diversion devices. 

Alternative 2 and 3: The new trail site established for the new Visitor/Administrative and 

Maintenance Facility and enlarged environmental education program would produce localized 

areas of soil compaction from foot traffic. BMPs regarding site locations and design would be 

considered to minimize all effects to soils, water, etc. Some minor effects on soils would occur 

from new construction and vehicle parking areas and foot traffic, but these would be expected to 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

be less than current conditions because of planned improvements in access and facilities 

consolidation. 

The proposed action of developing a new headquarters facility at Sandridge Road and 95th Street 

may impact site wetland resources. Careful facility planning and site design will minimize 

wetland impacts. Where wetland impacts are unavoidable in order to accommodate the area 

required for new facilities, these will be mitigated on site with the in-kind construction of 

replacement wetlands. As previously mentioned, dike removal within the Refuge would not 

likely affect flood levels on the new headquarters site. 

Pacific County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance No. 116B will require that the lowest 

floors, including the basement, be elevated one foot or more above the elevation of the base 

flood. Where elevating a structure is considered impractical due to site constraints, three other 

criteria must be met: flood-proofing, structurally designing facilities to resist flood pressures, 

and certification by a registered professional engineer. However, it may be possible to make the 

case that the remaining dike system left in place will prevent a flood of 100-year magnitude from 

ever reaching the developable portions of the new headquarters site. 

Reduction of human activities at the old headquarters site and other scattered maintenance 

facilities would help to restore more natural process to those sites, while combining all activities 

at one location. Effects from an expanded elk hunting program on refuge soils would be 

negligible, but with a successful hunt program, the associated benefits may reduce impacts to 

soils from the expanding elk population. 

3.9.3 Refuge Boundary Expansion 

3.9.3.1 Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Environmental Contaminants, 

Water Quality, and Air Quality 

Alternative 1: Other than the completion of the existing approved refuge boundary, there is no 

refuge expansion proposed in this alternative. There are no effects anticipated to hydrology, soils 

and sediments, geology, water quality, salinity, or air quality that are different than that described 

above in the habitat restoration section. In-holdings (760 acres) within the current boundary 

include forested uplands and riparian habitat. Refuge acquisition and management of these 

parcels would be beneficial to their long-term conservation. 

Alternative 2: Refuge boundary expansion (6,804 acres) would benefit some of these physical 

factors. Refuge expansion would protect and restore lands that would continue to be managed as 

commeciral forest land or otherwise be developed for residential or commercial development or 

that would not be restored. 

Additional protection of areas would prevent accelerated erosion caused by development or 

continued commercial logging. Retaining more habitats in a natural, vegetated condition would 

improve water quality in wetlands and waterways by reducing erosion and sedimentation and 

nonpoint source contamination from stormwater and runoff from adjacent commercially logged 

lands or developments and roadways build on those lands. Areas that have been logged and 

many areas which were used as a road system would be reforested, improving watershed 

protection. 

Wetland areas store flood waters and help maintain water quality by trapping sediments and 

removing excess nutrients. Air quality may decline if residential and commercial development 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

increase in the area, as effects associated with increased traffic, industrial development, and other 

pollutant sources such as wood stoves increase. Refuge expansion would reduce this possibility. 

Improved protection of this portion of the lower Willapa Bay watershed would maintain or 

improve the natural tributary processes that protect water quality, reduce flooding effects to 

human infrastructure, and distribute river and stream sediments naturally. 

Alternative 3: Effects to these physical environment factors under this 4,895-acre expansion of 

the refuge boundary would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2. 
Chapter 4

Biological Environment

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Western snowy plover

© Rudy Schuver
Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the USFWS to ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the System are 

maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In simplistic terms, 

elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as 

those ecological processes that support them. National Wildlife Refuge System policy on 

BIDEH (601 FW 3) also provides guidance on consideration and protection of the broad 

spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems that 

represents BIDEH on each refuge. The BIDEH of the Willapa Bay watershed and estuary have 

been negatively affected by human activities. Land use activities in particular have had an 

impact on fish and wildlife habitat values. 

In the Pacific Northwest, a large portion of historical estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, 

channelization, dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 45% and 

62% of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). About 30% of the original wetlands of 

Willapa Bay have been reclaimed by diking and filling (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981). 

According to ONRC calculations, Willapa Bay originally contained approximately 14,620 acres 

of saltwater wetlands. Now there are 5,277 acres. This represents a 64% loss of estuarine 

wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Loss of saltwater wetland habitat is considered one 

of the most common limiting factors related to the decline of nearshore or estuarine salmon 

habitat. 

An estimated 50%-90% of streams in the state of Washington are in a degraded state (Knutson 

and Naef 1997). Rivers and streams in the Willapa NWR support runs of anadromous fish such 

as chum, coho, and Chinook salmon, and cutthroat trout. River and stream channels provide 

migration pathways for adult anadromous fish traveling to spawning grounds and juveniles 

traveling to the estuary and/or Pacific Ocean. 

Land use activities have impacted wildlife habitat values in and along rivers and streams in the 

Willapa Bay watershed. Stream processes in many areas have been altered. Degradation of 

streams, including those on the Refuge, has occurred historically. Problems include loss of 

connectivity to the estuary due to highway and dike construction, hydrologic regime alteration, 

presence of fish passage barriers, water quality issues (i.e., temperature and sedimentation), and 

presence of exotic species. 

There is a need to protect and maintain ecological processes and functions in streams and 

associated habitat. Positive effects of healthy streams include enhanced nutrient production and 

cycling, improved water quality, and support of a diverse riparian and estuarine plant and 

wildlife community. 

Late-successional forest habitat in the Willapa Bay area is isolated and highly fragmented. Less 

than 1% of the original old-growth forests remain in the 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed 

(Davis et al. 2009). Currently, second- and third-growth forests dominate the watershed. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Native grassland habitat has been affected by invasion by exotic species, natural succession, fire 

suppression, conversion to pasture, and land development. The loss of native grasslands has 

resulted in loss of a federally threatened species, the Oregon silverspot butterfly, which has been 

extirpated from the state of Washington. 

Extensive areas of formerly open or sparsely vegetated coastal dune habitat have been invaded 

by exotic beach grasses, including introduced American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) 

and European beach grass (A. arenaria). These grasses out-compete native vegetation, alter the 

dune ecosystem and form dense stands that reduce the amount and quality of nesting habitat for 

native wildlife, including the federally threatened western snowy plover and a Federal candidate 

species, the streaked horned lark. The invasion of Ammophila has caused a dramatic reduction of 

coastal native plants and is a primary threat to a Federal species of concern, the pink 

sandverbena. In addition, substantial loss of coastal dune habitat has occurred due to industrial, 

urban, and recreational development. 

As a consequence of habitat loss, anadromous fish, migratory birds, and many other native 

wildlife species of the watershed and estuary have declined. Other factors such as pollution and 

overuse by humans have played a role in wildlife losses, but it is certain that wildlife cannot 

persist without suitable habitat. At least 34 wildlife and plant species of the Willapa Bay 

watershed and estuary area are now federally or state listed as endangered or threatened (The 

Willapa Alliance 1993). 

Habitat and wildlife losses have magnified the importance of conservation and management 

activities on the Refuge. Willapa NWR currently contains about 16,000 acres of wildlife habitat. 

Habitats include Sitka spruce zone forest (including late-successional forest), estuarine open 

water, intertidal flats, salt marsh, rivers and streams, freshwater wetlands, coastal dunes, and 

grasslands. These habitats represent vegetative communities important for the maintenance of 

BIDEH in the Willapa Bay estuary and watershed. The Refuge is vital to preserving the natural 

environment as well as native species of fish, wildlife, and plants of the entire estuary and 

watershed. 

Although protected from development, refuge habitats and wildlife still face threats. Invasive 

plants and pest animals can displace and compete for resources with native species. Reed 

canarygrass is especially pervasive and monopolizes much of the aquatic habitat, especially in 

managed wetlands. It has little value to wildlife compared to the native diversity of wetland 

plants it displaces. Bog loosestrife has invaded ditches and managed wetlands. Formerly, 

Spartina, a non-native cordgrass that was accidently introduced to the Willapa Bay ecosystem, 

covered a large portion of Willapa Bay. However, due to eradication efforts by Federal, state, 

and county agencies as well as the efforts of the oyster industry and private landowners, Spartina

is now virtually absent from the bay. Non-native nutria and bullfrogs frequent refuge wetlands. 

Non-native invasive species found in refuge forests include English ivy (Hedera helix) and 

English holly (Ilex aquifolium). Several exotic invertebrate species are also found within the 

waters of Willapa Bay. New invasive species may appear in the future. Nonpoint source 

pollution in the Bay may increase and degrade the water quality within the watershed as lands 

are cleared and developed for roads and home sites. Potential nutrient loads, sedimentation, 

concentrations of pollutants, and associated runoff, may all contribute to degradation of this 

important ecosystem and its fishery resources. 
Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

These problems, while serious, are surmountable. Pollutant sources are being addressed. New 

methods of slowing or stopping the spread of invasive plants are being adopted. Efforts toward 

additional protection of the Willapa Bay watershed have been initiated between a number of 

entities including the Refuge, TNC, state and county agencies, and private landowners. Overall, 

the refuge environment is relatively healthy and the varied habitats support an abundance and 

diversity of wildlife. 

4.2 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern and Analysis 

In preparing this plan, the Service reviewed other local, regional, and national plans that pertain 

to the wildlife and habitats of the Willapa Bay watershed and estuary. The Service also sought 

input from Washington State conservation agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

general public. The refuge purposes, as stated in the enabling legislation for the Refuge (see 

Chapter 1), were carefully reviewed as was the Refuge’s contribution to maintenance of BIDEH 

in the Willapa Bay watershed and estuary. As a result of this information gathering and review 

process, certain species and habitats were identified as resources of concern (Table 4-1). From 

this list of resources of concern, those species and habitats that are most representative of refuge 

purposes, BIDEH (Table 4-2), and other USFWS and ecosystem priorities, were chosen as 

priority resources of concern. Examples include the western snowy plover, marbled murrelet, 

and brant. The complete list of priority resources of concern (i.e., focal species and habitat 

types) for the Refuge is contained in Table 4-3. These priority resources of concern are the 

species and habitats whose conservation and enhancement will guide refuge management now 

and in the future. Potential management actions will be evaluated on their effectiveness in 

achieving refuge goals and objectives for the priority resources of concern. 

Management of refuge focal species and the habitats that support them will benefit many other 

native species that are present on the Refuge. Many of the species that will benefit from 

management of the refuge focal species are identified in the “Other Benefiting Species” column 

in Table 4-3. Through the consideration of BIDEH, the Refuge will maintain all appropriate 

native habitats and species. Refuge management priorities may change over time and because 

the CCP is designed to be a living, flexible document changes will be made at appropriate times. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen Table 4-1. NWRS Resources of Concern for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Mammals Yuma myotis bat SoC1  S53 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Long-eared myotis bat 

 SoC1 SM1  S43 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Fringed myotis* SoC1 SM1  S33 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Long-legged myotis bat 

 SoC1 SM1  S3/S43 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Keen’s myotis* SC1  S13 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat* 

 SoC1 SC1  S33 Forests, forest openings, 

riparian areas, wetlands 

Mazama pocket gopher* 

 FC1 T1  S13 Meadows, grasslands 

Pine marten 

 S43 Dense coniferous forests 

Fisher* FC1 E1  SH Coniferous forests Gray whale* SS1  Open ocean and bay Pacific harbor porpoise 

 SC1  Open ocean and bay 

Stellar sea-lion (eastern DPS) 

 T1 T1  S23 Open water, sandbars for 

resting 

Harbor seal SM1  S43 Open water, sandbars for 

resting 

Northern sea otter* SoC1 E1  S23 Outer coast Roosevelt elk 



 S5 Grassland, riparian forest 

and shrub, tidal and nontidal marsh 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Birds Common loon SS1 

 S33 Ocean and bay 

Red-throated loon 



 S3/S43 Ocean and bay 

Pacific loon 

 S4/S53 Ocean and bay 

Western grebe SC1  MC4 S33 Ocean and bay Short-tailed albatross* 

 E1 SC1   HC4  Open ocean 

Black-footed albatross* 

  HI4 S33  Open ocean 

Brown pelican E1 E1  

 S33  Ocean, bay, sandbars and 

islands, shore edge 

Brandt’s cormorant* SC1  HC4 S3/S43  Ocean, bay, grassy slopes, 

cliff tops 

Double-crested cormorant 

  NAR4 S4/S53  Open water 

Great blue heron SM1  NAR4 S4/S53 Tidal and non-tidal marsh, 

shallow open water, forested wetland, coastal forest 

Tundra swan 





 NT5 S43 Tidal and non-tidal marsh 

Trumpeter swan (Pacific pop.) 







 I5 S33 Tidal and non-tidal marsh, 

bay 

Tule greater whitefronted goose 

  

 NT5 S3/S43 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Snow goose (lesser) 

  

 I5 S33 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Emperor goose 





 NT5 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Cackling Canada goose 

  

 NT5 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Aleutian cackling goose 

 SoC1 SM1 

 I5 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Dusky Canada goose 

  

 U5 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Western Canada goose 

  

 U5 S53 Grassland, open water 

(roosting), tidal and nontidal marsh 

Brant 



  

 NT5 S33 Estuary 

Wood duck   I5 S43 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest, tidal and non-tidal marsh 

Mallard 

   NT5 S53 Tidal and non-tidal marsh, 

bay 

American wigeon 

   NT5 S4/S53 Grassland, tidal and nontidal marsh 

Northern pintail 

   D5 S3/S43 Tidal and non-tidal marsh, 

bay 

Greater scaup 

   D5 S33 Open water 

Lesser scaup 

   D5 S33 Open water 

White-winged scoter 

   D5 S33 Open water 

Surf scoter 

   D5 S33 Open water 

Long-tailed duck 

   D5 S3/S43 Open water 

Northern harrier   S43 Grassland, tidal and nontidal marsh Golden eagle SC1  S33 Open areas 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Bald eagle 

 SoC1 ST1  S43 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest, open water, tidal and non-tidal marsh 

Cooper’s hawk 

 S43 Riparian forest; large 

structurally diverse patches 

Northern goshawk SoC1 SC1 

 S33 Forests 

American kestrel 



 S4/S53 Grassland, riparian forest 

Merlin SC1  S33 Grassland, forested wetland, 

riparian forest, tidal and non-tidal marsh 

Peregrine falcon (American) anatum

 SoC1 SS1    S23 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest, tidal and non-tidal marsh, ocean beach, cliffs/human-made structures for nesting 

Peregrine falcon (Arctic) tundrius

 SoC1 SS1    S23 Open areas, especially ocean 

beach 

Peregrine falcon (Peale’s) pealei

 SoC1 SS1    S23 Open areas, especially ocean 

beach 

Sandhill crane E1     S23 Shallow wetlands, 

freshwater marshes 

Willet 

 2 S33 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Black-bellied plover 

 4 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Western snowy plover 



T1 E1   5 S13 Coastal beaches and dunes 

Semipalmated plover 3 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Killdeer 



 4 S43 Grassland, tidal and nontidal marsh 

Greater yellowlegs 

 4 S4/S53 Tidal and non-tidal marsh, 

freshwater wetlands 

Whimbrel 



 4 S33 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Marbled godwit    4 S33 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Ruddy turnstone 

 4 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Black turnstone 



 4 S4/S53 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Red knot 



 4 S33 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Sanderling 

 4 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Dunlin 



 4 S4/S53 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Western sandpiper 

 4 S4/S53 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Least sandpiper 3 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Short-billed dowitcher 



 4 S43 Coastal beaches and bay 

edges 

Long-billed dowitcher 

 3 S4/S53 Freshwater wetlands, bay 

edges 

Wilson’s snipe 

 4 S4/S53 Grassland, tidal and nontidal marsh 

Red phalarope 

 4 S43 Open ocean, ponds 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Red-necked phalarope 

 4 S43 Open ocean, ponds 

Western gull LC4 S43 Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

Glaucous-winged gull 

 LC4 S53 Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

California gull MC4 S4/S53 Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

Heermann’s gull MC4 S53 Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

Caspian tern SM1    LC4 S33  Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

Common tern 

 LC4 S43 Coastal beaches, open ocean 

and bay 

Common murre SC1  MC4 S4/S53  Open ocean and bay Marbled murrelet 



T1 T1    HC4 S33  Open ocean and bay; oldgrowth forest for nesting 

Ancient murrelet* 

 HC4 S3/S43  Open ocean and bay 

Cassin’s auklet* SoC1 SC1   MC4 S33  Open ocean and bay Tufted puffin* SoC1 SC1 

 S3/S43  Open ocean 

Band-tailed pigeon 

  

 S43 Coniferous forest, riparian 

forest and shrub, mineral springs 

Short-eared owl 

   S43 Grassland, tidal and nontidal marsh 

Northern spotted owl **

 T1 E1  S23 Late-successional forest 

Western screech owl 



 S43 Coniferous forest, riparian 

forest, grassland 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Northern saw-whet owl 

 S43 Coniferous and riparian 

forest 

Burrowing owl SoC1 SC1     S33 Grassland Common nighthawk 



 S43 Grassland, bare ground 

Vaux’s swift 

 SC1 

 S33 Old-growth forest, large 

snags 

Rufous hummingbird  

 S4/S53 Early seral forest, nectar 

producing plants 

Downy woodpecker 



 S4/S53 Coniferous forest, riparian 

forest, snags 

Pileated woodpecker 

 SC1 

 S43 Mature multi-layered forest, 

large snags 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

 SoC1     S43 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest, tidal and non-tidal marsh 

Willow flycatcher SoC1 

 S4/S53 Riparian shrub, dense shrub 

layer 

Hammond’s flycatcher 



 S53 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest; mature/young forest, open mid-story 

Pacific-slope flycatcher 



 S4/S53 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest; mature/young forest, deciduous canopy 

Streaked horned lark (strigata) 

 FC1 E1  

 S13 Grassland (sparse), sparsely 

vegetated coastal dunes 

Tree swallow 

 S53 Forested wetlands, riparian 

forest, open water, snags 

Purple martin SC1 

 S33 Riparian forest, snags, open 

water 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Brown creeper 



 S4/S53 Old-growth/mature forest, 

multi-layered 

Winter wren 



 S53 Mature/young forest, forest 

floor complexity 

Western bluebird SM1 

 S33 Riparian forest/grassland 

mosaic, snags 

Swainson’s thrush 



 S53 Riparian forest, dense shrub 

understory 

Varied thrush 

 S53 Mature forest, mid-story tree 

layer 

Hermit warbler 



 S43 Mature/young forest, closed 

canopy 

Yellow warbler 



 S4/S53 Riparian forest, scrub-shrub 

Wilson’s warbler 



 S53 Mature/young forested, 

deciduous understory 

Western meadowlark 

 S43 Grassland with perch sites, 

large patches 

Red crossbill 

 S43 Old-growth/mature forest, 

conifer cones 

Fish Chinook salmon 

 SC1 

 S3/S43 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 

Chum salmon 

 SC1 

 S33 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 

Coho salmon 





 S33 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 

Steelhead 

 SC1 

 S53 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Coastal cutthroat trout 

 SoC1 

 S43 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 

Bull trout* T1 SC1  S33 Riverine, estuary, marsh, 

open water 

Green sturgeon* SM1  S23 Open ocean, bay, river Pacific lamprey* SoC1 SM1  S3/S43 Open ocean, bay, river River lamprey* SoC1 SC1  S23 Open ocean, bay, river Western brook lamprey 

 SM1 S3/S43 Freshwater streams and 

rivers 

Eulachon* SC1  S43 Open ocean, bay, river Amphibians and Reptiles Tailed frog 

 SoC1 SM1 S43 Riverine, riparian 

Columbia torrent salamander 

 SoC1 SC1  S33 Riverine, riparian 

Cope’s giant salamander 

 SM1  S3/S43 Freshwater streams 

Dunn’s salamander 

 SC1  S33 Freshwater streams, riparian 

areas 

Van Dyke’s salamander 

 SoC1 SC1  S33 Freshwater streams, riparian 

areas, moist forests 

Red-legged frog 

 SoC1 S43 Forested wetland, riparian 

forest 

Western toad 

 SoC1 SC1  S33 Riparian forest, grassland, 

marsh 

Green sea turtle T1 T1 Open ocean and bay Leatherback sea turtle* 

 E1 E1 Open ocean and bay 

Loggerhead sea turtle* 

 T1 T1 Open ocean and bay 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Olive ridley sea turtle* 

 T1 Open ocean and bay 

Invertebrates Makah’s copper butterfly* 

 SoC1 SC1  S23 Coastal bogs and meadows 

Oregon silverspot butterfly 



T1 E1 

 SX3 Coastal salt-spray meadows, 

back-dune troughs, forest glades 

Newcomb’s littorine snail* 

 SoC1 SC1 S13 Mudflats and Salicornia salt 

marsh 

Olympia oyster SC1 Bay Western pearlshell mussel 

 SM1  S33 Freshwater streams 

Plants Pink sandverbena 

 SoC1 E1 S13 Sparsely vegetated coastal 

dunes and beaches 

Footsteps of spring SoC1 E1 S13 Coastal dunes and meadows Frigid shooting star* SC1 E1 S13 Riparian areas Henderson’s checkermallow 

 SoC1 watch Salt marsh 

Queen of the forest* SoC1 T1 S2/S33 Forest and river Water howellia* T1 T1 S2/S33 Wetland Water pennywort 

 SS1 Wetland 

Habitats Upland forest 











Short-grass field 







Riparian 



  



Riverine 

   

Palustrine–wetland 

    


Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environmen SPECIES 

Refuge Purpose 

Biological Integrity, 

Diversity Health a

Federally Listed 

Washington Listed 

Partners in Flight b

Birds of Conservation 

Concern c

Bird Focal Species d

State Wildlife Plan e

Shorebird Plan f 

(score 1-5)2

N.A.Waterbird 

Conservation Plan g

Pacific Flyway 

Management Plans h

WDFW 2006 i

NAWMP j

WA NHP k

Seabird Cons. Plan l

HABITAT TYPE 

Palustrine—freshwater marsh 

    

Estuarine 

    





Salt marsh 

   



Coastal dunes and beaches 

   



Grassland—OSB habitat 







* = Not documented on refuge. Species occupies habitat adjacent to refuge or potential suitable habitat exists on refuge. 

** = Historically nested on refuge; not documented since 1986. 1 T = threatened; E = endangered; FC = Federal candidate; SoC = species of concern; SC = state candidate; SS = state sensitive; SM = state monitor 2 Regional score. Category codes: 5 = highly imperiled; 4 = high concern; 3 = moderate concern; 2 = low concern; 1 = no risk 3 S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = rare, uncommon; S4 = apparently secure; S5 = demonstrably secure; SX = apparently extirpated; SH = historical 

occurrences, but still expected to occur 

4 HI = highly imperiled, HC = high concern, MC = moderate concern, LC = low concern, NAR = not currently at risk, 

 = included in plan 5 Long-term trend code: D = decreasing; I = increasing; NT = no trend; U = undetermined a USFWS 2001b 

b Altman 1999, 2000 c USFWS 2002a d USFWS 2005b e WDFW 2005 f Drut and Buchanan 2000 g Kushlan et al. 2002 h Pacific Flyway Council 1983, 1991, 1998, 1999a, 199b, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2007 i WDFW 2006 j North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004 k WDNR 2005, 2007 l USFWS 2005a 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

Table 4-2. BIDEH - Natural Plant Communities at Willapa Refuge: Characteristics, 

Natural Processes Involved in Sustaining Community and Limiting Factors. 

Characteristics of the Community 

(Structure, Seral Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

Sustaining Community Structure/ 

Composition 

Limiting Factors 

Upland Forest–Sitka Spruce Zone Forest 

Refuge forests consist of a small amount of late-successional 

forest with presence of large diameter downed logs and snags 

within forest habitat matrix of even-aged stands, previously 

managed for timber production. 

Two major low elevation coastal rainforest habitat types: 

1) Sitka spruce dominant or co-dominant. Western hemlock 

often co-dominant, and western red cedar. Understory includes 

salal, oxalis, and sword fern. High diversity of mosses and 

lichens. 

2) Western red cedar–western hemlock forests often contain 

nearly pure stands of hemlock and thrive in this environment 

where they are exposed to intense windstorms. Low abundance 

of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Sitka spruce. 

Potential resources of concern: marbled murrelet, bald eagle, 

Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker, bats. 

Climate 

characterized by 

hypermaritime (cool 

summers, very wet 

winters), abundant 

fog, no major snow 

pack. Natural 

disturbance 

windthrow, 

occasional intense 

windstorms. 

Catastrophic fires 

and extended 

droughts infrequent. 

Loss of old-growth and 

mature forests due to 

commercial timber 

harvest. Loss of species 

diversity and forest 

complexity due to 

planting of monotypic 

stands for timber 

production. Conversion 

of habitat to residential 

areas. Forest 

fragmentation. 

Riparian–Sitka Spruce Zone Forest 

Highly variable structure. High density of edges contributes to 

habitat and species diversity and productivity. 

1) Early seral stage deciduous trees, such as red alder, typically 

younger forests or frequently disturbed areas. 

2) Late seral stage Sitka spruce, western red cedar, western 

hemlock. Bottomland forest with dense shrub understory; 

forested streambanks. 

Potential resources of concern: Dunn’s salamander, Van 

Dyke’s salamander. 

Functioning floodplain: high-flow 

events shape stream 

channels and 

riparian vegetation 

(pulse disturbances). 

Wind and climate 

cycles (variable and 

cyclic). 

Dike construction, land 

clearing for agricultural 

and urbanization. Timber 

harvest and roads. 

Sediment input, loss of 

large woody debris. 

Riverine 

River and stream channels provide migration pathways for 

adult anadromous fish traveling to spawning grounds and 

juveniles traveling to the estuary and/or Pacific Ocean. 

Riverine habitat supports amphibians and invertebrates. 

Perennial and intermittent streams. 

Potential resources of concern: chum, coho, steelhead, 

cutthroat trout, western brook lamprey, Columbia torrent 

salamander, tailed frog, western pearlshell mussel. 

Periodic flooding 

with flooding 

energy variable 

depending on 

location of 

stream/river in 

landscape; perennial 

water flows. 

Loss of connectivity to 

estuary due to highway 

and dike construction. 

Hydrologic regime alteration, passage barriers, 

water quality issues 

(temperature and sedimentation), exotic species. 

Palustrine Freshwater Wetlands 

Non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses and lichens, and all such wetlands 

that occur in tidal areas where salinity is low (< 0.5 parts per 

thousand). 

Wetlands with permanent to semi-permanent standing water, 

often with fluctuating water table. Can support submerged, 

floating, rooted aquatic and emergent plants. 

Varying according to depth and contour of basin, duration of 

inundation, soil texture and permeability. 

Potential resources of concern: waterfowl, trumpeter swan, 

water pennywort, native amphibians. 

Maintain freshwater 

inputs. Functioning 

floodplain: frequent 

but not prolonged 

flooding. 

Habitat loss from dike 

construction/drainage. 

Land clearing for 

industrial, agricultural and 

residential develop-ment. 

Dam construction that 

reduced flooding and 

altered water regimes. 

Invasive species such as 

reed canarygrass, purple 

loosestrife, bullfrogs, and 

nutria. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Characteristics of the Community 

(Structure, Seral Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for 

Sustaining Community Structure/ 

Composition 

Limiting Factors 

Estuarine 

Vast areas of eelgrass beds provide shelter for fish and 

invertebrates; food source for brant, waterfowl and waterbirds; 

fish spawning and nursery habitat; and shellfish habitat. 

Vegetated and unvegetated sand and mud flats provide foraging 

areas for shorebirds. Intertidal sand bars and bay islands 

provide roost sites for seabirds and haul-outs for marine 

mammals. 

Potential resources of concern: eelgrass beds, brant, brown 

pelican, shorebirds, waterfowl, marine mammals. 

Tidal cycles. 

Eelgrass requires 

habitat where 

erosion and 

sedimentation are in 

equilibrium. 

Sediment transport 

and deposition. 

Destruction of tidelands 

by diking, construction of 

bulkheads and piers. 

Dredging activity. 

Contaminants. 

Aquaculture. Exotic 

species: Spartina, 

Japanese eelgrass. 

Salt Marsh 

Saltmarsh grasses, algae and phytoplankton are major 

producers in estuaries. Pickleweed (Salicornia), seashore salt 

grass, jaumea, alkali grass, sea arrow grass, sand-spurry, 

seaside plantain, salt marsh wort. Low to high marsh zones. 

Potential resources of concern: migratory waterfowl, dabbling 

ducks, Henderson’s checkermallow, elk. 

Sun, tides, salinity 

gradients. 

Invasive species: 

Spartina, potentially New 

Zealand mudsnail. Diking, 

filling, conversion for 

agriculture. Logging of 

watershed. 

Coastal Dunes and Beach 

Historically low hummock sand dune formations characterized 

by large areas of open sand; formed by sparsely vegetated 

native dune plant species. 

Invasive, non-native beachgrasses (Ammophila breviligulata

and A. arenaria) planted to stabilize dune community have 

change dune morphology and native plant communities. Mild 

climate allows vegetation to establish easily and rapidly. 

Herbaceous beachgrass to shrub to permanent lodgepole pine 

forest. 

Potential resources of concern: western snowy plover, streaked 

horned lark, pink sandverbena, other rare native dune plants.

Coastal marine and 

wind processes. 

Sediment transport 

and deposition by 

ocean currents. 

High rainfall 

maintains high 

water table 

favorable for plant 

growth. 

Dams on Columbia River 

have altered sediment 

loads. Jetties have altered 

sediment transport. 

Invasive non-native 

Ammophila beach-grasses, 

Scotch broom, gorse. 

Rapid succession to shrub, 

then climax lodgepole 

pine forest. 

Grasslands 

Native grasslands occurred historically on the Long Beach 

Peninsula. Current habitat restoration on Refuge to create early 

successional, coastally-influenced grassland habitat for the 

Oregon silverspot butterfly. 

Potential resources of concern: Oregon silverspot butterfly, 

early blue violet. 

Proximity to ocean, 

mild temperatures, 

high rainfall, fog. 

Maintain low, open 

grasslands by 

suppressing 

encroaching trees 

and shrubs. Wind 

transport of sand, 

small mammal activety, herbivory, fire. 

Loss of habitat. Dune 

stabilization caused by the 

introduction and spread of 

nonnative beachgrass has 

encouraged rapid 

succession to forested 

habitats. Viola adunca

out-competed by 

introduced grasses and 

herbs. 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

Table 4-3. Priority Resources of Concern for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat Type 

13, 16, 17, 22, 25 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefiting 

Species 

Marbled 

murrelet 

Latesuccessional 

forest 

Mature forest: dominant trees 100-200 

years with average tree diameters 

exceeding 21 inches. 

Old-growth forest: dominant overstory 

>200 years with a multilayered, 

multispecies canopy; Largest tree 

diameters range from 32 to >39 inches; 

Many large fallen trees and snags, trees of 

all ages, heavy ground cover, <80% 

canopy closure. 

In mature and old-growth forests large 

diameter trees (western hemlock, Sitka 

spruce, western red cedar, Douglas fir) 

with large flat moss-covered branches at 

least 7 inches in diameter that form a 

platform (for nesting). Branches at least 

50 feet above the ground. Mean nest 

branch height of 120 feet. High canopy 

closure over nest branches.2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Breeding 

(April–

September) 

Vaux’s swift, pileated 

woodpecker, spotted 

owl, brown creeper, red 

crossbill, Pacific-slope 

flycatcher, northern 

Saw-whet owl, northern 

goshawk, bald eagle, 

band-tailed pigeon, 

winter wren, pine 

marten, long-legged 

myotis, long-eared 

myotis, tailed frog, 

Columbia torrent 

salamander, Cope’s 

giant salamander, 

Dunn’s salamander, 

Van Dyke’s salamander 

Canada 

goose 

Short-grass 

fields 

Short grasses (< 4 inch) preferred forage. 

Green forage, various grasses and grasslegume mixes make up majority of diet. 

Other essential habitat elements include 

water and sanctuary to sustain birds from 

fall arrival to departure in spring.23

Wintering, 

foraging 

greater white-fronted 

goose, western 

meadowlark, northern 

harrier, red-tailed hawk, 

American kestrel, 

western screech owl, 

killdeer, Wilson’s snipe 

Yellow 

warbler 

Riparian Early seral-stage deciduous red alder 

riparian forest. 

>70% cover in shrub layers with 

subcanopy layer contributing >40% of 

total. 

Shrub layer cover 30%-60% (includes 

shrubs and saplings). Shrub layer height 

> 6.6 feet. Shrubs include willow and 

salmonberry. 

Breeding, 

foraging 

song sparrow, common 

yellowthroat, downy 

woodpecker, great blue 

heron, belted kingfisher, 

olive-sided flycatcher, 

Swainson’s thrush, 

Wilson’s warbler, 

willow flycatcher 

Roosevelt elk, redlegged frog 

Winter 

wren 

Riparian Mid-late successional bottomland forest 

with complex vegetative structure and 

habitat attributes unique to older forests, 

such as large down logs and root wads. 

Large forest blocks with average of four 

downed logs per acre with dbh >24 

inches and 50 feet long. Shrub cover > 

60% within 9 feet of ground. Tree trunk 

surface area for foraging with a mean dbh 

>16 inches. Shrub species include 

evergreen huckleberry, red huckleberry, 

and sword fern. 

Year-round, 

breeding, 

foraging 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat Type 

13, 16, 17, 22, 25 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefiting 

Species 

Van 

Dyke’s 

salamander 

Riparian Forested, shaded streambanks, seeps or 

moist, north-facing rocky habitats in 

forested areas. Splash zones of streams 

and moist, well-shaded substrates with 

stable microclimates. 

Native species including western red 

cedar, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, red 

alder, salal, salmonberry, huckleberry, red 

elderberry, sword fern, oxalis.4, 5, 7, 24

Year-round, 

breeding, 

foraging 

Coastal 

cutthroat 

trout 

Riverine Passage barrier free, gravelly coastal 

streams and small rivers with large 

woody debris, and estuaries. Stream and 

off-channel habitats. Cool welloxygenated water, temperature <73 ̊F, 

intact riparian corridor. Fine to coarse 

gravel for spawning.6, 7

Resident and 

anadromous 

fish 

spawning, 

rearing, and 

foraging 

Chinook salmon, chum 

salmon, coho salmon, 

steelhead, Cope’s giant 

salamander, red-legged 

frog, western brook 

lamprey, western 

pearlshell mussel 

Columbia 

torrent 

salamander 

Riverine Very cold, clear springs, shady seeps, 

headwater streams with large woody 

debris, and waterfall splash zones. May 

forage in moist forests adjacent to these 

areas. Loose rock or gravel substrates 

that are sediment free. Stable 

microclimates. Water temperatures 

cannot exceed 81.0 ̊F to 82.4 ̊F.4, 5

Lay eggs in 

rock crevices 

in seeps. 

Larvae and 

adults live in 

gravel or 

under small 

cobbles in silt 

free water 

that is 

flowing or 

seeping. Slow 

maturing. 

failed frog, red-legged 

frog, Cope’s giant 

salamander, 

invertebrates 

Northern 

pintail 

Palustrine Emergent wetland. 

Seasonally flooded with medium depths 

(>3 feet) and shallow areas (<4-18 inches 

in depth), flooded from approx. October 

though June. 30%-70% cover of 

emergent vegetation, floating and 

submergent vegetation, native seedbearing plants such as spike rushes, 

sedges, bulrushes, manna grass, 

sparganium, cattail and smartweeds.12

Foraging, 

wintering 

mallard, wood duck, 

northern pintail, 

American wigeon, 

greater scaup, lesser 

scaup, northern harrier, 

great blue heron, 

Canada 

geese, trumpeter swan, 

Wilson’s snipe, rednecked phalarope, 

belted kingfisher, rufous 

hummingbird, coho 

salmon, coastal 

cutthroat trout, 

northwestern 

salamander, water 

pennywort 

Wood 

duck 

Palustrine Forested wetland. 

Shallow water wetlands, flooded beds of 

maturing moist-soil plants, and overflow 

floodplains. Cavities needed for nesting, 

trees or snags >12 inches in diameter. 

Also uses nest boxes.3

Year-round, 

breeding, 

foraging 

Redlegged 

frog 

Palustrine Freshwater marsh vegetation 

characterized by tall reeds, grasses, 

sedges, and floating aquatics. Shallow to 

medium water (1.5-6.5 feet) with 

emergent and/or submergent vegetation.4

Breeding, 

foraging 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat Type 

13, 16, 17, 22, 25 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefiting 

Species 

Willow 

flycatcher

Palustrine Scrub shrub wetland 

Patchy shrub layer; woody vegetation 3 to 

12 feet tall with 80% cover and scattered 

herbaceous openings. 

Canopy tree (woody vegetation > 12 feet 

tall) covers < 20%. Native shrubs 

include: Hooker’s willow, Pacific willow, 

Scouler’s willow, Douglas’ spirea.1

Breeding, 

foraging 

Brant Estuarine Vegetated aquatic beds consisting of 

intertidal and shallow subtidal shores 

colonized by eelgrass (Zostera spp.) 

Tidal cycle variation changes habitat from 

open water to vegetated mudflat. 

No Spartina.

15 

Foraging. 

Wintering 

and spring 

staging 

(OctoberApril). 

juvenile salmonids, 

Pacific herring, 

Dungeness crab, softshell clams, shorebirds, 

waterfowl, benthic 

invertebrates 

Dunlin Estuarine Intertidal mudflats, both vegetated 

(eelgrass) and unvegetated. No Spartina. 

Foraging, 

migrating, 

wintering 

western sandpiper, 

sanderling, short-billed 

dowitcher, red knot, 

benthic invertebrates 

Western 

grebe 

Estuarine Open water channel habitats used by 

surface and diving waterbirds. 

Foraging and 

roosting, 

migrating 

waterfowl, common 

loon, double-crested 

cormorant 

Brown 

pelican 

Estuarine Dynamic intertidal sandbars within 

estuary used as roost sites. Sensitive to 

disturbance. 

Non-breeding 

roost sites 

harbor seal (major haulout sites), seabirds, 

brant, western snowy 

plover, shorebirds, 

benthic invertebrates 

Newcomb’s 

littorine 

snail 

Salt marsh Lives on stems of pickleweed 

(Salicornia) and on the substrate beneath 

the vegetation. Occurs just above high 

tide line, immersed by seawater only a 

few hours each year during flood tides. 

Habitat characterized by Salicornia, 

silverweed, yarrow, tufted hairgrass, 

seashore saltgrass, seacoast angelica, 

gumweed, seaside plantain, small 

spikerush, seaside arrowgrass, Lyngbye’s 

sedge.14 

Year-round Henderson’s 

checkermallow, great 

blue heron, waterbirds, 

migratory waterfowl 

Western 

snowy 

plover 

Coastal dune 

and beach 

Sparsely vegetated beach or dune habitat, 

free of contiguous stands of introduced 

beachgrasses (Ammophila spp.) Large 

areas of open sand with native beach 

plants and shell patches/tidal debris for 

nest and chick concealment 

Nesting areas free of disturbance and 

excessive numbers of nest predators, 

particularly crows and ravens. 

Foraging areas, year-round that are free of 

frequent or prolonged disturbance.19 

Breeding 

(MarchSeptember), 

foraging, 

wintering 

dunlin, sanderlings, 

least sandpipers, 

western sandpipers, 

short-billed dowitcher, 

black-bellied plovers, 

pink sandverbena, 

yellow sandverbena, 

beach morning glory, 

footsteps of spring, gray 

beach pea, and other 

locally rare native 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Focal 

Species 

Habitat Type 

13, 16, 17, 22, 25 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement 

Other Benefiting 

Species 

Streaked 

horned 

lark 

Coastal dune 

and beach 

Sparsely vegetated expanses of sand 

adjacent to the ocean; approximately 35% 

of area with no vegetation 

Ground layer dominated by sand (~68%) 

with little thatch 

Areas dominated by grasses (short annual 

grasses 0.6-8.7 inches) and forbs with few 

or no trees or shrubs.20 

Breeding 

(MarchSeptember), 

foraging. 

Possibly 

year-round. 

plants21 

 

Oregon 

silverspot 

butterfly 

Coastal prairie Stabilized dune habitat has low relief, 

highly porous soils, less exposure to 

winds, than other habitat types. 

Habitat restoration and control of exotic 

vegetation critical. 

Caterpillar host plants and adult nectar 

sources two key components of habitat. 

Nectar species include: pearly everlasting, 

yarrow, California aster, dune goldenrod, 

dune thistle. 

Native nectar plants maintained at a 

density ≥ 5 flowering stems/m2

.

18 

Breeding, 

foraging, 

year-round 

early blue violet (Viola 

adunca), red fescue, 

Douglas’ aster, dune 

goldenrod, pearly 

everlasting, sedge 

Table notes (citation number indicated in parentheses): 

(13) The Washington GAP analysis lists the most important refuge habitats as: sandy beaches; late-seral lowelevation, west-side forest; freshwater and estuarine marsh. 

(17) Washington’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy classifies the top 20 habitat types for 

conservation. Priority 1 habitats include: bays and estuaries, herbaceous wetlands, marine nearshore, Westside 

lowland conifer-hardwood mature forest, Westside riparian-wetlands. Priority 2 habitats: Coastal dunes and 

beaches. Other habitats: Agriculture, Pasture and mixed environs; Open Water (lakes, rivers, streams). 

Table citations: 

(1) Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

(2) Altman, B.1999.Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

(3) Bellrose, F. C., D. J. Holm.1994. Ecology and management of the wood duck. Wildlife Management Institute. 

(4) Corkran, C. C., C. R. Thoms.1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine 

Publishing, Redmond, Washington.176 pp. 

(5) Larsen, E. M. (ed.). 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume III: 

Amphibians and Reptiles. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 122 pp. 

(6) NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer 

(7) Rodrick, E. and R. Milner (Tech. eds.). 1991. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats 

and species. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Olympia. 

(8) Ritchie, W. P. (compiler). 2003. Forest survey training workbook for marbled murrelet. Washington Dept. of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

(9) USDA Forest Service. 2003. New findings about old-growth forests. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Science Update Issue 4 (June 2003). 

(10) USDA Forest Service. 2002. Restoring complexity: second growth forests and habitat diversity. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Science Update Issue 1 (May 2002). 

(11) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp. 

(12) Fredrickson, L. H., and M. E. Heitmeyer. 1991. Life history strategies and habitat needs of the northern pintail 

in waterfowl management handbook. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.1.3, Washington, D.C. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

(13) Cassidy, K. M., M. R. Smith, C. E. Grue, and R. E. Johnson. 1997. The role of Washington State’s National 

Wildlife Refuges in conserving the State’s biodiversity. Washington Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, 

University of Washington, Seattle, 86 pp. 

(14) Larsen, E. M., E. Rodrick and R. Milner (eds.). 1995. Management recommendations for Washington’s 

priority species, Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 82 pp. 

(15) Phillips, R. C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community profile. USFWS 

FWS/OBS-84/24. 85 pp. 

(16) Simenstad, C. A. 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific Northwest Coast: a community 

profile. USFWS FWS/OBS-83/05. 181 pp. 

(17) WDFW. 2005. Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Olympia, Washington. 

(18) USFWS 2001a. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. USFWS, 

Portland, Oregon. 113 pp. 

(19) USFWS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv + 751 pages. 

(20) Pearson, S. F., and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 25 pp. 

(21) Kaye, T. 2003. Conservation strategy for pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellata spp. breviflora). Institute for 

Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 37 pp. 

(22) Deithier, M. N. 1990. A Marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington 

Natural Heritage Program, Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 56 pp. 

(23) Pacific Flyway Council. 1998. Pacific Flyway management plan for the northwest Oregon-southwest 

Washington Canada goose agricultural depredation control. Canada goose agricultural depredation working group, 

Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, Oregon 97232-4181. Unpubl. rep. 31 pp + appendices. 

(24) Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: 

riparian. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. 

(25) Churchill, D., Larson, A., Cedar, K., Rolph, D. and T. Kollasch. 2007. South Willapa Bay Conservation Area: 

Forest Landscape Restoration Plan. Final draft Ver.3. Unpubl. rep. for The Nature Conservancy and Willapa Refuge. 

4.3 Habitats and Vegetation 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Sitka spruce vegetation zone 

(Franklin and Dyrness1988). Prior to settlement and development, the landscape was a mixture 

of coastal beaches and dunes, saltwater and freshwater marshes, freshwater wetlands, native 

grasslands and upland forests, including old-growth forests. These habitats remain, although 

their acreage has been reduced. Diking, draining, land clearing, and timber harvest has had 

effects on the natural landscape. 

The current refuge habitats were mapped using GIS based on the interpretation and analysis of 

2006 color infrared and true color ortho-corrected aerial photography. These habitats are 

depicted in Maps 5, 6, and 7, and the acreages of each are shown in Table 4-4. 

Table 4-4. Habitat Types and Acreages within the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitat Number of Acres 

Sitka spruce zone forest 6,735.7 

Estuarine open water 878 

Intertidal flats 4,178.2 

Salt marsh 1,636.2 

Riverine 21.8 

Seasonal, managed freshwater wetlands 317.3 

Permanent/semi-permanent natural freshwater wetlands 610.1 

Coastal dunes 1,581.2 

Short-grass fields 250.5 

Grasslands 33.4 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The following are summaries of habitats and vegetative communities. The plant and animal 

species listed in this section are given as examples of common as well as priority species present 

but should not be considered a comprehensive list of all species present. 

Willapa Bay is a major estuary on the Pacific Coast and at mean higher high tide encompasses 

approximately 70,400 acres (USFWS 1970). An estuary is defined as the area near the mouth of 

a river, or rivers, in the case of Willapa Bay, where oceanic tidal waters and freshwater currents 

collide and mix. Biologically, estuaries are among the most productive environments on earth 

and provide important habitat for a large variety of organisms. This high productivity is due 

basically to physical and biological processes unique to estuaries. Dissolved organic nutrients 

from detrital material enter the estuary from inflowing rivers. The saltwater wedge, pushed 

along the estuary bottom by the incoming tide, brings in other nutrients of marine origin. 

Currents and tides circulate fresh and salt water, distributing and, to a certain extent, trapping 

dissolved and suspended matter. Deposition of these substances fertilizes the estuary and plant 

life flourishes. This plant life includes vascular vegetation of estuarine marshes (grass, rush, 

sedge), benthic algae (diatoms), epibenthic algae, and eelgrass on intertidal sediments (USFWS 

1986). 

Some plants are fed upon directly by fish and wildlife but most die and enter the food chain in 

the form of detritus or partly decomposed plant material. This detritus, suspended in the water 

and deposited on the bottom, is a high-quality food for consumers because of its high nutritional 

value. A number of studies have shown that many species of fish and invertebrates feed wholly 

or partially on detritus. Therefore, detritus feeders are the critical link between plant production 

and the production of higher consumers. Consequently, the ultimate ecological value of primary 

production in marshes occurs when detritus of marsh plant origin enters the food web of the 

estuary (USFWS 1977). 

Habitat components of estuaries include open water, intertidal mudflats, and salt marshes. These 

habitats are discussed separately below. 

4.3.1 Upland Forest–Sitka Spruce Zone 

The Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) forest zone, also known as the coastal temperate rain forest, 

occurs in a relatively narrow band extending along the North America coast from southeast 

Alaska to northern California. The maritime weather in the region is influenced by moist Pacific 

Ocean air and the coastal mountain ranges. Coastal weather is characterized by cool summers 

and warm, very wet winters. Fog occurs frequently along the outer coast year-round but is 

notable for the significant amount of summer precipitation it creates in the form of tree drip. The 

low elevation coastal rivers and forests of southwest Washington receive most of their annual 

water budget in the form of rain, since the region has no major winter snowpack. The relatively 

mild seasonal temperatures and plentiful moisture create a unique climate that is highly 

productive for plant and animal species. The abundant annual precipitation, relatively rich soils, 

and low rate of catastrophic fire disturbance allow late seral forests to develop (Franklin and 

Dyrness 1988). Summer drought is infrequent or of short duration. The main natural 

disturbance is windthrow, frequently occurring during winter storms. Historically occasional 

intense winter windstorms occurred with a frequency of once or twice every few decades, 

although their frequency has increased during this decade. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

Sitka spruce is the major dominant climax tree species of this forest zone, and is most commonly 

associated with dominant and co-dominant western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Many 

western hemlocks in these old-growth forests are infected with western hemlock dwarf mistletoe 

(Arceuthobium tsugense subsp. tsugense), a parasite that affects their growth but also provides 

important ecological functions, such as serving as a nesting platform for marbled murrelets 

(Hamer and Nelson 1995). Understory trees include a diverse mix of common overstory conifer 

species and hardwoods, primarily composed of red alder (Alnus rubra). Late-seral forests of this 

forest zone are characterized by overstory trees of large stature, exhibiting very large diameter 

boles, large limbs, and tall, deep crowns, often with broken and reiterated tops. The forests 

typically develop vertically and horizontally diverse canopies from multiple crown layers created 

by uneven aged stands, streams, gaps, or similar features that result in a complex spatial 

orientation. Sitka spruce is susceptible to windthrow, which can account for up to 80% of the 

mortality within stands. Regeneration from gap phase replacement, however, is rapid (Franklin 

1988). Taylor (1990) found that Picea can persist at a stand scale if moderate to large gaps 

(equal to 800-1,000 m2) are created every few decades as seen with the natural disturbance 

regime. Since Picea grow more quickly and have a longer life span that hemlock, they can 

remain the climax species. 

Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and, less frequently, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), are 

found as common overstory tree associates at more inland and slightly drier sites, along with 

western hemlock. Douglas fir tends to occur sporadically in old-growth forest remnants of the 

Willapa Hills, likely due to climatic conditions such as increased fog and precipitation and 

subsequent decreases in solar radiation along the coast that are not optimal for Douglas fir 

growth (Davis et al. 2009). In addition, Hansen et al. (2000) state that Douglas fir growth can be 

severely limited in this area due to infection by Swiss needle cast (Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii). 

Red alder is found as an overstory tree in some forests where clear-cut harvest formerly 

occurred, along riparian areas, and as an understory tree in younger conifer forests and areas of 

recent disturbance. Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), a conifer species associated with old-growth 

forests elsewhere (Busing et al. 1995), occur in low densities in these forests. Due to their 

natural rot resistance and robust architecture cedar trees can persist for extremely long periods of 

time, even surviving as trees from a previous forest stand cohort. 

In the Willapa Hills of southwestern Washington, these coastal forests have also been extensively 

managed for timber production; today, less than 1% of the original old-growth forests remain as 

scattered remnant patches across the landscape (Davis et al. 2009). Managed forests are 

typically 20 to 60 years old and are made up of native tree species, primarily Douglas fir and 

western hemlock. Harvest of old-growth and mature forests for commercial timber and paper 

production has resulted in loss of species diversity and forest complexity on most of this 

landscape due to planting of even-aged, monotypic stands, and short harvest rotations. 

Conversion of habitat to residential and non-forest uses has accelerated forest fragmentation. 

The structural complexity of these forests is a key to its importance as wildlife habitat. Sitka 

spruce provides good nesting and roosting habitat for avifauna (Smith 1980; Wiens 1975). Snags 

and live trees with broken tops provide nesting habitat for primary and secondary cavity nesters 

such as Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker, and bats (Hemstrom and Logan 1986). The bald 

eagle uses primarily (greater than 90%) Sitka spruce for nesting trees on Admiralty Island 

(Meehan 1974) and also uses them as roosting trees to survey the incoming breakers for food 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

(Arno and Hammerly 1977). The peregrine falcon in coastal British Columbia uses Sitka spruce 

for platform nesting and secondary cavity nesting (Campbell et al. 1978). Marbled murrelets 

find the large diameter, often moss-covered limbs of mature spruce trees suitable platforms for 

nesting. 

Refuge forests consist of a small amount of late-successional forest with presence of largediameter downed logs and snags within forest habitat matrix of even-aged stands, previously 

managed for timber production. Two primary low elevation coastal rainforest habitat types exist 

at Willapa NWR: Sitka spruce forest and western hemlock–western red cedar. 

4.3.1.1 Sitka Spruce Forest 

This forest type has dominant and co-dominant Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Western red 

cedar and red alder may be found at low to moderate densities but are always present. Minor 

amounts of Douglas fir and grand fir (Abies grandis) can be present in some stands at mesic 

sites. 

Diamond Point RNA is an 88-acre forested area at the northern tip of Long Island that was 

designated a research natural area in 1976. Diamond Point RNA preserves an example of 

second-growth Sitka spruce–western hemlock forest growing on an island in a coastal estuary. 

The natural area includes 48 acres of mature red alder and 40 acres of mature Sitka spruce/sword 

fern forest and Sitka spruce/salal forest. This area was logged near the turn of the century 

(Dyrness 1972). 

4.3.1.2 Western Hemlock–Western Red Cedar 

This forest type has dominant and co-dominant western red cedar and western hemlock. Minor 

amounts of Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, red alder, grand fir, and Pacific yew also occur. Mature 

western red cedar can average 8 to 11 feet dbh and reach 150 to 165 feet in height. Individual 

cedars may be up to 1,000 years old. Old-growth western hemlock may reach 5 to 6 feet dbh. 

The western hemlock has a higher mortality rate and shorter life span than cedar; therefore the 

hemlock is believed to cycle through old-growth stands four to five times more rapidly than the 

cedar does. 

Understory shrub and herbaceous vegetation in these forest types typically include salal 

(Gaultheria shallon), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), red huckleberry (Vaccinium 

parvifolium), oxalis (Oxalis oregana), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). There is a high 

diversity and abundance of mosses and macrolichens from the canopy to the forest floor. 

The 111-hectare (274-acre) Cedar Grove RNA on the Long Island Unit is one of several latesuccessional forests at Willapa NWR. It hosts an extremely rare plant community: western 

hemlock-western red cedar/evergreen huckleberry-salal. The western red cedar forest is in a 

climax condition, with some of the ancient cedar trees estimated to be 900 to over 1,000 years 

old. The stand’s size, its island location in an estuarine bay, and its persistence make it one of the 

most unique forest habitats in the Pacific Northwest (Franklin 1984). The stand structure of the 

Cedar Grove RNA is also unusual in that it is quite uniform. This uniform condition is attributed 

to the absence of catastrophic fire. Although individual trees show signs of fire, the wet climate 

and island setting have apparently protected the area from a stand-destroying fire. The origin of 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

is forest may date to the last major change in climate 4,000 years ago. Surrounding trees and 

topography have likely protected the stand from major wind events. This area was difficult to 

access by water and was therefore spared from logging in the early days. The remainder of Long 

Island has been logged one or more times in the last 100+ years (USFWS 1987). 

4.3.2 Forested Wetland and Riparian Forest–Sitka Spruce Zone 

Riparian and wetland forests are highly variable in their composition, size, and structure 

(Kauffman et al. 2001). Functioning floodplains are influenced by high-flow events that shape 

stream channels and riparian vegetation through a process of pulse disturbances. The high 

density of edges contributes to habitat and species diversity and productivity. Sitka spruce is the 

major dominant climax tree species of this forest type. It is most commonly associated with 

dominant and co-dominant western hemlock and understory red alder. Early seral stage 

deciduous trees, such as red alder, typically make up younger forests or frequently disturbed 

areas along stream bottom lands. Unlike similar coastal and riparian habitats found to the north 

on the Olympic Peninsula, Davis et al. (2009) found that big-leaf maple (Acer macrophylla), 

often the most common hardwood species, is essentially absent from this area. 

The streamside forest is often dense with a shrubby understory and surrounded by a forest 

matrix. Forested wetlands are found along sloughs and coastal areas on the Refuge. Common 

understory vegetation includes vine maple (Acer circinatum), cascara buckhorn (Rhamnus 

purshiana), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), skunk cabbage 

(Lysichiton americanum), sword fern, and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina). There is typically a 

high diversity and abundance of mosses and macrolichens from the canopy to the forest floor. 

Most riparian forests have been impacted directly and indirectly by adjacent timber harvests and 

road construction. Harvest of large-diameter trees or windthrow, resulting from high winds 

during severe winter storms crashing into trees after removal of adjacent forests, have created 

increases in sediment input and loss of large woody debris. Dike construction, land clearing for 

agricultural purposes, and urbanization has reduced the amount of coastal forested wetlands. 

4.3.3 Estuarine Open Water 

Open water refers to those areas that are continuously submerged. These habitats are referred to 

as deepwater habitats by Cowardin et al. (1979). Water is present in the channels even at low 

tide and they serve as a link between the ocean and tidal rivers and streams. Channel depths in 

Willapa Bay range from 30 to 50 feet with maximum depths of 75 to 77 feet below mean low 

water (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981). The open water channels provide habitat for fish and a 

variety of invertebrate animals and aquatic plants. Many of the fish species in the estuary are 

confined to open water channels as the tide falls. During high tide they disperse to the flooded 

mud flats and lower portions of salt marshes. Channels serve as migration pathways for adult 

salmon, lamprey, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, and other fish species on their way to rivers 

and streams to spawn, as well as for juveniles. Many fish species that spend their adult life in the 

ocean spend time as juveniles in the estuary. Deeper channels and holes are preferred habitat for 

white sturgeon. Clams, mussels, aquatic worms, and other small organisms are found on the 

bottom. Rooted aquatic plants are scarce in the main channels because of water depth and 

strong, erosive currents but are found in backwaters. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.3.4 Intertidal Flats 

Intertidal flats are those areas of mud or sandy mud that are affected by the rising and falling of 

the tides. Intertidal flats are often submerged, but are gradually exposed as the tide lowers. At 

low tide much of Willapa Bay is drained, exposing extensive mud flats. More than 50% of the 

total high tide surface area is exposed at low tide (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981; Sayce 1988). 

The intertidal zone is defined as the area above MLLW and below MHHW. Based on 2003 data, 

84 square miles of the bay are intertidal (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). These mud flats 

tend to be very soft in many locations due to the deposition of fine sediments combined with 

organic matter, water saturation, and bacterial influence (McConnaughey 1985). The substrate 

characteristics vary from being sandy in the northern region of the bay to silty clay in the 

southern region (O’Connell 2002). Typically vegetation is scarce, but beds of eelgrass are 

present within Willapa Bay. Intertidal flats support an abundance of invertebrates including 

oysters, clams, mussels, amphipods, polychaete and oligochaete worms, insect larvae, and 

nematodes. Foraging shorebirds follow the receding tide across the flats and fish and waterbirds 

frequent the flats when they are flooded. Organisms of intertidal flats must cope with the stress 

of currents, varied wave action, and tides. Intertidal life will also be affected by light level, 

temperature change, amounts of oxygen, salinity, and exposure to air and wind (McConnaughey 

1985). 

Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a seed-producing marine plant that provides food and habitat 

for a variety of organisms. Vast beds of eelgrass occur at the lower levels of the intertidal zone 

and are a staple food for brant, a sea goose that migrates through or winters in Willapa Bay. 

American wigeon, mallard, northern pintail, and canvasback also feed on eelgrass (Phillips 

1984). Roots and stems of eelgrass assist in stabilization of mudflats. Blades of eelgrass are 

grazed and also support the growth of diatoms and small invertebrates that accumulate on the 

blades. Eelgrass also supplies detritus, which contributes to the food cycle (McConnaughey 

1985). Eelgrass provides habitat for numerous species of mollusks and crustaceans, and serves 

as a nursery ground for juvenile, resident and migrating fish (Kikuchi 1980). It is used for refuge 

and feeding by salmon species and Pacific herring (Simenstad 1994). An exotic eelgrass, 

Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica), is also present in Willapa Bay. At the current time it is 

unknown whether this eelgrass species poses any threat to the Willapa Bay ecosystem. However, 

evidence exists that the expansion of Z. japonica has provided a major food source for migratory 

waterfowl (Boersma et al. 2006; Phillips 1984). 

The upper edges of the intertidal flats are ringed by salt-tolerant plants called halopytes which 

serve as sediment traps and add much organic matter to the estuarine system (McConnaughey 

1985). 

A recent major ecological concern involved the substantial loss of high intertidal flats and native 

saltmarsh vegetation due to invasion by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Spartina, a 

non-native cordgrass that was accidently introduced to the Willapa Bay ecosystem from the East 

Coast in the late 1800s, formerly covered a large portion (>14,000 acres) of Willapa Bay’s 

intertidal mudflats (Boersma et al. 2006). Spartina forms dense, monotypic stands, traps 

sediment, and alters natural hydrologic processes. The loss of most of Willapa Bay’s intertidal 

mudflats and native saltmarsh communities was imminent. Spartina had and would have 

continued to have a devastating effect on use of the bay by shorebirds, brant and other waterfowl 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

species, anadromous fish, and Willapa Bay’s oyster and hard-shell clam aquaculture industry. 

However, due to eradication efforts by Federal, state, and county agencies as well as the efforts 

of the oyster industry and private landowners, and additional support by Washington State 

University, the University of Washington, and nongovernmental organizations, including TNC, 

Spartina is now nearly absent from Willapa Bay. The major portion of the intensive eradication 

effort took place from 2003 through 2008. Use of areas within the bay by shorebirds and 

waterfowl dramatically increased after removal of Spartina from tidal mudflats (Patten and 

O’Casey 2007). 

4.3.5 Salt Marsh 

Salt marsh occurs in the estuary where the ground is high enough (not flooded too deeply for too 

long) to support emergent herbaceous plants, but too low and wet to support shrubs or trees. Salt 

marshes are generally found from elevations of about MLLW to MHHW. 

Saltmarsh grasses, algae, and phytoplankton are major producers in estuaries. Halophytes, plants 

that are adapted to salty conditions, including pickleweed (Salicornia), seashore salt grass, 

jaumea, alkali grass, sea arrow grass, sand-spurry, seaside plantain, and salt marsh wort, are 

found in the low to high marsh zones. Low marshes are those nearest the low-tide line which 

may be covered with each high tide. High marshes are generally only covered by the tide on 

very few occasions. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia sp.), Pacific silverweed, saltmarsh bulrush, 

and Lyngbye’s sedge are found in high salt marshes. 

Salt marshes provide an abundance of food for the invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals of the 

estuary. The vegetation filters pollutants from the water. The plant seeds, roots, tubers, and 

leaves feed many thousands of ducks and geese. Plant matter from the marshes breaks down and 

is transported by tidal action into the bay. Decaying remains of plants are fed upon by larger 

organisms including filter feeders and so on up the food chain. Juvenile salmon and other fish 

find an abundance of food in the marshes, as well as shelter from strong currents and predators. 

Bald eagles, great blue herons, and other predators are attracted to the abundance of life. The 

productivity of the marshes is critical to the health of the estuary. 

According to ONRC calculations, Willapa Bay originally contained approximately 14,620 acres 

of saltwater wetlands. Now there are 5,277 acres. This represents a 64% loss of estuarine 

wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

The Refuge desires to undertake a program of estuarine restoration (Appendix O) in select 

portions of the Refuge. This action will maximize and enhance the three above habitats. 

4.3.6 Riverine 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge has the responsibility for approximately 20 streams with 

fish populations. Both permanent and intermittent streams are represented on the Refuge and are 

classified as low- to medium-gradient streams and high-gradient streams, which are found on 

steep slopes. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Land use activities and previous land management practices have impacted wildlife habitat 

values in and along rivers and streams in the Willapa Bay watershed and contributed to the 

decline of fish runs. Stream processes in many areas have been altered. Degradation of streams, 

including those on the Refuge, has occurred historically. Problems include loss of connectivity 

to the estuary due to highway and dike construction, hydrologic regime alteration, presence of 

fish passage barriers, water quality issues (i.e., temperature and sedimentation), and presence of 

exotic species. 

Refuge streams and rivers support runs of anadromous fish such as chum, coho and Chinook 

salmon, and cutthroat trout. Western brook lamprey are resident in some of the streams as are 

rare amphibians such as the Columbia torrent salamander and tailed frog. Transplanted 

populations of western pearlshell mussels are also present in several refuge streams. 

Historically streams contained large amounts of woody debris that created a complex aquatic 

environment of riffles, pools, glides, runs and side channels. Habitat features of healthy riverine 

systems include: 

1) Large woody debris: The presence of large woody debris (LWD) in a stream/river 

system is an important component which impacts channel formation and channel 

stability. LWD in a stream or river bed will cause changes in morphology of 

channels by slowing water velocity. This will trap sediments and create pools while 

causing riffles to form downstream. In high-energy streams, LWD will assist in the 

retention of spawning gravel as well as provide thermal and physical cover for fish 

and other species. Another benefit of LWD is providing habitat as well as nutrient 

sources for macroinvertebrates and microorganisms (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999). 

2) Pool/riffle ratio: Healthy streams should have a pool/riffle ratio of at least 1:1 (Cheo 

and Murdoch 1991). This ratio is the number of pools and the number of riffles 

observed visually within a stream reach. 

Another important component of a healthy riverine system is an intact and diverse riparian 

vegetation zone. Positive effects of a healthy riparian zone include (Applied Environmental 

Services 2002): 

Stabilization of stream banks which reduces sedimentation and the effects of flooding: 

1) Reduction of the addition of pollutants into the stream from runoff. 

2) Control of stream temperatures by providing canopy shade. 

3) Providing refuge for wildlife. 

4) Addition of organic matter from leaf litter and fallen branches. 

5) Addition of LWD from dead vegetation that falls and enters the stream. 

Restoration of riverine habitat is a priority for the Refuge. The initial restoration project on the 

Refuge was at Headquarters Stream with the goal of re-establishing chum, coho, and sea-run 

cutthroat trout, which were extirpated from this stream in the late 1940s. Restoration activities 

were initiated in 1997. Physical improvements consisted of removing fish passage barriers 

(which included a tide gate, flash board risers, culverts, and a check dam), incorporation of 

LWD, and root wads within the stream, rehabilitating spawning beds and re-establishing a chum 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

salmon run as well as cutthroat trout. Coho recolonized the stream when passage barriers were 

removed. 

Stream and estuarine restoration is undertaken as a management action to restore historic 

ecological processes and functions to refuge streams and estuarine habitats to benefit 

anadromous fish populations and other stream-dependent wildlife. Refuge lands where stream 

and estuarine restoration is feasible stretch from the Naselle River, near the base of the Stanley 

Peninsula, to Tarlatt Slough, at the southern end of Willapa Bay and include Long Island. The 

Refuge restores stream habitat by re-establishing LWD complexes in a fashion that mimics 

natural LWD presumed to have been historically present in the stream. LWD complexes are 

placed in the existing stream channels by high line cabling or other heavy equipment use where 

feasible, keeping impacts to streamside habitat to a minimum. Complexes that contain root wads 

are preferred as this is a more natural condition. Channel structure is sometimes needed to be 

modified, fish barriers removed, and portions of the riparian zone restored by plantings. The 

Refuge has an environmental assessment for stream restoration that was signed in 2003. 

As a management tool the Willapa NWR has had a reintroduction program for salmonids, 

including chum and coho salmon as well as sea-run cutthroat trout, since 1996. 

Wild sea-run cutthroat trout have been introduced to several refuge streams, starting in 

December 2000 and continuing on an annual basis if fish are available. The fish are trapped 

incidental to salmon hatchery operations at the Naselle and Nemah River hatcheries, transported 

to the Refuge, and released in refuge streams. A small piece of caudal or adipose fin is clipped 

by WDFW personnel for DNA analysis. During the relocation process, fish are released in small 

groups along a length of the target stream, primarily in pools. Fish are placed in buckets and 

hand-carried to the stream site. On occasion, fresh or frozen salmon eggs are also placed in 

pools or broadcast as a food source for the cutthroat trout. Salmon carcasses are also received 

from local fish hatcheries and are placed along streams to enhance nutrient levels. 

In addition, the Refuge maintains fish egg trays for egg reintroduction efforts for chum and coho 

salmon and conducts release of chum and coho fry. A chum restoration project was initiated in 

1998 in cooperation with the Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group and the 

WDFW. 

4.3.7 Seasonal, Managed Freshwater Wetlands 

The Lewis and Porter Point units, located on the southwestern shore of Willapa Bay, contain 

diked freshwater marshes and are managed for wintering waterfowl, primarily duck use. Since 

the 1980s, these units have been converted to freshwater marsh from poorly drained pastures. 

Marsh plants include bulrush, cattail, sedges, spikerush, bur-reed, beggarticks, juncus, 

smartweed, mannagrass, water pennywort, several species of pondweed, and duckweed. Native 

emergent and submerged aquatic plants are present as are non-native invasive species including 

reed canarygrass, tussock, and bog loosestrife. Lewis and Porter Point are drawn down through 

water control structures on a rotational basis. Draw-downs are conducted to accomplish a 

variety objectives including providing mudflat areas for moist soil vegetation to proliferate for 

waterfowl food sources; exposing impoundment beds to drying action in order to control reed 

canarygrass, tussock, and bog loosestrife infestations; and controlling non-native bullfrog 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

populations. In addition to vegetation management via water manipulation, chemical control, 

mowing, and/or discing are utilized to control reed canarygrass and tussock. Water level 

manipulation is used to encourage seed set and proliferation of smartweed, beggarticks, and burrreed. Exposed mudflats also provide foraging areas for shorebirds. Draw-downs are also timed 

to maximize the period for native amphibian development before the impoundment is completely 

dried out. Natural flooding in the fall provides access to smartweed and other waterfowl foods 

for migrating and wintering waterfowl. The Lewis and Porter Point impoundments are also fed 

by small streams originating in timber company properties. Water levels are maintained at the 

approximately 11.7 feet, except during draw-down. Fish ladders are incorporated into these 

systems to allow ingress and egress of fish species, which include coho salmon, sea-run cutthroat 

trout, and other native fish species. Small seasonal freshwater wetlands are maintained at the 

Riekkola and Tarlatt units. Use of refuge impoundments by waterbirds other than waterfowl, 

such as grebes, herons, bitterns, and rails, occurs. These shallow, vegetated wetlands provide 

breeding habitat for red-legged frogs, Pacific treefrogs, roughskin newts, and northwestern 

salamanders. River otters and non-native nutria also use impoundments. 

4.3.8 Permanent/Semi-permanent Natural Freshwater Wetlands 

Permanent and semi-permanent natural freshwater wetlands on the Refuge are diverse habitats 

and include swamps, marshes, seeps, springs, and seasonal wetlands. Also included in this 

category are beaver ponds, which have been constructed through dam building and maintained 

by these mammals in various refuge streams, creating open ponds and marshes which provide 

important ecological benefits to a variety of wildlife species. 

Beavers are an important source of disturbance in natural ecosystems. By constructing dams and 

impounding streams, beavers considerably alter stream hydrology in a way that provides 

extensive benefits to fish as well as other organisms, resulting in a high species diversity 

supported by these systems (Rossell et al. 2005). Cutthroat trout make extensive use of beaver 

ponds for overwintering and feeding (Johnson et al. 1999), and coho often use these areas as 

winter habitat (Narver 1978 in McMahon 1983). Beaver ponds on Willapa NWR streams 

provide winter habitat for both juvenile cutthroat and coho. Maintaining beaver ponds on these 

streams will benefit cutthroat and coho by providing winter habitat as well as rearing and feeding 

areas (Pollock et al. 2004; USFWS 2004a). 

Beaver ponds create habitat complexity and an abundance of woody debris, and they often 

contain snags standing in open water. These snags are important nesting habitat for wood ducks, 

tree swallows, and woodpeckers. They are also used as hunting perches by a variety of raptors. 

There are a few small freshwater ponds on Long Island. Extensive sloughs have developed on 

the eastern shore of the island and penetrate westerly for a considerable distance into the interior. 

Lewis Slough at the north end has almost bisected the island. 

Freshwater marsh and bog communities scattered throughout Long Island’s drainages make up 

about 0.2% of the land surface. Plant species associated with these wetlands include skunk 

cabbage, yellow pond lily, pondweeds, bladderworts, grasses, sedges, and rushes. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

Freshwater wetlands and surrounding vegetation support a variety of birds such as great blue 

herons, marsh wrens, common yellowthroats, and song sparrows. 

Interdunal freshwater wetlands are found at the Leadbetter Unit of the Refuge on the north end of 

the Long Beach Peninsula and are of relatively high ecological integrity when compared to what 

remains of these habitats in Washington. The deflation plain and dune troughs that contain this 

habitat are composed of five recognized plant communities and occur in relationship to a 

moisture gradient from seasonally wet and seasonally dry to permanently flooded. These include 

areas which remain moist, areas which flood through the spring, and areas that are flooded year 

round (Caicco 1989). Slough sedge and Pacific silverweed are found in the moister zones of 

these habitats. These interdunal freshwater wetlands provide habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, 

songbirds, amphibians, and invertebrates. 

4.3.8.1 Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Site 

Two types of wetlands have been delineated on the property: one large estuarine wetland along 

Tarlatt Slough, and several depressional emergent wetlands are found in a central and narrow 

strip generally running north and south through western portion of the site near Sandridge Road. 

The depressional wetlands on-site appear to coincide with the Yaquina loamy fine sand soil 

mapping unit, which is somewhat poorly drained and appears to have a water table closer to the 

surface. Vegetation characteristic of wetlands and evidence of wet soils can be readily observed 

on the site in the designated wetland areas. 

Dominant species within the estuarine wetland include slough sedge (Carex obnupta), skunk 

cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), common cattail (Typha latifolia), duckweed (Callitrichaceae 

heterophylla), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Hooker willow (Salix hookeriana), soft rush (Juncus 

effusus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundicacea), red alder, water parsley (Oenanthe 

sarmentosa), western red cedar, small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), salmonberry, and 

creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The large estuarine wetland meets the criteria for 

Category I rating, according to WDOE standards described in the Wetland Rating Form for 

Western Washington (WDOE 2004). Category I wetlands represent the highest quality wetlands 

in the State of Washington. They provide life support function for threatened or endangered 

species, they are nurseries of the ocean, and they provide shelter and food for fish, birds, and 

wildlife (Key Environmental Solutions 2010). 

Dominant species within the depressional emergent wetlands include soft rush, other rushes 

(Juncus sp.), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), reed canarygrass 

(Phalaris arundicacea), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus 

repens). The depressional wetlands are one-stratum emergent wetlands and generally appear to 

be degraded, probably due to past land use practices, such as agriculture, including pasturing. 

These wetlands meet the basic criteria for a Category IV wetland rating (Key Environmental 

Solutions 2010). 

Pacific County Critical Areas and Resources Land Ordinance No. 147 (CARL) will require the 

issuance of a development permit for work within or adjacent to all wetlands on site. CARL 

establishes buffers around all wetlands, utilizing the WDOE Washington State Wetlands Rating 

System for Western Washington (WDOE 2004). Buffer widths are determined by the wetland 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

quality rating, with higher quality wetlands requiring greater buffer protection zones. The 

Category I wetlands will have a designated 100-foot buffer zone, whereas a Category IV 

wetlands will have a 25-foot buffer protection zone. The wetlands found on the site will also be 

subject to Federal and state removal/fill wetland regulations if impacted. 

4.3.9 Coastal Dunes and Beaches 

Sand beaches with associated dunes dominate the southern Washington Pacific coastline, while 

the northern coast is more rugged and rocky with steep headlands and numerous offshore islands 

and rocks. Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are two large bays located along the outer coast in the 

southern half of the state. Historically low hummock sand dune formations characterized by 

large areas of open sand, formed by sparsely vegetated native dune plant species. Coastal marine 

and wind processes worked to maintain native plant communities in early successional stages on 

the outer prism of many of these beaches. Where dunes were more stable and blowouts less 

frequent, a mosaic of native prairie and dune grasslands, freshwater lakes, swamps, bogs, and 

spruce-dominated forests developed. High rainfall maintained high water tables favorable for 

plant growth. 

Invasive, non-native beach grasses (Ammophila breviligulata and A. arenaria) planted to 

stabilize dune community have change dune morphology and native plant communities. Mild 

climate allows vegetation to establish easily and rapidly. Accelerated succession due to fire 

suppression progresses from herbaceous beachgrass, to shrub (often invasive non-natives such as 

Scotch broom and common gorse), to pioneer lodgepole pine or climax Sitka spruce forest. The 

Columbia River once created extensive sediment transport and ocean currents influenced by a 

log-shore drift deposited sediment continually nourishing the coastal sand beaches. Dams on the 

Columbia River have altered sediment loads, and jetties at the river mouth and entrances to the 

bays have altered sediment transport. 

The endangered pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellata) and other rare native dune plants like 

yellow sandverbena (Abronia latifolia), gray beach pea (Lathyrus littoralis) and beach morning 

glory (Convolvulus soldanella) are found along the sparsely vegetated sand beaches and coastal 

dunes within the Refuge where the spread of non-native beachgrass is controlled or kept in low 

densities due to the influence of naturally occurring erosion processes. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit lies at the northern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula, at the mouth of 

Willapa Bay, in Pacific County, Washington. The Long Beach Peninsula separates the Pacific 

Ocean from Willapa Bay. The west side of the area is characterized by open windswept beaches 

backed by low vegetated dunes. The tip of the peninsula was largely barren sand, and the east 

side consists of a narrow beach with a few small, sheltered openings cut into the beachgrass by 

high water in winter. A small, isolated portion of beach exists to the east, on Willapa Bay, and is 

referred to as Grassy Island although it is attached to the peninsula. 

The northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula was in a state of gradual northward accretion 

from at least 1965 to 1999. Invasion of American beachgrass and European beachgrass has 

followed accretion, progressively filling in the dunes behind the sand spit. In conjunction with 

slowed accretion in more recent years, the vegetation line has moved westward and the 

vegetation-to-water distance has decreased (Phipps 1990) resulting in a narrower beach and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33 

probably less suitable plover habitat. Recent maps from the Washington State Department of 

Transportation show that the tip of Leadbetter Point has been gradually eroding since mapping 

efforts began in 1999. As the tip has eroded, the peninsula to the southwest has gotten wider. 

Leadbetter Point is one of the northern-most breeding sites for the western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) on the Pacific Coast (Jaques 2001). 

The unique natural elements protected at Leadbetter Point include salt marsh, native dunegrass, 

lodgepole pine (shore pine) forest, shrub/lodgepole pine (shore pine), and open beach habitats. 

Leadbetter Point contains high-quality examples of high-salinity Virginia glasswort/inland 

saltgrass marsh, low salinity marsh, and transition zone wetlands. Flora associated with the 

marshes are of primary significance, as are the dune grassland and deflation plain communities. 

Pockets of native plants within the secondary dune, deflation plains, and dune troughs are also 

significant ecological features and are of high quality compared to these remaining plant 

communities in Washington. The open beach and dune grassland communities of Leadbetter 

Point have been significantly impacted by the invasion and naturalization of two non-native 

beach grasses. The salt marsh has been invaded by smooth cordgrass, an eastern salt marsh 

species, although efforts to control cordgrass in recent years have essentially eliminated it from 

Leadbetter Point. Selective removal or control of plant species not native to Leadbetter Point, 

including Spartina, Scotch broom, and common gorse, was an approved management activity at 

the time the RNA was established. Removal and control of the non-native beach grasses has 

been approved and work has been done as part of the management of habitat for the federally 

threatened/state endangered western snowy plover (Caicco 1989; Willapa NWR files). 

4.3.10 Grasslands and Short-grass Fields 

Native grasslands occurred historically on the Long Beach Peninsula. Currently there are very 

few of these native plant communities remaining. Where grasslands still exist they are often 

pastures of introduces grasses, and sedges in wetter areas, managed as livestock rangeland, golf 

courses and residential lawns. Willapa NWR is planning to develop a habitat restoration project 

to create early successional, coastally influenced grassland habitat for the Oregon silverspot 

butterfly. WDFW has already implemented a similar project at two small sites on state land on 

the Long Beach Peninsula. 

Proximity to the salt spray from the ocean, mild temperatures, high rainfall, and fog have 

maintained the low-growing, open natural grasslands by suppressing encroaching trees and 

shrubs. Natural processes responsible for sustaining the community structure and composition 

are wind transport of sand, small mammal activity, herbivory, and fire. 

Habitat loss has resulted from dune stabilization caused by the introduction and spread of nonnative beachgrass that encourages rapid succession to forested habitats. The early blue violet 

(Viola adunca), a host plant of the Oregon silverspot butterfly larvae, and other native grasses 

and forbs, are out-competed by the introduced grasses and herbs and shaded out by weedy shrubs 

and expanding pioneer lodgepole pine forests. As coastal areas become stabilized and 

developed, the influence of natural processes that sustain native habitats is reduced or eliminated. 

The Refuge currently has several managed short-grass pastures in the South Bay Units totaling 

250.5 acres. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.4 Fish 

Coastal rivers and streams within the Refuge provide habitat for several anadromous salmon 

species, including coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytcha), and chum salmon (O. 

keta), and cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki). The Bear River estuary provides rearing habitat for 

juvenile fish, as well as a staging area for adult anadromous fish preparing to move into and out 

of Bear River. Chum, Chinook, and coho salmon are all found in the Bear River. The small 

unnamed stream near the headquarters, often referred to as the Headquarters Stream, has during a 

numbers of years, experienced a fall run of chum salmon. This stream also contains rearing 

habitat for coho and Chinook salmon and coastal cutthroat trout and contains resident sculpin 

(Cottus spp). Other streams on the Refuge currently support chum and coho runs. The unnamed 

streams in the Lewis and Porter Point units support sculpin and coastal cutthroat trout. Fish 

ladders at the Lewis and Porter Point water control structures allow anadromous fish passage. 

Federal species of concern found on the Refuge include coastal cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, 

and river lamprey. Healthy populations of both cutthroat and coho as well as other fish species 

have been documented in several refuge streams. Fish surveys are conducted either by trapping, 

walking along a stream, or conducting snorkel surveys. Electrofishing of streams is also 

conducted by trained individuals. Reproductive surveys have also been conducted and cutthroat 

trout as well as coho and chum salmon spawning and production of fry have been documented. 

Sticklebacks are found in refuge freshwater impoundments and streams. 

4.4.1 Salmonids 

Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout use the Willapa Bay 

estuary as a feeding and nursery area, as well as a migration route to spawning areas in tributary 

streams. Occasionally pink salmon occur in the bay. 

Salmon often account for 80%-90% of the finfish caught in the Willapa Bay area; however, their 

numbers are declining (The Willapa Alliance 1998a). Along the Washington coast, the largest 

chum populations are found within the rivers of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay (WDFW 2000). 

Willapa Bay historically supported large chum runs and contained excellent chum habitat 

(Stewart and Associates 2007). However, currently chum runs are critically low (Applied 

Environmental Services 2001; R. Craig, Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group, 

pers. com.; The Willapa Alliance 1998b). Since 1960 the average return of chum salmon is 

approximately one-third of that recorded prior to that year. The majority of the salmon 

commercially caught in Willapa Bay were chum, historically averaging 50% of the total salmon 

catch. Recently chum have accounted for less than 1% of the total commercial catch in Willapa 

Bay. Returns of Chinook and coho have also fallen to approximately one-half of the catch levels 

recorded in the 1900s (The Willapa Alliance 1998a). 

Although life histories vary considerably among and within species of Pacific salmon (see Groot 

and Margolis 1991), the general life cycle for Pacific salmon consists of adult spawning in fresh 

water and subsequent death of adults, egg development and juvenile rearing, juvenile migration 

to salt water, growth and maturation in salt water, and adult migration to freshwater spawning 

habitats (National Research Council [NRC] 1996). Adult salmon primarily spawn in the fall, 

however, the season that Chinook salmon return to fresh water prior to spawning is used to 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-35 

describe specific “runs” (e.g., fall-, spring-, summer-run). Most Chinook in Willapa Bay return 

in the fall. Two life histories of Chinook salmon, stream- and ocean-type, are also distinguished 

by the residency of juveniles in fresh water (Bottom et al. 2005; Fresh et al. 2003; Healey 1991; 

NRC 1996). Stream-type fish spend one to two years in streams and rivers prior to migrating to 

saltwater, whereas ocean-type fish migrate in their first year after spending up to a few months in 

streams or rivers. Ocean-type fish also rear in lower reaches of rivers and estuaries much more 

than stream-type fish. Juvenile chum salmon migrate to salt water either immediately or within a 

few weeks after emergence, and coho salmon generally spend a year rearing in fresh water 

before migrating (NRC 1996). 

Steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout exhibit substantial variability in their life histories (Behnke 

1992; Burgner et al. 1992; Hall et al. 1997). Both species spawn during late winter through the 

spring. Adult steelhead that return to fresh water fully mature during late fall through spring are 

considered winter-run fish, whereas those that are sexually undeveloped and return during late 

spring through early fall are considered summer-run fish (Withler 1966). Anadromous 

individuals of both species may spend one to six years in freshwater with most migrating after at 

least two years (Burgner et al. 1992; Trotter 1997). Steelhead migrate to the open ocean and 

spend one to four years before returning to spawn, whereas coastal cutthroat trout migrate to 

estuaries and near-shore areas for a matter of months before returning to fresh water. Unlike 

salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout may survive after spawning and return to saltwater 

to forage and make multiple spawning runs. In addition, coastal cutthroat trout exhibiting 

resident, fluvial (i.e., migrating to larger rivers only), and anadromous life histories are thought 

to occur in some streams. Although sea-run cutthroat can spawn several times, resident cutthroat 

appear to spawn only once (The Willapa Alliance 1998a). 

Although the presence of salmonids in the Willapa Bay estuary has seasonal patterns (e.g., peak 

juvenile abundance in spring and early summer), adults and juveniles consisting of various 

species, runs, and life history strategies may be present throughout the year. Habitats used 

directly by salmonids at the Refuge consist of tidally influenced sloughs, marshes, floodplains, as 

well as tidally influenced and non-tidally influenced portions of streams and rivers for spawning 

and rearing. These habitats also indirectly provide benefits to salmonids through production and 

export of nutrients, organic matter, and invertebrates, which contribute to the estuary’s food web. 

The various species and their periods of adult migration are: Chinook salmon (July-October), 

coho salmon (July-November), chum salmon (October-November), steelhead (NovemberMarch), and sea-run cutthroat trout (July-December). 

Young fish of varied species pass to or through the bay when only a few days to a couple of 

years old. Migration of Chinook salmon occurs during May-July, coho salmon during AprilJune, chum salmon during January-May, steelhead during April-June, and sea-run cutthroat trout 

during April-June. Migration of coho yearling salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout also occurs 

during early fall freshets. Salmon and steelhead juveniles can be found in the bay throughout the 

year (USFWS 1970). 

Stream restoration activities have occurred on the Refuge, specifically for salmonid species. The 

Refuge has had success in reintroducing and enhancing salmonid populations in various streams 

on the Refuge and restoring physical attributes of streams that have been destroyed or severely 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

impacted by historical land use in the past. Most of the refuge streams have been affected by 

historic blocks to fish passage and logging impacts. Restoration methods such elimination of 

fish passage barriers, placement of large woody debris, nutrient enhancement and restoration of 

extirpated or reduced salmonid populations via the use of egg trays, remote incubation, fry 

introduction of chum and coho salmon, and adult transplantation of cutthroat trout have 

occurred. Restoration activities started in 1997 at Headquarters Stream. This project was aimed 

at re-establishing chum, coho and sea-run cutthroat trout, which were extirpated in the late 

1940s. After physical restoration of the stream bed occurred, chum eggs were received, which 

were hatched in a remote site incubator. Returning adult chum spawners were documented in 

2001, 2002, and 2003. Chum fry emergence was also documented in 2004 in Headquarters 

Stream although adult spawners were not observed. 

Stream restoration activities have since occurred in numerous other refuge streams with 

additional streams targeted for these activities in the future. Reintroduction/enhancement efforts 

for salmonid species have occurred in the Cedar Grove Stream on Long Island and on the 

mainland, including Porter Point, Lewis impoundments/streams, North Creek, Chum Creek, Lost 

Creek, and Teal Slough. Major partners in these endeavors include the Willapa Bay Regional 

Fisheries Enhancement Group and the WDFW. 

Fish ladder installation at Lewis and Porter Point has facilitated fish access to two spawning 

streams. 

4.4.2 Forage Fishes 

This group includes anchovies, herring, and smelt, important forage species in Willapa Bay for 

other fish. 

Pacific herring use Willapa Bay as a spawning and nursery ground. The eggs are adhesive and 

can be found on rocks, piling, seaweed, and eelgrass during January and February, where they 

remain until hatching. Immature herring are found in the bay during the spring, summer, and fall 

months. 

Northern anchovies, although spawning in the ocean, are plentiful in the bay during the period 

June through September. 

Longfin and silver smelt occur in the area. In general, the longfin smelt are in deeper water, 

while silver smelt inhabit the plankton-rich tidal flats. Longfin smelt spawn in the brackish and 

lower freshwater reaches of tributary streams, while silver smelt spawn on coarse sandy beaches. 

American shad adults migrate through the bay during the late spring and early summer on their 

way to upstream spawning areas (USFWS 1970). 

4.4.3 Sturgeon 

Sturgeon are found in Willapa Bay. White sturgeon are primarily limited to the Willapa and 

Naselle River areas. It is believed that adults of this species move upstream in late winter and 

early spring to spawn (USFWS 1970). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-37 

4.4.4 Other Fishes 

Starry flounder, sand dab, several species of sole, sea and surf perches, rock and bottom fishes 

(black cod, flounder, ling cod, rockfish true cod), and related species use the bay as a nursery 

area. Starry flounder are abundant throughout the tideflat and shallow water areas. 

Young of the numerous species of rock and bottom fishes, sole, sea perch, etc., use the bay as a 

nursery area. As these fish mature, they migrate to the deep water areas and ocean front 

(USFWS 1970). 

Lamprey species found in Willapa Bay include the two anadromous species, Pacific lamprey and 

river lamprey. These lamprey species spawn in fresh water. An entirely freshwater species, the 

western brook lamprey, has been documented in freshwater streams/rivers on the Refuge 

including the Bear River, Teal Slough stream, South Creek, North Creek, Chum Creek, and Lost 

Creek. River lamprey and Pacific lamprey have been documented in the Bear River (M. 

Johnson, Pacific County Conservation District, pers. com.) 

4.5 Birds 

The diverse habitats found at Willapa NWR support a large number of resident and migratory 

birds. Over 200 bird species have been documented on the Refuge. At the northern tip of the 

Long Beach Peninsula at Leadbetter Point, shorebirds including plovers, sandpipers, dunlin, 

sanderlings and others, exceed 100,000 annually during the peak spring migration. This site and 

the estuarine habitats within Willapa Bay make up one of the most significant shorebird areas in 

North America. Willapa Bay is also an important wintering ground for geese and ducks, many of 

which breed in Alaska and northern Canada. Great blue heron and several gull species are also 

common along the coast at Willapa. Coniferous forests on Long Island and in the Refuge along 

the eastern shores of the bay provide food, shelter, and nesting structure for the marbled 

murrelet, neotropical song birds, woodpeckers, owls, and raptors. The upland and estuarine 

grasslands and early successional, coastally influenced grasslands also support a number of 

resident and seasonal birds. Pelagic seabirds such as shearwaters, fulmars, jaegers, and 

albatrosses occur in the adjacent coastal Pacific waters but rarely make landfall within the 

Refuge. Key focal species that breed, overwinter, or regularly use the Refuge as a stopover 

during migration are discussed in more detail in the following section. 

4.5.1 Waterbirds 

4.5.1.1 Common Loon (Gavia immer) 

The NAWCP classifies the common loon as a species of moderate concern meaning populations 

are either a) declining with moderate threats or distributions; b) stable with known or potential 

threats and moderate to restricted distributions; or c) relatively small with relatively restricted 

distributions. The common loon is not classified as a federally listed species at this time, 

because there is no evidence of a declining population or a substantial change in distribution. 

The WDFW classifies the common loon as a sensitive species because it is “vulnerable or 

declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats” (Washington 

Administrative Code [WAC] 232-12-297, Section 2.6). 

Because historic records are somewhat unreliable and surveys have not been comprehensive, it is 

not known if the population is currently stable, increasing, or decreasing (Richardson et al. 

2000). Evers (2004) describes the overall population as “healthy and robust” and states the 

“results from winter counts indicate a steady increasing trend in the number of loons and longterm recovery in the overall breeding population since the mid-1900s.” However, a finding of 

the Marshbird Workshop held in 2005 estimated significant potential threats exist to common 

loons that have not actually occurred to a majority of population. Although threats such as 

shoreline development, human disturbance, predation, oil spills, harmful algal blooms, bycatch 

from commercial gillnetting, lead poisoning, and overfishing of forage fish have been identified, 

the severity of these threats to the breeding population is not well understood (Evers 2004; 

Marshbird Workshop 2005; McIntyre and Barr 1997; Richardson et al. 2000). Numbers of 

known nests have increased over the past 15 years, but this increase may be a result of increased 

survey effort (Richardson et al. 2000). New information on these and other issues affecting 

common loons will be needed to better understand their current status. 

Suitable nesting habitat for common loons does not exist at Willapa NWR, and migrating loons 

rarely make landfall within the Refuge, although they are regular inhabitants of the surrounding 

marine waters. 

4.5.1.2 Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) 

The Aleutian cackling goose was classified as an endangered species in 1967, primarily due to a 

declining population caused by predation on their nesting grounds from introduced arctic and red 

foxes. The species listing status was changed to threatened in 1991. A revised Federal recovery 

plan outlined three major delisting criteria: 1) maintain a wild population of at least 7,500 

animals; 2) re-establish self-sustaining populations of geese on three former breeding areas; and 

3) maintain adequate migration and wintering habitats. In 2001 the Aleutian cackling goose was 

removed from the Federal endangered and threatened species list, because all the major delisting 

criteria had been exceeded. Since that time the population has continued to increase and now 

numbers over 70,000 based on winter surveys conducted in 2003-2004 (Pacific Flyway Council 

2005). 

Willapa NWR and the fields and farm pastures adjoining Willapa Bay are the primary stopover 

habitat in Washington State for Aleutian cackling geese during the fall migration from September 

to late November. Peak counts at Willapa during the mid 1990s averaged from 300 to 400 birds 

(Hays 1997; Kraege 2005). Winter goose survey numbers in Willapa Bay were much lower, 

representing less than 1% of the geese examined, from 2000 until 2004 when surveys were 

curtailed. Low numbers are typically seen during the northern migration in February and March 

each year. The highest number of spring migrating Aleutian cackling geese in Washington 

through the mid 1990s was 52 birds recorded in Willapa Bay by Pitkin and Lowe (1995). The 

2008 calculated population index for Aleutian cackling geese in the Pacific Flyway was 193,321. 

The most recent three-year average population equals about 179,000, slightly below the Flyway 

objective of 250,000 birds set by the Pacific Flyway Council. 
Chapter 4. 

The incre

complica

mainly in

shifted no

of crop d

4.5.1.3 B

A primar

wintering

through W

primary f

bay is gre

March th

area from

spring, av

(Wilson a

Figure 4

surveys c

The total

due to th

eelgrass i

Biological Env

ease of cackl

ated managem

n California 

orthward to 

depredation b

Brant, Pacifi

ry rationale f

g population

Willapa Bay

food source 

eatest during

hrough May, 

m late Octobe

veraging sev

and Atkinson

4-1. Typical

conducted d

l area in Will

e spread of t

is expected t

Willa

vironment

ling geese, w

ment in the w

prior to the 

overlap the 

by all Canad

ic populatio

for creating W

ns of brant. B

y during annu

while in Wil

g the norther

with use typ

er to early M

veral thousan

n 1995). Hi

l brant use i

during the 1

lapa Bay veg

the Spartina 

to return to s

apa National W

which are rec

wintering ar

1980s, but a

range of the

da geese have

on (Branta b

Willapa NW

Brant are on

ual migration

llapa Bay, of

rn spring mig

pically highe

May. Total n

nd, but overa

storically th

in Willapa B

1989-1990 s

getated by ee

altinaflora. 

some areas o

Wildlife Refuge 

covering fro

rea for dusky

as the popula

 dusky. Wit

e increased s

bernicla nigr

WR in 1937 w

e of the mos

ns. Brant ut

ften number

gration, with

est in April (

umbers of w

all there is a 

e brant popu

Bay and Du

eason). 

elgrass has a

 With the su

of the bay. R

Draft CCP/EI

om historic p

y Canada gee

ation recover

th increasing

significantly

ricans) 

was conserva

st abundant w

tilize eelgras

ring in the th

h peak bird n

(Figure 4-1).

wintering bir

lesser degre

ulation was m

ungeness Ba

also declined

uccess of rec

Recent winte

S 

population lo

ese. Cackler

red, its winte

g goose numb

y. 

ation of migr

waterbird sp

ss (Zostera m

housands of b

numbers obs

. Brant also 

ds are lower

ee of interan

much higher

ay, Washing

d since the m

cent Spartina

er use has be

ows, has 

rs wintered 

ering range 

mbers, compla

ratory and 

pecies passin

marina) beds

birds. Use o

served from 

winter in th

r than in the 

nnual variatio

r than at pres

gton (data fr

mid 1980s, p

a control eff

een primarily

4-39 

aints 

ng 

s as a 

of the 

he 

on 

sent. 

rom 

artly 

forts, 

y
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

confined to the northern bay, but extensive eelgrass beds exist along the western side of Long 

Island within the Presidential Proclamation Boundary. 

Brant harvest in the Pacific Flyway states for 2007 was estimated at 2,800 birds, with 

Washington State making up slightly less than 20% of the total rate of harvest. The 2008 

population estimate based on an index derived from midwinter surveys totals 24,972. 

4.5.1.4 Dusky Canada Goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis) 

A goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan is to maintain and enhance the dusky Canada 

goose population for all of its values to society (USFWS 1992b). The objectives of the plan 

include achieving and maintaining a wintering population of between 10,000 to 20,000; 

maintaining wintering habitats in sufficient quantity and quality; and managing wintering habitat 

to provide optimum food, water, and sanctuary conditions, and to provide optimum geographical 

distribution. On the wintering grounds, the dusky population has declined from historic levels 

while the total number of Canada geese has reached record highs (Pacific Flyway Council 2008). 

The primary wintering area is in the Willamette Valley of western Oregon and on the floodplain 

of the lower Columbia River in western Oregon and Washington. Although used to a lesser 

degree, Willapa Bay is considered to be part of the primary dusky wintering range. A limited 

number of dusky wintering surveys are conducted in Willapa Bay. Surveys totaling 

approximately 200 to 1,200 dusky Canada geese are typical on the bay during the fall, winter, 

and early spring. While not a large number, it is significant considering the small size of the 

population. 

Enumeration and comparison to prior survey results is complicated by resident western Canada 

geese that have hybridized with introduced dusky geese. These geese are not Alaska-breeding 

birds. They are descendents of a captive breeding program initiated at Willapa NWR in 1958, 

when 40 dusky goslings were relocated from the Copper River Delta to the Refuge. The flock 

grew to about 400 by the mid-1970s, when the program was discontinued. Although recent 

estimates of flock size are not available, each year on Miller Sands Island in Oregon 

approximately 40 nests of dark Canada geese are recorded. Since 1999, approximately 1,200 

dark Canada geese have been banded and collared on Miller Sands Island (Pacific Flyway 

Council 2008). Harvest of unmarked hybridized form of western Canada-dusky geese are tallied 

as dusky geese at check stations and counted toward unit closure thresholds. Continued marking 

of this small population would reduce the unintended inclusion of these birds in permit zone 

harvest quotas for dusky geese. However, implementing strategies that allow harvest of 

abundant subspecies of Canada geese, while protecting dusky geese, is very time-consuming, 

controversial, and expensive. Dusky geese are more vulnerable to hunting, apparently due to 

their behavior and habitat use patterns, making control of their harvest difficult (Pacific Flyway 

Council 2008). Hunting and harvest management is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5. 

4.5.1.5 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

In 1970 brown pelicans were added to the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife as 

an endangered species in all but the U.S. Atlantic coast states, Florida, and Alabama. On 

November 17, 2009, the USFWS published a rule to remove the brown pelican from this list due 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-41 

to recovery (74 FR 59444). The delisting became effective within 30 days of the rule date. The 

Service concluded that the primary reason for severe declines in the brown pelican population in 

the United States, and for designating the species as endangered, was DDT contamination in the 

1960s and early 1970s. Banning of DDT, along with other recovery actions, has resulted in 

increased population numbers and reproductive success, and information now indicates that 

major threats to brown pelicans have been reduced, managed, or eliminated. A draft postdelisting monitoring plan has been developed and will be put into effect in the Gulf of Mexico 

and coastal California. 

Brown pelicans typically begin to arrive locally in June. They are seen numbering in the 

thousands along the outer coast of the Leadbetter Unit in August and September. Brown pelicans 

primarily use the Refuge for day roosting or loafing and resting, while feeding on northern 

anchovy and other small nearshore fishes. Pelicans can also be found on pilings and on sandbars 

and seasonally inundated sandy islands in estuaries and at the mouths of rivers and large streams. 

The Columbia River estuary and the northeastern coastal Pacific waters may serve as an 

important feeding area during years when prey is less abundant in the southern reaches of the 

California Current System. Over 22,000 pelicans were documented using the East Sand Island 

night roost on the lower Columbia River in July 2009 (Jaques pers. com.) This number is about 

twice that observed in previous summers and is a new high record for that site overall. Pelicans 

were also observed by refuge staff occurring in larger than normal numbers along the Pacific 

coast beaches during summer 2009 (Ritchie pers. com.) Additional data suggest that pelicans 

bypassed many of their usual California breeding and foraging sites on the way north during the 

spring and summer of 2009. This pattern is most often observed during El Niño years when food 

resources become scarce at accustomed foraging areas adjacent to breeding sites. 

Recommendations and recovery actions identified in the California Brown Pelican Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1983) were considered in the development of this CCP and are described in 

further detail in Section 4.9. 

4.5.2 Raptors 

4.5.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

The bald eagle is classified in the BCC and represents one of the Service’s highest conservation 

priorities. The bald eagle was formerly listed under the ESA, primarily due to population 

declines caused by reproductive failures linked to DDT, and nesting and roosting habitat loss 

resulting from timber harvest and urban development. Productivity levels are high and the 

population continues to increase. With observed population growth, the bald eagle was delisted 

in 2008 but is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. A monitoring plan has been prepared to track recovery efficacy (USFWS 

2007b). 

Bald eagles are found year-round at Willapa NWR. Three bald eagle territories encompass 

coastal portions of the Refuge in south Willapa Bay. Nests of two of these territories occur on 

the Long Island Unit of Willapa NWR. Adult and sub-adult bald eagles, including a resident 

pair, can be seen along the outer coast at Leadbetter Point any month of the year. Bald eagles are 

opportunistic foragers. Eagles in the Willapa Bay region feed on waterbirds, marine mammals, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

salmondids, and marine fish and invertebrates. Eagles also scavenge fish and animal carcasses in 

upland areas, along rivers and larger creeks, and on the coast. 

4.5.2.2 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Northern goshawks can occur in all forested regions of Washington. Northern goshawks are 

considered opportunistic foragers (Beebe 1974), feeding on a variety of small mammals, 

gallinaceous birds, and forest birds. As of 2003, there were 338 documented breeding territories 

in the state (WDFW, unpublished data). The exact number of northern goshawks is not known, 

because monitoring is not currently being conducted. The number of historical breeding sites 

lost due to habitat alteration and the number of new territories in suitable habitat are also 

unknown. Less than 1% of recent breeding records have been recorded from the Puget Trough 

area and southwest Washington (Desimone and Hays 2004). The northern goshawk is a species 

identified on the BCC list. It is also listed as a Washington State candidate species. 

Harvest and fragmentation of forestland have been identified as factors limiting goshawk 

populations. Although the effects of timber harvesting on goshawks in the United States are not 

fully understood, there is evidence to suggest that harvest impacts nest site selection (CrockerBedford 1990; Desimone 1997; Finn et al. 2002a, 2002b; Reynolds 1989; Ward et al. 1992; 

Woodbridge and Detrich 1994), and potentially, nesting rates (Crocker-Bedford 1990, 1995). In 

addition, nesting goshawks appear to be largely absent from some extensive forested landscapes 

in western Washington that have been intensively managed on shorter rotations (WDFW, 

unpublished data). Fragmentation of suitable habitat potentially increases interaction with 

competing raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawks [Buteo jamaicensis], great horned owls [Bubo 

virginianus]) (Crocker-Bedford 1990; Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988; Kenward 1996; 

Moore and Henny 1983). 

Northern goshawks are not known to occur on the Refuge. However, some current forestlands 

contain suitable habitat, and much of the restored upland forests will also support suitable habitat 

for northern goshawks. The existing Willapa NWR forest management plan uses thinning 

prescriptions that reflect a balance of different forest age classes to promote forest growth and 

the development of habitat complexity. A principal objective is restoring ecological function to 

refuge forests by creating a natural distribution of stand structure, composition, and successional 

stages while promoting old-growth/late successional characteristics to benefit forest dependent 

wildlife. 

4.5.2.3 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus pealei) 

In Washington, peregrine falcons reached a low of four pairs in 1980. Similar to the bald eagle, a 

decline in the North American peregrine falcon population was primarily caused by reproductive 

failures linked to the effects of DDT. In 2000, 56 pairs were counted, doubling the number 

counted just seven years prior. Peregrine falcons can now be found in most parts of the state 

where there are cliffs or structures for nesting and sufficient prey. Peregrines feed on a variety of 

smaller birds that are usually captured on-the-wing. Hunting territories may extend to a radius of 

19-24 km (12-15 miles) from nest sites (Towry 1987). The population is still small and is highly 

vulnerable to disturbance and environmental contaminants, but productivity levels are high and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-43 

the population continues to increase. As a result of this recovery, the Federal government has 

down-listed them in August 1999 from endangered to sensitive. 

The peregrine falcon is classified in the BCC and represents one of the Service’s highest 

conservation priorities. Peregrines are found year-round at Willapa NWR but more regularly 

occur from October through April. In winter and fall, peregrines spend much of their time 

foraging in areas with large shorebird or waterfowl concentrations, especially in coastal areas 

(Dekker 1995). They are only known to use the Leadbetter Unit but may use other coastal areas 

within Willapa Bay. Suitable peregrine falcon nesting habitat does not occur within the Refuge. 

4.5.3 Shorebirds 

4.5.3.1 Red Knot (Calidris canutus roselaari) 

Red knots migrate from the Arctic to as far as the southern tip of South America and back each 

year. A one-way trip can be about 9,000 miles and involves stops at accustomed staging areas 

along the way for feeding and resting. There is concern that their population has decreased 

substantially in recent years, especially the eastern North American (Atlantic) subspecies C. c. 

rufa, which has been designated as a Federal candidate species. The western North American 

subspecies C. c. roselaari is thought to breed in northwest Alaska and Russia’s Wrangel Island 

and winters along the west coasts of North America, and possibly Central America and 

northeastern South America. The winter range and important wintering areas of this subspecies 

are virtually unknown (Buchanan 2006). Although C. c. roselaari is not as much at risk, it is 

considered a species of concern due to dramatically declining numbers (Buchanan 2006; 

Morrison et al. 2006). Niles et al. (2008) estimate the C. c. roselaari population to be <10,000 

and therefore vulnerable. They recommend that both subspecies be listed because of their small, 

declining populations and the threats they currently face. C. c. roselaari regularly use the 

estuarine habitats in Willapa Bay during their spring and fall migration, but it is not currently 

known how significant Willapa Bay habitats are to migrating red knots. 

4.5.3.2 Western Snowy Plover, Pacific coast population (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

On March 5, 1993, the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover was listed as 

threatened under provisions of the ESA. The Pacific coast population is defined as those 

individuals that nest within 50 miles of the Pacific Ocean on the mainland coast, peninsulas, 

offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of the United States and Baja California, Mexico 

(USFWS 2007a). Prior to Federal listing, the WDFW designated the western snowy plover as 

endangered in 1981. The western snowy plover population has shown an overall declining trend 

during the last century. Reasons for this decline, and the severity of threats, vary by region and 

location, but are primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. 

Western snowy plover are year-round residents on the Refuge, however most birds migrate south 

subsequent the breeding season. Adults typically begin breeding in Washington in late March, 

while most young have fledged by mid-August. Of the six Washington locations identified in the 

recovery plan as breeding areas, only two are currently occupied, the largest is located at the 

Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR. Disturbance of nesting plovers at Leadbetter occurs to a 

lesser degree than elsewhere along the southern Washington coast. The spatial extent of suitable 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-44 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

habitat and relative isolation of the Leadbetter site make it of paramount importance to snowy 

plover recovery in Washington State. Current western snowy plover population and productivity 

continue to be below thresholds set as recovery objectives. 

Recommendations and recovery actions identified in the western snow plover recovery plan were 

considered in the development of this CCP, and are described in further detail in Section 4.9.2. 

4.5.4 Seabirds 

4.5.4.1 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

The marbled murrelet is federally listed as a threatened species in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. The State of Washington has also designated the marbled murrelet as a threatened 

species. The marbled murrelet is a year-round resident on Washington marine coastal waters 

within several kilometers of the shoreline. The majority of nesting stands in Washington have 

been discovered within 63 km (39 miles) of marine waters. Marbled murrelets require suitable 

canopy structures for nesting that are primarily found in the mature and old-growth coniferous 

and mixed species forest stands of western Washington. Removal of these forests, primarily by 

timber harvesting and urbanization, is the principal factor contributing to the decline of the 

marbled murrelet and is the most significant impediment to recovery of the species (USFWS 

1997a). Habitat fragmentation resulting in increased densities of nest predators, and prey 

availability, are also probable limits to long-term productivity and survival. Adult mortality 

caused by predation, impacts from the effects of oil spills, mortality due to entanglement in 

fishing gear, chronic water pollution, aquaculture, and disturbance at nesting and foraging sites 

have also been identified as potential limiting factors. The current overall estimate for the listed 

population (California, Oregon, and Washington) is >18,000. Trend data indicate an annual 

decline of between 2.4% to 4.3% (Falxa et al. 2009). 

Coniferous forests at Willapa NWR support several stands known to be used for nesting by 

marbled murrelets. Suitable nesting habitats occur on the Long Island, Headquarters, and Teal 

Slough units, including two of the RNAs on the Refuge, the 111-hectare (274-acre) Cedar Grove 

RNA and the 36-hectare (88-acre) Diamond Point RNA. These low elevation coastal forestlands 

consist of old-growth and mature western red cedar, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and Douglas 

fir trees with large-diameter limbs, abundant canopy epiphytes, and open crowns. These 

structurally complex stands are formed where a diversity of tree sizes create multi-layered 

canopies with small naturally occurring gaps and stand-level crown defects (e.g., wind breakage 

and dwarf mistletoe deformation) that develop preferred nesting conditions. Forests with 

suitable marbled murrelet habitat are very limited in southwestern Washington and northwestern 

Oregon. The Refuge represents the most significant habitat on Federal land within the Western 

Washington Lowland Province. 

Recommendations and recovery actions identified in the marbled murrelet recovery plan 

(USFWS 1997a) were considered in the development of this CCP and are described in further 

detail in Section 4.9.3. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-45 

4.5.5 Land Birds 

4.5.5.1 Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

The streaked horned lark subspecies represents a small endemic population that breeds and 

winters in only a few locations in Oregon and Washington. It is perhaps the most endangered 

bird in Washington State (Rogers 2000). Historically its range extended further north into 

southwestern British Columbia and as far south as the Rogue River Valley in Oregon. The 

population has declined dramatically, and the range contracted significantly. This is primarily 

attributed to the loss of native prairies, coastal grasslands, and sparsely vegetated beaches as a 

result of general development, agricultural conversion, and encroachment by forests and 

introduced beach grasses. Although systematic range-wide surveys are incomplete, it is 

estimated that fewer than 1,000 birds remain in the entire population (Pearson and Altman 2005). 

Streaked horned lark have been found at Leadbetter Point during surveys conducted during the 

breeding seasons in 1999 and 2000 (MacLaren and Cummins 2000; Rogers 1999). Breeding 

surveys have been conducted in collaboration with WDFW subsequent to habitat restoration 

efforts began by the Refuge in 2001. Several nests have been found each year. Three nests were 

found in 2009, but up to 10 territories were estimated to be occupied. Currently the streaked 

horned lark population and productivity continues to be below thresholds indentified in the 

range-wide assessment. Nest predation has implemented in this reduced productivity. Pearson et 

al. (2005) noted that most wintering birds (72%) were in the Willamette Valley, with 20% along 

the lower Columbia, 8% on the Washington coast, and 1% on south Puget Sound sites. Based on 

re-sightings of color-banded individuals, many birds on the Washington coast and lower 

Columbia seem to be resident or move between these two areas (Pearson et al. 2005). 

Recommendations and proposed conservation strategies identified in the Species Assessment 

Form and the Candidate Notice of Review for the streaked horned lark (66 FR 54810) and the 

Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark Assessment (Pearson and Altman 2005) were considered in 

the development of this CCP and are described in further detail in Section 4.9.4. 

4.5.6 Rare or Extirpated Species 

4.5.6.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

The northern spotted owl was listed under the ESA as threatened on June 26, 1990, (USFWS 

1990) because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl (USFWS 2008a). 

The final northern spotted owl recovery plan was subsequently published in May 2008. Since 

the subspecies was listed, the northern spotted owl population has continued to decline, 

especially in the northern portions of its range. Spotted owls have become rare in certain areas 

of their historic range, such as British Columbia, southwestern Washington, and the northern 

coastal ranges of Oregon (USFWS 2008a). 

The spotted owl inhabits structurally complex, late seral and old-growth coniferous forests in the 

Pacific Northwest and northern California. Historically much of the lowland coastal forests and 

mid-elevation forests of the Cascade and coastal mountain ranges provided spotted owl habitat. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-46 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Much of that forestland was harvested for lumber and paper production. “Ideally, blocks of 

habitat should be dispersed in a pattern corresponding to a species’ full geographic distribution. 

This distribution is the key hedge against major catastrophes that could otherwise extinguish the 

sole remaining population of a once wide-spread species” (Thomas et al. 1990). However, the 

spotted owl recovery plan excludes the Western Washington Lowland Province from the 

Managed Owl Conservation Area approach because it is assumed that low population numbers 

are not essential to the species recovery. 

Spotted owls historically inhabited forests located within the present day boundaries of the 

Refuge. A spotted owl pair that nested in the Cedar Grove RNA forest was last observed there in 

1985. The following year barred owls were observed occupying the nest. An established spotted 

owl management circle also encompasses the Teal Slough Unit and most of the Headquarters 

Unit of the Refuge. This territory was most recently known to be occupied in 1998 when a 

survey documented a pair of adults and one juvenile spotted owl. Despite the de-emphasis on 

spotted owl recovery in southwestern Washington, applicable recommendations and recovery 

actions identified in the northern spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 2008a) were considered in 

the development of this CCP. These actions are described in further detail in Section 4.9.5. 

4.5.6.2 California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) 

California condors are listed as endangered in California, but those occurring outside of 

California are listed as a non-essential experimental population under Section 10 (j) of the ESA. 

For purposes of this subsection, the term “experimental population” means any population 

(including any offspring arising solely there from) authorized by the Secretary of the Interior for 

release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly 

separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species. In 1996 a nonessential experimental population of California condors was established in northern Arizona. 

Since that time condors released in northern Arizona have exceeded the non-essential 

experimental area by flying to Wyoming; several points in central and western Utah; Colorado; 

and elsewhere in Arizona. The current 10 (j) area was expanded to include parts of Arizona, 

Nevada, and Utah. 

Willapa NWR does not, and probably never did, provide suitable condor nesting habitat. But 

since condors have wide-ranging foraging patterns they may have scavenged large mammal 

carcasses within the area that now includes the Refuge. This is especially true for the Pacific 

coast portion of the Leadbetter Unit, where dead and dying marine mammals regularly wash 

ashore. During the winter of 1805-1806 Meriwether Lewis documented and captured California 

condors along the Columbia River. A condor was observed feeding on a whale carcass along the 

Pacific Coast near the mouth of the river by the exploration party. The last credible sighting of 

condors in the Pacific Northwest was in Oregon in the early 1900s. In the future, wide-ranging 

condor flights resulting from an increasing population may find birds moving into areas not 

currently used. However, expansion of the nonessential experimental area into the Pacific 

Northwest is not being considered at this time. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-47 

4.6 Mammals 

Forty-five species of native mammals have been documented on the Willapa NWR. Mammals 

that inhabit the various habitats on the Refuge include Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus), blacktailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), black bear (Ursus americanus), 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra canadensis), beaver 

(Castor canadensis), mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus 

trinotatus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), 

Townsend’s chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi), bushy-tailed wood rat (Neotoma cinerea), and 

various species of shrews, moles, mice, and voles. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are seen in the 

bay and the Bear River. Nutria (Myocastor coypus) is a non-native mammal that inhabits 

wetland areas on the Refuge. 

The Roosevelt elk is a subspecies that is darker and larger than the Rocky Mountain elk. Habitat 

on the Refuge includes open fields and fresh and salt water marshes as well as forested areas and 

clearings in forests. An estimate of the elk population in the late 1970s on Long Island was 40 to 

45 animals. Populations of elk in western Washington are variable, ranging from less than 1 elk 

per square mile to12 elk per square mile (USFWS 1978). 

Although a population estimate does not exist for the entire refuge, a study in 1973-1975 

estimated the bear population on Long Island to be approximately 30 animals (Lindzey 1976). 

Willapa NWR is in an area of high species richness for bats, which tend to have their greatest 

species numbers in low-elevation forests. The Refuge’s combination of late-seral, low-elevation 

forests combined with wetlands create ideal habitat for a number of bat species (Cassidy et al. 

1997). Eight bat species are known to occur on the Refuge, consisting of the little brown myotis 

(Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), long-eared 

myotis (M. evotis), long-legged myotis (M. volans), California myotis (M. californicus), silverhaired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Many of these bat 

species roost and forage in forested areas and several frequently use snags, stumps and downed 

logs as day roosts or maternity roosts. The Yuma myotis, long-eared myotis, and long-legged 

myotis are Federal species of concern. 

4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians 

The cool, wet climate of the Willapa Hills makes the area a “hotspot” of amphibian diversity in 

Washington. Willapa NWR is particularly noteworthy for the number of amphibian species it 

supports. It has more amphibians than any other NWR in Washington (13 of 24 native species). 

Federal species of concern found on the Refuge include the tailed frog, Columbia torrent 

salamander, and Van Dyke’s salamander. The Refuge supports the greatest number of state-listed 

amphibians (three of the six) of any NWR in Washington: the Columbia torrent Salamander, 

Dunn’s salamander, and Van Dyke’s salamander, all of which are state candidate species. 

Willapa NWR is the only NWR in Washington on which they occur (Cassidy et al. 1997). The 

Columbia torrent salamander has a limited range in both Washington and Oregon and relies on 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

mid- and late-seral conifer forest. Dunn’s salamander, although it apparently has less stringent 

habitat requirements, also has a limited range in Washington, and Willapa NWR supplies most of 

its protected area. Other amphibians on the Refuge with less limited distribution, but are 

associated with late-seral forests, are the Van Dyke’s salamander and the tailed frog (Cassidy et 

al. 1997). 

Long Island and wet areas amid similar forested areas on the Refuge’s mainland are rich in 

amphibian species. Eighty percent of the amphibian species in Washington are considered 

obligates of stream- or wetland-related riparian habitat (Knutson et al. 1997). Eight species of 

salamander have been found on Long Island: ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii), Pacific giant 

(Dicamptodon tenebrosus), northwestern (Ambystoma gracile), Columbia torrent (Ryacotriton 

kezeri), western red-backed (Plethodon vehiculum), Van Dyke’s (P. vandykei), and Dunn’s (P. 

dunni) salamander, and rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa). Cope’s giant salamander (D. 

copei) may occur on the island as well. Many of the species found on Long Island also occur on 

the mainland within the Refuge and surrounding lands. Some of these amphibian species spend 

a large part of their life near streams and wet environments within the forest uplands. The 

Refuge has red-legged frog (Rana aurora), Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), and tailed frog 

(Ascaphus truei) in wet habitats, such as marshes, streams, ponds, and seeps. Bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbeiana) are an introduced species in the Pacific Northwest, and a control program is in 

place for this species as they compete with the native frog species and consume native 

amphibians and young waterfowl. Bullfrogs breed in the managed seasonal wetlands. Since 

bullfrog tadpoles require two years to mature, the seasonal wetlands are drawn down at least 

every two years and screens are put in place at the outlet to strand bullfrog tadpoles. The timing 

of the draw-downs are also targeted for mid-July to give the native amphibians, which mature 

earlier than bullfrogs, time to metamorphose. 

Willapa NWR is less of a haven for reptiles than amphibians. Northwestern garter snakes 

(Thamnophis ordinoides) are found in meadows, along forest edges, and in disturbed areas. 

Common garter snakes (T. sirtalis) are common in pastures, forests, and freshwater marshes, and 

near riparian areas. The high number of amphibian species and low number of reptile species on 

the Refuge is a direct reflection of the relative amphibian and reptile composition of the wet, 

cold Sitka Spruce zone (Cassidy et al. 1997). 

Marine turtles have been observed offshore and mortalities have occasionally washed on shore. 

The following species may rarely occur in the ocean adjacent to the Refuge: green sea turtle, 

loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and olive ridley sea turtle. 

4.8 Invertebrates 

4.8.1 Shellfish 

The Pacific (Japanese) oyster and the native Olympic oyster (to a lesser extent) are found in the 

intertidal waters of Willapa Bay, mostly in private oyster beds. The Japanese oyster was 

introduced into Willapa Bay in 1928 and is the foundation of the bay’s most important 

commercial fishery (USFWS 1978). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-49 

Hardshell clams, including the native littleneck, butter, gaper, cockle, and Manila (exotic) clams, 

are present in a porous mixture of sand, gravel, and mud within the tidal zone. The softshell 

clam occurs throughout the bay tidelands and is most frequently found in muddy or sandy 

bottoms in the upper tidal areas and in the brackish water areas of tributary streams. Razor 

clams, mainly thought of as inhabiting the open coast sandy beaches, are found in Willapa Bay. 

They occur where environmental characteristics resemble those of the coastal sandy beaches 

(USFWS 1970). 

Dungeness crabs occur throughout Willapa Bay. Immature crabs can be found in abundance on 

most of the flats year round, suggesting that Willapa Bay is an important nursery area for this 

species. These crabs occur further up the bay with the summer intrusion of salt water (USFWS 

1970). The red crab is also found in the bay as well as a non-native species, the European green 

crab. Other exotic invertebrate species found within the waters of Willapa Bay include Atlantic 

and Japanese oyster drills, Japanese nestling crab, Japanese anemone, Atlantic mudsnail, Atlantic 

sponge, Atlantic barnacle, the Black and Caspian Sea hydroid, a terebellid worm, and several 

exotic amphipods and botryllid tunicates (Cohen et al. 2001). 

Burrowing and free-swimming species of shrimp are found in the bay. The free-swimming 

species move into shallow waters and tide flats with the incoming tide and return to deeper 

channels at low tide. These detritus feeders are an important diet element to all fish large enough 

to consume them (USFWS 1970). 

4.8.2 Gastropods 

Freshwater snails of the genus Juga have been documented on the Refuge. 

The Newcomb’s littorine snail is a Federal species of concern and a state candidate species. This 

particular species has not been documented on the Refuge but does occur in other saltmarsh 

habitat in Willapa Bay similar to that on the Refuge. The Newcomb’s littorine snail lives on the 

stems of pickleweed (Salicornia) and on the substrate beneath the vegetation. This snail occurs 

just above high tide line, immersed by seawater only a few hours each year during flood tides. 

Habitat for this species is characterized by pickleweed, silverweed, yarrow, tufted hairgrass, 

seashore saltgrass, seacoast angelica, gumweed, seaside plantain, small spikerush, seaside 

arrowgrass, and Lyngbye’s sedge. 

4.8.3 Native Freshwater Mussels 

Native freshwater mussels have been declining in North America to the point that nearly threequarters of the 297 known species are imperiled and 35 are thought to have gone extinct in the 

last century (Nedeau et al. 2009; Stein et al. 2000). 

The western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata) is found in Pacific drainages from 

California to British Columbia and southern Alaska (Nedeau et al. 2009). This freshwater 

bivalve requires cold, well-oxygenated, low-gradient streams. The western pearlshell is capable 

of living over 100 years. This mussel species has been documented in the Naselle and Bear 

rivers and some tributaries of these systems. Several small streams on the Refuge contain 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

suitable habitat for this mussel and may have contained some small populations historically that 

were more than likely affected by land uses which altered stream processes and increased 

sedimentation, including timber harvest, road building, and stream cleaning efforts. Also, 

reproduction of this species requires salmonid hosts (temporarily used by the mussel’s parasitic 

larvae), which were eliminated or reduced due to degraded habitat and previous fish passage 

barriers (usually associated with dikes and road building) on some streams on the Refuge. After 

the restoration of physical attributes of streams that had been destroyed or severely impacted by 

historical land use in the past, removal of fish passage barriers, and the reintroduction or 

enhancement of extirpated or reduced salmonid populations, the Refuge embarked on a mussel 

transfer program. 

Populations of western pearlshell mussel have been transferred to four small streams on the 

Refuge in 2007, 2008, and 2009. These transfers were done under permits from the WDFW, as 

the donor population was located off-refuge. The western pearlshell mussel is a state-monitored 

species. 

4.8.4 Other Invertebrates 

The tidal flats and shallows support abundant populations of other invertebrates that are an 

important part of the estuary’s food chain. Intertidal flats support an abundance of other 

invertebrates, including amphipods, polychaete and oligochaete worms, insect larvae, and 

nematodes. The amphipod Corophium salmonis is a major food item of juvenile salmon and 

other small fish (Arvai et al. 2002; Bottom 1984). Cororphium and other amphipods, along with 

a wide variety of benthic worms and other invertebrates, are an essential food source for 

migrating western sandpipers and other shorebirds (Wilson 1994). 

In a 2002 study, a density of 288,538 invertebrates/m2 were surveyed in an unvegetated mudflat 

transect. Unvegetated transects had species richness of up to 26 invertebrate species (O’Connell 

2002). 

Mosquito sampling was conducted at various refuge locations in 2005, 2006, and 2007, as part of 

the Washington Department of Health’s state-wide West Nile virus surveillance. Twelve species 

were identified. At least eight of the species found on the Refuge are potential vectors of West 

Nile virus. However, the virus itself has not been detected in the local area. 

A survey of forest arthropods was conducted as part of a larger study of both old-growth and 

regrowth forests on the Refuge (Davis et al. 2009). 

A survey of stream macroinvertebrates was completed on several refuge streams. The highest 

number of taxa recorded in a single stream on this survey was 41 (Conklin 2003). Mayflies, 

stoneflies, and caddisflies are common aquatic macroinvertebrates in refuge streams. 

Although the federally threatened Oregon silverspot butterfly is currently extirpated from 

Washington, the Refuge is actively involved in restoring habitat for this species (see Sections 4.3 

and 4.9) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-51 

4.9 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Service has prepared recovery plans that are intended to serve as guidance documents for 

agencies, landowners, and the public. Each plan includes recommendations for actions 

considered necessary to satisfy the biological needs and ensure the recovery of the listed species. 

These plans also emphasize opportunities for improved management of listed species on Federal 

and state lands. Recommended actions generally include protection, enhancement, and 

restoration of those habitats deemed important for recovery, monitoring, research, and public 

outreach. Recovery plans for federally listed species that occur at Willapa include: 

Recovery Plan for the California Brown Pelican (USFWS 1983) 

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (USFWS 2007a) 

Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a) 

Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy (Pearson 

and Altman 2005) 

Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008a) 

Revised Recovery Plan for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (USFWS 2001a) 

The recommendations provided in the recovery plans for these listed species considered during 

the development of this CCP are described here. Species known to currently breed on lands 

administered by the Refuge are denoted with an asterisk (*). Reference to specific recovery 

action sections in the species recovery plans appear within parenthesis in the Recovery Action 

sections toward the end of each species account. 

4.9.1 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

On November 17, 2009, the USFWS published a rule to remove the brown pelican from the 

Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife due to recovery (74 FR 59444). A draft postdelisting monitoring plan has been developed and will be put into effect in the Gulf of Mexico 

and coastal California. Although no new management and monitoring plans are proposed under 

this CCP, the Refuge will continue to provide pelicans a protected, undisturbed area for day 

roosting, loafing, resting, and feeding in nearshore waters at Leadbetter Point and Willapa Bay. 

4.9.2 Western Snowy Plover, Pacific Coast Population* (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus) 

The western snowy plover is a small (15-17 cm long, 34-58 g) shorebird with pale brown 

upperparts, white underparts, and gray to blackish legs. They have bilateral upper breast patches 

and breeding males have dark facial markings. On March 5, 1993, the Pacific coast population 

of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened under provisions of the ESA. The Pacific 

coast population is defined as those individuals that nest within 50 miles of the Pacific Ocean on 

the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of the United States 

and Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 2007a). The current Pacific coast breeding population 

extends from Midway Beach, Washington, to Bahia Magdalena, Baja California, Mexico. The 

snowy plover winters mainly in coastal areas from southern Washington to Central America. 

This coastal population nests primarily above the high tide line on a variety of beach and dune 

types including coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparsely vegetated dunes, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

beaches at creek and river mouths, and bluff-backed beaches (USFWS 2007a). In addition, it 

also nests on sandy river bars, salt pans at lagoons and estuaries, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, 

and on dredge spoils (USFWS 2007a). In winter, snowy plovers are found on many of the 

beaches used for nesting as well as on beaches where they do not nest (USFWS 2007a). Prior to 

Federal listing, the WDFW designated the snowy plover as endangered in 1981. 

Western snowy plover are year-round residents on the Refuge, however most birds migrate south 

after the breeding season. Adults typically begin breeding in Washington in late March, while 

most young have fledged by mid August. Of the six Washington locations identified in the 

recovery plan as breeding areas, only two are currently occupied; the largest is located at the 

Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR. Disturbance of nesting plovers at Leadbetter occurs to a 

lesser degree than elsewhere along the southern Washington coast. The spatial extent of suitable 

habitat and relative isolation of the Leadbetter site make it of paramount importance to snowy 

plover recovery in Washington State. 

The Federal Recovery Plan for the Western Snowy Plover designates Washington and Oregon as 

Recovery Unit 1. The primary recovery criteria for this unit are maintaining 250 breeding adults 

for 10 years, and a five-year average productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per adult male 

(USFWS 2007a). Deriving this metric for Washington requires an estimate of both the number 

of breeding adult males and the number of chicks fledged. Pearson et al. (2009) estimated that 

the number of young fledged per adult male was 0.71 (95% Confidence Interval = 0.55-0.96; 

Figure 4-2). This estimate suggests that the plover population in Washington should be declining 

and is not being maintained by local production (Nur et al. 1999). The recovery plan calls for 

development and implementation of mechanisms that ensure long-term protection and 

management of breeding, wintering, and migration areas in Recovery Unit 1 (USFWS 2007a). 

Current population and productivity levels continue to be below thresholds set as recovery 

objectives. 

According to the Washington State Recovery Plan for the Snowy Plover (WDFW 1995), the 

plover will be considered for down-listing to threatened status when the state supports a fouryear average of at least 25 breeding pairs, and fledges at least one young per pair per year at two 

or more nesting areas with secure habitat. State delisting will be considered when the average 

population reaches 40 breeding pairs at three or more secure nesting areas. Currently there are 

only 35 known snowy plover breeding pairs at two occupied nesting sites in Washington. 

Pearson et al. (2009) report that adult population counts are declining for the 2006-2009 period. 

Both Federal and state recovery plans require monitoring of breeding adults and monitoring of 

fledging success to assess progress toward these recovery goals. Monitoring is also necessary to 

evaluate the impact of conservation actions on plover populations such as the use of wire nest 

exclosures to exclude potential predators and the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts. To 

provide the information needed to assess recovery progress and to assess the effectiveness of 

conservation actions, the Refuge is coordinating its monitoring efforts with Washington and 

Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-53 

Figure 4-2. Number of snowy plover chicks fledged per adult male from 2007-2009 for all 

Washington nesting sites combined. Population modeling indicates that one chick fledged 

per male is needed on average to maintain a stable population (from Pearson et al. 2009). 

4.9.2.1 Limiting Factors 

According to the USFWS (2007a), “Habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, urban 

development, introduced beachgrass (Ammophila spp.), and expanding predator populations have 

resulted in a decline in active nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering 

populations.” In Washington, predators eating plover eggs, inclement weather, shoreline 

modification, dune stabilization, and recreational activities have been attributed to reduced nest 

success and have been cited as the causes of local population declines (WDFW 1995). 

The western snowy plover population has shown an overall declining trend during the last 

century. Reasons for this decline and the severity of threats vary by region and location, but are 

primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. The principal cause of habitat loss in Washington 

is from previous efforts to stabilize the naturally shifting sand along coastal beaches. 

Introduction of invasive beachgrasses has been used as an effective means of dune stabilization 

that preceded development of coastal beachfront areas. The invasive, non-native beach grasses 

(Ammophila breviligulata and A. arenaria) planted to stabilize dune community have changed 

dune morphology and native plant communities. Mild climate allows vegetation to establish 

easily and rapidly. Once established the grass forms a thick root mat and dense canopy that 

crowds out native vegetation. Accelerated succession due to fire suppression progresses from 

herbaceous beachgrass, to shrub (often invasive non-natives such as Scotch broom and common 

gorse), to pioneer lodgepole pine or climax Sitka spruce forest. 

The northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula was in a state of gradual northward accretion 

from at least 1965 to 1999. Invasion of beachgrass has followed accretion, progressively filling 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2007 2008 2009

Number of chicks fledged/male

in Washington State
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-54 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

in the dunes behind the sand spit. In conjunction with slowed accretion in more recent years, the 

vegetation line has moved westward and the vegetation-to-water distance has decreased (Phipps 

1990) resulting in a narrower beach and probably less suitable plover habitat. Recent maps from 

the Washington State Department of Transportation show that the tip of Leadbetter Point has 

been gradually eroding since mapping efforts began in 1999. As the tip has eroded, the peninsula 

to the southwest has gotten wider. Leadbetter Point is one of the northern-most breeding sites for 

the western snowy plover on the Pacific Coast (Jaques 2001). 

The habitat restoration area at Leadbetter Point was initiated in 2002. It now encompasses 121 

acres, where oystershell has been added to 54 acres of total area. Ongoing restoration and 

maintenance activities conducted included 1) maintaining the 121-acre restoration area 

mechanically and through the use of herbicide; 2) widening cuts in the high foredune to least 24 

feet; alleyways are cleared to the bare sand beach and disked and compacted in an attempt to 

better control non-native beachgrass; 3) in September 2009, an additional 63 acres were treated 

with an aerial herbicide application including the primary foredune and a portion of the outer 

beach west of the foredune; and 4) between 5 to 10 acres of additional oystershell are added 

annually to the restoration area to provide camouflage for ground nesting birds and to reduce 

blowing sand. Treating and maintaining the restoration area is necessary to stop the 

advancement and narrowing of the outer beach by the colonization of non-native beachgrass. 

This activity will widen the bare sand potion of the outer beach, allowing additional habitat for 

nesting. The Leadbetter habitat restoration area supports the only known population of pink 

sandverbena (Abronia umbellata) in Washington State; this plant species was thought to be 

extirpated in the state until its rediscovery in 2006. Pink sandverbena seed was collected and 

broadcast in transects within the restoration area and on the outer beach. Pink sandverbena seeds 

will be collected and broadcast and/or propagated, and additional seed will be placed in longterm seed storage at the Berry Botanical Garden for conservation. A collaborative partnership 

has begun with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe to propagate additional pink sandverbena plants. 

Disturbance at nesting sites and increasing rates of predation often follow in areas with 

expanding developments and increased human use. Studies have shown that human-related 

disturbance has negative affects on hatching success of snowy plovers (Schulz and Stock 1993; 

Warriner et al. 1986) and has reduced snowy plover chick survival by as much as 72% (Ruhlen et 

al. 2003). Disturbances to wintering snowy plovers are 16 times higher at a public beach than at 

a protected beach, and humans, dogs, American crows, and other birds are the main sources of 

disturbance (Lafferty 2001). In addition, snowy plover feeding rates declined in response to 

disturbance (Lafferty 2001). Human disturbance has also been shown to negatively affect 

hatching rates and chick survival for various plover species (Buick and Paton 1989; Dowling and 

Weston 1999; Flemming et al. 1988). 

Because human activities in and around plover breeding areas can impact nest success and have 

been cited as the causes of local population declines, the Refuge and Washington State Parks 

have restricted beach access through the use of 1) complete motorized vehicle driving closures, 

except during razor clam seasons; 2) signs that are seasonally placed along the upper portion of 

the beach demarcating nesting areas closed to public entry; 3) symbolic fencing placed 

seasonally along beach access trails on refuge lands at Leadbetter Point to direct people toward 

the wet sand and away from plover nesting habitat; and 4) restrictions prohibiting dogs on refuge 

lands. Prohibitions also include restricting removal of native plants, driftwood, and alteration of 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-55 

other habitat features; fireworks; and certain recreational activities such as kite flying. These 

prohibitions also aid the Refuge in minimizing disturbance in plover habitat. 

Predation by native and introduced species has been identified as a leading cause of reproductive 

failure of the western snowy plover (USFWS 2007a). Pearson et al. (2009) reported that 

predation was the primary source (58%) of plover nest failure in Washington in 2009. Crows 

and ravens are recognized as important predators of eggs and juvenile plovers and larks 

(Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002b; Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 

1985). Based on studies in Oregon between 1990 and 2000, corvids (ravens and crows) caused 

at least 64 plover nest failures (USDA APHIS 2002). Predation was also the most frequent cause 

of streaked horned lark nest failure (69%) in Washington at sites in south Puget Sound in 2002-

2004, while causing 46% of failures at two coastal and one river island sites in 2004 (Pearson 

and Hopey 2005). Liebezeit and George (2002) provide a detailed review of corvids importance 

as predators. The Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan and annual survey and population 

monitoring reports offer additional data on plover predation (Lauten et al. 2009; Pearson et al. 

2009; USFWS 2007a). 

Development of a predator management strategy would maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plover to achieve population objectives for species recovery by 

reducing the threat posed by certain problem avian and mammalian predators. This plan would 

be a comprehensive conservation strategy that addresses a range of management actions, from 

vegetation control and nesting habitat enhancement to nonlethal and lethal control, when 

necessary. The most effective, selective, and humane techniques available to deter or remove 

individual predators or species that threaten nesting, breeding, or foraging snowy plovers or 

horned larks would be implemented. Predator management is identified in Section 2.4.6.1, 

Section 2.5, and Appendix L as one of several actions to be implemented in support of listed 

species occurring on the Refuge. 

4.9.2.2 Recovery Actions 

The following recovery actions are being implemented locally to help achieve the desired target 

population levels for western snowy plover within the Oregon/Washington Recovery Unit. 

Monitor breeding and wintering population and habitats to determine efficacy of recovery 

actions and to maximize survival and productivity (1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). 

Manage breeding and wintering habitat to ameliorate or eliminate threats and to maximize 

survival and productivity (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). These actions include maintaining and 

enhancing existing breeding and wintering habitat, preventing sources of disturbance at nesting 

sites, enforcement of regulations designed to protect areas used by breeding plovers, and 

prevention of excessive predation through an integrated predator management strategy. 

Develop and implement a management plan to protect western snowy plovers and their habitat 

on Federal lands (3.3.1). 

Develop cooperative program and partnership with the Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission (3.6). 

Undertake scientific investigations that facilitate recovery efforts (4.1.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6). 

Undertake public information and education programs (5). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-56 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.9.3 Marbled Murrelet* (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

The marbled murrelet is federally listed as a threatened species in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. The State of Washington has also designated the marbled murrelet as a threatened 

species. The marbled murrelet is a year-round resident on Washington marine coastal waters 

within several kilometers of the shoreline. The majority of nesting stands in Washington have 

been discovered within 63 km (39 mi) of marine waters. Marbled murrelets require suitable 

canopy structures for nesting that are primarily found in the mature and old-growth coniferous 

and mixed species forest stands of western Washington. Removal of these forests, primarily by 

timber harvesting and urbanization, is the principal factor contributing to the decline of the 

marbled murrelet, and is the most significant impediment to recovery of the species (USFWS 

1997a). Habitat fragmentation resulting in increased densities of nest predators, and prey 

availability, are also probable limits to long-term productivity and survival. Adult mortality 

caused by predation, impacts from the effects of oil spills, mortality due to entanglement in 

fishing gear, chronic water pollution, aquaculture, and disturbance at nesting and foraging sites 

have also been identified as potential limiting factors. 

In Washington State nesting habitat is found in the Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest 

zones. Douglas fir also contributes to the likelihood that habitat will be suitable for murrelet 

nesting, although there have been no nesting sites found within the coastal Douglas fir zone in 

Washington. The Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest zones in Washington include lower 

elevation forests comprising western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). The 

availability of nesting structures in a forest canopy is the principal determining factor in stands 

with high levels of murrelet activity. Nest selection is highly dependent upon the availability of 

potential nesting surfaces, or platforms (Nelson 1997). Kuletz et al. (1995) and Hamer (1995) 

found that in Alaska and Washington, respectively, the number of potential nest platforms was an 

important attribute in murrelet forest habitats. The suitability of a stand is enhanced by processes 

which contribute to the number of potential nesting platforms. Suitable forest stands can consist 

of trees exhibiting potential nesting platforms in the form of: large lateral limbs; large or 

moderate sized limbs with an abundance of epiphytes (especially mosses); branches creating a 

fork with the space between bridged by canopy litter or accumulated moss; a high incidence of 

dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infestation; or an abundance of canopy defects due to 

damage caused by environmental conditions (ice, lightning, wind), insects, or other processes 

that create growth abnormalities. 

Trees typically require 200 to 250 years or more to attain attributes necessary for marbled 

murrelet nesting (USFWS 1996). This is generally the time needed to develop limbs of a 

sufficient diameter to support a nest. Marbled murrelet nests are often located in the largest trees 

in the stand (Jordan and Hughes 1995; Singer et al. 1995). In a sample of 47 nests, Hamer and 

Nelson (1995) found all to be in trees larger than 88 cm (35 inches) dbh. However, younger 

stands of coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), western hemlock stands with an abundance of 

dwarf mistletoe, or stands with numerous older legacy trees remaining from a previous stand can 

develop characteristics of nesting habitat at a younger age. A nesting stand consisting of 

predominantly 80- to 120-year-old western hemlock trees was found in 1995 in the Tillamook 

State Forest, Oregon. This stand originated following a large-scale fire but contains scattered 

pockets of older trees that survived the fire. This stand also has a high incidence of mistletoe in 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-57 

the younger trees. In 1996 a nest was found in western Oregon in a 65-year-old western hemlock 

tree severely infected with dwarf mistletoe. An analysis of unpublished data collected in 

southwestern Washington and the west Olympic Peninsula by the WDFW indicates a significant 

number of occupied stands have at least one tree of 90 cm (36 inches) dbh or greater per acre, 

and with a minimum of two platforms. 

Moss enhances the suitability of a stand by increasing the potential nesting surface area on tree 

limbs, thus providing murrelets with more nesting opportunities. A majority of the known nests 

are found on moss-covered limbs (Nelson 1997; Ritchie 1998). Burger (1995) found that high 

murrelet activity in British Columbia was often associated with forest sites exhibiting welldeveloped epiphytic mosses. Nests are also located on larger limbs with little or no moss. In 

these cases canopy litter of conifer needles, bark, twigs, detritus, and dust constitutes the nesting 

substrate. No nesting materials are brought to the nest by the adult murrelets (Nelson 1997). 

Dwarf mistletoe can enhance the suitability of a stand by promoting the development of 

platforms and cover in the form of enlarged diameter limbs and witches brooms. This can be a 

particularly significant factor in mature stands with low density of large diameter trees. There are 

seven taxa of dwarf mistletoe occurring in Washington; however, the western hemlock dwarf 

mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense subsp. tsugense) and the mountain hemlock dwarf mistletoe 

(Arceuthobium tsugense subsp. mertensianae) are the only identified taxa occurring west of the 

Cascade Mountains in Washington (Hawksworth and Wiens 1996). Western hemlock dwarf 

mistletoe occurs from sea level to about 1,250 m (4,100 feet), the common principal host being 

western hemlock. Silver and grand fir are considered occasional hosts. Rare hosts are Douglas 

fir, Engelmann spruce, and mountain hemlock. Principal hosts of the mountain hemlock dwarf 

mistletoe are mountain hemlock and silver fir. The distributional range is thought to be limited 

to elevations greater than 1,200 m (3,900 feet) and thus beyond the elevational range of most 

known marbled murrelet nest stands. Nine percent of 37 marbled murrelet nests examined in the 

Pacific Northwest were on mistletoe infected limbs (Hamer and Nelson 1995). 

A sample of 41 nests in the Pacific Northwest by Hamer and Nelson (1995) found a mean limb 

diameter of 32 cm (13 inches). They also report a mean nest height of 45 m (148 feet) in a 

sample of 45 nests. The majority of these nests have been located in the upper half of the tree 

crown. Nest limb diameters in Washington range from 14 to 50 cm (5-20 inches); limb heights 

from 20 to 53 m (66-174 feet). Nests have been located on limbs as small as 10 cm (4 inches) in 

Oregon. 

Other factors which appear to contribute to the suitability of habitat for marbled murrelet nesting 

are cover, access to the canopy, stand size, and location on the landscape. Cover at an overstory 

canopy level may be important but has been shown to be highly variable. Cover directly above 

and adjacent to the nest, however, appears to be an important attribute. Occupied stands in 

Washington have a mean canopy cover of 81% (Hamer 1995) and 87% of all nests in the Pacific 

Northwest had greater than 74% immediate overhead cover (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Canopy 

cover of stands elsewhere is highly variable, ranging from 15 to 100% in Oregon (S.K. Nelson, 

pers. com.) 

Stand access by marbled murrelets can be influenced by stem density of dominant trees; total 

stem density; natural and artificial openings and flight corridors created by multiple crown layers 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-58 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

in uneven aged stands, streams, trails, or similar features; canopy integrity and spatial 

orientation; and slope. In a sample of 30 nest trees, Hamer and Nelson (1995) found the mean 

distance from a nest to an opening to be 92 m (302 feet). Singer et al. (1995) identified flight 

corridors in gaps beneath the dominant canopy used by murrelets to enter and exit their nests. 

The crowns of trees on steep slopes may be more accessible to murrelets than those on flatter 

terrain; however, there currently are no statistically significant data to show more secondary or 

sub-dominant trees may be accessible in these circumstances. 

Stand size may influence the quality of the stand by affecting the amount of available interior 

habitat, nest predation and disturbance levels. Marbled murrelets are considered to be one of the 

bird species in the Pacific Northwest most sensitive to forest fragmentation (Hansen and Urban 

1992). Bryant (1994), Rudnicky and Hunter (1993), Small and Hunter (1988), and Wilcove 

(1985) have demonstrated that avian nests are adversely impacted by fragmentation and the 

associated edge effects. A critical review by Paton (1994) concluded that sufficient data show 

predation rates decrease as habitat patch size and distance from edge increases. I n contrast, 

Vander Haegen and DeGraaf (1996) did not find that fragmentation resulted in higher predation 

rates on nests of ground and shrub nesting passerines in Maine. They did, however, conclude 

that proximity to a forest edge coincides with greater nest predation rates. An avifauna nest 

predation study by Naef (1996) conducted in Washington also found no clear relationship 

between nest predation and stand size. She suggests that vegetation structural factors in interior 

coniferous forests may have more of an influence than stand size alone. Reduced levels of 

predation were shown to occur where nests were higher in a tree, further from a recently 

disturbed edge, and in mature stands with higher and deeper canopies. Chen et al. (1992) found 

several microclimatic differences between forest interiors and edges. Interior forest habitats 

experience reduced daily temperature fluctuations, lower daily high temperatures, and lower 

wind speeds than forest edges. Interior forests may also provide better visual and sound 

screening from adjacent sources of human disturbance than forest edges. 

Predation rates at marbled murrelet nests have been found to be extremely high in some areas. 

Nelson and Hamer (1995) noted that 57% of the marbled murrelet nests examined (n=8) in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, failed as a result of predation. They also found that 

reproductive success was correlated to distance from an edge. They report that all but one 

successful nest was greater than 55 m (180 feet) from an edge. Marzluff et al. (1997), in a 

preliminary report, indicate that landscape fragmentation and proximity to human activity may 

influence predation by corvids on marbled murrelet nests. Naef (1996) also found that stand 

context in relation to the disturbance of the surrounding matrix was an important influencing 

factor in avian nest predation, especially at stand edges. Small and Hunter (1988) found that nest 

predation of songbirds was highest in small forest patches completely surrounded by clearings. 

Distance from marine waters and the location of nearby habitats may also affect suitability. 

Stands that lie further from feeding areas probably require the adults to expend more energy to 

provision the nest. Newly fledged chicks may have a greater likelihood of successfully reaching 

the marine waters if their nest is closer to the coast. Suitable nesting habitat adjacent to or near 

an occupied stand, possibly offers more opportunities for recruitment as the population expands. 

This condition may also help maintain localized breeding productivity if a catastrophic event 

such as a wildfire or wind storm destroys a nesting stand. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-59 

4.9.3.1 Limiting Factors 

Marbled murrelets require suitable canopy structures primarily found in mature and old-growth 

forest stands for nesting. Elimination of these forests, primarily by timber harvesting and 

urbanization, is the principal factor contributing to the decline of the marbled murrelet and the 

most significant impediment to recovery of the species (USFWS 1997a). Habitat fragmentation 

resulting in increased densities of nest predators, and prey availability also probably limits longterm productivity and survival of the marbled murrelet. Adult mortality caused by predation, 

impacts from the effects of oil spills, mortality due to entanglement in fishing gear, chronic water 

pollution, aquaculture, and disturbance at nesting and foraging sites have also been identified as 

potential limiting factors. 

The life span of marbled murrelets is unknown, but other members of the Alcid family have been 

shown to live from five to 32 years (De Santo and Nelson 1995). A marbled murrelet banded in 

British Columbia in 1991 was recaptured in 1997 (Lougheed and Lougheed 1998). Adult and 

first-year juvenile survivorship based on data from other alcids is estimated to be 81%-88% and 

70%, respectively (Beissinger 1995). Marbled murrelets are thought to reach breeding maturity 

in two to four years (De Santo and Nelson 1995). Marbled murrelets have a low rate of 

reproductive success. Breeding pairs produce a single offspring during reproductive years. 

Murrelets may not nest every year, especially when food resources are limited (Nelson 1997). 

Beissinger (1995) reports surveys to determine productivity have found adult to juvenile ratios 

from 4% to 5% in British Columbia and Oregon. Stein and Nysewander (1995) found adult to 

juvenile ratios from 8% to 9% in Puget Sound. In the western Straits of Juan de Fuca along the 

Washington coast, Thompson (1997) found that juveniles made up 17% of the murrelets 

observed. Corrections for possible environmental factors and biases in survey methodology will 

likely lead to refined estimates in the near future. 

Population trend modeling suggests an annual decline of 4% to 7% in the total North American 

population, but the potential rate of decline could be twice as large (Beissinger 1995). The 

combination of low demographic potential, small population size, and increased risk resulting 

from anthropogenic factors could lead to extirpation of the marbled murrelet in portions of its 

current range. The current overall estimate for the listed population (California, Oregon, and 

Washington) is less than 18,000. Trend data indicate an annual decline of between 2.4% to 4.3% 

(Falxa et al. 2009). 

The Federal Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a) identifies the primary 

cause of population decline as loss of older forests and associated nest sites. It states that 

protection of suitable nesting habitat and nest sites on Federal, state, and private lands are 

essential toward maintaining a well-dispersed population across the landscape. Management of 

some mature age class forest stands to provide replacement habitat for increasing the population 

and contributing additional potential nesting sites is also critical to recovery of the species. The 

importance of surveys to locate nest sites and identify suitable habitats is recognized at both the 

Federal and state level. To allow for protection of unsurveyed potential nesting sites, the 

Washington Forest Practices Board (1997) requires landowners with greater than 200 ha (500 

acres) of land within 80 km (50 miles) of salt water to survey suitable habitats prior to harvest. 

Several land management approaches are also available to protect habitat such as Federal habitat 

conservation plans, and state landscape and site management plans. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-60 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Habitat fragmentation appears to result in increased densities of nest predators. Predation rates 

at marbled murrelet nests have been found to be extremely high in some areas. Fragmentation of 

conifer and mixed-species forests may contribute to these predation rates (Nelson and Hamer 

1995). Forests with increasingly complex structural architecture are desirable features that should 

be retained or enhanced in forest ecosystems (Naef 1996). Corvids are thought to forage using 

visual cues and have been identified as a primary marbled murrelet nest predator. A more 

complex forest has larger canopy mass in multi-dimensions that can help to conceal the location 

of nests from such visual predators (Rudnicky and Hunter 1993; Wilcove 1985; Yahner and 

Cypher 1987). Interior portions of forests mitigate the effects of surrounding ambient and severe 

environmental conditions and may provide better visual and sound screening from adjacent 

sources of human disturbance than forest edges. 

Human disturbance of marbled murrelets is not well documented but has been shown to elicit 

differing levels of response from foraging and nesting birds. Kuletz (1996) reported numbers of 

murrelets counted on the water in Alaska were negatively correlated to the number of boats and 

low-flying aircraft in the area. Response to boats and low flying traffic has also been reported by 

others. Strong (1995) felt that birds were very sensitive to his vessel while passing within 50 m 

(164 feet). A literature review by Long and Ralph (1998) found that human activities can impact 

nesting success of seabirds and waterfowl, especially during the period when a nest site is chosen 

and during incubation. Henson and Grant (1991) report that passing vehicles caused the most 

observable response when they had loud engines, such as motorcycles, or were stopped along a 

road. Washington state and Federal regulations restrict heavy equipment, and Federal 

regulations also apply to small power equipment, used during the breeding season adjacent to 

nesting stands. Long and Ralph (1998) cite unpublished data that indicate murrelets did not 

appear to respond to aircraft or helicopters flying overhead, except when they were at an altitude 

below 152 m (500 feet). However, based on recommendations from a panel of wildlife 

biologists and resource specialists, the Washington Forest Practices Board adopted rules (WFPB 

1997) that restricts aircraft flight below 400 m (1,300 feet) over known marbled murrelet nest 

sites anytime during the breeding season or within 0.4 km (0.3 mile) during periods of daily peak 

activity. Federal restrictions applied in California limit aircraft flight below 152 m (500 feet). 

The effects of rotor-wash should also be considered when assessing the potential impacts from 

helicopter operations. Factors to consider whenever addressing concerns of potential disturbance 

to nesting marbled murrelets are the changes in noise or visual activity levels above ambient 

conditions, the timing of source activities in relation to nesting chronology, type of disturbance, 

and the duration and frequency of the disturbance. Studies of predation and disturbance in the 

Pacific Northwest with direct applications to marbled murrelets are ongoing, so the measurable 

effects of timber harvests and other human activities remain undetermined. 

4.9.3.2 Recovery Actions 

Recovery actions identified for the marbled murrelet and addressed through management 

activities at Willapa NWR are: 

Protect terrestrial habitat essential for marbled murrelet recovery (2.1). 

Incorporate management recommendations for protected areas. These include short-term actions 

to stabilize and increase the population, such as maintaining and enhancing occupied nesting 

habitat and surround buffer areas, protecting unoccupied suitable habitat in larger contiguous 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-61 

blocks, and minimizing disturbance and activities that could elevate nest predation (3.1). 

Implementation of long-term actions having consequential effects on population growth are 

identified in Section 3.2. 

Increasing the amount and quality of suitable nesting habitat by decreasing fragmentation, 

protecting recruitment habitat to buffer existing habitat and provide future replacement habitat, 

and using silvicultural techniques to accelerate development of new habitats are means 

indentified to improve the amount and quality of available habitat, especially in regions and 

landscapes with a scarcity of suitable habitat, such as found in southwestern Washington. 

4.9.4 Streaked Horned Lark* (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

The endemic subspecies of the Pacific coastal form of horned lark is found only in western 

Oregon and Washington. Rogers (2000) proposes that the streaked horn lark may be the most 

endangered bird in Washington. Horned larks are small ground-dwelling passerines with black 

occipital feather tuffs, or horns. Their plumage is also marked with a black breast band, lores, 

and cheek patches that contrast with a yellow eyebrow stripe, ear coverts, and chin. The nape, 

back, rump, and upper tail is brown streaked with dusky brown to black (Beason 1995). 

Larks inhabit native prairies but have also adapted to nesting in low growing and sparsely 

vegetated grasslands at airports, coastal sand dune habitats, and on dredge spoil islands. The 

streaked horned lark was once abundant on Puget Sound prairies. As its population and 

distribution has decreased significantly with the decline in habitat, it is now restricted to a few 

large open grassland sites and islands in Washington (Stinson 2005) and several sites in Oregon. 

The streaked horned lark is currently a candidate for listing under the ESA. Candidate species 

will be listed at some point in the future, unless adequate conservation measures preclude the 

need for listing. 

4.9.4.1 Limiting Factors 

As with the western snowy plover, loss and fragmentation of prairie habitats to urban 

development; introduced beachgrass (Ammophila spp.); invasion by turf-forming grasses, shrubs, 

and taller vegetation; and expanding predator populations have resulted in a decline in active 

nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering populations. Habitat succession and 

invasion of non-native plants at prairies have accelerated with the suppression of wild fires. 

Nearly all the remaining prairie sites in western Washington are degraded to some extent by 

exotic forbs, grasses, and woody plants, creating unfavorable conditions for lark use (Stinson 

2005). Aircraft strikes at airport breeding sites and disturbance and habitat destruction from 

recreational vehicles at beach sites have also been implicated as causes leading to the population 

decline. 

4.9.4.2 Recovery Actions 

The streaked horned lark preliminary conservation strategy (Pearson and Altman 2005) outlines 

regional priorities for developing recovery actions aimed at avoiding continued population 

declines and potential future listing. The following actions identified for the Washington coast 

are currently implemented at Willapa NWR, or would be under Alternatives 2 and 3 of this CCP. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-62 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Control invasive beachgrass at known breeding sites. 

Limit human and vehicle access to nesting sites and activities that disturb breeding larks, such as 

off-leash dogs, fireworks, and kite flying. 

Reduce the amount of food available to known nest predators like crows and ravens. 

Investigate methods for reducing nest predation rates. 

Develop and implement a population monitoring strategy that includes a direct or indirect 

measure of fitness (reproduction and survival). 

Develop educational signs along beach access points informing the public about the sensitivity of 

nesting larks and plovers to specific recreational activities. 

4.9.5 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

The northern spotted owl was listed under the ESA as threatened on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114 

26194) because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl (USFWS 2008a). 

The final northern spotted owl recovery plan was subsequently published in May 2008. Since 

the subspecies was listed the northern spotted owl population has continued to decline, especially 

in the northern portions of its range. Spotted owls have become rare in certain areas of their 

historic range, such as British Columbia, southwestern Washington, and the northern coastal 

ranges of Oregon (USFWS 2008a). Spotted owls, along with marbled murrelets and Vaux’s 

swifts, are the avian species most closely associated with old-growth coniferous forests in the 

Pacific Northwest (Ruggiero et al. 1991). 

Spotted owls historically inhabited forests located within the present day boundaries of the 

Refuge. A spotted owl pair that nested in the Cedar Grove RNA forest was last observed there in 

1985. The following year barred owls were observed occupying the nest. An established spotted 

owl management circle also encompasses the Teal Slough Unit and most of the Headquarters 

Unit of the Refuge. This territory was most recently known to be occupied in 1998 when a 

survey documented a pair of adults and one juvenile spotted owl. Despite the de-emphasis on 

spotted owl recovery in southwestern Washington, applicable recommendations and recovery 

actions identified in the northern spotted owl recovery plan were considered in the development 

of this CCP. 

4.9.5.1 Limiting Factors 

The spotted owl inhabits structurally complex, late-seral and old-growth coniferous forests in the 

Pacific Northwest and northern California. Trees typically require 200 to 250 years or more to 

grow to a size large enough for spotted owls to use. Unless the tree bole or tree top has been 

damaged, it may take at least that long or longer for the tree to die and become a snag or develop 

enough heart rot to produce a suitable nest cavity. Late-seral forests used by northern spotted 

owls are characterized by overstory trees of large stature, exhibiting very large diameter boles, 

large limbs, and tall, deep crowns, often with broken and reiterated tops. The forests typically 

develop vertically and horizontally diverse canopies from multiple crown layers created by 

uneven aged stands, streams, gaps, or similar features that result in a complex spatial orientation. 

Standing dead trees, or snags, and downed trees decaying on the forest floor provide shelter and 

breeding habitat for owls and their prey. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-63 

Historically much of the lowland coastal forests and mid-elevation forests of the Cascade and 

coastal mountain ranges provided spotted owl habitat. Much of that forestland was harvested for 

lumber and paper production. Many of the remaining suitable forest patches in southwestern and 

coastal Washington are too small and fragmented to provide functional habitat for spotted owls. 

“Ideally, blocks of habitat should be dispersed in a pattern corresponding to a species’ full 

geographic distribution. This distribution is the key hedge against major catastrophes that could 

otherwise extinguish the sole remaining population of a once wide-spread species” (Thomas et 

al. 1990). However, the spotted owl recovery plan excludes the Western Washington Lowland 

Province from the Managed Owl Conservation Area approach because it is assumed that low 

population numbers are not essential to the species recovery. 

4.9.5.2 Recovery Actions 

Despite the de-emphasis on spotted owl recovery in southwestern Washington, applicable 

recommendations and recovery actions identified in the northern spotted owl recovery plan are 

being considered in the management activities at Willapa NWR. 

All older and more structurally complex multi-layered confer forests on Federal lands are to be 

maintained in the western biogeographical provinces. 

Restore ecological function to west-side forests by creating a natural distribution of stand 

structure, composition, and successional stages while promoting old-growth/late successional 

characteristics to benefit forest dependent wildlife. Carey (2003a, 2003b, 2007) provides a 

comprehensive review of west-side coniferous forest restoration and results of experimental 

application of these concepts. Important considerations mentioned in the northern spotted owl 

recovery plan (USFWS 2008a) include: 1) retention of biological legacies, 2) ensuring multitree-species regeneration and multi-tree-species management through precommercial thinning, 3) 

managing for spatial heterogeneity in canopies and understory vegetation site types through 

commercial thinning or application of fire, 4) management of decadence processes, including 

maintaining dead and decadent trees, coarse woody debris, creating cavity trees, and 

maintenance of large old trees with significant decay, etc., 5) management of forests on long to 

indefinite rotations, and other methods. 

4.9.6 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 

The Oregon silverspot butterfly is a medium-sized, orange- and brown-colored butterfly with 

black veins and spots on their upper wing surface. The namesake bright metallic silver spots are 

found on the underside of the wings. The historic range of the Oregon silverspot butterfly 

extended along the Oregon and Washington coasts from Westport, Washington, south to around 

Heceta Head in Oregon, and in a separate coastal area north of Crescent City in Del Norte 

County, California. 

Two types of coastal dune habitat inhabited by the Oregon silverspot butterfly are referred to as 

salt spay meadows, such as those found on the central Oregon coast, and stabilized coastal dunes 

that are found on the Long Beach Peninsula, Clatsop Plains, and at Lake Earl in Del Norte 

County, California. All suitable habitats are coastal meadow or prairies that support native forbs 

(used by the adults as a source of nectar) and the early blue violet (which provides food for the 

larvae). The Oregon silverspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species on October 15, 1980, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-64 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

because of the small population, limited distribution, and continued loss of habitat. Critical 

habitat was also designated in coastal Oregon at the time of listing (45 FR 44935). Subsequently 

a revised recovery plan was published in August of 2001 (USFWS 2001a). 

4.9.6.1 Limiting Factors 

By the early 1980s most historical populations of the Oregon silverspot butterfly were extirpated 

(USFWS 2001a). The last Oregon silverspot butterfly found in Washington was in 1990 on the 

Long Beach Peninsula (WDFW 1993). The primary cause of its decline is habitat loss and 

degradation as a result of urban development, agricultural conversion, invasive non-native 

vegetation, recreational off-road vehicle use, and natural succession. Direct mortality from 

collisions with vehicles and pesticide use are also a factors implemented in the reduction of 

populations. Loss of early successional meadows that support suitable conditions for the larval 

host plant, the early blue violet (Viola adunca), has severely limited the amount of butterfly 

habitat to a handful of sites on the central Oregon coast and one site in Del Norte County, 

California. In Washington most violet habitats are threatened by the presence of heavy grass 

thatch and invasion by woody vegetation that shade out or restrict violet growth (Pyle 1985). 

4.9.6.2 Recovery Actions 

Recovery actions identified for the Oregon silverspot butterfly and addressed through 

management activities at Willapa NWR are: 

Design habitat areas for the Long Beach population (1.1). 

Develop a management plan for protected habitats in the Long Beach Habitat Conservation Area 

(1.1.5). 

As habitat rehabilitation efforts proceed, contribute to the understanding of factors that affect 

population dynamics and persistence. These factors include control of exotic grasses, trees, and 

brush, establishment of early blue violets and nectaring plants, and refining habitat requirements 

at sites managed as butterfly habitat (2.2). 

4.10 Special Designation Areas 

4.10.1 Formally Designated Natural Areas 

The Refuge has three state-registered natural areas that are in the RNA category. These RNAs 

are administered by the Service to 1) preserve examples of all significant natural ecosystems for 

comparison with those influenced by humans; 2) to provide educational and research areas for 

ecological and environmental studies; and 3) to preserve the genetic and behavioral diversity of 

native and endangered plants and animals. As directed in this program, RNAs must be 

reasonably protected from any influence that could alter or disrupt the characteristic phenomena 

for which the area was established. Management practices, such as prescribed burning and 

chemical control of plants, may be conducted only where necessary to preserve vegetation and as 

directed in a plan approved by the regional director. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-65 

4.10.1.1 Diamond Point Research Natural Area 

Diamond Point RNA is an 88-acre forested area at the northern tip of Long Island that was 

designated an RNA in 1976. Diamond Point RNA preserves an example of second-growth Sitka 

spruce–western hemlock forest growing on an island in a coastal estuary. The natural area 

includes 48 acres of mature red alder and 40 acres of mature Sitka spruce/sword fern forest and 

Sitka spruce/salal forest. This area was logged around the beginning of the twentieth century 

(Dyrness 1972). 

4.10.1.2 Cedar Grove Research Natural Area 

Cedar Grove RNA encompasses 264 acres and is located in the southern portion of Long Island. 

This RNA is an example of an old-growth western red cedar–western hemlock/evergreen 

huckleberry–salal forest. 

The Cedar Grove is unique, representing a forest association which has not been identified 

anywhere else in the Pacific Northwest. Other forests with similar composition have been 

destroyed by logging, fire, or windthrow (Franklin 1984). 

The structure of the Cedar Grove is unusual in that it is quite uniform. Western red cedars 

average 8 to 11 feet dbh and reach 150 to 165 feet in height. Individual cedars may be up to 

1,000 years old. Old-growth western hemlock may reach 5-6 feet dbh. All sizes and age classes 

of western red cedar and western hemlock indicate that these two species are continuing to 

reproduce and maintain their positions in the stand, possibly representing a climax condition. 

The western hemlock has a higher mortality rate and shorter life span than the cedar, therefore 

the hemlock is believed to cycle through the stand 4 to 5 times more rapidly than the cedar. 

The uniform structure of the Cedar Grove has been attributed to the absence of catastrophic fire 

in the stand. Individual trees show signs of fire, but the wet climate and island setting have 

apparently protected the area from a stand-destroying fire. This forest may have developed 

unscathed since the last major change in climate 4,000 years ago. The trees surrounding the 

Cedar Grove, and its topography have probably protected it from major wind events. This area 

was difficult to access by water and was therefore spared from logging in the early days. The 

rest of Long Island has been logged one or more times in the last 100+ years (USFWS 1987). 

The three-quarter-mile Trail of Ancient Cedars loops through the northern edge of the Cedar 

Grove RNA. 

4.10.1.3 Leadbetter Point Research Natural Area 

Leadbetter Point RNA, located at the northern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula, was put on the 

Washington Register of Natural Areas in 1989. The original designation included 1,705 acres of 

the peninsula tip, Grassy Island, and the marsh between the island and peninsula tip; however, 

the Leadbetter Point Unit is now approximately 1,742 acres due to sand accretion at the 

peninsula tip. This area represents the highest quality, largest coastal sand dune ecosystem in 

Washington State. The unique natural elements protected at Leadbetter Point include salt marsh, 

native dunegrass, lodgepole pine (shore pine) forest, shrub/lodgepole pine (shore pine), and open 

beach habitats. Leadbetter Point contains high-quality examples of high salinity Virginia 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-66 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

glasswort/inland saltgrass marsh, low salinity marsh, and transition zone wetlands. Flora 

associated with the marshes are of primary significance, as are the dune grassland and deflation 

plain communities. Pockets of native plants within the secondary dune, deflation plains, and 

dune troughs are also significant ecological features and are of high quality compared to these 

remaining plant communities in Washington. The open beach and dune grassland communities 

of Leadbetter have been significantly impacted by the invasion and naturalization of two nonnative beachgrasses. The salt marsh has been invaded by smooth cordgrass, an eastern salt 

marsh species, although efforts to control cordgrass in recent years have essentially eliminated it 

from Leadbetter Point. Selective removal or control of plant species not native to Leadbetter 

Point, including Spartina, Scotch broom, and common gorse, was an approved management 

activity at the time the RNA was established. Removal and control of the non-native 

beachgrasses has been approved and work has been done as part of the management of habitat 

for the federally threatened/state endangered western snowy plover (Caicco 1989;Willapa NWR 

files). 

4.10.2 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) 

Two areas on the Refuge have been officially identified as Important Bird Areas (IBAs): 

Leadbetter Point and South Willapa Bay. The Important Bird Areas Program is a global effort to 

identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and biodiversity. IBAs are key sites for 

conservation and do one (or more) of three things: 

Hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species. 

Are one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted-range species or biomerestricted species. 

Have exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species. 

As of 2009, approximately 11,000 sites in 200 countries and territories have been identified as 

IBAs. 

4.11 Effects to Species and Habitats 

4.11.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives (IPM) 

Potential effects to the biological and physical environment associated with the proposed site-, 

time-, and target-specific use of pesticides. (Pesticide Use Proposals [PUPs]) on the Refuge 

would be evaluated using scientific information and analyses documented in “Chemical Profiles” 

in Appendix H.) These profiles provide quantitative assessment/screening tools and threshold 

values to evaluate potential effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) and 

environmental quality (water, soil, and air). PUPs (including appropriate BMPs) would be 

approved where the Chemical Profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to 

refuge biological resources and its physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, 

or localized in nature. Along with the selective use of pesticides, PUPs would also describe other 

appropriate IPM strategies (biological, physical, mechanical, and cultural methods) to eradicate, 

control, or contain pest species in order to achieve resource management objectives. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-67 

The effects of these non-pesticide IPM strategies (e.g., mowing) to address pest species on the 

Refuge would be similar to those effects described elsewhere within this chapter, where they are 

discussed specifically as habitat management techniques to achieve resource management 

objectives on the Refuge. For example, the effects of mowing to control invasive plants in an 

improved pasture would be similar to those effects summarized for mowing, where it would be 

specifically used to provide short-grass foraging habitat for wintering geese. 

Based on scientific information and analyses documented in Chemical Profiles (see Appendix 

H), pesticides allowed for use on the Refuge would be of relatively low risk to non-target 

organisms as a result of low toxicity or short persistence in the environment. Thus, potential 

impacts to refuge resources and neighboring natural resources from pesticide applications would 

be expected to be minor, temporary, or localized in nature. 

4.11.2 Effects to Fish 

All three alternatives include stream restoration and reintroduction/enhancement of fish 

populations, which are occurring under the current management of the Refuge. Stream 

restoration will continue to improve habitat structure and conditions for fish. Improved water 

quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen), habitat structure, and access (as any fish passage barriers are 

removed) are expected to benefit fish, especially adult and juvenile salmon, cutthroat trout, 

western brook lamprey and other native fish, including freshwater and estuarine species. 

Reintroduction/enhancement of fish will establish or bolster fish populations and ensure that 

healthy populations exist in suitable habitat. Both long-term and temporary effects may occur 

under each alternative. Temporary effects to fish species include those from construction 

activities such as large woody debris placement as part of stream and river restoration and 

construction activities associated with estuarine restoration, including dike removal and channel 

modification. Long-term effects to fish species may occur due to changes in habitat abundance 

and diversity and changes in primary production which affect the food chain. 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs and other refuge programs. This alternative would still result in additional 

positive benefits to fish populations as improvements would continue to be made even under the 

no change scenario, including stream and river restoration activities and 

reintroduction/enhancement of fish populations. Thus its effects on fish would be expected to be 

positive, resulting in an increase in salmonid as well as other native fish populations. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration and expanded 

public use. Current stream and river restoration activities and reintroduction/enhancement of 

fish populations would be continued and would be expected to have the same positive effects as 

in Alternative 1. Establishing additional estuarine habitat, specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 

acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt marsh by removing dikes, would increase this 

valuable habitat which benefits estuarine dependent fish species including juvenile salmon. 

Through this alternative, managed pasture would be reduced. Managed wetlands, though 

reduced, would still provide habitat for native fish, such as threespine stickleback that thrive in 

shallow water. The habitat enhancements proposed in Alternative 2 would benefit native fish, 

more substantially than Alternative 1. Estuarine habitat restoration would positively affect native 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-68 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

fish, but the overall benefits to fish populations are expected to be difficult to detect because of 

the relatively small amount of refuge-owned habitat involved, compared to the entire estuary. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing additional habitat in the Nemah/Naselle, 

South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide more protection to the Willapa Bay estuary and 

result in positive benefits for fish species. Under refuge ownership the land can be managed to 

enhance and improve value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the health and integrity of 

the larger Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

Divesting property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on fish resources as this unit 

of the Refuge is currently submerged. Divesting property at Wheaton may or may not have an 

effect on freshwater fish species depending on the land uses of the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions will not affect 

fish species or their habitat. 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. This action will not affect fish species or their habitat. 

Alternative 2 also proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. No changes in 

public uses would affect fish with the possible exception of establishment of a boat launch access 

point (car-top boats only) to access South Bay for waterfowl hunting. Construction of the boat 

launch may result in temporary effects to fish and habitat at the shoreline site. This action also 

may result in a slight increase in motorized boat use and resultant water pollution in this area. 

Pollution could be caused by both routine oil and gas consumption and possible accidental 

leakage. Any effects to fish or their habitat will be of a temporary, localized short-term nature. 

Overall, Alternative 2 would result in beneficial effects to fish. Estuarine restoration would have 

an intermediate positive effect and an increase in acreage of estuarine habitat would result. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restoration would be less than in Alternative 2, also reducing maximum possible benefits 

to fish. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than that in Alternative 2. The 

area open to waterfowl hunting would be increased in South Bay under Alternative 3, but in a 

more limited manner than that proposed in Alternative 2. This may result in a slight increase in 

motorized boat use and resultant water pollution in South Bay. The predator control program 

would be reduced from that in Alternative 2 to include only avian predators. This activity would 

have no effect on fish species or their habitat. 

4.11.3 Effects to Birds 

The large area of open water in Willapa Bay provides necessary resting and foraging habitat for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, and wading birds. The expansive intertidal mudflats of the 

Bay are among its most differentiating and defining features. The intertidal zone supports a 

variety of habitats including mud and sand flats, oyster reefs, salt marsh habitat, and eelgrass 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-69 

meadows. Its mudflats are among the 10 most important foraging areas for migratory birds 

along the Pacific Flyway (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). In the Pacific Northwest a large 

portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, channelization, dredging, and filling. 

Washington is estimated to have lost between 45% and 62% of its pre-settlement estuarine 

habitat (Aitkin 1998). In Willapa Bay about 30% of the original estuarine wetlands have been 

diked or filled (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981). A portion of refuge salt marsh habitat was 

eliminated when dikes were constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s to create pasture lands 

and freshwater wetlands. It was believed this would enhance overall waterfowl use of the 

Refuge and increase land available for agricultural production. 

Intertidal mudflats and salt marshes are particularly valuable habitat for migratory birds, juvenile 

fishes, eelgrass, and clams (Proctor et al. 1980). Such areas on the Refuge have annually 

provided important feeding habitat for over 20,000 migrating ducks, tens of thousands of 

shorebirds, and thousands of migrating geese annually. Refuge tidelands are essential to 

sustaining an estimated 2.2 million duck, 400,000 Canada goose, 200,000 brant, and over 2 

million shorebird use-days associated with the southern portion of Willapa Bay (USFWS 1997b). 

Extensive eelgrass (Zostera spp.) beds on intertidal mudflats are an important food source for 

Pacific brant. 

Forest habitats benefit a diverse assemblage of bird species, including many raptors and land 

birds. Live trees provide good nesting and roosting habitat for avifauna. Snags and live trees 

with broken tops provide nesting and foraging habitat for primary and secondary cavity nesters. 

Northern goshawk, marbled murrelet, pileated woodpecker, Vaux’s swift, and olive-sided 

flycatcher are among the many birds that inhabit refuge forests for feeding, roosting, and nesting. 

In the Willapa Hills of southwestern Washington, coastal and upland forests have been 

extensively managed for timber production; today, less than 1% of the original old-growth 

forests remain as scattered remnant patches across the landscape (Davis et al. 2009). Managed 

forests are typically 20 to 60 years old and are made up of primarily Douglas fir and western 

hemlock. Harvest of old-growth and mature forests for commercial timber and paper production 

have resulted in loss of species diversity and forest complexity on most of this landscape. This is 

due in part to the practice of clear-cut logging and planting of even-aged, monotypic stands that 

are managed on short harvest rotations. Conversion of habitat to residential and non-forest uses 

has accelerated forest fragmentation. 

The unique natural elements protected at Leadbetter Point include salt marsh, native dunegrass, 

lodgepole pine (shore pine) forest, shrub/lodgepole pine, and open beach habitats. The 

Leadbetter Point Unit contains high-quality examples of high salinity Virginia glasswort/inland 

saltgrass marsh, low salinity marsh, and transition zone wetlands. Flora associated with the 

marshes are of primary significance, as are the dune grassland and deflation plain communities. 

Pockets of native plants within the secondary dune, deflation plains, and dune troughs are also 

significant ecological features and are of high quality compared to these remaining plant 

communities in Washington. The open beach and dune grassland communities of Leadbetter 

Point have been significantly impacted by the invasion and naturalization of two non-native 

beach grasses. The salt marsh has been invaded by smooth cordgrass, an eastern salt marsh 

species, although efforts to control cordgrass in recent years have essentially eliminated it from 

Leadbetter Point. Removal and control of the non-native beach grasses is ongoing and is a 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-70 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

component of habitat management for the western snowy plover (Caicco 1989; Willapa NWR 

files). In addition to the loss of nesting habitat, avian nest predation is currently recognized as a 

significant limiting factor in western snowy plover and streaked horned lark fecundity. 

Willapa Bay has been proposed as a site of international significance supporting >100,000 

shorebirds or 15% of the Pacific Flyway total (Drut and Buchanan 2000). The Refuge provides 

breeding, wintering, and/or stopover habitat for most of the shorebirds identified as having 

primary importance within the region. Twenty species of highest concern for which coastal 

habitats in the Northern Pacific Coast Region are especially important are supported on this 

Refuge including the federally threatened/state endangered western snowy plover. Leadbetter 

Point also serves an important role as a nesting site for streaked horned larks. 

4.11.3.1 Waterbirds 

Waterbirds as discussed in this section include all birds other than raptors, shorebirds, seabirds, 

and land birds. Waterbirds include loons, grebes, pelicans, wading birds (e.g., herons, egrets, and 

bitterns), geese, ducks, and swans. 

Alternative 1 would result in no change in current refuge management programs. The existing 

habitats and habitat management practices would be maintained. The amount of estuarine 

habitats, open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh currently managed by the Refuge in South 

Bay will remain unchanged. The established cordgrass management program will be continued. 

These habitats benefit Pacific brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), and other geese and duck 

species. The Refuge would continue to manage 250 acres of short-grass fields to provide food 

for wintering geese and American wigeon (Anas americana). The existing 927 acres of natural 

and seasonally maintained freshwater marsh habitat at the Porter Point and Tarlatt units would be 

managed to benefit wintering ducks, geese, and other waterbirds. Existing riparian forests and 

forested wetland areas that provide nest sites for wood ducks (Aix sponsa), hooded (Lophodytes 

cucullatus) and common mergansers (Mergus merganser), and great blue herons (Ardea 

herodias) would be maintained. 

Management would emphasize maintaining all habitats in their existing state and continuing 

existing management practices related to waterbirds. No additional estuarine tidelands, 

freshwater wetlands, or short-grass fields would be acquired or restored. Public use programs, 

including waterfowl hunting (ducks, geese, coots, and snipe), would continue at present levels. 

Hunting pressure and disturbance would remain focused in the regulated goose hunt area on the 

Tarlatt Unit and at existing areas on the Leadbetter and Porter Point units. Thus, under 

Alternative 1 there would be no change in the effects to waterbirds. 

Alternative 2 would maintain existing refuge habitats and habitat management practices, with 

the following exceptions. The Refuge currently has 878 acres of open water and channel habitat. 

Under this alternative, open water and channel habitat within the Refuge would be increased by 

0.2 acre. Existing intertidal flat habitat covers 4,178 acres within the Refuge. This alternative 

would result in an increase of 11 acres of intertidal flat habitat. The Refuge presently has 1,636 

acres of salt marsh habitat that, under this alternative, will be increased by 749 acres. The 

increase in estuarine habitats managed by the Refuge will be accomplished by breaching or 

removing dikes in the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola units, resulting in a reduction of 300 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-71 

acres of seasonally managed wetlands. Subsequent to dike removal and estuarine restoration the 

remaining 17 acres of seasonally managed wetlands will be located solely at the Tarlatt Unit. 

This alternative would re-establish tidal connection and natural functions to 760 acres of 

estuarine habitats in the South Bay. Estuaries are known to be one of the most productive and 

ecologically diverse habitat types (Correll 1978; Milne and Dunnet 1972; Odum 1971). 

Estuarine restoration would create the potential for eelgrass to colonize restored intertidal 

mudflats, thus increasing the overall amount of this important food source for Pacific brant. The 

newly restored intertidal and salt marsh habitats would also benefit fish and marine invertebrates 

like mollusks and zooplankton and result in improved forage for a number of resident and 

migratory waterbirds like grebes and seaducks. Estuarine marshes benefit other goose and duck 

species by providing cover, forage, and nesting habitat. In a recent survey goose utilization was 

compared between two types of habitats: salt marsh (Porter Point Unit) and pasture lands 

(Riekkola Unit). Migratory goose use of these areas as foraging habitat revealed a greater 

preference for the salt marsh than that of the adjacent managed pastures protected by dikes. 

Goose use of the salt marsh occurred regardless of the level of water coverage by the tides. 

Survey data suggest that migrating geese use salt marsh on average 8.6 times more than on the 

Riekkola Unit pastures (Patten et al. 2008). Waterbirds use of seasonally managed freshwater 

wetlands on the Refuge would decrease because of the reduction in overall area of this type of 

habitat. 

The conversion from freshwater to estuarine habitat would change the type but not the amount of 

foraging habitat available to waterbirds, mostly affecting dabbling duck species. Any habitat 

manipulation results in benefits to some species and disadvantages to others. In this alternative 

many more species would benefit than would be impacted. The overall effect of these habitat 

changes would be minor and positive because of the relatively small acreage involved. In 

addition, any proposed refuge boundary expansion and acquisition of lands adjacent to Willapa 

Bay would provide a higher level of protection for habitats used by waterbirds. 

There are 2,894 acres currently available for waterfowl hunting on the Refuge at the Leadbetter 

Unit and in South Bay. Under this alternative, in South Bay only, waterfowl hunting (goose 

included) would be expanded to 6,058 acres through estuarine restoration and opening of 

currently closed waters. The increase in allowable hunting area and number of days open to 

hunting would disperse the hunting pressure and reduce the amount of disturbance. The 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary area would remain closed to waterfowl hunting. All other 

existing hunting and fishing opportunities will remain unchanged or expanded to include elk and 

deer hunting in South Bay and East Hills, and elk hunting only at Leadbetter Point. There should 

be little if any disturbance or effect to waterbirds from expansion of the hunting program, since 

many of these areas are already hunted (marine waters of Willapa Bay) or are not utilized by 

waterbirds (upland forests), except for roosting great blue herons. 

The habitat enhancements and potential refuge boundary expansion proposed in Alternative 2 

would benefit most waterbirds, but some more than others. There could be some disturbance 

resulting from construction and restoration activities, but projects having the greatest potential 

for disturbance would be scheduled before most waterbirds arrive in the late fall and winter. 

Patten and Norelius (2009) concluded that removal of the tidal dike around the Reikkola Unit 

should not result in a net loss of habitat for waterfowl. Duck usage is likely to increase. Goose 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-72 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

usage is expected to be the same or increase due to the creation of transitional salt marsh habitat 

and no loss of sheltered habitat. Overall there is expected to be a beneficial effect to waterbirds 

from the enhanced tidal flow and improved quality of the estuarine habitat. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 in that existing habitats and habitat management 

practices would be maintained, with exception of the following. In this alternative, the Refuge 

would pursue estuarine (intertidal and salt marsh) restoration at a reduced level. The proposed 

amount of open water and channel habitat within the Refuge would remain unchanged. There 

would be some increase in the amount of intertidal flat habitat, but it would be less than the 11 

acres proposed in Alternative 2. Also, the amount of salt marsh habitat would be increased to 

429 acres, instead of the 749 acres called for in Alternative 2. Restoration would result in 

breaching or removing dikes only in the Lewis and Porter Point units. Twenty-five acres of 

seasonally managed wetlands would continue to be maintained at the Tarlatt Unit. 

This alternative would have some benefit to geese, ducks, and other waterbirds like great blue 

herons that use salt marshes, but there would be a minimal increase in the amount of habitat 

available to species like Pacific brant that use open water and intertidal areas. There may be 

minor negative effects to wildlife from the proposed limited changes to the hunting program in 

this alternative. Any effects from refuge boundary expansion would be the same as for 

Alternative 2. Overall the effects to waterbirds would be beneficial, but to a lesser degree than 

Alternative 2. 

4.11.3.2 Raptors 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in refuge wildlife or habitat management practices. The 

existing refuge habitats would be maintained, with the exception that all of the Refuge’s youngseral upland forest would be thinned as part of the Refuge forest restoration plan. That plan aims 

to restore ecological function to refuge forests by creating a natural distribution of stand 

structure, composition, and successional stages while promoting old-growth/late successional 

characteristics to benefit forest dependent wildlife. As the treated forests mature they will 

provide nest and perch sites for many raptor species, as well as foraging areas for woodland 

hunters like the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), merlin (Falco columbarius), and Cooper’s 

and sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter cooperii and A. striatus, respectively). The existing bald 

eagle habitat (tidal marshes and tidelands, freshwater wetlands, late-successional coastal and 

riparian forest) would be maintained in its current state. There would be no changes in the 

refuge public use or hunting programs. Alternative 1 would be neutral in its effects on raptors. 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 with regard to raptors in that existing habitats 

and habitat management practices would be maintained, with the following exceptions. 

Converting some current grassland to salt marsh would reduce the overall extent of grassland 

habitat for raptors such as the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus 

leucurus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius) to use on the Refuge. However, these raptors also forage in 

salt marshes, which would be increased in area. Although the species composition of their prey 

would change, the diversity would likely increase. Thirty-three acres of short-grass field would 

continue to be managed through a mowing program. Construction of a new visitor station, 

offices, and maintenance facilities would result in an additional minor reduction in the amount of 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-73 

refuge grasslands. Abandonment and restoration of the old refuge headquarters site would result 

in more undisturbed habitat being available for forest-dwelling raptor use. 

Conversion of 300 acres of seasonally managed wetlands would change the type but not the 

amount of foraging habitat available to bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine 

falcons (Falco peregrinus). The estuarine habitat proposed to replace the freshwater wetlands at 

the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola units would likely support a more diverse community of 

bird species for raptors to feed on. There would be no change in the amount of naturally 

occurring freshwater wetlands on the Refuge under this proposal. Some trees at the coastal edge 

of forests adjacent to the estuarine restoration at the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola units may 

be killed if salt water tidally inundates their root zone. Bald eagles forage near water bodies 

from shorelines, often from perches in super-dominant trees adjacent to winter waterfowl 

concentration areas (Buehler 2000). They use live conifer and deciduous trees, but dead trees are 

preferred (Stalmaster 1987). Thus, there may be an increase in preferred bald eagle foraging 

habitat as a result of this alternative. Overall effects of these habitat changes would be minor and 

positive because of the relatively small acreage involved and the relative abundance of similar 

habitats in the vicinity of the Refuge. Any proposed refuge boundary expansion and acquisition 

of upland forestlands and coastal habitats adjacent to Willapa Bay would provide a higher level 

of protection for areas used by raptors. 

Predator management at Leadbetter Point aims to maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks to achieve population objectives 

for species recovery. Those raptor species requiring management because of conflicts with 

endangered species would be impacted by removal of a few problem individuals. The adverse 

effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected raptor 

species would be insignificant. The northern harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, and American 

kestrel are recognized potential predators of both juvenile and adult plover and larks. All occur 

at the Leadbetter Point Unit. Although not known to be predators at Leadbetter Point, snowy 

owls (Nyctea scandiaca) and short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) may opportunistically feed on 

shorebirds or land birds on an infrequent basis. 

Specific local population data for raptors are currently unavailable. An initial step in the predator 

management plan would be implementation of a monitoring program to ensure that any impacts 

on raptor populations can be assessed more precisely. The Refuge monitoring program would 

also reveal more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that raptors pose to plovers 

and larks at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator management plan, any individual 

raptor could be controlled when they pose a threat to endangered species, as determined by the 

Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified predator control contractor (e.g., USDA 

APHIS Wildlife Services). Actions affecting raptors would only be taken after consulting with 

the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. The only raptors currently suspected to be 

potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point are the northern harrier and American kestrel. 

Control of any raptor species would only focus on problem predators, which are defined in this 

context as individuals that belong to species known to prey on western snowy plovers or streaked 

horned larks and that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas. Once an individual problem bird 

is identified, the most effective, selective, and humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in 

very limited circumstances if necessary, lethally remove that individual would be implemented. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-74 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Live captured raptors would be removed from the site and held in a licensed/permitted 

rehabilitation/holding center until they can be released back into the wild. Release would occur 

after the endangered species nesting season is completed and an appropriate release site has been 

approved by the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. Raptors would be banded prior to 

release. As plover and lark numbers increase and their populations stabilize, raptors would be 

allowed a more natural interaction with the local species of concern and active predator 

management would be de-emphasized. A comprehensive, step-down predator management plan 

for the Leadbetter Point Unit can be found in Appendix L. 

Proposed changes to the refuge hunting program would have little effect on raptors. These birds 

would not be targeted by hunters, and all species are protected by state and Federal regulations. 

The presence of hunters could cause some disturbance, but it would be minor and temporary. 

Nesting would not be affected because applicable hunting seasons take place in fall and winter, 

outside the nesting season. Therefore, overall this alternative would have a negligible effect on 

raptors. Any benefits would likely be small and indirect, except that refuge boundary expansion 

would have a positive effect on raptors. Effects to raptors under this alternative would be minor 

and on a small spatial and temporal scale. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but estuarine (intertidal and salt marsh) 

restoration would occur at a reduced level. Overall, there would be a neutral effect on raptors. 

Any benefits would likely be small and indirect, except that refuge boundary expansion would 

have a positive effect on raptors. Effects to raptors under this alternative would be minor and on 

a small spatial and temporal scale as discussed under Alternative 2. 

4.11.3.3 Shorebirds 

Shorebirds (Order Charadriiformes; plovers, oystercatchers, stilts and avocets, sandpipers and allies) 

represent a group of species which use a variety of habitats during annual spring and fall migrations 

to and from breeding grounds. Many of the most critical habitats used by shorebirds are associated 

with wetlands or coastal habitats. Thus, shorebirds may be important indicators of ecosystem status. 

Because shorebirds aggregate in limited areas in large numbers during critical periods of their life 

cycles, habitat loss and degradation is a major threat. Addressing these threats and other issues in a 

coordinated fashion is a key to effectively conserving shorebird populations at the national and 

international scale (Drut and Buchanan. 2000).

Alternative 1 would result in no change in current refuge management programs. The existing 

habitats and habitat management practices would be continued. The total amount of sparsely 

vegetated sand beach and dune habitats would remain unchanged, except accounting for any 

natural erosion, accretion, or inundation of coastal beaches within the Refuge. The current 

Leadbetter Point restoration strategy would continue to be implemented. Additionally the beach 

and WSPHRA would continue to be closed to all public entry during the snowy plover breeding 

season. Thus, under Alternative 1 there would be no change in the effects to shorebirds. 

Alternative 2 would result in an increase in the amount of open water and channel habitat by 0.2 

acre; the Refuge currently has 878 acres of open water and channel habitat. Existing intertidal 

flat habitat covers 4,178 acres within the Refuge. This alternative would result in an increase of 

11 acres of intertidal flat habitat. The Refuge presently has 1,636 acres of salt marsh habitat that, 

under this alternative, would be increased by 749 acres on refuge lands. The increase in 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-75 

estuarine habitats managed by the Refuge would be accomplished by breaching or removing 

dikes in the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola units resulting in a reduction of 300 acres of 

seasonally managed wetlands. Shorebird use of existing pastures is infrequent and minimal. 

This alternative would re-establish tidal connection and natural functions to 760 acres of 

estuarine habitats in the South Bay. Estuaries are known to be one of the most productive and 

ecologically diverse habitat types (Correll 1978; Milne and Dunnet 1972; Odum 1971). 

Estuarine restoration would create the potential for eelgrass (Zostera spp.) to colonize restored 

intertidal mudflats. Estuarine marshes and eelgrass beds would benefit fish and marine 

invertebrates like zooplankton, aquatic insects, mollusks, and other benthic organisms, 

potentially resulting in an increase in food for resident shorebirds. 

The conversion from freshwater to estuarine habitat would change the type but not the amount of 

foraging habitat available to shorebirds, mostly affecting species like yellowlegs and phalaropes. 

However, due to the small amount of available habitat, and infrequent use by shorebirds, the 

impact to these species would be negligible. Any habitat manipulation results in benefits to some 

species and disadvantages to others. In this alternative many more species would benefit than 

would be impacted. The overall effect of these habitat changes would be minor and positive 

because of the relatively small acreage involved. In addition, any proposed refuge boundary 

expansion and acquisition of lands adjacent to Willapa Bay could provide a higher level of 

protection for habitats used by shorebirds. 

Predator management at Leadbetter Point aims to maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks to achieve population objectives 

for species recovery. Those wildlife species requiring management because of conflicts with 

endangered species would be impacted by removal of a few problem individuals. The adverse 

effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected species 

would be insignificant. There are a number of species recognized as potential predators of 

snowy plover eggs, chicks, and adults. They include crows, ravens, hawks, falcons, owls, 

coyote, fox, weasel, and mice (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002b, 

2007a). Most avian predators and some of the recognized mammalian predators occur at the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. 

Specific local population data for predator species are currently unavailable. An initial step in 

the predator management plan would include a monitoring program to ensure that any impacts 

on native predator populations can be assessed more precisely. The Refuge monitoring program 

could also reveal more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that predators pose to 

plovers at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator management plan, any individual 

predator could be controlled when they pose a threat to endangered species, as determined by the 

Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified predator control contractor (e.g., USDA 

APHIS Wildlife Services). Actions affecting any predators would only be taken after consulting 

with the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. American and northwestern crows, common 

raven, northern harrier, American kestrel, peregrine falcon, coyote, and mice are currently 

suspected to be potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point. Elk are also implicated as having 

an impact on ground-nesting birds. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-76 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Control of any wildlife species that are known to prey on western snowy plovers and that exhibit 

hunting behavior in nesting areas could be authorized. The most effective, selective, and humane 

tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited circumstances if necessary, lethally remove 

that individual would be implemented. Those species requiring management because of conflicts 

with endangered species would be impacted by removal. The adverse effects of predator 

management on the local and range-wide population of the affected target predator species would 

be insignificant. However, other species such as the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) would also 

benefit from reduce nest predation pressure. As plover and lark numbers increase and their 

populations stabilize, native wildlife would be allowed a more natural interaction with the local 

species of concern and active predator management would be de-emphasized. A comprehensive, 

predator management plan for the Leadbetter Point Unit can be found in Appendix L. 

There are 2,894 acres currently available for waterfowl hunting on the Refuge at the Leadbetter 

Unit and in South Bay. Under this alternative, in the South Bay only, waterfowl hunting (goose 

included) would be expanded to 6,058 acres through estuarine restoration and opening of 

currently closed waters. The increase in allowable hunting area and number of days open to 

hunting would disperse the hunting pressure and reduce the amount of disturbance created. The 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary area would remain closed to waterfowl hunting. All other 

existing hunting and fishing opportunities would remain unchanged, or expanded to include elk 

and deer hunting in South Bay and East Hills, and elk hunting only at Leadbetter Point. The 

proposed regulated elk hunt at Leadbetter Point would occur in the fall as such would occur after 

the snowy plover and streaked horned lark nesting seasons. There should be little if any 

disturbance or effect to shorebirds from expansion of the hunting program, since many of these 

areas are already hunted (marine waters of Willapa Bay) or are not used by shorebirds (upland 

forests). 

The habitat enhancements and potential refuge boundary expansion proposed in Alternative 2 

would benefit most shorebirds that utilize Willapa Bay, but some more than others. Shorebirds 

rapidly utilized Spartina-affected tideland following a successful control effort in Willapa Bay. 

Long-term data from Paten and O’Casey (2008) indicate shorebird counts increased from zero to 

>400 ha within a few years of treatment in a portion of the south bay. It was estimated that 

overall shorebird usage of Porter Point and Tarlatt Slough areas of South Bay, which was 

formally 4000 acre of solid Spartina meadow, has increased from ~40,000 shorebirds to 

~1,000,000 following WNWR’s successful control effort. Reestablishing tidal flow and natural 

sediment transport would further increase the quality and quantity of the estuarine habitat, and 

provide additional foraging areas to accommodate increasing shorebird use. Western snowy 

plover would benefit from instituting a comprehensive predator management plan. There could 

be some disturbance resulting from dike removal and estuary restoration activities, but projects 

having the greatest potential for disturbance would be scheduled before most waterbirds arrive in 

the late fall and winter. Addition of a regulated elk hunt at Leadbetter Point should help lessen 

the impacts on ground nesting birds from an expanding elk herd. Overall there is expected to be 

a beneficial effect to shorebirds resulting from this alternative. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but estuarine (intertidal and salt marsh) 

restoration would occur at a reduced level. The proposed amount of open water and channel 

habitat within the Refuge would remain unchanged. There would be some increase in the 

amount of intertidal flat habitat, but it would be less than the 11 acres proposed in Alternative 2. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-77 

Also, the amount of salt marsh habitat would be increased to 429 acres, instead of the 749 acres 

called for in Alternative 2. Restoration would result in breaching or removing dikes only in the 

Lewis and Porter Point units. Any effects from refuge boundary expansion would be positive 

and the same as Alternative 2. 

Effects to shorebirds, particularly western snowy plovers, would be positive but to a lesser 

degree than Alternative 2, because predator management would only address avian nest 

predators. Effects from other types of predators would not be addressed. However, impacts 

from the expanding Leadbetter Point elk herd would be managed through a regulated hunt as in 

Alternative 2. Although it is expected that avian predator management alone would have a 

positive effect on western snowy plover fecundity and adult survival, a limited predator 

management program could reduce its effectiveness and extend the time needed to reach 

recovery objectives for western snowy plover. 

As a result, the overall effects on shorebirds from this alternative would be beneficial, but to a 

lesser degree than Alternative 2. 

4.11.3.4 Seabirds 

Seabirds such as shearwaters, fulmars, jaegers, and albatrosses occur in the adjacent coastal 

Pacific waters. These seabirds are classified as pelagic since they spend most of their time in the 

open ocean. They rarely make landfall within the Refuge. Although Willapa NWR adheres to 

regional seabird management guidelines, most local seabird habitats lie outside of the Refuge 

boundaries. There are some exceptions. Brown pelicans, Caspian terns, and several species of 

gulls tend to congregate on open sandy beaches, sandy islands, and sand bars within the Refuge, 

and in estuaries and large river mouths such as the Columbia River. They, along with 

cormorants, return to land regularly to roost, during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. 

Roosting allows birds to rest, preen, and dry their plumage. The other notable exception at 

Willapa NWR is the marbled murrelet, which can be found nesting on limbs in older conifer 

trees on some of the refuge forestlands. Marbled murrelets may also be seen infrequently, and in 

low numbers, foraging in Willapa Bay. 

Alternative 1 would result in no change in current refuge management programs. The existing 

habitats and habitat management practices would be continued. The total amount of sparsely 

vegetated sand beach and dune habitats would remain unchanged, except accounting for any 

natural erosion, accretion, or inundation of coastal beaches within the Refuge. The current 

upland forest restoration and Leadbetter Point restoration plans would continue to be 

implemented. Thus, under Alternative 1 there would be no change in the effects to seabirds. 

Alternative 2 would result in an increase in the amount of open water and channel habitat by 0.2 

acre; the Refuge currently has 878 acres of open water and channel habitat. Existing intertidal 

flat habitat covers 4,178 acres within the Refuge. This alternative would result in an increase of 

11 acres of intertidal flat habitat. The Refuge presently has 1,636 acres of salt marsh habitat that, 

under this alternative, would be increased by 749 acres. The increase in estuarine habitats 

managed by the Refuge would be accomplished by breaching or removing dikes in the Lewis, 

Porter Point, and Riekkola units resulting in a reduction of 300 acres of seasonally managed 

wetlands. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-78 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

This alternative would re-establish tidal connection and natural functions to 760 acres of 

estuarine habitats in the South Bay. Estuaries are known to be one of the most productive and 

ecologically diverse habitat types (Correll 1978; Milne and Dunnet 1972; Odum 1971). 

Estuarine restoration would create the potential for eelgrass (Zostera spp.) to colonize restored 

intertidal mudflats. Estuarine marshes and eelgrass beds would benefit fish and marine 

invertebrates like zooplankton, mollusks, and other benthic organisms, potentially resulting in an 

increase in food for resident seabirds. There is expected to be a minor-level decline in water 

quality due to increased suspended sediments during, and for a short time after, deconstruction of 

existing dikes and the estuarine restoration activities proposed under this alternative. Timing 

much of the earthwork around low tidal periods, using silt fencing, and other best management 

practices would be employed to reduce the amount of sediment entering the bay. The impact to 

birds feeding in the adjacent waters would be negligible. 

Predator management at Leadbetter Point aims to maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plovers to achieve population objectives identified in the recovery 

plan. Predator management would also help achieve conservation objectives identified for 

streaked horned larks. Those seabird species requiring management because of conflicts with 

endangered species would be impacted by removal of a few problem individuals. The adverse 

effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected seabird 

species would be insignificant. Several gull species are recognized as potential predators of 

snowy plover eggs (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002b, 2007a). All 

occur at the Leadbetter Point Unit. 

Specific local population data for gulls are currently unavailable. An initial step in the predator 

management plan could include a monitoring program to ensure that any impacts on gull 

populations can be assessed more precisely. The refuge monitoring program could also reveal 

more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that gulls pose to plovers and larks at 

Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator management plan, any individual gull could be 

controlled when they pose a threat to endangered species, as determined by the Refuge Manager, 

Refuge Biologist, or a qualified predator control contractor (e.g., USDA APHIS Wildlife 

Services). Actions affecting any seabirds would only be taken after consulting with the Refuge 

Manager and the Refuge Biologist. Seabirds, including gulls, are not currently suspected to be 

potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point. 

Control of any wildlife species, including gulls, that are known to prey on western snowy plovers 

or streaked horned larks, and that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas, could be authorized. 

The most effective, selective, and humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited 

circumstances if necessary, lethally remove that individual would be implemented. As plover 

and lark numbers increase and their populations stabilize, resident gulls would be allowed a more 

natural interaction with the local species of concern and active predator management would be 

de-emphasized. A comprehensive, step-down predator management plan for the Leadbetter 

Point Unit can be found in Appendix L. 

There are 2,894 acres currently available for waterfowl hunting on the Refuge at the Leadbetter 

Unit and in South Bay. Under this alternative, in the South Bay only, waterfowl hunting (goose 

included) would be expanded to 6,058 acres through estuarine restoration and opening of 

currently closed waters. The increase in allowable hunting area and number of days open to 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-79 

hunting would disperse the hunting pressure and reduce the amount of disturbance created. The 

Presidential Proclamation Boundary area would remain closed to waterfowl hunting. All other 

existing hunting and fishing opportunities would remain unchanged or expanded to include elk 

and deer hunting in South Bay and East Hills, and elk hunting only at Leadbetter Point. There 

should be little if any disturbance or effect to seabirds from expansion of the hunting program, 

since many of these areas are already hunted (marine waters of Willapa Bay) or are not used by 

seabirds (upland forests). 

The habitat enhancements and potential refuge boundary expansion proposed in Alternative 2 

would benefit seabirds that use Willapa Bay. There could be some disturbance resulting from 

dike removal and estuary restoration activities, but projects having the greatest potential for 

disturbance would be scheduled before some migrating seabirds arrive in the late fall and winter. 

Overall there is expected to be a minor positive effect to seabirds resulting from these 

enhancements. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but estuarine (intertidal and salt marsh) 

restoration would occur at a reduced level. The proposed amount of open water and channel 

habitat within the Refuge would remain unchanged. There would be some increase in the 

amount of intertidal flat habitat, but it would be less than the 11 acres proposed in Alternative 2. 

Also, the amount of salt marsh habitat would be increased to 429 acres, instead of the 749 acres 

called for in Alternative 2. Restoration would result in breaching or removing dikes only in the 

Lewis and Porter Point units. Any effects from refuge boundary expansion would be positive 

and the same as Alternative 2. Overall the effects to seabirds would be beneficial, but to a lesser 

degree than in Alternative 2. 

4.11.3.5 Landbirds 

Land birds as discussed in this section include all birds other than waterbirds, raptors, shorebirds, 

and seabirds. Land birds include passerine (perching) birds, woodpeckers, gallinaceous birds, 

kingfishers, swifts, hummingbirds, etc. 

Alternative 1 would result in no change to current refuge management programs. The existing 

habitats and habitat management practices would be maintained. The current upland forest 

restoration and Leadbetter Point restoration plans would continue to be implemented. 

Management would emphasize maintaining all natural habitats in their existing state and 

continuing existing management practices relating to land birds, including forest-dwelling birds 

and grassland species. Some disturbance resulting from forest thinning and restoration activities 

would be expected, but projects having the greatest potential for disturbance would be scheduled 

outside of the breeding season of most, if not all, land bird species. Likewise any management 

activities at Leadbetter Point with the potential to disturb nesting land birds, especially streaked 

horned larks, would be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Additionally the beach and 

WSPHRA would continue to be closed to all public entry during the snowy plover and streaked 

horned lark breeding seasons. In the short term, Alternative 1 would be neutral in its effects on 

land birds since early-seral and open forest obligates would benefit. Alternatively, long-term 

effects of forest restoration would favor late-seral forest bird species. Alternative 1 would have a 

neutral effect on land birds. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-80 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 with regard to land birds in that existing habitats 

and habitat management practices would be maintained, with the following exceptions. 

Converting some existing refuge grasslands to salt marsh would reduce the overall extent of 

grassland habitat for land birds such as spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), various sparrow 

species, and gallinaceous birds that may use those areas for foraging and nesting. Twelve acres 

of short-grass field would continue to be managed through a mowing program. Construction of a 

new visitor information center, offices, and maintenance facilities would result in an additional 

minor reduction in the amount of refuge grasslands. Abandonment and restoration of the old 

refuge headquarters site would result in more undisturbed habitat being available for forestdwelling land bird use. 

Effects to birds associated with freshwater wetland edges such as the willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailii), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), several swallow species, and redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) would be slightly negative due to a reduction of suitable 

foraging, nesting habitat, and cover habitat. However, 17 acres of seasonally managed wetlands 

at the Tarlatt Unit and over 600 acres of naturally occurring freshwater wetlands would be 

maintained on the Refuge, a practice common to all alternatives. There is also additional similar 

wetland habitat in the vicinity of the Refuge. 

There would generally be a positive effect on most birds that inhabit low-elevation coniferous 

and mixed species forests resulting from this alternative. The estuarine restoration would have 

some short-term benefit to woodpeckers and other cavity nesting birds if some trees at the 

coastal edge of forests adjacent to the estuarine restoration at the Lewis, Porter Point, and 

Riekkola units are killed by salt water tidally inundating their root zone. As these trees are 

stressed and begin to die they will provide foraging habitat for woodpeckers, red-breasted 

nuthatches (Sitta canendensis), and brown creepers (Certhia americana), and nesting structure to 

primary and secondary cavity nesters like woodpeckers, swallows, and the Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi). Forestlands added by any proposed refuge boundary expansion would be 

protected from harvest or development and thus there would be a positive effect on forestdwelling birds. 

Some species of land birds that use the sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dunes, and lodgepole 

pine (Pinus contorta) forests at Leadbetter Point for resting, foraging, and nesting would likely 

benefit from predator management. Under this alternative, a plan would be implemented aimed 

at maximizing adult survival and juvenile recruitment of western snowy plovers and streaked 

horned larks to achieve population objectives for species recovery. This plan would use predator 

management to focus on problem animals, which are defined in this context as individuals that 

belong to species that are known to prey on western snowy plovers or streaked horned larks and 

that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas. The American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), 

northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus), and common raven (Corvus corax) are land birds 

recognized as potential predators of both juvenile and adult plover and larks (Liebezeit and 

George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002b). All three species are currently suspected to be 

potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point. 

Specific local population data for corvids are currently unavailable. An initial step in the 

predator management plan would be implementation of a monitoring program to ensure that any 

impacts to corvid populations and their behaviors and use patterns can be assessed more 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-81 

precisely. The refuge monitoring program would also reveal more information on the extent of 

threats that corvids pose to plovers and larks at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator 

management plan, any individual corvid could be controlled when they pose a threat to 

endangered species, as determined by the Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified 

predator control contractor (e.g., USDA APHIS Wildlife Services). Any actions affecting corvids 

would only occur after consulting with the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. Those 

species requiring management because of conflicts with endangered species would be impacted 

by removal. The adverse effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population 

of the affected predator species would be insignificant. However, other species such as the 

savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis), and song 

sparrow (Melospiza melodia) would also benefit from reduced nest predation pressure. 

Control of any wildlife species, including corvids, that prey on streaked horned larks and that 

exhibits hunting behavior in nesting areas could be authorized. The most effective, selective, and 

humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited circumstances if necessary, lethally 

remove that individual would be implemented. As plover and lark numbers increase and their 

populations stabilize, resident corvids would be allowed a more natural interaction with the local 

species of concern and active predator management would be de-emphasized. A comprehensive, 

step-down predator management plan for the Leadbetter Point Unit can be found in Appendix L. 

Nearly all species of land birds are protected by state and Federal regulations and would not be 

targeted by hunters. Local exceptions in areas where they are legal to hunt are grouse, pheasant, 

quail, pigeons, and doves. The presence of hunters could cause some minor disturbance, but it 

would be minor and temporary. Nesting would not be affected by the additional areas opened to 

hunting in this alternative because applicable hunting seasons take place in fall and winter, 

outside the nesting season. 

The effects of Alternative 2 on land birds would vary by species. There is expected to be an 

overall neutral effect on grassland birds. Effects of changes in grassland habitat would be neutral 

and minor because of the small acreage involved and the relative abundance of similar habitats in 

the vicinity of the Refuge. Effects to birds associated with freshwater wetland edges would be 

slightly negative, but localized and of minor consequence because of the relatively small acreage 

involved and the relative abundance of similar habitats in the vicinity of the Refuge. Any habitat 

manipulation results in benefits to some species and disadvantages to others. There would likely 

be a substantial positive effect to streaked horned larks resulting from predator management. 

Overall, in this alternative many more species would benefit than would be impacted and the 

effect of these habitat changes would be minor and positive. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but estuarine (intertidal and salt marsh) 

restoration would occur at a reduced level. The proposed amount of open water and channel 

habitat within the Refuge would remain unchanged. There would be some increase in the 

amount of intertidal flat habitat, but it would be less than the 11 acres proposed in Alternative 2. 

Also, the amount of salt marsh habitat would be increased to 429 acres, instead of the 749 acres 

called for in Alternative 2. Restoration would result in breaching or removing dikes only in the 

Lewis and Porter Point Units. The freshwater edge habitats currently protected by those dikes 

would be eliminated. Twenty-five acres of seasonally managed wetlands would continue to be 

maintained at the Tarlatt Unit. All existing short-grass fields and other grasslands would remain 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-82 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

as is. Any effects from refuge boundary expansion would be positive and the same as Alternative 

2. Overall the effects to land birds would be beneficial, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 2. 

4.11.4 Effects to Mammals 

There are features (management actions) common to all alternatives that could affect mammals, 

including the following: continuation of the current habitat management program and 

continuation of a public use program that includes waterfowl hunting, big game hunting, fishing, 

camping, wildlife observation, and photography. 

4.11.4.1 Elk 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs, and other refuge programs. This alternative would continue the current 

refuge public use programs, which include big game hunting in specific areas of the Refuge. 

Existing refuge habitats would be protected and maintained and some would be restored. Effects 

to elk populations would be negligible under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration, refuge expansion 

and expanded public use. Alternative 2 proposes establishing additional estuarine habitat, 

specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt marsh, by 

removing dikes. This action would decrease some habitat currently used by elk (i.e., freshwater 

impoundments that have been drawn down). Through this action managed pasture would be also 

be reduced. Elk occasionally use pastures on the Refuge. Elk also use salt marshes, and this 

habitat would be greatly increased with estuarine restoration. 

Alternative 2 proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. Changes in public 

uses that would affect elk include expanded opportunities for elk and deer hunting in South Bay 

and the addition of a regulated permit hunt for elk at Leadbetter Point. Expanded wildlifedependent public use opportunities to hunt in South Bay may reduce elk populations in that area. 

The hunt at Leadbetter Point would have the effect of reducing the herd size at that site and result 

in positive effects for the western snowy plover, which may be currently impacted by the large 

elk herd in this area. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional habitat in the 

Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide additional habitat and positive 

benefits for elk because acquired lands would be protected from future development. Under 

refuge ownership the land can be managed to enhance and improve value for wildlife and 

contribute to maintaining the health and integrity of the larger Willapa Bay ecosystem. Divesting 

property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on elk because this unit of the Refuge 

is currently submerged. Divesting property at Wheaton may or may not have an effect on elk 

depending on the land uses of the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions would not 

affect elk or their habitat. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-83 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. This action would not affect elk or their habitat. 

Overall effects under this alternative on elk populations locally and regionally would be minor. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. Elk and deer hunting in 

South Bay would be more limited than in Alternative 2. The amount of estuarine habitat restored 

would be reduced. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than under Alternative 

2. The area open to waterfowl hunting would be increased in South Bay under Alternative 3, but 

in a more limited manner than that proposed in Alternative 2. The predator control program 

would be reduced from that in Alternative 2 to include only avian predators. Refuge expansion 

would be reduced to 4,895 acres from the 6,804 in Alternative 2. Overall effects under this 

alternative on elk populations locally and regionally would be minor. 

4.11.4.2 Coyote 

Alternative 1 would continue the current refuge habitat management program. The existing 

refuge habitats would be protected and maintained and some would be restored. No effect to 

coyote populations would be expected. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would involve mammalian predator control as necessary 

under a predator management program for the western snowy plover. The primary means to 

manage coyotes would be trapping and euthanasia (shooting) and also opportunistic shooting. 

There are no known estimates of coyote populations in the counties within which Willapa NWR 

is located; however, coyotes are abundant and likely number in the thousands in southwest 

Washington and northwest Oregon. As a conservative estimate, there likely are more than 

50,000 coyotes in Washington (WDFW 2008a). In Washington, coyotes may be hunted yearround with no bag limits. Currently coyotes may not be hunted on Willapa NWR. 

Under Alternative 2, the coyote population at Leadbetter would be reduced as necessary in the 

months just prior to the snowy plover nesting season. After control ends, the coyote population 

would increase rapidly (likely in months) as transients would move into vacant territories 

(Windberg and Knowlton 1988) and reproductive rates would increase in response to lower 

densities (Connolly 1978; Knowlton 1972). The coyote population likely would increase in size 

(possibly pre-control level) consistent with habitat conditions and the small mammal prey base. 

The small numbers removed from Leadbetter Point would not be expected to negatively affect 

coyote populations locally, regionally, or nationally. 

Under Alternative 2 estuarine habitat would be restored. Restoration of salt marsh would be 

beneficial to coyotes as additional habitat. 

Expansion of public use opportunities and new office/visitor facility would displace coyotes in 

those areas when the public is present. Expansion of elk and deer hunting in South Bay and 

regulated elk hunting on the Leadbetter Point Unit may temporarily displace coyotes. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional habitat in the 

Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide additional habitat and positive 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-84 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

benefits for coyotes. Under refuge ownership the land can be managed to enhance and improve 

value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the health and integrity of the larger Willapa Bay 

ecosystem. Divesting property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on coyote as 

this unit of the Refuge is currently submerged. Divesting property at Wheaton may or may not 

have an effect on coyote depending on the land uses of the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions would not 

affect coyotes or their habitat. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restored would be reduced. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than 

under Alternative 2. The area open to waterfowl hunting would be increased in South Bay under 

Alternative 3 but in a more limited manner than that proposed in Alternative 2. The predator 

control program would be reduced from that in Alternative 2 to include only avian predators. 

This activity would be of more benefit to coyotes than Alternative 2. Effects of public use would 

be the same as Alternative 2 except that coyotes may be less displaced by the more limited elk 

and deer hunting in South Bay. 

4.11.4.3 Other Mammals 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs, and other refuge programs. This alternative would still result in additional 

positive benefits to most mammal populations because habitat improvements would continue to 

be made even under the current management scenario, including stream and river restoration 

activities. Forest restoration activities would also continue, which would result in long-term 

positive benefits for mammals associated with late-successional forest habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration and expanded 

public use. Alternative 2 proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. Expanded 

opportunities for elk and deer hunting in South Bay and the addition of a regulated permit hunt 

for elk at Leadbetter Point may temporarily displace other non-target mammals during the time 

that hunts are taking place. The presence of hunters could cause minor disturbance to other 

mammals frequenting these areas. Disturbed mammals would simply move away from hunters. 

There would be a neutral effect on these non-target mammal populations. Expansion of public 

use opportunities and a new office/visitor facility would displace small mammals in those areas 

when the public is present. 

Establishing additional estuarine habitat, specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal 

flats, and 749 acres of salt marsh, by removing dikes would decrease some freshwater habitat 

currently used by some mammals, including river otter and the non-native nutria. Through this 

action, managed pasture would also be reduced that is used by small mammals. However, small 

mammals also use salt marshes, and this habitat would be greatly increased with estuarine 

restoration, which would benefit small mammal populations. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-85 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional habitat in the 

Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide additional habitat and positive 

benefits for mammals. Under refuge ownership the land can be managed to enhance and 

improve value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the health and integrity of the larger 

Willapa Bay ecosystem. Divesting property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on 

mammals because this unit of the Refuge is currently submerged. Divesting property at Wheaton 

may or may not have an effect on mammal populations depending on the land uses of the new 

owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions should provide 

more diverse habitat for small- and medium-sized mammals. 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. If small mammals are identified as predating nests or snowy plovers, 

populations of these species may be controlled under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 includes coyote control. The primary methods of control would be trapping and 

shooting. Both methods are reasonably selective when properly executed, but trapping may 

result in a small by-catch of non-target mammals. Non-target mammals would be released. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restored would be reduced. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than 

under Alternative 2. The area open to waterfowl hunting would be increased in South Bay under 

Alternative 3 but in a more limited manner than that proposed in Alternative 2. The predator 

control program would be reduced from that in Alternative 2 to include only avian predators. 

This activity would be of more benefit to other mammals than Alternative 2. Effects of public 

use would be the same as Alternative 1 except that limited expansion of opportunities for elk and 

deer hunting in South Bay and the addition of a regulated permit hunt for elk at Leadbetter Point 

may temporarily displace other non-target mammals during the time that hunts are taking place. 

The presence of hunters could cause minor disturbance to other mammals frequenting these 

areas. Disturbed mammals would simply move away from hunters. A new office/visitor facility 

would displace small mammals in those areas when the public is present. 

4.11.5 Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians 

All three alternatives include stream restoration activities that are occurring under the current 

management of the Refuge. Stream restoration will continue to improve habitat structure and 

conditions for amphibians, including enhancing invertebrate populations to serve as a food 

supply. Improved water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen) and habitat structure is expected to 

benefit amphibians, especially the more stream-dependent species such as the tailed frog, 

Columbia torrent salamander, coastal giant salamander, and Cope’s giant salamander as well as 

other native species. Both long-term and temporary effects may occur under each alternative. 

Temporary effects to amphibian species include those from construction activities such as large 

woody debris placement as part of stream and river restoration. Long-term effects to amphibian 

species may occur due to changes in habitat abundance and diversity and changes in primary 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-86 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

production, which affect the food chain. The two species of garter snakes on the Refuge rely 

partially on amphibians as a food source and also will benefit. 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs and other refuge programs. This alternative would still result in additional 

positive benefits to reptiles and amphibians as improvements would continue to be made even 

under the current management scenario, including stream and river restoration activities. Forest 

restoration activities would also continue, which would eventually result in long-term positive 

benefits for amphibians associated with late-successional forest habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration and expanded 

public use. Current stream and river restoration activities would be continued and would be 

expected to have the same positive effects as in Alternative 1. Establishing additional estuarine 

habitat, specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt 

marsh, by removing dikes would decrease the acreage of managed freshwater wetlands and thus 

reduce breeding and foraging habitat for such amphibian species as the red-legged frog, Pacific 

treefrog, northwestern salamander, and rough-skinned newt. Populations of native amphibians in 

these areas would decrease. Populations of non-native bullfrogs would also decrease. Managed 

wetlands would remain in the Tarlatt Unit of the Refuge and would provide amphibian habitat. 

Removal of dike structures would reduce dike habitat currently used by common and 

northwestern garter snakes. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional upland and wetland habitat 

in the Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide more protection and result 

in positive benefits for amphibian and reptile species. Under refuge ownership the land can be 

managed to enhance and improve value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the health and 

integrity of the larger Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

Divesting property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on amphibian and reptile 

species because this unit of the Refuge is currently submerged. Divesting property at Wheaton 

may or may not have an effect on amphibian and reptile species depending on the land uses of 

the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions would not 

affect amphibian or reptile species or their habitat. 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. This action would not affect amphibian or reptile species or their habitat. 

Alternative 2 also proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. Expansion of 

public use opportunities may displace reptiles and amphibians in areas of the Refuge when the 

public is present. Any effects to reptiles and amphibians or their habitat by the visiting public is 

expected to be of a temporary, localized, short-term nature. Constructing a new refuge 

headquarters facility is estimated to result in less than 5 acres of potential herptile habitat being 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-87 

lost. However, approximately 3 acres of the displaced herptile habitat would be replaced by 

abandonment and restoration of the old headquarters site. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restored would be reduced. Acres of managed freshwater wetland remaining would be 

greater than that in Alternative 2, which would result in increased benefits to amphibians and 

reptiles (which hunt the edges of wetland areas). 

4.11.6 Effects to Invertebrates 

All three alternatives include stream restoration which is occurring under the current 

management of the Refuge. Stream restoration will continue to improve conditions for aquatic 

invertebrates, including freshwater mussels. Improved water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen) and 

habitat structure are expected to benefit a variety of aquatic invertebrates. 

Both long-term and temporary effects may occur under each alternative. Temporary effects to 

invertebrate species include those from construction activities such as large woody debris 

placement as part of stream and river restoration and construction activities associated with 

estuarine restoration including dike removal and channel modification. Long-term effects to 

invertebrate species may occur due to changes in habitat abundance and diversity and changes in 

primary production, which affect the food chain. 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs, and other refuge programs. This alternative would still result in additional 

positive benefits to invertebrate populations as improvements would continue to be made even 

under the current management scenario; including stream and river restoration activities. Forest 

restoration activities would also continue, which would result in long term positive benefits for 

invertebrates associated with late-successional forest habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration and expanded 

public use. Current stream and river restoration would be continued and would be expected to 

have the same positive effects as in Alternative 1. Establishing additional estuarine habitat, 

specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt marsh, by 

removing dikes would increase this valuable habitat which benefits shellfish, benthic 

invertebrates, and other invertebrates found in the estuarine environment. Through this action 

managed pasture would be reduced. Managed wetlands, though reduced, would still provide 

habitat for freshwater invertebrates. The habitat enhancements proposed in Alternative 2 would 

benefit invertebrate populations more substantially than Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional habitat in the 

Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide more protection to the Willapa 

Bay estuary and result in positive benefits for invertebrate species. Under refuge ownership the 

land can be managed to enhance and improve value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the 

health and integrity of the larger Willapa Bay ecosystem. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-88 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Divesting of the currently submerged refuge property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no 

effect on invertebrate resources. Divesting property at Wheaton may or may not have an effect 

on invertebrate species depending on the land uses of the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions would 

positively benefit this invertebrate species and its habitat and would likely benefit other 

invertebrate species with similar life history requirements. 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. This action would not affect invertebrate species or their habitat. 

Alternative 2 also proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. All changes in 

public uses would not affect invertebrates with the possible exception of establishment of a boat 

launch access point (car-top boats only) to access South Bay for waterfowl hunting. 

Construction of the boat launch may result in temporary effects to invertebrates and habitat at the 

shoreline site. This action also may result in a slight increase in motorized boat use and resultant 

water pollution in this area. Pollution could be caused by both routine oil and gas consumption 

and possible accidental leakage. Any effects to invertebrates or their habitat would be of a 

temporary, localized, short-term nature. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restored would be reduced, also reducing maximum possible benefits to estuarine benthic 

invertebrates. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than under Alternative 2 

and would provide habitat for freshwater invertebrates. The area open to waterfowl hunting 

would be increased in South Bay under Alternative 3, but in a more limited manner than that 

proposed in Alternative 2. This may result in a slight increase in motorized boat use and 

resultant water pollution in South Bay. 

4.11.7 Effects to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 

It is the policy of the Service to protect and preserve all native species of fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, including their habitats, which are designated, 

threatened, or endangered with extinction. Endangered, threatened, and candidate species that 

could occur on or near the Refuge include brown pelican, western snowy plover, marbled 

murrelet, northern spotted owl, streaked horned lark, and pink sandverbena. There are no 

endangered and threatened salmonids or bull trout known to occur in the waterways within the 

Refuge; however, if present they could be temporarily affected by the estuarine restoration 

project. Any effects would be of short duration and inconsequential. 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in refuge habitat management, public use, and snowy plover 

management programs. This alternative would be neither more positive nor more negative than 

the existing situation, including the upland forest restoration program that is common to all 

alternatives. Management would emphasize maintaining all natural habitats in their existing 

state and continuing existing management practices relating to endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species. Some disturbance resulting from forest thinning and restoration activities is 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-89 

expected, but projects having the greatest potential for disturbance would be scheduled outside of 

the breeding season of all federally listed species. 

Likewise any management activities at Leadbetter Point with the potential to disturb western 

snowy plover and streaked horned larks would be scheduled outside of their breeding seasons. 

Additionally the beach and WSPHRA would continue to be closed to all public entry during the 

snowy plover and streaked horned lark breeding seasons. In the short term, Alternative 1 would 

be neutral in its effects on federally listed species. Long-term effects of forest restoration would 

benefit late-seral forest bird species such as the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. 

Overall, Alternative 1 would have a neutral effect on threatened and endangered species. 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 with regard to federally listed species in that, 

existing habitats and habitat management practices would be maintained, with the following 

exceptions. This alternative would re-establish tidal connection and natural functions to 760 

acres of estuarine habitats in the South Bay. The increase in estuarine habitats managed by the 

Refuge would be accomplished by breaching or removing dikes in the Lewis, Porter Point, and 

Riekkola units and restoration of the natural estuarine functions in south Willapa Bay. There is 

expected to be a minor-level decline in water quality due to increased suspended sediments 

during, and for a short time after, deconstruction of existing dikes and the estuarine restoration 

activities proposed under this alternative. Timing much of the earthwork around low tidal 

periods, using silt fencing, and implementing other best management practices would reduce the 

amount of sediment entering the bay. Marbled murrelets may be seen infrequently, and in low 

numbers, foraging in Willapa Bay. Any potential impacts to marbled murrelets that may be 

present on the adjacent waters would be minor and temporary, and thus negligible. 

Predator management at Leadbetter Point aims to maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks to achieve population objectives 

for species recovery. Those wildlife species requiring management because of conflicts with 

endangered species would be impacted by removal of a few problem individuals. The adverse 

effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected species 

would be insignificant. There are a number of species recognized as potential predators of 

snowy plover and streaked horned lark eggs, chicks, and adults. They include crows, ravens, 

hawks, falcons, owls, coyote, fox, weasel, and mice (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 

2002; USFWS 2002b, 2007a). Most avian predators and some of the recognized mammalian 

predators occur at the Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR. 

Specific local population data for predator species are currently unavailable. An initial step in 

the predator management plan could include a monitoring program to ensure that any impacts on 

native predator populations can be assessed more precisely. The refuge monitoring program 

could also reveal more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that predators pose to 

plovers at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator management plan, any individual 

predator could be controlled when they pose a threat to endangered species, as determined by the 

Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified predator control contractor (e.g., USDA 

APHIS Wildlife Services). Actions affecting any predators would only be taken after consulting 

with the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. American and northwestern crows, common 

raven, northern harrier, merlin, American kestrel, peregrine falcon, coyote, and mice are 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-90 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

currently suspected to be potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point. Elk are also implicated as 

having an impact on ground-nesting birds. 

Control of any wildlife species known to prey on western snowy plovers or streaked horned larks 

and that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas could be authorized. The most effective, 

selective, and humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited circumstances if 

necessary, lethally remove that individual would be implemented. Those species requiring 

management because of conflicts with endangered species would be impacted by removal. The 

adverse effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected 

target predator species would be insignificant. However, other species such as the killdeer would 

also benefit from reduce nest predation pressure. As plover and lark numbers increase and their 

populations stabilize, native wildlife would be allowed a more natural interaction with the local 

species of concern and active predator management would be de-emphasized. A comprehensive, 

step-down predator management plan for the Leadbetter Point Unit can be found in Appendix L. 

There are 2,894 acres currently available for waterfowl hunting on the Refuge at the Leadbetter 

Unit and in South Bay. Under this alternative, in the South Bay only, waterfowl hunting (goose 

included) would be expanded to 6,058 acres through estuarine restoration and opening of 

currently closed waters. The increase in allowable hunting area and number of days open to 

hunting would disperse the hunting pressure and reduce the amount of potential disturbance 

created. The Presidential Proclamation Boundary area would remain closed to waterfowl 

hunting. All other existing hunting and fishing opportunities would remain unchanged, or 

expanded to include elk and deer hunting in South Bay and East Hills, and elk hunting only at 

Leadbetter Point. The proposed regulated elk hunt at Leadbetter Point would occur in the fall, 

and as such would occur after the snowy plover and streaked horned lark nesting seasons. There 

should be little if any disturbance or effect to the marbled murrelet, snowy plover, or streaked 

horned lark from expansion of the hunting program, since many of these areas are already hunted 

(marine waters of Willapa Bay) or are not used by federally listed species during the time of year 

when hunting would be permitted (Leadbetter Point and upland forests). 

The open sand portions of the outer coastal beaches at Leadbetter Point would be unaffected 

under this alternative, therefore, no significant adverse effects to California brown pelicans that 

roost and forage in this area are anticipated. 

Oregon silverspot butterfly are presumed to have been extirpated from Washington State and do 

not presently occur on the Refuge. This alternative includes a habitat restoration program as a 

precursor to Oregon silverspot butterfly reintroduction to the Long Beach Peninsula. Proposed 

actions under this alternative are expected to have overall significant, long-term, positive effects 

from the reintroduction of Oregon silverspot butterfly after successful host plants have been 

established and habitat restoration has been accomplished. The proposed restoration plan would 

dramatically increase the current average size of restoration sites, the rate that restored habitat 

becomes functional, availability of native seed and plant material for future restoration efforts, 

and thus the number of available butterfly reintroduction sites. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but predator management would only address 

avian nest predators. Effects from other types of predators would not be addressed. However, 

impacts from the expanding Leadbetter Point elk herd would be managed through a regulated 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-91 

hunt as in Alternative 2. Although it is expected that avian predator management alone would 

have a positive effect on western snowy plover and streaked horned lark fecundity and adult 

survival, a limited predator management program could reduce its effectiveness and extend the 

time needed to reach recovery objectives for both the western snowy plover and streaked horned 

lark. As a result, the overall effects on western snowy plover and streaked horned larks from this 

alternative would be beneficial, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 2. 

4.11.8 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Wetland habitats within the Refuge include estuarine open water, intertidal flats, salt marsh, 

riverine habitats, seasonal, managed freshwater wetlands, and permanent/semi-permanent natural 

freshwater wetlands. 

All of the alternatives propose protection of wetlands. Invasive species would be controlled to 

preserve the native vegetation and wildlife of the Willapa Bay estuary. Management of tidal 

wetlands would consist of regulation of public use, invasive species control, wildlife and 

vegetation monitoring, research, and working with partners to protect the biological integrity and 

diversity of the estuary. 

All three alternatives include stream restoration which is occurring under the current 

management of the Refuge. Stream restoration would continue to improve habitat structure and 

conditions for fish, invertebrates, amphibians, and other native wildlife. Improved water quality 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen) would result, which would also benefit plant and animal life in the 

Willapa Bay estuary. Both long-term and temporary effects may occur under each alternative. 

Temporary effects to wetland habitats and associated wildlife include those from construction 

activities such as large woody debris placement as part of stream and river restoration and 

construction activities associated with estuarine restoration including dike removal and channel 

modification. Long-term effects to wildlife species may occur due to changes in habitat 

abundance and diversity and changes in primary production which affect the food chain. 

Alternative 1 proposes no changes in current refuge wildlife management, habitat management, 

public use programs and other refuge programs. This alternative would still result in additional 

positive benefits to wetland habitats and associated wildlife as improvements would continue to 

be made even under the current management scenario, including stream and river restoration 

activities and maintenance of managed wetlands. Thus its effects on wetland habitat would be 

expected to be positive, although they would be minor due to the small scope of these projects. 

Hunters and hikers can potentially damage wetland habitat by trampling vegetation. Any such 

effects are minor and inconsequential, and they would have a neutral effect overall because 

hiking generally occurs along roads and trails and hunting is highly dispersed, affecting only 

small areas. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) proposes maximum estuarine restoration and expanded 

public use. Current stream and river restoration activities would be continued and would be 

expected to have the same positive effects as in Alternative 1. Establishing additional estuarine 

habitat, specifically 0.2 acre of open water, 11 acres of intertidal flats, and 749 acres of salt 

marsh, by removing dikes would increase this valuable habitat, which benefits estuarine 

dependent species. Through this action managed pasture would be reduced. Managed wetlands, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-92 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

though reduced, would still provide habitat for native wildlife species. The habitat restoration 

proposed in Alternative 2 would benefit estuarine habitat and associated wildlife species 

positively and much more substantially than Alternative 1. Also this alternative would assist in 

offsetting historical losses of estuarine habitat in Willapa Bay, which has been estimated as a 

64% loss of estuarine wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). This action would have an 

intermediate positive effect. 

Alternative 2 also proposes refuge expansion. Securing of additional habitat in the 

Nemah/Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills areas would provide more protection to the Willapa 

Bay estuary and result in positive benefits for native species. Under refuge ownership the land 

can be managed to enhance and improve value for wildlife and contribute to maintaining the 

health and integrity of the larger Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

Divesting property at Cape Shoalwater is expected to have no effect on wetland habitats and 

associated wildlife because this unit of the Refuge is currently submerged. Divesting property at 

Wheaton may or may not have an effect on wetland habitats and associated wildlife depending 

on the land uses of the new owner of the property. 

Other proposals under Alternative 2 concern restoration of additional coastal dune habitat, 

establishing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly, and reintroduction of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly once enough suitable habitat has been restored. These actions would not 

affect wetland habitats and associated wildlife. 

A predator control program would be initiated and target predators of the federally threatened 

western snowy plover. This action would not affect wetland habitats and associated wildlife. 

Alternative 2 also proposes improvements/additions to the public use program. The proposed 

action of developing a new headquarters facility at the Sandridge Road/95th Street may impact 

site wetland resources. Careful facility planning and site design would avoid impacts to the 

highest quality wetland resource along Tarlatt Slough, and minimize overall wetland impacts on 

the site. However, where wetland impacts are unavoidable in order to accommodate the area 

required for the new facilities, these would be mitigated on site with the in-kind construction of 

replacement wetlands. Site design would include the enhancement of wetland buffer zones by 

revegetation with native plant materials, the relocation and mitigation of one site drainage 

feature, and the restoration of local woodland, shrub, and wetland plant communities on the site. 

This landscape and entry sequence through a restored natural environment would create a 

compelling setting for future visitor experiences at the Refuge. Establishment of a boat launch 

access point (car-top boats only) to access South Bay for waterfowl hunting. Construction of the 

boat launch may result in temporary effects to habitat at the shoreline site. This action also may 

result in a slight increase in motorized boat use and resultant water pollution in this area. 

Pollution could be caused by both routine oil and gas consumption and possible accidental 

leakage. Any effects to habitat would be of a temporary, localized, short-term nature. 

Hunters might trample some wetland vegetation; however, trampling would occur at such small, 

dispersed areas that overall effects on wetland habitat would be neutral. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-93 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but more limited in scope. The amount of estuarine 

habitat restored would be reduced, also reducing maximum possible benefits to estuarine 

associated wildlife. Acres of managed wetland remaining would be greater than that in 

Alternative 2. The area open to waterfowl hunting would be increased in South Bay under 

Alternative 3 but in a more limited manner than that proposed in Alternative 2. This may result 

in a slight increase in motorized boat use and resultant water pollution in South Bay. The 

predator control program would be reduced from that in Alternative 2 to include only avian 

predators. This activity would have no effect on wetland habitats and associated wildlife species. 

The site development for the administrative facility would be as described in Alternative 2. 

4.11.9 Effects to Riparian and Upland Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Alternative 1 would result in no change in current refuge habitat management practices. Canada 

geese (dusky, western, and cackling, etc.) use the Refuge and forage exclusively in short-grass 

fields and marshes. Maintaining grass fields in a short, immature growth form by repeated 

mowing or livestock grazing during the growing season is an important practice prior to arrival 

of migrating waterfowl. Once grass matures, it becomes coarse and much less digestible, and it 

has less protein providing limited food value to migrating geese as compared to short grass. 

Alternative 2 and its strategies would likely result in the greatest short and long-term benefits to 

the wildlife using refuge lands. There would be an increase in the amount of available habitats 

that meet the life history needs of the most species utilizing refuge managed lands. Moreover, a 

year-round predator management program, when needed based on defined criteria, would 

maximize recruitment of juveniles, as well as the survival of adult western snowy plovers and 

streaked horned larks that is needed to achieve population objectives for species recovery. 

Because the predator management program under Alternative 2 would likely achieve population 

objectives in fewer years as compared with Alternative 1, there would be likely be fewer 

predators removed from the Refuge in the long term. 

Alternative 3, like Alternative 1, proposes no change in habitat management practices with 

regard to short-grass fields and upland forests located on the Refuge. The existing acreages for 

these habitat types would be maintained under this alternative, except where unnecessary forest 

roads would be decommissioned and replanted with native trees, a practice common to all 

alternatives. The overall effect of these habitat changes would be minor because of the relatively 

small acreage involved, but positive since it would reduce or eliminate stream impacts and 

fragmentation of forest habitats on the Refuge. 

Management of grasslands under this alternative and the total amount of habitat would be the 

same as for Alternative 2. As a result, the effects of Alternative 3 on riparian and upland habitats 

would be essentially neutral and similar to Alternative 1. Effects to associated wildlife, 

particularly western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks, would be positive but to a lesser 

degree than Alternative 2, due to management of only avian nest predators. Effects from other 

types of predator and impacts from the expanding Leadbetter Point elk herd would not be 

addressed. Although it is expected that avian predator management would have a positive effect 

on western snowy plover and streaked horned lark fecundity and adult survival, a limited 

predator management program could reduce its effectiveness and extend the amount of time 

needed to reach recovery objectives for these species. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

4-94 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 
Chapter 5

Social and

Economic Environment

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Willapa interpretive art trail

USFWS
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and 

Economic Environment 

5.1 Introduction 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 16,000 acres of tidelands, 

temperate rainforest, ocean beaches, and small streams. It also includes several rare remnants of 

old-growth coastal cedar forest. The Refuge preserves habitat for spawning wild salmon, 

hundreds of thousands of migrating shorebirds, and threatened and endangered species such as 

the marbled murrelet. The Refuge is a great place to see what the Pacific Northwest looked like 

100 years ago. 

The Refuge is located in southwestern Washington on Willapa Bay, one of the most pristine 

estuaries in the United States. Willapa Bay is the second largest estuary on the Pacific Coast and 

includes over 260 square miles of water surface. The Refuge was established in 1937 to protect 

migrating and wintering populations of brant, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migratory birds. 

During the time when the Refuge was established, diking, draining, dredging, sedimentation, and 

pollution were rapidly destroying many estuaries. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is located in Pacific County, which is bordered by the 

Columbia River, the Pacific Ocean, and the pristine Willapa Bay. Traditionally, the county’s 

economy has been natural resource-based (i.e., tourism, logging, lumber, manufacturing, oyster 

harvesting, seafood canning, crabbing, sports and commercial fishing, dairy farming, and 

cranberry growing) (Pacific County 2009). With over 25 miles of beach area located along the 

Pacific Ocean, coastal life provides recreation opportunities such as fishing, hunting, beach 

combing, clam digging, camping, bird watching, trail hiking, whale watching, kite flying, and 

various organized community sports. Access to this rural county is an easy drive from Interstate 

5 via Highway 12, Highway 6, and Highway 4, connecting to coastal Highway 101. 

Visitors to the Refuge can enjoy viewing a wide variety of wildlife, from spawning salmon in the 

Refuge’s numerous streams, Roosevelt elk on Long Island, and the tens of thousands of 

migrating shorebirds that crowd the beaches at Leadbetter Point and shores of Willapa Bay. 

The majority of the public recreation in the local area centers on the Pacific Ocean, Willapa Bay 

and the many trails. Water-related recreational opportunities including power boating, kayaking, 

canoeing, waterfowl hunting, fishing, and camping provide the majority of the outdoor pursuits 

for the local and visiting public. As would be expected, outdoor activities significantly increase 

during the summer season, although many recreational activities are not restricted to a specific 

season. 

Designated camping facilities are limited in the local area. Although most National Wildlife 

Refuges do not allow camping, Willapa NWR permits camping in designated spaces on Long 

Island. Camping sites on Long Island require a boat to access and are primitive. Cape 

Disappointment, a state park just southwest of the Willapa Refuge provides many multi-use 

camping opportunities. Newly established yurts help extend the camping season into the fall and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-2 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

winter for individuals without RVs or other type of camp trailers. A few other private parks in 

the area allow RV or tent camping on a seasonal basis. 

Boat launch sites on the Willapa Refuge are available at mile post 24 on Highway 101 adjacent 

to the Willapa Refuge office headquarters and at the Port of Nachotta, located in the town of 

Nachotta on the Long Beach Peninsula. To the east of the Refuge is the Naselle river boat launch 

located in the town of Naselle. Public and commercial oyster and clam beds reside in Willapa 

Bay along with public and commercial fishing and crabbing. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge provides opportunities for both big game and waterfowl 

hunters. Archery hunters interested in a remote hunting experience find Long Island a 

challenging place to pursue Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, black bear, and both ruffed and blue 

grouse. A refuge hunting permit is required to hunt on Long Island but there is no fee for the 

permit. Many people who hunt on Long Island prefer to camp overnight since tides can make 

travel to and from the island challenging. Most of the refuge lands on the mainland between 

Bear River and Teal Slough are open for those interested in hunting Roosevelt elk or black-tailed 

deer using modern firearms or archery. 

For those interested in hunting waterfowl, portions of the Leadbetter, Stanley Point, Potshot, and 

North Potshot units are open to walk-in duck and goose hunting seven days a week. The Porter 

Point Unit is open for duck hunting on Sunday, Monday, and Thursday. The Riekkola Unit is 

open to goose hunting only from blinds on Sunday and Wednesday. Blind selection is done by 

lottery early the morning of each hunt. There is a small fee for use of the blinds. Funds from the 

fee go to help maintain the blinds. Although dogs are normally not permitted on the Refuge, 

they are allowed when actively engaged in hunting waterfowl. 

5.2 Public Use Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities 

The infrastructure and facilities discussed in this section include public entrances, roads, trails, 

and administrative buildings. This section also discusses seasonal closures, easements, and 

rights-of-way. All existing and proposed public and administrative facilities are depicted within 

the maps 1-7. 

There are currently 13 units on the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. For brevity and clarity, 

some units have been combined to form 5 identifiable Refuge areas. These units are located 

throughout Pacific County, in the southwest portion of Washington State. 

5.2.1 East Hills Units 

The East Hills Units consist of the property east of Bear River, Refuge Headquarters, Teal 

Slough, and Pot Shot, North Potshot, and Stanley Point tideland units. 

The Bear River Unit extends from South of Greenhead slough, east of Highway 101 to mile post 

19. It has refuge housing (Quarters 88) and a barn. 

The Teal Slough Unit extends from Teal Slough eastward. The Teal Slough Trail is easily 

accessible from Highway 101 and is approximately 0.57 mile round trip. Limited parking is 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-3 

available at the Teal Slough Gate. This site, located near the mouth of the Naselle River, 

supports a remnant coastal old-growth forest represented by ancient cedars and a Sitka spruce, 

western hemlock/salal community. The forest provides habitat suitable for two state and 

federally protected species, marbled murrelets and spotted owls, as well as Dunn’s and Van 

Dyke’s salamanders and Vaux’s swifts and pileated woodpeckers. Deer and elk trails network 

the area. 

The Pot Shot, North Potshot, and Stanley Point tidelands are located adjacent to the Stanley 

Peninsula located east of Chettlo Harbor. There are no public uses or administrative facilities. 

They are open to waterfowl hunting according to Washington State regulations. 

The Refuge Headquarters unit includes Omeara Point. It is located near mile marker 24 on 

Washington State Highway 101 and extends north from Greenhead Slough to Teal Slough. 

The existing headquarters administrative building, which is the former house for the refuge 

manager, is over 55 years old. It has been renovated but still does not provide enough space and 

a design that accommodates the staff. The headquarters area also has a maintenance shop, 

equipment storage facility, and tool shed. The facilities at the existing site cannot be expanded 

due to the location in a narrow valley. 

The public parking lot at headquarters contains 16 car spots, nine trailer spots, and two 

accessible spots. Two public vault toilets are available. No running water is available to the 

public. A public boat launch into Willapa Bay is available directly across from the headquarters, 

on the west side of Highway 101. 

An interpretive kiosk next to the parking lot offers directional, educational, and safety 

information. A temporary addition to this kiosk is also used for camping and archery permit 

registration during the early elk archery season. The indoor porch in the main headquarters 

building serves as an additional informational area with maps, pamphlets, and a collection of 

avian specimens. 

The Willapa Interpretive Art Trail is a quarter-mile-long, curving, ADA-accessible boardwalk 

that brings visitors close to the tideland marsh and stream. Artwork located along the boardwalk 

tells the story of the stream and the many species who live there. Students from the University 

of Washington Public Arts Program designed, constructed, and installed the artwork. 

The Cutthroat Climb Trail that spurs off the Willapa Interpretive Art Trail provides a climb into 

the forest surrounding refuge headquarters. The trail is a moderate three-quarter-mile-long trail 

with steps cut into the hillside for easier movement up and down the ridge. Additional art pieces 

weave through the trail, providing a perspective of the natural world and fun for all ages. 

5.2.2 Leadbetter Point Unit 

The primary public access to Leadbetter Point Unit occurs at the end of a narrow wooded road 

near the northern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula. The parking lot has two accessible spots, 23 

standard parking spots, two bus/RV parking spots, and a turnaround. There are two vault toilets 

that are maintained by Washington State Parks. There are interpretive kiosks that offer 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-4 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

directional, educational, and safety information, as well as a wildlife viewing platform. 

Pedestrians access the Refuge and adjacent state park lands from a trail that begins at the north 

end of the parking lot. 

Hiking trails at Leadbetter Point unit at the tip of the Long Beach Peninsula allow visitors to 

walk through coastal woodlands, salt marshes, and beaches. A 1.3-mile Bearberry Trail, 0.5-mile 

Beach Trail, and a 1.2-mile Bay Loop Trail link the Leadbetter Point Unit with adjacent 

Washington State Park trails. These trails can be flooded during the rainy season (October 

through May). The nesting area for the endangered snowy plover is closed to all public entry 

from March through September and is posted with signs, although the season can vary due to 

variation in the use by snowy plovers. 

There are no administrative facilities on Leadbetter Point Unit. 

5.2.3 Long Island Unit 

Long Island is unique in being the Pacific Coast’s largest estuarine island. Long Island’s 5,460 

acres contain a rare 274-acre remnant of old-growth lowland coastal forest. The island is entirely 

owned by the USFWS, except for 1.25 acres located at the southern tip of the mouth of Lewis 

Slough. Long Island can only be accessed by boat. Most of the campgrounds require a 6-foot or 

higher tide; however, the boat landing directly across from Refuge Headquarters can be accessed 

at any tide. 

There are five campgrounds on Long Island: Lewis (three campsites), Sawlog (five campsites), 

Pinnacle Rock (five campsites), Smokey Hollow (four campsites), and Sandspit (three 

campsites). Each campsite has a fire pit and a picnic table. Each campground also has an 

evaporator vault toilet. 

Hiking trails occur throughout Long Island. A network of old logging roads converted to trails 

provides well over 10 miles of hiking opportunities. One of the most popular destinations is the 

Trail of the Ancient Cedars, a three-quarter-mile loop trail near the center of the island, which 

takes visitors through the northern corner of the old-growth forest. The hike from the old ferry 

landing, on the southern tip of Long Island, north along the center road to the Grove of the 

Ancient Cedars is approximately 2.5 miles. 

Refuge facilities located on Long Island include a shop building that serves as an 

equipment/supply storage space. The shop is located on the southern portion of the island 

situated immediately adjacent to the service road. 

5.2.4 Shoalwater and Wheaton Units 

The Shoalwater Unit is located in the mouth of the Willapa Bay, immediately south of State 

Highway 105, and west of the town of Tokeland. There are no public use or administrative 

facilities on the Shoalwater Unit. The Wheaton Unit is located approximately 5 miles southeast 

of Raymond, Washington, along the Willapa River. It was received in July 19, 1989, through the 

Farmers Home Administration. There is a shop on the Wheaton Unit and an RV pad with 

electrical hook-ups. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-5 

5.2.5 South Bay Units 

The South Bay Units consist of the Tarlatt, Riekkola, Lewis, and Porter Point units. 

The Tarlatt Unit has northern and southern subunits. The northern unit is located in the 

southwest portion of Willapa Bay west of Tarlatt Slough and east of the peninsula. The northern 

unit consists of tidal mudflat and native salt marsh. The southern unit is located between Lone 

Fir Cemetery Road and 95th Street on the Long Beach Peninsula. The southern Tarlatt slough 

unit has a Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easement located on the Old Shier property. This 

WRP easement is administered by the USDA NRCS and offers landowners the opportunity to 

protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. 

There is a photography blind on the southern Tarlatt Unit. The Friends of Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge constructed this photography blind on a seasonal freshwater wetland in 2003. 

The best time of year to use the blind is during the winter and early spring when the wetland is 

full of water and feeding waterfowl. The blind is available by reservation only. There is a short 

foot trail to the photo blind. Additionally, the Tarlatt Unit has a temporary hunting blind 

constructed for the goose hunting season. 

The Riekkola Unit is located at the end of 67th Street off of Sandridge Road on the Long Beach 

Peninsula. There is an equipment storage building, shop office, maintenance shop, and shop 

yard on the Riekkola Unit. The Riekkola Unit currently has a gravel parking lot. There are 

seven temporary hunting blinds that are constructed for the goose hunting season. Blind #6 is 

reserved for hunters with a state disabled permit and their partners. 

The Lewis Unit consists of managed freshwater wetland impoundments, intertidal salt marsh, 

and mudflats. Fish ladders are active within the unit to provide fish passage for anadromous fish 

between the wetland and bay. The freshwater wetland water is manipulated by using adjustable 

slide gates to vary the water depth based on current management habitat targets. Entry to the 

Lewis Unit occurred via a private road, Jeldness Road, off of U.S. Highway 101. Jeldness Road 

was closed by the property’s owners in 2008. Since the closure of Jeldness Road, the Lewis Unit 

has been closed to public access. 

The Porter Point Unit consists of managed freshwater wetland impoundments, intertidal salt 

marsh, and mudflats. Fish ladders are active within the unit to provide fish passage for 

anadromous fish between the wetland and Willapa Bay. The Porter Point Unit has parking for 

car-top boat and foot access. The dike trail is open for hiking. It is accessible by way of 67th 

Street. During the hunting season, this area is closed on Wednesday and Saturday due to a 

managed goose hunt in the adjacent Riekkola Unit. During the hunting season, the Porter Point 

Unit is open on Sunday, Monday, and Thursday for waterfowl hunting, and on Tuesday and 

Friday for non-consumptive uses such as hiking and wildlife observation. 

5.3 Public Use Overview 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is a popular destination for local visitors as well as tourists 

from outside the area. It is difficult to determine exact numbers of visitors to the Refuge but it is 

estimated the Refuge has 250,000 visitor use-days each year. The Refuge provides funding for 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-6 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

one full-time Visitor Services staff member dedicated to public use, education, and volunteer 

programs. Maintenance of the campgrounds, interpretive signs, trails and other visitor use 

facilities is completed each summer by the Youth Conservation Corps. 

Many refuge visitors discover the Refuge while on their way to and from other destinations, 

while many other visitors visit the Refuge for specific reasons such as bird-watching, hunting, 

hiking, and camping. The refuge staff takes advantage of these educational opportunities by 

providing refuge-specific information, interpretive panels, and printed materials throughout the 

Refuge. 

The majority of the Refuge is open to the public with a few exceptions. During the snowy plover 

nesting season, portions of the beach on Leadbetter Point are closed. Visitors need to check with 

the Refuge for dates and look for posted signs. In addition, the Lewis Dike Road has been closed 

to waterfowl hunting and wildlife observation. Entry to the Lewis Unit occurred via private 

road, Jeldness Road, off of U.S. Highway 101. Jeldness Road was closed by the property’s 

owners in 2008. An alternative access to the Porter Point Unit through the Riekkola Unit has 

been developed. While Long Island is open to public access, the Presidential Proclamation 

Boundary around the island restricts waterfowl hunting in this area. 

Accessibility is an important part of planning at Willapa NWR because it is essential to ensuring 

that facilities are available to all groups, including people who are young or elderly and/or people 

with disabilities. Several facilities, including the Interpretive Art Trail, headquarters office, 

restrooms, and one hunting blind for the goose hunt at Willapa NWR are in accordance with the 

Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). 

5.3.1 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

According to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 2000), the five 

most popular individual outdoor recreational activities and percentage of the U.S. population 

participating were walking (87.1%), family gatherings (76.1%), viewing natural scenery 

(69.8%), visiting a nature center, nature trail or zoo (62.8%), driving for pleasure through natural 

scenery (60.0%), and picnicking (59.9%). For the most part, these types of activities are 

probably popular at least in part because the costs to participate are relatively low, physical 

exertion is minimal, and special equipment or developed skills are not required. 

The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO, formerly known as the 

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation [IAC]) contracted with Clearwater Research, 

Inc., (Clearwater) to perform questionnaire consultation, data collection, data preparation, data 

analysis, and reporting activities as part of a population-based research study on outdoor 

recreation in Washington. The Washington Outdoor Recreation Survey (ORS) was designed to 

accurately measure the outdoor recreational activity among Washington residents. 

The most recently released Washington Outdoor Recreation Survey (RCO 2007) identified the 

15 major categories of outdoor recreation. Table 5-1 lists the activities in order from most to 

least in terms of participation rates. Walking and hiking activities, followed by exercise and 

sports activities, had the highest levels of participation. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-7 

Table 5-1. Ranking of Major Activity Areas 

Activity Category % Population 

Walking/hiking 73.8 

Team/individual sports, physical activity 69.2 

Nature activity 53.9 

Picnicking 46.8 

Indoor community facility activity 45.1 

Water activity 36.0 

Sightseeing 35.4 

Bicycle riding 30.9 

Off-road vehicle riding 17.9 

Snow/ice activity 17.5 

Camping 17.1 

Fishing 15.2 

Hunting/shooting 7.3 

Equestrian activity 4.3 

Air activity 4.0 

The ORS survey discusses each activity category in detail, further breaking down the categories 

into specific activities. Several of these are of note in planning for public use at Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

 Walking/hiking: The most prevalent settings for walking without a pet were sidewalks 

(at least 57.3%), park or trail settings (at least 47.8%), and roads or streets (at least 

42.4%). 

 Nature activity: The most frequent nature activity (over 35 million times) was 

observing or photographing wildlife or nature, performed by at least 39.0% of 

Washingtonians. Visits to nature/interpretive centers were reported by 15.9% of 

Washington residents. The only significant demographic difference for observing or 

photographing wildlife or nature for all types and settings combined was age, with the 

largest prevalence (41.7%) seen for Washingtonians 50 to 64 years old. 

 Water activity: The water activities with the greatest prevalence in the Washington 

population were beachcombing (19.9%), motor-boating (11.4%), and canoeing, kayaking, 

row boating, and other hand-powered boating (7%). 

 Sightseeing: The most prevalent setting for sightseeing was scenic areas (at least 41.7% 

of residents). 

 Camping: Camping with a kayak or canoe was reported by 1.4% of Washingtonians. 

Those with incomes from $15,000 up to $25,000 showed more interest (33.6%) than 

those in any other income range to do more camping in general. 

 Fishing: Roughly equivalent percentages of Washington residents (at least 17%) 

participated in fishing from a bank, dock, or jetty and fishing from a private boat. 

However, fishing was performed more frequently from a bank, dock, or jetty (over 2.3 

million times) than from a private boat (over 1.4 million times). Fishing for shellfish was 

reported by 9% of the population. 

 Hunting: Two categories of hunting or shooting—each one divided into types—were 

included on the survey questionnaire. The main categories were archery and firearms. 

The category that the most Washington residents participated in during 2006 was 

firearms (at least 10.8%). The most prevalent type of activity with firearms was target, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-8 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

trap, or black powder shooting (at least 7.9%), followed by hunting big game (at least 

6.1%), hunting birds or small game (at least 3.4%), and hunting waterfowl (at least 

2.5%). At least 2.9 % of Washingtonians engaged in archery, nearly all of it target 

shooting. 

The most recently released 2007 Washington Outdoor Recreation Survey did not offer forecasts 

of future regional recreation demands. The previous survey, which was released by the 

Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC 2002b), states that outdoor 

recreation in most activities continues to increase at high growth rates. Many outdoor activities 

generally permitted on refuges are expected to show increases of 20% to 40% over the next 20 

years. Table 5-2 Shows the percentage change expected for Washington State by activity as 

reported by IAC in 2002. 

Table 5-2. Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation 

Activities 

Activity Estimated Change, 10 years (2002-2012) Estimated Change, 20 years (2002-2022) 

Walking 23% 34% 

Hiking 10% 20% 

Nature activities 23% 37% 

Fishing -5% -10% 

Hunting -15% -21% 

Sightseeing 10% 20% 

Camping 10% 20% 

Canoeing/kayaking 21% 30% 

Motor boating 10% No estimate 

Equestrian 5% 8% 

Non-pool swimming 19% 29% 

5.3.2 Overview of Refuge Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), 

recognizes that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined 

to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System. These 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge 

System. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge recognizes and offers these compatible uses. 

5.3.2.1 Waterfowl Hunting 

Recreational hunting has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for which the 

refuge was established. Because hunting is one of the six designated wildlife-dependent public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, refuges grant hunting special consideration in 

planning and management. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge provides opportunities for both big game and waterfowl 

hunters. Hunting rules and regulations on the Refuge are consistent with the state regulations 

except as specifically noted herein. Hunting is permitted in some, but not all, of the management 

units. Specific species/numbers to be taken and hunting periods are set by the WDFW. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-9 

For those interested in hunting waterfowl, portions of the Leadbetter Point Unit are open to walkin duck and goose hunting. Access is by Stackpole Road. Hunting is prohibited in the snowy 

plover closure area. The Stanley, Potshot, and North Potshot units are also open during the 

Washington State hunting season for waterfowl. 

The Riekkola Unit is open to goose hunting only from blinds. Blind selection is done by lottery 

early the morning of each hunt. There is a small fee for use of the blinds. Funds from the fee go 

to help maintain the blinds. Although dogs are normally not permitted on the Refuge, they are 

allowed when actively engaged in hunting waterfowl and must be kept under control at all times. 

Waterfowl hunting previously occurred on the freshwater marsh and salt marsh in the Lewis 

Unit. Entry to the Lewis Unit occurred via a private road, Jeldness Road, off of U.S. Highway 

101. Jeldness Road was closed by the property’s owners in 2008. An alternative has been 

developed for waterfowl hunters to access the adjacent areas of freshwater marsh and salt marsh 

at the Porter Point Unit in lieu of the Lewis Unit. Access to the Porter Point Unit occurs through 

the Riekkola Unit, off 67th Street in Long Beach. The Porter Point Unit is suitable for car-top 

boats and small craft that can be easily moved. No gas-powered engines are allowed in the 

freshwater wetland. Parking is available across the Riekkola Unit pastures in a delineated 

graveled parking area with 10 sites for waterfowl hunters. The freshwater wetland can be 

accessed by the Porter Point Unit levee or boating the wetland. The saltwater marsh of Willapa 

Bay can be reached from the existing footbridge on the east end of Porter Point Unit or by 

walking into the bay from the levee on the west end of the unit. Signs are placed on the east and 

west boundary of the Porter Point Unit, extending into the bay, to delineate the hunt area. 

The schedule for the waterfowl hunt has been designed to best accommodate multiple users on 

adjacent areas throughout the week. A regulated goose hunt occurs on an adjacent pasture on the 

Riekkola Unit Wednesday and Saturday. To reduce impacts to the goose hunt, waterfowl hunting 

is open Sunday, Monday and Thursday on the Porter Point Unit. Gates are open from 6 am until 

5 pm. The Porter Point Unit is open for other wildlife observation on Tuesday and Friday during 

the waterfowl hunt season. All users other than waterfowl hunters walk in through the pedestrian 

gate at the main Riekkola Unit entrance by way of 67th Street. 

5.3.2.2 Big Game Hunting 

Recreational hunting has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for which the 

refuge was established. Because hunting is one of the six designated wildlife-dependent public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, refuges grant hunting special consideration in 

planning and management. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge provides opportunities for both big game and waterfowl 

hunters. Hunting rules and regulations on the Refuge are consistent with the state regulations 

except as specifically noted herein. Hunting is permitted in some, but not all, of the management 

units. Specific species/numbers to be taken and hunting periods are set by the WDFW. 

Big game hunting occurs on both the mainland and Long Island. Most of the refuge lands on the 

mainland between Bear River and Teal Slough with the exception of the quarters (Quarters 88) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-10 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

and headquarters area are open for those interested in hunting Roosevelt elk or black-tailed deer 

using modern firearms or archery. There are no firearms permitted on Long Island. Archery 

hunters interested in a remote hunting experience find Long Island a challenging place to pursue 

Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, black bear, and both ruffed and blue grouse. A refuge hunting 

permit is required to hunt on Long Island but there is no fee for the permit. Many people who 

hunt on Long Island prefer to camp overnight since tides can make travel to and from the island 

challenging. 

5.3.2.3 Fishing 

Although it surrounds much of southern Willapa Bay, the Refuge is not considered a prime 

fishing location. However, fishing is permitted from the shores of Willapa Bay. Most visitors 

interested in fishing on the Refuge are in search of sturgeon. Fishing is not permitted on the 

refuge non-tidal streams or interior sloughs. All fishing on the bay follows WDFW regulations. 

5.3.2.4 Shellfish Harvesting 

All harvesting on the Refuge follows Washington State shellfish licensing procedures. Shellfish 

harvesting of Manila clams and Pacific oysters occurs at two locations on Long Island. The 

public clam and oyster beds were surveyed and posted in 2009. 

The first location is at Diamond Point, which is located on the northwest tip of Long Island from 

the mean high water out to the eastern boundary of the Long Island Oyster Reserve. Harvest is 

allowed west on reserve tidelands to MLLW between reserve monuments 39, 40, and 41. The 

second location is at Pinnacle Rock, which is located on the southwest side of Long Island 

nearest Pinnacle Rock and Smokey Hollow campgrounds. 

5.3.2.5 Visitor, Office, and Maintenance Facilities 

The existing headquarters administrative building, which is the former house for the refuge 

manager, is over 55 years old. It has been renovated, but still does not provide enough space and 

a design that accommodates the staff. The headquarters area also has a shop, equipment storage 

facility, and tool shed. The facilities at the existing site cannot be expanded due to the location in 

a narrow valley. 

Geological conditions limit effective water and sewage treatment at this site as well. The water 

supply is heavily contaminated with iron, boron, salts, and coliform bacteria, which an elaborate 

water treatment system cannot satisfactorily remove. The Refuge is outside all city water 

districts. In addition, the building is located too close to a salmon-producing stream that drains 

directly to Willapa Bay, posing a serious contaminant risk. In violation of environmental 

regulations and the Clean Water Act, the septic tank is 100 feet away from the wetland, the leach 

line is only 60 feet from the wetland, and an underground waterway goes directly over the leach 

line. The Washington Department of Water Quality and Washington Department of Health 

recently designated waters in the Bay as impaired due to E. coli, which adversely impacts 

wildlife and the oyster industry. 

The public parking lot at headquarters contains 16 car spots, nine trailer spots, and two 

accessible spots. Two public vault toilets are available. No running water is available to the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-11 

public. A public boat launch into Willapa Bay is available directly across from the headquarters, 

on the west side of Highway 101. 

An interpretive kiosk next to the parking lot offers directional, educational, and safety 

information. A temporary addition to this kiosk is also used for camping and archery permit 

registration during the early elk archery season. The indoor porch in the main headquarters 

building serves as an additional informational area with maps, pamphlets, and a collection of 

avian specimens. 

5.3.2.6 Interpretive Trails 

The Willapa Interpretive Art Trail was created to provide visitors with an opportunity to 

experience nature near the current office site without having to go to another area of the Refuge. 

Visitors to the stream can now observe wildlife from a curving, ADA-accessible boardwalk. 

Artwork located along the boardwalk tells the story of the stream and the many species who live 

there. Students from the University of Washington Public Arts Program designed, constructed, 

and installed the artwork for the trail under the direction of their professors. The Interpretive Art 

Trail is about one-quarter-mile long and leads to the Cutthroat Climb loop, which continues 

another two-thirds of a mile. The loop rises—and then falls—steeply, with wooden steps making 

the going easier in places. A few huge old-growth hemlocks are interspersed among the smaller 

trees. Every few dozen yards, there is a nature lesson: for example, the tracks of forest 

inhabitants such as deer, bear and raccoon are carved into slabs of tree trunk; metal plates can be 

lifted to uncover the names of the animal. Scavenger hunt worksheets are available in the 

Refuge office to guide youth through the trail in search of wildlife and art. The Willapa 

Interpretive Art Trail is open seven days a week from dawn until dusk. 

The Teal Slough Trail located near the mouth of the Naselle River, supports a remnant coastal 

old-growth forest represented by ancient cedars, and a Sitka spruce–western hemlock/salal 

community. The forest provides homes for two state and federally protected species, marbled 

murrelets and spotted owls, as well as Dunn’s and Van Dyke’s salamanders and Vaux’s swifts 

and pileated woodpeckers. Deer and elk trails network the area. The Teal Slough Trail is easily 

accessible from Highway 101 and is approximately 0.57 mile round trip. Limited parking is 

available at the Teal Slough Gate. 

Hiking trails at Leadbetter Point Unit at the tip of the Long Beach Peninsula allow visitors to 

walk through coastal woodlands, salt marshes, and beaches. Many miles of pedestrian only trails 

link the Leadbetter Point Unit with an adjacent Washington State Park. These trails can be 

flooded during the rainy season (October through May. The threatened western snowy plover 

nests in the area and signs are used to indicate the closed snowy plover nesting area. 

Hiking trails occur throughout Long Island. A network of old logging roads converted to trails 

provides well over 10 miles of hiking opportunities. One of the most popular destinations is the 

Trail of the Ancient Cedars, a three-quarter-mile loop trail near the center of the island, which 

takes visitors through the northern corner of the old-growth forest. There are also five primitive 

campgrounds on Long Island. The Long Island trails are only accessible by boat; tidal 

fluctuations, currents, mudflats, and weather can make getting to and from the island difficult. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-12 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

5.3.2.7Wildlife Viewing and Photography 

There are many opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography along the Refuge’s many 

trails. Biologists have recorded over 100 species of birds on Leadbetter Point. Fall and spring 

migrations bring dizzying concentrations of sandpipers, sanderlings, plovers, dowitchers, and 

other shorebirds to its shores and tideflats, while dunlin peak in the winter. Peregrine falcons and 

bald eagles are among the most common raptors at Leadbetter Point. Occasionally a pure white 

snowy owl can be seen perched on a log during winter. 

The South Bay Units are also a prime location for wildlife viewing and photography, although 

due to the current hunting schedule and gated access, opportunity for the visiting public to view 

this high concentration of birds is extremely limited. 

Long Island offers a multitude of opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife. High Point 

Meadow is a good place to observe deer and elk. Glimpses of bear are common on hikes along 

the trails and roads. Birds can be found both on the shores and throughout the forest. 

River otters and muskrats glide quietly through the waters of the Lewis and Porter Point units. 

Visitors can also view wildlife within the wetland units and enjoy a sweeping view of the many 

waterfowl that congregate in the south end of Willapa Bay. 

The Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge constructed a photography blind on a seasonal 

freshwater wetland in the Tarlatt Unit in 2003. The best time of year to use the blind is during 

the winter and early spring when the wetland is full of water and feeding waterfowl. The blind is 

available by reservation only. In addition, the Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

sponsors an annual wildlife photography contest. 

5.3.2.8 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Many opportunities are available for environmental education and interpretation at Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge. These opportunities range from formal lessons led by volunteers and 

Refuge Staff to self-led scavenger hunts along the Willapa Interpretive Art Trail. 

Refuge staff and volunteers provide talks and lessons to local colleges, scouting groups, 

community organizations, and local schools both on the Refuge and off-site at schools or 

community centers. Lessons can be customized and aligned to national and state educational 

standards. 

Over a three-day period in late spring, the Refuge hosts students from regional schools who visit 

educational science stations to learn more about the environment and how to be stewards of the 

environment. Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and the Refuge annually co-sponsor 

this educational event as part of the fourth-grade environmental education program. The 

students experience first-hand wildlife viewing, wetlands animal identification, aquatic shellfish 

and invertebrate identification, the amphibian lifecycle, an introduction to soil science/geology, 

and an appreciation for animal behavior based on interpretation of bone structure. The field trip 

is a culmination of a year-long program where fourth-graders learn about the Refuge System, 

bird basics, habitat, and local amphibian populations as refuge staff visit classrooms in multiple 

schools over the course of the year. All activities are aligned to Washington State Science 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-13 

Learning Standards. Each classroom activity takes about one class period, approximately 45 to 

55 minutes. 

Interpretive information and brochures are located at the refuge office. The refuge office is open 

to the public Monday through Friday 8 am to 4 pm except Federal holidays. There are several 

information kiosks throughout the Refuge offering maps, educational materials, and regulations. 

The parking lots at both the Headquarters area and Leadbetter Point offer restroom facilities. 

The Leadbetter Point restroom is maintained by the Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission. 

5.3.3 Overview of Refuge Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

While several public uses are not recognized as wildlife-dependent by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), camping a non-wildlifedependent public use has been found appropriate due to specific site circumstances. Since a 

large portion of the Refuge consists of navigable waters and island habitat, visitors to the Refuge 

often use some type of watercraft to access these areas. Due to difficulty accessing Long Island 

during tidal fluctuations, camping is allowed in designated sites. 

5.3.3.1 Boating 

Boating, canoeing, and kayaking are popular activities in Willapa Bay. Tidal fluctuations, 

currents, extensive mud flats, and rapidly changing weather can make boating to, from, and 

around Long Island difficult and occasionally dangerous. Most of the campgrounds require a 6-

foot or higher tide to access them; however, the landing directly across from Refuge 

Headquarters can be accessed at any tide. Additional launch facilities are located at the Nachotta 

mooring basin in Nachotta on Long Beach Peninsula. 

5.3.3.2 Camping 

Although most National Wildlife Refuges do not allow camping, Willapa NWR permits camping 

in designated spaces on Long Island due to the difficult nature of accessing the island during low 

tide. To minimize disturbances to wildlife and their habitats, no camping is permitted on the 

mainland portion of the Refuge. Mainland camping sites are available at the many area state and 

county parks and commercial campgrounds. 

There are five primitive campgrounds on Long Island with a total of 24 campsites. Each 

campsite includes a picnic table and fire ring. Cutting of live trees or standing dead trees is 

prohibited because they provide homes for wildlife, but collection of fallen wood is allowed. To 

maintain the quiet, remote nature of the island, motor vehicles and power equipment are 

prohibited on Long Island. 

Campsites are available on a first-come, first-serve basis only. Campers are required to register 

for specific campsites one week prior to the start of early elk archery season through the end of 

the early elk archery season. Registration is not required the remainder of the year. Early elk 

archery season generally takes place for three weeks in September, but exact dates vary. Leaving 

items unattended to hold a campsite is prohibited. Due to the high numbers of visitors during 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-14 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

this period, no individual or group (maximum five people) may camp for more than 14 days 

during this period. 

5.3.4 Impact of Illegal Uses 

The most common law enforcement issues encountered in the field are trespass into closed areas, 

harvesting of natural resources (mushrooms, berries), hiking with dogs, waterfowl hunting 

violations (lead shot, hunting in closed areas, taking birds out of season, unplugged shotguns), 

vandalism (broken gates, defaced signs, vault toilet damage), theft (stolen gas, tools, equipment, 

signs), and illegal camping. Illegal uses persist partly due to limited law enforcement capability 

and lack of public awareness of the sensitivity of the wildlife to human disturbance. There is 

currently one full-time refuge law enforcement officer assigned to cover all three refuges within 

the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The refuge staff coordinates internally with 

other Federal officers/agents and works with the U.S. Coast Guard as well as state, county, and 

local law enforcement offices. 

5.4 Cultural and Historical Resources 

A complete Cultural Resources Overview of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge was completed by 

Gary Wessen in 2008. Excerpts from this document are provided in the following sections. It is 

important to consider the cultural and historical setting of the Refuge in planning public use 

activities and resource management actions. Recognizing the cultural and historical resources of 

the Refuge would allow educational programs to enhance the public’s understanding of this 

important aspect of the Refuge. This section briefly describes both the Native American and 

Euro-American occupants of the vicinity. 

5.4.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape 

There can be no doubt that the Willapa Bay area once supported a considerable number of Native 

American people and that they continue to have a presence today. Having said this, we 

acknowledge that the details of early historic Native American occupation are only poorly 

documented and many aspects of their presence are not well understood. 

Assessing the presence of native people in the Willapa Bay area during the nineteenth century is 

complicated by the fact that Native Americans from neighboring regions came here to work for 

Euro-Americans. I n the days before European settlement the shores of Shoalwater Bay were a 

mix of a bountiful natural environment and many native villages. The north end of bay around 

the present-day Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation was populated predominantly by Lower 

Chehalis–speaking peoples. The southern end of the bay, near present-day Bay Center and 

southward, was inhabited by Willapa Chinook peoples. It has also been documented that trade 

and intermarriage between the two groups has been very frequent. 

The most detailed information about Native Americans from the Willapa Bay area comes from 

Ray (1938). They had a traditional economy much like those of most Northwest Coast peoples. 

They were skilled fishermen, hunters, and plant-material gatherers who possessed great 

knowledge about the resources available in their environment. Anadromous and marine fish 

were the most important part of their diet and most fishing occurred in Willapa Bay, the rivers 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-15 

that drained into it, and in the Columbia River mouth. The material culture was also similar to 

that of most Northwest Coast peoples. They were skilled craftsmen and technicians who 

produced a wide range of goods from plant, bone, and stone materials. Shoalwater winter 

villages were marked by the presence of large plank houses. Cedar bark and other plant fibers 

were used to make a wide variety of basketry, cordage, nets, and clothing. Finally, the social and 

ceremonial life had much in common with that of other Northwest Coast peoples. Most types of 

social affiliation appear to have focused upon local lineal (family) groups, which were based in 

one or more winter villages. Three broad categories of social standing existed within the local 

groups: nobles or upper class freemen, commoners, and slaves. 

An executive order signed by President Andrew Johnson created the small 355-acre Shoalwater 

Bay Indian Reservation on the northern shore of Willapa Bay in 1866 (Anderson 2000:1-3). 

While small compared to many reservations, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation community 

has modern facilities today and is an active part of the cultural landscape of northern Willapa 

Bay. 

5.4.2 Euro-American Exploration and Settlement 

Non-Native people were first present in the vicinity of Willapa Bay starting in the late eighteenth 

century but were not much of a factor until after ca.1850. Since that time, they have dominated 

the area. This section summarizes the earliest period of exploration, the first Euro-American 

settlers, and more recent developments in the Willapa Bay area. 

The discovery and early exploration of the Willapa Bay area occurs within the context of the 

search for, and subsequent use of the mouth of the Columbia River. Distracted by this nearby 

feature, exploration and documentation of details of the bay lagged until the mid-nineteenth

century. In 1788, explorer and English trader, John Meares, observed the entrance to a large bay 

when sailing southward to investigate the report of a large river (Hazeltine 1957:252-254). 

Meares called the bay “Shoalwater Bay”, Leadbetter Point “Low Point”, and a prominent 

headland near it “Cape Shoalwater.” While Meares never entered the bay, he comments: 

From the mast head it was observed that this bay extended a considerable way inland, 

spreading into several arms or branches to the northward and eastward. The back of it 

was bounded by high and mountainous land which was at a great distance to us. We had 

concluded this wild and desolate shore was uninhabited; but this opinion proved to be 

erroneous, for a canoe now came off to us from the point with a man and a boy. On their 

approach to the ship they held up two sea otter skins. (Hazeltine 1957:252-254). 

The Lewis and Clark Expedition, which arrived from the east on the Columbia River in the fall 

of 1803, was the next well-documented account of the area. While they spent most of their time 

on the south side of the Columbia River, they briefly explored the area. William Clark and some 

of the party ventured north on the southern part of the Long Beach Peninsula (Coues 1893:716). 

Clark noted the presence of a prominent headland further to the north but never specifically 

mentions a large bay in the area. 

The Willapa Bay area was visited briefly again in August of 1841 when representatives of the 

U.S. Exploring Expedition passed through the area travelling from the Grays Harbor area to 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-16 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

Astoria. The survey party did not map Willapa Bay, but it did canoe across the bay. The first 

detailed map of Willapa Bay was prepared by Lieutenant James Alden of the U.S. Coast Survey 

in 1852. While Alden was unable to record some details of the bay’s southern end, this was the 

first map to accurately show its major features. 

The first significant movement of settlers into the Willapa Bay area occurred after passage of the 

Donation Land Act of 1850. A major draw for the earliest arrivals was the oyster business, and 

several early entrepreneurs made a significant income by hiring Native people to collect oysters 

for shipment to San Francisco. By 1860, the Euro-American population of Pacific County had 

reach 406 (Hazeltine 1956:73). The earliest communities to be established in the bay were 

Bruceport and Oysterville. 

Against the backdrop of early settlement, governmental organizations began to form. Pacific 

County was first established as part of the Oregon territory after the latter was created in 1851. It 

subsequently became a part of Washington Territory after the latter was created in 1853. The 

earliest Federal presence near Willapa Bay was at the Columbia River mouth, where 

fortifications and a lighthouse were present by the mid-1850s. The first lighthouse at Cape 

Shoalwater, at the entrance to Willapa Bay, was established in 1858. 

More settlers arrived after the Civil War, but the rate of growth was relatively slow. The Pacific 

County population had only reached 1,645 by 1880 (Hazeltine 1956:73). The pace picked up 

during the 1880s, however, and it had swelled to 4,538 by 1890. While some early settlers came 

to the area to become farmers, it appears that most were drawn by opportunities in various 

pursuits that exploited the region’s rich natural resources. The first interests were primarily 

timber and oysters, but other marine animals such as salmon and crabs became increasingly 

important over time. 

The first railroad to reach South Bend was finished in 1892 and it also became increasingly 

important as a port after this time (Hazeltine 1956:117-122). As the latter trend developed, the 

name “Shoalwater Bay” was increasingly seen as a problem for shipping interests and the 

northern half of the bay began to be called “Willapa Harbor” in about 1900. Eventually, the 

entire bay came to be known as Willapa Bay. While much of the early transportation within the 

Willapa Bay was by watercraft, increased road building around the bay began to occur during the 

1920s (Hazeltine 1956:157). 

The principal economic activities in the Willapa Bay area during the twentieth century were 

much like those of the second half of the nineteenth century. Chief among them were those 

associated with timber, oysters, and salmon. Agricultural activities also became increasingly 

important in Pacific County, with the most important cultivation being cranberries. Finally, 

another industry that began in the late nineteenth century but did not become important until 

after the Second World War is tourism. 

The Refuge was established in 1937 by President Franklin Roosevelt to protect migrating and 

wintering populations of brant, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migratory birds and their 

habitats. Today, these lands preserve a rich heritage of wildlife for environmental conservation 

and wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-17 

5.4.3 Archaeological Resources and Historic Properties 

According to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the term “archaeological 

resource” means any material remains of past human life or activities. Archaeological and other 

cultural resource studies have been relatively limited in the Willapa Bay area, and it is very 

unlikely that the current inventories reflect the total number of resources that are actually 

present. It is important to note that one of the earliest written references to archaeological 

resources in western Washington comes from this region. In commenting about the Native 

population of the area, James Swan (1857:211-212) states: 

“The relics of old lodges, canoes, heaps of shells, and other remains, give evidence that 

at some period there must have been a large body of Indians around Shoalwater Bay.” 

According to the Wessen (2008), there are 55 recorded archaeological sites in the Willapa Bay 

Area, only 12 of which are located on refuge lands. Most of the sites are shell midden deposits, 

at least some of which contain human remains. Other types of sites include fish weirs, burial 

grounds, lithic sites, culturally modified trees, and historic sites. There are currently 149 

recorded historic properties in the Willapa Bay area, but none of them are located on refuge 

lands. Most of the historic properties are existing residential or commercial structures which 

date to the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Information on the condition of these 

sites is limited, and they are frequently threatened by shoreline erosion, vandalism, and 

development (Wessen 2008). 

Project-specific archaeological surveys have also been conducted by USFWS archaeologists for 

refuge construction and restoration activities in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. 

5.5 Special Designation Areas 

In addition to refuge status, the “special” status of lands within individual refuges may be 

recognized by additional designations, either legislatively or administratively. Special 

designation may also occur through the actions of other legitimate agencies or organizations. 

There is a wide variety of special land designations. Authority for designation of some special 

management area types (e.g., Research Natural Areas) on refuges lies solely with the Service. 

For most special management area types, responsibility is held by or shared with others. 

Refuges may also be included within much larger special management areas designated by other 

agencies or organizations, such as National Marine Sanctuaries. Special designation areas 

provide the visiting public with information on why the area is ecologically important. 

5.5.1 Washington State Research Natural Area 

The refuge has three state-registered natural areas that are in the RNA category. These RNAs are 

administered by the Service to 1) preserve examples of all significant natural ecosystems for 

comparison with those influenced by humans, 2) provide educational and research areas for 

ecological and environmental studies, and 3) preserve the genetic and behavioral diversity of 

native and endangered plants and animals. As directed in 8 RM 10.8, RNAs must be reasonably 

protected from any influence that could alter or disrupt the characteristic phenomena for which 

the area was established. Management practices, such as prescribed burning and chemical 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-18 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

control of plants, may be conducted only where necessary to preserve necessary ecological 

characteristics. 

Diamond Point RNA is an 88-acre forested area at the northern tip of Long Island that was 

designated an RNA in 1976. Diamond Point RNA is managed to preserve an example of secondgrowth Sitka spruce/western hemlock forest growing on an island in a coastal estuary for 

education and scientific purposes. The natural area includes 48 acres of mature red alder and 40 

acres of mature Sitka spruce/sword fern forest and Sitka spruce/salal forest (Dyrnesss 1972). 

Cedar Grove RNA is 264 acres of old-growth western red cedar/western hemlock/California 

huckleberry forest located in the southern portion of Long Island. The three-quarter-mile Trail of 

Ancient Cedars loops through the northern edge of the Cedar Grove RNA (USFWS 1987). 

Leadbetter Point RNA, located at the northern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula, was put on the 

Washington Register of Natural Areas in 1989. The original designation included 1,705 acres of 

the peninsula tip, Grassy Island, and the marsh between the island and peninsula tip; however, 

the Leadbetter Point Unit is now approximately 1,742 acres due to sand accretion at the 

peninsula tip. The unique natural elements protected at Leadbetter Point include salt marsh, 

native dunegrass, lodgepole pine forest, shrub/lodgepole pine, and open beach habitats. 

Leadbetter Point contains high quality examples of high salinity Virginia glasswort/inland 

saltgrass marsh, low salinity marsh, and transition zone wetlands. 

Flora associated with the marshes are of primary significance, as are the dune grassland and 

deflation plain communities. Pockets of native plants within the secondary dune, deflation 

plains, and dune troughs are also significant ecological features and are of high quality compared 

to these remaining plant communities elsewhere in Washington. The open beach and dune 

grassland communities of Leadbetter have been significantly impacted by the invasion and 

naturalization of two non-native dunegrasses. The salt marsh has been invaded by smooth 

cordgrass, an eastern salt marsh species. Efforts to control cordgrass in recent years have slowed 

its spread at Leadbetter Point. Selective removal or control of plant species not native to 

Leadbetter Point, including Spartina, Scotch broom, and common gorse, was an approved 

management activity at the time the RNA was established. Removal and control of the nonnative beachgrass has been recently approved and work has been done as part of the management 

of habitat for the endangered western snowy plover (Caicco 1989). 

5.5.2 American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Areas 

American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) IBA Program was launched in 1995 and has concentrated 

on identifying and documenting the very top sites throughout all 50 states—those of significance 

on a global level. The goal of the IBA program is not just to recognize the sites as important, but 

to mobilize the resources needed to protect them. The IBA designation is an important first step 

in raising awareness among the public, and among land managers, to the importance of each site 

and its value to bird conservation. Using objective scientific information and relying on the 

recommendations of experts throughout the United States, ABC has developed a list and set of 

descriptions of 500 of these internationally significant sites. For a site to be included, it must, 

during at least some part of the year, contain critical habitat that supports 1) a significant 

population of an endangered or threatened species, 2) a significant population of a Watch List 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-19 

species, 3) a significant population of a species with a limited range, or 4) a significantly large 

concentration of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, including waterfowl, seabirds, wading 

birds, raptors, or landbirds. Parts of north and south Willapa Bay have been identified as IBAs. 

This designation attracts visitors to these areas for birdwatching and is an important educational 

tool. 

5.5.3 National System of Marine Protected Areas 

The national system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) advances the conservation and 

sustainable use of the nation’s vital natural and cultural marine resources. Executive Order 

13158 of May 26, 2000, defines an MPA as “any area of the marine environment that has been 

reserved by Federal, state, territorial, Tribal or local laws or regulations to provide lasting 

protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” The National Marine 

Protection Areas Center website (NOAA and DOI 2010) provides the following summary of the 

MPA system: 

The national system of MPAs 1) enhances protection of U.S. marine resources by 

providing new opportunities for regional and national cooperation, 2) supports the 

national economy by helping to sustain fisheries and maintain healthy marine 

ecosystems for tourism and recreation businesses, and 3) promotes public participation 

in MPA decision-making by improving access to scientific and public policy 

information. 

The purpose of the national system is to support the effective stewardship, conservation, 

restoration, sustainable use, and public understanding and appreciation of the nation’s 

significant natural and cultural marine heritage and sustainable production marine 

resources, with due consideration of the interests of and implications for all who use, 

benefit from, and care about our marine environment 

The goals of the national system are to conserve and manage natural heritage, cultural 

heritage, and sustainable production. Natural heritage is the nation’s biological 

communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological services, values and 

uses they provide. Cultural heritage is the cultural resources that reflect the nation’s 

maritime history and traditional cultural connections to the sea, as well as the uses and 

values they provide. Sustainable production is the nation’s renewable living resources 

and their habitats (including, but not limited to, spawning, mating, and nursery grounds 

and areas established to minimize bycatch of species) and the social, cultural and 

economic values and services they provide. 

The Refuge is a 2009 charter member of the national system of MPAs. The site area for the 

Willapa MPA is 9.8 km2 (3.8 square miles). The level of protection for the Willapa MPA is the 

uniform multiple-use category and its primary conservation focus is sustainable production. 

Uniform multiple-use offers a consistent level of protection for marine habitat and species while 

providing opportunities for combinations of compatible human activities such as research, 

education, recreation, and consumptive and non-consumptive uses. There are no site restrictions 

imposed by the MPA status on fishing regulations in Willapa NWR. The primary conservation 

focus of the Refuge is sustainable production, which recognizes management wholly or in part 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-20 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

with the explicit purpose of supporting the continued extraction of renewable living resources 

(such as fish, shellfish, plants, birds, or mammals) that live within the MPA, or that are exploited 

elsewhere but depend upon the protected area’s habitat for essential aspects of their ecology or 

life history (feeding, spawning, mating, or nursery grounds). 

5.5.4 Presidential Proclamation Boundary 

The Refuge administers the Presidential Proclamation Boundary of 1937 that closes 

approximately 11,000 acres surrounding and including Long Island in the southern portion of 

Willapa Bay to hunting, taking, capturing, or killing of migratory waterfowl or other migratory 

birds, or the attempt to hunt, take capture, or kill such waterfowl of other birds, or the taking of 

their nests or eggs. 

5.6 Social and Economic Conditions 

The Refuge is situated entirely within Pacific County, Washington. Pacific County is situated 

along the Pacific coast of western Washington, including Willapa Bay and south to the mouth of 

the Columbia River. It is bordered to the north by Grays Harbor County, the south by the 

Columbia River and State of Oregon, to the east Lewis and Wahkiakum counties, and to the west 

the Pacific Ocean. With 975 square miles, Pacific County ranks thirtieth in size among 

Washington counties. The nearest towns are located on the Long Beach Peninsula (Oysterville, 

Nahcotta, Ocean Park, Oceanside, Long Beach, Seaview, Ilwaco, and Chinook) and inland 

(South Bend, Raymond, Nemah, and Naselle). 

The population of Pacific County is just over 21,000 with a density of 23.37 persons per square 

mile (Office of Financial Management 2009). Population growth is predicted to be less than 

state average, with a low estimate of 19,906 and a high estimate of 28,043 for the year 2030. 

According to Washington State’s Office of Financial Management, Pacific County experienced a 

population increase by 12.6% over the decade, growing from 1990 to 1997, and then decreased 

at an average annual rate of 0.4% from 1997 to 2000. Between the years 2000 and 2008, Pacific 

County experienced a slight increase of 0.4%. Pacific County has key competitive assets for 

future growth: competitive land cost, reasonable property taxes, proximity to urban amenities, 

education and training resources, dedication to industrial growth, and gateway status for parks 

and recreation. Because of these assets Pacific County continues to see growth in new housing 

developments in the North and South County, and anticipates a slight population growth in the 

future. However, because of the proximity of the Refuge to population centers in the 

Portland/Vancouver area of northwest Oregon and southwest Washington, the Refuge can expect 

much greater pressure for recreational and tourism use in the future. Visitation to Pacific County 

is over 1 million visitor-days per year. In 2008, Cape Disappointment by itself saw 89,286 dayvisits and over 92,230 overnight visits. It is likely that an increase in parks and conserved areas 

for recreation would increase visitations, prolong by days the duration of each visit, and 

proportionately increase local spending by visitors (Pacific County Economic Development 

Council 2009). 

Table 5-3 summarizes the population and associated social statistics of Pacific County and 

Washington State. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-21 

Table 5-3. Selected Population and Associated Social Statistics 

Population Statistics Pacific County Washington State 

Population, 2008 estimate 21,271 6,549,224 

Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 1.4% 11.1% 

Population estimates base, 2000 20,984 5,894,143 

Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2008 5.1% 6.6% 

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2008 18.8% 23.5% 

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2008 23.9% 12.0% 

White persons, percent, 2008 92.0% 84.3% 

African American persons, percent 2008 0.5% 3.7% 

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2008 2.6% 1.7% 

Asian persons, percent, 2008 2.1% 6.7% 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2008 0.1% 0.5% 

Persons reporting two or more races, percent 2008 2.7% 3.1% 

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 6.9% 9.8% 

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 85.7% 75.5% 

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, percent age 5+ 57.0% 48.6% 

Foreign-born persons, percent, 2000 6.0% 10.4% 

Language other than English spoken, percent age 5+, 2000 8.2% 14.0% 

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 78.9% 87.1% 

Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 15.2% 27.7% 

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 5,410 981,007 

Housing units, 2007 14,598 2,744,069 

Homeownership rate, 2000 74.8% 64.6% 

Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 7.5% 25.6% 

Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $102,700 $168,300 

Households, 2000 9,096 2,271,398 

Persons per household, 2000 2.27 2.53 

Median household income, 2007 $37,501 $55,628 

Per capita money income, 1999 $17,322 $22,973 

Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 16.0% 11.4% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009. 

Pacific County’s economy is still identified as natural resource–based. Timber and tourism 

contribute more total value to Willapa’s economy than do other key natural resources (The 

Willapa Alliance WISC Committee 1995). Beyond those that are natural resource–based. Key 

industries in Pacific County include food products manufacturing, high-tech/light manufacturing, 

tourism, and health care/retirement, as summarized in Table 5-4. 

Table 5-4. 2009 Pacific County Economic Summary by Industry 

Industries Summary 

Natural resources  There are 12 industrial timber companies that own and harvest timber in Pacific County. 

These companies together have employed and/or subcontracted jobs to over 500 

residents annually since 1993, providing an average annual wage of $46,881. 

 Fishing (which includes shellfish) is an important subsector of the income base in 

Pacific County, as well as the seafood supply in Washington. Half of the state’s oysters, 

25% of the state’s crabs, 99% of the sturgeon catch, and over 10% of the salmon catch 

are landed in this region. The industry generates over $12 million in personal income 

and provides nearly 600 jobs to the local economy. 

 At one time, farming made up a large proportion of Pacific County’s economic activity, 

but the last 25 years have shown steady declines in income. While the area has diverse 

cultivated crops and ranches, the vast majority of activity is in the cranberry industry. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-22 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

Industries Summary 

Food products 

manufacturing 

 The food processing industry accounted for an average of 45% of the manufacturing 

activity in Pacific County throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Pacific 

County has businesses throughout the county that process shellfish and oysters. 

 Changes continue to occur in the food processing industry in Pacific County, which is 

highly dependent upon favorable harvesting seasons and market prices each year for 

cranberries, fish, and shellfish. 

High-tech/light 

manufacturing 

 With the necessary infrastructure in place, Pacific County has begun to see interest from 

small light industries relocating to port properties. In 2005, the first light manufacturing 

of aerospace components moved to the Port of Willapa Harbor providing high tech 

machining and fabrication employment opportunities. 

Tourism  With its strategic location, bordered on the southwest by the Columbia River and the 

west by the Pacific Ocean, Pacific County offers breathtaking views of the Columbia 

River and the Pacific Ocean, recreational opportunities, fishing, hunting, birding, 

clamming and a variety of outdoor experiences. The significance of tourism to Pacific 

County cannot be understated. 

 As a gross revenue engine, tourism delivers over $90 million annually to local 

businesses, by any measure a huge contribution of the county’s total output of goods and 

services. Business earnings from tourism approach $25 million annually. There are 

over 2,000 jobs related to or dependent on this industry. 

Health 

care/retirement 

 Pacific County’s two hospitals made significant improvements or expansion of their 

health care facilities in recent years. With the population in Pacific County has a median 

age of 45.8 years, and the health care industry is an extremely important part of the 

social and economic picture. An estimated 650 direct jobs depend on health care while 

another 271 jobs exist in support of this cluster. 

This summary is compiled from the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Pacific County (Pacific 

County Economic Development Council 2009). 

5.7 Environmental Consequences 

In this section, we provide an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. Effects addressed under this chapter include public use, 

hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education, interpretation, nonwildlife dependent recreation, and law enforcement. A summary of the cumulative effects from 

implementing the various alternatives is presented in Chapter 6. 

We began this section with an assessment of the change in refuge user groups expected under 

each of the alternatives. Following this assessment, the effect of management actions under each 

alternative on each of the wildlife-dependent public uses is evaluated. In addition, opportunities 

for non-wildlife-dependent public uses are examined, as is the amount of illegal uses. 

Adverse effects to opportunities for recreational public uses would be considered significant if a 

proposed action resulted in: 

 Substantial displacement of a wildlife-dependent public use (more than 25% of existing 

activities or opportunities moved to a different area or terminated at the Refuge); or 

 Substantial reduction in the quality of the wildlife-dependent experience (crowding 

increasing by more than 50% or substantial anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat 

supporting the experience). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-23 

Positive effects to opportunities for recreational public uses would be considered significant if a 

proposed action resulted in substantial increase to an opportunity for or quality of a wildlifedependent public. 

5.7.1 Projected Future Public Uses 

As an overview to assessing the social and economic effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 it is 

important to understand the broader context of the Refuge within the region and how recreational 

demand and public use is expected to change over time. A growing visitor presence on the 

Refuge can be expected in the future. Many of the public use opportunities currently provided at 

the Refuge are very popular within the state and are forecasted to attract increasing amounts of 

participants in the coming years. 

The 2006 Banking on Nature report (Caudill 2006) focused on the employment, income, and tax 

revenue effects that recreational visitors to national wildlife refuges have on the economies of 

local regions. Additionally, it measured the impact of “ecotourism,” which was defined as large 

numbers of people traveling substantial distances to take part in non-consumptive uses of the 

natural environment. Ecotourism is on the rise around the world, and it is one method that can 

be used to derive economic benefits to a community from the conservation of wildlife and 

habitat. In 2006, 34.8 million people visited a national wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states for 

recreational purposes. Their spending placed nearly $1.7 billion into regional economies from 

sales. These sales helped employ approximately 27,000 people. 

Regardless of which alternative is selected, population growth and increasing recreational 

demand, particularly in nature activities, are expected to increase the demand for outdoor 

recreation on the Refuge. 

5.7.2 Opportunities for Quality Waterfowl Hunting 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including waterfowl hunting. Each of the 

alternatives presented strive to provide a quality waterfowl hunting program in concert with 

other wildlife-dependent public uses and habitat programs on the Refuge. Several of these 

alternatives must occur in conjunction with proposed habitat management actions presented in 

Chapters 2, 3 and 4. No significant adverse effects to waterfowl hunting opportunities are 

expected under any of the alternatives presented, because none of the alternatives as presented 

would displace any hunting activities without offering a comparable alternative. The proposed 

actions common to all alternatives, which include improved signage, updated maps and hunting 

brochures, and increased law enforcement, would result in a positive effect on the overall 

hunting experience. The areas discussed in each alternative would be open in accordance with 

the state season for waterfowl hunting. 

5.7.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the hunt program. The hunt program would 

continue to follow current management. The regulated goose hunt on the Riekkola Unit would 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-24 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

occur two days a week, the waterfowl hunt on the Porter Point Unit would occur three days a 

week, and the waterfowl hunts on the Leadbetter and Stanley Point units would continue seven 

days a week. There would be no expansion of waterfowl hunting. Overall, this proposed 

alternative would have a neutral effect on waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

5.7.2.2 Alternative 2 

This alternative would change the hunt program by opening up more of the Refuge to hunting. It 

is important to note that this alternative is only possible when adopted in conjunction with the 

proposed habitat management plans of tidal restoration in the South Bay Units. The result of this 

alternative’s implementation would be an intermediate, positive, long-term effect to the hunting 

opportunities on Willapa NWR. 

All areas of the Refuge (excluding the Presidential Proclamation Boundary and Tarlatt Slough) 

would be open in accordance with the state season for waterfowl hunting. While the location of 

the existing temporary goose blinds would no longer exist due to the proposed tidal restoration of 

the area in the Riekkola Unit, the Refuge would evaluate locations for construction of several 

wood blinds and ensure that hunters with disabilities are adequately accommodated. 

5.7.2.3 Alternative 3 

This alternative would result in a limited expansion of the hunt program. The limited expansion 

of the hunt program in this alternative is due to the fact that only part of the South Bay Units 

would be tidally restored under this alternative. The result would be a minor, positive, long-term 

effect to the hunting opportunities on Willapa NWR. 

The waterfowl hunt would have limited expansion in the Porter Point and Lewis units on the 

South Bay, and the regulated goose hunt would remain on the Riekkola Unit. 

5.7.3 Opportunities for Quality Big Game Hunting 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including big game hunting. Each of the 

alternatives strive to provide a quality hunting program in concert with other wildlife-dependent 

public uses and habitat programs on the Refuge. Several of these alternatives must occur in 

conjunction with proposed habitat management actions presented in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. No 

significant adverse effects to big game hunting opportunities are expected under any of the 

alternatives presented, because none of the alternatives as presented would displace any hunting 

activities without offering a comparable alternative. 

The proposed actions common to all alternatives, which include improved signage, updated maps 

and hunting brochures, and increased law enforcement, would result in a positive effect on the 

overall hunting experience. The areas discussed in each alternative would be open in accordance 

with the state season for big game hunting, unless otherwise noted. The headquarters area, 

where trails and visitor information kiosks exist, would remain closed to hunting activity for 

public safety. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-25 

5.7.3.1 Alternative 1 

Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the hunt program. The hunt program would 

continue to follow current management. The big game hunting would continue on Long Island 

(archery only) and the mainland portion of the Refuge (excluding Headquarters area). The areas 

currently closed to hunting would remain closed. There would be no expansion of big game 

hunting. Effects to other public recreational uses are expected to be minimal due to the timing of 

the activities and limited duration of the hunt. The state elk hunting seasons occur when other 

public uses are at a minimum because they are outside the main tourist season and occur during 

the seasonally inclement weather. Overall, this proposed alternative would have a neutral effect 

on the hunting opportunities. 

With no control of elk on the Leadbetter Unit of the Refuge, the herd is expected to grow. As the 

herd increases and outgrows the available habitat on the Refuge, they may move off the Refuge 

into the surrounding area in search of food. The largest economic impacts of elk are felt in the 

agriculture industries. Elk currently cause damage to local crops and residential landscaping. 

Other incidental negative economic impacts of elk include elk-vehicle collisions and damage to 

fences. Keeping the hunt at current levels would increase the negative impacts of a large herd to 

the local community. 

5.7.3.2 Alternative 2 

This alternative would change the hunt program by opening up more of the Refuge to hunting. 

The result of this would be an intermediate, positive, long-term effect to the hunting 

opportunities on Willapa NWR. Big game hunting would remain the same as current 

management except for the expanded elk and deer hunting in the East Hills and South Bay Units 

and a regulated elk hunt on Leadbetter Point Unit. The regulated elk hunt (permit only) is 

proposed for managing the herd size on the Leadbetter Point Unit. 

Expansion of big game hunting, under Alternative 2, would cause minor impacts to the social 

and economic environment. Effects to other public recreational uses are expected to be minimal 

due to the timing of the activities and limited duration of the hunt. The state elk hunting seasons 

occur when other public uses are at a minimum because they are outside the main tourist season 

and occur during the seasonally inclement weather. At the Leadbetter Unit, some noise from 

muzzleloaders may be experienced from the public on the adjacent Washington State Parks 

lands, and the public may occasionally observe elk or other wildlife species flushed into the open 

due to hunter activity. The hiking trails and waterfowl hunting at the Leadbetter Point Unit 

would be closed to other users during the short muzzleloader season for safety and to reduce user 

conflicts, but this would be only for a limited time period and would occur when the trails are 

flooded due to seasonal rains. While hunting activity is not expected to increase (according to 

surveys described in Chapter 5); expanding hunting opportunities may result in a slight increase 

in hunting visitation to the area. Having an expanded elk hunt would result in slight increases to 

spending in the local economy. Again due to the limited scope and timing of the existing and 

proposed elk hunt program, all effects are expected to be minor and of short duration each year. 

Implementing this expanded hunt at current levels would reduce the negative impacts of a large 

herd to the local community. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-26 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

5.7.3.3 Alternative 3 

This alternative would result in a limited expansion of the hunt program. The limited expansion 

of the hunt program in this alternative is due to the fact that only part of the South Bay Units 

would be tidally restored. The result would be a minor, positive, long-term effect to the hunting 

opportunities on Willapa NWR. Big game hunting would remain the same as Alternative 1 but 

have limited expansion of elk and deer hunting in the South Bay Units and the regulated elk hunt 

on Leadbetter Point Unit. The regulated elk hunt is proposed for managing the herd size on the 

Leadbetter Point unit. 

Expansion of big game hunting, under Alternative 3, would cause minor impacts to the social 

and economic environment. Effects to other public recreational uses are expected to be minimal 

due to the timing of the activities and limited duration of the hunt. The state elk hunting seasons 

occur when other public uses are at a minimum because they are outside the main tourist season 

and occur during the seasonal inclement weather. At the Leadbetter Point Unit, some noise from 

the muzzleloaders may be experienced from the public on the adjacent Washington State Parks 

lands, and the public may occasionally observe elk or other wildlife species flushed into the open 

due to hunter activity. The hiking trails and waterfowl hunting at the Leadbetter Point Unit 

would be closed to other users during the short muzzleloader season for safety and to reduce user 

conflicts, but this would be only for a limited time period and would occur when the trails are 

flooded due to seasonal rains. While hunting activity is not expected to increase (according to 

surveys described in Chapter 5(, expanding hunting opportunities may result in a slight increase 

in hunting visitation to the area. Having an expanded elk hunt would result in slight increases to 

spending in the local economy. Again due to the limited scope and timing of the existing and 

proposed elk hunt program, all effects are expected to be minor and of short duration each year. 

Implementing this expanded hunt at current levels would slightly reduce the negative impacts of 

a large herd to the local community. 

5.7.4 Opportunities for Quality Fishing 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including fishing. There are no significant 

changes identified in the fishing program between the alternatives. Each alternative calls for 

keeping the refuge portion of Willapa Bay and the channel portion of Bear River open for fishing 

according to Washington State fishing regulations. The small streams on the Refuge will remain 

closed to fishing in all alternatives. Each alternative results in an overall neutral effect on 

opportunities for quality fishing experiences. 

5.7.5 Opportunities for Quality Shellfish Harvesting 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including shellfish harvesting. There are 

no significant changes identified in the shellfish harvesting program between the alternatives. 

Each alternative calls for maintaining the two Willapa Bay Shellfish Areas (Diamond Point and 

Pinnacle Rock) on Long Island according to Washington State shellfish harvesting regulations. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-27 

Each alternative results in an overall neutral effect on opportunities for quality shellfish 

harvesting. 

5.7.6 Opportunities for Visitor, Administrative, and Maintenance Facilities 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including having access to visitor facilities 

that provide information about the Refuge. No significant adverse effects are expected to the 

opportunities for visitor, administrative, and maintenance facilities under any of the alternatives, 

because none of the alternatives would displace any visitor facility access. 

5.7.6.1 Alternative 1 

The current visitor facilities and maintenance facilities would continue to be available under 

Alternative 1. Effects on access to visitor facilities would be minor, positive, long-term 

improvements and maintenance of the current site. 

5.7.6.2 Alternative 2 

Due to limitations at the current site for visitor, office, and maintenance facilities, this alternative 

proposes relocating and consolidating these facilities. After consideration of all refuge lands for 

the relocation, the proposed site for the new headquarters facility is the only area that provides 

adequate space and public access without compromising ecologically valuable habitat. This area 

is currently managed as grazed pasture. This relocation would be considered to have an 

intermediate, positive, long-term effect because facility enhancements in the new location would 

improve visitor access and opportunities. 

Upon relocation, the existing headquarters area would be restored to protect, maintain, and 

restore habitats historically characteristic of the Willapa Bay region for the benefit of migratory 

birds, salmonids, amphibians, mussels, lamprey, and a diverse assemblage of other native 

species. The Willapa Interpretive Art Trail would remain open to the public. In addition to the 

existing headquarters area being restored, the Riekkola shop area would be restored as a result of 

the consolidation of facilities at the new headquarters. 

The location of the new headquarter facilities has city water and sewage. It is closer to the 

population center on the Long Beach Peninsula, which would allow greater public access to 

Refuge visitor services. The facilities would meet LEED energy conservation and sustainability 

standards. The site plan combines creatively designed visitor facilities with habitat restoration 

efforts in an attempt to provide the visitor with a natural and educational experience. Other 

features of the project include picnic tables and a new interpretive trail. The interpretive trail 

would be along an existing road from the new visitor center to a new observation deck on the 

South Bay, which would offer unparalleled views of the bay and migratory birds. Overall, the 

new facilities location would better serve the community, improve staff productivity, conserve 

crucial wildlife habitat, reduce annual operations and maintenance costs, and serve as an 

interpretive area for approximately 150,000visitors annually. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-28 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

5.7.6.3 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 proposes the same relocation and consolidation of visitor, office, and administrative 

facilities as Alternative 2. 

5.7.7 Opportunities for Interpretive Trails 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including having access to interpretive 

trails. No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because none of 

the alternatives would displace any access interpretive trails. 

5.7.7.1 Alternative 1 

Only the current interpretive trails would be maintained under this alternative. This can be 

considered to have a negligible effect on opportunities for visitors to access interpretive trails. 

5.7.7.2 Alternative 2 

This alternative would maintain all current trails as well as add a new trail to the South Bay, 

associated with the construction of the new office/visitor facilities. The new interpretive trail 

would be along an existing road from the new visitor center to a new observation deck on the 

South Bay, which would offer unparalleled views of the bay and migratory birds. This additional 

trail would offer intermediate, positive, long-term effects because greater access to natural 

resources would be available to the public. 

5.7.7.3 Alternative 3 

Only the current interpretive trails would be maintained under this alternative. This can be 

considered to have a negligible effect on opportunities for visitors to access interpretive trails. 

5.7.8 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including wildlife observation and 

photography. No significant adverse effects are expected under any of the alternatives, because 

none of the alternatives would displace any wildlife observation or photography activities. 

Visitation is expected to increase under all alternatives, mostly due to population increases and 

the growing popularity of wildlife observation. None of the alternatives are expected to result in 

increased crowding or in substantial anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat supporting the 

wildlife viewing or photography experience. 

5.7.8.1 Alternative 1 

Current visitor facilities and programs would continue under Alternative 1. Effects on 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would be minor, positive, long-term 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-29 

improvements associated with habitat restoration and maintenance. The opportunities for selfguided wildlife observation and photography on the Leadbetter Point, Long Island, and Mainland 

units would be maintained. 

5.7.8.2 Alternative 2 

Facilities to improve opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography would be 

upgraded and enhanced under this alternative, resulting in an intermediate, positive, long-term 

effect for wildlife observation opportunities and photography. All facilities and programs 

described in Alternative 1 would remain the same with the expansion of wildlife viewing 

opportunities and photography at the Tarlatt Unit. A new office, visitor center, trail, and South 

Bay observation deck would provide unparalleled views of the bay. With concurrent habitat 

improvements including tidal restoration and improved forest management proposed under 

Alternative 2, it is reasonable to assume that these improvements would create an increase in 

wildlife viewing and photography opportunities for some species. 

5.7.8.3 Alternative 3 

Current visitor facilities and programs would continued under Alternative 3. Effects on 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would be minor, positive, long-term 

improvements associated with habitat restoration and maintenance. The opportunities for selfguided wildlife observation and photography on the Leadbetter Point, Long Island, and Mainland 

units would be maintained. 

5.7.9 Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The Refuge’s goal for public use is to foster a connection between visitors and nature (see 

Section 2.4.8). Visitors will have opportunities to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities located throughout Willapa NWR including environmental education and 

interpretation. No significant adverse effects to environmental education and interpretation are 

expected under any of the alternatives, because none would displace any environmental 

education or interpretive activities. None of the alternatives would result in substantial 

anticipated losses of wildlife or habitat supporting the environmental education or interpretive 

experience. 

5.7.9.1 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 maintains the current programs, providing limited on- and off-site environmental 

education and interpretation programs. No additional programs would be added to the 

interpretive program under this alternative nor would any additional interpretive facilities (i.e., 

viewing decks, interpretive panels, and brochures) be added. Continuation of the current 

environmental education and interpretation program can be seen to have negligible effects on 

these programs because no changes would be made. 

5.7.9.2 Alternative 2 

All current programs described in Alternative 1 would be maintained. In addition to the current 

programs, the addition of the new visitor facilities on the Tarlatt Unit would allow the Refuge to 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-30 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

offer expanded on-site environmental education. This can be viewed as having an intermediate, 

positive effect on educational and interpretive opportunities because the Refuge would be 

prepared with facilities and environmental education programming to accommodate the current 

and expected increase in demand for such opportunities. 

5.7.9.3 Alternative 3 

While a new visitor center would be added to the interpretive program under this alternative, 

there would be limited expansion in the programming. This can be viewed as having a minor, 

positive, long-term effect on educational and interpretive opportunities at the Refuge. While the 

new visitor center would be available to the public, the limited on-site environmental programs 

would not adequately serve the current and future demand for quality environmental education 

and interpretation. 

5.7.10 Opportunities for Quality Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation 

As stated in Section 5.3.3, several non-wildlife dependent uses are acceptable at Willapa NWR 

due to specific site circumstances. Since a large portion of the Refuge consists of navigable 

waters and island habitat, visitors to the Refuge often use some type of watercraft to access these 

areas. Also, due to the difficulty of accessing Long Island during tidal fluctuations, camping is 

allowed in designated sites. 

All alternatives maintain the five campgrounds with 21 campsites on Long Island. All camping 

regulations would remain in place. There will be a neutral effect to camping on the Refuge 

regardless of the alternative selected. 

Boat ramp access varies under the different alternatives. Alternative 1 and 3 would keep the cartop boat access at Porter Point and would have neutral or no effect on boating. Alternative 2 

would move the car-top boat access to Doman Creek on the Riekkola Unit. Although the 

location of the boat ramp access would change, the overall effect on boating at Willapa NWR 

would be neutral. 

Recreation alternatives are geared toward the priority wildlife-dependent public uses. These uses 

include wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, environmental 

interpretation, hunting, and fishing. Opportunities for other public and refuge uses not 

considered priority public uses would be contingent on the completion of a compatibility 

determination and appropriate use statement for that particular use. 

5.7.11 Illegal Uses 

All public use alternatives include a strategy for increased law enforcement presence to ensure a 

safe and quality recreational experience for refuge visitors. Effects from this increased law 

enforcement presence will be positive, by improving the safety for visitors and protection of 

habitats and wildlife. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 5-31 

5.7.12 Effects to Cultural and Historic Resources 

The Refuge’s goal for cultural and historic resources states that the Refuge will protect and 

preserve the cultural resources of the Refuge for the benefit of present and future generations 

(see Section 2.4.9). Each alternative states that cultural resource sites will be protected through 

BMPs. Cultural resources have the potential to be directly affected by ground-disturbing 

activities such as facility construction or dike repairs as well as indirectly by activities that 

increase public access to sensitive cultural areas. These potential effects would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis under any alternative. Cultural resource laws and regulations will be 

followed, and the management of any cultural resource located will comply with Sections 106 

and 110 of the NHPA. 

The Cultural Resources Overview for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Wessen 2008) offers 

management recommendations for the cultural resources of Willapa NWR. The 

recommendations are not meant to solely direct the management of the cultural resources but 

offer an initial discussion of issues that are relevant to protecting the cultural resources in 

Willapa NWR. The issues mentioned include obtaining a more complete inventory of the 

Refuge’s cultural resources, addressing the erosion and vandalism issues at known sites, 

educating the refuge staff and public on the importance of these resources, and adopting a 

collaborative approach to develop a final management plan. Overall, the overview recommends 

improving baseline knowledge, improving the baseline knowledge, and building for the future. 

As described in all alternatives, proposed activities such as wildlife observation, interpretation, 

photography, and environmental education, when confined to non-sensitive cultural areas, can be 

perceived as having a neutral effect on cultural resources, in that they result in minimal to no 

effect on cultural resources; moreover, public programs that include interpretation of the cultural 

history of the Refuge provide an educational benefit. Overall, there is a minor, positive, longterm effect to cultural resources within the refuge boundary. 

5.7.13 Social and Economic Effects 

Since the CCP implementation is expected to result in generally positive effects on the human 

environment, all proposed public use actions have little risk of resulting in disproportionate 

adverse effects on human health, economics, or the social environment. 

The Refuge also provides an indirect economic impact to the local economy through the many 

recreational activities that it supports. These activities currently include wildlife observation, 

photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. These activities will 

continue under any alternative, thus, the visitors that participate in these activities will contribute 

to the health of the local economy through the purchase of goods and services (e.g., food, 

lodging, fuel, equipment). 

Environmental education and interpretation programs and facilities would vary by alternative 

with more programs and facilities being developed under Alternative 2. The addition is mostly 

due to projected increases in interest in interpretation and environmental education programs and 

the proximity of the new visitor center facilities to the community. Overall, recreational 

visitation is expected to be slightly higher under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1 because 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

5-32 Chapter 5. Public Use Programs and Impact on Social and Economic Environment 

of the greater emphasis in this alternative for an expanded number of interpretive and 

environmental education programs. As a result, Alternative 2 would result in the highest number 

of local jobs and have the highest degree of local economic effect stemming from the 

recreational expenditures of refuge visitors. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in a positive 

social and economic effect while Alternatives 1 and 3 would have a negligible effect and a 

slightly positive effect, respectively. 

Future expansion of the Refuge would result in the reduction of future commercial timber 

harvest opportunities and the conversion of some timber lands into long term conservation status 

for habitats, but the impact to the overall timber production economies of Pacific County would 

likely be minor. Forest restoration and management practices of the younger-aged stands on the 

lands identified for potential acquisition would include some standard timber management 

practices, such as thinning (see Appendix K). The Refuge’s forest management practices would 

change very little, if at all, from commercial forest management over the life of this plan. The 

lands proposed for total addition to the refuge comprise 1.6 percent of the 70 percent of Pacific 

County that is currently managed for long-term commercial forest production. Thus, the impact 

to the overall timber production economies of Pacific County would be minor. 
Chapter 6

Environmental Effects

Chapter 6EnvironmentalEffects

Chapter 5Social andEconomic Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Pink sand verbena

USFWS
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-1 

Chapter 6. Summary of Potential Effects and Cumulative 

Effects Analysis 

This chapter presents a summary comparison of the environmental effects of implementing the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. The effects are described at the end of each of the chapters 3 

through 5, including the physical environment, habitats and wildlife, cultural, and socioeconomic 

resources. This chapter also presents the cumulative effects of the CCP. 

6.1 Effect Ratings Description 

The information used in this draft CCP/EIS was obtained from relevant scientific literature, 

existing databases and inventories, consultations with other professionals, and personal 

knowledge of resources based on field visits, and experience. The terms identified below were 

used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, cultural and recreational 

resources. 

 Negligible. Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the 

lowest level of detection. Resource conditions would not change or would be so slight 

there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a population, wildlife 

or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or cultural resource. 

 Minor. Effects would be detectable but localized, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily 

implemented and successful. 

 Intermediate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized, with consequences to a 

population, wildlife, or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects and 

would be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful. 

 Significant (major). Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial 

consequences to a population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor 

experience, or cultural resource within the local area and region. Extensive mitigating 

measures may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be large-scale in nature, 

very complicated to implement, and may not have a guaranteed probability of success. In 

some instances, major effects would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Time and duration of effects have been defined as follows. 

 Short-term or Temporary. An effect that generally would last less than a year or 

season. 

 Long-term. A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a single 

year or season. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

6.2 Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 6-1. CCP Alternatives Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives-Willapa NWR 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Effects to Wildlife and Habitats 

Sitka spruce 

zone forests 

Intermediate, positive, long-term 

effects with continued 

implementation of Forest Plan 

strategies for 557 acres existing 

forest and development of 6,178 

acres second- and third-growth 

stands 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Open water Negligible effects from protecting 

and maintaining 

878 acres 

Negligible, long-term effects 

adding (0.2 acre) new open 

water with dike removal. 

Same as Alternative 2, 

except even less open 

water would be added 

Intertidal flats Negligible effects from protecting 

and maintaining 4,178 acres 

Minor, positive, long-term 

effects with 11 acres created 

with dike removal 

Same as Alternative 2 

Salt marsh Negligible effects from protecting 

and maintaining 1,636 acres 

Significant, positive, longterm effects from restoring 

749 acres by removing dikes 

Same as Alternative 2, 

except restore only 429 

acres by removing dikes 

Riverine Minor, positive effect by improving 

various sections riverine habitat 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Freshwater 

wetlands 

(seasonally 

managed) 

Minor positive effects with 

continued water control structure 

and dike maintenance for 317 acres 

of freshwater wetlands on Tarlatt, 

Riekkola, Porter Point, and Lewis 

units 

Intermediate, negative, longterm effect by removing 300 

acres of constructed, highly 

managed freshwater wetland 

impoundments through 

restoration of salt marsh 

habitat (17 acres would remain 

on Tarlatt Unit) 

Same as Alternative 2, 

except remove only 292 

acres, (25 acres would 

remain on Riekkola and 

Tarlatt units) 

Freshwater 

wetlands 

(naturally 

occurring) 

Negligible, long-term effect from 

protection of 610 acres (permanent 

and semi-permanent naturally 

occurring wetlands) 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Coastal dunes Intermediate, positive, long-term 

effects with annual protection and 

habitat maintenance for 1,581 acres 

Significant, positive, longterm effects with restoration 

229 acres and maintenance of 

121 already restored acres, 

within total 1,581 acres 

Same as Alternative 2 

Short-grass 

fields 

Negligible effects with annual 

habitat maintenance of 250 acres on 

Riekkola and Tarlatt units 

Minor, negative effects to 

managed plant communities 

with transition of short-grass 

fields to saltmarsh habitat on 

Riekkola and Tarlatt units 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Grasslands Negligible effects on 33 acres with 

habitat maintenance of invasive 

species 

Intermediate, positive effects 

with removal of non-native 

plants and establishment of 

native host plants on 33 acres 

for the future reintroduction 

Oregon silverspot butterfly 

Same as Alternative 2 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-3 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Western 

snowy plover 

(predator 

control) 

Intermediate, negative effects due to 

predation on plovers 

Significant, positive effects for 

fledgling survival with the 

annual removal of avian and 

mammalian predators as 

necessary 

Significant, positive, 

short-term effect for 

fledgling survival with 

removal of avian 

predators; mammalian 

predator control would 

not occur 

Oregon 

silverspot 

butterfly 

No current management focus Significant, positive, longterm effect with reintroduction 

of Oregon silverspot (after 

successful host plant 

reintroduction has been 

established) 

Same as Alternative 2 

Marbled 

murrelet 

Significant, positive, long-term 

effects with continued 

implementation of Forest Plan 

strategies for 557 acres of existing 

forest and future expansion and 

management of 6,178 acres secondand third-growth stands 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Effects to the Physical Environment 

Hydrology Minor, positive effects Intermediate, positive, longterm effects Same as Alternative 2 

Soil Minor, positive effects Intermediate, positive, longterm effects to soils Same as Alternative 2 

 

Air quality Negligible effects Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Water quality Minor, negative effects due to 

current office site 

Minor, positive effects to 

water quality 

Same as Alternative 2 

Surrounding 

land uses 

Negligible effects Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Effects to Educational and Recreational Opportunities 

Officemaintenance 

and visitor 

facility 

Negligible effects Intermediate, positive, longterm effect; new facility and 

location would improve visitor 

services, access, and safety 

Same as Alternative 2 

Wildlife 

observation 

and 

photography

Minor, positive, long-term effects 

improved with current habitat 

restoration and maintenance 

Intermediate, positive, longterm effects; improved 

wildlife and habitat 

management actions and a 

new trail would increase 

opportunities 

Same as Alternative 1 

Interpretive 

trails

Negligible effects Intermediate, positive, longterm effects with a new trail to 

the South Bay, associated with 

construction of new 

office/visitor facilities 

Same as Alternative 1 

Waterfowl 

hunting 

Negligible effects Negligible, long-term effects 

with estuarine restoration and 

expansion of the hunting area 

for all waterfowl throughout 

the South Bay salt marsh 

Negligible, long-term 

effects with limited 

expansion of hunting on 

South Bay Units and 

regulated goose hunting 

on Riekkola Unit 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Big game 

hunting 

Negligible effects Negligible, long-term effects 

for wildlife and habitat with an 

expanded elk/deer hunting 

program (South Bay and 

expanded elk hunt on 

Leadbetter Point Unit) 

Negligible, long-term 

effects for the wildlife 

and habitat with a 

limited expanded 

elk/deer hunting program 

(South Bay and 

regulated elk hunt on 

Leadbetter Point Unit) 

Fishing Negligible effects Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Environmental 

education and 

interpretation

Negligible effects Intermediate, positive effects 

with an increase in 

environmental education 

programs with new facility 

and interpretive trail 

Minor, positive, longterm effects due to the 

new visitor facilities, but 

there would be limited 

expansion in 

programming 

Camping Negligible effects Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Effects of Land Ownership 

Cultural 

resource 

protection

Minor, positive, long-term effects 

for protection of sites within the 

current acquisition boundary 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

protection of potential sites 

within expanded acquisition 

boundary 

Same as Alternative 2 

Refuge 

acquisition 

boundary 

expansion 

Minor, positive, long-term effects if 

current acquisition boundary lands 

are completely acquired 

Same as Alternative 1 and 

Intermediate, positive long 

term effects with a 6,804-acre 

increased acquisition 

boundary expansion (from 

willing sellers) for threatened 

and endangered species, 

wildlife, habitat and cultural 

resource protection. 

Same as Alternative 1 

and intermediate, 

positive effects with a 

4,895-acre increased 

acquisition boundary 

(from willing sellers) for 

threatened and endingered species, wildlife, 

habitat and cultural 

resource protection. 

Effects to Socioeconomics 

Regional 

economy 

Negligible effects Intermediate, positive, shortterm effect due to increased 

operations, facilities 

enhancements, restoration 

activities and visitor 

expenditures 

Same as Alternative 2 

Recreation 

economics 

Negligible effects Intermediate, positive, longterm effect due to increases in 

operations and visitor 

expenditures (trail 

enhancements, visitor 

contacts) 

Same as Alternative 2 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-5 

6.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis 

6.3.1 Introduction 

Cumulative effects can result from the incremental effects of a project when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Cumulative effects can result 

from individually minor but cumulatively significant actions over a period of time. This analysis 

is intended to consider the interaction of activities at the Willapa Refuge and with other actions 

occurring over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the provisions of 

NEPA, that define several different types of effects that should be evaluated in an EIS, including 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct and indirect effects are addressed in the resourcespecific sections of this draft CCP/EIS (Chapters 3-5). This section addresses cumulative effects. 

The CEQ (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7) provides the following definition of cumulative effects: “the 

impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” 

It should be noted that the cumulative effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of 

the comprehensive nature by which direct and indirect effects associated with implementing the 

various alternatives was presented in chapters 3 through 5. The analysis in this section primarily 

focuses on effects associated with reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless 

of what entity undertakes that action. 

6.3.2 Cumulative Impacts Wildlife and Habitat 

6.3.2.1 Predator Management 

The avian species listed as threatened under the ESA and supported by this Refuge were once 

more widely distributed throughout western Washington, and the sizes of the various populations 

throughout the region were much larger. The loss of coastal habitat, displacement of nesting 

areas due to increasing human use of beaches, increases in non-native predators in proximity to 

natural areas, and the concentration of native predators into smaller, more isolated natural areas 

have all contributed to significant declines in the populations of western snowy plover and 

streaked horned lark. The recovery plan prepared for the Federal threatened western snowy 

plover (USFWS 2007a), as well as the conservation plans prepared to address declines in the 

populations of streaked horned larks, shorebirds, and waterbirds (Kushlan et al. 2002; Page et al. 

2003; Pearson and Altman 2005), all recommend predator control in the list of recovery and 

conservation actions that must be considered if reversal of these population declines is to be 

achieved. Predator management at Leadbetter Point aims to maximize adult survival and 

juvenile recruitment of western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks to achieve population 

objectives for species recovery. 

Implementation of a predator management plan could result in temporary localized reduction in 

populations of some mammalian and native avian predators around the Refuge. In recent years 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

on plover nesting areas elsewhere in California, Oregon, and the eastern United States., coyote 

and red fox were the mammalian species most affected by predator management, while crows, 

ravens, and gulls were the avian species most often removed during predator control actions. 

The removal of some raptors and lethal control of some native mammalian predators may occur 

on the Refuge; however, the numbers of individuals lost would be extremely low (less than one 

annually). Lethal removal would generally be implemented only after other non-lethal methods 

of behavior modification, removal, and relocation have proven to be unsuccessful. For the most 

part, avian predators, with the exception of corvids and some gulls, would be trapped and 

released into suitable habitat elsewhere, and only those avian predators that are foraging within 

nesting areas would be removed. Only non-native small mammals and some problem coyotes 

would be lethally removed. Those wildlife species requiring management because of conflicts 

with endangered species would be impacted by removal of a few problem individuals. The 

adverse effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population of the affected 

species would be insignificant. 

A similar predator management strategy has been used in Oregon with success. Reproductive 

rate increases have led to an increasing snowy plover population. It is expected that predator 

management on the Refuge would have similar results. However, predator control alone cannot 

achieve the recovery goals established for these species, which is why this predator management 

plan is just one component of a larger overall management approach for the Refuge. The 

CCP/EIS for this refuge includes habitat enhancement and restoration as well as additional 

actions directed at reducing disturbance to sensitive species. Through this combination of 

efforts, the Refuge’s populations of endangered and threatened species are expected, at a 

minimum to sustain their current sizes, and ideally to increase as these various actions are 

implemented. 

Conclusion 

Predator management would be combined with other ongoing programs to restore/improve 

coastal dune habitats for the benefit of shorebirds, landbirds, and native coastal plant species. 

The preferred action alternative proposed would represent significant positive cumulative effects 

for the plants and wildlife that inhabit these habitats. 

6.3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 

It is the policy of the Service to protect and preserve all native species of fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, including their habitats, which are designated, 

threatened, or endangered with extinction. Endangered, threatened, and candidate species that 

could occur on or near the Refuge include marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, and streaked 

horned lark. There are also endangered and threatened salmonids, bull trout, and eulachon in 

local marine waters, but they are not known to occur in the waterways within the Refuge; 

however, if present they could be temporarily affected by the estuarine restoration project. Any 

effects would be of short duration and inconsequential. Green sturgeon may also be found in 

local waters and are identified as a species of concern. The northern spotted owl, Oregon 

silverspot butterfly, and Pacific fisher are not known to occur on the Refuge currently, so they 

would not be affected by any proposed refuge management actions. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-7 

Western Snowy Plover and Coastal Dunes 

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover is listed as threatened under provisions 

of the ESA. Their population has shown an overall declining trend during the last century. 

Reasons for this decline and the severity of threats vary by region and location, but are primarily 

habitat loss and degradation, and predation at nesting sites. The principal cause of habitat loss in 

Washington is from previous efforts to stabilize the naturally shifting sand along coastal beaches 

by planting invasive beachgrass. These grasses out-compete native vegetation, alter the dune 

ecosystem and form dense stands that reduce the amount and quality of nesting habitat for native 

wildlife, including the federally threatened western snowy plover and a Federal candidate 

species, the streaked horned lark. Implementing the restoration and protection plan for the 

coastal dunes would improve habitat for the western snowy plover and other native species. 

Conclusion 

The ongoing programs to restore/improve coastal dune habitats for the benefit of shorebirds, 

landbirds and native coastal plant species, in conjunction with the action alternatives proposed in 

this CCP/EIS would represent significant beneficial effects for the plants and wildlife that inhabit 

these habitats. Development of a predator management strategy would maximize adult survival 

and juvenile recruitment of western snowy plover to achieve population objectives for species 

recovery by reducing the threat posed by certain problem avian and mammalian predators. 

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly 

By the early 1980s, most historical populations of the Oregon silverspot butterfly were extirpated 

(USFWS 2001a). The last Oregon silverspot butterfly found in Washington was in 1990 on the 

Long Beach Peninsula (WDFW 1993). The primary cause of its decline is due to habitat loss 

and degradation as a result of urban development, agricultural conversion, invasive non-native 

vegetation, recreational off-road vehicle use, and natural succession. Direct mortality from 

collisions with vehicles and pesticide use are also a factors implemented in the reduction of 

populations. Loss of early successional meadows that support suitable conditions for the larval 

host plant, the early blue violet, has severely limited the amount of butterfly habitat to a handful 

of sites on the central Oregon coast and one site in Del Norte County, California. In Washington, 

most violet habitats are threatened by the presence of heavy grass thatch and invasion by woody 

vegetation that shade out or restrict violet growth (Pyle 1985). 

Conclusion 

Significant, long-term, positive effects from the reintroduction of Oregon silverspot butterfly 

would be achieved after successful host plant reintroduction and habitat restoration has been 

accomplished. Maintenance of the site will be a component of the CCP, thus affording the longterm habitat protection identified as a goal in the Oregon silverspot butterfly recovery plan. 

Marbled Murrelet 

According to the Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997a), the major factors 

contributing to the threatened status of marbled murrelets include 1) loss of nesting habitats, and 

2) poor reproductive success in the habitat that does remain. Marbled murrelets require suitable 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

canopy structures primarily found in mature and old-growth forest stands for nesting. 

Elimination of these forests, primarily by timber harvesting and urbanization, is the principal 

factor contributing to the decline of the marbled murrelet and the most significant impediment to 

recovery of the species (USFWS 1997a). Habitat fragmentation resulting in increased densities 

of nest predators, and prey availability also probably limits long-term productivity and survival 

of the marbled murrelet. Adult mortality caused by predation, impacts from the effects of oil 

spills, mortality due to entanglement in fishing gear, chronic water pollution, aquaculture, and 

disturbance at nesting and foraging sites have also been identified as potential limiting factors. 

Considering there is currently less than 1% of the original old-growth forests remaining in the 

overall 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed, the goal for the Refuge and its partners is to restore 

a forested landscape that is representative of past, unmanaged, landscape conditions. The natural 

ecological process within the low elevation coastal rainforest also supports and maintains healthy 

freshwater streams and the adjacent estuarine habitat of the bay. Recent scientific research 

concludes that it is possible to accelerate forest complexity and habitat development through the 

application of carefully applied silvicultural practices. Techniques such as variable density 

thinning, underplanting, and the placement of large woody debris (snags and downed logs) have 

been shown to accelerate the development of complex habitat conditions in young managed 

stands. Habitat manipulation around isolated legacy trees that remain in young managed forest 

stands also enhances the forest canopy structure required by murrelets for nesting. Such 

techniques can be used to promote the development of trees with nesting platforms and canopy 

characteristics preferred by the murrelet while also benefitting other species of concern. Access 

to current legacy trees suitable for nesting may also be opened up through these techniques. 

Techniques such as these, as well as pre-commercial and commercial thinning, would be used in 

restoration activities. 

Conclusion 

The proposed refuge acquisition boundary expansion and potential future land additions to the 

Refuge would contribute to the long-term, positive cumulative impacts on a variety of wildlife 

habitats and the water quality within the south Willapa Bay watershed. Forest management for 

older, more complex structured stands on this landscape is considered of critical importance for 

recovery of the marbled murrelet. The protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats, 

especially forest restoration efforts, within the proposed expansion areas would represent a 

cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of marbled murrelets and other endangered and 

threatened species, and the overall biological diversity found on these lands. 

6.3.2.3 Forest Management of Sitka Spruce Zone Forest 

Refuge forests now consist of only a small amount of late-successional forest with presence of 

large-diameter downed logs and snags within forest habitat matrix of even-aged stands, from 

lands previously managed for timber production. On the Refuge, there are two primary low 

elevation coastal rainforest habitats: Sitka spruce forest and western hemlock–western red cedar. 

Through the implementation of the Forest Landscape Restoration Plan with refuge partners, the 

forest management strategies within the plan (see Appendix K) would accelerate the forest 

habitat health and productivity, provide long-term benefits for wildlife, and also help to maintain 

and improve the water quality of Willapa Bay. Forest management activities would take into 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-9 

consideration all BMPs including the protection of soils and aquatic habitats. Improving forest 

habitat on the Refuge would also provide for all wildlife habitats. 

Conclusion 

Forest management for older, more complex structured stands on this landscape is considered of 

critical importance for recovery of the marbled murrelet. The protection and enhancement of 

wildlife habitats, especially forest restoration efforts and also within the proposed expansion 

areas would represent a cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of marbled murrelets 

and other endangered and threatened species, and the overall biological diversity found on these 

lands. The forest management plan strategies contribute and provide positive long-term 

cumulative impacts for the overall forest ecosystem. 

6.3.2.4 Riverine 

Riverine habitats including perennial and intermittent streams would continue to be enhanced 

and restored when feasible, to mimic the historic ecological processes and functions which 

benefit anadromous fish populations and other ecosystem-wide and riveriene-dependent wildlife. 

When feasible, improvements initiated would provide migration pathways for adult anadromous 

fish traveling to spawning grounds and juveniles traveling to the estuary and/or Pacific Ocean. 

Conclusion 

Riverine restoration activities contribute and provide for the positive long-term health of the 

riverine habitats and wildlife on the Refuge and contribute to the overall biological diversity 

found on these lands. 

6.3.2.5 Freshwater Wetlands (Naturally Occurring) 

Naturally occurring freshwater wetlands on the Refuge include an array of diverse aquatic 

habitats including swamps, marshes, seeps, springs, and seasonal wetlands. Also included in this 

category are beaver ponds, which have been constructed through dam building and maintained 

by these mammals in various refuge streams, creating open ponds and marshes which provide 

important ecological benefits to a variety of wildlife species. 

Conclusion 

Protection of the permanent and semi-permanent natural freshwater wetlands on the Refuge 

contributes to the long-term positive benefits for the wildlife which depend on freshwater aquatic 

habitats. 

6.3.2.6 Estuarine Restoration 

Estuaries and their associated mudflats, salt marshes, tidal channels, and open waters are 

considered one of the most productive habitats on earth. Unfortunately, estuarine habitats worldwide have been severely reduced, and water quality has been negatively affected by pollution. A 

large portion of historical estuarine habitat in Willapa Bay has been lost to diking, 

channelization, dredging, and filling. According to ONRC calculations, Willapa Bay originally 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

contained approximately 14,620 acres of saltwater wetlands. Now there are 5,277 acres. This 

represents a 64% loss of estuarine wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). As estuarine 

habitat has been lost, populations of associated fish and wildlife have also declined. Loss of 

saltwater wetland habitat is considered one of the most common limiting factors blamed for the 

decline of nearshore or estuarine salmon habitat. 

Prior actions by the Refuge in the late 1940s and early 1950s contributed to loss of estuarine 

habitat in Willapa Bay. At that time, a large portion of refuge saltmarsh habitat was eliminated 

by diking to create pasture lands and freshwater wetlands, believed to enhance overall waterfowl 

use of the Refuge and increase land available for agricultural production. The dikes have 

substantially reduced the amount of historical shoreline habitat and serve as a barrier, reducing 

nutrient input to the estuary and interrupting the physical, chemical, and biological processes of 

the estuarine system. Small streams including Lewis Stream, Porter Point Stream and Dolman 

Creek do not connect directly with the estuary. Although fish ladders were incorporated into two 

water control structures in the dike system in 2001, anadromous fish species, including salmon, 

are restricted in their movements to and from spawning and rearing areas. The conversion of 

estuarine wetlands to freshwater wetlands and pasture by diking has removed important natural 

habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and salmon as well as many other estuarinedependent species. 

A major objective of the proposed refuge alternative is to restore historic estuarine habitat. 

According to the Coastal Resources Alliance, restoration of Willapa Bay’s estuarine habitat 

would likely benefit a range of native marine species. Restoration of estuarine habitat would 

also be of value to local communities who stay here because of the quality and productivity of 

the marine environment (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Estuarine habitat restoration is also more practical at this time with the imminent eradication of 

the invasive exotic smooth cordgrass (Spartina) from Willapa Bay. Spartina formerly covered a 

large portion (>12,000 acres) of Willapa Bay’s intertidal mudflats and would have made this type 

of estuarine habitat restoration much more difficult. Without control, Spartina would have 

rapidly infested any additional estuarine habitat created. 

The most reliable method of estuarine restoration is dike removal or breaching. Once saltwater 

influence has been restored to diked wetlands, natural processes are initiated that eventually lead 

to enhanced habitat value (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Key ecosystem processes would be reinitiated when saltwater influence is restored, including 

tidal hydrology, cycling of organic matter, and sediment movements. New off-channel habitat 

would be available to fish. Organic nutrients would be added. New plant communities would 

establish and make organic matter and prey items available (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Clams, shrimp, small invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals would use restored habitat. 

Breaching or removing the dikes would lead to reclamation of a portion of the historical 

intertidal mudflats, as well as valuable saltmarsh habitats, maximizing the availability of these 

habitats for wildlife resources. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-11 

Effect on Existing Habitat and Vegetation 

Estuarine restoration would reduce the amount of freshwater wetland habitat on the Refuge due 

to the conversion of managed freshwater impoundments to estuarine habitat. Currently the 

impoundments contain large percentages of non-native vegetation including reed canarygrass 

and tussock. Also, conversion of short-grass fields to estuarine habitat would impact the existing 

vegetation within the fields; however, the majority of these plants are non-native species. For 

this reason, the negative impact to current vegetative resources from the restoration actions 

would be considered minor. 

Effect on Waterfowl 

Waterfowl use of estuarine areas in and around the Refuge has been consistently high from 

historical times to present. In a 1940 Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Narrative Report, the 

following statement was made (prior to acquisition of some of this area by the Refuge): “With 

this writing, this office would like to go on record as recommending that every available means 

known to the Service be used in holding and protecting the feeding grounds at the south end of 

the Refuge, at the mouth of the Bear River and known locally at Porter’s Point. At the present 

time the area as named is the most valuable waterfowl habitat in possession of the Refuge. The 

area in question is not in ownership by the Service and is only protected and reserved at present 

by state closure. Any and all concentrations of ducks and geese in and on this refuge is at all 

times at this point.” References to high Canada goose use of refuge tidelands were also made in 

a 1941 Narrative Report. 

The 1944 Narrative Report states: 

It was also noted that more birds were consistently feeding around the bays, and 

especially Long Island’s high grass tide-lands, sloughs and beaver dams and less in the 

fields and lakes of the Peninsula where most of the hunting of this area is done....Pintail 

have been unusually scarce on the lakes of the peninsula, but always could be observed 

on the low mud flats when the tide was low....The persistent and very important supply 

of food however, is from the higher grass tide lands. At every extreme high tide the 

birds flock on to these areas and feed on the seeds of deschampsia, carex, triglochin, 

Spartina and so on. Never-the-less, judging from the meat, it is still evident that they 

feed more on marine animal life and less on cultivated grains than do the birds along the 

inland flyways....The extensive beds of eel grass around the Smoky Hollow area and 

northwest shores of Long Island are apparently in good shape and fairly plentiful. The 

large flocks of brant, geese, and scoters regularly found in these areas would indicate 

that the eel grass is contributing an important amount of food to the migrants. 

Additional references to high Canada goose use of refuge tide flats and tidal marsh areas were 

also made in the 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 Narrative Reports. The 1950 

Narrative Report also made reference to high-quality waterfowl food sources in the tidelands. 

Recent evidence of high goose use in refuge estuarine areas as compared to refuge pastures was 

collected and analyzed by Dr. Kim Patten of Washington State University and his staff. The 

comparative survey of migratory goose use of the two types of habitats (salt marsh at the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Refuge’s Porter Point Unit and pasture lands at the Riekkola Unit) for foraging revealed greater 

use by geese of the salt marsh when compared to that of the adjacent managed pastures protected 

by dikes. Goose use of the salt marsh occurred regardless of the level of water coverage by the 

tides. Survey data suggests that migrating geese use salt marsh an average of 8.6 times more 

than the Riekkola Unit pastures (Patten et al. 2008). 

Estuarine restoration of the currently diked areas would enhance waterfowl populations by 

restoring these important habitats. 

Effect on Shorebirds 

Willapa Bay hosts some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the Pacific Coast during 

their spring and fall migrations. Shorebirds also use the bay as a wintering area. Research 

efforts have found that many shorebird species collect in spectacular numbers at certain points 

along their migratory routes. These staging or stopover areas, like Willapa Bay, provide usually 

predictable concentrations of food resources which include small worms, crustaceans, flies, 

insect larvae, and other invertebrates, which help shorebirds build up fat reserves before and 

during their long journeys, which can reach from the Arctic to the southernmost tip of South 

America. Willapa Bay is a key stopover site along the Pacific Flyway (National Audubon 

Society 2004) and hosts hundreds of thousands of shorebirds, with dunlin and western sandpipers 

being the most numerous. Willapa Bay apparently meets the criteria for status as a site of 

international significance in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, although it is 

not officially a site (Harrington and Perry 1995). Willapa Bay meets these criteria because it 

supports up to 15.5% of the Pacific Flyway population of wintering dunlin and an average of 

over 100,000 total shorebirds in the spring (Buchanan and Evenson 1997). 

According to the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Brown et al. 2000) shorebird 

species have declined worldwide due to loss of habitat and human disturbance at staging areas, 

among other factors. Restoration of additional estuarine habitat, especially tidal mudflats, would 

be of great value to and maximize shorebird populations in Willapa Bay. This would also 

increase invertebrate habitat important to shorebird populations dependent on the littoral 

mudflats of Willapa Bay for prey. 

Effect on Fishery Resources 

Estuaries provide habitat for anadromous fish to make the transition between life in saltwater and 

freshwater environments. Adult salmon undergo the physiological transition necessary to 

survive in fresh water and reach the upstream spawning beds. Juvenile salmon make the 

physiological transition needed to adjust to salt water. Juveniles also spend time in the estuary 

foraging and growing. Refuge from predators and protection from currents and high flows are 

also provided by estuaries. The available literature indicates that different salmon species use 

estuarine habitat in complex and various ways. Chinook are considered the most dependent on 

estuarine habitat, chum second-most dependent and coho least dependent (Coastal Resources 

Alliance 2007). 

After more than a decade of focus on uplands and riparian habitat restoration, policy makers 

have broadened their attention and now seek to encompass the restoration of estuarine and near 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-13 

shore habitat (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). In 1998, the Western Washington Office of the 

USFWS prepared a literature review of the available scientific information on salmon utilization 

of estuaries (Aitkin 1998). The literature review also indicated that few studies have been done 

to evaluate whether salmon actually use estuarine habitat that has been restored. The studies 

cited were cautiously encouraging; they showed evidence of extensive use of restored habitat 

(Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). 

Reconnection of tidal channels by removing the dikes and water control structures would provide 

improved access and rearing habitat for resident and anadromous fish. Estuarine restoration of 

the currently diked areas would enhance fishery resources overall by restoring these important 

habitats. 

Under Alternative 2, 760 acres currently consisting of managed pasture and impoundments 

would be restored to estuarine habitat (includes open water, intertidal flats and salt marsh). 

Under Alternative 3, approximately 440 acres currently consisting of managed pasture and 

impoundments would be restored to estuarine habitat. With the goal of unrestricted tidal 

exchange, historic channels currently isolated within diked areas and removed from tidal 

influence would be reconnected to the Willapa Bay estuary. Such an action would assist in 

improving and maximizing the current estuarine system and contributing to the health of the bay 

and associated habitats. The project would be accomplished by removal of dikes and water 

control structures within the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola units (In Alternative 3 the 

Riekkola Unit would not be restored). Dikes would be removed completely to grade, and 

material would be removed or used to fill in the associated borrow ditch. Partial removal or 

breaching of dikes would not be considered as problems may result, including restricted tidal 

penetration and circulation, ponding, and erosion (USFWS 2004b). 

These efforts would concentrate on restoration of functional processes including tidal influences, 

sediment delivery, native vegetative communities, and channel networks. These processes would 

be instrumental to accomplish associated restoration of historical geomorphology and 

hydrodynamics. This action would also reduce or eliminate the extent of a highly invasive exotic 

plant, reed canarygrass, which currently infests the Refuge’s freshwater impoundments. Tussock 

infestation would also be reduced. Other exotic species, including nutria and bullfrogs, which 

currently use the freshwater impoundments, would be eliminated by restoration of estuarine 

habitat. Juvenile salmon habitat would be restored and other expected benefits include increased 

waterfowl, waterbird, and shorebird use. Protection and restoration of native estuarine and 

nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal in the Pacific Northwest Coast 

Ecoregional Assessment (Vander Schaaf et al. 2006) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional 

Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000). 

Successful estuarine restoration typically depends on recreating a fully functional tidal system, 

where the tidal prism or volume is sufficient for full tidal inundation in the restored area with 

each tidal cycle. Natural patterns in tidal flushing and circulation are critical to flush soils, carry 

nutrients and sediments to all parts of a restored site, and create the intricate system of tidal 

channels that feed a salt marsh. Conversely, tidal waters must be able to evacuate the site, to 

avoid ponding and fish entrapment. Excessive ponding would create lagoon-like or subtidal 

conditions, rather than a salt marsh. Isolated ponding can create artificially high salinities in 

water or soils due to evaporation and lack of flushing. Successful estuarine restoration also 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

depends on the ability of sediments to reach the restored site, to accumulate soils and build the 

elevations necessary to grow salt marsh vegetation (USFWS 2004). Saltmarsh plants require a 

narrow range of elevations in order to be able to successfully colonize an area. This would be 

taken into consideration when planning restoration activities. 

Currently a project is underway to determine engineering needs for the project including the 

amount of dike material to be removed and the capacity of the borrow ditch as well as 

bathymetry within the impoundment area. Partners in this project include the Willapa Bay 

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group. 

Conclusion 

Combined with other ongoing programs to restore/improve estuarine habitat in the coastal region 

for the benefit of salmonids, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other estuarine species, the estuarine 

restoration actions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would represent significant positive 

cumulative effects for the fish and wildlife that use these habitats. 

6.3.2.7 Refuge Acquisition Boundary Expansion 

Low-elevation coastal rainforest habitats, such as those small old-growth stand fragments found 

in the south Willapa Bay watershed, only occur in a few regions of the world. The Refuge 

contains portions of the typical habitats found in and around Willapa Bay and includes a rare 

274-acre remnant forest stand of old-growth western red cedar located on the Long Island Unit 

of the Refuge. Nearly all of the Refuge’s forested areas can be considered small in size. This 

limited size reduces the ability of the Refuge to provide landscape-level benefits such as a 

greater level of watershed and water quality protection and safeguards to sensitive habitats and 

species which may be considered somewhat compromised by the patchwork effect of the wide 

range of predominantly young forest stand age classes. 

Considering there is currently less than 1% of the original old-growth forests remaining in the 

overall 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed, the goal for the Refuge and its partners is to restore 

a forested landscape that is representative of past, unmanaged, landscape conditions. The natural 

ecological process within the low elevation coastal rainforest also supports and maintains healthy 

freshwater streams and the adjacent estuarine habitats of the bay. 

Under Alternative 2, the land acquisition boundary would be adjusted to include 1,909 acres in 

the Nemah/Naselle areas, 561 acres in the South Bay, and 4,334 acres in the East Hills. This 

additional expansion is designed to provide maximum protection of the watershed and habitats 

adjacent to Willapa Bay and the current refuge boundary. This expansion effort, in comparison 

with Alternative 3 and the current boundary, would maximize the opportunities for forest 

restoration efforts in a holistic landscape and ecosystem manner. Alternative 3 would expand the 

boundary to include lands directly adjacent to Willapa Bay (561 acres would be acquired in 

South Bay and 4,334 acres in the East Hills) and the Refuge. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, 

the Shoalwater Bay and Wheaton units would be divested from the Refuge. 

The proposal to expand the refuge acquisition boundary would also provide the opportunity for 

Service staff and their partners to increase studies and monitoring of native wildlife and their 

habitats. As necessary, Service staff and partners would restore habitats where appropriate while 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-15 

protecting important populations of endangered and threatened species and many other native 

plants and animals. In addition, the action alternatives would offer greater watershed protection 

by preventing erosion and contamination associated with potential development or timber 

harvesting activities. By expanding the refuge acquisition boundary, the action alternatives 

would complement other regional habitat acquisition and/or protection projects or programs. 

Conclusion 

The proposed refuge acquisition boundary expansion and potential future land additions (from 

willing sellers only) to the Refuge would contribute to the long-term, positive cumulative 

impacts on a variety of wildlife habitats and the water quality within the Willapa Bay watershed. 

The protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats within the proposed boundary expansion 

areas would represent a cumulative benefit to the long-term conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the overall biological diversity found on these lands. 

6.3.2.8 Refuge Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Expanded Elk and Deer Hunting 

Hunting affects other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in a variety of ways. Many 

non-hunters plan their vacations or visits to avoid being on a refuge during hunting seasons. In 

general, refuge visitors tend to seek out areas that offer amenities such as trails, parking areas, 

and information kiosks, as are available at the Headquarters Unit and the Leadbetter Point Unit. 

The majority of the wildlife-dependent recreational use on the Refuge occurs during the spring 

and summer months when elk and deer hunting does not occur. The Headquarters Unit, which 

receives a greater numbers of visitors, is not open for hunting. 

Regional and state-wide hunting opportunities are determined by the Washington State and are 

based upon a regulatory-setting process that involves state monitoring of big game wildlife 

populations. Current harvest levels for elk and deer and hunting seasons are set and regulated by 

WDFW. The refuge staff works with WDFW on an annual basis to identify hunting 

opportunities that are to be continued in concurrence with the state biologists. 

Considering the national trends in overall sport hunting participation (as outlined in Chapter 5), 

participation in hunting is not likely to increase and may, in fact, decrease. 

The Refuge currently has 8,020 acres available for big game hunting. Each of the alternatives 

proposes to continue the current big game and waterfowl hunting programs. In addition, hunting 

opportunities would be expanded with the proposed boundary expansion under Alternatives 2 

and 3. Complete details regarding the expanded hunt opportunities can be found in Appendices 

C and M. 

There is the potential that hunting could detract from the enjoyment of non-hunters. Overall, the 

hunting on the South Bay Units or on Leadbetter Point Unit for waterfowl would not be expected 

to increase. The limited number of hunters in those areas most likely would not create the 

potential for conflicts between non-hunters and hunters. Hunting for big game and waterfowl 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

already occurs, and would continue to occur, on private lands, state-owned tidelands in the bay, 

and on the Long Island Unit for big game. Also, hunting occurs during late fall and early winter 

when other recreational use is at a minimum. 

Conclusion 

Elk and deer hunting in Washington State is based upon a regulatory-setting process that involves 

state monitoring of big game wildlife populations. Current harvest levels and seasons are set and 

regulated by WDFW. Expanding hunting opportunities on the Refuge is not expected to have an 

effect on either harvest levels or the overall populations of either deer or elk. The Refuge’s role 

in the cumulative impact of elk or deer harvest, even solely on a statewide basis, is insignificant. 

The cumulative effects of additional elk and deer hunting on other wildlife-dependent recreation 

would be minimal. We conclude that the impacts to other public uses would be minimal due to 

the seasonal timing of this activity and the duration of the hunting periods. Despite elk and deer 

hunting opportunities throughout the region and locally, there are abundant opportunities for the 

public to view elk and deer. Hunting on the Refuge could result in some minor disturbance to 

other wildlife, which would be temporary and localized and result in negligible effects to nonhunted wildlife. 

Fishing 

The Refuge surrounds much of south Willapa Bay and has coastal beaches yet it is not 

considered a prime a fishing location. Public and commercial oyster and clam beds reside in 

Willapa Bay along with public and commercial fishing and crabbing. Fishing is not permitted on 

the Refuge’s non-tidal streams or interior sloughs. 

Conclusion 

The Refuge provides some fishing opportunities the location is not considered optimal for game 

fish. The long-term effects to fish and shellfishing on the Refuge are negligible. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Visitors have opportunity to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities 

including environmental education and interpretation. The Refuge hosts students from regional 

schools who visit educational science stations on the Refuge to learn more about the environment 

and how to be stewards of the environment. Annually (co-sponsored with the Friends of Willapa 

Refuge), this educational event is part of the fourth-grade environmental education program. 

With the proposed expansion of the Visitor/Administrative facility it is expected that the 

environmental education and interpretation programs would be improved and activities increased 

by having the expanded building and trail access to the bay. 

Conclusion 

With the improvements to facilities, there may be an increase in demand for environmental 

education and interpretation programs on the refuge. Facilities expansion is expected to have a 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-17 

positive long-term effect on the overall environmental education and interpretation on the 

Refuge. 

Camping 

Camping has been found an appropriate activity on the refuge for locations on Long Island only, 

which is due to the difficult nature of accessing the island because of the tidal cycles. There are 

five primitive campgrounds on Long Island with a total of 21 campsites. A maximum of five 

campers are permitted at each campsite and limited to a maximum stay of 14 days. To maintain 

the quiet, remote nature of the island, motor vehicles and power equipment are prohibited on 

Long Island. 

Conclusion 

Allowing camping on Long Island with limits on the number of individual campers per site and a 

limit for the length of stay provides an opportunity for wildlife-dependent public use activities to 

occur on the island and protection of Refuge resouces. Regulated camping activities would have 

negligible long-term effects on the habitats. 

Waterfowl Hunting 

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United 

States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 

determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, 

transportation, carriage, or export of any...bird, or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds 

can take place and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are 1) written after 

giving due regard to “the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic 

value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds;” and 2) updated 

annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the USFWS as the lead 

Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. 

Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the USFWS has administratively 

divided the nation into four flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. 

Each flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific) has a flyway council, a formal 

organization generally composed of one member from each state and province in that flyway. 

The Refuge is within the Pacific Flyway and allows hunting for ducks, geese, coots, and snipe. 

The USFWS annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting 

of migratory birds may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These 

frameworks are necessary to 1) allow state selections of seasons and limits for recreation and 

sustenance; 2) aid Federal, state, and Tribal governments in the management of migratory game 

birds; and 3) permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game 

birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the USFWS annually 

promulgates regulations (50 C.F.R. Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may 

select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting 

season. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

be allowed without them. Thus, in effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the 

hunting of migratory birds. 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, documented in 50 C.F.R. Part 

20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how 

long the rulemaking process would last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of 

migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which 

these results are available for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory 

game bird hunting regulations includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based 

on “early” and “late” hunting season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory 

game bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds 

other than waterfowl (e.g., dove, woodcock); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or 

resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting 

seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already 

established. There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing either early or 

late hunting seasons. For each cycle, USFWS biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret 

biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a 

series of published status reports and presentations to flyway councils and other interested 

parties. 

Because the USFWS is required to take the abundance of migratory birds and other factors into 

consideration, it undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the 

Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To 

determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the USFWS considers factors such as 

population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of 

breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After 

frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird 

hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of Federal and state 

governments. After USFWS establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states 

may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States 

may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks but never more 

liberal. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting, including the 

Refuge, are never longer or larger than the state regulations. 

NEPA considerations by the USFWS for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by 

the programmatic document, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of 

Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14), filed with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. A Notice of Availability was 

published in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and a Record of Decision was 

signed on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Current-year NEPA considerations for waterfowl 

hunting frameworks are covered under a separate Environmental Assessment, Duck Hunting 

Regulations for 2006-07, and an August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in 

a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376); the USFWS 

announced its intent to develop a new supplemental environmental impact statement for the 

migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as 

announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-19 

With regard to the effects of the Refuge’s current harvest of migratory birds, the impacts of 

continuing the recreational hunting program (Alternative 1) would be negligible. There are an 

estimated 75 visitor days devoted to migratory bird hunting. As hunting conditions for ducks are 

less than ideal on the Refuge, with many hunts having no harvest, the estimated daily harvest is 

approximately 1.75 ducks per hunt. There are on average 118 hunting visits devoted to geese 

each year, with a success ratio of 1 goose per visit due to the poor success rate of pass-shooting 

more than one-quarter-mile removed from the river. Snipe hunting is virtually non-existent on 

the Refuge. Considering the national trends in hunting participation, these numbers are not 

likely to increase and may, in fact, decrease. 

The State of Washington’s five-year average (2001-2005) harvest of ducks, geese, and doves was 

394,821, 48,140 and 73,108 birds, respectively (516,069 total). This includes harvest on other 

national wildlife refuges, other public lands and waters, and private lands. Annual snipe harvest 

rates vary considerably throughout the state and have ranged from 879 to 164,595 birds taken 

statewide within the past 10 years. In comparison with statewide harvests, the harvest of 

migratory birds on the Refuge is minimal and represents <1% of the statewide harvest. 

Conclusion 

The Refuge’s role in the cumulative impact of migratory bird harvest, even solely on a statewide 

basis, is negligible. 

Likewise, the indirect effects of harvesting migratory birds on the Refuge are negligible, as there 

are no known significant correlations between the population sizes of these species and other 

refuge resources. Some birds are taken by coyotes, bald eagles, and other raptors; however, the 

slight fluctuations in population sizes from hunting would have no effect on predatory species. 

Further, the areas frequented by eagles such as the Presidential Proclamation Boundary, are 

closed to hunting. Eagles foraging for waterfowl in these areas would not be impacted by 

hunting due to the spatial separation from hunting areas. This, added to the hunting regulations 

described earlier (e.g., non-toxic shot requirement), would protect eagles. 

Discontinuing recreational hunting program would, likewise, have no significant cumulative 

physical effects, although the social impacts could be significant. 

Visitor/Administrative Office and Maintenance Facility (with additional trail and boat 

launch) 

The proposed Refuge Office/Maintenance and Visitor Information Center on the Tarlatt Unit is 

intended to serve as the primary office headquarters and information center for visitors seeking 

information, education, and interpretation opportunities related to the Refuge. The Refuge is 

expected to attract 150,000 visitors per year, and this new facility would be open during office 

hours and depending on staffing and volunteers possibly open on weekends. The proposed site 

of the office complex would improve visitor access to the office staff. The site would utilize 

approximately 10 acres of grassland, short-grass fields, and wetlands on the Tarlatt Unit. We are 

not aware of any additional county or local expanded public use initiatives in the area. Measures 

would be implemented to mitigate all wetland impacts to any site selected. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

If the new facility is established, the decommissioning of the former office and maintenance 

facilities/sites habitats would be restored to historic values for wildlife. Priority wildlifedependent public use opportunities would increase with the establishment of new public facilities 

(trail, car-top boat launch, interpretive exhibits) improving access to view the South Bay and its 

wildlife resources. By maintaining one location for the Refuge facilities and restoring all other 

sites, there would be long-term positive beneifits for soils in these areas. Protection measures 

would be incorporated into all site plans to reduce or eliminate loss of site soils and or impacts to 

wetland habitats. 

Conclusion 

Cumulative impacts involving the public use program would offer an overall long-term positive 

improvement in the amount of on-site environmental education and wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities available to the public in south Willapa Bay. Priority public use 

opportunities could increase and would improve with the establishment of new public 

information facilities and access. These improvements would also help address the adverse 

effects that may result as the human population continues to increase in the region and visitation 

grows over time (see Chapter 5) 

During construction of the proposed new headquarters facility, soils would be disturbed to form 

graded surfaces and adequate foundations for proposed buildings and paved areas. BMPs during 

construction would be implemented to reduce erosion and soil compaction to areas outside the 

facilities construction zone, trail, and boat launch. 

6.3.2.9 Air Quality 

The restoration activities proposed may result in a slight temporary increase in vehicle emissions 

due to the proposed estuarine restoration, forest restoration, and construction activities identified 

in the plan. Once completed there would be no need for further active management with 

equipment on these lands. A slight increase in vehicular emissions could be expected due to an 

increase in visitation with the proposed construction of a visitor/administrative facility. Indirect 

benefits could occur with efforts to strengthen environmental education programs. 

Conclusion 

Negligible effects are expected for the long term for air quality and may be offset by 

environmental education programs on the Refuge. 

6.3.2.10 Water Quality 

With the proposed actions, the overall water quality, water chemistry, temperature, and risk of 

contaminant release would remain unchanged. Some localized, short-term effects might occur 

associated with various construction activities, although they would be offset by implementing 

BMPs and would be temporary and localized. Long-term changes in the amount of freshwater 

impoundments would change. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-21 

Conclusion 

Some minor negative impacts are expected to freshwater wetland impoundments transitioning 

with minor long-term positive effects transitioning to estuarine aquatic habitats. Long-term 

water quality would remain the same. 

6.3.2.11 Surrounding Land Uses 

Land uses would change with the refuge boundary expansion (upon acquisition from willing 

sellers) on 6,804 acres, resulting in a change away from commercial forest production to 

managed forest harvest activities needed for long-term ecological forest restoration. 

With the proposed Visitor/Administrative and Maintenance Facility, the change would 

consolidate and provide a more centralized location for refuge facilities. Allowing for 

roadway/sidewalk improvements that could include a southbound left-turn land and a 

northbound right-turn lane at required driveway access points onto Sandridge Road. 

Conclusion 

Surrounding land use changes with the proposed boundary expansion and refuge vicinity would 

provide negligible cumulative affects overall to the region.

6.3.3 Other Wildlife Management Actions within the Willapa Bay Watershed 

In addition to the Service, other conservation agencies and groups that manage and protect 

habitat in the area include TNC, The Friends of Willapa NWR, Washignton State Parks, WDNR, 

and WDFW. Impacts to area habitats resulting from the enhancement of rivers, streams, 

wetlands, forests, and managed upland/grassland habitats would result in an overall long-term 

benefit to a wide variety of native birds and animals. 

TNC and the Refuge have developed a landscape level forest restoration plan for the south 

Willapa Bay lands they manage (See Appendix K). 

Locally the economic benefit to the overall health of Willapa Bay would be enhanced by the 

habitat enhancement/protection efforts and potential growth of the Refuge. The mariculture 

industry has been an economic mainstay of the area for over 100 years; the south Willapa Bay 

economy would potentially benefit from an expanded Refuge by enhancing protection of the 

watershed and restoring the forests. 

Increased visibility of the new refuge headquarters, enhanced interpretation and educational 

materials, and the associated new trail expansion would potentially increase visitation/tourism to 

the community and enhance economic benefits as well. 

6.3.4 Potential Beneficial Cumulative Effects 

All alternatives could result in beneficial cumulative effects on the local economy. An increase 

in visitation to the Refuge would have a slight beneficial effect on the local economy. This 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

beneficial effect would also affect the economy in an additive manner, when combined with 

other economic impacts in the region, such as increased tourism not associated with the Refuge. 

6.3.5 Potential Irretrievable and Irreversible Effects 

The restoration of historic estuarine habitat necessitates the removal of all or portions of dikes 

and the conversion of some human-made artificial freshwater wetlands under all action 

alternatives. Although it would be possible to reconstruct the dike system and re-establish 

freshwater wetlands, this would be unlikely to occur once estuarine habitat is restored. 

Establishing new concentrated areas of public use, including the construction of additional 

parking lots and office/visitor/maintenance facilities, may result in irreversible and irretrievable 

effects on resources, such as a reduction in biological resources in the vicinity of the public use 

areas. Implementing BMPs would limit the likelihood of potential irretrievable and irreversible 

effects on biological and potential cultural resources. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 focus on concentrating public use areas and facilities in a common area, 

localizing any potential irretrievable and irreversible effects; these effects would be mitigated by 

focusing development of public use facilities in areas with no or few natural or cultural 

resources. Specifically, implementation of the following reasonable foreseeable actions may 

result in the irretrievable and irreversible commitments described below. 

 The office/visitor/maintenance facility complex would require approximately 10 acres 

and would be offset by restoring habitats on the previous office and maintenance 

facilities which are scattered around the Refuge. 

 Approximately a quarter-acre would be needed for the car-top carrier boat launch and 

small parking area on Doman Creek. 

 A 1-mile-long trail to the South Bay overlook would have a minimal footprint, yet the 

visitation on this trail would create localized temporary disturbance to wildlife in the 

vicinity. 

6.3.5.1 Implementing Elk and Deer Hunting 

An expanded elk and deer hunting program could be implemented or halted fairly quickly, and 

the limited impacts of any direct effects of hunting (e.g., wildlife or habitat disturbance, public 

use conflicts) could be reversed either through halting the individual hunt program, and/or 

limiting the hunting permits issued. There are no irreversible commitments of resources. 

6.3.5.2 Implementing Predator Management (Leadbetter Point Unit) 

The predator management program would be conducted under close biological scrutiny and 

monitored routinely. Predators would only be managed on an as needed basis. Western snowy 

plover nesting areas are already off limits to the public, and direct effects to public use are not 

expected. There are no irreversible commitments of resources. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-23 

6.4 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

The No Action Alternative (Current Management) would not effectively maintain or improve 

long-term productivity of refuge resources discussed in the CCP. 

All of the action alternatives are focused on the long-term enhancement and expansion of habitat 

for native species. The preferred Alternative 2 would be most effective at enhancing the longterm productivity of the Refuge and local ecosystem, south Willapa Bay watershed and 

contribute toward the maintenance and recovery of native fish and wildlife populations. 

There would be loss of freshwater wetlands from the conversion of this artificial habitat to 

estuarine habitat, if additional freshwater wetlands cannot be acquired at the same time and rate. 

In the longer term, with refuge boundary expansion under the action alternatives this could result 

in acquiring and then establishing more naturally functioning habitats that provide long-term 

benefits to the fish and wildlife species. There is potential for additional stream and freshwater 

wetlands within the proposed boundary expansion area. 

Short-term management activities that enhance long-term productivity within the Refuge are 

primarily related to ongoing forest habitat restoration, ongoing dune restoration management, 

and artificial freshwater wetland restoration with dike removal. 

The following habitat restoration activities would be undertaken under all alternatives. 

 Forest Plan implementation: thinning techniques, road decommissioning, forest 

plantings. 

 Vegetation removal—usually invasive species—through chemical or physical means 

(e.g., mowing, discing, chopping) for dune maintenance, grassland maintenance, and 

necessary invasive species removal. 

The short-term effects of these activities would include temporary effects on aesthetics, 

connectivity, and localized wildlife use of the project sites. Over time, impacts from the various 

alternatives are expected to have a positive effect on the refuge resources and wildlife. 

The effects for proposed hunting elk at the Leadbetter Point Unit would be temporary and short 

in duration. Construction and restoration activities would also be temporary. However, new or 

improved opportunities would be provided as part of the preferred Alternative 2, providing 

overall improvements in the programs. 

6.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The preferred Alternative 2 would result in refuge restoration activities that would change the 

current artificial freshwater impoundments to a natural estuarine environment. 

Relatively common wildlife species depend solely or largely on these freshwater wetland habitat 

and would be most affected by these reductions in this habitat type. The proposed restoration of 

estuarine habitat would provide very positive overall environmental effects and would benefit 

other affected species and many more species like salmonids, that are higher priority to recover 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

or maintain. Freshwater wetland acreage would be depleted within the diked area; however, 

improved natural saltmarsh habitat would provide other wildlife benefits, and the potential 

refuge acquisition expansion may provide additional opportunities to increase the overall amount 

and quality of freshwater wetlands in the Willapa Bay watershed. Changes proposed in the public 

use program may have some site-specific adverse effects such as construction projects (trail, boat 

launch, building facilities, and hunting programs) which may increase visitation and temporarily 

displace wildlife. Improved habitat and species monitoring would be undertaken as part of the 

preferred alternative and would assist refuge staff in adapting management approaches to 

maximize resource benefits under all actions. 
Appendix

Appendix

Headquarters stream

USFWS
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-1

Appendix A. Draft Land Protection Plan 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-2 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-3

Land Protection Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Pacific County, Washington 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

3888 SR 101 

Ilwaco, WA 98624 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

March 2010 

APPENDIX A

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-4 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

A.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... A-5 

A.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................... A-5 

A.2.1 Nemah/Naselle Area ...................................................................................................... A-5 

A.2.2 East Hills Area ............................................................................................................... A-5 

A.2.3 South Bay Area .............................................................................................................. A-6 

A.3 Status of the Resource .......................................................................................................... A-6 

A.4 Purpose of the Proposed Expansion ..................................................................................... A-7 

A.4.1 Wildlife and Habitat ...................................................................................................... A-8 

A.5 Land Protection Methods ................................................................................................... A-10 

A.5.1 Willing Seller Policy.................................................................................................... A-10 

A.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods ......................................................................................... A-10 

A.6 Land Protection Priorities .................................................................................................. A-11 

A.7 Ownership and Types of Acquisitions ............................................................................... A-11 

A.8 Coordination....................................................................................................................... A-11 

A.10 Social and Cultural Impacts ............................................................................................. A-13 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-5

A.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Land Protection Plan (LPP) in 

conjunction with the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Willapa NWR. 

Alternative 2 has been identified in the Draft CCP/EIS as the preferred alternative for the longterm (15-year) management plan for the refuge. This LPP is one component of the 15-year plan, 

which identifies LPP project details. Information regarding habitats and wildlife, as well as 

public and economic uses and the effects of the LPP are further described within Chapters 1 

through 5 of the CCP/EIS. 

Identified in this LPP is a description of the proposed LPP, land and habitat protection methods, 

and a priority listing of lands to be considered for acquisition within the proposed boundary 

and/or current approved boundary. 

Reference maps which identify the alternatives can be found within the CCP. Tract maps are 

provided within the LPP. 

A.2 Project Description 

Situated in the South Willapa Bay Watershed of Pacific County, Washington, the proposed South 

Willapa Bay Addition encompasses three distinct areas: Nemah/Naselle, East Hills, and South 

Bay (see Map 1). Combined, these areas total 6,804 acres. The nearest cities to these areas are 

Ilwaco, Long Beach, and South Bend. 

A.2.1 Nemah/Naselle Area 

The Nemah/ Naselle area encompasses 1,909 acres (three land ownerships). The areas are 

located slightly north and east of the Long Island Unit on the mainland and most of these 

properties are found directly adjacent to the bay. Highway 101 is east of this area. In general this 

area is upland forest habitat which can be described as a very young, less than 20-year-old 

monotypic Sitka spruce forest. This forested unit contains many small seasonal streams and 

drainages that flow directly into Willapa Bay and many gravel logging roads bisect this area. 

The current preferred alternative in the draft CCP/EIS includes restoration of forest habitat 

within the Nemah/Naselle area and would include road decommissioning and forest restoration 

management practices that would improve and protect the water quality of the bay important for 

many species such as juvenile salmon and shorebirds. 

A.2.2 East Hills Area 

The East Hills area encompasses 4,334 acres (six land ownerships) located west of the Bear 

River Ridge and east of highway 101. This is the largest area being proposed in the CCP/EIS 

acquisition boundary expansion. The area follows the Bear River watershed boundary from the 

crest of the Bear River ridgeline leading toward the west and connecting with current Refuge 

Bear River Unit. This East Hills area strategically connects The Nature Conservancy property, 

which lies on the eastside of the Bear River ridgeline. Connection of the two forests would 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-6 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

provide the landscape-scale habitat restoration and protection opportunities (see Map 1). The 

current patchwork of upland forest age classes is evident in this area: newly harvested timber 

units (clear cuts) to well-established second- and third-growth forest stands. The area has a large 

number of gravel roads, which bisect small streams and drainages. Restoration opportunities 

would also include decommissioning old gravel roads and restoring fish passage as appropriate. 

A.2.3 South Bay Area 

The South Bay area encompasses 561 acres (five land ownerships). The ten surrounding upland 

units that make up the 561 acres are considered upland forest habitat, and over half of these acres 

have been utilized for timber purposes within the last five years. The area is bordered by refuge 

wetlands to the north; historically this area was diked and developed into the intensively 

managed wetlands and grasslands. The CCP proposes to remove the Refuge’s artificial dikes 

adjacent to the upland forested area and promote tidal function of the historic estuarine habitat. 

Future acquisition of the upland area adjacent to the current refuge lands would provide an easily 

managed/recognized refuge boundary. Forest habitat restoration within the area would include 

road decommissioning and forest restoration management practices, which would improve and 

protect the water quality of the bay important for juvenile salmon, shorebirds and the mariculture 

industry. Acquisition would also protect the current remaining forested lands from future timber 

harvest activities and/or development. 

A.3 Status of the Resource 

Land use activities have impacted fish and wildlife habitat values in the Willapa Bay area. There 

is increasing pressure for development of bay front property for residential use, as well as future 

timber harvest of these lands. Pacific County land use restrictions in the area are classified as 

timber land, which precludes development. However, landowners can ask for re-zoning to allow 

for development. Currently there is a 5-acre minimum restriction in place per house outside of 

designated zones/towns. Several property owners (private and commercial) within the proposed 

project study area presently have lands for sale. If sold, the lands may become new housing 

developments. It is well documented that with development of communities, nonpoint source 

pollution increases within a local watershed. Nonpoint source pollution in the bay may increase 

and degrade the water quality within the watershed as lands are cleared and developed with 

newly constructed roads and homes. Potential nutrient loads, sedimentation, concentrations of 

pollutants will run-off, and possibly in the future, further degrade this important ecosystem and 

its fishery resources. Present impacts to the overall water quality within the south Willapa Bay 

are not known. 

Continued habitat fragmentation due to timber harvesting and development may limit the ability 

of the Refuge and its partners to develop habitat planning and restoration activities on a viable 

landscape level that would provide habitat benefits to wildlife and threatened and endangered 

species. 

Climate change poses a considerable threat to the temperate northwest rainforests. The forests 

are quite sensitive to climate variation because warm dry summers stress them directly, by 

limiting seedling establishment and summer photosynthesis, as well as indirectly, by creating 

conditions favorable to pests and fire. The extent, species mix, and productivity of northwest 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-7

forests are likely to change under projected twenty-first-century climate change, but the specifics 

of these changes are not known with confidence at present. Refuge Sitka swamp forested lands 

found adjacent to the bay and rivers may be impacted by sea level rise. In time, these forest 

loses could be mitigated by increasing the protected forested area within the proposed boundary 

expansion area. Any sea level rise will not affect upland forest lands identified in our proposal. 

A.4 Purpose of the Proposed Expansion 

The boundary expansion proposal would set the stage for the Refuge and its partners to work 

together on a landscape scale to achieve the historic late-successional old-growth forest 

condition, protect forest habitat, protect habitat for endangered species and provide long-term 

protection of the South Willapa Bay watershed. 

The expansion of the Refuge would 1) contribute to the protection and overall health and 

function of the watershed that supports a healthy Willapa Bay and the aquatic species of the bay, 

2) create an opportunity to enhance and restore western red cedar forests to eventually reestablish late-successional old-growth function, 3) protect and restore important migratory bird 

habitat, especially threatened and endangered species such as the marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) and spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), 4) contribute to the 

enhancement of riverine/stream habitat where necessary for the benefit of endangered salmon 

and other species, and 5) provide high-quality wildlife-dependent public use where appropriate. 

The LPP boundary is located within the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion. The Service’s goal for 

the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion is to protect, restore, and enhance the function, structure, and 

species composition of ecosystems for fish and wildlife conservation for the continuing benefit 

of people by implementing an ecosystem approach to management. This goal will be attained to 

the degree that the Service, working through partnerships, would 1) minimize species extinction, 

2) reverse population declines, 3) maintain and enhance healthy populations of native fish and 

wildlife, 4) provide people with healthy ecosystems, and 5) work with our partners and the 

public at all levels. 

The objectives of the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion are to 1) maintain high biological 

productivity, reverse population declines, and recover federally listed species, 2) combine and 

coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and private forest management practices and watershed 

restoration efforts on a holistic ecosystem approach across ownership boundaries, 3) increase 

awareness and knowledge of fish and wildlife issues and ecosystem management, and 4) provide 

state-of-the-art biological data to resource managers and partners to restore functioning 

watersheds and improve forest management practices. 

The Refuge expansion would help achieve North Pacific Coast Ecoregion goals and objectives 

by 1) actively managing and restoring forest habitat to achieve late-successional old-growth 

quality which would benefit a variety wildlife species, 2) protecting and restoring habitat for 

populations of federally listed birds (marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl), 3) enhancing 

and contributing to existing habitat protection efforts in southwest Washington by The Nature 

Conservancy, Cascade Land Trust, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, 4) providing native habitats that will maintain and enhance 

healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species, 5) protecting the long-term water quality 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-8 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

of the bay, and 6) providing quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities where 

appropriate. 

The purpose of the boundary expansion is identified in Goal 10 of the draft CCP/EIS: “To 

contribute to the protection of the long-term environmental health of the Willapa Bay 

ecosystem.” The objective of the goal is “to implement the new Land Protection Plan, 

recognizing the prioritized lands which provide habitat for endangered and threatened wildlife 

and the overall protection of the Willapa Bay ecosystem.” Also identified in the draft CCP/EIS 

are wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, which would be considered for new refuge 

lands acquired in the future. These recreational opportunities would be implemented only if 

found to be appropriate and compatible. 

Also within the Refuge’s long-term management plan, the draft CCP/EIS identifies the latesuccessional forest under Goal 1: “Protect, maintain and restore ecologically functional latesuccessional forest habitats (mature and old-growth forest) characteristic of the low-elevation 

temperate forests in the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species, migratory and resident birds, and a diverse assemblage of other native 

species.” 

This project would provide the necessary protected habitat linkage to The Nature Conservancy 

and Cascade Land Conservancy lands outside the expanded boundary. By combining the 

conservation efforts with a shared focus on restoring late-successional old-growth forest habitat, 

success of this shared vision will result in landscape-level conservation measures that will help 

maintain wildlife populations, help protect water quality of the bay, and help with the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species. 

The authorities for the proposed expansion include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 742(a)-754) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715-715d). The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes the Service to use funds made 

available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11) to 

acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Federal 

monies used to acquire private lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived 

primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax 

revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

A.4.1 Wildlife and Habitat 

Low elevation coastal rainforest habitats, such as those small old-growth stand fragments found 

in the South Willapa Bay Watershed, only occur in a few regions of the world. The Refuge 

contains portions of the typical habitats found in and around Willapa Bay and includes a rare 

274-acre remnant forest stand of old-growth western red cedar located on the Long Island Unit 

of the Refuge. Nearly all of the Refuge’s forested areas can be considered small in size, which 

reduces the ability of the Refuge to provide landscape-level benefits such as a greater level of 

watershed and water quality protection, as well as safeguards to sensitive habitats and species, 

which may be considered somewhat compromised by the patchwork effect of the wide range of 

predominantly young forest stand age classes. Considering there is currently less than 1% of the 

original old-growth forests remaining in the overall 700,000-acre Willapa Bay watershed, the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-9

goal for the Refuge and its partners is to restore a forested landscape that is representative of 

past, unmanaged landscape conditions. The natural ecological process within the low elevation 

coastal rainforest also supports and maintains healthy freshwater streams and the adjacent 

estuarine habitat of the bay. 

Historically, forests within this area have been managed for timber production over most of the 

last century. Extensive forest management over the years has profoundly changed ecological 

conditions within the landscape. Altered streams create scouring and carry high sediment loads, 

and extensive forest road systems fragment habitat and modify hydrological processes. The 

dominant, simplified, young-managed forests of today do not support several species that are 

dependent on complex low elevation coastal old-growth rainforest including the federally listed 

marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, which is currently extirpated from the Refuge. Lack 

of late-successional forest habitat is one reason for the disappearance of the spotted owl from the 

Refuge. Spotted owls use regenerated forest but depend greatly on old- growth forest for nesting 

and prey species. (Late-successional forests are forests in the mature and old-growth age 

classes.) 

Recovery efforts regarding the marbled murrelet and spotted owl would best be accomplished by 

large contiguous areas of late-successional forest in the Willapa Bay area. Currently, suitable 

late-successional forest habitat in the Willapa Bay area is isolated and highly fragmented. As 

stated previously, less than 1% of the original old-growth forests remain in the Willapa Bay 

watershed. It should be noted that second- and third-growth forests currently dominate the 

watershed. According to recommendations in the recovery plan for the threatened marbled 

murrelet, in order to maintain a well-distributed marbled murrelet population, recovery efforts 

should be directed toward increasing the size and distribution of marbled murrelet populations 

between the Long Beach Peninsula and the small populations in southwestern Washington. NonFederal lands in this area currently provide a limited amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat 

and have the potential to be managed to increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat in the 

future (USFWS 1997a). 

The forests of the Willapa Bay area provide habitat for diverse assemblages of species, from 

familiar vertebrate species (black bear, Roosevelt elk, black tail deer, river otter, etc.) and 

abundant salmon to the less known, like fungi, lichens, bryophytes, and many groups of 

invertebrates such as mollusks and millipedes. These species, and others, all play key roles in 

functional pathways within the forest, such as decomposition and nutrient cycling. Amphibians 

are another important group of species within these forests. Surveys by The Nature Conservancy 

have shown the area to have some of the highest species richness found in the Pacific Northwest. 

Willapa Bay is often described as one of the most pristine water bodies along the western coast 

of the United States. Mariculture is a large fishing industry here, which relies completely on the 

outstanding water quality of the bay. In addition to commercial shellfish operations and 

commercial fishing, recreational clamming, crabbing and fishing are also supported by the 

excellent water quality and healthy tidelands of Willapa Bay. All are recognized as important 

economic industries and activities in Pacific County. By protecting and restoring the current 

forest lands surrounding the south bay, the Refuge and its partners will protect and improve the 

water quality which is important to the area’s economy. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-10 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

Efforts toward additional protection of the Willapa Bay watershed have been initiated between a 

number of entities including the Refuge and The Nature Conservancy, as well as state and county 

agencies and private landowners. Because of the rarity and biological significance of old-growth 

forest ecosystem in the Willapa Bay region, the Refuge and The Nature Conservancy have been 

working together since 2003 to restore a forested landscape within their respective boundaries, 

that is representative of past, unmanaged, landscape conditions. 

A.5 Land Protection Methods 

A.5.1 Willing Seller Policy 

It is the policy of the Service to acquire lands from willing landowners. Landowners within the 

approved refuge boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any other interest in their 

property are under no obligation to negotiate with or sell to the Service. In all acquisitions, the 

Service is required by law to offer 100% of fair market value, as determined by an appraisal 

completed by a professional, certified appraiser, in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal 

Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. 

The Service, like other Federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain 

allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands, such as easements, 

for the public good. The Service rarely uses this power. The Service typically is not compelled 

to buy specific land within a certain time frame. 

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

landowners who sell their property to the Service may be eligible for certain payments. 

Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. 

A.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods 

A variety of habitat protection methods can be used to preserve fish and wildlife habitat. The 

actual method selected for any individual parcel will depend upon both the needs and desires of 

the landowner and the Refuge. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the landowner retains 

full use, control, and responsibility for the property. Cooperative efforts could involve key 

partners, including the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe and The Nature Conservancy. 

A.5.2.1 Cooperative Agreements. The Service can enter into cooperative agreements with 

landowners to improve wildlife habitat management. Cooperative agreements may specify 

shared responsibilities or a transfer of funds from the Service to another entity or vice-versa for 

management purposes. Cooperative agreements can be used for lands under any type of 

ownership. 

A.5.2.2 Conservation Easements. Conservation easements transfer some, but not all, property 

rights to the Service as specified by mutual agreement. Easements are managed in partnership 

with landowners and enable traditional low impact land uses (such as forestry and agriculture) to 

continue on the landscape, while protecting wetlands and wildlife habitat. Under a conservation 

easement, a landowner could agree not to engage in activities damaging to wildlife habitat 

resources, and/or the Service could manage the land for wildlife. The Service can acquire 

easements through purchase, donation, or exchange. The property owner retains all 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-11

responsibility for paying property taxes. The Service could negotiate conservation easements on 

land under any type of ownership. 

A.5.2.3 Fee Title Acquisition. A fee title interest is normally acquired when 1) the fish and 

wildlife resources on a piece of property require permanent protection that is not otherwise 

available, 2) the property is needed for development associated with public use, 3) a pending 

land use could otherwise harm wildlife habitats, or 4) purchase is the most practical and 

economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee title acquisition transfers 

all property rights held by the landowner to the federal government. A fee title interest may be 

acquired by purchase, donation, or exchange. 

A.6 Land Protection Priorities 

The tract table lists the lands within the preferred alternative’s expansion boundary by parcel and 

tract number, land ownership, total acres, and priority (ownership information is from the Pacific 

County Assessor’s Office and is subject to change). Priorities 1, 2, or 3 are assigned to each 

tract, 1 means high, 2 means moderate, and 3 means low. 

Tracts are being considered for acquisition because of their biological significance, existing or 

potential threats to wildlife habitat, significance of the area to refuge management and 

administration, and/or existing commitments to purchase or protect the land. Landowners within 

the proposed refuge boundary and approved refuge boundary may or may not wish to participate 

in the Service’s habitat protection objectives, or may not wish to divest themselves from their 

land management responsibilities. Based on this, the final configuration of the acquired lands is 

impossible to predict. But because the parcels have been identified and the potential effects of 

converting those lands to Refuge status have been assessed in the DCCP/EIS, the delineated 

proposed expansion boundary will provide the Service with future habitat protection options if 

willing sellers and participants and available funds present themselves in the future. 

A.7 Ownership and Types of Acquisitions 

The proposed acquisition boundary expansion area is 6,804 acres. The largest percentage 

(approximately 50%) is held by six corporations for investment and timber production purposes. 

Two non-governmental organizations hold approximately 36% of the land. The City of Long 

Beach and the State of Washington hold approximately 10%, and four private individuals own 

approximately 4% of these lands (See tract table and maps). 

Acquisition efforts would be prioritized by funding availability and necessary wildlife and 

habitat protection priorities. Fee title and conservation easements would all be considered as 

options to acquire lands in this area. 

A.8 Coordination 

The Service worked with a variety of interested parties to identify issues and concerns associated 

with the proposed Refuge expansion. These interested parties included members of the public, 

interested private groups, landowners, elected officials, and state, Federal, tribal, and local 

government agencies. The Service’s public involvement activities included hosting public 

scoping meetings, developing and mailing planning updates, requesting information, undertaking 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-12 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

consultations, and responding to inquiries. The Service provided information about the proposal 

to the media and other interested or affected parties throughout the public scoping period 

(DCCP/EIS Appendix E). 

A.9 Refuge Revenue Sharing 

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

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

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

substitute payments; replacement housing payments under certain conditions; relocation 

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

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

the Federal government. 

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469), the Service would 

annually reimburse Pacific County for tax revenue which is lost as a result of the Services 

acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall 

pay to each county in which any area acquired in fee title is situated, the greater of the following 

amounts: 

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

of the fee area that is located within such county. 

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

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

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

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

a fee area is located in two or more counties, however, the amount for each county shall 

be apportioned in relationship to the acreage in that county. 

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

governmental funding deficits. Congress may appropriate, through the budget process, 

supplemental funds to compensate local governments for any shortfall in revenue sharing 

payments. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires Service lands be reappraised every five 

years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. Payments under this Act 

would be made only on lands that the Service acquires in fee title. On lands where the Service 

acquires only partial interest through easement, all taxes would remain the responsibility of the 

individual landowner. 

The most recent Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payment to Pacific County of $ 46,765 was based 

on the 2005 Refuge Revenue Share Appraisal and may also be representative of federal 

budgetary constraints determined annually by congress. Appraisals of Refuge lands are 

conducted every five years and the 2005 appraisal evaluated approximately 11,000 fee title acres. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-13

The formula of three-fourths of one percent of fair market value (estimated appraised value) is 

what is commonly used to determine the revenue sharing payments because this formula usually 

results in the highest revenue sharing calculation. 

The most recent appraisal (2010 Appraisal Review and Approval of the Willapa Bay NWR 

Appraisal, Pacific County, Washington) identified 4,121 acres as second growth forest lands, 

timberland with reproduction, at an appraised/estimated value of $2,800 per acre. These Refuge 

lands are appraised and evaluated as if they are privately owned parcels; the Refuge timberlands 

are in some cases generally larger continuous tracts of forested land specifically set aside for 

conservation purposes. The appraisal estimate value is based on the current local land and timber 

values at the time of the appraisal. 

The future Revenue Sharing Act payments under the proposed land acquisition alternatives (see 

Goal 2.4.10), for Pacific County timberlands, would generally be higher than the timberland 

taxes that would have been collected for these same private properties. The County property tax 

revenue is based only on the land value; a future tax is obtained once the timber is harvested. 

Under Service ownership, these timberlands would be conserved for the long-term as part of the 

Refuge for wildlife and habitat purposes. If the proposed lands are acquired for Refuge purposes, 

the State and County would not receive tax revenue for timber cut (five percent of timber value) 

on the lands identified in the alternatives. 

A.10 Social and Cultural Impacts 

The current quality of life for communities and individuals around the proposed additions to the 

Refuge is expected to be the same or better as a result of the refuge addition. Intensified forest 

management would increase habitat quality and improve wildlife use which would result in 

positive effects for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities at the 

Refuge. Improvements would also enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly 

the opportunity to observe active habitat restoration/management activities. 

In addition, enhanced forest and stream habitats would likely improve big game hunting and 

fishing opportunities (DCCP/EIS Chapter 5). Approximately 6,804 acres could be considered for 

expansion to open up to a big game hunting program. If sufficient lands are acquired that allow 

for adequate wildlife sanctuary, minimal conflicts with other priority public uses are expected. 

The hunting regulations on the acquired lands would match adjacent refuge lands and be in 

accordance with Washington Department Fish and Wildlife guidelines. 

Bank fishing opportunities would be investigated along the shores of Willapa Bay and the rivers 

that enter it if appropriate sites were acquired. Overall, the fishing opportunity at Willapa 

Refuge is not expected to decrease (DCCP/EIS, Chapter 5). 

The Refuge’s environmental education program could be expanded to include formal and 

informal events highlighting the habitat restoration activities. A new trail could be established, 

and trails could be expanded within the preferred acquisition boundary and would offer greater 

diversified wildlife viewing opportunities if appropriate lands were acquired. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

A-14 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan 

Through refuge expansion, an economic expansion is expected, which would be proportionate to 

increased recreation and public access. Increased revenue for the Refuge and the surrounding 

region would depend on what lands were acquired. The effects of potential new facilities, new 

trails, improved habitat, and more visits would be expected to contribute to an increasing trend in 

visitation, producing increased economic benefits (CCP/EIS Chapter 5). 

Expansion of the Refuge would result in the reduction of future commercial timber harvest 

opportunities and the conversion of some timberlands into long term conservation status for 

habitats, but the impact to the overall timber production economies of Pacific County would 

likely be minor. Forest restoration and management practices of the younger-aged stands on the 

lands identified for potential acquisition would include some standard timber management 

practices, such as thinning (see Appendix K). Forest management practices would change very 

little, if at all, from commercial forest management over the life of this plan. The proposed total 

acquisition is less than 2 percent of the 70 percent of Pacific County that is currently managed 

for long-term commercial forest production. 

Implementation of Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would have a minor but positive 

impact on property tax revenue. The preferred boundary expansion of 6,804 acres is 1.1 percent 

of the total 975 mi2

 area of Pacific County, of which more than 95 percent is private land (Pacific 

County 2010). The long-term benefits of expanding the preferred alternative boundary, would 

add protection and enhancements of the forests within the watershed, would help to provide for 

healthy water quality and benefit the mariculture industry and salmon streams. The future 

Refuges lands which may be acquired from willing sellers, would be opened to wildlifedependent public use opportunities such as wildlife observation, hunting and environmental 

education. These opportunities would provide expanded tax revenue from a potential increase in 

tourism and recreation. 

Tract Table and Maps 

The following tract table and maps identify the lands within the preferred alternative’s proposed 

expansion boundary by parcel number, landowner, tract number, parcel acres, County Assessor 

number, and priority; the maps also identify lands within the current approved Refuge boundary. 

Land ownership information was obtained from the Pacific County Assessor’s Office and is 

subject to change. Priorities 1, 2, or 3 are assigned to each tract (1 means high, 2 means 

moderate, and 3 means low). An explanation of the tract table columns and the numbers on the 

maps follows. 

 In Column 1 we listed parcel numbers; the corresponding parcel locations are identified 

in Maps 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E. 

 In Column 2 the names of the current landowners are listed. 

 In Column 3 the tract numbers assigned by the Service to each landowner’s parcel(s) of 

land are listed, and the corresponding tract locations are identified in Maps 2A and 2B. 

 In Column 4 the number of acres in each parcel of land is identified. 

 In Column 5 the County Tax Assessor’s number for each parcel of land is listed. 

 In Column 6 the priority the Service assigned to each tract of land is identified. 
WZ>#>NDOWNERED dRACdηCRES ASSESSOR # PRIORITY

1 730 TEXAS TIMBERLANDS II LTD 38,a 304 10111210000 1

2 NEIKES, JAMES J 30,b 20 10111223800 1

3 NEIKES, JAMES J 30,b 6 10111250002 1

4 NEIKES, JAMES J 30 37 10111241000 1

5 730 TEXAS TIMBERLANDS II LTD 38 84 10100732000 1

6 NEIKES, JAMES J 30,b 4 10111250003 1

7 CITY OF LONG BEACH 7 7 10111231002 1

8 CITY OF LONG BEACH 7 6 10111233004 1

9 NEIKES, JAMES J 30 80 10111247000 1

10 NEIKES, JAMES J 30,a 13 10111250002 1

14 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 319 10100810000 2

15 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 81 10100922000 2

17 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 159 10100930000 2

18 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 318 10101780000 2

19 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2,d 658 10101600000 2

21 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 152 10102016000 2

28 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 9,h 21 11103211800 2

29 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 9,h 28 11103322000 2

30 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 41 11103300000 2

31 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 9,h 8 11103322001 2

35 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 46 11103234000 2

36 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 43 11103243000 2

37 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 120 10100516000 2

39 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 71 10100517000 2

40 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 77 10100423000 2

41 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 12 10100542001 2

42 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 1 10100542001 2

43 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 135 10100548000 2

44 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 3 10100542001 2

47 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 457 11102810000 2

48 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 317 11103300000 2

51 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 229 11103300000 2

53 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 419 10100980000 2

54 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 273 10100410000 2

56 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 259 10100437000 2

59 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36 309 10101580000 2

62 TC&I‐CHINOOK LLC 37 313 10101590000 2

64 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 159 10102126000 2

65 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 397 10102110000 2

67 TC&I‐CHINOOK LLC 37 556 10102260000 2

145 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 263 11103246000 2

147 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 85 11103210000 2

152 RAYONIER TRS WEST TIMBER LLC 36,a 91 10102017000 2

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-15
154 BEAR RIVER TREE FARMS LLC 82,c 51 10100524000 2

156 BEAR RIVER TREE FARMS LLC 82,b 140 10100524000 2

157 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 319 10100810000 2

158 NATURE CONSERVANCY 79,h 3 10100548000 2

68 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 44 12102150002 3

69 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 7 12102150001 3

70 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 25 12102142000 3

71 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 23 12102150004 3

72 MID‐VALLEY RESOURCES INC 85,c 42 12102814160 3

73 MID‐VALLEY RESOURCES INC 85,c 5 12102850001 3

74 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 64 12102827000 3

75 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 39 12102813000 3

76 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 161 12102830000 3

77 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 41 12102842000 3

78 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 72 12102950001 3

79 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 403 12103200000 3

80 COCHRAN, GREGORY J & SHERRY L 33 3 12103231003 3

81 COCHRAN, GREGORY J 32 3 12103231002 3

82 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 171 11100550001 3

83 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,f 93 11100423000 3

84 WILSON, CHARLES GARY TRUSTEE 34 90 11100431000 3

85 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,g 37 11100442000 3

86 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,g 85 11100441000 3

87 WILSON, CHARLES GARY TRUSTEE 34 36 11100431000 3

88 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY 9,g 39 11100950001 3

134 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 37 12102143000 3

136 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 34 12102150005 3

138 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 19 12102250007 3

139 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23 33 12102750003 3

141 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23,a 32 12102750003 3

142 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 23,a 37 12102750009 3

144 MID‐VALLEY RESOURCES INC 85,c 233 12102814160 3

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

A-16 Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
South Bay

East Hills

Nemah/Naselle

?w

In

AÃ

?w

AÅ

StackpoleRoad

A¦

In

y?

AÃ

In

In

Sandridge Rd

Map 1E Map 1D

Map 1C

Map 1B

Map 1A

Map 1. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

approved refuge boundary

T11N

R11W R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Stewardship area boundary

O

024

Kilometers

024

Miles

!

WASHINGTON

Willapa NWR

T10N

Index Page

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 12/2/10

File: WLP_LPP_IDX_LTR_ Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; 120210.MXD

Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R9W R8W

T12N T13N T14N

T11N T10N T12N T13N T14N

R11W R10W R9W R8W

Stewardship area boundary

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-17
82

81

80

79

78

242

241

243

241

Map 1A. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Land ownership parcels inside the

stewardship area boundary

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T12N

T12N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Land protection priority index no.

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_PARCELS1_ O 051310.MXD

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T11N

T11N

Page 1 of 5

150

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R11W

R11W

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

A-18

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
88

87

86

85 84

83

82

81

80

79

142

78

77

76

141

75 74

73

139

144

72

138

71 134 136

70

69

68

LYNN POINT ROAD

In

Map 1B. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Land ownership parcels inside the

stewardship area boundary

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T12N

T12N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Land protection priority index no.

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_PARCELS2_ O 051310.MXD

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T11N

T11N

Page 2 of 5

150

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-19
147 145

156

154

56

54

51

44

43

42

158 41 40

39

37

35 36

In

227

226

232

225

224

230

231

233

236

235

48

47

31 29 30 28

238 237

239

ELLENS W ORT H ROAD

PARPALA ROAD

In

Map 1C. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Land ownership parcels inside the

stewardship area boundary

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T11N

T11N

R11W R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Land protection priority index no.

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_PARCELS3_ O 051310.MXD

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T10N

T10N

Page 3 of 5

150

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

A-20

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
5

J

EL

D

N

E SS 

R O

AD

In

147 145

156

154

152

67

65 64

62 59

53

56

54

51

21

19

18

17

15

14

44

43

42

157

158 41 40

39

37

35 36

222

223

In

234

227

226

232

225

224

230

231

233

236

235

Map 1D. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Land ownership parcels inside the

stewardship area boundary

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T11N

T11N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Land protection priority index no.

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_PARCELS4_ O 051310.MXD

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T10N

T10N

Page 4 of 5

150

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-21
10 9

8 7 65

4

3

2 1

211

215 214

218

208

205

210

207

212 219

206

213

209

203 202

200 201

SAN

D

RID

GE 

R

OAD

67TH PLACE

55 STREET

J

EL

D

N

E SS R O

A D

PIONEER ROAD

JIM 

S

T

REET

95 STREET

S

P

R

U

C

E 

S

T

REET

102ND PLACE

85 STREET

113 STREET

In

Map 1E. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Land Ownership

Parcels in the

Stewardship Area Land ownership parcels inside the

stewardship area boundary

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T11N

T11N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Land protection priority index no.

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_PARCELS5_ O 051310.MXD

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T10N

T10N

Page 5 of 5

150

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R11W

R11W

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

A-22

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
South Bay

East Hills

Nemah/Naselle

?w

In

AÃ

?w

AÅ

StackpoleRoad

A¦

In

y?

AÃ

In

In

Sandridge Rd

Map 2B

Map 2A

Map 2. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS Tracts

inside the

Stewardship Area Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

approved refuge boundary

T11N

R11W R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Stewardship area boundary

O

024

Kilometers

024

Miles

!

WASHINGTON

Willapa NWR

T10N

Index Page

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 5/13/10

File: WLP_LPP_IDX2_LTR_ Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; 051310.MXD

Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R9W R8W

T12N T13N T14N

T11N T10N T12N T13N T14N

R11W R10W R9W R8W

Stewardship area boundary

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-23
9h

SANDRIDGE ROAD

EL LEN WO RTH R OA D

PARPALA ROAD

In

9g

9f

85c

33

32

34

23a

23

SANDR DI GE ROAD

LYN N POINT ROAD

In

2c

99

100

Map 2A. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS Tracts

inside the

Stewardship Area FWS designated ownership tracts

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T12N

T12N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Tract number

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 10/28/10

File: WLP_LPP_TRACTS1_ O 102810.MXD

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.5 1

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T10N

T10N

Page 1 of 2

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R11W

R11W

150a

79h

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

A-24

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
9h

38a

38

36a

36 37

82b

79h

7

2d

30b

30a 30

82c

40

39

98

82d

SANDRIDGE ROAD SANDR DI GE ROAD

EL LEN WO RTH R OA D

67TH PLACE

PARPALA ROAD

JELDN E SS RO AD

95 STREE T

85 STREET

J M I STREET

CRANBERRY ROAD

In

In

2c

100

88 103 90

94

104

2b 82e

101

104a

Map 2B. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS Tracts

inside the

Stewardship Area FWS designated ownership tracts

Stewardship area boundary

R10W

T11N

T11N

R10W

Existing acquired refuge lands

Tract number

Meridian: Willamette

Print Date: 10/28/10

File: WLP_LPP_TRACTS2_ O 102810.MXD

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.5 1

Miles

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Willapa NWR

T10N

T10N

Page 2 of 2

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Tax Lot Boundaries from Pacific County, current to February 2010; 

Township/Range Boundaries from WA DNR; Roads from Open Street Map, current to April 9, 2010

R11W

R11W

150a

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan A-25
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS

A-26

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A. Land Protection Plan
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations B-1

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1 [2006]) outlines the process that the Service 

uses to determine when general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses 

previously defined as wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 are generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other 

exempt uses include situations in which the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to 

control the activity, as well as refuge management activities. 

In essence, the appropriate use policy provides refuge managers with a consistent procedure to 

first screen and then document decisions concerning a public use. When a use is determined to 

be appropriate, refuge managers must then decide if the use is compatible before allowing it on a 

refuge. The policy also requires review of existing public uses. 

During the CCP process, the Refuge Manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge using the following guidelines and criteria as outlined in the 

appropriate use policy: 

 Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

 Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

 Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

 Is the use consistent with public safety? 

 Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first the use has been 

proposed? 

 Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

 Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

 Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

 Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D of the appropriate use 

policy for recreational uses description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into 

the future? 

The Refuge Manager also determined the following refuge use(s) were appropriate and directed 

that compatibility determinations be completed for each use: Camping, Haying and Grazing

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B-2 Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Willapa NWR

Use: Camping

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, state, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlifedependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _ X__ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate _____ Appropriate _X_ 

Refuge Manager:______________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_____________________________________ Date:______________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 02/06
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations B-3

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Camping 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria: 

(a) The use takes place within the boundaries of the Refuge. 

(b) 50 C.F.R. 26.31 states that “Public recreation will be permitted on national wildlife 

refuges as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only after it has been determined 

that such recreational use is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary objectives 

for which each particular area was established or with other authorized Federal 

operations.” Willapa National Wildlife Refuge allows camping because it is difficult 

and sometimes dangerous to access the island due to tidal influences. Camping allows 

visitors to safely participate in the big six activities on the island. 

(c) The use is consistent with Service Policy. Specifically, 8 RM 9.5 (b) states that 

“Camping and picnicking may be permitted only when required to implement or sustain 

an approved wildlife/wildlands oriented activity only when no other alternative is 

practical.” At Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, camping is sometimes required in 

order for the public to engage in wildlife-dependent public uses. 

(d) The use is consistent with public safety. 

(e) The use is consistent with goals or objectives in an approved refuge management plan 

and other refuge documents. 

(f) This use has previously been requested and allowed on the Refuge. 

(g) This use is currently manageable with available budget and staff. Based on current 

staffing, budget etc., this use would be manageable in future within existing resources. 

(i) The use does contribute to public understanding of the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. 

(j) This use would not impair existing wildlife-dependent uses. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B-4 Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Willapa NWR

Use: Haying and Grazing

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlifedependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _X__ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate_X

Refuge Manager:______________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_____________________________________ Date:______________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 02/06
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations B-5

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Haying/Grazing 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria: 

(a) The use takes place within the boundaries of the Refuge. 

(b) The use does not violate applicable laws and statues. 

There are specific regulations which address economic uses of refuges. At 50 C.F.R. 

29.1, it states, in part, that, “...We may only authorize public or private economic use of 

the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, 

where we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife 

refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.” Grazing livestock and 

harvesting hay are listed in the regulation as example uses to which this provision 

applies. 

(c) The use is consistent with Service Policy ( 6 RM 5 “Grassland Management”), which 

states that, “Grazing programs may be implemented only when they benefit or are not 

harmful to wildlife and wildlife habitat” and “Frequency of grazing will vary according 

to productivity and condition of the site and should be held to the minimum necessary to 

achieve the desired results” (6 RM 5.6 A.) The policy also states that, “annual haying of 

grasslands leads to reduced plant vigor, removal of organic material, and a reduction of 

wildlife values. However, under some circumstances annual haying may be necessary in 

order to provide emergent growth on seasonally flooded sites or otherwise support refuge 

objectives. In some situations, occasional haying can be used to remove excessive mulch 

accumulation that is inhibiting growth of desired plant species. Haying should be timed 

to achieve the desired results while minimizing the adverse effects” (6 RM 5.6 C.) 

(d) The use is generally consistent with public safety. 

(e) The use is consistent with goals and objectives in an approved refuge management. 

 

(f) This activity is consistent with refuge goals and objectives, specifically the objective to 

maintain short grass pastures for the benefit of Canada geese. 

(g) This use has not been previously denied on the Refuge. 

(h) The use requires the issuance of permits and oversight by refuge personnel. The Refuge 

currently has the available budget and staff that would be required to administer this use. 

(i) This use is more economical than using refuge personnel and equipment to manage the 

entire refuge pasture system. It is anticipated that this cost savings would continue into 

the future. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B-6 Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 

(j) Although the use by itself does not necessarily contribute to public understanding of the 

Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, the use is definitely beneficial to the Refuge’s 

natural resources providing management of the Refuge’s grasslands for the benefit of 

Canada geese. 

(k) It is anticipated that this use would not impair existing wildlife-dependent uses or 

impact other refuge recreational users. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations B-7

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Willapa NWR

Use: Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, state, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlifedependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _ X__ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate _____ Appropriate _X_

Refuge Manager:______________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_____________________________________ Date:______________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 02/06
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B-8 Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Research 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria: 

Project: Conducting research on refuge lands and waters 

Summary: The Refuge receives requests to conduct scientific research on refuge lands and 

waters. Research applicants must submit a proposal that would outline: 1) objectives of the 

study; 2) justification for the study; 3) detailed methodology and schedule; 4) potential impacts 

on Refuge wildlife and/or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), injury, or 

mortality; 5) personnel required; 6) costs to Refuge, if any; and 7) end products (i.e. reports, 

publications). Research proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff, Regional Office Branch 

of Refuge Biology, and others as appropriate prior to the refuge issuing a special use permit 

(SUP). Projects will not be open-ended, and at a minimum, will be reviewed annually. 

 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Some or all of the proposed activities would take place within refuge boundaries. The refuge has 

jurisdiction over those research projects that are sited within refuge boundaries. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

Any proposed research activities would comply with all applicable laws and regulations and any 

restrictions or qualifications that are required to comply with law and regulations would be 

specified in the SUP. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Through the review of individual projects, the refuge would ensure that they are consistent with 

applicable policies, especially Research on Service Lands Policy (803 FW 1). 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Through individual project review, the refuge will ensure that each project is consistent with 

public safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the project’s 

SUP. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Research activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful data that may 

contribute to refuge management and public appreciation of natural resources. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations B-9

(f) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The refuge receives fewer than 6 requests per year for this activity and it is manageable with 

available budget and staff. 

(g) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

The proposed activity at current levels would be manageable in the future with the existing 

resources (see above). 

(h) Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the refuge’s natural and cultural resources because the types of 

research projects approved are those which have the distinct likelihood to help achieve refuge 

purposes by providing information useful for the management of trust resources and may 

contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of natural and/or cultural resources. 

(i) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The refuge will ensure that the research activities will not impair existing or future wildlifedependent recreational use of the refuge during individual project review, prior to issuing a SUP 

for the project. 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B-10 Appendix B. Appropriate Use Determinations 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-1 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the CCP planning process evaluates 

uses projected to occur under Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative in the Draft CCP/EIS for 

the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge CCP. 

The evaluation of funds needed for management and implementation of each use also assumes 

implementation as described under Alternative 2. Chapter 6 of the Draft CCP/EIS also contains 

a cumulative effects analysis of the impacts related to public use, wildlife, and habitats. 

A. Uses Evaluated at This Time 

The following section includes CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to Service policy, compatibility determinations will be completed for all uses 

proposed under a CCP. Existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses must also be re-evaluated 

and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP or every 15 years, whichever comes first. 

Uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not explicitly required to be re-evaluated 

in concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the use have changed or unless 

significant new information relative to the use and its effects have become available or the 

existing CDs are more than 10 years old. However, the Service planning policy recommends 

preparing CDs for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses associated 

with the proposed action. Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document for 

public review. 

Refuge Use Compatible Next Year Due for 

Re-evaluation 

Waterfowl Hunting: Lewis, Porter Point, Riekkola, 

Leadbetter, Potshot, North Potshot, Stanley Peninsula 

yes 2025 

Big Game and Upland Game Bird Hunting (Elk, Deer, 

Bear, and Grouse) yes 2025 

Sport Fishing yes 2025 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife 

Observation, and Photography yes 2025 

Camping: Long Island yes 2020 

Haying, Silage Harvest, and Cattle Grazing yes 2020 

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys, yes 2020 

B. Compatibility—Legal and Historical Context 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not 

interfere with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Compatibility is not new to 

the Refuge System; the concept dates back to 1918. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-2 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

uses of refuge lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was 

established.” If a general public use is determined to be appropriate, the use must then undergo a 

compatibility review. A compatibility review is required for all appropriate public uses, 

including wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

The term “compatible use” is defined as a wildlife dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a refuge 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. 

The Administration Act defines sound professional judgment as a finding, determination, or 

decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, available science and resources, and adherence to other applicable laws. Included 

in this finding, determination, or decision is a Refuge Manager’s field experience and knowledge 

of the particular refuge's resources. 

Part 603 FW 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual sets forth the policy and guidelines for 

determining compatibility of proposed uses and provides procedures for documentation and 

periodic review of existing uses. In addition, the policy requires an opportunity for public 

review and comment on all compatibility determinations. When prepared in conjunction with a 

CCP, compatibility determinations are distributed for public review along with the draft CCP and 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or 

management use of a Refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally 

providing an economic return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are 

also subject to compatibility determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility 

determinations for uses when the Service does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service 

may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas where property rights are vested by others; where 

legally binding agreements exist; or where there are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, 

aircraft over-flights, emergency actions, some activities on navigable waters, and activities by 

other Federal agencies on “overlay Refuges” are exempt from the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility policy, developed in response to the 1997 amendments to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act), was adopted by the Service in 

October 2000 (http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The policy requires that a 

use must be compatible with both the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual 

refuge. This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. 

The Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge 

managers are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best 

available science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). 

Evaluations of the existing uses on Willapa Refuge are based on the professional judgment of 

Refuge personnel including observations of Refuge uses and reviews of appropriate scientific 

literature. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-3 

The Refuge Manager has the authority to determine, by exercising sound professional judgment, 

what is a compatible use. In addition to determining if a use would materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the System mission or the purposes of the refuge, the Refuge 

Manager must also evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of a use on refuge resources. Further, 

the cumulative impacts of the use when conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned 

uses of the refuge must also be considered. After evaluating the anticipated impacts of a 

proposed use and determining if any stipulations (terms or conditions) are needed to avoid or 

minimize potential adverse impacts, the Refuge Manager will determine whether or not the use is 

compatible. This determination is documented in writing and is available for review by the 

public. 

A proposed use can be denied without determining compatibly under certain circumstances, such 

as instances in which: 

1. a proposed use would conflict with other applicable laws or regulations; 

2. the use would result in conflicts with the goals or objectives of an approved CCP; or 

3. a use is determined to be inconsistent with public safety. 

Refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened. Regulations require that adequate 

funds be available for administration and protection of refuges before opening them to any public 

uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are to receive enhanced 

consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the Refuge has 

made a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at a refuge. If a 

proposed use is found not compatible, the use must be modified to be compatible or if the use 

cannot be modified to be compatible, then the use may not be allowed. Economic uses that are 

conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require compatibility determinations. 

References 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on NWRSIA): 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html

Compatibility regulations, adopted by the Service in October 2000: 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-4 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

C.1 Draft Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting on 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Hunting (Waterfowl) 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s) 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-5 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-6 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Description of Use: 

This compatibility determination examines existing and proposed sport hunting for waterfowl on 

designated units of the Refuge under Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) of the CCP/EIS. The 

Refuge currently provides 2,894 acres available for waterfowl hunting on Leadbetter Point and 

the South Bay Units. Under alternative 2, waterfowl hunting (geese included) would be 

expanded to 6,058 acres once the proposed estuarine restoration project is completed in the 

South Bay. 

Existing waterfowl hunting 

Portions of the Leadbetter Point Unit are open to walk-in duck and goose hunting. Access is by 

Stackpole Road. Hunting is prohibited in the snowy plover closure area. The Stanley, Potshot, 

and North Potshot units are also open during the Washington State hunting season for waterfowl. 

The Riekkola Unit is open to goose hunting only from blinds. Blind selection is done by lottery 

early the morning of each hunt. There is a small fee for use of the blinds. Funds from the fee go 

to help maintain the blinds. Although dogs are normally not permitted on the Refuge, they are 

allowed when actively engaged in hunting waterfowl and must be kept under control at all times. 

Access to the Porter Point Unit occurs through the Riekkola Unit, off 67th Street in Long Beach. 

The Porter Point Unit is suitable for car-top boats and small craft that can be easily moved. No 

gas-powered engines are allowed in the freshwater wetland. Parking is available across the 

Riekkola Unit pastures in a delineated graveled parking area with 10 sites for waterfowl hunters. 

The freshwater wetland can be accessed by the Porter Point Unit levee or boating the wetland. 

The saltwater marsh of Willapa Bay can be reached from the existing footbridge on the east end 

of Porter Point Unit or by walking into the bay from the levee on the west end of the unit. Signs 

are placed on the east and west boundary of the Porter Point Unit, extending into the bay, to 

delineate the hunt area. 

The schedule for the waterfowl hunt has been designed to best accommodate multiple users on 

adjacent areas throughout the week. A regulated goose hunt occurs on an adjacent pasture on the 

Riekkola Unit Wednesday and Saturday. To reduce impacts to the goose hunt, waterfowl hunting 

is open Sunday, Monday and Thursday on the Porter Point Unit. Gates are open from 6 am until 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-7 

5 pm. The Porter Point Unit is open for other wildlife observation on Tuesday and Friday during 

the waterfowl hunt season. All users other than waterfowl hunters walk in through the pedestrian 

gate at the main Riekkola Unit entrance by way of 67th Street. 

Expanded waterfowl hunt areas proposed include 

The proposed expanded waterfowl hunt area identified in Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) of 

the draft CCP/EIS would include opening to waterfowl hunting all newly restored areas in the 

South Bay (Porter Point Unit, Lewis Unit, Riekkola Unit, and portions of the Tarlatt Unit). All 

areas of the Refuge (excluding the Presidential Proclamation Boundary and portions of the 

Tarlatt Unit) would be open in accordance with the state season for waterfowl hunting. While 

the location of the existing temporary goose blinds would no longer exist due to the proposed 

tidal restoration of the area in the Riekkola Unit, the Refuge would evaluate locations for 

construction of several wood blinds and ensure that hunters with disabilities are adequately 

accommodated. 

Waterfowl Closure Areas 

The new headquarters office/visitor contact station would be located on the Tarlatt Unit, 

necessitating closure to goose hunting. The Presidential Proclamation Boundary surrounding 

Long Island would remain closed to all waterfowl hunting. 

Specific species/numbers to be taken and hunting periods would be set by Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to match adjacent areas open to waterfowl hunting. 

Under this proposal, hunting would be allowed consistent with state regulations except as 

specifically noted herein. Geese, ducks, coots, and common snipe would be permitted to be 

taken. Hunters may use dogs to aid in retrieval of birds but dogs would need to be kept under 

control at all times. Hunters may set up temporary blinds along the shoreline which must be 

removed at the conclusion of each hunting period. Under the preferred alternative, waterfowl 

hunting would occur within the tidally influenced Willapa Bay. Access to the waterfowl hunting 

areas would be by boat and/or foot access only. 

Both existing and proposed waterfowl hunting opportunities would complement state-permitted 

activities. Hunting is currently permitted on State of Washington–owned waters and tidelands 

within Willapa Bay. These adjacent waters are all tidally influenced submerged lands below 

mean high water. The Presidential Proclamation Boundary would remain closed for protection 

of migratory birds. 

Recreational hunting (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, as a priority public use, provided it is 

compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purpose for which a 

refuge was established. The Act declares that compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

are legitimate and appropriate priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The six uses—

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

interpretation—are to receive enhanced consideration in planning and management over all other 

general public uses of the Refuge System. When found compatible, these wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are to be strongly encouraged. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-8 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Availability of Resources: 

This expanded hunt opportunity would not require any new infrastructure or personnel. 

Administration of the hunt and annual coordination with the State of Washington would be 

required as would some law enforcement patrols. However, refuge staff is in place and capable 

of conducting these additional duties. The annual revision and printing of the refuge brochure 

and updates to the refuge website and other outreach information would be required at an 

estimated cost of $9,000. Refuge base funding is available to cover these costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

The number of hunters expected to use the South Bay and Leadbetter Point Units for hunting 

would be small, probably two to five parties at most per day. Waterfowl hunting already occurs 

on portions of the Refuge, state-owned waters, and tidelands in adjacent waters. The Presidential 

Proclamation Boundary area is closed to all migratory bird hunting and provides 11,000 acres of 

protected area for migratory birds within Willapa Bay. 

Bird species which could be temporarily disturbed by the proposed alternative include bald 

eagles, great blue herons, shorebirds, and other birds that reside within the riparian and saltwater 

estuary habitat of Willapa Bay. No effects are expected for fish populations of Willapa Bay or 

the Refuge. 

It is the policy of the Service to protect and preserve all native species of fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, and plants, including their habitats, which are 

designated, threatened or endangered with extinction. This includes protecting their habitats. 

Endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species that occur on or near the Refuge 

include marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and 

pink sandverbena. 

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Service is required to complete an 

evaluation of the proposed activity to ensure that the action does not unacceptably affect listed 

species such as those identified above. This Section 7 evaluation is attached to the CCP/EIS. 

Effects to other public uses are expected to be minimal due to the time of year waterfowl hunting 

takes place. Public use of the South Bay Units is minimal during the fall and winter due to 

inclement weather. Other recreational uses such as kayaking or boating in Willapa Bay have 

ceased by this time of year or are at minimal levels in the fall/winter months. 

Although hunting directly impacts individuals, the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected 

to change or to have a measurable effect on refuge, Willapa Bay, or Pacific Flyway populations, 

as waterfowl hunting is already occurring on the shorelines and in the estuarine sloughs of 

Willapa Bay and waterfowl hunting activity is not extremely high. Hunting may be either 

compensatory or additive to natural mortality (Anderson 1995). Compensatory mortality occurs 

when hunting substitutes for other forms of mortality (disease, competition, predation, severe 

weather, etc.) Additive mortality occurs when hunting compounds the total mortality. In some 

cases, hunting can be used as a management tool to control populations. In concert with Canada, 

Mexico, and multi-state flyway councils, the Service and state wildlife agencies regulate hunting 

so that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-9 

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). 

Hunting can alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of 

wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990 Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; Raveling 1979; 

Thomas 1983; White-Robinson 1982). In Denmark, hunting was documented to affect the 

diversity and number of birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Avian diversity changed from 

predominantly mute swan and mallard to a more even distribution of a greater number of species 

when a sanctuary was established. Hence, species diversity increased with the elimination of 

hunting. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an 

area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage 

less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern 

pintails on Sacramento NWR non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and 

remained high until the season was over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). 

Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally increased their use of the hunt area; 

however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. 

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other wildlife using the open waters of the Willapa 

Bay and associated tributaries would occur as a result of hunting activity. Migratory and 

wintering waterfowl generally attempt to minimize time spent in flight and maximize foraging 

time because flight requires considerably more energy than any other activity, other than egg 

laying. Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, 

such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, 

especially when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed 

only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 1995; Wolder 1993). Disturbance 

levels from hunting activity outside Chincoteague NWR were found to be high enough to force 

wintering black ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within surrounding salt marsh and 

diurnal resting within Refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a, 1989b). Unhunted 

populations have been documented to behave differently from hunted ones (Wood 1993). 

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does 

not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have 

been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting 

(Havera et al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of 

waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995; Paulus 1984). In 

Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries 

(Madsen 1995). Over a five-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important 

staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased four- to 20-

fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). The 11,000-acre Presidential Proclamation Boundary 

area surrounding Long Island in south Willapa Bay is closed to all migratory bird hunting and 

acts as a sanctuary during the waterfowl season. Willapa Bay is tidally influenced and 

encompasses over 72,000 acres. In addition to the Presidential Proclamation Boundary area, vast 

portions of Willapa Bay’s tidal estuary act as de facto sanctuaries due to the limited accessibility 

thus reduction to waterfowl hunting pressure. 

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in 

between hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for 

refuges to manage hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento NWR, 3% to 16% of 

pintails were located on hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-10 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

those same units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, 

and northern shovelers decreased time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public 

shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, 

intermittent hunting may not always greatly reduce hunting impacts. The intermittent hunting 

program of three hunt days per week at Sacramento NWR results in lower pintail densities on 

hunt areas during non-hunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). In Germany, several studies 

reported a range from a few days to approximately three weeks for waterbird numbers to recover 

to pre-disturbance levels (Fox and Madsen 1997). The proposed hunt will not be intermittent in 

order to provide consistent management with the existing Refuge waterfowl hunt program as 

well as on adjacent state lands and waters. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa NWR. Appendix E of the draft 

CCP/EIS contains further details of public involvement during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The Refuge hunting programs is designed to provide a safe, quality experience with reasonable 

harvest opportunities, while avoiding significant impacts to other users and non-target wildlife 

resources. The Refuge has developed the following stipulations to reduce impacts and promote 

safety:

Waterfowl hunters would be expected to comply with all current and applicable state and Refuge 

regulations. This will be achieved through a combination of printed information, signing, 

outreach efforts, and enforcement of regulations by state and refuge law enforcement officers. 

The salt marsh portions of the Porter Point, Lewis, Potshot, North Potshot, Stanley Peninsula, 

and Leadbetter Point units under refuge jurisdiction will be opened to public waterfowl hunting. 

The only exception to the open hunting zones is the Presidential Proclamation Boundary area, 

which is closed for the protection of all migratory birds. 

Geese, ducks, coots, and common snipe will be allowed to be taken. Limits and hunting periods 

will be set by the WDFW to match adjacent areas open to waterfowl hunting. 

Refuge staff and WDFW staff will consult on issues regarding law enforcement and any 

significant changes in the number or behavior of wildlife. Refuge regulations will be in accord 

with state regulations. Refuge and WDFW officers will patrol to ensure hunters are complying 

with all regulations and restrictions. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-11 

Temporary blinds may be constructed, but they must be available to everyone on a first-come, 

first-served basis. 

Hunters may use dogs to aid in retrieval of birds but dogs will need to be kept under control at all 

times. 

Only approved non-toxic shot will be allowed for the hunt. 

Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

Justification: Hunting is one of the six designated wildlife-dependent public uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Refuges grant these six uses special consideration in planning and 

management. When on a refuge-specific basis one or more of these uses is determined 

compatible with the refuge purpose(s) and the NWRS mission, the refuge is to strongly 

encourage (facilitate) the use(s). Providing a quality hunting program contributes to 

achievement of refuge goals and purposes. By incorporating the South Bay Units and Leadbetter 

Point Unit into an existing waterfowl hunt program, no habitat degradation would be anticipated, 

disturbance to other birds and wildlife, if any, would be temporary and localized, and ample 

amounts of additional quality habitat for waterfowl and other wetland birds exists on the Refuge 

and in Willapa Bay. Thus, it is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food 

resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge and local area will 

not be measurably lessened from waterfowl hunting activities. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be removed from waterfowl populations due to hunting will not cause 

wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of hunted 

species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. The areas of refuge lands 

designated for waterfowl hunting complements activities permitted by Washington State on 

adjacent waters and tidelands and provides distinct, manageable hunt units that can be more 

easily delineated, posted, and enforced, resulting in less confusion for the waterfowl hunting 

public. In addition, due to the time of year and the limited access, no conflicts among refuge 

user groups are anticipated. 

The waterfowl hunt program as described is determined to be compatible because potential 

impacts from waterfowl hunting within these specified units on other area waterfowl, and 

wildlife would be minimal and not materially interfere with or detract from achievement of the 

NWRS mission or from the Service’s ability to achieve refuge wildlife, habitat, or other publicuse-related purposes and goals. 

References: 

Anderson, S.H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. Pages 157-168 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-12 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Logan, 

UT: Utah State University. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-

468. 

DeLong, A.K., 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance in waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

Appendix L (114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision (Vol. 

II). Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Heitmeyer, M.E. and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling 

ducks in California. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Morton, J.M., R.L. Kirkpatrick, M.R. Vaughan, and D.F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and 

movements of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:390-400. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-

14. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special 

reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth Western Hemispheric Waterfowl and 

Waterbird Symposium. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-13 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. 

Wildfowl 33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis., Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. 

Wood, A.K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest and wildlife population management. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:91-95. 

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

 X Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-14 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures: 

Hunting (Waterfowl) 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-15 

C.2 Draft Compatibility Determination for Big Game and Upland 

Bird Hunting on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Hunting (Big Game and Upland Game Bird) 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-16 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-17 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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 

Description of Use: 

This compatibility determination examines existing and proposed sport hunting for elk, deer, 

bear, and grouse on designated units of the Refuge under Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) of 

the CCP/EIS. The Refuge currently has 8,020 acres available for big game hunting. Under this 

alternative, Long Island would continue as currently opened to archery only for the take of 

grouse, bear, deer, and elk. All mainland properties and existing open portions of the 

Headquarters Unit and Bear River Unit would also continue as they are now open to the take of 

bear, deer, and elk in accordance with WDFW regulations. Expansion of elk and deer hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge under this alternative (see Appendix M) would include 

approximately 1,700 acres on the Leadbetter Point Unit (permit only muzzleloader hunt and as 

necessary an expanded permit only elk hunt); South Bay Units and East Hills Units would 

include elk and deer hunting as refuge expansion opportunities occur. 

Existing elk and deer hunting areas include the Long Island Unit and designated portions of the 

East Hills Units from the Bear River to Teal Slough. Hunting for black bear or grouse is allowed 

on Long Island only—no bear or grouse hunting is allowed on the mainland. Proposed elk and 

deer hunting areas include the upland areas of the South Bay Units (Lewis, Porter Point, 

Riekkola, and Tarlatt) and proposed lands acquired in the future through the land acquisition 

process where deemed compatible. A regulated (permit only) early season muzzleloader elk 

hunt and special permit hunt at Leadbetter Point Unit is also proposed (see Map 9 in draft 

CCP/EIS). 

All existing and proposed hunting areas are located within Pacific County, Washington. Under 

this compatibility determination, elk, deer, bear, and grouse hunting would be allowed consistent 

with Washington State regulations except as specifically noted herein. The Long Island Unit is 

open to archery hunting only for elk, deer, bear, and grouse and requires a refuge hunting permit. 

The proposed expansion of deer and elk hunting will include proposed new upland lands in the 

East Hills Units and the upland areas of the South Bay Units (Lewis, Porter Point, Riekkola, and 

Tarlatt). Hunters may set up temporary tree stands, which must be removed at the conclusion of 

each hunting period. Specific species/numbers to be taken and hunting periods will be set by 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to match adjacent areas open to hunting. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-18 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Maintaining and expanding hunting opportunities on the Leadbetter Point Unit, East Hills Units, 

the South Bay Units for elk and deer and Long Island Unit for elk, deer, bear, and grouse hunting 

would complement state permitted hunting activities. This would resolve potential problems 

over the exact position of the refuge boundary on the mainland units that would exist with a deer 

hunt closure, and associated enforcement of relevant laws and regulations. 

Recreational hunting (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, as a priority public use, provided it is 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. The Act declares that 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate and appropriate priority general 

public uses of the Refuge System. The six uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation—are to receive enhanced 

consideration in planning and management over all other general public uses of the Refuge 

System. When compatible, these wildlife-dependent recreational uses are to be strongly 

encouraged. 

Existing Big Game and Upland Game Bird Hunting Opportunities 

 Long Island: The Long Island Unit is annually open to archery hunting of elk, deer, bear, 

and grouse hunting only and in addition requires a specific refuge hunting permit. 

 East Hills Units: Existing elk and deer hunting areas include designated portions of the 

East Hills Unit (from the Bear River to Teal Slough). 

Proposed Elk and Deer Hunting Opportunities (draft CCP/EIS, Alternative 2) 

 Leadbetter Point Unit: Expanding wildlife-dependent public use hunting opportunities to 

include a regulated (permit only) early season muzzleloader elk hunt and a special permit 

hunt. 

 South Bay Units (Lewis, Porter Point, Riekkola, and a portion of the Tarlatt Unit): 

Expanding wildlife-dependent public use hunting opportunities to include elk and deer 

hunting once the proposed tidal restoration activities have been completed. New refuge 

lands acquired under this alternative would also be open to elk and deer hunting once 

restoration activities are complete.

 Nemah/Naselle Unit, East Hills Units: Elk and deer hunting opportunities would 

continue upon acquisition of any new areas. 

Areas Closed 

 Headquarters, Housing Quarters, and Tarlatt Slough area: Areas closed to hunter access 

include the current refuge headquarters, housing quarters, the proposed area for the new 

refuge headquarters (Tarlatt Unit), and the proposed wildlife observation trail/overlook 

area (see Map 9 in draft CCP/EIS). 

Proposed Elk and Deer Hunt on South Bay Units 

The South Bay Units are currently not open to deer and elk hunting due to existing facilities, 

Refuge management activities, and public use programs. It is proposed that these areas be 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-19 

opened to elk and deer hunting once tidal restoration activities are complete in the South Bay 

subunits which include Lewis, Porter Point, Riekkola, and a portion of Tarlatt Slough. All of the 

existing South Bay subunits and any future acquisitions are located in the same muzzleloader 

zone as the Leadbetter Point Unit and therefore would typically be open for approximately five 

days in early October. Once tidal restoration is complete in South Bay, there would be no roads, 

trails, fences, equipment facilities, or cattle grazing for pasture management. The existing 

regulated goose hunt program and associated infrastructure would no longer exist, nor would the 

regulated waterfowl hunt. While these areas would be open to goose and duck hunting in 

accordance with state season, the use would be along tidal channels and flats and waterfowl 

hunters would be much less concentrated. The birding public and those out to observe wildlife 

while having access to the South Bay Units would most likely concentrate their visits to the new 

office/visitor center and associated trail and observation tower. Therefore, it is not anticipated 

that any proposed elk or deer hunt would impact, nor create a safety problem with other public 

uses. 

Proposed Elk and Deer Hunt Nemah/Naselle Unit and East Hills Additions 

Currently, the land owners allow elk and deer hunting on these proposed refuge acquisition areas. 

The Refuge would continue this wildlife-dependent public use activity for any new acquisitions 

in the future. Elk and deer hunting opportunities would be considered upon acquisition of any 

new areas in the future and would resolve potential problems over the exact position of the 

refuge boundary and complement local hunting activities on adjacent lands. 

Proposed Elk Hunt on the Leadbetter Point Unit 

The entire unit would be open to the regulated (permit only) early elk muzzleloader season, 

which typically lasts approximately five days in early October. The public would be notified that 

the entire unit would be closed to all other uses including hiking and waterfowl hunting. Public 

use of the trails during this time is minimal, due to the inclement weather and seasonal rains that 

regularly flood the trails. The proposed hunt falls outside the general tourist season. Since the 

waterfowl hunting season is much longer than the elk muzzleloader season, there would be little, 

if any, impact on this user group. In keeping with existing elk hunting regulations on adjacent 

private property and for safety purposes, the use of muzzleloader firearms would only be 

authorized. 

The Refuge proposes a special elk hunt to be offered sometime between October and February 

on this unit only. If elk are not found within the unit during the early muzzleloader hunt season, 

or the elk hunt proves unsuccessful due to weather or other uncontrollable influences, the special 

permit hunt could then be implemented. Opening the special permit hunt would offer an 

opportunity to assist the state in management of the expanding elk herd. This additional hunt 

would draw from a pool of hunters who have applied for a muzzleloader permit through WDFW. 

The number of permits in this additional hunt would be determined after consultation with 

WDFW after the early season hunt. 

Issuing the special permit for the muzzleloader elk hunt provides the refuge staff with an 

opportunity to control the number and timing of hunters in a specific area, thereby reducing 

potential hunter impacts to the resource and/or other refuge users. Providing permits addresses 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-20 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

the elk management issue by limiting the amount of animals taken or not taken in the area. Due 

to the size and shape of the unit and limited access points, the number of hunters would be 

regulated. There is the potential for elk hunters to disturb waterfowl and waterfowl hunters at 

certain times of the year. The permit system offers staff the opportunity to monitor take and 

potential impacts to resources while providing an opportunity for a quality and safe hunting 

experience. 

Availability of Resources: 

The proposed continuation and expansion of big game and upland game bird hunting would not 

require any new infrastructure or personnel. Administration of the hunt program and annual 

coordination with the State of Washington would be required as would some law enforcement 

patrols, however Refuge staff is in place and capable of conducting these additional duties. 

Revision and printing of the refuge brochure, as well as updating the refuge website and other 

outreach information, would be required. 

This compatibility determination examines the existing and proposed big game and upland game 

bird hunting that occurs on the Refuge. All big game and upland game bird hunting follows state 

regulations and seasons along with other refuge-specific regulations. The area from Bear River 

and Teal Slough on the mainland is open to hunting elk and deer with the exception of the 

immediate area surrounding the Bear River Refuge housing and headquarters. Elk, deer, bear, 

and grouse hunting on the Long Island Unit is open to archery use only. 

Refuge staff would be required to occasionally monitor hunter activities but since the number of 

hunters and hunt period is limited in scope, no additional personnel resources are anticipated and 

the impact on the existing staff should be limited to a few hours a week. It is expected that 

refuge and WDFW law enforcement personnel would assist with any enforcement related 

problems. 

Maps, printed regulations, and other printed materials would be required to administer the hunt 

and conduct annual trainings. Annual printing is anticipated to cost approximately $500. Signs 

designating safety zones may be required in certain areas. Initial signage is expected to cost 

approximately $500 for signs and posts. Refuge base funding is available to cover these costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

This proposed use would result in temporary displacement of bald eagles, songbirds, and other 

resident wildlife that reside in and near refuge uplands. Hunters can be expected to disturb 

resident wildlife, migratory birds, and other wildlife species by their movements and/or shooting 

activities in the field. The hunt season is limited duration (daylight hours only) and limited 

access to the upland areas of the Refuge should limit the disturbance factor. The Long Island 

hunting program is an archery hunt only which reduces impacts to migratory birds and resident 

wildlife of the island. 

Nearby resting and feeding areas will be available for use by bald eagles, migratory birds, and 

other resident wildlife species that are disturbed by hunting activities. These species would 

likely move to other areas of the Refuge which are less accessible to the hunters. The Big Game 

Sport Hunting Plan (Appendix M) of the CCP/EIS includes a Section 7 evaluation, which 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-21 

determined that the proposed action would have “no effect” on the following species: marbled 

murrelet, western snowy plover, and northern spotted owl. 

Anticipated impacts to vegetation are expected to be limited due to the short duration of the hunt 

season, limited hunting and refuge use hours (daylight hours only). There is no camping allowed 

except in designated camp sites on Long Island. In addition, no effects are expected to refuge 

fish populations because activities will not take place in environments used by fish. 

Effects to other public uses are expected to be minimal due to short duration of the hunt season. 

To further minimize impact to other user groups, the Refuge provides trails in areas where no 

hunting is occurring, hunting is limited to specific week days, and/or is located in non-upland 

habitat where deer hunting occurs. 

The big game hunting program is based on healthy, sustainable populations of the species 

hunted. The numbers of elk, deer, bear, and grouse that populate the Refuge may vary from year 

to year. As described in the Refuge’s Hunting Plan (Appendix M), the elk, deer, bear, and grouse 

populations are monitored annually. 

Roosevelt elk are native to western Oregon and Washington, northwestern California, and 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The Willapa hills which surround the Willapa Refuge 

support one of the highest concentrations of elk in Washington. The elk and deer populations 

currently range throughout all of the units of the Refuge and also range into adjacent properties 

including Washington State Park and private property on the Long Beach peninsula, Willapa 

Hills, Nemah/Naselle, and South Bay areas. 

Elk reproduction continues to add to the estimated population of 40 to 60 animals on the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. Outside recruitment into the herd may also add to this population 

annually. Impacts from the proposed hunt to the elk population will be monitored by issuing the 

special permit for the muzzleloader elk hunt; it provides the refuge staff an opportunity to control 

the number and timing of hunters in a specific area thereby reducing potential hunter impacts to 

the resource and/or other Refuge users. Providing permits addresses the elk management issue 

by limiting the amount of animals taken or not taken in the area. Due to the size and shape of the 

unit and limited access points, the number of hunters will be regulated. The permit system offers 

staff the opportunity to monitor take and potential impacts to the local herd while providing an 

opportunity for a quality and safe hunting experience. It is anticipated that on the Leadbetter 

Point Unit and South Bay Unit the population may fluctuate due to hunting pressure. Overall 

impacts to the elk populations either locally or regionally from elk, hunting on the current and 

proposed Refuge lands is not expected. At the Leadbetter Point Unit, the reduction in herd size 

may have a positive effect by protecting essential habitat for western snowy plovers, streaked 

horned larks, and pink sandverbena, which may be impacted by the large herd in the area. 

The black bear (Ursus americanus) is the most common and widely distributed species of bear 

found in North America. The black bear population in Washington State may exceed 25,000 

animals. Systematic surveys of black bear are not conducted on the Refuge. However, 

(according to WDFW and observations by Refuge staff) the Willapa Hills and the Long Beach 

Peninsula support healthy populations of black bear. This species has been observed routinely 

throughout the Refuge. Bear would continue to be hunted only on Long Island. A small number 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-22 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

of bear are harvested annually due to the archery only hunt, and the impact of the hunt on the 

existing population would not have an impact on the overall populations of Black bear. 

On Long Island in 2009, 121 hunters harvested three bear, 10 elk, no deer, and no grouse. 

Based on the very limited number of individuals which are harvested, hunting impacts to the 

overall populations of these species are not expected to impact future recruitment or 

reproduction. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, and verbal and written comments were solicited 

from the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa NWR. Appendix E of the 

Draft CCP/EIS further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Law enforcement patrols to ensure compliance with hunting regulations will be conducted. State 

Fish and Wildlife Officers also patrol the Refuge. Harvest and season lengths are established by 

the State of Washington. 

Hunters would be expected to comply with all current and applicable State and refuge 

regulations. This will be achieved through a combination of printed information, signing, 

outreach efforts, and enforcement of regulations by state and refuge law enforcement officers.

Limited areas of the refuge (the upland portions of the Tarlatt, Riekkola, Porter Point, Lewis, 

Bear River, Teal Slough and Long Island units) will be opened to public deer and elk hunting to 

minimize human disturbance and impacts. Long Island Unit will continue to be an archery hunt 

only and include bear and grouse hunting. 

Limits and hunting periods will be set by the WDFW to match adjacent areas open to elk and 

deer hunting. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit regulated (permit only) elk hunt would close the unit to other public 

use for any hunt period opened (generally one week in early October and a potential special 

permit hunt). 

Refuge staff and WDFW staff will consult on issues regarding law enforcement and any 

significant changes in the number or behavior of wildlife. Refuge regulations will be in accord 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-23 

with state regulations. Refuge and WDFW officers will patrol to ensure hunters are complying 

with all regulations and restrictions. 

Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited except in the designated campsites on Long 

Island. 

Justification: 

The proposed use is one of the priority wildlife-dependent uses that refuges are encouraged to 

facilitate, where compatible, in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Hunting is one of the six designated wildlife-dependent public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Refuges grant these six uses special consideration in planning and management. 

When on a refuge-specific basis one or more of these uses is determined compatible with the 

refuge purpose(s) and the NWRS mission, the refuge is to strongly encourage (facilitate) the 

use(s). Providing a quality hunting program contributes to achieving refuge goals and purposes. 

The program as described was determined to be compatible. Potential impacts from proposed 

and existing deer, elk, bear, and grouse hunting within these specified units on other birds and 

wildlife would be minimal and not materially interfere with or detract from achievement of the 

NWRS mission or from the Service’s ability to achieve refuge wildlife, habitat, or other publicuse-related purposes and goals. 

By incorporating the proposed units into an existing deer, elk, bear, and grouse hunt program, no 

habitat degradation would be anticipated; disturbance to birds and other wildlife, if any, would be 

temporary and localized; and ample amounts of additional quality habitat for these wildlife 

species exists on the Refuge. Thus, it is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient 

food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge and local area 

will not be measurably lessened from hunting activities. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be removed from the deer and elk populations due to hunting will not 

cause overall wildlife populations to materially decline; the physiological condition and 

production of hunted species will not be impaired; and their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically. Expanded hunt opportunities in the South Bay Unit and 

Leadbetter Point Unit may reduce elk populations in these areas. The hunt at Leadbetter Point 

would have the effect of reducing the herd size at that site and may result in positive effects for 

the western snowy plover, which may be impacted by the large elk herd in the area. 

The areas of refuge lands designated for deer and elk hunting compliments activities permitted 

by Washington State on adjacent uplands and provides distinct, manageable hunt units that can 

be more easily delineated, posted, and enforced, resulting in less confusion for the deer/elk 

hunting public. In addition, due to the time of year and the limited access, minimal conflicts 

among refuge user groups are anticipated. 

The big game hunt program as described is determined to be compatible because potential 

impacts from proposed and existing deer, elk, bear, and grouse hunting within these specified 

units on other area birds and wildlife would be minimal and not materially interfere with or 

detract from achievement of the NWRS mission or from the Service’s ability to achieve Refuge 

wildlife, habitat, or other public-use-related purposes and goals 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-24 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

References: 

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

X Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-25 

Signatures: 

Hunting (Big Game and Upland Game Bird) 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

 ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-26 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

C.3 Draft Compatibility Determination for Sport Fishing on Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Sport Fishing 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-27 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and thereby has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-28 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Description of Use: 

Sport fishing commonly occurs in the state-owned waters of Willapa Bay including the Bear 

River, Naselle River, and within the channels surrounding the Presidential Proclamation 

Boundary and along the mainland shoreline. The Refuge generally has jurisdiction over the land 

base, including shorelines to mean high water, but not water in these areas. Anglers accessing 

the fishing opportunities on the Refuge do so by fishing from the shoreline or from boats 

launched using the Refuge’s boat ramp located across from the southern tip of Long Island, the 

Nahcotta boat ramp located on the Willapa Bay side of the Long Beach Peninsula, or the Naselle 

boat ramp located east of the refuge headquarters. Access to the shoreline from the mainland is 

gained from the adjacent U.S. Highway 101. All fishing is conducted in accordance with State 

regulations. Fish species caught here are coho salmon, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, and 

sturgeon. 

This compatibility determination will reassess and evaluate sport fishing from all shorelines and 

Willapa Bay areas within the refuge boundary. Under this use fishing would be allowed 

consistent with state regulations. Specific species/numbers to be taken and open periods will be 

set by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to match adjacent areas open to 

fishing. 

Recreational fishing (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, as a priority public use, provided it is 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Availability of Resources: 

The proposed sport fishing program would not require any new infrastructure or personnel. 

Administration of a fishing program would require coordination with the State of Washington 

and require some law enforcement patrols; however refuge staff is in place and capable of 

conducting these additional duties. Revision and printing of the refuge brochure, as well as 

updating the refuge website and other outreach information, would be required at an estimated 

cost of $6,000. Base funding is available to cover these costs. 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-29 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

 As a solitary and stationary activity, fishing tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than hunting or 

motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). It is well recognized that fishing can give many people a 

deeper appreciation of fish and wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of 

conserving habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. A goal of 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is to provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Fishing is one of the six priority public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of key 

concern, then, is to manage the activity to keep any potential adverse impacts within acceptable 

limits. 

Any angler activities on the Refuge are and will remain consistent with state guidelines. Related 

impacts for fish stocks associated with sport fishing in Willapa Bay, Naselle River, and Bear 

River are estimated annually and taken into consideration by the State of Washington in the 

development of annual fishing agreements and associated regulations. Since sport fishing 

regulations are established to provide a sustainable fish resource, impacts to fish populations 

from sport fishing activity are expected to be minor. 

Additional disturbance would be caused to birds and other wildlife using the open waters and 

where fishing would occur. Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird 

communities, as well as abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Bell and Austin 1985; 

Bouffard 1982; Cooke 1987; Edwards and Bell 1985; Tydeman 1977). Anglers often fish in 

shallow, sheltered bays and creeks that birds prefer, negatively impacting distribution and 

abundance of waterfowl, grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated 

shoreline activity discouraged waterfowl using otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). 

Anglers influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at 

sites in Washington, when compared to non-fishing days (Knight et al. 1991). Shoreline 

activities, such as human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. In addition, 

trampling of vegetation and deposition of sewage or other chemicals are expected to commonly 

occur (Liddle and Scorgie 1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, bank 

stability, and water quality may result from high levels of bank fishing activities. 

Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or 

entire areas by waterfowl and other water-birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and 

cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). Impacts of motorized boating 

can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a 

short amount of time. Anglers accessing the refuge shoreline at high tides by boat may fish from 

the Refuge in the state waters. 

Although fishing activity can result in disturbance to local wildlife, it is important to note that 

large acreages of undisturbed habitat are adjacent to areas open to public fishing, thereby 

affording disturbed wildlife more than adequate escape cover and sanctuary. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa NWR. Appendix E of the draft 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-30 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

CCP/EIS further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Law enforcement patrols to ensure compliance with fishing regulations will be conducted. State 

Fish and Wildlife officers also patrol the Refuge. Harvest and season lengths are established by 

the States of Oregon and Washington. 

Justification: 

Recreational fishing is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Providing a quality fishing program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge’s goals. The 

fishing opportunities as described were determined to be compatible; despite the potential 

impacts that fishing and supporting activities (boating) can have on the Service’s ability to 

achieve its purposes. In addition, the majority of waterfowl use on the Refuge occurs in the 

winter and spring months, with some birds as early as September and October. Since the 

majority of the fishing activity occurs in the summer and fall (through mid-October), disturbance 

to waterfowl species is reduced. It is anticipated that an adequate amount of estuary, open water, 

and riverine habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl, waterbirds, and other 

wildlife because of the large area available for fishing and very small numbers of bank fisherman 

are expected to use the area. 

Thus, it is anticipated that wildlife, primarily waterbirds, will find sufficient food resources and 

resting places and their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably reduced. The 

fishing pressure received will not cause fish stocks to decline. The physiological condition and 

production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired; their behavior and activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically; and their overall welfare will not be impaired. The 

sport fishing program as described is determined to be compatible because potential impacts 

from proposed fishing program within these specified units on other area birds and wildlife 

would be minimal and not materially interfere with or detract from achievement of the NWRS 

mission or from the Service’s ability to achieve refuge wildlife, habitat, or other public-userelated purposes and goals 

References: 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-31 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. Transactions of the Forty-Seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 47:553-556. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafam Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446(7 

March):19-21. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. 

Technical Bulletin No.33. Wisconsin Conservation Department. 212 pp. 

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. 

Pages 71-79 in Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through research and management. R. 

L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island, Covelo, California, USA. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an avian scavenging guild to 

anglers. Biological Conservation 56:195-205. 

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and 

animals: a review. Biological Conservation 17:183-206. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296.

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

X Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-32 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures: 

Sport Fishing 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-33 

C.4 Draft Compatibility Determination for Environmental 

Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography 

on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography. 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-34 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-35 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Description of Use(s): 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is a popular destination for local visitors as well 

as tourists from outside the area. It is difficult to determine exact number of visitors, but it is 

estimated the Refuge has 250,000 visitor-use days each year. The majority of visitation to the 

Refuge occurs during the summer months and during the hunting seasons. 

This compatibility determination examines existing and proposed non-consumptive wildlifedependent recreational uses on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation consists of those activities which seek to increase 

the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute to the conservation of such 

wildlife. Activities would include both staff and non-staff conducted environmental education, 

teaching students, teacher workshops, interpretation, interpretation, and interpretive sites. 

Interpretation and environmental education activities generally occur on the Mainland Units of 

the Refuge. Over a three-day period in late spring, the Refuge hosts students from regional 

schools who visit educational science stations to learn more about the environment and how to 

be stewards of the environment. Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge annually co-sponsor this educational event as part of their fourth-grade 

environmental education program.

Interpretive information and brochures are located at the refuge office. The refuge office is open 

to the public Monday through Friday, 8 am to 4: pm except federal holidays. There are several 

information kiosks throughout the Refuge offering maps, educational material, and regulations. 

The parking lots at both the Headquarters area and Leadbetter Point offer restroom facilities. 

The Leadbetter Point restroom is maintained by the Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission. 

The Willapa Interpretive Art Trail was created to provide visitors with an opportunity to 

experience nature near the current office site without having to go to another area of the Refuge. 

Visitors to the stream can now observe wildlife from a curving, ADA-accessible boardwalk. 

Artwork located along the boardwalk tells the story of the stream and the many species who live 

there. Students from the University of Washington Public Arts Program designed, constructed, 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-36 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

and installed the artwork for the trail under the direction of professors. The Interpretive Art Trail 

is about one-quarter mile long and is open seven days a week from dawn until dusk. 

Wildlife Observation is probably the most popular activity on the Refuge. The Refuge provides a 

wide variety of opportunities for wildlife observation. Throughout the approximately 15,500 

acres of refuge lands there is a network of trails and roads that provide quality opportunities for 

wildlife observation. Hiking trails at Leadbetter Unit at the tip of the Long Beach Peninsula 

allow visitors to walk through coastal woodlands, salt marshes, and beaches. Many miles of 

pedestrian only trails link the Leadbetter Unit with an adjacent Washington State Park. In 

Willapa Bay, refuge visitors travel by either motorized or non-motorized boats for wildlife 

viewing and other wildlife oriented activities. Long Island has a three-quarter-mile loop trail and 

over 10 miles of roads that allows visitors to access forest habitats including a 274-acre oldgrowth stand. 

Wildlife Photography is a popular activity which occurs year round on the Refuge. Visitors drive 

around the mainland units of the Refuge using their vehicles as blinds to take advantage of 

photographic opportunities. Long Island and Willapa Bay provide more limited photographic 

opportunities because visitors must use boats, kayaks, or canoes to access the island and 

surrounding estuary. The Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge constructed a 

photography blind on a seasonal freshwater wetland in the Tarlatt Unit in 2003. The best time of 

year to use the blind is during the winter and early spring when the wetland is full of water and 

feeding waterfowl. The blind is available by reservation only. In addition, the Friends of 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge sponsors an annual wildlife photography contest. 

Availability of Resources: 

Additional funding for operational costs would be needed to fully implement the environmental 

education, wildlife observation, and photography programs identified in the CCP. These needs 

are expected to be added from the CCP and are tied to funding requests in the form of Refuge 

Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System projects for these activities. 

Other funding sources would be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and donations 

to administer and manage a safe and quality environmental education, wildlife observation, and 

photography program as described above. 

The Youth Conservation Corps program provides an avenue for high school–aged students to 

work on the Refuge and learn more about the refuge resources and careers associated with the 

field of natural resources. Many students receive credit from their high school for participation 

in this paid position. Having a crew located on the Refuge would provide local high school 

students with summer employment while assisting the refuge staff with a variety of resource 

management activities (fencing, tree planting, invasive species removal). 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Uses: 

Currently, there are very few places in the surrounding area to view and interpret the diversity of 

habitats and wildlife that encompass this unique region. The coastal dune, coastal forest upland, 

saltwater estuary, riverine, and mudflats provide essential habitat to shorebirds, seabirds, water 

birds, ducks, geese, other migratory birds, and resident wildlife. The Willapa Refuge offers a 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-37 

variety of opportunities for viewing wildlife on the mainland, within the saltwater estuary and on 

Long Island. Signs are needed to provide updated refuge program and Refuge System 

information at designated sites. Updating interpretive displays to interpret the Refuge’s mission, 

natural resources, and programs would provide the public an opportunity to understand the 

purposes and resources of the Refuge. 

Activities that occur outside of vehicles (e.g., wildlife observation, trail hiking, and 

environmental education programs) tend to increase disturbance potential for most wildlife 

species (Klein 1993). Human activities along trails disturb wildlife, often resulting in flushing 

from roosting, feeding, nesting, or resting areas. Flushing may result in expenditure of energy 

reserves, abandonment from preferred habitat, and increased exposure to predation during 

relocation. In riparian habitats, the abundance of bird species requiring shrub cover (e.g., 

MacGillivray’s warbler and lazuli bunting) may be reduced at recreation sites, while species that 

forage in tree canopies may be unaffected. Trails in riparian areas may encourage the penetration 

of new animal species, including nest predators, into formerly protected forests (Knutsen and 

Neaf 1997). Wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts because they 

may remain close to wildlife for prolonged periods (Klein 1993). Casual photographers with 

low-power lenses may approach wildlife closer than other users. 

Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities occur within portions of most of the units of the 

Willapa Refuge. Wildlife of primary concern is marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, 

waterfowl species such as Pacific brant, geese, ducks, shorebirds, water and wading birds, and 

raptors. To minimize potential disturbance, public uses on the Refuge are limited to designated 

potions of the Refuge. Closed areas of the Refuge serve as wildlife sanctuaries, including a 

portion of Leadbetter Point that is closed seasonally (April 15 through September 15) to protect 

nesting snowy plovers. The majority of the environmental education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation and photography use occurs during the summer while peak waterfowl, waterbird, 

and shorebird use occurs on the Refuge during fall, winter, and spring. In addition, the majority 

of these uses occur on designated trails which minimizes wildlife disturbance. Furthermore, the 

level of wildlife disturbance for these activities is minimal during the fall, winter, and spring. 

Access to public use areas are the dike roads, logging roads, and designated trails on the 

mainland units and Long Island Unit. The foot trail to be located at the proposed site for the 

Visitor Services Contact Station would be designed to maximize quality wildlife-oriented visitor 

activities and minimize impacts and disturbance to wildlife. The dike’s elevation above 

surrounding terrain allows road/trail users to view wildlife out on the Willapa Bay tide flats at a 

distance that would not noticeably disturb the wildlife. Logging roads and designated trails 

provide opportunities for the public that minimize the potential for disturbance. 

Impacts from the general public on Long Island are for the most part self-limiting. This is 

because the island is accessible only by boat, which reduces the number of potential visitors. 

Daily tidal changes make visitation of the island a challenge. Most visitor impacts come from 

boating, canoeing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Long Island. This may cause birds 

that use the waters of the bay and the forested edges of the island habitat to flush. The 

disturbance to wildlife is localized and of short duration. Nearby resting and feeding areas will 

be available for use by any displaced wildlife. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-38 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

The Refuge currently has walking trails at the Leadbetter Point Unit, Long Island, and the 

existing refuge headquarters. Logging roads and dikes are used as public access trails on both 

the mainland and Long Island Units which creates conflict since they double as service roads. 

Under Alternative 2, the Refuge would improve and expand wildlife observation/photography 

opportunities to provide a quality viewing experience for the public, while limiting potential 

disturbance to wildlife and resources we are mandated to protect. 

Many members of the public are not familiar with National Wildlife Refuges and confuse them 

with other federal land management systems such as National Parks or with State Parks. 

Providing information through programs written materials and interpretive panels helps to build 

an understanding and appreciation of the unique purposes and activities of National Wildlife 

Refuges. Providing information regarding the mission of the Service and the purposes of the 

Refuge, along with specific resource information may alleviate potential negative impacts on 

wildlife by educating our visitors. 

Developing the trail at the proposed new headquarters site will provide the public increased 

viewing and interpretive opportunities and to develop understanding the importance of these 

important coastal habitat types. Development of a new walking trail and/or viewpoints will be 

limited to areas that do not create a wildlife or resource disturbance. 

Under the proposed alternative, the existing refuge headquarters area will be restored to more 

natural conditions. The art interpretive trail, parking lot, and visitor kiosks will continue to 

provide the public with interpretive/educational opportunities. Developing additional viewing 

sites adjacent to other habitat types would provide the public with a more varied wildlife viewing 

opportunity by highlighting different habitats. 

Willapa Refuge provides an existing fourth-grade environmental education program that has 

been developed to meet Washington state education standards. There is an interest by local 

teachers to develop other programs. An expanded environmental education program will provide 

better ways of reaching the youth within our communities to help them learn about the Refuge, 

its resources, and the importance of these wildlife resources. Creating and developing specific 

study sites for classes to use on the Refuge would reduce potential disturbance to wildlife, yet 

allow for students to get hands on experiences in science and nature. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa Refuge. Appendix E of the 

draft CCP/EIS gives further details of public involvement undertaken during development of the 

CCP. Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS 

comment period.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-39 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

In order to minimize disturbance to wildlife from human activities, wildlife-dependent public 

uses would be restricted to refuge-specific designated trails, public use facilities, or approved 

guided events. Unguided recreational activity occurring in closed areas would not be allowed 

unless operating under provisions of a Special Use Permit and stipulations set by the Refuge 

Manager. 

The site proposed for the new refuge headquarters located in the Tarlatt Unit of the Refuge will 

serve as the main focal point for environmental educational activities. Other portions of the 

Refuge (including Long Island and the original headquarters area) will provide additional 

locations for these approved activities. 

The refuge trails located on many of the refuge units provide key areas for the general public to 

learn about and visit the Refuge. These trails and the photo blind located in the Tarlatt Unit 

provide opportunities for visitors who wish to view and photograph wildlife and walk around the 

Refuge as well as minimize disturbance to wildlife in refuge sanctuary areas. 

Public access to the Leadbetter Point Unit is restricted to pedestrian traffic only to minimize the 

disturbance to snowy plovers, streaked horned lark, other shorebirds, and resident wildlife. The 

public walking trails in the Leadbetter Point Unit would remain open. Designated areas of the 

Leadbetter Point Unit are closed to all public access from March 15 to September 30 for the 

protection of nesting and rearing western snowy plover and streaked horned larks. All public use 

areas managed by the Refuge would remain open dawn to dusk. 

Wildlife observation and photographic activities would continue to be available on Long Island 

in Willapa Bay. Impacts associated with differing levels and types of public use would be 

evaluated by staff annually. Monitoring information gathered by staff would be critically 

analyzed and used by the Refuge Manager to develop future modifications, if necessary, to 

ensure compatibility of wildlife observation and photography in all refuge locations. 

Justification: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, identified 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education as four of the six 

priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses to be facilitated in the Refuge System, and the Act 

encouraged the Service to provide opportunities for these uses. 

Despite the disturbance people can cause to wildlife, there will be relatively few people visiting 

the Refuge and they will be kept to designated trails and public use sites. Thus, it is anticipated 

that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their 

abundance and use of the Refuge and surrounding areas will not be measurably lessened from 

public use activities. Public visitation will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline; 

the physiological condition and production of species will not be impaired; their behavior and 

normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically; and their overall welfare will not be 

negatively impacted. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-40 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Based on the stipulations noted above designed to limit timing and amount of impact, allowing 

environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography to occur on the 

Refuge will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for establishment of the Refuge 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

References: 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 21:31-39. 

Knutsen, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 181 pp. 

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

X Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-41 

Signatures: 

Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

 ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-42 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

C.5 Draft Compatibility Determination for Camping on Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Camping 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-43 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-44 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Description of Use: 

This compatibility determination re-examines camping on the Long Island Unit of Willapa 

Refuge located in the southern half of Willapa Bay within Pacific County, Washington. Under 

this proposal, camping would continue to be allowed consistent with refuge-specific regulations. 

To accommodate this use, the Refuge has five campgrounds on the Island (three on the west side 

of the island and two on the east side of the island), each with a different number of campsites. 

Camping on Long Island is allowed only in the 21 designated campsites on a first-come, firstserved basis. The only time registration is required is for the week prior to and during the early 

elk hunt season. No more than five people are allowed per campsite, and maximum stay is 14 

days which helps minimize the impacts to refuge resources. Access to Long Island is by boat, 

canoe, or kayak only. 

Because of the limited access to Long Island, almost all recreational camping is associated with 

other wildlife-dependent activities (hunting, shellfish harvest, wildlife observation, photography, 

and environmental education). Willapa Bay is tidally influenced, which further limits access to 

the island. 

Availability of Resources: 

This compatibility determination examines the existing camping that occurs on the Long Island 

Unit of the Refuge. All camping follows Refuge specific regulations. 

The continuation of camping would not require any new infrastructure or personnel. Base 

funding is available to cover these costs. Refuge staff would be required to occasionally monitor 

camping activities but since the number of campers is limited in scope, no additional personnel 

resources are anticipated and the impact on the existing staff should be limited to a few hours a 

week. It is expected that Refuge and WDFW law enforcement personnel will assist with any 

enforcement related problems. 

Maps, printed regulations, and other printed materials would be required to administer the 

camping program. Annual printing is anticipated to cost approximately $500. Signs designating 

campgrounds and campsites may need to be replaced on occasion. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-45 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

This proposed use would result in limited and temporary displacement of eagles, great blue 

herons, elk, deer, and beer in the immediate vicinity of the campsites/campground from the 

activities and movements of the campers themselves. There will be some temporary 

displacement of waterfowl and waterbirds within the bay from both motorized and nonmotorized watercraft. Displaced birds have easy access over short distances to other areas of the 

bay closed to public use. Minimal impacts to vegetation and soils are expected to result from 

this activity. Camping results in some vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and localized denuding of 

vegetation at campsites and where people concentrate. Enhanced enforcement is expected to decrease 

unauthorized camping outside of designated campsites. Campers may have campfires, which are 

restricted to designated campfire rings. There is the potential for an increase in wildland fire 

activity if campers are careless with the fires they ignite. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa NWR. Appendix E of the draft 

CCP/EIS further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility and minimize impacts to refuge resources, camping is allowed in 

designated campsites only. There are five primitive campgrounds with a total of 21 campsites on 

Long Island. A maximum of five people are allowed per campsite for up to 14 consecutive days. 

Fires are allowed in designated campfire rings located in each campsite to reduce potential 

wildland fires. Only downed wood is allowed to be used for fires. All camping equipment, 

supplies and other materials brought to campsites (including trash and garbage) will be packed 

out of the campsites. Law enforcement patrols will be conducted by refuge officers to ensure 

compliance with refuge regulations. No powered tools and/or equipment are allowed on the 

island (this includes chainsaws, generators, etc.) No dogs, except those used while hunting 

waterfowl, are allowed on the Refuge.

Justification: 

Because tides limit the timing and safety for accessing Long Island for those intending to engage 

in wildlife-dependent recreation, safe and adequate access cannot be ensured without providing 

camping opportunity on-site. Thus, campsites are offered for visitors engaging in one or more of 

the priority wildlife-dependent uses that all refuges are encouraged to facilitate, where 

compatible. Camping on Long Island has minimal impacts to wildlife resources and provides a 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-46 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

unique opportunity for the general public to participate in hunting, wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education. Allowing this use on Long Island 

does not materially detract or interfere with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. 

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

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

X Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

X Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-47 

Signatures: 

Camping 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-48 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

C.6 Draft Compatibility Determination for Haying, Silage Harvest, 

and Cattle Grazing on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Haying, Silage Harvest, and Cattle Grazing. 

Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-49 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-50 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Description of Use(s): 

This is a re-evaluation of the haying, silage harvest, and cattle grazing program that was initially 

determined to be compatible with refuge purposes in 1994. The purpose of the program is to 

manage short-grass foraging habitat for wintering and migrating Canada geese. Grazing/haying 

is used as a management tool to improve habitat conditions on the Refuge. Privately owned 

livestock (cattle) will graze on the Refuge to improve vegetative composition by reducing exotic 

weed species. Grazing/haying will be timed to reduce undesirable vegetation and will be 

conducted mid-April through mid-October. 

Cattle grazing and haying activities are considered Refuge management economic activities. 

These activities have been and are proposed to continue to be conducted under a cooperative 

land management agreement (CLMA), which have been established between the Refuge and the 

livestock operator (cooperator). The CLMA is an in-kind program, which means that both 

parties receive mutual benefits from the land. In this case, the cooperator receives grazing and 

haying privileges, and the Service receives management actions conducted primarily for the 

benefit of Canada geese. 

We currently have one cooperator that grazes and hays the Riekkola (199 acres) and Tarlatt (35.2 

acres) units and two cooperators that hay the Wheaton Unit (73 acres). Currently, the three local 

cooperators graze and hay introduced reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), native grasses, 

tame pasture grasses, sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp.) on refuge 

pastures. The grazing program is implemented on the Riekkola Unit, and the haying program is 

implemented on the Riekkola, Tarlatt, and Wheaton units. 

Under the preferred alternative of the CCP/EIS, the Refuge haying and grazing programs would 

be eliminated from the Willapa Refuge following the tidal restoration of the Riekkola and Tarlatt 

units. 

Availability of Resources: 

An estimated $6,000 of Refuge staff time is needed annually for planning, oversight, and 

coordination of this use. Before each field season, the Refuge Manager reviews the annual work 

plan, discusses it with Refuge Complex headquarters staff, and makes necessary changes to the 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-51 

plan. Then the Refuge Manager identifies changes with the cooperator prior to initiation of 

grazing/haying. 

Periodically, assistance may be required of refuge maintenance staff to maintain the watering and 

fencing systems. Refuge staff monitors the grazing and haying operations, and periodically 

evaluate habitat conditions before, during and after the grazing season. At the end of the season, 

refuge staff review the worksheets completed by the cooperator to determine if grazing criteria 

have been met, the amount of hay removed from the Refuge, and the amount of in-kind work 

provided by the cooperator. The overall cost to the Refuge in terms of labor is considered to be 

low, especially taking into the consideration the benefits provided to the Refuge in meeting the 

previously described goal and objectives. Refuge base funding is available to cover the costs 

associated with this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Negative impacts from grazing are mostly associated with difficulties in containing the cattle. 

Cattle are attracted to water and therefore can damage sensitive wetland areas if they gain access 

to those sites. They can also cause damage in riparian forest sites and waterways by trampling 

the understory, compacting soils, degrading water quality, and making the areas undesirable for 

other wildlife. By fencing off any sensitive areas and focusing the grazing in the pastures, 

negative impacts from grazing are minimized. Adverse impacts to wildlife habitats are 

significantly reduced by restricting livestock use to the spring through early fall time period and 

by development of site specific watering areas. 

All three activities can cause some degree of disturbance to the geese and other migratory bird 

and other resident wildlife. In addition, haying and silage activities may cause geese and other 

migratory birds/wildlife to move from the immediate area where the farming equipment is 

operating. However, since these disturbances are short-term and localized, the geese and 

migratory birds/wildlife can easily move to an adjacent undisturbed location. Restricting the 

pasture management activities from spring through early fall provides geese and other migratory 

birds/wildlife and Canada geese optimum habitat conditions when they most need it, in the fall 

through winter seasons. Geese use refuge pastures for foraging, preferring young shoots that are 

higher in protein and lower in fiber than mature stems (McLandress and Raveling 1981). Pasture 

grasses serve as an important source of amino acids and carbohydrates to meet the energy and 

nutrient requirements of geese (Baldassare and Bolen 2006). Grazing by livestock simulates some of 

the effects of natural disturbances by removing woody vegetation, reducing thatch, and encouraging 

the production of young shoots which are preferred forage for Canada and cackling geese (Raveling 

1979). To provide high quality forage for wintering and migrating geese, the Refuge uses grazing 

and haying to ensure that young shoots between 2 and 4 inches tall are available by early October 

each year. 

Grazing has been demonstrated to impact various grassland birds, nesting waterfowl, and small 

mammals (Fleischner 1994). Not only are these species subject to injury and mortality from 

trampling, but the conversion of tall pasture grasses to short-cropped grasses results in habitat 

loss for some species. The Refuge reduces impacts of pasture management by limiting 

grazing/haying operations and restricting the introduction of cattle during the breeding season in 

areas where significant impacts to nesting birds would occur. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-52 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa Refuge. Appendix E of the 

draft CCP/EIS further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Cooperative land management agreements will contain the following special conditions to insure 

compatibility: 

 Special emphasis is applied to fencing wetlands and riparian zones where cattle tend to 

try to shift use; fencing and ditching are used to contain cattle and focus grazing on 

specific pastures during the dry season. 

 Season of use is from mid-April through mid-October to avoid disturbance to Canada 

geese and avoid grazing under wet soil conditions. 

 Permittees are required to leave fields with 2 to 4 inches of grass and forbs growth at 

season’s end. 

 Cooperative farmers are required to perform habitat maintenance work to sustain the field 

conditions for the benefit of wildlife. Work may include mechanical weed control, 

fertilization, and pasture mowing. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator 

performance, habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 Cooperative will exercise care to prevent fire and will assume responsibility for fire 

which may result from his/her operations. 

 Sub-leasing is prohibited. Animals must be the property of the cooperator. 

 At the end of the permit period, cooperator is responsible for removing all his/her 

equipment and animals from refuge lands. 

 Cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 The discharge or use of firearms or other weapons is prohibited, unless permitted as part 

of an authorized activity such as hunting, 

 Stocking rates of livestock may be altered should pasture conditions warrant, dependent 

upon judgment of the Refuge Manager. 

 The cooperator will notify the Refuge Manager at least three days in advance of the date 

cattle are to be turned in or removed from the Refuge. Any changes in the number of 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-53 

animals shall be immediately reported to the Refuge Manager. Livestock will be 

contained in assigned units and fences must be maintained by the cooperator. 

 Cooperator is responsible for removing dead livestock carcasses from the Refuge within 

three days of discovery. 

 The cooperator shall comply with the livestock regulations of the State of Washington 

relating to health and sanitation requirements. 

Justification: 

The haying, silage, and grazing cooperative land management program contributes to achieving 

refuge purposes and goals as identified in the CCP and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission by providing valuable foraging areas for wintering and migrating Canada geese. It also 

contributes by economically providing weed control and other habitat maintenance functions 

which are not feasible for limited refuge staff to accomplish. 

The short-grass pastures complement the marsh habitat on and around the Refuge in providing 

forage and resting habitat for migrating and wintering Canada geese. Refuge pastures also 

provide foraging habitat for ducks, raptors and other resident wildlife. Grazing and haying are 

desirable means of maintaining this type of habitat because the climate is too wet for prescribed 

burning, and repeated mowing of the pastures is beyond the capability of the Refuge. 

The use of moderate grazing to reduce the build-up of annual introduced grassland biomass is 

viewed as beneficial to Canada geese. By restricting the intensity and duration of grazing, and 

by adhering to the stipulations for this use, the environmental health of the Refuge will be 

maintained. 

By conducting haying, silage, and grazing as part of the pasture management program under the 

practices and stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife species which could be 

adversely affected would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance and 

use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats. 

The combination of management practices and stipulations identified above will ensure that 

haying, silage, and grazing contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, haying 

and mowing contribute to achieving refuge purpose(s); contribute to the mission of the Refuge 

System; and help maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge. 

References: 

Baldassare, G.A, and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8(3):629-644 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-54 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

McLandress, M.R. and D.R. Raveling. 1981. Changes in diet and body composition of Canada geese 

before spring migration. Auk 98:65-79. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.I. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University.

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

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date will be provided in the Final CCP/EIS (for 

priority public uses) 

X Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-55 

Signatures: 

Haying, Silage Harvest, and Cattle Grazing. 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-56 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

C.7 Draft Compatibility Determination for Research, Scientific 

Collecting, and Surveys on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys 

 Research: Planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature. 

 Scientific collecting: Gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for 

scientific purposes. 

 Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring. 

Location: Pacific County, Washington 

Date Established: 1936 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715s) 

 Executive Order 7541, Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge, Washington, signed: 

January 22, 1937 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-754c) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4601-4601.11) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C .1532-1544, 87 Stat 884) 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for the Willapa NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands. The Refuge was originally established to preserve an 

important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway with 

Refuges Purposes specified as follows: 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ... Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937 

"... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-57 

"... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

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

or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

In accordance with 601 FW1, all lands acquired since the original establishment of the Refuge 

retain this purpose. 

Management priorities are further stated in subsequent land acquisition documents to preserve, 

protect, and restore newly acquired habitats and provide habitat for other migratory birds, plants 

and wildlife with special emphasis for marbled murrelets, bald eagles, Aleutian Canada geese, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and water howellia (plant). Documentation for additional 

lands also identified the following habitats, wildlife, public opportunities, and management 

priorities to support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants which includes: 

eelgrass beds, gravel bars, old-growth/mature forests, riverine habitats, intertidal mudflats, sand 

dune habitat, fish species (coho, Chinook, chum salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout), 

amphibian diversity, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, educational/research 

opportunities, and cultural resource sites. 

Management priorities are further derived from various legal and land acquisition documents: 

“...one of the most important concentration points for migratory waterfowl on the Washington 

Coast. It has a fine supply of natural aquatic foods, especially eel-grass, and there by has been for 

years one of the few suitable wintering grounds available for Black Brant...it is essential for the 

preservation of the Pacific flyway that the Restoration program provide adequate sanctuary 

facilities for migratory birds in that state.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

Memorandum, Memo 16, May 7, 1936) 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife... (Executive Order 

7541, dated Jan. 22 1937) 

...in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222)” and states that “Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a 

part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United States. 

(Executive Order 7721, October 8, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary. Or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

...To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay...To provide for 

maximum use and production by migratory birds other than wintering waterfowl, with special 

emphasis on bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. (Long Island Land Exchange; September 

1983) 

...protect habitat for old growth dependent species including the threatened marbled murrelet 

and threatened northern spotted owl... protect and restore upland forest and associated stream 

habitat in order to protect and enhance declining fish populations, including coastal cutthroat 

trout, and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs... protect and restore coastal wetlands to 

provide a diversity of habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

songbirds...protect the intertidal mudflats along Willapa Bay by consolidating spartina infested 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-58 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

lands for better management of control and eradication efforts on existing Refuge lands and on 

adjacent tidelands....provide large scale habitat management through linking existing Refuge 

lands in a contiguous Refuge boundary, and provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

compatible with Refuge purposes. (Willapa Addition Environmental Assessment/ Land 

Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan 1999) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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. 

Description of Use(s): 

 The refuge staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, state or 

territorial agencies, other Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, 

scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide 

range of natural and cultural resources as well as public-use management issues including basic 

absence/presence surveys, collection of new species for identification, habitat use and lifehistory requirements for specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat 

restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate 

pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated 

habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, wilderness 

character, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, and assessing response of 

habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be species-specific, refugespecific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge lands to larger landscapes (e.g., 

ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. 

 The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 

FW1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and 

their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs 

for resource and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, would be 

given a higher priority over other requests. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will be primarily be limited to 

the following: review of proposals, prepare SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g., 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act), and monitor project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts 

remain within acceptable levels (compatibility) over time. Additional administrative support, 

logistical and operational support may also be provided depending on each specific request. 

Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare SUP) and annually re-occurring tasks by refuge staff 

and other Service employees will be determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the 

general operating budget of the refuge must be available to cover expenses for these projects. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-59 

The terms and conditions for funding and staff support necessary to administer each project on 

the refuge will be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Refuge has staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research that is 

currently taking place on refuge lands. Any substantial increase in the number of projects may 

create the need for additional resources to oversee the administration and monitoring of the 

investigators and their projects. Any additional costs may result in finding a project not 

compatible unless expenses are offset by the investigator(s), sponsoring agency, or organization. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Use of the refuge(s) to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys will generally provide 

information that would benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding 

wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired 

outcomes reflected in resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in 

accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness, and refuge habitat and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific findings will contribute to 

resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands for the project to 

be compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance required to 

minimize or eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts cannot be 

avoided, then the project will not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private 

economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in 

accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife 

refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 

29.1). 

 

 Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and 

scope of the field work. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality 

or disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term 

impacts. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative 

litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or 

experimentation and statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share 

collections to reduce sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator 

collects fish for a diet study and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to 

accomplish sampling for both projects with one collection effort. 

 Investigator(s) obtaining required State or Territorial, and Federal collecting permits will also 

ensure minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If after incorporating the 

above strategies, projects will not be compatible if they will result in long-term or cumulative 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-60 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

effects. A Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884, as amended Public Law 93-205) will be required for activities that may affect a 

federally listed species and/or critical habitat. Only projects which have no effect or will result 

in not likely to adversely affect determinations will be considered compatible. 

 Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or 

transportation of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by 

requiring proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary. If after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive 

species is anticipated to occur, then the project will be found not compatible without a restoration 

or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil 

and plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from 

infrastructure necessary to support a projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, 

exclosure devices, monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring 

equipment). Some level of disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if 

investigator(s) enter areas closed to the public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, 

wildlife disturbance (including altered behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in 

nature. Where long-term or cumulative unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project 

will not be found compatible. Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as 

needed, to assess the potential impacts (short, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of 

the investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. 

 At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval 

of the Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format 

provided in Attachment 1. Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as 

needed, to assess the potential impacts (short, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of 

the investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This 

assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects 

which result in unacceptable refuge impacts will not be found compatible. If allowed and found 

compatible after approval, all projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure 

impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge Manager will issue a SUP(s) with required 

stipulations (terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to 

refuge resources as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and refuge field management 

operations. After approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts 

and conflicts remain within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will 

ensure that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the refuge. As a result, these 

projects will help fulfill refuge purpose(s); contribute to the Mission of the NWRS; and maintain 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

Future projects which are not covered by the CCP may require additional NEPA documentation. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-61 

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held, verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EIS for the Willapa NWR. Appendix E of the draft 

CCP/EIS further details public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. 

Additional public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EIS comment 

period. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 The use is not compatible. 

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each project will require a SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits will be a longer period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs will 

have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to 

Refuge Manager review and approval based timely submission of and content in progress 

reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable. 

 Investigators must possess appropriate and comply with conditions of State or Territorial 

and Federal permits for their projects. 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

refuge staff, then the Refuge Manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an 

on-going project already permitted by SUP(s) on a refuge. 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s). 

 Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the Refuge Manager. 

 Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the Refuge Manager. 

 The refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the 

project before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

 The refuge staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from 

a refuge project. 

 The refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database 

format) at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required 

for long-term projects), must be removed and sites must restored to the Refuge 

Manager’s satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical 

markers will be stipulated in the SUP(s). 

 All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-62 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal 

for review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project 

work. For samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a 

memorandum of understand will be necessary. 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats) 

will be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for use 

refuge lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests. Where necessary, utilize 

quarantine methods provided by the Refuge Manager.. 

 The NWRS, specific refuge, names of refuge staff and other Service personnel that 

supported or contributed to the project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in 

all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

 At any time, refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

 Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all refuge-specific regulations that specify 

access and travel on the refuge(s). 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they will expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In 

addition, only projects which directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

use, preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally 

will be authorized on refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for the refuge staff providing 

access to refuge lands and waters along with some support, the project would never occur and 

less scientific information would be available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving 

the refuge resources. By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is 

anticipated that wildlife species which could be disturbed during the use would find sufficient 

food resources and resting places so their abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on 

the refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable 

or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. As a result, these projects will 

not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling refuge purpose(s) (including wilderness); 

contributing to the Mission of the NWRS; and maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the refuge. 

 Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-63 

Refuge Determination: 

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys 

Prepared by: ________________________________ ___________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader Approval: _________________________________ ___________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________________ ___________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-64 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 1 

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONGTERM MONITORING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to conduct research and/or long-term monitoring on 

refuge lands. To receive a SUP, a detailed project proposal using the following format must be 

submitted to the Refuge Manager approximately 6 months prior to the start of the project. 

Title:

Principal Investigator(s): 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that will be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In 

addition, provide a brief description or attach vitae of expertise for principal investigator(s) 

germane to work described in the proposal. 

Background and Justification:

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

 The resource management issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge 

gap regarding ecological function that currently exists with any available background 

information. 

 Benefit of project findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with 

refuge. 

 Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding 

ecological function is not addressed. 

Objectives:

Provide detailed objective(s) for the proposed project. 

Methods and Materials: 

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field and laboratory 

work (if applicable) to be conducted for the project. Methods should include the following: 

 study area(s) 

 number of samples; 

 sampling dates and locations 

 sampling techniques 

 data analyses including statistical methods and significance levels. 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations C-65 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities 

and equipment (e.g., vehicles, boats, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. 

Provide a clear description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and 

statistical analyses. 

Permits: 

Identify all State or Territorial and Federal permits required if applicable. 

Potential Impacts to Refuge Resources: 

Describe potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, 

wildlife, and fish species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the 

refuge. Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project. 

Animal Welfare Plan: 

If appropriate, attach a copy of the Institutional Animal Care and Use review and/or animal 

welfare plans that are required by the principle investigator’s affiliation. 

Partnerships and Funding Sources: 

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature 

and magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

Project Schedule:

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data 

analyses, and report/manuscript preparation. If the project is divided into phases to be 

accomplished separately provide separate initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

Reports and Raw Data:

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer 

review of the final report/manuscript. Draft reports/manuscripts should be submitted to the 

Refuge Manager for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. At the 

conclusion of a research study (manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of the 

data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be 

provided to the Refuge Manager. For long-term monitoring projects, the Service also requires 

raw data for management and planning purposes for the refuge(s). 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

C-66 Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations 

Publications:

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, 

presentation at professional symposiums, or final reports. 

Disposition of Samples: 

If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting the project in accordance with the SUP, the Service retains ownership of all 

samples collected on refuge lands. If the samples will be used for subsequent research 

activities that are not described within the original proposal, a new proposal must be 

submitted to the Refuge Manager to obtain a SUP before initiation of the follow-up project. 

After conclusion of the research activities, consult with the Refuge Manager regarding the 

final disposition of the samples. If specimens will be curated at a museum, then prepare a 

MOU using the format provided by the Refuge Manager. 
Appendix D. CCP Team Members D-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. CCP Team Members 

The following Service personnel served as core team members on the Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning team. 

Name Position Degree(s)

Years 

of Exp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Charlie Stenvall Project Leader BS, Wildlife Biology 22 

Marie Fernandez Wildlife Biologist MS, Biology and Wildlife, and Range Mgt. 

BS, Zoology, BS, Geology 

27 

David Gonzales Refuge Manager BS, Wildlife Science 

BS, Fishery Science 

13 

William Ritchie Wildlife Biologist BS, Environmental Science 22 

Mariana Bergerson Visitor Services 

Manager 

MS, Biology 

BS, Biology and Environmental Studies 

13 

Terri Butler-Bates Deputy Project 

Leader 

BS, Biology 22 

Khem So Geography BS, Geography 8 

Rebecca Young Conservation 

Planner 

BS, Natural Resource Management 22 

Early in the planning process, the core team presented the issues to an extended team of tribal, 

state, and Federal professionals who served as a peer review for the issues, goals, objectives, and 

strategies for their respective agencies. We would like to thank the following individuals for 

their interest and assistance throughout this planning process: 

Mr. Gary Burns, Environmental Director of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe 

Mr. Dave Hays, Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Ms. Lisa Lantz, Resource Stewardship Manager, Washington State Parks 

Mr. Scott Pearson Senior Research Scientist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Ms. Ginger Phalen, Coastal Programs Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mr. Jack Smith, Regional Wildlife Program Manager (Retired), Washington Department. of 

Fish and Wildlife 

Mr. Max Zahn, Area Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Dr. Sam Lohr, Ph.D., Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Special thanks for assistance and collaboration with mapping data goes to Mr. Tom Kolash, 

Ellsworth Creek Manager, with The Nature Conservancy. 
D-2 Appendix D. CCP Team Members 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Appendix E. Public Scoping Report E-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix E. Public Scoping Report 

This scoping report summarizes the issues, concerns, and opportunities identified by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), its partners, and the public during the public scoping phase 

for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement (CCP/EIS). Early in the planning process, the USFWS developed a list of preliminary 

issues and concerns for the CCP/EIS. These planning issues were presented at public scoping 

meetings on March 25 and 26, 2008, as well as in a publicly distributed Planning Update and 

Federal Register Notice. Information gathered through these means and other sources is 

reflected in this scoping report through May 16, 2008. 

Public Outreach 

On March 27, 2008, the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft CCP/EIS was published in the 

Federal Register. Planning Update 1 was published, with a comment form, and was distributed 

in March 2008 to a mailing list of approximately 400 recipients. A press release advertising the 

public meetings was distributed to eight western Washington and Oregon newspapers, six state 

and federal congressional members, five regional television stations, and one local radio station 

approximately one week before each meeting scheduled in the respective area of the coast. CCP 

partners were also notified by email or phone of the upcoming public meetings and the 

availability of the Planning Update. The press release was published in three of the local 

newspapers: Daily Astorian, Chinook Observer, and Daily News. Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge held two public meetings for the CCP: one in South Bend, Washington, and one in 

Ilwaco, Washington. A total of 61 private citizens and representatives from various organizations 

attended the public meetings (20 at South Bend and 41 at Ilwaco) and provided verbal comments 

on the issues and opportunities presented. Comment forms were made available at each public 

meeting. All of the public comments heard during the meetings were recorded on easel paper 

and transcribed to a written document after the final meeting. During the scoping period March 

27, 2008, through May 16, 2008, a total of 36 responses were received from individuals or 

organizations in writing. 

Summary of the Oral and Written Comments Received During Public Scoping 

Tidal Marsh Restoration Comments Received 

A comment was received asking that the recently acquired farmland/pasture remain at least in 

part grassland habitat for waterfowl, because large tracts of this land are diminishing in the 

Willapa Bay area, and because a change in landscape would mean a downturn in hunting and 

place waterfowl in areas not accessible to hunters. A comment was made on breaching a dike 

and eliminating an established community. In a follow-up remark, a commenter wondered 

whether that loss of grassland habitat would equal a loss of Canada geese and what would 

happen if numbers of Canada geese go down after salt marsh restoration. A remark from a public 

participant in favor of salt marsh restoration was noted, as were questions about the tidal 

elevation of potential restored areas and whether there could there be multiple uses of these 

restored areas. A commenter suggested examination of climate implications and sea level rise. A 

commenter suggested that grazing cattle to maintain pastures, which are beneficial for geese and 

other species that avoid tall vegetation due to predators, is effective. A commenter noted that 
E-2 Appendix E. Public Scoping Report 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

anything the Refuge does to enhance tidal marsh habitats is good. Remarks were submitted with 

strong encouragement to restore diked areas to tidal salt marsh. A follow-up comment concerned 

the costs and personnel hours spent maintaining the dike and water control structures to the 

detriment of numerous species. Another comment suggested that the Service learn more about 

restoration from other projects that have succeeded or failed. A comment noted that waterfowl 

need fresh water and pastures for feeding, not saltwater marshes. 

Land Acquisition Comments Received 

Concerns were expressed that land is purchased and no trespassing signs go up; that there is less 

land for all outdoor activities; and that more trails and access should be allowed and planned. 

Another comment was pro land acquisition but expressed concern that the primary use could be 

perceived to be hunting. A commenter asked whether the Refuge has identified areas in 

proximity that would be beneficial to acquire for habitat. An additional suggestion stated that 

Willapa Bay is an incredible place and the commenter would like to see as much done as 

possible to keep land acquisition a priority of the Refuge where the land is sensitive habitats in 

need of protection, noting that over time, things can be done to enhance or restore existing lands 

in the Refuge, and that the available land will continue to increase in cost and increase in 

development, so that the time is now to buy as much land as possible. Another comment 

suggested that lands around Bear River should be considered for acquisition as valuable areas for 

salmon and other anadromous fish. Top priorities for one commenter are expanding territory and 

controlling invasive species. A remark stated the Refuge should strive for continued acquisition 

of lands that would create a more efficient land pattern to manage. Another comment strongly 

supported expansion of the refuge boundary and acquisition of lands in fee title and easements to 

protect habitat in Willapa Bay. Another comment expressed that the Refuge should seriously 

consider the land base it will need to effectively conserve its trust species within functional 

landscapes long into the future. 

Wildlife and Species Management Comments Received 

Several comments were received regarding specific wildlife species and their management and 

protection. One attendee inquired about threatened and endangered species, especially western 

snowy plover and marbled murrelet, specifically, what the strategies are in place to protect these 

species. A comment was made that the respondent did not want another tern nesting site up at 

the Leadbetter Unit with removal of all the grasses. A comment was made that terns consumed 

up to 14 million salmon smolts on Columbia River last year. One commenter suggested elk 

exclusion from nesting areas should be considered. A remark was made that there is only one 

effective measure to prevent elk from continually impacting the resources of the snowy plover 

HRA: building an elk-proof fence around it. One commenter suggested the expansion of exotic 

beach grass removal and lethal removal of corvids and elk. 

Leadbetter Point Unit: Elk Management Comments Received: 

Comments were in favor of a hunt to decrease the number of elk at the Leadbetter Point Unit but 

not to remove them completely. Several comments suggested special hunting permits or tags for 

an elk hunt be established in conjunction with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(e.g., provide five tags). One commenter suggested a specific number of tags be given to master 
Appendix E. Public Scoping Report E-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

hunters and youth hunters. A suggestion was made that an early hunt season would have too 

many conflicts with other users (birdwatchers, hikers, wildlife observation). A comment was 

recorded regarding the sound of gunshots, specifically that when shots are heard at nearby 

residences, it is unnerving. An observation was made that elk seem to be flourishing in the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. A comment noted that most visitors at the Leadbetter Point Unit are 

walking the beaches and trails and may be at odds with hunting in this unit. It was asked 

whether netting and relocating the elk at the Leadbetter Point Unit have been considered. There 

was a concern that the elk will move out of the Leadbetter Point Unit if hunt is activated and 

move onto adjacent lands, specifically cranberry fields. 

Service Response/Change 

After further evaluation of the hunting program during the planning process, it was determined 

that the proposed elk hunt at the Leadbetter Point Unit should be considered as part of the overall 

Refuges big game hunting program. The details of the proposed expanded elk and deer hunt may 

be found in Chapter 5 and Appendices C and M. 

Forest Management Comments Received 

A commenter was in favor of habitat restoration but was concerned about road removal and 

access into forest areas for hunting. A comment was recorded to not allow any major timber 

harvesting to occur on refuge lands. Comments were made that the welfare of endangered 

species such as marbled murrelet and spotted owl should be considered, and that surveys should 

be conducted periodically for insect infestations or other destructive organisms injurious to trees. 

Another comment indicated this is a major issue for the Refuge as we have much more forested 

lands than any other, so the Refuge should consider adding a biologist position dedicated to 

forestry/silviculture as there is plenty of meaningful work to be conducted. A suggestion was 

made to continue partnerships with adjacent landowners to restore forest and streams. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation and Public Use Comments Received 

Some comments were in favor of increasing opportunities for hunting and suggested that the 

Service increase these opportunities through refuge expansion and/or in coordination with 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Additional comments were supportive of current 

hunting opportunities, and a recommendation was made to provide bulletin board 

announcements at the Lewis Unit for clear hunting regulations and access. One individual 

commented that he/she would like to be able to walk dogs on refuge trails. One suggestion is to 

have a trail from the Leadbetter Point parking lot along north side of Willapa Bay to Grassy 

Island. A comment was received about airboats in Willapa Bay disturbing wildlife in the bay and 

on Long Islands, with a follow-up comment that the airboats detract from the hunt experience on 

Long Island. Some commenters asked what the USFWS is doing to get the word out about 

airboat disturbance of wildlife, and it was suggested that the Service increase signage to inform 

the public about the sensitivity of coastal wildlife resources. Additional feedback indicated 

concern about too much focus on hunting and not enough on other public uses. A respondent 

indicated unease with primary acquisition and use of refuge lands for hunters before other users. 

A suggestion was made to continue to expand environmental education to young people. 

Another comment suggested that the Salmon Art Trail and trail extension Cutthroat Climb Trail 
E-4 Appendix E. Public Scoping Report 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

be open more than the current Monday through Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm. An additional comment 

on hunting and other public uses on the Refuge: it should be marked/signed when hunters may be 

on the Refuge. A commenter remarked that signs at the Leadbetter yellow trail are in need of 

attention and there are some additional signage needs at the Leadbetter Point Unit. It was noted 

that there seems to be some awkward coordination, including unclear, confusing signage, 

regarding mushroom picking at Leadbetter Point, because it is prohibited on the Refuge but 

allowed in the State Park adjacent to the Refuge. Another remark was made concerning garbage 

on beaches and wondered about seasonal crews conducting beach cleanup when snowy plover 

nesting was not at risk. A respondent indicated that the Refuge should provide safe and 

accessible dock facilities. 

Goose Hunting Comments Received 

Several comments concerned the goose hunt at the Riekkola Unit and the maintenance of the 

pasture for the hunt. It was requested that there be more goose blinds at the Tarlatt/Shier Unit 

(two blinds). It was also requested that blinds be repositioned and new blinds put in. A user 

group/nearby hunt club offered to assist with this. A question was raised as to the dollar amount 

for maintaining the pastures for a goose hunt that does not attract many hunters or geese. 

Suggestions were made that the Refuge should work with the traditional hunters on blind 

placement and management of pastures. A written suggestion was made to 1) eradicate all nongrasses within 80 to100 yards of all blinds especially blinds 1 and 2, 2) mow all bull-rushes 

regularly throughout the year or mowed prior to goose hunting season, 3) paint all pit blinds 

olive drab outside, 4) paint inside of entrance tube but leave directions legible, 5) change box 

blind 5 to three pit blinds, and 6) move old box blind 5 to the west of blind 7. Another remark 

indicated the goose hunt should remain as it is with no expansion. 

Big Game Hunting Comments Received 

Over half of the hunters in attendance at the Ilwaco meeting on March 26 were muzzleloader 

hunters. A comment stated that muzzleloader hunters should be allowed to hunt Porter Point and 

Shier/Tarlatt Unit of Willapa NWR, and that the limited range would not impact the nearby 

residential area; the comment further stated that the Long Beach Unit is only area where 

muzzleloaders can hunt elk, but that other users (archery and modern firearm hunters) are not 

restricted. Requests were made to open the Tarlatt/Shier Unit to muzzleloaders; historically this 

area was used for muzzleloader until refuge was acquired. A request was made for more bear 

hunting, because there are too many black bears on Long Beach Peninsula. The continuation of 

archery hunting and camping on Long Island is extremely important to one respondent, who has 

enjoyed many trips to Long Island. 

Invasive Species (Spartina Control) Comments Received 

A comment noted that there is a long list of non-native threats to the Refuge and the bay— 

Spartina, Scotch broom, gorse, tussock, knotweed, Himalayan blackberries, bullfrogs, green 

crabs, ghost shrimp, and more—all of which will need to be controlled and eliminated (if 

possible). Top priorities for one commenter are expanding refuge territory and controlling 

invasive species. A comment expressed that the refuge staff needs to be commended for the huge 
Appendix E. Public Scoping Report E-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

undertaking of Spartina removal. A question was asked about whether the Refuge will have an 

active monitoring program. 

Research/Studies Comments Received 

Comments in this category primarily emphasized the need for more collaborative biological 

research on the Refuge, noting that the USFWS needs better baseline data for management and 

determining potential methods for accomplishing this research. One attendee recommended that 

the USFWS partner with universities and other agencies to conduct research that currently is not 

being done due to limited staff time and funding. A number of meeting attendees had ideas about 

how the USFWS could work with community groups, federal and state agencies, and other 

entities to assist the USFWS in accomplishing its mission. 

Other Comments Received 

Comments placed into this category covered many aspects of general refuge management. 

Several comments about funding were received, including the need for more funds to manage 

refuges adequately and to implement ideas and projects resulting from the CCP process. One 

attendee requested that the Refuge consider camouflaging the outhouses on Long Island as they 

are visible to all going around island and offensive to see from a distance. One commenter wants 

the Service to increase advertisement of National Wildlife Refuges along the coast, thus 

improving the Refuge’s identity. A question was asked about the significance of wilderness 

designation. A comment was made about having a check in station at the boat launch to monitor 

Long Island hunting. A suggestion was made to provide facilitation for conservation easements 

around Willapa Bay. An additional comment was made in support of recovery efforts for 

threatened species but not at the expense of other species. 
E-6 Appendix E. Public Scoping Report 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Appendix F. Implementation Plan F-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Implementation Plan 

F.1 Overview 

Implementation of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be sought from a variety 

of sources. This plan will depend on additional Congressional allocations, partnerships, and 

grants. There are no guarantees that additional Federal funds will be made available to 

implement any of the projects. Other sources of funds will need to be obtained (both public and 

private). Activities and projects identified will be implemented as funds become available. 

Operational management of refuge lands is accomplished by permanent and temporary staffing, 

volunteers, and partnerships. Operational management includes managing public use, law 

enforcement, biology, fire, maintenance, administration, and habitat management programs on 

the Refuge. 

Many of the infrastructure and facility projects will be eligible for funding through construction 

or Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21) funds (i.e., Refuge Roads). 

The CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. All of these 

projects are included in either the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) or the Service 

Asset Management System (SAMMS). Both are used to request funding from the U.S. 

Congress. Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists on the Refuge. In 2009, the 

deferred maintenance backlog for Willapa Refuge was $2.5 million. Reduction of the backlog is 

an ongoing goal and is included here in the analysis of funding needs. The RONS documents 

propose new projects to implement the CCP to meet refuge goals and objectives, as well as legal 

mandates. 

Annual revenue sharing payments to Pacific County, Washington, will continue. Total revenue 

sharing payments made in 2009 was $47,369. 

Monitoring activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and 

activities to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and 

responses to management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures will be 

detailed in step-down management plans. 

F.2 Costs to Implement CCP, by Alternative 

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for various projects, by 

alternative. One-time costs reflect the initial costs associated with a project whether it is 

purchase of equipment, contracting services, or construction. Recurring costs reflect the future 

operational and maintenance costs associated with the project. 

F.2.1 One-time Costs 

One-time costs are project costs that have a start-up cost associated with them, such as 

purchasing a new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring or designing and installing an 

interpretive sign. These projects are usually projects that can be completed in three years or less. 
F-2 Appendix F. Implementation Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

These projects do not include permanent operational costs (staff salary and support). They can, 

however, include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. 

Salary for new positions and operational costs are reflected in operational or “recurring” costs. 

Funds for one-time costs will be sought through increases in refuge base funding, special project 

funds, grants, Refuge Roads or Transportation Equity Act (TEA3) funding, and fire funds. 

Projects listed in Tables F-1, F-2, and F-3 show one-time costs, such as those associated with 

building and facility needs such as offices, public use facilities, road improvements, and new 

signs. One-time costs are also associated with habitat restoration and protection projects such as 

specific riparian and wetland projects or research. New research projects, because of their shortterm nature are considered one-time projects and include costs of contracting services or hiring a 

temporary employee for the short-term project. Tables F-1, F-2, and F-3 compare one-time costs 

between the various alternatives for the Willapa NWR. 

Table F-1. One-Time Costs (in Thousands) for Research, Monitoring, and Planning

Project – Research, Monitoring, and 

Planning 

Priority Unit Unit 

Cost 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Potential 

Fund Source 

Survey and monitor for marbled murrelet 

presence/absence (Obj. 1.1F) 

H Pr oject 25 $25 $25 $25 * 

Monitor for the presence of invasive 

species such as Spartina, tussock, 

loosestrife spp., thistle spp., Japanese 

knotweed (Obj. 3.2B) 

H Main land 

and Long 

Island 

30 $ 60 $60 $60 * 

Monitor water quality as warranted by 

conditions of restoration and/or 

maintenance activities (Obj. 2.1B, 2.2E) 

M Pro ject 7 $7 $7 $7 * 

Compile watershed assessments (Obj. 

3.2B) 

H Main land 

and Long 

Island 

20 $ 40 $40 $40 * 

Monitor western snowy plover breeding 

and wintering populations (Obj. 6.1A) 

H Pr oject 10 $10 $10 $10 * 

Monitor western snowy plover breeding 

productivity (Obj. 6.1B) 

H Pr oject 10 $10 $10 $10 * 

Research actions for western snowy 

plovers as needed (Obj. 6.1C) 

M Pr oject 10 $10 $10 $10 * 

Monitor the status of western snowy 

plover, marbled murrelet, streaked 

horned lark, pink sandverbena, mammal, 

fish and priority amphibian and invertebrate species on the Refuge (Obj. 7.1B) 

H Pr oject 10 $30 $30 $30 * 

Work with graduate school programs to 

conduct research and monitoring, utilize 

the bunkhouse for students and other 

researchers (Obj. 7.1F) 

M Pr oject 10 $10 $10 $10 * 

Monitor the species composition and 

distribution of amphibians, mussels 

(Obj. 7.1G) 

H Pr oject 10 $10 $10 $10 * 

All Research, Monitoring, and Planning Projects Subtotal (Thousands) 

 $ 212 $ 212 $ 212 

High-Priority Research, Planning, and 

Monitoring Only (Thousands) 

 $ 185 $ 185 $ 185 

*Projects will be funded as opportunities arise. 
Appendix F. Implementation Plan F-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Table F-2. One-Time Costs (in Thousands) for Facilities 

Project – Facilities Priority Unit Unit 

Cost 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Fund 

Source 

Construct a visitor contact and office facility 

that would include indoor/outdoor environmental education facilities (Obj. 8.6D and 8.8) 

H Tar lett 6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,500 * 

Enhance 12 miles of trails with replacement 

signage and bridges (Obj. 8.2C and 8.1A) 

M Refuge 120 $0 $120 $120 * 

Create a new trail based on the restoration 

along South Bay and new office/visitor center 

design (Obj. 8.2A and 8.1E) 

H Tarlett 20 $0 $0 $20 * 

Create new wildlife observation site (Obj. 8.2A 

and 8.1F) 

H Tarlett 50 $0 $50 $0 * 

Construct car-top canoe/boat put-in to access to 

South Bay from Riekkola Unit (Obj. 8.1, 8.3F, 

and 8.5) 

M Riekkola 18 $0 $18 $18 * 

Prepare environmental/cultural education 

materials for interpretation displays/exhibits/ 

brochures regarding resources of the Refuge 

(Obj. 9.1C) 

M Refuge 10 $0 $10 $0 * 

Install interpretive panel/map at new HQ and 

along interpretive trail (Obj. 8.1E and 8.2A) 

M Tarlett 40 $0 $40 $40 * 

Improve signage to better delineate refuge and 

hunt boundaries (Obj. 8.3 and 8.4) 

H Refuge 60 $60 $60 $60 * 

Remove old buildings and restore habitat of the 

old building sites. 

H Refuge 100 $0 $100 $100 * 

All Facilities Subtotal (thousands) $ 60 $6,898 $6,858

High-Priority Facilities Subtotal (thousands) $ 60 $6,710 $6,680

*Projects will be funded as opportunities arise. 

Table F-3. One-time Costs (in thousands) for Habitat Management. 

Project – Habitat Priority Unit Unit Cost (in 

dollars) 

Alt 

1** 

Alt 

2** 

Alt 

3** 

Fund 

Source 

Objective 1.1 Protect and maintain late-successional Sitka spruce zone forest 

 number of acres 557 557 557 * 

 total cost H acre $50 $28 $28 $28 

Objective 1.2 Restore late-successional Sitka spruce zone forest 

 number of acres 6,178 6,178 6,178 * 

 total cost H acre $200 $1,235 $1,235 $1,235 

Objective 2.1 and 2.2 Restore and maintain open water 

 number of acres 878 878.2 878 * 

 total cost H acre $50 $44 $44 $44 

Objective 2.3 and 2.4 Restore and maintain intertidal flats 

 number of acres 4,178 4,189 4,189 * 

 total cost M acre $100 $418 $419 $419 

Objective 2.6 Restore and maintain salt marsh habitat 

 number of acres 0 749 430 * 

 total cost H acre $100 $0 $749 $430 

Objective 3.1 and 3.2 Protect, restore, and maintain riverine habitats 

 number of acres 27 27 27 * 

 total cost H acre $100 $3 $3 $3 

Objective 3.3 Seasonal, managed freshwater wetlands 

 number of acres 317 17 25 * 

 total cost H acre $50 $16 $1 $1 
F-4 Appendix F. Implementation Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Project – Habitat Priority Unit Unit Cost (in 

dollars) 

Alt 

1** 

Alt 

2** 

Alt 

3** 

Fund 

Source 

Objective 3.4 Permanent/semi-permanent natural freshwater wetlands (includes beaver ponds and interdunal 

wetlands) 

 number of acres 610 610 610 * 

 total cost H acre $30 $18 $18 $18 

Objective 4.1 and 4.2 Protect, restore and maintain coastal dune ecosystem 

 number of acres 1,581 1,931 1,931 * 

 total cost H acre $75 $119 $145 $145 

Objective 5.1 Maintain short-grass fields (improved pastures) 

 number of acres 250 12 250 * 

 total cost H acre $40 $10 $1 $10 

*Projects will be funded as opportunities arise. 

** Total costs for alternatives given in thousands. 

F.2.2. Operational and Maintenance (Recurring) Costs 

Operational and maintenance costs reflect refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. 

These are also known as recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations 

and projects that last longer than three years. Operational costs use base funding in Service fund 

codes 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 9131, 9263, and 9264. 

Maintenance includes preventative maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of 

parts, components, or items of equipment; adjustments, lubrication, and cleaning (non-janitorial) 

of equipment, painting; resurfacing; rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other actions 

to ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 reflect the backlog and chart the increased maintenance need associated 

with new facilities and additional acquisitions. 

Tables F-4 and F-5 displays the operating and maintenance costs by alternative. Alternatives 1, 

2, and 3 reflect increased funding needs for proposed increases in public uses and facilities, 

increased habitat restoration and conservation activities, and new monitoring needs. These tables 

include such things as salary, operational expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, utilities 

and annual maintenance costs. 

Table F-4. Operational (Recurring) costs (in thousands). 

Project Action Resources Needed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

1.a Survey and 

censuses 

All methods of enumerating fish and 

wildlife populations, vegetative habitats, 

analysis, interpretation and reporting 

1260; Biologist, Bio 

Techs, and 

Volunteers 

$20 $ 30 $20

1.b Studies and 

investigations 

Research projects for managing fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats 

1260; Biologist and 

Cooperators 

$10 $ 20 $10

2.a Wetland 

restoration 

The conversion of altered or degraded onrefuge wetland habitats, including riparian 

zones back to their original conditions 

1260 & special 

project funds 

$0 $3 0 $0

2.b Upland/island/ 

cliff management 

The conversion of altered or degraded onrefuge upland habitats back to their 

original condition by such actions as road 

decommissioning, tree stand thinning, 

replanting native species. 

1260 & special 

project funds 

$10 $ 15 $10
Appendix F. Implementation Plan F-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Project Action Resources Needed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

3.a Wetland 

management 

The manipulation of water bodies to affect 

vegetation and/or create desired wildlife 

conditions 

1260 $ 20 $25 $20

3.b Riparian 

habitat 

management 

Planting of native trees and brush to mimic 

historic conditions. 

 $ 50 $80 $50

3.c Graze/mow/ 

hay crop 

management 

The management of grasslands and other 

habitats for the benefit of wildlife by 

cropland, grazing, mowing, or haying 

 $ 10 $10 $10

3.f Fire 

management 

Prescribed burning and wildfire 

preparedness activities. Follow-up 

monitoring and reporting 

 $0 $0 $0

3.g Native pest 

plant control 

Integrated pest management activities $10 $10 $10

3.h Invasive plant 

management 

The eradication, reduction, or control of 

invasive or exotic plants. Includes 

monitoring 

1260 & special 

project funds 

$25 $ 25 $25

4.a Bird banding Marking and banding of birds 1260; Volunteers $2 $2 $2

5.a Interagency 

coordination 

Interactions with other Federal, State and 

local governments to share information, 

resolve problems, develop cooperative 

efforts, and manage species and habitats 

1260 $ 10 $10 $10

5.b Tribal 

coordination 

Activities associated with the development 

of cooperative agreements, MOU’s, annual 

funding agreements and similar 

cooperation/coordination/communications 

efforts with tribes. 

 $ 10 $10 $10

5.c Private lands 

activities 

Efforts to assist private land owners with 

habitat improvement and wildlife issues. 

(Initiate Stewardship Mgt.) 

1260 & special 

project funds 

$10 $ 10 $10

Wildlife 

population 

management 

1260 & special 

project funds; 

Biologist 

$25 $ 50 $25

6.a Law 

enforcement 

Public Safety, Resource Protection, Hunt 

Program 

1260; Law 

Enforcement Officer 

$100 $ 100 $100

6.e Water rights 

managements 

Activities associated with compliance with 

state and federal laws to protect and 

achieve adequate supplies of water. 

Reading, maintaining and installing 

measurement devices and gaging stations, 

preparing water mgt. plans, also 

monitoring off-refuge water uses 

 $5 $5 $5

6.f Cultural 

resource 

management 

Supporting the study and protection of 

significant prehistoric and historic sites. 

Evaluation of cultural resources and 

management of museum property. 

 $5 $5 $5

6.g Land 

acquisition 

support 

Staff participation in land acquisition 

activities, including development of 

acquisition proposals and appraisals, 

meetings, inventories and surveys 

1260; NAWCA $5 $5 $5

7.a Visitor 

services 

Providing access, facilities, and programs 

for refuge visitors. Planning, construction, 

operation and maintenance of visitor 

facilities such as roads, trails, signs. 

 $ 20 $20 $40
F-6 Appendix F. Implementation Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Project Action Resources Needed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Interpretation, environmental education, 

hunting and other recreation 

7.b Outreach Off-site education of public about Service 

activities through presentations, exhibits, 

news releases, and radio/TV spots 

 $7 $7 $11

8.a Planning $5 $5 $5

TOTALS Subtotals annual operational costs (in 

thousands) 

$ 359 $ 474 $ 383

Operational costs over 15 years (in 

thousands) 

$5,385 $7,110 $5,745

F.2.3 Staffing 

Table F-5 includes costs for permanent and seasonal staff needed each year. It does not include 

staff costs associated with special projects; these are summarized in Table F-6. 

Table F-5. Annual Costs of Salaries and Benefits Associated with Staff, by Alternative

Staff—Refuge Operations Status Staff Positions Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Cost 

Project Leader PFT GS-0485-13 X X X $81,823 

Deputy Project Leader PFT GS-0485-12 X X X $71,000 

Visitor Services Specialist PFT GS-0023-11 X X X $57,408 

Administrative Officer PFT GS-0341-09 X X X $47,448 

Refuge Manager PFT GS-0485-11 X X X $57,408 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-11 X X X $71,000 

Law Enforcement Officer (for entire 

complex) PFT G S-0025-09 X X X $47,448 

Engineering Equipment Operator PFT WG-5716-10 X X X $54,080 

Engineering Equipment Operator PFT WG-5716-9 X X X $52,728 

Maintenance Worker PFT WG-4749-08 X X X $50,523 

Purchasing Agent PFT GS-1105-05 X X X $31,087 

Private Lands Biologist (for entire 

complex) PFT G S-0401-11 X X X $57,408 

Wildlife Biologist CS GS-0486-09 X X X $47,448 

GIS Specialist* (for entire complex) PFT GS-2210-09 X X $47,448 

Refuge Manager Scep* PFT GS-0485-09 X X $47,448 

Engineering Equipment Operator* CS WG-5716-10 X X $54,080 

Forester* PFT GS-04600486-11 X X $71,000 

Contract Specialist* (for entire 

complex) PFT G S-1102-7/9 X X $47,448 

Database Manager* (for entire 

complex) PFT G S-0343-7/9 X X $47,448 

Environmental Ed Specialist* PFT GS-2210-09 X X $47,448 

Engineering Equipment Operator* Term WG-5716-09 X X $52,728 

Wildlife Biologist* Term GS-0486-09 X X $47,448 

Total Positions 13 22 22 $1,189,305 

PFT: Permanent Full Time 

PS: Permanent Seasonal 

Temp: Temporary Position 

Term: Term Position 

GS: General Schedule Federal Employee 

WG: Wage Grade Scale 

*: Positions not filled at this time 
Appendix F. Implementation Plan F-7

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

F.2.4 Budget Summary 

Table F-6 summarizes the data from the above tables and displays the overall annual funding 

need, by alternative, for the Refuge by alternative. 

Table F-6. Summary of Refuge Annual Funding Need by CCP Alternative 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

All projects—one-time expenditures (total costs over 15 years), in thousands 

Research and monitoring $212 $212 $212 

Facilities $60 $6,898 $6,858 

Habitat Management $1,891 $2,643 $2,333 

A. Subtotal one-time expenditures—

all projects 

$2,163 $ 9,753 $9,403 

High-priority projects—one-time expenditures (total costs over 15 years), in thousands 

Research and monitoring $185 $185 $185 

Facilities $60 $6,710 $6,680 

Habitat management $1,473 $2,224 $1,914 

B. Subtotal one-time expenditures—

high priority projects only 

$1,718 $ 9,119 $8,779 

Recurring costs—all (total costs over 15 years), in thousands 

C. Recurring costs—all projects, 

salaries, and maintenance 

$14,790 $2 4,945 $23,580 

Total annual need—all projects (in thousands) (A+C)/15 

$3,182 $ 11,375 $10,920 

Total annual need—high-priority projects only (in thousands) (A+B)/15 

$2,715 $ 10,705 $10,265 
F-8 Appendix F. Implementation Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory G-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory for the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge 

G.1 Policy and Direction for Wilderness Reviews 

Wilderness review is the process used to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to the U.S. Congress for designation as 

wilderness. Planning policy for the System (602 FW 3) mandates conducting wilderness reviews 

every 15 years through the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) process. 

The wilderness review process has three phases: wilderness inventory, wilderness study, and 

wilderness recommendation. After first identifying lands and waters that meet the minimum 

criteria for wilderness (inventory phase), the resulting wilderness study areas (WSAs) are further 

studied to determine if they merit recommendation from the Service to the Secretary of the 

Interior for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Areas 

recommended for designation are managed to maintain wilderness. A brief discussion of the 

wilderness inventory and recommendation follows. 

During the study phase, a WSA is analyzed for all values (ecological, recreational, cultural), 

resources (wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within 

the WSA. The purpose of the study is to determine each WSA’s suitability for management as 

wilderness in light of its primary purpose(s) as a refuge. The findings of the study determine 

whether or not the WSA merits recommendation for inclusion in the NWPS or should be 

managed under an alternate set of goals, objectives, and strategies/actions that do not involve 

wilderness designation. 

If the wilderness study determines that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the 

NWPS, a wilderness study report that presents the results of the wilderness review, accompanied 

by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), is prepared. The wilderness study 

report and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of 

Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to the U.S. Congress for action. 

If it is determined during the inventory that no areas qualify as WSAs or if it is concluded from 

the study that we should not recommend any areas as wilderness, we prepare a brief report that 

documents the unsuitability of the lands and waters for wilderness study or recommendation. 

That report is submitted to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

G.1.2 Previous Wilderness Reviews 

There have been no previous wilderness reviews conducted on this refuge. 

G.1.3 Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review 

All Service-owned lands and waters inside the approved boundary were considered during the 

inventory for wilderness. This is consistent with current Service policy. 
G-2 Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

G.2 Wilderness Inventory Criteria 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) provides the following 

description of wilderness: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own 

works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.” An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or 

human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions. 

The following criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are described further in Section 2(c) of 

the Act and are elaborated upon in the Service Wilderness Management Policy (610 FW 1-5). 

We inventory Refuge System lands and waters to identify areas that meet the definition of 

wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

(1) Size—an area meets the size criteria if it: 

 has no permanent roads and is 5,000 contiguous acres or more, 

 has no permanent roads and is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition, or 

 is a roadless island 

(2) Naturalness—an area meets the naturalness criteria if it: 

 would look fairly natural to the average visitor who would not realize that historic 

conditions of the ecosystem had been modified by humans 

(3) Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation—an area meets this 

criterion if it offers: 

 outstanding opportunities for solitude—visitors can experience nature essentially free of 

the reminders of society, or 

 outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation—dispersed, 

undeveloped recreation not requiring prohibited uses. 

Outstanding opportunities do not have to be present on every acre and the area does not have to 

be open to public entry and use. 

At the end of the inventory, we may have identified none, one, or several WSAs based on the 

above criteria. 

G.2.2 Process of Analysis 

The CCP team began the inventory phase of the wilderness review and recognized that the only 

unit meeting the above basic criteria was the Long Island Unit of the Refuge. T he team 

completed a preliminary assessment of the island and documenting the findings. 

The following evaluation process was used in identifying suitability for wilderness designation: 

 Determination of refuge unit sizes. 
Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory G-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 For any areas that met the size/island criterion, an assessment was made of its 

naturalness. 

 For any areas that met the size/island criterion, an assessment was made of its capacity to 

provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

 For any areas that met the size/island criterion, an assessment was made of its features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

More detail on the actual factors considered and used for each assessment step follows. 

Identification of Roadless Areas and Roadless Islands 

Identification of roadless areas and roadless islands required gathering land status maps, land use 

and road inventory data, and aerial photographs of existing Refuge mainland tracts and islands. 

“Roadless” refers to the absence of improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by 

means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use. Only lands currently owned by 

the Service in fee title were evaluated. 

The roads on Long Island are visible and used routinely by staff and partners for necessary 

refuge management purposes. This includes use of heavy equipment, tractors, ATVs, and trucks 

to conduct forest restoration activities, fire management activities, monitor wildlife, control 

invasive plants, maintain roads, and other infrastructure. 

Unit Size: Roadless Areas that Met the Size Criterion, if Any One of the Following 

Standards is Applied 

 An area with at least 5,000 contiguous acres. Lands owned by states, local governments, 

and private parties are not included in making this acreage determination. 

 A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or an area that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau 

of Land Management. 

As stated previously none of the current refuge units other than the Long Island Unit meet the 

5,000-acre size criterion. Currently, refuge roads on the island are frequently used for 

management and restoration activities by the refuge staff and their partners. Long Island has 

5,451 acres owned by the Service, and it has over 7 miles of roads, which were created for 

logging operations and are currently maintained for refuge management purposes. Once the 

planned forest restoration and road decommissioning activities have been completed, this island 

should be considered and further studied as a WSA. 
G-4 Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

A wilderness area must provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive recreation. The area does 

not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation 

and does not need to have outstanding 

opportunities on every acre. Further, 

an area does not have to be open to 

public use and access to qualify under 

these criteria; the U.S. Congress has 

designated a number of wilderness 

areas in the Refuge System that are 

closed to public access to protect 

natural resource values. 

“Opportunities for solitude” refers to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other 

visitors in the area. “Primitive and unconfined recreation” means non-motorized, dispersed 

outdoor recreation activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or 

mechanical transport. These primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to 

experience challenge, risk, self-reliance, and adventure. 

These two elements are not well-defined by the Wilderness Act. In some cases, they occur 

together. However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an area offering 

only limited primitive recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for 

recreational use that experiencing solitude is not an option. 

In the wilderness inventory for the roadless islands, the following factors were the primary 

considerations in evaluating the availability of outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive 

and unconfined recreation on Long Island: 

 Island size and 

 Availability of vegetative screening. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation were judged to be outstanding on Long 

Island. The young, second-growth forest cover contains dense vegetative undergrowth and 

vegetative screening, providing a sense of solitude. T he size of the island (5,451 acres) and five 

dispersed primitive camping areas (a total of 21 camp sites) is large enough to provide the 

individuals an opportunity for solitude. Hunting and camping opportunities are provided on the 

island and offer a quality primitive recreation activity. Hiking on the island can be accomplished 

along the maintained roadways and one developed trail (Cedar Grove Trail). Access to the island 

can be accomplished via motorized or non-motorized watercraft. 
Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory G-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Naturalness and Wildness 

In addition to being roadless, a wilderness area must meet the naturalness and wildness criteria. 

Section 2(c) defines wilderness as an area that “generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” If not 

pristine, an area must at least appear natural to the average visitor. The presence of historic 

landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some human impacts provided they 

are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Significant human-caused hazards, such as 

the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical impacts of refuge 

management facilities and activities are also considered in evaluation of the naturalness criteria. 

An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis of the “sights and 

sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. 

In this wilderness inventory, the following factors were primary considerations in evaluating 

naturalness of Long Island: 

 presence of buildings and roads/vehicles, 

 presence of forest harvest/thinning activities, and 

 presence of other management activities 

Opportunities for naturalness are currently judged to be poor on the Long Island Unit: The 

second-growth forest is actively managed by mechanical means to improve forest health. 

The forest management activities currently require refuge staff to use a variety of heavy 

equipment, helicopters, trucks, and ATVs. The island has over 7 miles of roads with maintained 

water culverts, an equipment barn, and a boat dock facility. Wildlife-dependent public recreation 

activities (wildlife-observation, hunting) are available on the island. To facilitate these activities 

there are five campgrounds (with a total of 21 camp sites), which require active management 

using vehicles to maintain the facilities. 

This island currently does not have the appearance of a pristine natural island due to the former 

forest harvest and clear-cutting activities on approximately 75% of the overall island. The 

activities of the past are reinforced by the ongoing resource and forest management activities. 

The presence and sounds of forest management activities include power boats, air boats, heavy 

equipment, and vehicles, all of which would impact that sense of naturalness and wildness on a 

seasonal basis as refuge management and forest restoration activities are implemented. 

Based on the preceding discussion, this island does not meet the minimum standards for a 

wilderness study. This island should be re-evaluated for wilderness study once the forest 

management activities and the plans for future road decommissioning have been completed as 

part of this 15-year CCP. 

Supplemental Values or Features 

Supplemental values have been determined to occur on Long Island. The values include 270 

acres of old-growth western red cedar forest, including the wide variety of wildlife species that 
G-6 Appendix G. Wilderness Inventory 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

occur on the island. Both wildlife habitat and historic Native American cultural values occur as a 

result of protection and management of this island. 

Inventory Findings 

Based on this inventory, Long Island appears to possess the best opportunities for future 

consideration as a WSA. Currently, the scars of past commercial timber harvest activities are 

visible across the island landscape. Management activities include routine use of island roads for 

aggressive forest habitat restoration and future road decommissioning (track hoes, chainsaws, 

and helicopters), fire protection activities, and continued implementation of the forest 

management plan. There is a large barn located on the island, which is used for storage of 

necessary mechanical and fire equipment. 

The team recommends re-evaluation of the Long Island Unit for a wilderness study in 15 years. 

Table G-1. Results of the Willapa NWR Wilderness Inventory 

Area 

Unit 

Acres 

Meets Island 

and/or Size 

Criterion 

Meets 

Naturalness 

Criterion 

Meets 

Solitude/ 

Primitive 

Recreation 

Criterion 

Meets 

Supplemental 

Values 

Criterion 

(Optional) 

Preliminary 

Conclusion: 

Suitable for 

Further 

Consideration 

in Wilderness 

Study 

Long Island 

Unit 

5,451 Yes No Yes Yes No 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-1 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program 

H.1 Background 

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or 

control pest species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to 

achieve wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, 

adaptive management process where available scientific information and best professional 

judgment of the refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and 

implement appropriate management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to 

ensure effective, site-specific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In 

accordance with 43 C.F.R. 46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where 

long-term impacts may be uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments 

in subsequent implementation decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is 

determined considering achievement of refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest 

species, one or more methods, or combinations thereof, would be selected that are feasible, 

efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, including native species (fish, wildlife, 

and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, volunteers, and the public. Staff 

time and available funding would be considered when determining feasibility/practicality of 

various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies (see Section H.2 of this CCP) in 

an adaptive management context to achieve Refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy 

requirements for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) 

entitled “Integrated Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, 

and an Online Database,” the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into 

this CCP: 

 Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

 Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this appendix provides a structured 

procedure to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to 

refuge biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses 

presented in Chapters 3 through 6 of this CCP. Only pesticide uses that likely would cause 

minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality 

with appropriate best management practices (BMPs), where necessary, would be allowed for use 

on the refuge. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. Moreover, it does not address effects of mosquito control 

with pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) based upon identified human health threats 

and presence of disease-carrying mosquitoes in sufficient numbers from monitoring conducted 

on a refuge. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to refuge biological 
H-2 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides or use of insecticides 

for mosquito management would be similar to the process described in this appendix for groundbased treatments of other pesticides. 

H.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

In accordance with Service policy 7 RM 14 (Pest Control), wildlife and plant pests on units of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced wildlife and fish 

populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. Pest 

control on Federal (Refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following legal 

mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee); 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.); 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136-136y); 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from 

Department policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 7 RM 14 defines 

pests as “Any terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal which interferes, or threatens to interfere, at 

an unacceptable level, with the attainment of refuge objectives or which poses a threat to human 

health.” 517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this appendix, the 

terms pest and invasive species are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede 

achievement of refuge wildlife and habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the Refuge would conserve and protect 

the nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 7 

RM 14, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following 

criteria are met: 

 Threat to human health and well-being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or state or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

 Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-3 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

From 7 RM 14, the specific justifications for pest management activities on the Refuge are the 

following: 

 Protect human health and well-being; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

 Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species; 

 Control non-native (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species; 

 Prevent damage to private property; and 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the Refuge: 

 “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

 “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species.” 

Animal species damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management 

program of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 C.F.R. 31.14 (Official Animal Control 

Operations). Based upon 7 RM 14.7E, a pest control proposal is required, in some cases, to 

initiate a control program on refuge lands. The required elements of a pest control proposal are 

described in 7 RM 14.7A-E. However, a pest control proposal is not required under the 

following scenarios: 

 Routine protection of refuge buildings, structures (e.g., dikes, levees, water control 

structures), and facilities not involving prohibited chemicals. 

 Incidental control of exotics (e.g., non-native rats, non-native rabbits) or feral animals on 

refuge lands that are not protected by either Federal or state laws, except where chemicals 

may be used. 

 The use of routine habitat management techniques, selective trapping, on-refuge transfer, and 

physical and mechanical protection such as barriers and fences (including electric fences). 

For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., clogging 

with subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats (e.g., 

removing woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on refuge lands may be 

conducted without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of 

their activities or refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland 

habitats. Exotic nutria, whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins 

and breaches, can be controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific 

factors without a pest control proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats 

associated with breaching of impoundments, the safety of refuge staff and public (e.g., auto tour 
H-4 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

routes) driving on structurally compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and 

unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. In accordance with 7 RM 

14.9B(1), animals trespassing on refuge lands may be captured and returned to their owners or 

transferred to humane societies or local animal shelters, where feasible. Based upon 50 C.F.R. 

28.43 (Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife 

refuge and observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing, or molesting humans or wildlife 

may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. In accordance 

with 7 RM 14.9B(2), feral animals should be disposed by the most humane method(s) available 

and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including Executive Order 11643). 

Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public institutions. Donation or loans 

of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State approval (50 C.F.R. 30.11 

[Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens may be sold alive or 

butchered, dressed, and processed subject to Federal and state laws and regulations (50 C.F.R. 

30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]).

As previously stated, for controlling animals damaging/destroying Federal property and/or 

detrimental to the management program of a refuge, incidentally removing such animals from 

refuge lands does not require a pest control proposal. 

H.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM, the following strategies, where applicable, would be carefully considered 

on the Refuge for each pest species: 

 Prevention. This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management 

option for pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the 

established pests to uninfested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to 

reduce the likelihood of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

planning can be used determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce 

and/or spread invasive species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See 

http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; 

exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent 

re-introductions by various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. 

Because invasive species are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, 

prevention would require a reporting mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences 

with quick response to eliminate any new satellite pest populations. Prevention would 

require consideration of the scale and scope of land management activities that may promote 

pest establishment within uninfested areas or promote reproduction and spread of existing 

populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, prevention would involve halting 

the spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason for 

prevention would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive 

Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-5 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on 

refuge lands: 

o Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge 

staff would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion 

vicinity. Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in uninfested 

areas before working in pest-infested areas. 

o The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid 

or minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of 

seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

o The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation 

sites where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would 

clean equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This 

practice does not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area 

that will remain on roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be 

collected, where practical. The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from 

project equipment before moving it into a project area. 

o The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

o Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, 

inspect, remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their 

clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and 

then properly discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

o The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites 

with ongoing restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate 

disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment 

for each specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, 

fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use 

native material, where appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified 

weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably 

available. 

o The refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to other refuge staff members, permit holders, and recreational visitors. The 

refuge staff would educate them about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective 

prevention measures. 

o The refuge staff would require grazing permittees to utilize preventative measures for 

their livestock while on refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance 

activities.

o The refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into 

refuge waters: 
H-6 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

o The refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating 

equipment. Where possible, the refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or 

mud before leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge 

staff would drain water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land 

before leaving the site. If possible, the refuge staff would wash and dry boats, 

downriggers, anchors, nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, trailers, and other boating 

equipment to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. 

o Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a l00-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around 

culverts, canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff would inspect and 

clean equipment before moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests 

were taken verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of U.S. Forest Service (2005). 

 Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the 

growth of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these 

treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) 

and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, 

girdling, mowing, and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/ 

physical methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. 

Based upon 50 C.F.R. 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife 

populations for a “balanced conservation program” in accordance with Federal or state laws 

and regulations. In some cases, non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to offrefuge sites with prior approval from the state. A pest control proposal (see 7 RM 14.7A-D 

for required elements) is needed before initiation of trapping activities, except those 

operations identified in 7 RM 14.7E. In addition, a separate pest control proposal is not 

necessary if the required information can be incorporated into an EA (or other appropriate 

NEPA document). 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific 

situations. In general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest 

plants. However, to control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would 

resprout and continue to grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of 

destroying a perennial plant’s root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, 

plowing) may damage root systems, they may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant 

population that may aid in the spread depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada 

thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be major factors that can limit 

the use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination 

with herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, 

mowing perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a 

systemic herbicide often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide 

treatment only. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-7 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest 

mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level 

manipulation, mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest 

impact, prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove 

litter to assist in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, 

crop rotations that would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of 

beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable 

species to shade or out-compete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable 

vegetation, prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. 

 Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to 

reduce pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest 

species in the United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, 

which are free from natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a 

competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often 

allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to 

crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species 

population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost 

prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations 

have become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no 

longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include 

reducing pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating 

control, low cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological 

control agents to hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to 

agents. Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from 

their native lands, the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which 

control occurs, biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the 

target pest, and host specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow 

process, and efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area 

although it does work well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific 

environmental conditions to survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood, 

whereas others are only partially understood or not at all. 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control 

agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or 

survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population 

decreases, the population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. 

This is a natural cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist 

for several years after a biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in 

the soil, inefficiencies in the agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population 

buildup of the agent. 
H-8 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include 

diseases, invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (the most 

common group). Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most 

of these pest problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological 

control of invasive weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. 

Johnswort (Klamath weed), and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian 

toadflax, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. 

However, historically, each new introduction of a biological control agent in the United 

States has only about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to Coombs et al. 

(2006) for the status of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely 

related plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 

1997; Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act of 1996 (FIFRA), most biological control agents are regulated by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some 

cases, county agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional approval 

authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrol agents 

from another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

 USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

 Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

 4700 River Road, Unit 113 

 Riverdale, MD 20737 

or 

 through the internet at: 

 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of 

appropriate, safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous 

or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents 

or they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. 

Commercial sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and 

Noxious Weeds (USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and 

Taxonomic Support, 4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific 

biological control agents in a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the 

biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-9 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be 

specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and 

Management). In addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best 

Practice for Classical Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic 

/exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates to the X International Symposium on Biological Control 

of Weeds, Bozeman, Montana, July 9, 1999. This code identifies the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents, 

o Use the most effective agents, 

o Document releases, and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA 

(e.g., Bti) are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. 

Systematic monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also 

recommended. 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another Federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of 

releases on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA 

documents include the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and 

the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of 

existing document(s) from the review. Incorporating by reference (43 C.F.R. 46.135) is a 

technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service 

NEPA document, which only must identify the documents that are incorporated by 

reference. In addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service NEPA 

document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an 

understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

 Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including 

mode of reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions 

(e.g., soils, topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to 

utilize BMPs to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, sensitive habitats, 

and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage (pesticide, target 

species, application rate, and method of application) would comply with the applicable 

Federal (FIFRA) and state regulations pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, disposal, 

and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on refuge 

lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would be prepared and approved in 

accordance with 7 RM 14. PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and targetspecific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the refuge. All PUPs would be 
H-10 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

created, approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), 

which is a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP 

records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests 

while minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment 

(e.g., backpack sprayer, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific 

equipment to apply pesticides would include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping 

vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular 

pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial 

spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where access is difficult 

(remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of groundbased methods.

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and 

reproduce, multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for 

treatments on refuge lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications 

within years and/or over a growing season likely would be necessary for habitat 

maintenance and restoration activities to achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical 

and non-chemical controls also are highly effective, where practical, because pesticideresistant organisms can be removed from the site.

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different 

product would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the 

least potential to degrade environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as 

well as least potential effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats would be acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM 

approach. 

 Habitat restoration/maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge 

habitats associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for longterm prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting 

desirable plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, 

and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Brooks et al. 2004; 

Masters and Shelly 2001; Masters et al. 1996). The following three components of 

succession could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site 

availability, species availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). 

Although a single method (e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species 

in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further 

invasion by the species and/or other invasive plants. On degraded sites where desirable 

species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and 

legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant community recovery, and achieve 

site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The selection of appropriate species for 

revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors including resource objectives and 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-11 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade 

conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of establishment, seed production, and 

competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

H.4 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest 

problems is too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during 

any single field season. To manage pests in the Refuge, it would be essential to prioritize 

treatment of infestations. Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and 

rapid response to eliminate infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially 

important for aggressive pests potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, 

and/or habitats associated refuge purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed 

species, migratory birds, selected marine mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native 

species for maintaining/restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously 

uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new 

outbreaks of invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source 

population. They also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather 

than the new, small satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would 

be treating large infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this 

case, initial efforts would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to 

control/eradicate the established infested area. If containment and/or control of a large 

infestation is not effective, then efforts would focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing 

source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found treating fewer populations that are sources 

represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of total number of invasive populations and 

decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub 

steppe habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs. Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. 

Essential to the long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment 

monitoring, assessment of the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new 

approaches when proposed methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

H.5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface 

runoff, or leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and 

the Service Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable 

BMPs (where feasible) also would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect 

federally listed species and/or their critical habitats through determinations made using the 

process described in 50 C.F.R. part 402. 
H-12 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all groundbased treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based 

upon target- and site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not 

listed below, the most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target 

resources would be an IPM approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

H.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed, and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 The refuge staff would empty and triple rinse all pesticide containers that can be recycled at 

local herbicide container collections. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

 The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

H.5.2 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, state or BLM certification to 

safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

 The refuge staff would comply with all Federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Departmental, Service, and NWRS pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific 

pest(s) identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, material safety data sheets (MSDSs), 

and PUPs for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), personal 

protective equipment (PPE), and other requirements listed on the pesticide label. 

 A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

 Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct 

and uniform application rates. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-13 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7 mph and preferably 3 to 5 

mph) and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85o

F). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 

hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a nontoxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 

 Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary 

pesticide applications. 

 The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE 

would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the 

potential spread of pests to uninfested areas. 
H-14 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

H.6 Safety 

H.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific PPE identified on the pesticide label. The appropriate 

PPE will be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and applying. PPE can include the 

following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, rubber, or nitrile); 

rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to concentrated product 

is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing pesticide solutions. 

Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an apron, 

footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and Service policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written respirator program, fit testing, physical 

examination (including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper 

storage of the respirator. 

H.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management 

agents of the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide 

treated area within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment 

areas. Posting would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to 

a pesticide during other activities on the refuge. Where required by the label and/or statespecific regulations, sites would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of 

entry. The refuge staff would also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended 

application, including any private individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts 

would be made to contact nearby individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed 

chemical sensitivities. 

H.6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically 

monitoring if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to 

concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values 

(see 242 FW 4); use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides 

in a manner that requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 

FW7.7A, “Frequent Pesticide Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or 

applies pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-15 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

16 or more hours in any 30-day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be 

medically monitored who use pesticides infrequently (see Section H.7.7), experience an acute 

exposure (sudden, short term), or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This 

decision would consider the individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health 

risks, and the potential risks from other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., 

cooperative farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be 

responsible for their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

H.6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally 

(BLM) licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW 7.18A, 

certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use 

pesticides also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator 

certification. The certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator 

depending upon the state. New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, 

handling, applying, and disposing of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and 

training before handling or using any products. Documentation of training would be kept in the 

files at the refuge office. 

H.6.5 Record Keeping 

H.6.5.1 Labels and material safety data sheets 

Pesticide labels and MSDSs would be maintained at the refuge shop and laminated copies in the 

mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, where possible. A 

written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be mixed would 

be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, approved 

PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide labels and 

MSDSs. 

H.6.5.2 Pesticide use proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest 

management on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the 

proposed pesticide use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest 

species, size and location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally 

listed species determinations, where applicable.
H-16 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

In accordance with 30 AM 12 and 7 RM 14, PUPs would be required for the following: 

 Uses of pesticides on lands and facilities owned or managed by the Service, including 

properties managed by Service personnel as a result of the Food Security Act of 1985; 

 Service projects by non-Service personnel on Service owned or controlled lands and facilities 

and other pest management activities that would be conducted by Service personnel; and 

 Where the Service would be responsible or provides funds for pest management identified in 

protective covenants, easements, contracts, or agreements off Service lands. 

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), a refuge staff 

may receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed 

pesticide uses based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where 

necessary (see http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan 

(requirements described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or 

a habitat management plan if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use 

Proposal System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this 

database. 

H.6.5.3 Pesticide usage 

In accordance with 30 AM 12 and 7 RM 14, the refuge Project Leader would be required to 

maintain records of all pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. 

This would encompass pesticides applied by other Federal agencies, state and county 

governments, nongovernment applicators including cooperators and their pest management 

service providers with Service permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, 

insect and plant growth regulators, dessicants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, 

nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs) 

 Target pest(s) 

 Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored 

both pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-17 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

response to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat 

Management Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge 

Lands GIS) to facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive 

management, data analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed 

over time, as necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in 

conjunction with habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and 

long-term impacts to natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments 

in accordance with adaptive management principles identified in 43 C.F.R. 46.145. 

H.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as 

croplands/facilities maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on 

refuge lands would only be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized 

effects to fish and wildlife species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Potential effects to listed and nonlisted species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological 

risk assessments and other screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would 

be based upon pesticide characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil 

persistence, and volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk 

assessments as well as characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade 

environmental quality for pesticides would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 

H.7.5). These profiles would include threshold values for quantitative measures of ecological 

risk assessments and screening tools for environmental fate that represent minimal potential 

effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only pesticide uses with appropriate 

BMPs (see Section H.4) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or localized effects on refuge biological and 

environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) would be approved. 

H.7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an 

established quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of 

pesticides and conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative 

methodology provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information 

regarding hazard, patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is 

useful for ecological risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate 

potential effects where there is missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to 

address reasonable, foreseeable adverse effects in the field as required under 40 C.F.R. Part 

1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment of pesticide uses on the refuge were developed 

through research and established by the USEPA (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments 

are presented in Section H.6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory 

requirements under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) 

effects associated with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of 
H-18 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other 

effects data publicly available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described 

herein. Toxicity endpoint and environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. 

Some of the more useful resources can be found in Section H.7.5. 

Table H-1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals 

to establish toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations. 

Species Group Exposure Measurement endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1 

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number 

of eggs, number of offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 

2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, 

time to hatch, growth, and time to swim-up. 

3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental 

anomalies, evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular 

mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

H.7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (USEPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for 

adverse effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for 

managing units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) 

calculated by dividing the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized 

toxicological endpoints or published effect (Table H-1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by 

comparing calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by the USEPA 

(1998 [Table 2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening potential 

adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following are 

four exposure-species group scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish 

and wildlife on the Refuge: acute-listed species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, 

and chronic-nonlisted species. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-19 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure 

to pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values 

from LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In 

contrast, chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term 

dietary exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time 

(within a season and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed 

concentration (NOAEC) or no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be 

used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be 

preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as 

amended-Public Law 93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at 

the individual level because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a 

species. In contrast, risks to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. An 

RQ<LOC would indicate the proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

individuals (listed species) and it would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to 

populations (nonlisted species) for each taxonomic group (Table H-2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC 

would indicate a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose 

unacceptable ecological risk for adverse effects to nonlisted species. 

Table H-2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish, and mammals (USEPA 1998). 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.05 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 

Fish 1.0 1.0 

Mammals 1.0 1.0 

H.7.2.1 Environmental exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the 

air (e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such 

as non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off 

the soil into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the 

soil to lower soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999; Butler et al. 

1998; EXTOXNET 1993; Pope et al. 1999; Ramsay et al. 1995). Pesticides which would be 

injected into the soil may also be subject to the latter two fates. 

The aforementioned possibilities are by no means complete, but it does indicate movement of 

pesticides in the environment is very complex with transfers occurring continually among 

different environmental compartments. In some cases, these exchanges occur not only between 

areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation of pesticides over long 

distances (Barry 2004; Woods 2004). 
H-20 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

H.7.2.1.1 Terrestrial exposure 

The EEC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (USEPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation 

because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon 

the proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

H.7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method 

(Pfleeger et al. 1996; USEPA 2004, 2005a) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure 

model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide 

residue on short grass (<20 cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate 

species, T-REX input variables would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum 

pesticide application rate (pounds active ingredient [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life 

(days) in soil. Although there are other food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and 

small insects; and fruits, pods, seeds and large insects), short grass was selected because it would 

yield maximum EECs (240 ppm per lb ai/acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is 

not representative of forage for carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the 

maximum potential exposure through the diet of avian and mammalian prey items. 

Consequently, this approach would provide a conservative screening tool for pesticides that do 

not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and 

Mineau scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are 

included in T-REX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table H-3) would be 

entered manually. The Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be 

more sensitive to pesticide exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau 

scaling factors would be entered manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a 

particular pesticide or group of pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not 

available, then a value of 1.15 would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if 

it is known that body weight does not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The 

upper bound estimate output from the T-REX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for 

calculation of RQs. This approach would yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table H-3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in 

research to establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984). 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-21 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1,000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

H.7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial—granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of 

exposure for avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds 

or mammals might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some 

bird species actively seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food 

source. Granules may also be consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other softbodied soil organisms to which the granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by 

dividing the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface 

of an area equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body 

weight (Table H-3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, 

banded, and in-furrow applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and 

without incorporation of the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of 

the granules remain on the soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels 

push granules flat with the soil surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are 

incorporated in the soil during band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it 

would be assumed only 15% of the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be 

assumed that only 1% of the granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow 

applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10%-30% body 

weight/day). This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of 

granule or seed treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during 

application and planting. The availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial 

vertebrates would also be considered by calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2

) for 

comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (USEPA 1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (USEPA 

2005b) contains a submodel which automates Kanaga exposure calculations for granular 

pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular 

pesticide application: 

 In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 

ft.

2

/acre)/(row spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 
H-22 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1,000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1,000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1,000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

o % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

o Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.2 using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of 

the above equations. The EEC would divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint 

multiplied by the body weight (Table H-3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

H.7.2.1.2 Aquatic exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish 

and wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for 

aquatic organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the 

pesticide application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of 

contrasting application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on 

agricultural lands (especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from 

crop yields) and facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other 

managed habitats on the refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-23 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

high water mark of aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments, whereas no-spray buffers 

(≥25 feet) would be used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

H.7.2.1.2.1 Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table H-4) would be 

would be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an 

entire, non-target water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark 

using the max application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying 

pesticides (see Section H.4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target 

aquatic habitats during actual treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk 

to fish and wildlife with the simulated 100% overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide 

use may be disapproved or the PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to 

minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 

Table H-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of pesticides in aquatic 

habitats (1 foot depth) immediately after direct application (Urban and Cook 1986). 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) 

0.10 36.7 

0.20 73.5 

0.25 91.9 

0.30 110.2 

0.40 147.0 

0.50 183.7 

0.75 275.6 

1.00 367.5 

1.25 459.7 

1.50 551.6 

1.75 643.5 

2.00 735.7 

2.25 827.6 

2.50 919.4 

3.00 1,103.5 

4.00 1,471.4 

5.00 1,839 

6.00 2,207 

7.00 2,575 

8.00 2,943 

9.00 3,311 

10.00 3,678 

H.7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration 
H-24 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

spray drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of 

pesticides from particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several 

versions of the computer model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray 

Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 (AgDRIFT 2001; SDTF 2003) would be used 

to derive EECs resulting from drift of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based 

pesticide applications >25 feet from the high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT 

model is publicly available at http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and 

then click “Download Now” and follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be 

used to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated 

with AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see 

above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-

foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

H.7.2.2 Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, 

and adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents, pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another Federal agency, where the 

scope would be relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be 

reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to 

incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 

C.F.R. 1502.21) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the 

bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only would identify the documents that are 

incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions would be summarized in the Service 

NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an 

understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 C.F.R. 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the U.S. Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management 

(http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). These risk assessments and associated 

documentation also are available in total with the administrative record for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program – 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (U.S. Forest Service 2005) and Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS 

(PEIS) (Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 43 CRF 46.120(d), use of 

existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting 

previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the U.S. 

Forest Service would be incorporated by reference: 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-25 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks 

associated with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management 

would be incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

H.7.2.3 Assumptions for ecological risk assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the USEPA’s (2004) process. 

These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or under-estimation of risk from 

pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following describes these 

assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or not they 

may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological risk 

from potential pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 
H-26 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (USEPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 

available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other 

hand, chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration 

of exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may 

result from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination 

of both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an 

organism to several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, 

weeks, months, years or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-

week exposure phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data 

is usually not available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is 

difficult to determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. 

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-27 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

number of days exposure exceeds a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a 

pesticide use. The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern 

translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a qualitative assessment and is subject to 

reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs will require justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in 

the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is 

prone to “wash-off”. Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be utilized, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (USEPA 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion will not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil 

would likely be less than predicted on food items. 
H-28 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in 

droplet form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated 

surfaces, and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA 

(1990) reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an 

appreciable route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite 

quail, respirable particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum 

diameter of 2 to 5 microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide 

application scenarios indicate that less than 1% of the applied material is within the 

respirable particle size. This route of exposure is further limited because the permissible 

spray drop size distribution for ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium 

or coarser drop size distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA 

is currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for 

modeling dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of 

exposure, particularly with high risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they will be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew, or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to 

quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are 

formally established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking 

water, these protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-29 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, 

and mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual 

continuing education. 

 The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify”. Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA 

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Behr and Habig (2000) compared 

USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the 

USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole aboveground plant material, but others will preferentially select different plant 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized 

in the published literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment 

process.
H-30 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the 

possible exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed 

that no habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in 

closer proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of 

exposure or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that 

may be found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. 

However, the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife 

distributions are often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of 

wildlife may result in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial 

pesticide concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may 

have the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as 

ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have 

low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-31 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological 

conditions, runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method 

is not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

 There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location 

of pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action, effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors), and sublethal effects such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk 

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

 USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism 

of toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the 

organophosphate insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and 

chloroacetanilide herbicides. 

H.7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as 

active ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the 

FIFRA as preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant 

regulator, defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active 

ingredient(s) must be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative 

composition expressed in percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not 

intended to affect a target pest. Their role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep 

the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active 

ingredient from separating out of solution), or a carrier (such as clay in which the active 

ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry formulations). For example, if isopropyl 

alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide formulation, then it would be considered an 

inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert ingredients identified as hazardous and 

associated percent composition, and the total percentage of all inert ingredients must be declared 

on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as hazardous are not required to be 

identified. 
H-32 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily 

substitute the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This 

change recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or 

contribute to an adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. 

Whether referred to as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide 

product have the potential to affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes 

regulated inert ingredients into the following four lists 

(http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

 List 1—Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

 List 2—Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

 List 3—Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

 List 4—Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, 

some of the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have 

moderate to high potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their 

habitats from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative 

effects from exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as 

other active ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct 

deterministic risk assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific 

information is available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical 

mixtures that typically rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the U.S. 

Forest Service (2005) found that mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely 

would not cause additive or synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of 

scientific literature regarding toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals 

(ATSDR 2004). Moreover, information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often 

limited by the availability of and access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as 

the following: 

 TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

 USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific 

papers published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

 TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

 MSDSs from pesticide suppliers. 

 Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause 

adverse ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-33 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

percentage of the pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would 

be expected to result from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less 

mobile and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et 

al. 2003). Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent 

pesticides and degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. 

For example, a less toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have 

potentially greater effects on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on 

the toxicity of degradates for many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for 

assessing risk.

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects 

of these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable 

scientific information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be 

additive, synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of 

action would be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and 

exposure to mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly 

impossible to assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more 

pesticides as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling 

requirements. Labels for two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely 

reviewed, where products with the least potential for negative effects would be selected for use 

on the refuge. This is especially relevant when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may 

already have the potential for an effect(s) associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to 

ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a tank mix under these conditions would increase the level 

of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that 

generally applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift 

control agents, compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same 

registration requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling 

of spray adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with 

it. In general, adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. 

Selection of adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce 

the potential for the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

H.7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and 

off refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the 
H-34 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

treatment site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of 

the following (Kerle et al. 1996): 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide 

can be evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include 

the following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and 

solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50% of 

the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be 

categorized as the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, 

and persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and 

terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time 

required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site, whereas 

half-life describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are 

usually expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate 

pesticide concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common 

persistence data cited in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, 

soil half-life data may be used. The average or representative half-life value of most important 

degradation mechanism will be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic 

environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly 

adsorbed to soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would 

be less likely to move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil 

profile and contaminate groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, are highly water soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater 

potential to move from the application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is 

expressed as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as 

micrograms of pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. 

Pesticides with higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject 

to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of 

water. The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a 

liter of water (mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually 

insoluble in water, 100-1,000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (U.S. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-35 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Geological Survey 2000). As pesticide solubility increases, there would be greater potential for 

off-site movement. 

The groundwater ubiquity score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in 

the following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4−log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a 

GUS <0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. 

Values of 1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 

would have a very high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, 

where it is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure 

because pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water 

solubility, t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the Oregon State 

University Extension Pesticide Properties Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many 

of the values in this database were derived from the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties 

Database for Environmental Decision Making (Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties 

are mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site 

by leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil 

surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 
H-36 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which effects pesticide degradation. 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be 

well-drained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest 

potential for movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) 

would be used in an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota 

and protecting environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, 

water table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can 

be dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of 

pesticides in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following 

treatment. The rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, 

determine pesticide concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall 

after application also would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow 

soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The 

pesticide/water mixture in the mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff 

depending upon how quickly the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can 

infiltrate into the soil. Leaching would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the 

soil surface (mixing zone) to runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and 

subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. 

Steeper slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, 

soils that are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense 

rainfall events. In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a 

result of receiving excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it is persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-37 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

H.7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor 

pressure which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s 

water solubility. Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to 

compare, vapor pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a 

vapor pressure index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize, 

whereas pesticides with I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State 

University 1996). Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide 

product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database. 

H.7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles 

for pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., 

glyphosate, imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are 

registered and labeled with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., 

Toxicological Endpoints, Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no 

information is available for a specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be 

recorded in the profile. Available scientific information would be used to complete Chemical 

Profiles. Each entry of scientific information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be 

used to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For 

ecological risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be 

evaluated to determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum 

single application rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and 

croplands/facilities maintenance treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case 

scenario” likely would only result in minor, temporary, and localized effects to listed and 

nonlisted species with appropriate BMPs (see Section H.5), the proposed pesticide’s use in a 

PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any application rate specified on the label 

that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In some cases, the Chemical Profile 

would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled rate in order to protect refuge 

resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically updated with new scientific 

information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed for use on the Refuge 

in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a 

completed Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit 

scientific basis to approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities 

maintenance on refuge lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical 

Profiles where there would be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are 

identified for some screening tools that would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance 

of the threshold value) as a basis for approving PUPs. 
H-38 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or 

updated. Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be 

periodically reviewed and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded 

on a profile to document when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) 

from the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, 

EC, L, SP, I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides 

with the same active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide 

product with the same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or MSDS for an active ingredient. The common name of a pesticide is listed as 

the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following the trade name, 

and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A Chemical Profile is 

completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as 

one of the following: herbicide, dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, 

pisicide, or rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the 

label and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA 

Establishment Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA 

Reg. No. for each trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components 

usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active 

ingredient that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, OSHA, State Right-to-Know, or other listed 

authorities. These are usually found in MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications”, 

“Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and “Regulatory Information”. If concentrations of 

other ingredients are available for any compounds identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service 

personnel would record this information in the Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may 

be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s website, or from an on-line database 

maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list below). 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-39 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

H.7.6.1 Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, 

and fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are 

found for a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded 

as the data entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint 

data) would be cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common 

test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat 

would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to 

mammals (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). 

Most common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess 

acute risk (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest 

Observed Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed 

Adverse Effect Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test 

procedure(s) (e.g., generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common 

test species available in scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ 

calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would 

record values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found 

for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to 

assess acute risk (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would 

record values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). 

Most common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. 

The lowest LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for 

dietary-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet 

consumed for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common 

test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a 
H-40 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table H-1 in Section 

H.7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service 

personnel would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the 

scientific literature are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for 

many game species may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test 

species available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test 

results for other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish 

species (preferably freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to 

assess chronic risk (see Table H-1 in Section H.7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, 

NOAEL, or EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test 

invertebrate species available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea. Green 

algae and pondweed are frequently available test species for aquatic non-vascular and vascular 

plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, 

wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological 

incidents. The USEPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of 

ecological incidents. This database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted 

by various Federal and state agencies and nongovernment organizations. Information included in 

an incident report is date and location of the incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in 

various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and 

results of any chemical residue and cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the 

investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by 

supplementing quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active 

ingredient and associated information would be recorded. 

H.7.6.2 Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which 

describes the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as 

mg/L (ppm). Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 

ppm, moderately soluble = 100 to 1,000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (U.S. Geological 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-41 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Survey 2000). As pesticide Sw increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water 

quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see OctanolWater Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient 

(Koc [μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc

values are directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc

data for a pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see 

Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents 

the length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the 

following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

 If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically 

to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and 

leaching that can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater 

by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site, whereas soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for 

degradation only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field 

dissipation time would be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the 

environment because it is based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a 

laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is the most common persistence data available in the published 

literature. If field dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data would be used in a 

Chemical Profile. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation 

mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic 

environments. 
H-42 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as 

one of the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

 If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs 

specifically to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 

included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential 

surface runoff and leaching that can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the 

potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if 

available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents 

the length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent 

>100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

 If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs 

specifically to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 

included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential 

surface runoff and leaching that can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate), whereas aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for 

degradation only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon 

the DT50 value, environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-43 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent 

>100 days. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to 

protect water quality. 

 If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs 

specifically to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 

included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential 

surface runoff and leaching that can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater ubiquity score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4–

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a 

GUS score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be 

recorded as one of the following categories: extremely low potential <1.0, low 1.0 to 2.0, 

moderate 2.0 to 3.0, high 3.0 to 4.0, or very high >4.0. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

 If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and 

leaching that can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move offtarget into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor 

pressure that is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water 

solubility. Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, 

vapor pressure would be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I 

represents a vapor pressure index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to 

volatilize, whereas pesticides with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon 

State University 1996). Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide 

product MSDS or the USDA ARS pesticide database (see References). 
H-44 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If I ≤,1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and 

protect air quality. 

 If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

minimize drift and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 

included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization 

and potential to drift and degrade air quality: 

o Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

o Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

o Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85oF. 

o Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

o Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible 

during or after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. 

Because octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. 

Therefore, Kow would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of 

aquatic species (e.g., fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be 

high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2000). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the 

PUP would be approved. 

 If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L 

and soil t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual 

circumstances where approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations 

in tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low 0 to 300, 

moderate 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

 If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances 

where approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-45 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

H.7.6.3 Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest 

application rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities 

maintenance treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in 

Table CP.1 under the column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on 

acid equiv basis)”. This table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information 

specified in labels for trade name products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in 

pesticide labels, then write “NS” for “not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (EEC) represents potential exposure to fish 

and wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service 

personnel using an USEPA screening-level approach (USEPA 2004). For each max application 

rate [see description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service personnel would 

record 2 EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case terrestrial and 

aquatic exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For 

terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under Presumption of 

Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and 

record acute and chronic RQs for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular formats 

for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in a 

Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 

H.7.2 for discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would 

be based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be 

derived from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water 

body using the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ 

calculations would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic 

toxicological endpoints for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in 

AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 under Tier I ground-based application with the following input 

variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to 

medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPA-defined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from 

treated area to water. 

See Section H.7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for 

habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would 

represent the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be 

determined using the Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. TREX input variables would include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) 
H-46 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

and pesticide half-life (days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue 

concentration on general food items for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure 

for terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section H.7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that 

would be used to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with LOCs established by USEPA (see 

Table H-2 in Section H.7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in brackets 

inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable risk) 

to federally listed (threatened and endangered [T&E]) species and nonlisted species. See Section 

H.7.2 for detailed descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to 

assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

 If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

minimize exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more 

BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) section to reduce potential risk to nonlisted or listed species: 

o Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

o For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase 

the buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where 

necessary and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for 

approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why 

the potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is 

outweighed by the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP 

section of the PUP. See Section H.4 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated 

with mixing and applying pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that 

would be additive to any necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide 

data/information for a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a 

chemical profile. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-47 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The following online data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative 

effort of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, 

Cornell University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon. (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management 

Unit, Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, 

Forest Health Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of 

Energy; and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (http://infoventures.com/ehlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 

 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, 

Inc. (CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained 

by agrichemical companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 
H-48 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada, Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and 

Registration Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The 

Invasive Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. 

(http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, 

D.C. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, D.C. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-49 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater (GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 
H-50 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best Management 

Practices (BMPs): 

References: 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade 

Namea

Treatment 

Typeb 

Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre) 

Max Product Rate 

-Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - AI on 

acid equiv basis) 

Max 

Number of 

Applications 

Per Season 

Max Product Rate 

Per Season 

(lbs/acre/season or 

gal/acre/season) 

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Applications 

(Days) 

 

a

From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel would record 

application information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands.

b

Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is labeled for both 

types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 

H.8 References 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray 

drift of pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2004. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical 

mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, 

Division of Toxicology. 62pp + appendices. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in 

terrestrial nontarget organism risk assessment. 10th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology 

and Risk Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use 

patterns in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 15 pp. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension 

Publication PM 1495. Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-51 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

transformation products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, and others. 2004. 

Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Washington Office, Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement 

to ground water. Extension Publication PI-2. University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service. Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: 

Lewis Publishers. 

Center, T.D., J.H.Frank, and F.A. Dray Jr. 1997. Biological control. Strangers in paradise: 

impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. pp. 245-263. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated 

rangeland through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 

1991. Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Monograph No. 1. 

Western Bird Banding Association. 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project 

of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pp. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and 

prospects. Tansley Review 23:201-222. 
H-52 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pp. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and 

mobility for groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University 

Extension Service. 8 pp. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for 

managing rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. 

Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 

10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve 

interspecies extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 

24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance 

of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. 

Invasive plant species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, pesticide 

information profiles. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the 

EPA (Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA, and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington – protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644. Washington State 

University Extension. Pullman, WA. 12 pp. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. 

Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 
Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan H-53 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington D.C. 94 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. A comparative analysis of ecological 

risks from pesticides and their uses: background, methodology & case study. Environmental 

Fate & Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington, D.C. 105 pp. 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and threatened species effects 

determinations. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. 101 pp. 

USEPA. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment risk characterization; 

spproaches for evaluating exposure; granular, bait, and treated seed applications. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 

USEPA. 2005b. User’s guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. 22 pp. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program. Preventing and 

managing invasive plants final environmental impact statement. 359 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 8 

pp. 
H-54 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Appendix I. Statement of Compliance I-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix I. Statement of Compliance 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to the 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR), located in Washington State. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The planning process has been conducted in 

accordance with National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Department of 

Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service procedures, and has been performed in coordination with 

the affected public. The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

§4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations in 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508 have been satisfied 

in the procedures used to reach this decision. These procedures included the development of a 

range of alternatives for the Willapa NWR CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; 

and public involvement throughout the planning process. The draft CCP/EIS shall be released 

for a minimum 45-day public comment period in the fall of 2010. The affected public shall be 

notified of the availability of these documents through a Federal Register notice, news releases to 

local newspapers, the Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. Copies of the 

draft CCP/EIS and/or planning updates shall be distributed to an extensive mailing list. In 

addition, the Service hosted two public open houses in 2008. The draft CCP shall be revised 

based on public comment received on the draft documents. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S. C.470 et seq.) The management of 

archaeological and cultural resources of Willapa NWR will comply with the regulations of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historic properties are known to be 

affected by the proposed action based on the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as an 

undertaking defined in 36 C.F.R. 800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW 2; however, determining 

whether a particular action has a potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that 

occurs as step-down and site-specific project plans are developed. Should historic properties be 

identified or acquired in the future, the Service will comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to affect any these properties. 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). This Act provides for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. Documentation is required under Section 7 of 

the Act. Refuge policy requires the Refuge Manager to document issues which affect or may 

affect endangered species before initiating projects such as the restoration project. ( Appendix O) 

Executive Order 12372 Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

affected tribal, local, and state governments, other Federal agencies, and local interested persons 

has been completed through personal contact by Service Planners, Refuge staff, and Refuge 

Supervisors. 

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management. Under this order, Federal agencies; “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains.” 
I-2 Appendix I. Statement of Compliance 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge 

for wilderness designation (Appendix G) and has found there are no areas that are currently 

suitable for wilderness designation. 

Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 

11990 because CCP implementation would potentially enhance and restore wetland resources on 

the Refuge. 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57, Improvement Act) requires the Service to 

develop and implement a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. The CCP identifies 

and describes refuge purposes; refuge vision and goals; fish, wildlife, and plant populations and 

related habitats; archaeological and cultural values of the Refuge; issues that may affect 

populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and improve 

biological diversity on the Refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, as 

required by the Act. 

During the CCP process the Refuge Manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at 

Willapa NWR. Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation) are considered automatically 

appropriate under Service policy and thus exempt from appropriate uses review. The following 

use was found to be appropriate: camping. 

Compatibility determinations have been prepared for the following uses: waterfowl hunting, big 

game hunting, sport fishing, environmental education, wildlife observation, interpretation, and 

photography, and camping. 

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes in the 

United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects 

were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian tribes, or anyone else. 

Executive Order 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

This Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. A provision of the Order directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their 

activities, especially in reference to birds on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of 

Conservation Concern. It also directs agencies to incorporate conservation recommendations and 

objectives in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans 

developed by Partners in Flight into agency planning as described in Chapter 1. The effects of 

all alternatives to refuge habitats used by migratory birds were assessed within the CCP/EIS. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Requires access to Federal facilities for people with 

disabilities.
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Acronyms

a.i. Active Ingredient 

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AHM Adaptive Harvest Management 

AM Adaptive Management 

APHIS-PPQ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine 

APHIS-WS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife 

Services 

ARS U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service 

BAF Bioaccumulation Factor 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCF Bioconcentration Factor 

BIDEH Biological Integrity Diversity and Environmental Health 

BMC Birds of Management Concern 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

CARL Pacific County Critical Areas and Resources Land Ordinance No. 147 

CAS Chemical Abstract Service 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

dbh Diameter at Breast Height 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENSO El Niño–Southern Oscillation 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

GAP Gap Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMU Game Management Units 

GUS Groundwater Ubiquity Score 

IAC Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Washington State) 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
J-2 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

LOC Level of Concern 

LOEC Lowest Observed Effect Concentration 

LOEL Lowest Observed Effect Level 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MHW Mean High Water 

MHHW Mean Higher High Water 

MIS Management Information System 

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

mph Miles Per Hour 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

NAWCP North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAEC No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration 

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration 

NPCRSCP Northern Pacific Coast Region Shorebird Conservation Plan 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

ONRC Olympic Natural Resources Center 

ORS Washington Outdoor Recreation Survey 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

ppm Parts Per Million 

PUD Pacific County Public Utilities District 

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal 

PUPS Pesticide Use Proposal System 

RCO Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office 

RCW Revised Code of Washington 

RNA Research Natural Area 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

RQ Risk Quotient 

SAMMS Service Asset Management System 

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS) 

SWBCA South Willapa Bay Conservation Area 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

T-REX Terrestrial Residue Exposure model 

TWA Time-Weighted-Average 

U.S.C. U.S. Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WAP Wildlife Action Plan 

WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WFPB Washington Forest Practices Board 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture 

WSPHRA Western Snowy Plover Habitat Restoration Area 

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 
J-4 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Glossary

Adaptive Management. Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in 

management planning. Analysis of results help managers determine whether current 

management should continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired 

conditions. 

Alternative. Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the System mission (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). The no action alternative is 

current refuge management while the action alternatives are all other alternatives. 

Anadromous. Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to fresh 

water to breed. 

Approved Acquisition Boundary. A National Wildlife Refuge boundary approved by the 

National or Regional Fish and Wildlife Service Director for potential acquisition of lands by the 

Service. 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and 

culture. 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the 

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 601 FW 3). The System’s focus is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes 

that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (Service Manual 601 FW 3). 

Birds of Conservation Concern. Species, subspecies, and populations of migratory nongame 

birds identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as likely to become candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act unless additional conservation actions are taken. 

Blockage. When used in reference to anadromous fish habitat, a “complete blockage” occurs 

when conditions fully block all life stages of all salmonid fish species to upstream migration. A 

“partial blockage” occurs when conditions prevent species or life stages of a species of salmon 

from completing its upstream migration. See WDFW website 

http//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape. 

Candidate Species (Federal). Fish, wildlife, and plant species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will review for possible listing as federally endangered or threatened. A species will be 

considered for designation as a Federal candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that its status 

may meet the listing criteria defined for federally endangered or threatened. 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Candidate Species (State). Fish, wildlife, and plant species that a state will review for possible 

listing as state endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. A species will be considered for 

designation as a state candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that its status may meet the listing 

criteria defined for state endangered, threatened, or sensitive. 

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 

C.F.R. 1508.4). 

Colonial Nesting Birds. Birds that nest in groups. At this refuge, most of the colonial nesting 

birds are waterbirds, such as gulls, terns, cormorants, and herons. 

Columbia River Estuary. The area where the fresh water of a river meets the salt water of an 

ocean. The boundary of the Columbia River Estuary is considered the lower 46 miles (Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership).

Compatibility Determination. A written determination signed and dated by the refuge manager 

and Regional Chief signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a 

compatible use or is not a compatible use. The Director makes this delegation through the 

Regional Director. (Service Manual 603 FW 2) 

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 603 FW 

3). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager 

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation. 

Conservation Target. A set of features or elements of biological diversity that are the focus of 

conservation within a system of conservation areas. 

Consumptive Use. Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing that involve harvest or 

removal of wildlife or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

Contaminants or Environmental Contaminants - Chemicals present at levels greater than 

those naturally occurring in the environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes 

that potentially result in changes to biota at any ecological level. Pollutants that degrade other 

resources upon contact or mixing. Pollutants that degrade other resources upon contact or 

mixing (Adapted from Webster’s II.) 
J-6 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Cooperative Agreement. This is a simple habitat protection action, and no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long term but can be modified by either party. They are most 

effective in establishing multiple use management of land. 

Cover Type. The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways 

that connect us to our nation’s past.(USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources). 

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 

36 C.F.R. 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Deciduous. Describes trees and shrubs which shed all of their leaves each year. 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., 

fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Draw-down. The controlled reduction of water in managed wetlands. 

Ecological Attribute. A characteristic or condition required to support the life history, habitat, 

physical processes, or community interaction of conservation targets. 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats 

and basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely.

Ecotone. A transitional zone between two communities containing the characteristic species of 

each. 

Emergent Vegetation. Herbaceous plants that require a water environment to grow for at least 

part of their life cycle; stem structure is rigid and self-supporting; and vegetative growth 

continues above the waterline.

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

C.F.R. 1508.9). 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-7

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed written statement required by section 102(2) (C) 

of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed 

action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, shortterm uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Endangered Species (Federal). A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or 

extirpated in Washington within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. 

Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or 

depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental Education Facility. A building with one or more classrooms and 

environmental education materials to accommodate groups of students. 

Environmental Education Field Sites. Outdoor locations where groups of students receive 

hands-on environmental education. 

Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other 

abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that 

shape the environment (Service Manual 601 FW 3). 

Enhancement. Improvement, especially for the benefit of habitats and/or species. 

Estuarine. Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partly enclosed 

by land but have some access to the open ocean and are diluted by freshwater. 

Estuary. The area where the fresh water of a river meets the salt water of an ocean. In the 

National Estuary Program, this definition is extended to include the tidally influenced waters of a 

river. 

Exotic Species. A species from another part of the world. A non-native species. 

Extirpated. Species no longer inhabiting an area that it historically occupied. 

Finding of No Significant Impact. A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why 

a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 C.F.R. 1508.13). 

Focal Conservation Target. A suite of conservation targets that for purposes of planning are 

sorted and condensed to represent threats to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health at the refuge level. 

GAP analysis. Analysis done to identify and map elements of biodiversity that are not 

adequately represented in the nation’s network of reserves. It provides an overview of the 
J-8 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

distribution and conservation status of several components of biodiversity, with an emphasis on 

vegetation and terrestrial vertebrates. 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Connectivity (Also Landscape Connectivity). The arrangement of habitats that allows 

organisms and ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are 

either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of 

fragmentation. 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that guides refuge activities related to the maintenance, 

restoration, and enhancement of habitats for the benefit of wildlife, fish, and plant populations. 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Headquarters. An administrative center. 

Historic Conditions. Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from 

natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to 

substantial human related changes to the landscape (Service Manual 601 FW 3). 

Hydrology. A science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and 

below the earth’s surface and in the atmosphere. 

Hydrograph. A graph of water flows in a river or stream. A hydrograph provides a way of 

seeing seasonal and yearly changes in the flow or discharge of a waterway. 

Hydroperiod. A segment of a hydrograph for a specific timeframe. 

Indicator. Something that serves as a sign or symptom. 

Inholding. Refers to lands within a refuge’s approved acquisition boundary that are not owned 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These can be private lands or lands owned by city, 

county, state, or other Federal agencies. 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating 

explanation. Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

Interpretive Trail. A trail with informative signs, numbered posts that refer to information in a 

brochure, or where guided talks are conducted for the purpose of providing factual information 

and stimulating explanations of what visitors see, hear, feel, or otherwise experience while on the 

trail. 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-9

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Invasive Species. Species of plants and animals that have the potential to rapidly colonize and 

dominate an area. 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition) (Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). 

Land Protection. The acquisition of fee-title, easement, or lease of a given land parcel to 

protect important natural resource values on the land from incompatible land uses. 

Landform. A natural feature of a land surface. 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structure and capitalized equipment 

necessary to realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes 

preventative maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or 

items of equipment, periodic condition assessment; periodic inspections, adjustment, lubrication 

and cleaning (non-janitorial) of equipment; painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation; special safety 

inspections; and other actions to ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Maintenance Management System. A national database of refuge maintenance needs and 

deficiencies. It serves as a management tool for prioritizing, planning, and budgeting purposes. 

Managed Field. Refuge grasslands maintained for winter goose forage by mowing, haying, 

grazing, or burning. 

Mean High Water. The average level of the surface of the river, used as a standard in 

determining land elevation or sea depths. 

Mean Higher High Water. The average of the two high waters of any tidal day. 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back.

Migratory Birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 C.F.R. 10.13, chapter 1-USFWS, DOI. 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over 

time. 

Monoculture. Vegetation composed primarily of a single species, such as in areas dominated by 

invasive weeds. 

Native Species. With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of 

an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. (Service Manual 601 

FW 3). 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
J-10 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; 

all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife 

ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

Neotropical Migrant. A bird that winters in southern Mexico, Central and South America, or 

the West Indies and migrates northward to breed in North America. 

Non-native Species. An introduced species that did not naturally occur in an area. See also 

exotic species. 

Nonpoint Source. Coming from more than one location. Frequently refers to pollution or 

erosion that comes from a widespread area and accumulates in streams and rivers. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or state law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: a ggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes 

disease or had adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the 

agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health. 

Objective. An objective is a concise target statement of what will be achieved, how much will 

be achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. 

Objectives are derived from goals and provide the basis for determining management strategies. 

Objectives should be attainable and time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to the 

extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Old Field. Refuge grasslands left relatively unmanaged to provide food and cover for a variety 

of native wildlife. Control of noxious weeds does occur on old fields. 

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of the functions for which a facility or 

item of equipment is intended to be used. Costs such as utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, 

janitorial services, window cleaning, rodent and pest control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, 

waste management, and personnel costs for operating staff are generally included within the 

scope of operations. 

Outreach. The process of providing information to the public on a specific issue through the 

use of the media, printed materials, and presentations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The 

Pacific Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. 

Palustrine. Freshwater wetlands that are less than 2 meters deep at low water. They do not 

include areas regularly impacted by waves or part of a bedrock shoreline. They are familiarly 

known as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, prairies, and small shallow ponds. 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-11

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants 

of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental 

influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and 

rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant community (e.g., ponderosa pine). 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Preplanning. The first phase of comprehensive conservation planning process. It includes 

identifying the planning area and data needs; establishing the planning team and planning 

schedule; reviewing available information; preparing a public involvement plan and conducting 

internal scoping. 

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation were identified by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Priority Species. Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe require protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their 

perpetuation. Priority species include the following: 1) state-listed and candidate species; 2) 

species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a specific area 

or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and 3) species of 

recreation, commercial, and/or Tribal importance. 

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian Tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and 

those who do or do not realize Service decisions may affect them.

Public Use Area. A designated area within the Willapa NWR which is open to the public. 

Raptor. A category of carnivorous birds, most of which have heavy, sharp beaks and strong 

talons, and take live prey (e.g., peregrine falcon, bald eagle). 

Refuge Operating Needs System. A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs 

required to meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal 

mandates. It is used as a planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and 

staffing needs of the Refuge System. 

Refuge Purpose(s). The purpose(s) 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, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 
J-12 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Research Natural Area. A federal land designation that establishes areas with predominantly 

natural conditions and processes for research and educational purposes. 

Restoration. The act of bringing back to a former or original condition. 

Revenue Sharing. Service payments (government lands are exempt from taxation) made to 

counties in which national wildlife refuges reside. These payments may be used by the counties 

for any governmental purpose such as, but not limited to, roads and schools. 

Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; 

including streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils 

which have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly 

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, 

“riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For 

example, riparian vegetation includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a 

stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

Riverine. Flowing perennial to intermittent waters bounded by a channel. This habitat 

encompasses a river or stream, its channel, and the associated aquatic vegetation. 

Salmonid. A category of fish that includes salmon, steelhead, and trout. 

Scoping. Using news releases, and other appropriate media to notify the public of the 

opportunity to participate in the planning process and to help identify issues, concerns, and 

opportunities related to the project. 

Seral. Of or relating to an ecological sere; a seral stage. 

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory. 

Special Status Species. Fish, wildlife and plant species that have special conservation status 

because they have been listed under one or more authorities such as Endangered Species Act, 

state-listed species, Birds of Conservation Concern, and others. 

Step-down Plan. A step-down plan provide the details necessary to implement management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Strategy. A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Threatened Species (Federal). Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely 

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

their range. 

Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in 

Washington within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat 

degradation or loss continue. 
Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary J-13

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Threshold. The lowest level or intensity at which a stimulus is perceptible or can produce an 

effect. This term is sometimes used in connection with monitoring the effects of public uses on 

natural resources. 

Turbidity. A measurement of clarity of water based on particles suspended in the water. It is 

measured with a nephelometer, which indicates the amount of light that passes through (or is 

scattered by) a column of water. 

Vegetation Type (Also Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type). A land classification system based 

upon the concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit, 

based primarily upon the System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Watershed. The region or area drained by a river system or other body of water. (Webster’s II). 

Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the 

water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time 

during the growing season of each year (Service Manual 660 FW 2). 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation. These are also referred to as priority public uses of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
J-14 Appendix J. Acronyms and Glossary 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix K. South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Draft Forest Landscape Restoration Plan K-1 

Appendix K. South Willapa Bay Conservation Area 

Draft Forest Landscape Restoration Plan 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

K-2 Appendix K. South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Draft Forest Landscape Restoration Plan 
i

SOUTH WILLAPA BAY

CONSERVATION AREA

A joint project of The Nature Conservancy and 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

FOREST LANDSCAPE 

RESTORATION PLAN

Draft – July 10, 2007 
ii

South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan

Authors:

 Forest Consultants

Derek Churchill Stewardship Forestry Consulting 

Andrew Larson College of Forest Resources, University of Washington 

Kevin Cedar Woodland Creek Consulting 

The Nature Conservancy

David Rolph 

Tom Kollasch 

Acknowledgements:

Development of this plan has been a collaborative effort that has received help from 

numerous individuals and organizations. Leading into this project, Coastal Watersheds 

Consulting conducted numerous inventories and analysis at Ellsworth Creek over the years 

that were essential in developing this plan. The foresters at Integrated Resources 

Management conducted the forest inventories that were essential to considering and 

modeling treatment options. Steve Rentmeester’s work provided valuable insight into 

health and function of the riparian forests and fish bearing streams at Ellsworth Creek. At 

the tail end, the Conservancy’s new Willapa Forester, Bill Lecture provided a critical review 

with an eye to the practical and made the plan his own. 

This project was envisioned and completed in partnership with the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge and their contributions were indispensable in this cooperative effort. 

Refuge biologists, Marie Fernandez and Kirsten Brennan, imparted critical insight into 

refuge specific forest management goals and past research and data availability, and also 

provided review of the plan. The support and guidance of the refuge Project Leader, 

Charlie Stenvall was vital to ensuring that the plan is scientifically rigorous, yet useful for 

operational planning purposes. 

Funding for this project was provided, in part, by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services Jobs 

In The Woods Program, the Department of the Interior’s Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative and by the Nestucca Oil Spill Revised Restoration Plan (USFWS 2004). 

The Nature Conservancy would like to thank Derek Churchill, Andrew Larson, and Kevin 

Cedar for the rigor and detail they applied to considering the central question that this plan 

aims to answer; how do we restore ecological function to young overstocked coastal 

forests? Their deep personal interest in the finer points of coastal forest ecology is clearly 

evident in this plan. 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................... V

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Purpose and Need......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Management Philosophy and Goals .................................................................................................................. 3

OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTH WILLAPA BAY CONSERVATION AREA ................................................... 5

A. PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Climate and Climatic Variation...................................................................................................................... 6

2. Geology & Soils........................................................................................................................................... 6

B. CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................................................................10

1. Ecological Systems and Natural Communities ...................................................................................................10

2. Rare plants.................................................................................................................................................11

3. Fish & Wildlife Populations .........................................................................................................................11

4. Potential Threats to Conservation Value ..........................................................................................................14

C. SITE HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................16

1. Pre-settlement Forest Composition ...................................................................................................................16

2. Human Use ...............................................................................................................................................18

3. Forest Management History...........................................................................................................................18

4. Current Land Use and Surrounding Ownership ................................................................................................20

5. Recreation and Public Access .........................................................................................................................20

6. Bonneville Powerlines....................................................................................................................................20

LANDSCAPE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................22

A. FOREST VEGETATION.....................................................................................................................................23

1. Forest Inventory and Key Structural Metrics......................................................................................................23

2. Forest Stand Types ......................................................................................................................................24

3. Forest Health .............................................................................................................................................32

B. FRESHWATER STREAM SYSTEMS...................................................................................................................35

C. FOREST ROADS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................38

1. Forest Roads ..............................................................................................................................................38

2. Rock Pits...................................................................................................................................................39

3. Building Infrastructure and Other Resources......................................................................................................39

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................................40

A. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................41

1. Ecosystem Resistance and Resilience to Perturbation at Multiple Scales...................................................................41

2. Landscape Composition and Pattern: Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity ..............................................................43

3. Functional Landscape Linkages .....................................................................................................................44

4. Habitat for Late-successional Dependent Species ................................................................................................44

5. Desired Future Conditions: Synthesis...............................................................................................................45

B. SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION............................................................................................................................46

1. Scientific Basis for Restoration Silviculture in Spruce-Hemlock Forests ...................................................................46

2. Scientific Basis for Road Removal ...................................................................................................................50

3. Risks associated with Active vs. Passive Management..........................................................................................53

C. OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................................58

1. Staff Capacity.............................................................................................................................................58

2. Financial Resources & Considerations.............................................................................................................58

3. Applicable forest practice laws and policies ........................................................................................................61

4. Access, road network, and logging systems.........................................................................................................61

5. Community & stakeholder context and desires ..................................................................................................62
iv

RESTORATION PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE .............................................................................................63

A. MANAGEMENT APPROACH.............................................................................................................................64

1. Silvicultural System......................................................................................................................................64

2. Determining and Prioritizing Forest Treatments.................................................................................................68

3. Determining and Prioritizing Road Treatments..................................................................................................72

4. Generalized Forest Treatment Scenarios ...........................................................................................................73

5. Sale and collection of non-timber forest products..................................................................................................76

6. Development and use of onsite rock resources......................................................................................................76

7. Use of chemicals ..........................................................................................................................................77

8. Local access and hunting ...............................................................................................................................77

9. Use of revenue generated from timber sales.........................................................................................................77

B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................................79

1. Restoration Thinning and Road Treatment Schedule...........................................................................................79

2. Landscape Simulation of Treatments ...............................................................................................................80

3. Projected Volume and Revenue Outputs ...........................................................................................................86

C. MONITORING..................................................................................................................................................89

1. Adaptive Management..................................................................................................................................89

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... A

APPENDIX A: ECOLOGY OF SPRUCE-HEMLOCK FORESTS ................................................................... 1

BY: ANDREW LARSEN AND DEREK CHURCHILL.............................................................................................................. 1

Natural Disturbances ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Forest Development Pathways .................................................................................................................................. 2

Stream Geomorphology, Disturbances, and Habitat, including Riparian Areas.................................................................. 7

References............................................................................................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX B: PROCESS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING STAND LEVEL 

PRESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 1

BY: DEREK CHURCHILL, ANDREW LARSON, & KEVIN CEDAR ........................................................................................ 1
v

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

B-IBI --------------------------------------------- Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

BPA --------------------------------------------- Bonneville Power Administration 

BR ------------------------------------------ Biomass removal thinning treatments 

CCI ------------------------------------------- Cooperative Conservation Initiative 

CWD ---------------------------------------------------------- Coarse Woody Debris 

DBH------------------------------------------------------- Diameter at Basal Height 

DFC ----------------------------------------------------- Desired Future Condition 

ENSO ----------------------------------------------- El Nino/Southern Oscillation 

FSC ----------------------------------------------------- Forest Stewardship Council 

FVS ---------------------------------------------------- Forest Vegetation Simulator 

HD(R) -----------------------------------------------------Height to Diameter Ratio 

IRM ---------------------------------------------- Integrated Resource Management 

LCR------------------------------------------------------------------- Live crown ratio 

LMS ----------------------------------------------- Landscape Management System 

MDL -------------------------------- Mature drop and leave thinning treatments 

MOGI ------------------------------------------------ Modified Old-Growth Index 

MOU --------------------------------------------- Memorandum of Understanding 

NCC ----------------------------------------------- Nature Conservancy of Canada 

PCT ------------------------------------------- Pre-commercial thinning treatments 

PDO ----------------------------------------------------- Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

QMD ----------------------------------------------------- Quadratic Mean Diameter 

RNA ---------------------------------------------------------- Research Natural Area 

SDI -------------------------------------------------------------- Stand Density Index 

SVS ------------------------------------------------------ Stand Visualization System 

SWBCA ------------------------------------ South Willapa Bay Conservation Area 

TIMO --------------------------- Timber Investment Management Organization 

TNC ------------------------------------------------------- The Nature Conservancy 

TPA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Trees per Acre 

UM ------ Understory, variable density thinning treatments and management 

USFWS ---------------------------------- United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VDT ----------------------------------------------------- Variable Density Thinning 

WADNR------------------------ Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WADOE ----------------------------------- Washington Department of Ecology 

WDFW -------------------------- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WNWR ----------------------------------------- Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

YDL ---------------------------------- Young drop and leave thinning treatments 
vi
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 1

Old-growth western redcedar at Teal Slough

Introduction

1. Purpose and Need

In July of 2003, The Nature Conservancy (―the Conservancy‖) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding for the purpose of ―collaborating to accomplish forest management goals 

and objectives‖ on properties managed by both parties in Pacific County, Washington. Thus began a 

partnership to restore young-managed forestlands at a landscape scale across the Conservancy’s Ellsworth 

Creek Preserve the neighboring Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (the ―Refuge‖). Financial resources to 

support this work have been secured, in part, through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Jobs In The 

Woods Program (FWS Agreement #134103J007), the Department of Interior’s Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative (Cooperative Agreement 135524J115), Nestucca Oil Spill Revised Restoration Plan (USFWS 

2004), and private funds from individuals and foundations. The following management plan was prepared 

to provide specific goals and management guidance over the next 20 years for this restoration effort within 

the Refuge and Conservancy’s terrestrial ownership, hereafter referred to as the ―South Willapa Bay 

Conservation Area‖ (SWBCA), (Figure 1 – South Willapa Bay Conservation Area). 

Forests within the SWBCA have been managed for timber 

production over most of the last century. Today, less than 

5% of the area remains as unmanaged or old-growth forest 

habitat. Extensive forest management has profoundly 

changed ecological conditions within the landscape. The 

dominant, simplified young-managed forests do not 

support several species that are dependent on complex 

old-growth forests including the federally listed marbled 

murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) and Northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Streams are altered from high 

sediment loads and scouring, and extensive forest road 

systems fragment habitat and modify hydrological 

processes. Low-elevation coastal old-growth forests in 

South Willapa Bay, however, provide habitat for an 

especially diverse array of species while also supporting 

natural ecological processes that maintain healthy 

freshwater stream systems and adjacent estuarine habitats. 

Because of the rarity and biological significance of oldgrowth forest ecosystems in the Willapa Hills of 

Washington, the Conservancy and Refuge are working 

together to restore a forested landscape that is representative of past, unmanaged, landscape conditions. 

Restoration actions, or active management, will primarily include (1) carefully designed density management 

(ie. thinning) within young-managed forest stands (< 90 years old) to promote forest growth and the 

development of habitat complexity, (2) the removal, or repair of high risk forest roads, and (3) 

improvement to the existing forest road network to minimize impacts to water quality. This landscape 

restoration plan outlines the management direction and implementation schedule for specific restoration 

actions that are anticipated over the following 20 year period. The plan provides detail on management 

goals, conservation significance, existing natural and cultural resources, desired future conditions, planning 

considerations, management approach, implementation schedule, and monitoring. While the Conservancy 

and Refuge recognize that restoration of forest ecosystems within the SWBCA will play out over the next 

century or longer, we anticipate that the next 10-20 years are critical for altering the ecological trajectory of 

this important landscape toward a trend that supports the recovery of our mutual conservation values. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 2
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 3

2. Management Philosophy and Goals

The intent of management within the SWBCA is to restore self sustaining, natural, ecological processes and 

healthy forest and stream systems, as opposed to engineering or manipulating habitats to meet specific 

structural or compositional targets. The Conservancy and Refuge propose to do this by abating threats to 

the landscape and/or sources of habitat degradation. The major identified threats include extensive forest 

road systems, simplified forest and stream habitats, increased sediment loads in stream systems, and 

invasive species. Restoration and management practices will be based upon the best science available with 

the level of active management varying across the landscape. Monitoring and refinement of management 

practices will occur as a key component of the restoration process. 

A core assumption of this landscape restoration project is that young-managed forest landscapes can, over 

long time periods, develop ecological conditions that are comparable to unmanaged or late-successional 

forest landscapes found within the same physiographic province. The Conservancy and Refuge recognize 

that existing unmanaged forest landscapes developed under unique environmental conditions and that 

those histories cannot be replicated (Spies et al. 2002b). Remaining unmanaged stands represent only a 

small proportion of the representative habitat diversity that once existed on the landscape. Thus, metrics 

from the remaining remnant forests will only be used as an initial template for comparison, not as an 

ultimate target to reach and maintain throughout the landscape. The goal is to restore a dynamic and 

resilient, naturally functioning forest system, not to artificially hold the landscape in a defined old-growth 

state (i.e., to balance the affects of continued logging in the surrounding region). The Conservancy and 

Refuge believe that significant portions of the SWBCA should develop complex forest canopy and 

understory structures, high levels of standing and downed wood, dynamic and complex stream habitats, 

diverse species communities, and resilience to natural disturbances that are typical of unmanaged latesuccessional forest landscapes in the Pacific Northwest (Franklin J.F. and Spies 1991, Naiman et al. 2000). 

Specific goals for each partner are outlined below. 

The Nature Conservancy

The Conservancy is an international nonprofit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve 

plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands 

and waters they need to survive. Since its establishment in 1951, the Conservancy has been responsible for 

protecting more than 15 million acres in the United States and more than 102 million acres in Latin 

America, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific. The Conservancy works in all 50 states and 28 countries. The 

Nature Conservancy of Washington was established in 1979 and began acquiring properties as part of the 

Ellsworth Creek Preserve in 1998. Currently, the Ellsworth Creek Preserve is approximately 7,436 acres in 

size, encompassing almost the entire Ellsworth Creek watershed, and includes upland forest and estuarine 

habitats, and freshwater stream systems. 

Primary goals for the Ellsworth Creek Preserve include: 

1. Restore ecologically functional estuarine, freshwater, and upland forest habitats that support species 

and ecological processes representative of those found within unmanaged late-successional forest 

landscapes of the Pacific Northwest coast. 

2. Develop and implement restoration strategies that accomplish ecological goals in a cost effective and 

financially replicable manner. 

3. Maximize opportunities for learning how coastal forest landscapes respond to restoration treatments 

and export those lessons to other forest resource managers. 

4. Manage the preserve with exemplary stewardship that earns respect and builds productive relationships 

within the local community and amongst resource management partners. 

5. Attain and maintain Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. 

6. Serve as a contributor to positive carbon sequestration. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 4

The Conservancy has been a member of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) since 2001 and holds a 

certificate as a certified forest manager for over 250,000 acres. The Conservancy intends to pursue FSC 

certification at its Ellsworth Creek Preserve and believes certification is an important forest conservation 

tool because it can: 

Integrate socio-economic values/concerns into forest management activities; 

Ensure that any active management on Conservancy owned and managed lands is consistent 

and meets an internationally recognized standard of management; 

Provide independent verification and monitoring of forest management and chain of custody 

practices that help reduce illegal logging; and, 

Create incentives for sound forest management by providing some landowners with better 

access to certain markets and price premiums for certified product. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge was established in 1937 as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife 

in and around Willapa Bay (Executive Order 7541, dated Jan. 22, 1937). The Refuge currently manages 

approximately 15,000 acres including coastal dunes and beaches, intertidal mudflats, saltwater and 

freshwater marshes, grasslands and forestlands. The terrestrial portion of the Refuge is approximately 7,726 

acres, including 362 acres designated as a Research Natural Area (RNA). 

Refuge goals related to forest management include: 

1. To preserve and protect unique ecosystems associated with Willapa Bay 

2. To manage for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered animals in their 

natural ecosystems. 

Under these goals the Refuge has developed specific objectives related to the forest management program. 

1. Restore ecological function to Refuge forests by creating a natural distribution of stand structure, 

composition, and successional stages while promoting old-growth/late successional characteristics 

to benefit forest dependent wildlife – especially the marbled murrelet. 

2. Decommission unnecessary forest roads to reduce/eliminate stream impacts and fragmentation of 

forest habitat. 

3. Adopt forest management practices designed to change fire prone thickets of western hemlock 

over a period of time to something that structurally resembles old-growth and reduces fuel loads. 

4. Protect, and where appropriate, restore associated stream habitat to prevent further declines of 

anadromous fish stocks and enhance native amphibian populations and other stream dependent 

wildlife species. 

5. Reduce risk from insects and disease where endemics are likely. 

Research Natural Areas

The Diamond Point (88 acres) (Dyrness 1972) and Cedar Grove Research Natural Areas (274 acres) 

(Atkinson 1987)are both located within the SWBCA, on Long Island. Research natural areas are established 

on federal lands: (1) to preserve examples of all significant natural ecosystems for comparison with those 

influenced by humans; (2) to provide educational and research areas for ecological and environmental 

studies; (3) to preserve gene pools of typical and endangered plants and animals (WADNR 2005). Activities 

on Research Natural Areas are limited to research, study, observation, monitoring, and educational 

activities that are non-destructive, non-manipulative, and maintain unmodified natural conditions. These 

areas were designated due to the high quality vegetation communities found at each site and no active 

management is proposed at either site within this plan. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 5

OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTH WILLAPA BAY 

CONSERVATION AREA

Late-successional forest at Ellsworth Creek 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 6

A. PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING

1. Climate and Climatic Variation

The SWBCA has a mild, maritime climate. Annual precipitation at nearby Long Beach, WA and Naselle, 

WA averaged 80‖ for the period 1967-2005 and 114‖ for the period 1948-2005, respectively (NOAA 2007). 

Precipitation is lowest during July and August, however the summer drought is moderated by low clouds 

and fog (Franklin J. F. and Dyrness 1988). Fog condensation on tree crowns and subsequent fog drip is an 

additional source of precipitation (Ruth and Harris 1979), which may be of ecological significance during 

summer months (Dawson 1998). Temperatures are moderate; temperatures at Long Beach, WA range 

from a mean high of 66.8 F in August and September to a mean low of 36.0 F in January (NOAA 2007). 

Climatic conditions are variable at both long (millennial) and short (annual-decadal) time scales. The 

primary forcing of long-term climate variation in this region is changing patterns of seasonal insolation, 

which is in turn controlled by variation in the Earth’s tilt and orbital pattern (Berger 1991, Heusser C.J., 

L.E. Heusser, D.M. Peteet. 1985). Long-term climatic variation of this nature has led to substantial changes 

in the vegetation composition throughout the Pacific Northwest (Whitlock 1992). At the annual and 

decadal scales, El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Diaz and Markgraf 2000) and Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation (PDO) (Biondi 2001, Mantua 1997), respectively, and interactions between these two climatic 

oscillations (Newman 2003) are important sources of climatic variation, influencing both temperature and 

precipitation. Individual tree growth and forest ecosystem productivity in the PNW respond to annual and 

decadal climate variation (Peterson David W. and Peterson 2001). Particularly relevant to the SWBCA site 

management are the recent findings that summer temperature and PDO influence growth in coastal low 

elevation forests in western Washington (Nakawatase and Peterson 2006). Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)

forests exhibit very high sensitivity to environmental variation, with potential for extreme growth response 

to climate variation (Holman 2006). 

2. Geology & Soils

The Ellsworth creek drainage and the lands with the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge are located in the 

southwestern portion of the Willapa Hills subprovince of the Coast Range physiographic province. All 

waters drain into Willapa Bay. Ellsworth creek lies within the lower Naselle River watershed, while 

Conservancy and Refuge lands to the south and west of Bear River Ridge are part of the Bear River 

watershed unit. Long Island comprises its own watershed unit. Elevation ranges from sea level along 

Willapa Bay to 1,715 feet along Bear River Ridge. The area covered by this plan can be divided into 2 

physiographic zones with distinct geological, topographic, and soil characteristics (Table 1): Coastal hills, 

and Long Island, alluvial zones and former sand dunes. 

Coastal hills

The coastal hills have rounded topography and deep weathering profiles. The landscape is highly dissected, 

and the drainage network is dendritic. Marine sedimentary rock from the late Eocene through early 

Miocene (60 to 20 million year old) underlies most of this zone and consists of thin-bedded, laminated 

tuffaceous siltstones and lesser amounts of sandstone (Wells 1989). Middle Miocene intrusions of basalt 

also exist and are much more resistant than the surrounding sedimentary rocks. This contrast in rock 

hardness has resulted in the development of locally steeper slopes and higher relief, as evidenced by Bear 

River Ridge (Wells, 1989). Due to lack of glaciation during the last 2 million years, soils and exposed 

bedrock are highly weathered. Thick soils have developed on stable upland surfaces and slopes range from 

very gentle to over 200%. 

Three major geologic formations exist that have corresponding geomorphic features (Map – SWBCA 

Landforms). The Lincoln Creek formation consists of steep, dissected hill slopes west of the Bear River 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 7

Ridge divide and west of Ellsworth Creek (Wegmann 2004) where soils are primarily from the Palix and 

Narel Series (Map – SWBCA Soils). These deep, well drained soils were generally formed in mixed slope 

deposits derived from sandstone and siltstone consisting of silt loams and silty clay loams with 10-30% 

pebble sized rock fragments. Depth to partly consolidated sandstone ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Available 

water capacity is high and water moves readily through these soils. 

The Grand Ronde Basalt formation contains steep escarpments of Bear River Ridge associated with 

resistant invasive Columbia River basalt flows. Soils are highly weathered basalts from the Vesta series on 

ridge tops and the Knappton series on side slopes. These deep, well drained soils consist of silt loams and 

gravelly, silty clay loams with 0-30% pebble sized rock fragments. Depth to weathered, fractured basalt 

ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Available water capacity is high and water moves readily through these soils. 

The Shoalwater Bay formation consists of moderately-to-low 

dissected hill slopes and bluffs west and north of Bear River 

Ridge that slope gently towards Willapa bay. Soils are 

weathered sandstones and siltstones from the Palix, Illwaco, 

Leban, and Treham series, with some intrusions of Knappton 

soils. The Illwaco and Leban series are similar to the Palix 

series, while the Treham series is similar to Knappton. 

Intrusion of basalt and more recent estuarine deposits mixed 

in and make for complex geology. 

All of the soils in coastal hills of the SWBCA are medial, 

mesic Andic Haplumbrepts (Pringle 1986). These fine 

textured soils, in combination with the abundant rainfall, give 

the area high soil productivity. King (1966) 50 year Douglasfir (Psuedotsuga menzesii)site index taken from Cambell Group 

cruise data ranges from 107-145, and is site class 2 in most 

places with some site 1 and site 3. Barnes (1962) 50 year 

western hemlock site index ranges from 90-128 (Map –

SWBCA Site Index: 50 year Western Hemlock), and 

maximum annual volume increment for a fully stocked 50 

year old western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) stand ranges 

from 214-272 cubic feet per acre per year or 1170 – 1486 

board feet per acre per year (Pringle 1986). 

The combination of steep slopes, susceptible bedrock types, 

and significant precipitation makes the area susceptible to landslides. Wegmann (2004) conducted a 

historical review of landslide activity and an analysis of landslide risk in the lower Naselle watershed. Using 

data from Powell et al. (2003) he rated overall landslide potential as moderate when compared to other 

drainage basins in the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges. He also found that over 90% of past 

landslides occurred on concave-to-planar slopes of bedrock hollows, inner gorges, and convergent 

headwalls, especially on slopes greater than 70% in the Grande Ronde Basalt and Lincoln Creek 

Formations. Based on these factors, mass wasting risk was evaluated for areas within the Ellsworth 

watershed (Map – Ellsworth Creek Unstable Landforms). The 2000 Washington State DNR slope stability 

ratings based on the SLPSTAB model (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2006) are also 

included in a landslide susceptibility model for both ownerships (Map – SWBCA Slope Stability Hazard). 

While most landslides have been shallow rapid slides or debris flows, there have been some deep seated 

landslides that affect much larger areas and consist of poorly sorted colluvium and bedrock slump blocks. 

While the risk of further shallow, subsidiary landslides within these previous events is minimal, steep 

headscarps and over-steepened toes of some of the deep-seated slides are susceptible to increased shallow 

Figure 2. Landslide risk is generally moderate 

within the SWBCA although higher risks are

associated with roads.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 8

landslide activity, especially if forest roads are constructed across them. In general, Wegmann’s (2004) 

analysis found that forestry activities have greatly hastened landslide activity and roughly 85% of the 319 

landslides since 1958 were related to forestry activities (Wegmann 2004). In a separate analysis of the 

Ellsworth creek drainage, Powell et. al (2003) found that of the 86 landslides that have occurred since 1946, 

52 were road related and 34 were related to clear cut harvests. Approximately 110 acres were affected and 

87% of slides resulted in disturbance and or sediment delivery to stream channels. 

Long Island, alluvial zones, and former sand dunes

Long Island and other marine terraces bordering Willapa Bay are comprised of estuarine terraces and 

alluvial deposits that are generally flat to gently sloped (Wells 1989). They consist of unconsolidated to 

semi-consolidated mud and silt with sand lenses. Terrace surfaces occur up to 260 feet above the modern 

sea level. Dissection of terrace surfaces increases with increasing elevation above sea level, yet, the overall 

dissection of these deposits is minimal, likely owing to their relatively young age and minimal topographic 

gradient (Wegmann 2004). 

The marine terraces consist of uplifted and wave cut terraces of highly stratified Willapa Bay esturiane 

sediments that were laid down over the last 2 million years (Quaternary) as sea levels fluctuated. These 

terraces occur on Long Island and parts of the mainland shoreline areas and often overlay older, 

consolidated sandstone that can be seen on Long Island cliffs. Basalt intrusions are also present. Due to 

rapid weathering, geological history is not well known in many cases. Soils are primarily from the Willapa 

and Ilwaco series and are deep, moderately drained soils that consist of silt loam in the 8-20 inch surface 

horizons and mottled, silty clay loams below (Pringle 1986). Available water capacity is high. A small 

portion of these terraces have Newskaw soils, which are loams in the surface horizons and fine sand below. 

These soils are medial, mesic Andic Haplumbrepts. 

In estuaries, floodplains, and low terraces of the major streams entering Willapa Bay, soils are derived from 

recent alluvial sediments. Soils from the Ocosta series are the most prevalent (Pringle 1986). This very 

deep, poorly drained soil occurs in flood plains and deltas of coastal bays ands consists of silty clay loam 

and silty clay. Other similar, minor soil series include Nuby and Montesa. These soils are mesic Typic 

Fluvaquents. The Aabab series occurs in terraces along streams and is a silt loam. The small area of the 

Wildlife Refuge on the Willapa Spit consists of former sand dunes where soils are from the Netarts and 

Yaquina series. 

Soil productivity of marine terrace areas tends to be a little lower than in the coastal hills, but is still quite 

high on most soil types. Risk of mass wasting is generally low, except on steep slopes along the edge of the 

Willapa Bay Estuary that have a history of landsliding in response to forest management activities. Both 

shallow-rapid and small deep-seated failures have occurred here on slopes averaging 34%, indicating a 

lower slope threshold for landslide risk than in the coastal hills (Wegmann 2004). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 9

Table 1: Proportion of area within each soil series and the corresponding site index. 

Soil ID #

Series 

Name

WNWF 

% Cover

TNC 

% Cover

WH Site 

Index1

RA Site 

Index2

111-116 Palix 18% 39% 111

155-160 Willapa 36% 0% 108

89 Narel 0% 28% 104

49-54 Ilwaco 24% 1% 103

59-61 Knapton 2% 16% 104

149-150 Vesta 1% 12% 112

104 Ocosta 10% 0% 94

1 Aabab 0% 3% 100

95-96 Newskah 3% 0% 105

65-66 Lebam 1% 1% 112

162 Yaquina 2% 0% 90

102 Nuby 1% 0% 103

79 Montesa 1% 0% 102

144 Traham 1% 0% 92

108 Orcas 1% 0%

92 Netarts 1% 0% 107

1 Western Hemlock site index is 50yr from Barnes 1962.

2 Red Alder site index is from Chambers (1974)

Soil Series are from Pringle (1986).
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 10

B. CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

From a local to global perspective the SWBCA is an area of particularly high conservation significance. 

While the large estuarine ecosystem of Willapa Bay is renowned for the ecological and economic value of 

its marine resources and its shorebird migrations of hemispheric importance (Wolf 1993),populations (Wolf 

1993) the forest and freshwater systems also harbor a rich diversity of species and habitats. Low elevation 

coastal rainforest habitats, such as those found in the conservation area, only occur in a few disparate 

regions of the world and are typified by high productivity. The forests of the SWBCA provide habitat for 

diverse assemblages of species, from familiar vertebrate species and abundant salmon to the less know, like 

fungi, lichens, bryophytes, and many groups of invertebrates such as mollusks and millipedes. These 

species, and others, all play key roles in functional pathways within the forest, such as decomposition and 

nutrient cycling. Amphibians are another important group of species within these forests and surveys by 

the Conservancy have shown the area to have some of the highest species richness in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Regional conservation assessments for the marbled murrelet and the Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional 

Assessment (The Nature Conservancy et al. 2006) have further substantiated the significance of this 

conservation area. Over the last several years, the Conservancy has worked with key partners to develop 

scientifically-rigorous conservation assessments for every North American ecoregion. These 

comprehensive assessments evaluate the full spectrum of biodiversity within a given ecoregion, identifying 

areas of biological significance where conservation efforts have the greatest value and potential success. 

The recently completed Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment(Vander Schaaf et al. 2006) was 

the product of a partnership initiated in 2001 to identify priority conservation areas in this ecoregion. The 

Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW) were the primary partners in this project. The stated goal for the Pacific Northwest 

Coast Ecoregional Conservation Assessment was to ―identify the suite of conservation areas that promote 

the long-term survival of all native plant and animal species and natural communities in the ecoregion.‖ 

The SWBCA, and surrounding estuarine and freshwater systems, were all identified in this assessment as 

sites of high priority for conservation. 

1. Ecological Systems and Natural Communities

Forests of the SWBCA are located entirely within the Sitka spruce zone of Franklin and Dyrness (1988) 

while the Natural Heritage Program’s classification describes two major ecological systems for this area of 

the Pacific Coast – the North Pacific hypermaritime Sitka spruce forest, and the North Pacific 

hypermaritime western redcedar (Thuja plicata)-western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest 

((http://www.natureserve.org/getData/USecologyData.jsp) (Comer et al. 2003)). Both of these ecological 

systems are restricted to areas within 40 miles of the coast at low elevation (typically less than 2,000 ft) 

where the climate is hypermaritime, with cool summers, very wet winters, abundant fog, and without a 

major winter snowpack. The natural disturbance regime is mostly small-scale windthrow or other gap 

mortality processes, occasional widespread intense windstorms, and very few fires (a detailed description 

and analysis of disturbance regimes and forest development pathways in these forest types is provided in 

Appendix A). 

Sitka spruce forests are generally found in more productive micro-sites along valley bottoms or riparian 

terraces. Stands are typically dominated or codominated by Sitka spruce but often have a mixture of other 

conifers present, such as western hemlock (often a codominant), and western redcedar. The understory is 

rich with shade-tolerant shrubs and ferns, including salal (Gaultheria shallon), evergreen huckleberry 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 11

(Vaccinium ovatum), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), Dryopteris spp., and deer fern (Blechnum spicant), as well as 

a high diversity of mosses and lichens. 

Western red cedar- western hemlock forests often contain nearly pure stands of hemlock and thrive in this 

environment where they are exposed to intense windstorms. The abundance of western red cedar in 

relation to other conifers is one of the diagnostic characters of this forest system, as is the low abundance 

of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Sitka spruce. A shrub layer of salal, oval-leaf huckleberry (Vaccinium 

ovalifolium), and fool’s huckleberry (Menziesia ferruginea) is usually well-developed. The prominence of deer 

fern is typical of hypermaritime conditions. Oregon oxalis (Oxalis oregano) is also important in the 

understory of particularly moist microsites. 

Natural plant communities of these two ecological systems are limited to forest stands that have not been 

harvested or where limited entry has occurred. Specific plant communities identified within the Cedar 

Grove Research Natural Area include the western redcedar-western hemlock/evergreen 

huckleberry forest (Atkinson 1987). Forests at Ellsworth Creek and within the adjacent Ellsworth Creek 

Natural Resource Conservation Area include the Sitka spruce/Oregon oxalis forest, Sitka spruce/salal 

forest, western hemlock/Oregon oxalis forest, western hemlock/salal/deerfern forest, western 

hemlock/swordfern forest plant communities (Chappell 1997). Because forests at the Diamond Point 

Research Natural Area have been harvested they are not considered natural communities by the 

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 

2. Rare plants 

Two rare plants are known from the vicinity of the SWBCA (Table 2), although neither is found in upland 

forest habitats covered by this plan. 

Table 2: Rare plants known from the South Willapa Bay Conservation Area. 

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name Ranking Habitat Location

Abronia 

umbellate ssp. 

acutalata*

Pink 

sandverbena

G4G5T1QSX

Species was 

rediscovered in 

Washington in 2005

Shifting sands and 

dunes Leadbetter Point

Hydrocotyle 

ranunculoides

Floating 

water 

pennywort

GS 5 Freshwater ponds, 

lakes, and streams. 

Ellsworth Cr. 

estuary

* species is under review to determine whether it is distinctive or a northern population of Abronia umbellate

ssp. breviflora. 

3. Fish & Wildlife Populations

The forest, riparian, marsh, and tidal habitats within the SWBCA provide habitat for a large number of 

species. An estimated 233 species of birds, 51 species of mammals, and 17 species of amphibians and 

reptiles are known to occur on the Refuge (USFWS 1999). The cool, wet climate of the Willapa area makes 

it a ―hot spot‖ of amphibian diversity in Washington. Habitats on the Refuge and the Conservancy’s lands 

may support up to 13 of the 24 native amphibians that occur in the state, including several regionally 

endemic species (USFWS 1999). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 12

Several species of state and federal concern occur within the SWBCA (Table 3), including the marbled 

murrelet, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and a number of invertebrate (e.g., mollusks and millipedes), 

lichen, and fungi species. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) were known to inhabit the oldgrowth forest stands on Long Island in the 1980’s, but have been replaced by barred owls (Strix varia)

(USFWS 1987). Although spotted owl vocalizations were detected in the Ellsworth Creek and Teal Slough 

areas in the 1990’s (USFWS 1999), they are now considered extirpated from the SWBCA. Habitat 

restoration may improve opportunities for spotted owl recovery in the future. 

Table 3: Federal and state species of concern that are known from the Ellsworth Creek Preserve. FT = 

federal threatened, FCo = federal species of concern, ST = State threatened, SC = State candidate 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State 

Endangered Species Status

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus FT/ST

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT/ST

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia FCo/ST

River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi FCo/SC

Columbia torrent salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri FCo/SC

Cope’s giant salamander Dicamptodon copei None/SM

Red-legged frog Rana aurora FC/None

Tailed frog Ascaphus truei FCo/SM

Van Dyke’s salamander Plethodon vandykei FCo/SC

Dunn’s salamander Plethodon dunni None/SC

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus None/SC

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi None/SC

Sea-run Cutthroat trout -

Southwest WA/Lower Columbia 

River ESU

Oncorhynchus clarki clarki FC/None

Coho Salmon - Southwest 

WA/Lower Columbia River ESU 

Oncorhynchus kisutch FC/None

Marbled Murrelet

Marbled murrelets rely on coastal mature and old-growth forests for nesting and their populations have 

declined along with the loss of habitat to the point where today they are listed as a federally threatened 

species (USFWS 1997). Existing murrelet habitat and populations in the Willapa Bay area are important to 

the long-term viability of the species since the area is otherwise largely devoid of nesting habitat and forms 

a significant distributional gap in the range of the species. The federal recovery plan for the murrelet 

specifically identifies the protection of existing habitat, and ―increasing the amount, quality, and distribution 

of suitable nesting habitat‖ in southwest Washington, as important recovery strategies (USFWS 1997). With 

some of the largest remaining stands of suitable nesting habitat in the Willapa Bay region, and a goal to 

restore additional, functional, late-successional forest systems, the SWBCA is clearly a crucial landscape for 

promoting the recovery of this marine bird species. 

Significant federal grants have been awarded to both the Conservancy and the Refuge for habitat 

acquisition specifically aimed at supporting the recovery of marbled murrelet populations. Conservation of 

occupied murrelet habitat is a critical first step; however, effective restoration will be important in the 

procurement of the additional habitat necessary to recover the species within reasonable timeframes. 

Therefore, landscape restoration is a specific focus of this plan. The Conservancy has developed a robust, 

long-term forest restoration research program at Ellsworth Creek designed to provide guidance for 

restoring forest complexity in formerly managed coastal forests. Lessons learned through this research will 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 13

be applied more broadly within the Preserve, on the Refuge, and hopefully on other federal and private 

lands in the coastal region. Recognizing this significant contribution to murrelet recovery, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed excluding both ownerships from designation as critical habitat 

for the marbled murrelet under section 4(b)(2) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2006). 

Justification for this exclusion is based on documentation that provides: 

1. A management plan that is complete and demonstrates a conservation benefit to the species. 

2. Reasonable assurances that the conservation management strategies and actions will be 

implemented. 

3. Reasonable assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will be effective. 

The USFWS is expected to review this restoration and management plan to ensure that these conditions are 

met. Elements of our approach to marbled murrelet conservation and habitat restoration/development are 

described throughout the management plan. Sections of particular note include .......

Portions of stands that are known to be occupied by nesting murrelets will not be targeted for biomass 

removal treatments. Young-managed forest stands of unsuitable habitat with simplified forest structures 

and dense stocking may, however, be actively managed, following the criteria and restrictions outlined in 

this plan, so they develop older forest structures more quickly that are suitable for meeting suitable murrelet 

nesting habitat. 

Salmonids

Ellsworth creek contains one of the highest spawning densities of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the 

Willapa Bay watershed with close to 8,000 fish reported over a 0.8 mile index reach in 2002 (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife data). Although abundant populations of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) and coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are reported in the Ellsworth Creek drainage, 

systematic inventories of most fish species have not been conductedcompleted (scheduled for summer 

2007). Stream surveys conducted on the Refuge (Barndt et al. 2000, Yoshinaka and Stone 2004) have 

observed coho and chum salmon, cutthroat trout, riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus), and threespined stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus) in varying levels in different streams and note that spawning populations are likely. 

Therefore, theseEach of the Refuge streams and Ellsworth Creek are classified as being strongly 

heterotrophic (require complex organic chemicals for metabolic synthesis). Management actions proposed 

in this plan are expected to improve habitat for salmonids and other anadromous fish over time; however, 

short term effects of active forest restoration and road removal are unknown. 

Amphibians

The SWBCA is known to have some of the highest 

diversity of amphibian species is Washington state. In 

particular, surveys have found abundant populations of 

stream-associated amphibians in headwater tributary 

habitats. Species found here include Cope’s giant 

salamander (Dicamptodon copei), Columbia torrent 

salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri), Dunn’s salamander 

(Plethodon dunni), Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon 

vandykei), and the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei). Populations of 

these species have been in decline with research suggesting 

a relationship between intensive timber management 

practices and the degradation of habitat (Corn and Bury 

1989). The distribution and population levels of these 

species are not fully known within the SWBCA. Recently 

initiated monitoring surveys within the Ellsworth Creek 

watershed should lead to a better understanding of 

population densities for this group of species. 

Figure 3: Amphibian diversity is extremely high within 

the SWBCA. Here a Van Dyke’s salamander is 

followed by a Dunn's salamander with a western redbacked salamander in the background.salamanders.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 14

Management actions proposed in this plan are expected to improve amphibian habitat over time; however, 

short term effects of active forest restoration and road removal are unknown. 

4. Potential Threats to Conservation Value

Throughout the SWBCA lingering threats to biological diversity remain from decades of logging activity, 

including habitat fragmentation, invasive species, sedimentation and altered hydrology related to extensive 

forest road systems. Climate change may also cause significant future changes in forest community 

composition. 

When placed in the context of surrounding industrial ownerships, where intensive forest management with 

short rotations continues to prevail, the Conservancy and Refuge ownerships will provide an increasingly 

important refugia of mature and old forest habitat for fish and wildlife species within the coastal region of 

northern Oregon and southern Washington. 

High Risk Invasive Species 

Invasive species are considered by many to be one of the top two threats to the decline of biological 

diversity, together with habitat loss. While invasive species are thought to be uncommon within the 

SWBCA quantitative information on the distribution of most species is lacking. For this plan the focus is 

on invasive species that are found in upland forest, riparian forest and freshwater habitats. Exotic invasive 

species are spreading through forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest at rates that are 

alarming ecologists. Species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), holly (Illex aquifolium), and Japanese 

knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) have become well established in some areas of Pacific County and are 

being targeted for eradication. Others like West-nile virus, sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum), and 

citrus long-horned beetle (Anoplophera chinensis) pose an enormous future threat to the region as they spread 

in nearby areas and are being closely monitored. The spread of these and other exotic species and even 

native pathogens have benefited from climatic changes and human manipulations of habitat. Interstate and 

international commerce, extensive road systems that fragment habitat, and the modification of natural 

ecological processes such as fire have all contributed to the globalization of ecosystems (Duncan 2001). For 

example, it is thought that the impacts of Swiss needle cast (Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii), a native foliage 

pathogen that affects Douglas-fir in coastal areas, has intensified with the large-scale adoption of uniform 

silvicultural practices favoring Douglas-fir production across the ecoregion (Thies and Goheen 2002). 

Given current patterns and conditions, we can only expect the list of exotic species and their breadth of 

distribution to increase over time. 

Invasive species have the potential to alter the structure, composition, and function of ecological 

communities and are known to directly eliminate species from an ecosystem. Although the long-term 

ecological impact of many invasive species is unknown, there is growing concern with the increased 

number and distribution of species in this region. Moreover, the SWBCA is close to several ports of entry 

for these invasive species, which increases the likelihood of further introductions and infestations in the 

future. While non-native invasive species are relatively uncommon in the forested areas, they are slowly 

increasing in abundance, especially in proximity to roads. Species of particular concern in the SWBCA 

include English ivy (spreading along highway US 101) and English holly (which is seen scattered 

throughout the forest in low to moderate abundamce). While not specifically addressed in this plan, 

managers within the SWBCA should develop weed management plans in the near future to limit the spread 

of these and other habitat altering species. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 15

Table 4: Major invasive weeds found within the South Willapa Bay Conservation Area and general ranking 

of abundance and distibution. 

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Distribution Potential Impact1

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Low Local Low

common gorse Ulex europaeus Low Local Low

cutleaf blackberry Rubus laciniatus Moderate Wide Moderate

English ivy Hedera helix Low Local High

English (cherry) laurel Prunus laurocerasus Low Local Moderate

English holly Ilex aquifolium Moderate Wide High

hairy catsear Hypochaeris radicata High Wide Low

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor High Wide Moderate

giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense Absent2 Absent High

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Absent2 Absent High

old-man-in-theSpring Senecio vulgaris Moderate Wide Low

reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Moderate Local Moderate

Scotchbroom Cytisus scoparius Moderate Wide Moderate

stinking willie Senecio jacobaea High Wide Low

1 Species with high impact could significantly alter forest habitat composition and structure - those with low potential are 

common in open or disturbed areas, but are not expected to persist as forest canopies develop. 

2 Both knotweed species are not currently known from the SWBCA, however they are found nearby in the Naselle River drainage 

and have a high potential impact if populations are discovered in the future. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 16

C. SITE HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT

1. Pre-settlement Forest Composition

Holocene Vegetation

Vegetation assemblages in the maritime PNW have changed in response to climatic variation during the 

Holocene (10,000 yrs Before Present [BP] to current time). In the early Holocene, forest vegetation on the 

western Olympic Peninsula—which we assume to be representative of the planning area—transitioned 

from a pine-spruce-mountain hemlock-fir (Pinus-Picea-Tsuga mertensiana-Abies) community to an alderDouglas-fir-bracken fern (Alnus-Pseudotsuga-Pterididum) community (Heusser C.J. 1977). This shift in species 

composition was apparently brought about by increasing temperatures coupled with a relatively droughty 

precipitation regime. Warming continued, apparently reaching a maximum during the Hypsithermal at 

approximately 7,000-8,000 BP (Heusser C.J. 1977). Modern vegetation assemblages developed about 5,000-

6,000 years BP, concurrent with decreasing temperatures and increasing precipitation. Perhaps the most 

noticeable change in vegetation composition is the arrival and proliferation of western redcedar. In western 

Washington western hemlock and Sitka spruce increased in abundance simultaneous with the arrival of 

western redcedar (Whitlock 1992). 

Sediment cores taken from a small lake in northern coastal Oregon just south of the mouth of the 

Columbia River provide a proxy record of fire and vegetation history for the planning area (Long C.J. and 

Whitlock 2002). Throughout the 4,600 year record the pollen (and spore) assemblage is dominated by red 

alder (Alnus rubra), western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western redcedar and sword fern —the characteristic 

modern flora of the locale. Charcoal and magnetic susceptibility data indicate that fire episodes occurred 

during the period 4,600-2,700 years B.P. more frequently (140 +/- 30 years) than the period 2,700 B.P. to 

present (240 +/- 30 years). The earlier of these two periods is characterized by a relatively greater 

abundance of alder and sword fern pollen, indicating that burned areas may have been occupied by a seral 

community analogous to the red alder/sword fern formation—a closed canopy community—described by 

Bailey and Poulton (1968) on the Tillamook Burn. Overall, fire appears to have been a significant 

disturbance agent over the last 4,600 years in these coastal forests. 

Forests of the Early 20

th

 Century

Powell et al. (2003) examined bearing tree records from section corners of the 1908 public lands survey, 

and estimated composition of the forests in the Ellsworth creek watershed at that time. While this method 

does not provide a complete picture of forest composition, it has been used by a number of authors to get 

an idea of pre-settlement conditions in other areas in Washington (Collins et al. 2002). Western hemlock 

was the dominant species in terms of total volume in almost every plot. From Powell’s data, the maps were 

produced displaying the location and abundance of Sitka spruce, western redcedar, and Douglas-fir (Figure 

4 – Historical Forest Composition). Sitka spruce appeared along the mainstem of Ellsworth Creek and in 

valley bottoms, while western redcedar was very abundant overall and generally missing where spruce is 

prevalent. Douglas-fir was present in minor amounts and red alder seemed to be very uncommon (Powell 

et al. 2003). Because close to 98 % of the watershed was identified as being in an old-growth structural 

condition (Powell et al. 2003), one can infer that stand replacing disturbance at stand to landscape scales 

were infrequent.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscap

Legend

WRC Composition

15%-

20%+

25%+

50%+

Legend

SS Composition

15%-

20%+

25%+

50%+

Figure 4: Historical Forest Composition - Sitka spruce, western redcedar, and Douglas-fir abundance in 1908 in Ellsworth Cree

volume (data from Powell et al. 2003)
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 18

2. Human Use 

Native American History and Use

Prior to western settlement, the Willapa Bay region was inhabited by Native Americans for thousands, 

perhaps tens of thousands of years. The Chinook people were a widespread group of linguistically similar 

people who lived along the Columbia river upriver to present day The Dalles, OR and twenty miles up and 

down the Pacific coast from the Columbia’s mouth. The Shoalwater tribe of the Chinook spent summers 

along the mouth of the Columbia River and lived along the protected shores of Willapa Bay, formerly 

called Shoalwater Bay, primarily during the winter. There are several known archaeological sites on Long 

Island which are remains of Indian Villages and middens (USFWS 1979). 

The Chinook fished for salmon, sturgeon and eulachon (smelt), and gathered clams, oysters, seaweeds and 

other inter-tidal foods. They also harvested cranberries, wapato and other plants from local wetlands. The 

Chinook were prolific traders; occupying a strategic location at the mouth of the Columbia where they 

controlled trade of a wide variety of goods and staples between inland tribes and tribes up and down the 

Pacific coast (USFWS 1979). 

Chinook use of the forested uplands appears to have been minimal and infrequent, and there is little 

information about how the Athabascan tribes may have used the inland forest areas. Western redcedar was 

highly valued by the Chinook. They used cedar bark to make clothing, baskets and other woven goods. 

Certain cedar trees or stands are known to have been favored for bark gathering by the Chinook, but no 

such sites have been documented within the planning area. Cedar was relatively easy to split into planks for 

use in building their rectangular longhouses for communal living and storage. The Chinook were 

renowned for their craftsmanship in building cedar dugout canoes and for their skill in open water 

navigation, but the cedar they used for canoe building came from the forest margins or beaches in the form 

of driftwood. The Shoalwater people used large canoes for fishing and transporting trade goods and small 

canoes on local streams to facilitate portage between the Columbia River and Willapa Bay until ship-based 

trading began with the Chinook after Captain Robert Gray first navigated the Columbia River in 1792. 

Settlement History 

Anglo American settlement of the region began shortly after the historic journey of Lewis and Clark to the 

lower Columbia during the winter of 1805-1806. The first permanent settlements in the area were 

established as outposts for fur trading companies such as the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Pacific Fur 

Company. The settlements that followed focused on salmon harvest with logging increasing from local 

procurement to volume production over time. 

The Naselle River valley was first settled, predominantly by Finnish immigrants, in the 1850’s. The growing 

community coalesced around agriculture, especially dairying, with fishing and timber production also 

providing significant employment. Other settlements in the area fared less well in the long run. Diamond 

City was established in 1867 at the north end of Long Island, primarily to harvest and sell the area’s oysters. 

By 1878, the area’s oysters were depleted and the town was abandoned. Speculative development led to the 

platting of a town on the eastern margin of Ellsworth creek. As discussed in a report by Bryan Penttila 

(2002), a hotel was built during the early history of the Ellsworth Creek area which was used by passing 

boating traffic. The town however never became a reality. 

3. Forest Management History

Like much of coastal Washington, forest management began slowly in the beginning of the 20th century. As 

recently as 1942, nearly 87% of Ellsworth Creek’s forestlands remained as unmanaged old-growth (Powell 

et. al. 2003). Aside from some minor logging at the mouth of Ellsworth Creek by the Ellsworth family, 

logging in the watershed began during World War I. The United State Spruce Production Division set up 

camp in 1918 and built several kilometers of narrow-gauge railway into the watershed (Penttila 2002). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 19

Although this effort only lasted 6 months, a surprising number of large Sitka spruce were selectively logged, 

mainly in the middle portion of the main stem of Ellsworth Creek. With the advent of chainsaws and the 

Caterpillar bulldozer, the Brix Logging Company began extensive road building and timber harvesting in 

the watershed in 1943 (Penttila 2002). By 1950, Brix had relocated and in 1960 the Weyerhaeuser Timber 

Company took control of the forests and began logging operations. Weyerhaeuser rapidly expanded the 

road network and introduced high yield, even-aged silvicultural systems (clearcutting) throughout the basin. 

In the 1980’s, John Hancock Insurance Company and the Campbell Group purchased Ellsworth and 

continued to log extensively. By 2001, when the Conservancy acquired the basin, only 7%, or approx. 350 

acres, of the original old-growth forests remained (Figure 5 – Historical Forest Age Class Distribution). 

Over 16% of the basin has been cut twice and is now in its third rotation (Powell et. al. 2003). Although 

historical information for the Conservancy or mainland Refuge forests outside of the Ellsworth Creek basin 

is not known, the logging history is presumed to be similar to what is known from Ellsworth Creek. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Acreage1942 1953 1963 1970 1976 1983 1990 1996 2001

Time Period

0-20

21-40

41-60

61-80

81-100

100+

Figure 5: Historical changes in forest age class distribution from harvest activities in the Ellsworth creek basin (From 

Powell et. al. 2003)

Logging on Long Island began in the late 1800’s and most of the island was logged by private timber 

companies with a focus on old-growth western red cedar and Sitka spruce – as western hemlock was then 

considered unmarketable. Regeneration was mostly natural and little thinning was done over the years. The 

Refuge began acquiring land on the island from the Weyerhaeuser Company in 1940 and consolidated its 

holding with two Land for Timber Exchange Agreements in the 1950’s.

In the early 1950’s, an outbreak of the Hemlock Looper occurred in Northwest Oregon, from the Astoria 

Area to the Tillamook Burn Area within the Spruce/Hemlock Zone. Stands of old hemlock (>200 years 

old) were defoliated. Extensive salvage operations took place by industrial timber land owners, to capture 

the mortality. Natural regeneration of dense hemlock followed. It was also reported by a local resident, 

that the South Willapa Bay Area (including Long Island) was aerial sprayed with DDT to prevent the 

potential threat to the older hemlock stands in the area. 

Between 1960 and 1968 the Refuge harvested timber on its own lands following a plan developed in 1960. 

Following a large windstorm in 1962, both the Refuge and Weyerhaeuser Company increased harvest 

around salvage operations. A review of the Refuge’s harvest practices in 1968, however, resulted in a halt of 

logging operations until 1975 when the Refuge entered into a memorandum of understanding with the 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 20

Weyerhaeuser Company to acquire the remainder of the companies lands (at that time 1,622 acres) on the 

island. The agreement stated that both parties would develop a cooperative resource management plan for 

the island. As part of the plan Weyerhaeuser agreed to exchange its lands to the Refuge for the value of the 

timber on the island. At the time it was felt that harvesting of this timber resource was consistent with the 

Refuge’s goals for wildlife management (USFWS 1979). Most of the harvestable forest stands were evenaged stands dominated by western hemlock and less than 100 years old, having regenerated after logging 

and wildfire before the turn of the century. Weyerhaeuser proceeded to harvest 1,009 acres in total 

(USFWS 689 acres, Weyerhaeuser 320 acres) and transfer its entire ownership to the Refuge until the 

program was completed in 1987. 

4. Current Land Use and Surrounding Ownership

Naselle is currently an unincorporated town of approximately 400 residents and perhaps 1400 people living 

within the school district. Primary economic activity centers on timber production and commercial fishing 

and decreasingly on farming. Following the completion of the Megler Bridge across the Columbia River in 

1966, tourist traffic through the area has increased as has development 

Land use patterns in this largely rural county (Pacific) are dominated by private forest land dedicated to 

commercial timber production. Large lot residences are scattered along major highways and secondary 

county roads. This pattern is consistent within the immediate vicinity of the SWBCA. That is, neighboring 

lands are, by and large, commercial timber holdings with limited numbers of home sites adjacent to county 

roads. The commercial timberlands directly adjacent to the SWBCA are largely owned by investment 

groups and managed by timber investment management organizations (TIMO’s). Two TIMO’s, Campbell 

Group and Hancock Investments, manage adjacent forestland for investment return purposes. 

5. Recreation and Public Access

The Ellsworth Creek Preserve is open to public access though vehicle traffic is restricted behind locked 

gates. Walk in access is permitted inside gated areas; however, no formal trails are maintained for public 

use. Hunting and fishing activities are allowed within the preserve as permitted by state regulations. Fires 

and camping are not allowed. 

The Refuge offers a variety of public access and recreational activities. Campgrounds, hiking trails, hunting, 

boating and wildlife viewing are all provided at various locations around the Refuge. The Refuge has an 

active public recreation program that maintains and develops appropriate public infrastructure and 

interpretation. 

Long Island is a main focus of boating and hiking activities, and the only area on the Refuge where 

camping is permitted. Access to the Island is strictly by boat. The Refuge provides a public boat launch at 

the headquarters location. There is a boat ramp on Long Island just south of there. Five campgrounds, all 

accessible from the water, are spread across Long Island. Former logging roads or trails currently link all 

but one campground to the main road system. Another trail loops through the ―cedar grove‖, a stand of 

ancient western redcedar located at the center of the south end of the island. Modern firearm hunting is 

not permitted on the island, however, archery hunting is allowed. 

6. Bonneville Powerlines

Two electrical transmission lines, owned and managed by the Bonneville Power Administration, traverse 

the Ellsworth Preserve and Refuge property. This line emanates from the power substation located in 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 21

Naselle and supplies power to local public utility districts in the Ilwaco and Long Beach Area. It is a 6-line 

system, generally contained on one large transmission structure but sometimes splits into two 3-line 

transmission structures. It runs westerly along the south side of the Naselle River estuary and continues 

inland along the north boundary of the DNR’s Ellsworth NRCA. The line then heads north along Pellervo 

ridge before turning southwest and crossing the Ellsworth estuary. It then continues westerly and southerly 

through the Ellsworth Preserve for several miles, then continues in a southerly manner for several miles 

through the Ellsworth Preserve, then leaves the Willapa Forest continuing westerly across Highway 101 

near Greenhead Slough, and finally splitting into two lines—one continuing westerly across the South 

Willapa Bay Estuary and one continuing southerly through the Refuge’s North Bear river unit towards 

Seaview. 

The BPA transmission line right-of-ways run for 3.6 miles through TNC property and 1.9 miles through 

Refuge property. In addition, a number of roads are associated with maintaining the transmission lines and 

rights-of-way. Many are rudimentary (narrow and unrocked) roads. These access roads can be a source of 

erosion, sedimentation, and water quality degradation particularly on the Ellsworth Preserve. 

The areas underneath the transmission lines are maintained in a manner that precludes trees from growing 

taller than 10 feet. Thus, the transmission line right-of-ways significantly influence and impact operational 

activities and landscape level forest restoration goals. These barriers are an operational and restoration 

challenge and will have to be factored in to annual operation plans. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 22

LANDSCAPE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Long Island and Willapa Bay looking northwest from Bear River Ridge 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 23

A. FOREST VEGETATION

1. Forest Inventory and Key Structural Metrics

Stand structure and species composition varies considerably in particular stands due to differences in age 

and management history. To gain a thorough picture of existing conditions, a detailed forest inventory was 

conducted by Integrated Resource Management (IRM) on both the Conservancy and Refuge ownerships in 

2004 (Stringer 2005). Over half of the total acreage and a representative sample of age classes were 

inventoried (Table 5). The inventory was based on field protocols developed under the Oregon 

Department of Forestry’s Stand Level Inventory Protocol (ODF 2002). Basic forest structure attributes 

were sampled along with understory plant cover, downed wood, snags, and forest health concerns. An 

average of 15 plots were installed within each stand. While not complete for the entire ownerships, the 

information is sufficient for long term planning efforts. Additional inventory work will be conducted 

during management activities in specific stands and through an ongoing effort to re-sample approximately 

10% of the forest stands within the SWBCA each year. 

Table 5: Distribution of stand types and acres inventoried in 2002-2004 by IRM and un-inventoried stands 

(includes additional data from the 2006 Rogers addition to the Ellsworth Creek Preserve). 

Stand Type TNC WNWR All

Inventoried 

acres & 

(stands) 

Un-invent. 

acres & 

(stands)

Inventoried 

acres & 

(stands)

Un-invent. 

acres & 

(stands)

Total Number of 

acres & (stands)

WH-SS-RC-1 (0-15yr) 614 (12) 256 (5) 13 (1) 837 (15) 1,719 (33)

WH-SS-RC-2 (15-30) 1,171 (14) 521 (15) 77 (1) 50 (4) 1,818 (34)

WH-SS-RC-3 (30-60) 1,388 (15) 124 (7) 2,194 (19) 303 (11) 4,009 (52)

WH-SS-RC-4 (60-100) 292 (9) 128 (8) 1,063 (16) 564 (18) 2,048 (51)

WH-SS-RC-5 (100+) 269 (2) 23 (3) 500 (5) 34 (3) 826 (13)

Douglas-fir-1 (0-15yr) 60 (2) 388 (8) 35 (1) 80 (1) 564 (12)

Douglas-fir-2 (15-30) 607 (4) 821 (14) 103 (1) 351 (2) 1,882 (21)

Red Alder-1 (0-15yr) 73 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 77 (1) 150 (5)

Red Alder-2 (15-30) 0 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 221 (5) 222 (6)

Red Alder-3 (30-60) 12 (1) 106 (7) 103 (3) 33 (5) 253 (16)

Red Alder-4 (60-100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 200 (3) 20 (3) 220 (6)

Non-forest 0 (0) 76 (4) 0 (0) 382 (7) 458 (11)

Totals 4,486 (63) 2,444 (72) 4,288 (50) 2,952 (75) 14,170 (260)

This baseline inventory information was used to calculate common structural metrics for each inventoried 

stand (Appendix B). Inventory data was also input into the Landscape Management System (LMS) 

(McCarter et al. 1998) to facilitate many types of stand and landscape level analyses. To quantify stand 

structure, guide management decisions and gauge progress towards desired future conditions, two key 

metrics were chosen - Stand Density Index (Long J.N. 1985, Reineke 1933) and Weighted Old-growth 

Index. 

The Stand Density Index (SDI) was selected to measure degree of site occupancy and level of tree 

competition, or relative density. While Curtis’ Relative Density (Curtis 1982) is commonly used for 

Douglas-fir and Relative Density Index (Drew and Flewelling 1979) can be used for both Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock stands, SDI is the most broadly used across different species (Woodall et al. 2006) and is 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 24

the only metric that has been used by numerous researchers in multi-species and multi-cohort stands 

(Amoroso 2004, Long J.N. 1996, O'Hara 1996, Puettmann et al. 1993, Woodall et al. 2005). This is done by 

calculating SDI for each species, cohort, or diameter class and then adding them together (Long J.N. 1995, 

Shaw 2000). As SDI was designed for use with single cohort and single species plantations, there are 

significant challenges to using it in complex stands (O'Hara and Gersonde 2004, Woodall et al. 2005). Yet it 

is the most versatile density metric that is still practical for management applications. 

The Weighted Old-growth Index was developed by Franklin et al. (2005) to assess old growth structure on 

Washington State DNR lands across western Washington. For the SWBCA landscape, a Modified Oldgrowth Index (MOGI) was used that does not include stand age (Franklin J.F. et al. 2005). The MOGI is 

based on for structural variables associated with old-growth forests: 

1. Large trees (number per acre > 100 cm dbh [40 inches]) 

2. Large snags (number per hectare > 50 cm dbh and > 15 m tall [20 inches dbh; 49 feet tall]) 

3. Volume of down woody debris (cubic meters per hectare) 

4. Tree size diversity: (# of trees in the following 4 diameter classes: 2-9.9‖, 10-19.9‖, 20-39.9‖, 

40‖+)

The MOGI ranks old-growth structure for each stand on a scale of 0-100, with 75 representing the median 

of the old-growth dataset used by Franklin et al. (2005). The four structural variables can be weighted to 

increase or decrease the importance of a particular structural variable; variables were equally weighted in the 

analysis of SWBCA stands. MOGI has been successfully used to identify old-growth stands from inventory 

data in coastal spruce-hemlock-cedar forests (Franklin et al. 2005). However, old-growth stands will not 

necessarily attain perfect scores (i.e. 100). In general, MOGI scores increase with stand age (Map –

SWBCA Modified Old-Growth Index). Old-growth SWBCA stands averaged 62 with a 90% confidence 

interval of 22-72. The highest MOGI scored was the main cedar grove stand on Long Island with a score 

of 73 (stand #30026). 

2. Forest Stand Types

The IRM inventory information was used to classify 

stands into stand types (Map – SWBCA Stand 

Types). For un-inventoried stands, inventory data 

from past owners, aerial photos, and field 

verification was used. In order to make this 

classification simple and practical for management 

purposes, typing was based on dominant species 

(over 50% of basal area) and age class using age at 

breast height. When needed for landscape level 

analysis, stands can be further classified according to 

attributes such as developmental stage, SDI, MOGI, 

presence of residual old-growth legacy features, or 

relative species composition. Averages for each 

stand type of these attributes, along with other 

forest structural variables, are presented in Table 6. 

Overall, both ownerships are dominated by 

structurally simple managed forests younger than 60 

years of age since harvest (Figure 6 – Age Class 

Distribution) . The old-growth index values also 

proved to be fairly well correlated with age class with scores being relatively low for most of the inventoried 

stands as would be expected given the SWBCA’s management history. 

Figure 6: Age class distribution of forests in the Refuge and 

Conservancy ownerships in 2006. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscap

Table 6: Average stand metrics and 90% confidence limits (Italics) for stands inventoried by IRM. NF = attribute not found. N

for confidence interval. 

Live Trees Snags and 

Stand Type N BA TPA

TPA 

> 10

TPA 

> 18

TPA 

> 30

AVG 

DBH

QMD RD

TREE 

VOL

SPA

AVG 

DBH

DF-1 3

11

(5)

1910

(2975)

1

(NA)

NF

(NA)

NF

(NA)

1

(1)

1 

(1)

11 

(7)

0 

(0)

1 

(NA)

11 

(NA)

DF-2 6

164

(25)

597

(224)

60

(51)

3

(2)

NF

(NA)

6 

(1)

7 

(1)

61 

(8)

20 

(5)

60 

(51)

12 

(1)

RA-1 4

104

(214)

694

(996)

96 

(59)

21

(22)

4

(NA)

4 

(8)

5 

(10)

33 

(69)

18 

(38)

96 

(59)

17 

(2)

RA-3 2

118

(21)

642

(4117)

56

(106)

3

(21)

NF

(NA)

5

(24)

6 

(22)

48 

(90)

13 

(5)

56 

(106)

13 

(2)

RA-4 2

233

(1183)

720

(1375)

135

(800)

24

(132)

2

(9)

5 

(32)

8 

(27)

81 

(282)

39 

(171)

135 

(800)

16 

(8)

WH/SS/RC-1 9

63

(66)

2026

(897)

24

(33)

21

(23)

6

(6)

2 

(2)

3 

(3)

30 

(20)

8 

(16)

24 

(33)

17 

(4)

WH/SS/RC-2 17

160

(23)

874

(233)

64

(25)

6

(5)

3

(2)

5 

(1)

6 

(1)

64 

(7)

17 

(5)

64 

(25)

13 

(1)

WH/SS/RC-3 41

253

(24)

760

(146)

150

(18)

18

(5)

2

(1)

6 

(1)

8 

(1)

87 

(8)

43 

(6)

150 

(18)

15 

(0)

WH/SS/RC-4 27

277

(27)

822

(242)

113

(16)

30

(6)

7

(2)

6 

(1)

9 

(1)

94 

(8)

60 

(8)

113 

(16)

18 

(1)

WH/SS/RC-5 5

313

(70)

469

(353)

72

(23)

45

(9)

16 

(3)

7 

(6)

13

(6)

91 

(26)

91 

(19)

72 

(23)

24

(2)

Definitions

Species: DF = Douglas-fir, RA = red alder, WH/SS/RC = western hemlock, Sitka spruce or western redcedar

Age class (yrs): 1 = < 15, 2 = 15 – 30, 3 = 30 – 60, 4 = 60 – 100, 5 = > 100

N: Number of stands within each Stand Type inventoried in 2004 by IRM. 

Live Tree Metrics: BA: Total basal area in square feet. TPA: Total trees per acre. TPA > 10: Trees per acre with DBH > 10‖. T

DBH > 18‖. AVG DBH: Arithmetic average DBH in inches. QMD: Quadratic Mean Diameter in inches. RD: Curtis’s Relativ

Scribner board-feet volume per acre in thousands of board-feet per acre.

Snags and Logs: SPA: Total number of snags per acre. AVG DBH: Average DBH of snags in inches. LPA: Total number of lo

Total cubic foot volume of logs in thousand cubic feet.

MOGI: Modified Old-Growth Index
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 26

Western hemlock/Sitka Spruce/Western Redcedar types

This is by far the most prevalent type on both ownerships and was dominant throughout most of the 

landscape in the pre-settlement times. While western hemlock typically dominates these stands in terms 

of trees per acre and basal area, Sitka spruce and western redcedar make up significant portions of 

these stands and in a few cases are the dominant species. Red alder is abundant in riparian areas and 

along roads and landings, and a minor to moderate component in upland areas. Douglas-fir is relatively 

rare, but present in varying degrees due to management history. Images generated by the Stand 

Visualization System (SVS) using inventory information from specific stands are provided for each age 

class in (Figure 7 – SVS stand types). 

The 100 yr+ age class is either unmanaged old growth or stands that were selectively logged by the U.S. 

Spruce Production Division or early settlers. While this partial harvesting altered some of these current 

old growth stands, it is not clear to what extent and what the impact on current stand structure is. 

Approximately 825 acres of this age class exist across the SWBCA. Three major types of remnant oldgrowth stands exist in the SWBCA landscape – spruce-hemlock, cedar-hemlock, and pure hemlock. 

Spruce-hemlock stands typify the old-growth remnants in along the lower reaches of Ellsworth Creek. 

This stand type is analogous to the Sitka Spruce-Western Hemlock Plant Association Group (PAG) of 

Franklin et al. (2005) and the Sitka spruce Zone of Franklin and Dryness (1988). Large diameter spruce 

are the dominant feature in these stands while hemlock dominate the understory and midstory. Spruce 

is moderately shade tolerant and long-term coexistence with hemlock is thought to be mediated by 

canopy gap formation (Taylor A.H. 1990). Spruce-hemlock stands were historically distributed along 

the lower reaches of the Ellsworth Creek and major tributaries.

Cedar-hemlock stands historically dominated the uplands of the Ellsworth Creek watershed and most 

of Long Island. These stands most closely resemble the Western Redcedar Coastal Plain PAG of 

Franklin et al. (2005). They do not seem to be an exact match however; the regeneration difficulties 

typical of the Western Redcedar Coastal Plain PAG are not apparent anywhere in the SWBCA 

landscape. Very large cedars are the dominant feature in these stands; individuals up to 15’ dbh can be 

found in the SWBCA landscape. Woody debris loads can be extremely large due to the decay 

resistance of cedar wood. These forests appear to be maintained by chronic, low to moderate severity 

wind disturbance which primarily affects hemlock and not the decay and wind resistant cedar. 

Understory vegetation is dominated by dense thickets of salal, fool’s huckleberry and evergreen 

huckleberry. 

A few residual old-growth stands, particularly in the Ellsworth Creek Watershed, appear to be a 

mixture of the two former types. All three major species, spruce, hemlock and cedar can occur in 

relatively even mixture. This mixed type was most likely more common in historical conditions than is 

suggested by the composition of present day remnant old-growth stands. 

Pure or nearly pure hemlock stands comprise the third old-growth forest type. Classical old-growth 

structures—large diameter trees, snags and logs—are relatively scarce in these stands due to the 

relatively short lifespan of hemlock. Understories can be poorly developed, particularly when the 

overstory is intact. The origin and developmental history of these stands is not clear. The most likely 

explanation is that they established as high density hemlock stands following periodic disease/insect 

outbreaks, high severity wind disturbances, and prolific stress seed production. Throughout remnant 

old-growth stands on the mainland, and less so on Long Island, occasional Douglas-fir individuals add 

structural and compositional diversity. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 27

The 30-60 and 60-100 year age classes are mostly a result of the Brix company operations and early 

Weyerhaeuser logging that was focused on removing high value trees. Natural regeneration was relied 

on, and abundant legacies such as decadent old-growth hemlock, mid and understory trees, nonmerchantable downed logs, and snags were typically left following harvest. These stands tend to have 

higher levels of structural complexity and are mostly naturally regenerated hemlock, some Sitka spruce, 

and little western redcedar. Some of these stands appear to have been pre-commercially thinned to 

densenarrow spacing (e.g., 8 x 8’ to 10x10’), in anticipation of future clearcut harvesting at around age 

45-50 years old8 feet to 10x10 feet). In general, these stands are very dense, have little understory 

development, and are in the competitive exclusion stage. Some older stands in the 60-100 year age class 

are more complex, however, and are in an understory re-initiation stage of development. 

The 15-30 year age class is marked by changes in management practices. In 1967, Weyerhaeuser 

introduced High Yield Forestry and began planting Douglas-fir seedlings immediately following timber 

harvest (Pentilla 2002). However, natural western hemlock regeneration often overtook planted 

seedlings. In addition, it was a routine practice to aerial spray the young conifer plantations to 

eliminate competing hardwood trees and shrubs. A shift toward much more intensive site prep began 

that included snag felling, slash removal, and broadcast burning. By the mid 1970s thorough site prep 

and planting were standard practice and pre-commercial thinning became common. While a portion of 

this age class has been pre-commercially thinned and has densities of approximately 350 trees per acre 

(TPA), many stands have not and are extremely dense. Few, if any, legacies exist, and stands are 

simplified conifer plantations in the canopy closure or early competitive exclusion stage. They have 

varying degrees of species diversity, and a few stands dominated by Sitka spruce exist. Where western 

redcedar is found, it is generally in the lower crown classes due its slower early height growth (Oliver 

and Larson 1996, Ruth and Harris 1979) and is commonly dying out from competition induced 

mortality. 

The 0-15 year age class is comprised of recent clear-cuts, usually of second-growth stands. Broadcast 

burning fell out of favor in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and site prep and control of competing 

vegetation was typically not as thorough in these stands. Small numbers of snags, live trees, and 25-50’ 

riparian buffer strips were left due to changes in forest practice regulations, although a few stands 

contain large number of legacy old growth snags. Western hemlock and Sitka spruce were either 

planted or have outgrown Douglas-fir affected by Swiss Needle Cast. Red alder and western redcedar 

are moderately abundant. These stands are in the cohort establishment or canopy closure stage, and 

typically have higher levels of tree species diversity, shrubs and forbs, and patchiness than the 15-30 

year age class. They are still structurally simple plantation stands, however, and competitive exclusion 

will eliminate much of the diversity and complexity in the next 10-30 years if left alone. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 28

0-15 Years 15-30 years

30-60 years 60-100 years

100+ years 100+ years

Figure 7: SVS images of different age classes of western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western redcedar stand type. Two 

100 year + stands are provided to demonstrate differences in old-growth structure. 

Douglas-fir types

The two age classes of Douglas-fir, 0-15 and 15-30 years, resulted from planting Douglas-fir after 

intensive site prep and control of competing vegetation. The oldest stands are approximately 30 years 

old. Establishing Douglas-fir in this region proved to be a challenging task and often failed (Tappeiner 

et al. 2002). Except for stands that were pre-commercially thinned to heavily favor Douglas-fir, stands 

have significant amounts of other trees species. While the Douglas-fir appears to be growing well in 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 29

most places, Swiss Needle Cast is prevalent and has reduced foliage density in many stands. Except for 

the dominance of Douglas-fir, these stands are similar in structure to corresponding age classes in the 

western hemlock type as described above. 

Red alder types

Red alder stands established in areas where naturally regenerated red alder was not controlled and was 

able to outgrow planted or naturally regenerated conifers. While alder is the dominant species, these are 

typically mixed stands with significant amounts of conifers in both the overstory and understory 

(Figure 8 – SVS alder stand types). In the younger age classes, 0-15 and 15-30 years, density tends to be 

high and crown competition between alders and conifers is intense. The older age classes, 30-60 and 

60-100 years, are relatively complex with lush, well developed understories, mid-story conifers, and 

large spruce, hemlock, or cedar emergents that rise above the alder canopy. Alder snags are becoming 

abundant in the older stands. Patches of pure alder do exist within stands, but they are relatively 

uncommon. Evidence of browse from deer and elk is quite common in these stands. 

30-60 years 60-100 years

Figure 8: SVS images of different age classes within the red alder stand type. 

Riparian Forests

Riparian forests are typically the most floristically diverse and structurally complex parts of forested 

landscapes in the Pacific Northwest (Pollock 1998). While this is the case in much of the SWBCA, 

harvesting and increases in mass wasting events related to forest management have simplified many 

riparian stands and shifted species composition towards red alder. Rentmeester’s (2004) assessment of 

forests within 160 feet (50 meters) of the fish bearing segments of Ellsworth Creek creates a 

foundation for our understanding of this forest type within the SWBCA (Figure 9 – Riparian Forests). 

Similar to upland stands, management history plays a significant role in determining age and 

composition in riparian forests. The old growth riparian stands in Ellsworth creek tend to be 

dominated by 2-4’ diameter western hemlock with a significant component of larger Sitka spruce. A 

surprising number of spruce stumps are present from the World War I era Spruce Division 

(Rentmeester 2004), and corroborate the public land survey data from 1908 showing that that spruce 

was abundant along much of the mainstem (Figure 4 – Historical Composition). Sitka spruce also 

dominate the old-growth riparian stands along the small creeks on the mainland portion of the Refuge 

(USFWS 1999). The large western redcedar that characterize other old-growth stands in the mainland 

portions of the SWBCA are relatively rare, possibly due to the productive soils and lower frequency of 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 30

blow down events in the protected valley bottoms, which both favor hemlock dominance. In contrast, 

the old growth riparian areas on Long Island have a much high component of western redcedar. 

In 25-50 year old riparian forest stands, Rentmeester (2004) found that: ―while structural aspects (basal 

area, density, and QMD) were not significantly different between stands of the same age, stand 

composition was notably different between confined and unconfined reaches‖. Riparian forests located 

along unconfined stream reaches have wide valleys and tend to be located entirely on floodplain and 

terrace landforms. Mixed conifer/hardwood stands are prevalent and tend to have a gradual transition 

from red alder dominance in the inner riparian zone to conifer dominance on outer zone and side 

slopes. These areas are similar to the red alder stand types described above, although conifer abundance 

is often lower and generally consists of understory and midstory western hemlock and Sitka spruce. 

Black cottonwood (Populus tricocarpa) is also present in some areas. In narrower, confined channels, a 

much sharper transition exists between alder dominance along the stream channel and terraces, and 

conifer dominance on the steep side slopes. This sharp transition is very clear in low order, non-fish 

bearing streams throughout the Ellsworth Creek basin. Conifer dominance is especially prevalent in 

plantation stands 20-40 years old that have been intensively managed. Stands less than 20 years old 

typically have narrow buffer strips of older, mixed forest in the inner riparian area that were left due to 

the implementation of riparian buffers under the Washington Forest Practice Rules. 

Rentmeester (2004) also found typical patterns of plantation stand development in terms of forest 

structure. Basal area increased with stand age, and ranged from 107 ft2/acre in 15 year-old stands to 

305 ft2/acre in stands more than 200 years old. Quadratic mean diameter also increased from an 

average of 5.7 inches in 15 year old stands to 17.3 inches in 200 plus years old areas. Average trees per 

acre decreased, and ranged from 283 to 2004 tpa in young transects and from 57-405 tpa in older 

stands. Snag abundance decreased with age, with 38 stems/acre at age 25, 32 stems/acre at age 50, and 

28 stems/acre at age 200. Mean diameter of snags, however, increased from 6 inches at age 25 to 

approximately 16 inches at age 200. Decay class was generally higher in younger stands, reflecting the 

process of competition induced mortality early in stand development. In 25 year old age classes, 68% 

of snags were conifers. The portion of hardwood snags gradually increased to age 75, where 83% of 

snags were hardwoods. In the 200 plus age class, only 10% of snags were hardwood. 

In the smaller watersheds outside of the Ellsworth Creek watershed - that drain west and north of Bear 

River Ridge on both the Conservancy and Refuge ownerships - studies on stream conditions (Barndt et 

al. 2000, Wright W. and Callaghan 2002, Yoshinaka and Stone 2004) and field reconnaissance indicate 

that the pattern of hardwood dominance in the inner riparian zone and greater conifer abundance in 

the outer zone is generally the same as described above. A notable difference is the presence of big leaf 

maple (Acer macrophyllum), which is not found within the Ellsworth Creek Preserve. On Long Island, the 

short, low gradient streams tend to be dominated by red alder in managed areas, while the older

unmanaged riparian stands are mostly composed of conifers. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 31

Figure 9: Riparian forest types along fish bearing channels of Ellsworth Creek (Rentmeester 2004) 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 32

3. Forest Health 

The interactions between fungi, insects, animals, and abiotic disturbance agents play critical roles in 

shaping forest structure and creating complex, diverse ecosystems (Edmonds et al. 2000). In order to 

achieve the given management objectives within the SWBCA, it is essential to understand these agents 

and work with them, as opposed to viewing them as threats. While these agents result in significant 

losses to timber value in spruce/hemlock forests (Ruth and Harris 1979), their patterns and influences 

do not appear to have been dramatically altered by forest management within the SWBCA in most 

cases. Insects and diseases are not likely to dramatically affect forest management over the next few 

decades (Hildebrand and Hostetler 2003) although climate change may lead to major shifts in their 

dynamics. 

Swiss needle cast, caused by the fungus Phaeocrytopus gaeumannii, is native to Pacific Coast forests and 

while long considered innocuous, it has become a major concern in Douglas-fir plantations within 

approximately 18 miles of the coast in Oregon and Washington in the last few decades (Thies and 

Goheen 2002). During wet springs when adequate moisture is present, the fungus germinates, infects 

needles on Douglas-fir trees, and causes them to yellow and drop prematurely. Although it rarely kills 

trees outright, Swiss needle cast can reduce growth rates by up to 35% and make trees more susceptible 

to other agents of mortality (Holmberg et. al. 2006). While the causes of the recent increase are not 

fully known, the large-scale replacement of spruce-hemlock forests with pure Douglas-fir plantations is 

thought to be a chief factor (Thies and Goheen 2002). The 5-30 year old, Douglas-fir dominated stands 

on the Conservancy ownership have moderate to high levels of infection that appears more 

pronounced on upper ridges and west aspects (IRM 2005). In young plantations with more western 

hemlock, infection levels are generally lower and tend to vary more from tree to tree. On the Refuge, 

10 infected stands totaling 1,041 acres were identified, with infection levels again highest in Douglas-fir 

dominated stands (IRM 2005). While crowns often appear sparse, height and diameter growth on 

dominant and co-dominant trees in most stands appears to be within expected ranges of site class. Its 

long terms effects are uncertain, however. 

Annosus root rot, caused by the fungus Heterobasidion 

annosum, is a common pathogen in western hemlock and 

Sitka spruce. It produces a dark brown conk and brownheart rot that weakens the bole of trees and typically 

leads to stem breakage or mortality from bark beetles or 

other agents. It spreads through root graft and pervasive 

aerial spores that germinate readily on live bare wood, 

such as fresh stump surfaces, bole exposure from 

logging damage, or top or major branch breakage. It 

grows slowly, however, and effects are usually not 

noticeable until trees reach at least 120 years old (Thies 

and Goheen 2002). Combined with wind, it is probably 

the largest cause of tree mortality and snag recruitment 

for mature western hemlock in this forest type and a 

major limiting factor on the development of large, old 

hemlocks and to a lesser extent Sitka Spruce. Thinning 

has been shown to significantly increase infection levels 

as spores germinate on cut stumps and spread through 

root grafts to live trees (Edmonds et al. 2000). This has 

not proven to be a serious concern in plantations that 

are harvested well before age 120 (Edmonds et. al. 

2000). As none of the managed stands on the 

Conservancy and Refuge ownerships are over 100 years old, mortality from annosus appears to be 

Gap development is often influenced by the 

action of forest pathogens.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 33

confined to the old growth stands and legacy hemlocks in younger stands (Hildebrand & Hostetler 

2003). However, it is likely that the fungus is present in many trees and that thinning will increase 

infection levels. In stands heavily dominated by hemlock, this poses a challenge to the long-term goal 

of developing old growth structure (Thies and Goheen 2002). 

Hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) is a vascular, parasitic plant that affects western 

hemlock, and occasionally Sitka Spruce and Douglas-fir, in this forest type. Mature female plants 

forcibly discharge seeds an average of 15 feet, and the sticky seeds adhere to branches and stems of 

new hosts. The flowers, fruits, and seeds are a source of food for several invertebrates and bird species, 

and birds can spread the seeds. Seeds then germinate and the roots mechanically enter host tissues to 

extract water, nutrients, and sugars. Host branches usually respond with swelling and by producing a 

―witches broom‖ that may grow to weigh several hundred pounds in older trees and provide preferred 

nesting platforms for marbled murrelets and other species (Thies & Goheen 2002). Young western 

hemlock trees that are lightly infected (less than 1/3 of branches infected), and that are free to grow in 

the open, can outgrow dwarf mistletoe infection and leave the dwarf mistletoe in the lower crown. 

Severe infestations cause growth loss, reduction in wood quality, and an increase in mortality. Damage 

is more serious in stands over 100 years of age than in younger stands. Dwarf mistletoe is prevalent in 

the old growth stands and on legacy hemlocks in younger stands across the SWBCA. Forty to sixty year 

old trees that are adjacent to infected legacy trees are beginning to show signs of infection in many 

stands. 

Sitka spruce is susceptible to the white pine weevil (previously known as the Sitka spruce weevil Pissodes 

strobi). The weevil lays its eggs on the terminal shoot, and larvae then mine the phloem and girdle the 

leader, causing it to die and curl. Damaged trees are often overtopped and suppressed by other species. 

Surviving spruce may have forked and crooked tops and a bushy appearance. Weevil infection is 

highest in warmer, drier areas, while areas immediately adjacent to the coast are low hazard due to cool 

climate (Holmberg et al. 2006). Weevil populations and attack rates typically stabilize and begin to 

decline as trees reach heights of 30 feet. Incidence of spruce weevil appears to be low within the 

SWBCA, although it does contribute to overtopping of spruce by other species in many stands. It 

should not be much of a long-term concern, however, as trees will be greater than 30 feet relatively 

soon in most stands. 

Laminated root rot pockets, caused by the fungus Phellinus weirii, were noted in several stands on the 

Conservancy’s ownership during the IRM inventory. Although western hemlock is susceptible, this 

fungus is typically rare in spruce-hemlock forests and commonly found in natural and planted Douglasfir stands (Thies and Sturrock 1995). It spreads through ectotrophic mycelium in roots and root grafts 

and moves outwards from infections centers at a rate of approximately 30cm per year, slowly creating 

an expanding pocket of mortality. Spread by spores is thought to be unimportant compared to 

vegetative spread, but little is known about how new infection centers get started in stands without 

previous history of the fungus (Thies and Sturrock 1995). While its effects are currently small in the 

SWBCA, it could become a larger factor in Douglas-fir plantations in the future. 

Mature western hemlock stands are susceptible to epidemics of the hemlock looper (Lambdina 

fiscellaria lugubrosa), a defoliating caterpillar. Outbreaks typically occur in old hemlock stands, but 

recently have occurred in 60 year old second growth (Holmberg et al. 2006). Outbreaks last 3-4 years 

and can kill large areas of stands dominated by western hemlock (Edmonds et al. 2002). Other conifers 

within these stands are also heavily fed upon and can die as well. Recent anecdotal observations 

indicate that stands whose vigor has been enhanced by thinning are relatively resistant to surrounding 

epidemics (Holmberg et al. 2006). Pentilla (2002) states, ―a section of timber was decimated by a 

hemlock looper infestation in 1931‖, according to Pentilla (2002). Also, it has been reported that a 

large scale looper infestation occurred in Northwest Oregon, stretching from Astoria south to the 

Tillamook Burn Area. In addition, a conversation with a local resident revealed that vicinity of the 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 34

forested stands on Long Island were sprayed with 

DDT around the same time period, to address a 

hemlock looper infestation. SWBCA. As mature 

hemlock stands in this region have been almost entirely 

been converted to younger plantations and are likely to 

be managed under short rotations for the foreseeable 

future, it is unlikely that major outbreaks will reach the 

SWBCA. However, as the hemlock dominated forests 

mature, an outbreak is possible and could result in 

large-scale mortality. It is also unknown what the 

effects of climate change will be on the lifecycle 

dynamics of the looper and other invertebrates that 

cause tree mortality. 

Animal damage to trees from black bears, porcupines, 

mountain beavers, beavers, and rubbing from ungulates 

appears to be a persistent, but low-level source of tree 

wounding and mortality. Bear damage to western 

redcedar has been noted throughout the SWBCA. It is 

not a concern it terms of affecting the long-term goal 

of developing late seral structure, however, unless bear 

populations increased significantly from present levels. 

The only exception is the significant effect of elk and 

deer browse on conifer regeneration, especially in 

riparian corridors. Efforts to underplant western redcedar will need to address this fact or risk failure. 

Bear damage largely occurs in the spring 

when the sap is running and other food 

sources are scarce.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 35

B. FRESHWATER STREAM SYSTEMS

Based on the Washington State DNR hydrography GIS layers the SWBCA contains approximately 46 

miles of fish bearing streams and 115 miles of non-fish bearing perennial and seasonal streams. The 

streams have been classified according to the Washington State DNR stream classification system 

(WADNR WAC 222-16-031) and are shown in Map – SWBCA WADNR Stream Types. Stream types 

include fish bearing (F), shoreline (S), non-fish bearing (N), and (U) for unknown. These coastal 

streams are all rain fed, have their highest flows during the winter months, and flow regimes that are 

highly sensitive to rain storms. Most of these streams have been surveyed and overall stream condition 

in terms of salmonid fish habitat and biotic integrity ranges from fair to good (Table 7). However, road 

building, forest harvesting, diversion dams, and diking have increased sediment inputs, blocked fish 

passage, decreased abundance and recruitment of large woody debris, and exacerbated peak flows due 

to the expansion of the stream network. 

Ellsworth Creek is by far the largest watershed and 

drains approximately 5,000 acres. Rentmeester (2004) 

conducted a thorough inventory of large wood debris 

(LWD) loading and stream geomorphology. He divided 

the watershed into headwater channels that drain less 

than 500 acres, and mainstem channels that drain more 

than 500acres and have an average slope of less than 

3%. Headwater channels matched or exceeded LWD 

loading levels found in unmanaged streams in western 

Washington (Fox 2001), while mainstem channels were 

generally deficient in total volume and especially in 

large, key pieces. He attributed this to the fact that 

headwater channels receive the majority of their LWD 

inputs from debris flows (Bilby R. E. and Bisson 

1998a) which have increased due to forest management 

(Powell et al. 2003). Mainstem channels, on the other 

hand, depend on bank erosion, stand mortality, and 

transport from upstream. Harvesting has thus depleted 

recruitment rates and piece size. Without the large, key 

pieces that form pools and debris jams smaller wood 

that is transported from upstream tends to get flushed 

out much faster. Increased recruitment of large pieces 

in mainstem channels will take many decades, if not centuries, as most inner riparian zones along 

mainstem channels are dominated by red alder, which breaks easily and does not persist nearly as long 

as large conifer logs (Cederholm et al. 1997). 

The Washington Department of Ecology selected Ellsworth Creek as 1 of 10 statewide core reference 

sites for their stream biological monitoring program (WA DOE 2004). Using the River Invertebrate 

Prediction and Classification System (Plotnikoff and Wiseman 2001), biotic integrity was found to be 

very high (Table 7). 

Ellsworth Creek
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 36

Table 7: Stream conditions for the SWBCA. Streams type classifications are displayed on Map –

SWBCA WADNR Stream Types. 

Stream Name Drainage 

Area:km2

B-IBI a

RIVPAC

b

LWD Rating Channel 

Complexityc

Substrate 

Suitabilityd

Ellsworthe 20 1.032 Good: headwater

Poor: Mainstem

Headquartersf 0.7 42 Adequate: above

dam

Poor : below

dam

Poor: above dam

Moderate: below 

dam

Moderate

Long Island 

Cedar Grovef

1.9 40 Adequate Moderate Good

WDFW 

#0674g

2 Adequate Good Good

WDFW 

#0675g

1.3 Poor Poor Poor

WDFW 

#0677g

2.6 Adequate Moderate Moderate

North Creekh 1.9 46 Poor Moderate-good Good –

moderate

Middle Creekh 2.6 42 Poor Moderate-poor Good –

moderate

South Creekh 2.1 38 Poor Moderate Poor

Lewis 1f 2.5 36 Poor - adequate Moderate - high Good

Porterf 1.7 Poor - adequate Poor Poor

Riekkolaf 3.0 None: above 

dam

Notes:

a: River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) score. A score of 1 means that 100% of expected invertebrates were 

present (Plotnikoff & Wiseman 2001). 

b: Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (Kerans & Karr 1994). A composite measure of invertebrate community composition. A score of 50 is 

the highest score

c: Channel complexity is a general evaluation of the ratio, quality, and quantity of pools, riffles, and off channel habitats. 

d: Rating of suitability of substrate for spawning of salmonids. 

e. Source: Rentemeester 2004, WA DOE 2004

f. Source: Barndt et. al. 2000

g. Source: Wright & Callaghan 2002

h. Source: Yoshinaka & Stone 2004, Conklin (2003)

A series of much smaller creeks drain the watersheds on the north and west sides of Bear River ridge 

and to the west of Bear River (Table 7). They flow directly into Willapa Bay or into Bear River. The 

headwaters of some of these creeks are owned by the Conservancy while others are owned and 

managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources or other private landowners for most 

of these creeks. Long Island also supports a number of small creeks. Most of these creeks have 

adequate levels of overall LWD, although a few are noticeably deficient. Similar to Ellsworth, large 

pieces are much less common, and future recruitment is limited by the dominance of red alder along 

inner riparian zones as well as the young age of many of the conifers in riparian areas. Macroinvertebrate communities have been sampled in many of these creeks, and B-IBI scores (Benthic Index 

of Biological Integrity; Karr et al 1986) range from fair to good or 32-42 out of 50 (Yoshinaka & Stone 

2004, Conklin 2003). Channel complexity, including pool ratios and volume, riffles, and off channel 

habitats, are variable between streams, as is substrate suitability for spawning by salmonids. Beaver 

ponds were observed in many of these streams as well as log jams that form potential fish barriers. 

Human created barriers such as high gradient or disconnected culverts and dams are also present on 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 37

several creeks. In general, stream surveys (see references in Table 7) found that habitat quality for 

salmonids varied from poor to good, with most of the streams rated moderate to good. There are also 

two small artificial ponds on Long Island, but neither have suitable fish habitat.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 38

C. FOREST ROADS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Forest Roads

Assessments of forest road conditions were completed for the Ellsworth Creek Preserve in 2001 (CWC 

2001) and the Refuge in 2005 (Stringer 2005) following consistent methods and field protocols. The 

Ellsworth Creek inventory describes conditions, at the time, for 72 miles of forest road across 7,900 

contiguous acres. Some of this land has since been transferred to the Refuge and additional lands have 

been acquired. However, the general conclusions and site specific assessments remain valid regardless 

of current ownership. The Refuge inventory describes conditions for 28 miles of forest road across 

7,800 noncontiguous acres (Stringer 2005). 

Although the road systems for the Refuge and Ellsworth Creek Preserve are often contiguous, they 

nonetheless differ in the density of roads present (6.3 mi/mi2 on Ellsworth vs. 2.3 mi/mi2 on Refuge) 

and in the general condition of those roads (poor condition at Ellsworth vs. fair condition at Refuge). 

These differences can often be attributed to differing topography and geology, but also to road age, and 

previous ownership patterns. Ellsworth Creek Preserve lands are typically steep and deeply dissected 

whereas Refuge lands are generally less steep. Roads at Ellsworth Creek were frequently built across 

steep landslide prone terrain that is less common on Refuge lands. However, roads on both properties 

have not been well maintained in recent years, due to changing ownership and the relative remoteness 

of sections of the road system (e.g., Long Island). This has led to a general reduction in the condition 

of forest roads throughout the planning area. 

A variety of mass wasting hazards exist on road systems across the SWBCA. An analysis of forest 

history chronology that maps road building, logging and landslides was conducted and found a strong 

correlation between road building and the incidence of landslides (CWC 2003). Fill slope failures have 

resulted from overloading of fill slopes with sidecast material, especially on roads cut into steep midslope terrain. This type of road is quite common on Ellsworth Creek though less so on the Refuge; 

thus significant failure risks remain. Secondly, stream crossings are susceptible to mass failure when 

poorly constructed (i.e., some at Ellsworth Creek that were built without culverts) or poorly 

maintained. Risks can increase with age as old galvanized culverts rust through. These conditions have 

been exacerbated or triggered by insufficient or poorly designed drainage from the road surface and 

ditches. 

Running surface erosion caused by poorly designed or maintained road surface drainage has resulted in 

degradation of road conditions, particularly in areas where grades are steep and roads are graded flat. 

Also, improperly placed cross drain culverts have caused major erosion of the outboard slope in places. 

Some roads within the planning area are shared through easement with other neighboring landowners. 

These easements may affect the nature and timing of maintenance actions on these roads. Easement 

holders have specific access rights and maintenance responsibilities that are described in the legal title 

documents for those properties. Similarly, access to some areas can only be gained through 

neighboring land and roads (e.g., the new Rodgers addition to the Ellsworth Creek Preserve). A 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) high voltage power line runs through the Ellsworth Preserve 

and portions of the refuge. BPA has broad authority to access the power infrastructure through both 

properties by roads that roughly parallel the power corridor. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 39

2. Rock Pits

Eleven rock pits exist within the Ellsworth Creek Preserve. None are known inside the Refuge. These 

rock pits were quarried to build and maintain the existing road system. The pits vary in size and 

condition from approximately 2,500 ft2

to perhaps 25,000 ft2 and from overgrown to open and 

functional. Rock quality has been informally assessed at the sites that are strategically located and likely 

to produce good quality road rock. Hard crushed rock is also available for purchased from 

Weyerhaeuser’s Templin pit which is enclosed by Preserve and Refuge lands. The Refuge will continue 

to procure rock materials from commercial sources such as this. 

The Conservancy will develop rock from its own pits for use on roads within the Preserve, or where 

road easements exist outside the Preserve, to upgrade and maintain the road system with the goal of 

reducing road related impacts to aquatic habitat. Development of rock resources will occur following 

the guidelines and commitments discussed below in the Management Approach section. 

3. Building Infrastructure and Other Resources

A number of structures exist at various locations across the Refuge for administrative and maintenance 

purposes. The Refuge headquarters is located along US Hwy 101 across from the south end of Long 

Island. Administrative functions for the Willapa refuge complex are located in a remodeled residence 

with two neighboring shop buildings, fuel storage and equipment parking. Public parking, interpretive 

signage, a pit toilet and a boat ramp are located along the highway at the headquarters. The Refuge 

manager quarters are located near the south end of the north Bear River unit. A small shop is located 

on the south end of Long Island, near the boat ramp access. The Refuge’s main heavy equipment 

storage and maintenance shop is located at the Reikkola unit at the south end of Willapa Bay. Access is 

from the west off Sandridge Road. 

One structure, a small cabin acquired in 2008 on the Larwick property, exists within the Ellsworth 

Creek Preserve. Although it generally removes structures from the lands it acquires, the Conservancy 

chose to retain this structure for the potential utility it provides. The Conservancy intends to chiefly 

use the cabin as lodging for out of area researchers, volunteers or other work crews directly engaged in 

stewardship activities on the Preserve. Occasional small events, meetings or retreats may also occur. 

The cabin is constructed almost entirely of Sitka spruce lumber milled from the surrounding property. 

It has full kitchen and bathroom facilities, two small bedrooms and a loft. Water is supplied via rain 

collection from the metal roof. Sewage is treated in a septic drain field. Power consists of a 12 volt 

battery system, recharged by a small solar panel, which supplies a few lights. 

The Conservancy recognizes the long term potential for human disturbance this type of development 

presents, especially in the context of marbled murrelet recovery. Currently, the cabin is located within 

a young forest stand, less than 20 years old. The nearest suitable murrelet nesting habitat is about 3⁄4 

miles away. Although this is too far to cause concern, the potential for disturbance will increase in the 

future as stands near the cabin mature. Therefore, the Conservancy commits to removing the cabin 

and reforesting the site in 2038, 30 years from its date of purchase. In the interim, the Conservancy 

will conduct necessary repairs to maintain the cabin in usable condition. Should the cabin fall into 

disuse or disrepair and become unusable the Conservancy will remove it at that time. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 40

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Old-growth western red cedar at Teal Slough 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 41

A. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS

On 23 June 2006 a joint workshop between the Conservancy and the Refuge and facilitated by 

Stewardship Forestry Alternatives was held to identify the desired future ecological conditions for the 

SWBCA. Several themes for desired future conditions emerged from the discussion during the 

workshop, some of which are already captured by the goals listed in the introduction to this plan. In 

this section we describe the major elements of the desired future conditions for the SWBCA: 

ecosystem resistance to environmental perturbation at multiple scales, spatial and temporal 

heterogeneity, functional landscape linkages, and provision of habitat for late-successional species and 

species of concern. 

1. Ecosystem Resistance and Resilience to Perturbation at Multiple 

Scales

Ecosystem resistance and resilience to perturbation—disturbances and environmental change—

emerged as a major component of the DFC for the SWBCA landscape. Resistance is the capacity of an 

ecosystem to withstand perturbation, while resilience is defined as the degree to which an ecosystem is 

able to return to initial conditions following perturbation (Halpern 1988). We define perturbation here 

to include both punctuated events such as windstorms, fires and floods, as well as the protracted 

process of large-scale climate change. Perturbations are a critical and unavoidable component of any 

ecosystem. 

Wind Disturbance 

Managed landscapes, such as the SWBCA, have been altered such that the response to typical 

perturbations is different from that of unmanaged landscapes. For example, past harvest has created 

forest stands with hard edges, decreasing forest ecosystem resistance to wind disturbance (Ruth and 

Harris 1979). Across the SWBCA landscape, stands historically contained relatively high densities of 

large, old, wind firm western redcedar, indicating the prevalence of a chronic, low severity disturbance 

regime and not a high severity, catastrophic regime. Past harvesting, regeneration, and thinning 

practices have dramatically reduced both large and young western redcedar in most of the SWBCA 

landscape. Dense, even-aged western hemlock and Douglas fir dominated stands are now the dominant 

stand type and are much more susceptible to catastrophic blow down (Beese 2001). The high stand 

density causes trees to have high height:diameter ratios, with stand stability reaching a minimum in the 

mature (sensu Franklin et al. 2002) stage. During early maturity, where natural single cohort stands are 

just beginning to transition into multi-cohort structure and composition, the likelihood of high severity 

wind disturbance is greatest (Acker et al. 2000, Greene 1992, Harcombe P.A. et al. 2004, Harcombe 

P.A., Harmon, M.E., Greene, S.E. 1990, Harris 1989, Jane 1986, Rebertus et al. 1997, Wimberly and 

Spies 2001). A likely outcome for these single cohort western hemlock dominated stands originating 

from catastrophic disturbance (timber harvest) is to move into a high-severity wind disturbance regime, 

in contrast to the historical low severity wind disturbance regime that maintained the landscape in a 

high proportion of old-growth (Figure 10 – Stand Structure-Mediated Wind Disturbance). High 

severity disturbance is undesirable in this scenario because the affected area is returned to the early 

stages of stand structural development, which is at odds with another DFC for the SWBCA landscape 

(see Provision of Habitat for Late-successional Dependent Species below). Consequently, a major DFC for the 

SWBCA landscape is to return the system to a state where wind and other disturbance results in low to 

moderate severity tree mortality or breakage and further development of old-growth forest structure, 

and away from a state that is susceptible to catastrophic, high severity events that restart forest 

development. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 42

Susceptibility to high severity wind disturbance

Structural Stage

Disturbance and legacy creation

Cohort establishment

Canopy closure

Competitive exclusion

Maturation

Vertical diversification

Horizontal diversification

LowHigh

Catastrophic:

• Mid/high severity

• Low/mid frequency

Chronic:

• Low/mid severity

• Mid/high frequency

Stand structure-mediated wind disturbance

Figure 10: Stand structure-mediated wind disturbance

Fire Disturbance 

In light of the old (750+ year old) red cedar still extant upon the landscape, suggest that the stand 

replacement fire regime interval for this area is 750 years or more. With the roading and harvesting of 

the area over the past 60 years, there are significant fuel breaks across the landscape—such as forest 

roads and young plantations. Consequently, the opportunity for a stand replacement level fire on a 

landscape level will be remote until the area reaches the desired future condition when the landscape 

simulates an old-growth regime. 

On the other hand, smaller sized natural fire evens will periodically occur resulting in gaps throughout 

the forest. These may be man caused and/or lightning caused events. With the existing road network 

and State fire protection infrastructure in the area, these smaller fire events will be kept to relatively 

small acreages. These periodic events will be replanted with cedar and spruce to introduce these 

species across the landscape. 

Insect Disturbance 

As detailed earlier, observations of the extant old growth stands reveal that hemlock cohorts appear to 

be cycling at a different periodic rate than the cedar. The cedar appears to be cycling at a 750+ year 

interval; whereas, the hemlock appears to be cycling at a 200-300 year interval. It appears that the 

affect of periodic hemlock looper outbreaks, followed by a break down of the hemlock within the 

stand, followed by prolific seeding, followed by periodic wind events shape the uneven aged, species 

mosaic within old growth stands. This type of uneven aged natural cycling within these stands will 

likely continue across this coastal landscape. 

Climate Change

Creating conditions across the SWBCA landscape that will facilitate resistance to climate change also 

surfaced as a DFC during the workshop. This objective is particularly difficult, as forecasting climate 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 43

change and the accompanying consequences for the SWBCA landscape is an inexact, uncertain 

proposition. A cautious approach to management will be necessary, as attempts to ―engineer‖ the 

SWBCA ecosystem in anticipation of climate change could easily result in undesirable (and 

dysfunctional) ecosystems. Returning the landscape to a resilient state requires the fewest assumptions, 

and likely carries the lowest level of risk of any anticipating-climate-change management action. This 

conservative approach will entail maintaining the suite of naturally occurring species. It may be 

desirable to manage for a relatively greater proportion of Douglas-fir, a naturally occurring tree species 

in the SWBCA landscape, than existed historically. Because Douglas-fir is able to occupy a broad range 

of biophysical conditions (McKenzie et al. 2003), maintaining a substantial Douglas-fir component may 

provide increased resistance to some climate change scenarios. However, the range of Douglas-fir is 

expected to remain stable or contract in the SWBCA landscape (Whitlock Cathy, Sarah L. Shafer and 

Jennifer Marlon 2003) (Shafer et al. 2001) suggesting that dramatically increasing Douglas-fir 

abundance may be unwarranted. 

2. Landscape Composition and Pattern: Spatial and Temporal 

Heterogeneity

Ecosystems are dynamic biophysical constructs, changing through time and across space. Natural 

disturbance events alter developmental processes and create a mosaic of compositionally and 

structurally complex conditions across the landscape (Turner et al. 2001). This disturbance mosaic is 

overlaid on the underlying physical template, adding even further heterogeneity to the landscape (e.g., 

Harcombe et al. 2004). With respect to stewardship of the SWBCA landscape it is important to 

recognize that the functioning ―natural‖ landscape will almost never be entirely maintained in latesuccessional conditions. Late-successional conditions may dominate, and by all indications did 

dominate in recent pre-settlement times in the Ellsworth drainage (Powell 2003). Pre-settlement 

conditions on Willapa NWR lands are less well known. Based on landscape position—relatively greater 

exposure to winter storms—Long Island probably supported relatively lower levels of old-growth and a 

relatively greater proportion of successional stands originating from high severity wind disturbance. In 

addition, the large contiguous patches of old-growth forest that characterized historical landscapes had 

high within-patch heterogeneity (Franklin J.F. and Van Pelt 2004, Spies et al. 2002) described in section 

B, 3 different types of old growth forest exist within the SWBCA landscape that have different degrees 

of vertical and horizontal complexity. This complexity at multiple spatial scales is thought to be a key 

element of supporting biological diversity. 

Current landscape pattern and composition is entirely the product of forest management (Powell et al. 

2003). The SWBCA landscape is a mosaic of different aged stands, most characterized by a single 

cohort age structure (sensu Oliver and Larson 1996) with patches separated by linear, hard edges formed 

by clearcutting. Using the 1908 conditions as a reference and knowledge of natural disturbance regimes, 

the desired future condition, with respect to landscape composition and pattern, is a state characterized 

by a high proportion of structurally complex forest at multiple scales. Over time, much of the 

landscape will likely develop into late-successional forest. At the stand scale, a future condition of 

multiple types of old-growth with their respective degrees and patterns of complexity is desired. Some 

patches of old growth should have a high level of patchiness, understory development, vertical canopy 

layering, species diversity, and tree size distribution, while others should be relatively uniform with 

more of a single-storied, closed canopy. At the landscape scale, however, disturbance agents will create 

patches of younger age classes through time. Thus rather than a DFC of certain proportion of late 

successional forest, the landscape level DFC is maintenance of spatial and temporal heterogeneity by 

natural disturbance processes, except for fire which will be actively suppressed. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 44

3. Functional Landscape Linkages

The different ecosystem types (e.g., estuaries, streams and terrestrial uplands) contained in the greater 

SWBCA do not exist as independent units with discrete, impermeable boundaries. At the most basic 

level, the nature of these cross-system linkages is characterized by the transfer of material and energy 

across system boundaries. This transfer can be mediated by both physical and biological agents. For 

example, geomorphic events and processes (e.g., landslides, debris flows, hill slope hydrology) deliver 

the basic habitat constituents (sediment, woody debris and fine allotochonous organic inputs, and 

water) from terrestrial ecosystems into streams (Benda et al. 1998, Benda et al. 2004, Bilby R.E. and 

Bisson 1998a, Naiman et al. 2000) Further physical processing within the stream ecosystem, for 

example by flood events, transfers these materials (and new materials originating from within the 

stream ecosystem) to estuaries, and ultimately, the marine environment. 

Biotic agents also transfer materials across ecosystem boundaries. Beavers (Castor canadensis) are a 

classic example of a biotic agent mediating entry of terrestrial organic materials into aquatic ecosystems 

(Naiman et al. 1998). Beaver activity also influences rates of material processing within the stream 

ecosystem (e.g., sediment and water retention behind dams). An important attribute of biotic-mediated 

transfer of material across ecosystem boundaries is the potential to move material against 

physical/energy gradients. Perhaps the best known example from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion is the 

movement of marine derived nutrients (MDN) from the ocean through estuaries and into streams by 

anadramous fish (McClain 1998). The MDN contained in the salmon carcasses can then be further 

translocated by a secondary biotic agent (i.e. carnivorous mammals) from the stream ecosystem into 

terrestrial habitats, where the MDN are ultimately incorporated into the terrestrial vegetation (Helfield 

and Naiman 2006). Both beavers and anadromous fish are present in the SWBCA. 

A DFC for the SWBCA is to restore and maintain functional landscape linkages for the movement of 

material across ecosystem boundaries, such that the functioning of each component ecosystem is 

maintained. Implicit within this objective is the restoration and maintenance of material pools that have 

been depleted by past management, such as the distribution of large live trees and woody debris across 

the landscape. Also subsumed within this broad desired future condition is constraining the rate of 

delivery of materials within the bounds of a ―natural‖ range of variability —e.g., poorly designed, 

constructed or maintained road networks alter patterns of delivery of sediment and water from uplands 

into streams, inhibiting stream functioning and degrading habitat. 

4. Habitat for Late-successional Dependent Species

Late-successional habitats are extremely rare in the low elevation forests of southwestern Washington. 

The SWBCA plays a key role in the regional landscape since the Refuge and Preserve host some of the 

last old-growth forests in the area, and are some of the only locations where late-successional forests 

will be promoted and allowed to develop, assuming the current management regime of private forest 

land in southwest Washington does not drastically change. Of particular interest is the marbled 

murrelet, a seabird that requires large branches for nesting, typically of sizes found only on old-growth 

trees. Silvicultural intervention is thought to be a means to accelerate the development of late 

successional forest attributes in previously harvested forests. Long term restoration research at 

Ellsworth Creek will explore coastal forest restoration pathways at a landscape scale. These studies will 

provide valuable insight into effective strategies to accelerate the development of old-growth structure 

to provide habitat for late-successional dependent species. To be clear, the goal is habitat for latesuccessional species in general, rather than specific habitat elements, as in many single species 

restoration plans (Carey 2003a). It is assumed that returning the SWBCA to a condition where natural, 

as opposed to anthropogenic processes, are allowed to operate will result in the development and 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 45

maintenance of late-successional habitats that provide suitable habitat for multiple late successional 

dependant species (see Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity). 

5. Desired Future Conditions: Synthesis

The desired future condition for the SWBCA is one characterized by resilient, functioning terrestrial, 

aquatic and estuarine ecosystems. This condition necessitates that landscape level linkages be intact, 

and that rates and quantities of materials flowing through system linkages are consistent with those that 

produce desired functionality. Recognizing that natural disturbance events will stochastically (randomly) 

occur, the DFC for SWBCA, in terms of landscape and stand level pattern and content, is also 

characterized by a spatially and temporally heterogeneous distribution of patches at various stages of 

response to (i.e. time since) disturbance. In contrast to current conditions, the desired future structure 

of the landscape will primarily be controlled by natural process, as opposed to human disturbances 

such as the recent management regime of timber harvest. It is assumed that the amount of latesuccessional forest habitat will increase substantially from the current level as the DFCs are realized. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 46

B. SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION

1. Scientific Basis for Restoration Silviculture in Spruce-Hemlock Forests

Since the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan restoration of young, previously harvested 

forest to late-successional structure, composition and function—particularly habitat function—has 

emerged as a management objective for many public, and increasingly, private forest lands. Large scale 

silvicultural experiments, as well as reconstructions of the developmental history of old-growth forests 

have been undertaken in an effort to inform silvicultural interventions in young previously harvested 

forests designed to accelerate the development of old-growth characteristics (Carey 2003b, Carey et al. 

1999c, Harrington et al. 2005, Hunter 2001, Muir et al. 2002, Poage and Tappeiner 2002, Tappeiner et 

al. 1997, Winter et al. 2002a, Winter et al. 2002b, Zenner 2005). These studies have identified 

manipulation of forest stand density and species composition as a primary strategy for restoring latesuccessional characteristics in previously harvested young stands. 

Truncating or completely bypassing the competitive exclusion stage of forest structural development is 

the core idea underlying the theoretical basis for restoration of late successional characteristics in 

young-managed conifer forests along the Pacific Northwest Coastal Region. With this direction in 

restoration, competitive exclusion is abbreviated via stand density management, and typically 

accomplished silviculturally with thinning (DeBell et al. 1997) - although planting at low densities 

following harvest may also minimize the competitive exclusion stage if natural regeneration is not 

abundant. Thinning reduces stand density, thereby increasing the relative amount of resources (light, 

water, nutrients) available to the residual stems left following thinning (Oliver and Larson 1996, Smith 

D.M. et al. 1997). Decreasing overstory density also increases the amount of resources available to 

understory herb and shrub species because the residual trees left following thinning cannot capture all 

of the available resources on the site. Understory vegetation in thinned stands has been shown to be 

more similar to old-growth than unthinned young stands (Bailey J.D. and Tappeiner 1998, Garman et 

al. 2003, Lindh and Muir 2004, Thysell and Carey 2001). Thinning stimulates establishment and 

development of understory shade tolerant conifers (Alaback and Herman 1988, Bailey J.D. and 

Tappeiner 1998, Curtis et al. 1998, Harrington et al. 2005, Ruth and Harris 1979). A vertically 

continuous understory and midstory shade tolerant canopy is a defining characteristic of old-growth 

forests (Franklin J.F. and Van Pelt 2004, Franklin J.F. et al. 2002). Recruitment of shade-tolerant trees 

is a rate-limiting factor in the development of old-growth structure (Acker et al. 1998, Keeton and 

Franklin 2005). The rate of understory development in natural stands is also related to overstory 

composition; understory plant community development proceeds particularly slowly in stands with a 

strong dominance of western hemlock in the overstory (Stewart 1988). Therefore, thinning provides a 

mechanism to accelerate the rate of development of old-growth canopy structure in young, single 

cohort stands, particularly in coastal stands dominated by western hemlock. 

Responses of forest biota, in terms of both direction and magnitude, to thinning are variable across 

species. Abundance and development of understory vegetation including shade tolerant trees appears 

to increase in most cases (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998, Alaback and Herman 1988, Harrington et al. 

2005, Ruth 1979, Lindh and Muir 2004, Bailey and Tappeiner 1998, Garman et al. 2003, Curtis et al. 

2000, Thysell and Carey 2001). In contrast, thinning tends to adversely affect macrofungi species 

richness and biomass, at least in the short-term, and thinned stands tend to have less evenly 

proportioned species composition (Colgan et al. 1999, Durall et al. 1999, Fogarty et al. 2001, Norvell 

and Exeter 2004). . Thinning appears to have little or no effect, however, on lichen diversity (Curtis et 

al. 2000, Peterson E.B. 2002, Peterson E.B and McCune 2001). Because lichen diversity and abundance 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 47

are positively related to stand age, development of the lichen communities in forests is thought to be a 

dispersal limited process (Curtis et al. 2000, Sillett et al. 2000). Hardwood patches have been identified 

as ―hot spots‖ for epiphytic lichen diversity in young-managed western coniferous forests (Neitlich and 

McCune 1997), suggesting thinning entries should conserve hardwood tree species if maintenance of 

lichen diversity is an objective. Initial results have found little effect of thinning on invertebrate 

communities (Schowalter 2003); although additional time since treatment may reveal a treatment effect. 

Similar to lichens, hardwood trees are associated with increased diversity of arthropods in young 

conifer dominated stands (Muir et al. 2002, Schultz and De Santo 2006), suggesting that thinning 

treatments should maintain tree species diversity if arthropod diversity is a management objective. 

Thinning dense young conifer stands improved conditions for several bird species and heterogeneous 

thinning treatments including substantial unthinned ―skip‖ areas within the thinned matrix appear to 

provide the greatest benefit to songbirds (Hagar et al. 2004, Hayes et al. 2003). Thinning effects on 

small mammals are quite variable across species, making generalizations difficult (Suzuki and Hayes 

2003). Based on habitat associations and thinning effects on vegetation it is thought that thinning could 

have positive effects on small mammal populations (Carey 2000, Hayes et al. 1997). However, 

conclusive results linking thinning treatments to changes in small mammal populations remain elusive. 

Studies of the habitat requirements of the northern spotted owl and its primary prey species (Carey 

2000, Hayes et al. 1997) provide insight into the desired future forest structure and composition 

conditions and suggest pathways for managing young forests towards these specific late-successional 

characteristics. However, views differ about the types and scales of spatial patterning that should be 

introduced in restoration thinning treatments—termed variable density thinning (VDT) (Carey and 

Johnson 1995, Carey et al. 1992, Carey et al. 1999c), especially in regards to managing for listed species. 

Spatial heterogeneity, a defining characteristic in VDT prescriptions, is conspicuously lacking from 

restoration silviculture recommendations designed specifically to maximize marbled murrelet habitat 

development in coast redwood stands to identify in greater detail the DFC (in terms of forest structure 

and composition) for young forests being managed for late-successional characteristics. Data from 

these studies form the basis of arguments about the types and scales of spatial patterning that should be 

introduced in restoration thinning treatments—termed variable density thinning (VDT) (Carey 2003b, 

Carey et al. 1999a). Silvicultural strategies for developing murrelet habitat are forced to balance the 

tension that arises due to two conflicting objectives: 1) promoting the development of nesting habitat 

(i.e. large tree and branch size, multi-layered canopies) while 2) minimizing understory plant response 

to stand density reductions (which can have the effect of increasing local populations of murrelet nest 

predators (Carey et al. 2003)). 

Partial harvest for timber production objectives in spruce-hemlock forests of southeast Alaska resulted 

in complex stands with old-growth attributes (Deal et al. 2002). Similarly, understory plant communities 

in partially cut stands did not differ from understory plant communities in uncut old-growth forests 

(Deal and Tappeiner 2002). These results suggest that silvicultural systems can be designed to produce 

economic benefit and timber products while simultaneously maintaining stand structural diversity and 

old-growth conditions (Deal et al. 2002). With respect to restoration silviculture in spruce-hemlockcedar forests, these results provide circumstantial evidence in support of the idea that woody biomass 

can be removed during restoration silviculture treatments without compromising the objective of 

enhancing the development of old-growth structure. Additionally, biomass removal in thinning is not 

expected to adversely affect management objectives related to woody debris because stems removed in 

thinning entries will be from small size classes and primarily western hemlock, which decomposes 

rapidly (Edmonds et al. 2000, Hennon and Loopstra 1991). Woody debris loads are primarily limited by 

piece size, not total amount. Thinning treatments, even with biomass removal, will accelerate the rate 

of production of large woody debris by increasing residual tree diameter growth rates. However, the 

long term effect of removing biomass early on in stand development is one of the key uncertainties in 

restoration silviculture and will be examined as part of the experiment being installed within the 

Ellsworth Creek Adaptive Management area. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 48

Results from research and current scientific thinking support the notion that thinning can be used 

successfully to direct and accelerate the development of forest vegetation structure and composition 

towards old-growth conditions, although results characterizing effects of thinning on some populations 

of forest biota are not yet available or able to be generalized. However, to the best of our knowledge 

restoration silviculture has not been attempted in coastal spruce-hemlock-cedar forests. One exception 

might be the ―Fresca‖ block of the Olympic Habitat Development Study (Harrington et al. 2005) 

which is located in a spruce-hemlock stand. Most of the studies cited above share one condition: they 

were conducted in Douglas-fir forests. With respect to restoration silviculture, spruce-hemlock-cedar 

forests differ from Douglas-fir forests in several critical ways, including different environmental regime, 

species composition and relative abundance, and especially the dominant disturbance regime. One of 

the central underpinnings of restoration silviculture in Douglas-fir forests is that anthropogenic 

suppression of low and moderate severity fire has removed the key intermediate, natural disturbance 

agent that reduces stand density and creates spatial complexity (Spies et al. 2002a). Thinning is thus 

needed to take the place of fire. Conversely, wind, the primary driver of spatial complexity in Sitka 

spruce forests, remains very much part of the system. Thus, the available restoration literature 

(primarily studies in Douglas-fir forests) must be transferred to coastal forests with great care, with 

restoration prescriptions formulated as working hypotheses. 

Applying principles of stand dynamics and disturbance ecology to achieve DFCs

The preponderance of silviculture studies in the Pacific Northwest have been conducted in Douglas-fir 

forests and thus don’t necessarily translate directly to spruce-hemlock-cedar forests. However, a 

complimentary approach to transferring inferences about restoration is reasonable, if we begin by 

understanding where differences occur in spruce-hemlock-cedar stand dynamics and disturbance 

ecology principles. Thus, in the remainder of this section we further develop the scientific basis for 

restoration silviculture in spruce-hemlock-cedar forests by considering the relevant silviculture and 

stand dynamics literature with respect to the DFC’s for the SWBCA.

Increasing forest stand resistance to wind disturbance: Stands with a relatively high component of western 

redcedar tend to be more resistant to wind disturbance (Weetman and Prescott 2001). Historical 

upland forests in the Ellsworth Creek watershed appear to be dominated by western redcedar 

(Figure 4 – Historical Forest Composition), and current residual old-growth stands on Long Island 

are also characterized by large, old western redcedar. As described above, past management has 

shifted the current landscape to dense, even-aged western hemlock dominated stands that are 

much more susceptible to high severity, catastrophic blow down. In the absence of future 

management, structurally complex old-growth spruce-hemlock-cedar forest will take many 

centuries to develop. Abundance of western redcedar will slowly increase as it preferentially 

survives wind disturbance events, and will have colonization opportunities following wind 

disturbance. However, its slower growth early in stand development compared with western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce puts it at a major disadvantage in the dense single cohort stands that 

currently dominate the SWBCA. Increasing western redcedar dominance in current young stands 

via thinning and planting is expected to accelerate the development of large western red cedar, 

thereby increasing the resistance of SWBCA forests to wind disturbance, and helping to shift the 

landscape back toward a low-severity disturbance regime. 

A second strategy to increase forest stand resistance to wind disturbance is by decreasing tree 

height-to-diameter ratios via thinning. Evidence from several studies indicate that single cohort 

stands become increasingly unstable—less resistant to wind disturbance—as they reach the 

maturation stage of forest structural development (Harcombe et al. 2004, Harris 1989, Jane 1986, 

Rebertus et al. 1997). Trees growing in dense, maturing stands reduce their crown depth (Oliver 

and Larson 1996, Smith et al. 1997). As a result, stems reduce the degree to which they taper and 

height-to-diameter ratios increase, ultimately leading to less stable trees. Reducing stand density 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 49

with thinning can decrease height:diameter ratio and increase crown depths, particularly if 

implemented early in stand development before crowns have been greatly reduced (Ruel 1995, 

Wilson and Oliver 2000, Wonn and O'Hara 2001). Sitka-spruce and western hemlock are known to 

increase diameter growth and decrease height-to-diameter ratios in response to thinning (de 

Montigny and de Jong 1998, Mitchell 2000, Ruth and Harris 1979) 

Multi-cohort stands may be more resistant to wind disturbance due to lower height-to-diameter 

ratios (Mason 2002, Weetman and Prescott 2001). In addition to being more wind resistant, 

multicohort stands will be more resilient to wind disturbance. Because understory and midstory 

trees are already established in multicohort stands, overstory canopy gaps created by wind 

disturbance are likely to be already filled by understory and midstory trees (Winter et al. 2002b). 

Seedlings establish following thinning in coastal spruce-hemlock-cedar stands at high densities 

(Alaback and Herman 1988, Harrington et al. 2005, Ruth & Harris 1979), indicating that thinning is 

a mechanism to begin to transition stands from a single cohort to multicohort condition. Multicohort, multi-species stands are also typically more resistant to insect and pathogen outbreaks 

(Edmonds et al. 2000, Thies and Goheen 2002) and higher in overall biodiversity. 

Developing late-successional habitat characteristics: Large individual trees are a defining characteristic of 

old-growth forests (Franklin et al. 2002, Acker et al. 1998, Franklin et al. 2005), and are a 

prerequisite to large diameter snags and downed logs. Lack of large trees is the primary component 

lowering MOGI scores in maturing stands within the SWBCA. Additionally large, complex tree 

crowns provide habitat for a range of epiphytes, lichens, other plants, and cavity dependent wildlife 

species which is not afforded by structurally simple young tree crowns. Marbled murrelets also use 

large diameter branches as nesting platforms (Carey et al. 2003). Ongoing research is drawing 

increasing attention to the role of large horizontal structures and reiterated stems as drivers of 

crown level habitat complexity and epiphyte community development. Density management 

through thinning increases tree diameter growth (Marshall and Curtis 2002, Mitchell 2000, Ruth 

and Harris 1979) which then sets the stage for the development of larger trees, snags, and downed 

logs. In addition, increasing the growing space of individual trees slows crown recession (Ruth and 

Harris 1979, Smith et al. 1997) and enhances the development of large diameter branches (Maguire 

et al. 1991). Thinning can also stimulate epicormic branch development, particularly on Douglasfir. Manipulations within crowns of individual trees to promote the formation of trunk reiterations 

may also be useful for developing murrelet nesting platforms (Berg et al. 1996, Carey et al. 2003). 

Given the DFCs and the significant lack of late-successional habitat in the regional landscape, 

accelerating the growth rate of trees, and formation of complex branch systems in young 

previously harvested stands throughout the SWBCA is desirable. 

Enhancing spatial heterogeneity: The spatial uniformity of managed plantations, especially those that 

underwent extensive site preparation and pre-commercial thinning, is one of the key factors 

limiting biodiversity. Silvicultural treatments can be used to restore and accelerate the development 

of heterogeneity at multiple scales and is one of the main objectives of many forest restoration 

treatments, particularly VDT (Carey et al. 1999a, Carey et al. 2003). In contrast to VDT, which was 

initially developed around the habitat needs of spotted owls, recommendations for treatments 

designed to specifically enhance development of marbled murrelet nesting habitat call for more 

spatially uniform thinning in order to prevent conditions attractive to murrelet nest predators 

(Carey et al. 2003). A landscape approach for the provision of habitat for listed species must use 

multiple approaches to provide murrelet nesting habitat and spotted owl habitat simultaneously. 

Thus, the type, extent and degree of spatial patterning introduced with thinning treatments should 

reflect the current stand conditions, landscape context, and specific management goals for the 

particular stand being managed. Some thinning treatments may be relatively uniform, while others 

more heterogeneous. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 50

Restoring landscape linkages: In many riparian areas dominated by red alder, accelerating the transition 

to conifer dominated forests and increasing tree diameter growth will increase the availability of 

large wood. In intensively harvested basins such as the Ellsworth Creek watershed, large diameter 

woody debris are lacking in streams (Bilby R. E. and Bisson 1998a, Rentmeester 2004). If large 

woody debris loads of large diameter pieces are below desired levels, it may be desirable to release 

suppressed conifers from overstory red alder competition with thinning (Deal et al. 2004, 

Emmingham et al. 2000); particularly in stream reaches where woody debris is delivered primarily 

from adjacent riparian stands. Thinning in riparian areas to increase the diameter growth of 

conifers should not eliminate overstory hardwoods however. Hardwoods are a source of diversity 

of arthropod (Muir et al. 2002, Schultz and De Santo 2006) and lichen species (Neitlich and 

McCune 1997) and provide qualitatively different allotochonous organic inputs into aquatic 

systems compared to conifers. Planting may also be required if conifer establishment in riparian 

stands is seed limited (Beach and Halpern 2001, Emmingham et al. 2000). Thinning dense, conifer 

dominated young riparian stands can also lead to faster development and recruitment of large 

wood, although in smaller streams, thinning can reduce recruitment of functional, small diameter 

logs from competition related mortality (Beechie et al. 2000, Roni et al. 2002). Streams need both 

large and small diameter logs and thus a mix of riparian thinning and no cut buffers are generally 

recommended in dense, conifer riparian stands (Naiman et al. 2005), P. Bisson pers. comm. 2006). 

Thinning to increase the availability of large wood in mass wasting zones is another consideration. 

Many of these areas are currently densely stocked with young trees and will be able to deliver large 

wood to the stream network for many decades. 

In conclusion, decades of ecological and silvicultural research provide a strong scientific basis for forest 

restoration in the SWBCA. A treatment regime of density management and manipulating species 

composition with planting and thinning—tailored to individual stand conditions—will likely achieve 

the objectives of increasing forest stand resistance to wind disturbance, increasing tree diameter growth 

rates, restoring functional landscape linkages, and promoting the development of large diameter 

branches suitable for marbled murrelet nesting platforms. However, the ability of restoration 

silviculture to accelerate the development of old growth forests remains uncertain, particularly given 

the tremendous complexity of these forests, climatic variability, the long timeframes involved, and the 

lack of precedent in coastal spruce-hemlock-cedar forests. It will be necessary to formulate silvicultural 

prescriptions designed to meet the DFCs and associated silvicultural objectives as working hypotheses 

to be evaluated within an adaptive management framework. 

2. Scientific Basis for Road Removal

The ecological effects of forest roads have been extensively researched in the Pacific Northwest. They 

alter hydrology by reducing soil infiltration, converting subsurface flow to surface flow, concentrating 

water through road drainage structures, and increasing peak flows (Jones et al. 2000, Luce 2002). They 

can result in geomorphic changes, including chronic erosion and elevated sediment delivery into 

streams (Gucinski et al. 2000, Megahan and Kidd 1972), extension of channel networks (Wemple et al. 

1996), and increased risk and rates of mass wasting (Montgomery 1994, Swanson and Dyrness 1975). 

Roads also influence the ecology of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through direct habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, loss of soil productivity, spread of exotic, non-native species, and 

associated human impacts as a result of increased access (Gucinski et al. 2000, Newcombe and 

MacDonald 1991). Individual road segments differ greatly in their ecological impact, however, due to 

site specific factors such as construction techniques, road grade, hillslope position, climate, basin 

hydrology, soil properties, and underlying geology (Gucinski et al. 2000, Switalski et al. 2004). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 51

Types of Decommissioning 

In order to address the negative effects caused by roads and restore natural hydrologic processes, road 

decommissioning has become an important management consideration on public and private 

forestland in the US and Canada. Many different interpretations of the term ―road decommissioning‖ 

are used by different agencies, however. Depending on management objectives, access needs, road 

condition, relative risk, and budgets, several techniques or levels of road decommissioning exist. Below 

is a summary of the basic approaches and terms defined as they will be used the SWBCA. 

Obliteration: The goal of obliteration is to remove the road and its associated impacts from the 

landscape and set the stage for vegetation to re-colonize the site. All culverts are removed and 

stream crossings are restored by excavating the fill down to the original land surface, re-contouring 

the stream banks, and installing channel stabilization structures, sediment traps, and re-vegetating 

where necessary. Compacted road surfaces are ripped, then side cast and other fill material is 

moved to partially or fully re-contour to the natural hill-slope. Some combination of slash, woody 

debris, and mulch is typically used to cover the re-contoured slope. Seeding or re-planting is often 

a final step. Recovering the original topsoil may also aid in re-vegetative success and limit the 

spread of non-native species on the site (Walder and Bagley 1998). Ideally, following obliteration, 

subsurface water flow is no longer interrupted; peak flows, sedimentation, and mass wasting rates 

return to pre-road levels; vegetation recovers; and fragmented habitat is reconnected., This 

technique is generally restricted to roads that will be permanently removed from the road network, 

as re-opening an obliterated road costs the same as construction of a new road. 

Putting to Bed: The goal of stabilization, or ―putting roads to bed‖, is to eliminate or minimize the 

hydrological and geological effects of a road, while leaving much of the road prism intact. Culverts 

and stream crossings are removed, water bars and cross-road drains are installed, and problem 

sidecast (soil cast aside during road construction) or cutslope areas (areas upslope from the road 

where soil was removed) are stabilized by removing material and bringing slopes to a stable 

gradient. In some instances, inboard ditches are removed and the road is out-sloped to restore 

sheet flow. The road bed may be ripped or left intact, and can be covered with slash, woody debris, 

or mulch. Putting roads to bed accomplishes three important mitigation goals: it stabilizes unstable 

fill and sidecast; it removes ongoing hydrologic hazards, allowing streams to run unimpeded; and 

dispersing concentrated water, surface water to the ground (Walder and Bagley 1998). Once put to 

bed roads can be left to re-vegetate and fill in through natural processes and subsequently reconstructed for future management entries if and when they are needed. 

Conversion to Trail: The goal is to reduce the impacts of the road, while converting it to a motorized 

or non-motorized trail. High impact stream crossings are typically removed, unstable fill, side cast, 

or cutslopes are treated, and cross-road drains or gentle waterbars are installed to disperse 

concentrated water. Lower risk culverts are often left in place and the road is generally not ripped, 

although some treatment may be done on the sides of the road to reduce the width. Roads can be 

easily re-constructed for future use. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of these converted 

roads are typically necessary to prevent culverts from plugging and erosion and rutting of the trail 

surface. 

Road Closure: Roads are closed with gates, berms, or deep ditches (tank traps) to prevent unauthorized use. The rest of the road is left untreated. In some instances, the first quarter mile or 

the immediately visible part of a road is re-contoured and re-vegetated to camouflage the road and 

therefore discourage vehicular travel. Road closures, when effective, can help mitigate road impacts 

on road-averse species such as bears and elk (Walder and Bagley 1998). Closed roads can be easily 

re-opened for future use. If abandoned or not maintained, however, culverts may fail when 

plugged by debris or if they are insufficiently sized to convey peak stream discharges and the road 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 52

will continue to alter hydrologic processes, and culverts will continue to act as barriers to fish 

passage (Walder and Bagley 1998). 

Road Abandonment: This is the same as road closure except that access is left open. These roads 

usually remain drivable until re-vegetation or erosion closes them in. 

Effectiveness of Decommissioning 

Although research into the effects of road decommissioning is relatively new, results indicate an overall 

positive effect. In Redwood National Park, where full obliteration was first introduced, a major storm 

in 1997 provided the opportunity to measure the effectiveness of two decades of road removal. Most 

treated roads produced very little sediment and 80% of the road reaches had no detectable landslides 

following treatment (Madej et al. 2001). In contrast, untreated roads produced four times the level of 

sediment delivery as treated roads, mostly in the form of landslides (Bloom 1998, Madej et al. 2001). 

Full obliteration has also been shown to greatly reduce landslide occurance in western Washington 

(Harr and Nichols 1993), coastal Oregon (Cloyd and Musser 1997), and north-central Idaho (USFS 

2003). Results suggest that hillslope position and slope gradient are important factor in determining 

treatment success. Although treatments dramatically reduced landslide occurrence and sediment 

delivery from upper- and mid-slope roads, steep lower-slope roads continued to have high failure rates 

in some landscapes, no matter what treatments were used (Bloom 1998, Madej et al. 2001) . 

Madej (2001) examined 207 stream crossings treated between 1980 and 1997 in Redwood National 

Park, and found that: ―The greater the stream power and the larger the excavation, the more the 

channel eroded following treatment. Deeply incised channels that required more fill to be excavated 

were more vulnerable to post-treatment erosion than shallow crossings with less road fill because the 

reshaped stream banks were steeper and more likely to fail. Erosion following treatment is highly 

variable, and many site-specific conditions (such as the presence of bedrock, springs, poorly drained 

soils, incomplete excavations, and use of sediment control measures) can influence post-treatment 

erosion as well.‖ In general, both Madej (2001) and Bloom (1998) found that most treated crossings 

produced very little sediment and none triggered landslides or debris torrents. Five to 20 years after 

culvert removals, Madej et al. (2001) found that pool habitat in excavated streams had only partially 

recovered but a riparian zone of young red alder was providing a closed canopy and shade over the 

streams. 

The effectiveness of road decommissioning at reducing chronic erosion and sediment delivery has also 

been examined. A short-term problem with decommissioning occurs following treatment when bare 

re-contoured slopes or ripped road surfaces are most susceptible to erosion (Switalski et al. 2004). 

While erosion has been shown to increase post-treatment, rates typically decline within one growing 

season and eventually mimic natural slope conditions as vegetation returns (Gucinski et al. 2000, Luce 

1997, Switalski et al. 2004, USFS 2003).The key to reducing chronic erosion is re-vegetation. Adding 

soil amendments, including sidecast topsoil, slash, mulches, biosolids (residual materials from 

wastewater treatment), and fertilizers to ripped road surfaces or re-contoured slopes has been shown to 

effectively increase infiltration and re-vegetation rates (Bergeron 2003, Bradley 1997, Luce 1997, 

Switalski et al. 2004). In regions where rapid natural revegetation occurs, such as coastal areas like the 

SWBCA, little to no mulching or replanting may be necessary. 

Overall, results suggest that while road decommissioning creates short-term disturbances that can 

temporarily increase sediment delivery, it can reduce chronic erosion and the risk of landslides over the 

long term (Switalski et al. 2004). However, these conclusions are far from settled and site specific 

factors have a large influence on results (Luce 2002, Switalski et al. 2004). Also, the larger question of 

how effective road decommissioning is at restoring functional landscape linkages of stream and 

terrestrial ecosystems is only beginning to be addressed. The experiment being conducted in the 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 53

Ellsworth Creek Adaptive Management Area is expected to provide importation contributions to these 

questions. 

3. Risks associated with Active vs. Passive Management 

While a solid scientific basis for active restoration of the SWBCA exists, there are risks and impacts 

that must be weighed and analyzed. Natural processes created existing old growth forests over 

hundreds of years, and some authors argue that managed forests are likely to eventually develop into 

old growth on their own (Spies et al 2002, Winter 2002a), although climate change is a major wild card. 

In addition, thinning and removing wood can have numerous negative impacts that may set landscapes 

back ecologically. These may include elevated risk of annosum root rot, soil compaction, loss of 

nutrients and organic matter, invasive species, loss of habitat features (snags, tall shrubs, rare plants), 

detrimental disturbance to sensitive wildlife, and negative impacts of forest road systems such as 

chronic, elevated sediment delivery to aquatic systems and habitat fragmentation. If stands are thinned 

heavily, the open canopy can cause excessive understory shrub response or western hemlock 

regeneration that can reduce habitat value for some species. Moreover, thinning to promote ecological 

objectives is relatively new and more complex than traditional thinning for spacing. There is always risk 

of misguided prescriptions and poor implementation that can homogenize or over-thin stands. Current 

research indicates that the fine scale spatial patterns of trees left following typical thinning treatments 

are different from those of overstory trees in old-growth forests (Larson, unpublished data). 

Specifically, thinning can result in residual trees being spaced some minimum distance apart, and this 

minimum spacing is greater than that observed for some overstory trees in old-growth forests. 

Thinning treatments , therefore, have the potential to eliminate a fine-scale spatial pattern characteristic 

of old-growth forests: closely spaced pairs and clumps of overstory trees as well as dense thickets of 

midstory trees. 

Conversely, there is also a risk in walking away and letting nature runs its course. A number of 

researchers contend that plantations will not develop into old growth due to the suppression of 

diameter growth and increased windthrow risk from developing at high densities (Andrews et al. 2005, 

Poage and Tappeiner 2002, Spies et al. 2002a). Forests within the SWBCA are structurally and 

functionally very different from landscapes dominated by old growth forest, both at the stand and 

landscape scales. Stands also lack the legacies, species composition, and spatial complexity of a young 

forest recovering from a natural blowdown event (Kohm and Franklin 1997, Lindenmeyer and 

Franklin 2002). As described above, the whole system is likely to shift from a chronic, low-moderate 

severity disturbance regime to a high severity, catastrophic regime if left alone. Population declines in 

numerous terrestrial and aquatic species are unlikely to be reversed under such a scenario. Given the 

tremendous reduction of old growth habitat in the region, the recovery of these species may depend on 

actively restoring functional landscape linkages and encouraging specific structures and habitats. 

Windthrow Risk

Stability of trees on wind prone sites is related to individual tree characteristics such as height, species, 

diameter, crown size, crown density and root or stem rots as well as site characteristics such as rooting 

depth, soil moisture, rooting substrate and topographic exposure and stand density (Edmonds 2002). 

In dense competitive exclusion stands, trees tend have high height to diameter ratios with small crowns 

and narrow rooting zones resulting in trees that are susceptible to complete blowdown or stem 

breakage when they are exposed to strong winds. Western hemlock, with its shallow roots and 

structurally weaker stems, is especially susceptible (Holmberg et al. 2006). In these dense stands, 

however, the neighboring trees provide shelter and support, thus reducing the potential for windthrow. 

Forest management can affect many of the tree and stand characteristics that drive the likelihood of 

windthrow. On one hand, thinning can lead to more stable trees with lower height to diameter ratios, 

especially if done early in stand development. On the other hand, opening up dense stands with tall, 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 54

windthrow-prone trees can increase windthrow risk. Careful analysis of these two factors is critical in 

successful use of silviculture to achieve old growth structure. 

A windthrow probability model developed by Scott and Mitchell (2005) for Vancouver Island was built 

into LMS to assess the current winthrow potential of stands and potential changes caused by 

treatments on the SWBCA. Parameters used by the model are height to diameter ratio, percent live 

crown, crown density, rooting substrate, post-thinning density and variable retention fetch, which is a 

measure of the level exposure of a tree to winds. These parameters for trees with a DBH of >4‖ are 

used to estimate the probability of windthrow for each tree in a unit after harvest. These probabilities 

are averaged for the entire stand for an overall windthrow probability. The current conditions of the 

SWBCA have a generally low probability of windthrow (Map – SWBCA Average Windthrow 

Probability) because many of the stands are dense providing shelter and support for reduced 

probability of windthrow. If not done carefully, active management could alter the current stability and 

increase the probability of windthrow within treated stands. 

Topographic exposure is an important aspect of windthrow that was not used in this model. Scott and 

Mitchell (2005) compared their stand level model with a more complex model that incorporated 

topographic position and storm patterns with structural variables. Based on field verification, 

they found that the stand level model predicted windthrow risk as well or better than the more 

complex model. Nevertheless, topographic position must also be taken into account in evaluating 

windthrow risk. As winter storms that affect the SWBCA generally come from the southwest, areas 

with a south and western exposure, especially along Bear River Ridge and the west side of Long Island, 

would be expected to have a higher potential for windthrow. Ridge tops are also areas of high 

exposure to winds and windthrow of trees. Evidence of this is seen in the SWBCA where there are 

areas on ridges with a higher proportion of wind-firm western redcedar and less windthrow-prone 

western hemlock. 

Modeling thinning treatments

To analyze the potential benefits and risks from thinning, the Pacific Northwest Coast variant of the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Donnelley 1997) growth model was used within LMS to model 

several basic treatment scenarios on 2 stands within the SWBCA (#17484 and #30027). FVS tends to 

grow stands that have a lower height to diameter ratio and lower density than those found in the real 

world. Fortunately growth in FVS can be adjusted. For this model FVS was calibrated by setting a 

maximum SDI of 800 for all species other than Douglas-fir, which was set to 600, and then reducing 

the basal area increment for the stand incrementally as it approaches the maximum SDI value. These 

adjustments result in QMD increments that approximate those Curtis and Marshall (1986) found in the 

LOGS studies as sites in SW Washington. As FVS is a not a spatially explicit model, it cannot model 

horizontal spatial variability. It also does not model natural understory regeneration, but understory 

trees can be added in. The simulators utility lies in modeling growth rates, mortality, changes in stand 

density, height to diameter ratios, and crown development. In terms of old growth structure, it can thus 

predict the development of large trees, snags, downed logs, and shifts in species composition and 

diameter distribution. The Modified Old Growth Index (MOGI) was incorporated into LMS to 

measure these output variables. A snag to downed wood algorithm and a decay function that accounts 

for differences in decay rates by species and log sizes were both built into the LMS MOGI output. This 

approach is similar to other simulation studies that have used growth models to test the effects of 

thinning on development of old growth structure (Acker et al. 1998, Andrews et al. 2005, Garman et al. 

2003)

The first stand, #17484 is a dense 13 year old plantation, but young enough where tree competition has 

not become intense. Three treatment scenarios were run: 1) a no-thin, 2) 2 light thinning entries (L-L) 

in 2010 and 2035 to increase diameter growth while favoring western redcedar and Sitka spruce, and 3) 

a heavier initial thinning (H-T) to encourage Douglas-fir growth followed by a second thinning where 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 55

nearly all Douglas-fir are removed. The stands were grown out 50 years. Both the thinning treatments 

moved the stand from hemlock dominance to redcedar and Sitka spruce dominance and result in 

significantly higher diameter growth than the no-thin. The H-L treatment results in larger number of 

big trees (20-40‖ dbh). The MOGI value is higher in L-L because of a higher number of large snags 

(20‖+dbh) and more downed wood. The All MOGI values are heavily influenced by the presence of 

large volumes of dead wood. Mortality from self-thinning within FVS is known to be excessively high 

and thus it is likely that actual snag TPA and CWD volumes will be lower in all scenarios, but especially 

in the no-thin. The excessive mortality also reduces diameter growth suppression in dense stands and 

number of large trees and snags may be even lower in the no-thin scenario. L-L may provide the best 

trajectory to move the stand to a higher MOGI as it balances diameter growth with snag and downed 

wood generation. However, a large input of dead wood could easily be created by a windthrow event in 

the H-L scenario. This dead wood would likely be larger than in the other two scenarios and thus 

persist for longer. Both L-L and H-T have a SDI of 333 at year 2055 and may need to be thinned in the 

future to maintain tree growth. Finally, windthrow risk was not affected by thinning. 

The second stand #30027 is a 76 year old, dense western hemlock stand on Long Island. Its current 

MOGI score is low due to a lack of snags over 20‖ dbh and low downed wood levels. Three treatment 

scenarios were also run: 1) no-thin, 2) a single mid-story thin (H) to encourage development of trees 

over 40 inches dbh, and 3) 2 lighter thins (L-L) to remove trees in the 6-20 inches dbh classes to reduce 

competition and encourage overall tree growth. Both the thinning options increase MOGI over the nothin alternative due to a higher number of trees over 40‖ dbh. Downed wood is lower in both the 

thinning treatments, while large snags remain the same. The relatively small increase in diameter growth 

from thinning is due to the stands older age and the fact that competition has reduced crown lengths. 

In general, once conifers in this region start slowing down in height growth around age 70, their ability 

to build crown and accelerate growth rates in response to thinning decreases (Oliver and Larson 1996, 

Tappeiner et al. 2002). Older trees still respond to thinning, however, and growth responses are 

generally observed over time (Latham and Tappeiner 2002). The same issues with the FVS as discussed 

above are likely reducing the difference in diameter as well. Of the two thinning treatments H has a 

slight decrease in windthrow probability over no-thin because average height:diameter ratio improves 

as many of the small diameter trees are removed with little change in the amount of exposure to the 

overstory trees. In contrast, L-L does increase windthrow potential by further exposing the overstory 

trees to wind by reducing the density of the overstory in the second thinning. 

The two treatment scenarios are provided as a modeling exercise and do not represent actual 

prescriptions that will be implemented. The results of these treatment scenarios are presented in SVS 

visualizations in Figures 11 and 12. The images are caricatures and do not represent the actual location 

of trees in the stand. These scenarios do show, however, that opportunities do exist for accelerating the 

development of large trees and snags, and shifting species composition, without dramatically affecting 

the amount of live and dead biomass on the site. Thinning treatments can also be designed to minimize 

a future increase in windthrow probability. Having the windthrow model implemented within LMS 

allows assessment of treatments in a gaming context to assess changes in windthrow to guide the 

development of prescriptions. More than anything, the scenarios clearly show that thinning early in 

stand development produces much greater differences in diameter growth over later thinning. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 56

Current, Age 12 Age 52 No-Thin

No 

Thin L-L H-L

Year 2005 2055 2055 2055

Age 12 52 52 52

TPA 2,328 1,035 126 133

DBHq 1.1 6.9 18.4 17.8

Avg. Ht 8 54 105 110

SDI 66 574 334 333

Vol/Ac 0 34,215 50,083 37,278

Wind Pb 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

MOGI 11 43 56 45

10-19.9" 0 123 72 84

20-39.9" 0 11 39 48

40"+ 0 0 0 0

L Snags 0 2 14 5

CWDVol 1087 5581 4960 3688

DDI 10 42 51 50

DBHq: Quadratic mean diameter (inches)

Avg Ht: Avg height (feet)

LCR: Live crown ratio

SDI: Stand density index

Vol/Ac: Scribner bf volume/acre (mbf)

Wind Pb: Windthrow probability

MOGI: Modified old growth index

10-19.9‖: Trees per acre of trees 10-19.9‖ dbh

L snags: Snags per acre over 20‖ dbh

CWD vol: Cubic volume of CWD; ft3/ac

DDI: Diameter diversity index

Age 52: 2 Light Thins (L-L)

Age 52: 1 Heavy, 1 Light Thin (H-L)

Figure 11: Treatment scenarios and results for stand # 17484.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 57

Current, Age 76 Age 126 No-Thin

No 

Thin H L-L

Year 2005 2055 2055 2055

Age 76 126 126 126

TPA 590 428 285 223

DBHq 10.4 12.37 13.46 13.48

Avg Ht 46 66 52 52

SDI 628 602 459 440

Vol/Ac 69.0 87.1 84.6 81.5

Wind Pb 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.19

MOGI 29 64 71 69

10-19.9" 148 115 49 26

20-39.9" 42 50 40 46

40"+ 1 2 5 4

L Snags 0 14 13 15

CWDVol 1003 7379 6009 6586

DDI 65 65 71 65

DBHq: Quadratic mean diameter (inches)

Avg Ht: Avg height (feet)

LCR: Live crown ratio

SDI: Stand density index

Vol/Ac: Scribner bf volume/acre (mbf)

Wind Pb: Windthrow probability

MOGI: Modified old growth index

10-19.9‖: Trees per acre of trees 10-19.9‖ dbh

L snags: Snags per acre over 20‖ dbh

CWD vol: Cubic volume of CWD; ft3/ac

DDI: Diameter diversity index

Age 126: 1 Heavier Thin (H)

Age 126: 2 Light Thins (L-L)

Figure 12: Treatment scenarios and results for stand # 30027
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 58

C. OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS

1. Staff Capacity

The Refuge and the Conservancy have limited resources devoted to management and restoration of the 

forested landscape. Existing staff resources for the Refuge include a Refuge Manager and Wildlife 

Biologist, while the Conservancy’s staff includes a Program Director, and Project Ecologist. Both 

managers are responsible for all stewardship, managerial, and administrative issues on their respective 

ownerships while the biologist and ecologist lead research and monitoring activities. A Forester and 

Forest Technician are also employed by the Conservancy to meet obligations under existing federal 

grants for implementing restoration actions across the SWBCA landscape. These two positions are 

largely dedicated to scoping and supervising contract work associated with road removal and forest 

thinning projects. Additional support for road removal comes from a small staff of heavy equipment 

operators at the Refuge who can be assigned to restoration projects as time allows. 

2. Financial Resources & Considerations

Financial resources to cover the expenses of restoration come from internal operating funds, public 

and private grants, and other private fundraising activities. As of 2006, two federal grants comprise the 

majority of all funds used for restoration – a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Community Conservation 

Initiative (CCI) grant ($750,000) and a grant from the Nestucca Oil Spill Mitigation Fund ($215,000). 

The five-year (2005-2009) CCI grant is administered by the Conservancy specifically to remove or 

repair 15 miles of forest road and ecologically thin 1,500 acres of young-managed forest across the 

SWBCA. Nestucca mitigation funds are administered by the Refuge primarily for road removal, forest 

restoration, and monitoring of marbled murrelet populations on the Refuge. Given the existing staff 

capacity, these grant resources are expected to cover the on-the-ground costs of restoration activities 

through 2008. It is expected that approximately 3-5 miles of forest road and 500 acres of youngmanaged forest can be treated on an annual basis during that time period. Beyond 2008, additional 

funds must be raised through some combination of new grant sources, fundraising efforts, or the sale 

of timber from restoration thinning to sustain restoration activity within the SWBCA. 

While producing revenue is not the primary management objective, the ability of the Conservancy and 

Refuge to fund road decommissioning, road maintenance, and forest and stream restoration activities 

will be significantly affected by the revenue that can be produced from forest thinning. Even though 

the decision of when and how to treat stands will be driven by ecological criteria, the costs and 

potential revenues from alternative treatments must be factored in as they will determine what is 

economically feasible. The following assumptions and considerations will be used to assist managers in 

being as efficient as possible while allowing for the generation of revenues within the boundaries of the 

overall ecological objectives. 

Management Costs

The costs of management activities will always be highly dependant upon regional rates within the 

forest industry in southwest Washington and northwest Oregon (Table 8). Fortunately, this region has 

a high likelihood of maintaining its forest management infrastructure over time and so costs should 

stay relatively low compared to other geographic areas. Ranges for average costs for different activities 

were researched relative to the local area. These numbers are only contractor costs and do not include 

administration costs. They also will change over time. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 59

Table 8: Average range of contractor costs for management activities in 2006 in southwest Washington - 

administration costs are not included. Costs are expected to change constantly over time. 

Management Activity Contract cost range

Ground based thinning (less than 35% slopes) $125-175/ mbf (1000 board feet) 

Cable thinning (uphill) (greater than 35% slopes) $200-250/ mbf 

Cable thinning (downhill) $300-350/ mbf 

Helicopter Yarding $350-450/ mbf 

Hauling $30-65/ mbf 

Pre-commercial thinning $100-150/ acre 

Falling and leaving selected trees. (MDL treatments) $40-50/ hour 

Vegetation Control (Manual slashing) $0.50 per seedling 

Vegetation Control (Spot spraying) $0.40 per seedling 

Planting & Browse Control $150/acre (100 tpa) 

Road Obliteration $15,000-100,000/ mile

Putting roads to bed $5,000-50,000/ mile 

Reducing harvest costs is dependent on a number of factors. 

Projects must be large enough to absorb a contractors mobilization costs (moving equipment 

in and out) and keep the equipment and crews busy for as long as possible. 

Projects should aim to be at least 50 acres in size for any single type of yarding, and over 100 

acres for combined operations (e.g., cable/ ground). 

Several stands may make up one project, but stands should be as close together as possible. 

Thinning should be combined with road decommissioning in one contract to increase project 

size and get better bids as many logging contractors have excavators and bulldozers and are 

happy to have more work for their machines. 

Another major factor in reducing yarding costs for forest thinning is production rates (Kellog et al. 

2002). As logging contractors base their bids on the estimated number of truck loads they can produce 

per day, average yarding distances, volumes removed per acre, and log size will largely determine 

yarding costs. For ground base yarding, average yarding distances should be no more than 600 feet with 

a maximum yarding distance of 1,200-1,500 feet, depending on whether yarding is uphill or downhill. 

Distances can be longer, but it is general ecologically less damaging and economically advantageous to 

build temporary spur roads to avoid longer distances. For uphill cable yarding, 1,000-1,200 feet average 

distance is ideal with a maximum of 1,600-1,800 feet. Downhill cable yarding is much slower and 

damaging, and distances should be no more than 500 feet. For helicopter yarding, average distance 

should be no more than 1 mile, and ideally 0.5 miles. In terms of log size, the larger the logs that will be 

removed, the higher production rates will be. As the planned thinning in the Refuge and Conservancy 

ownerships will involve thinning primarily small trees (7-14 inches dbh), production rates will be slower 

and costs higher. Finally, production rates are highly dependent on the volumes per acre removed. In 

general, removing less than 10 mbf (thousand board feet) per acre of small diameter, low value logs 

with cable yarding is not economically viable. This level can be lower if higher value species such as red 

alder are removed or ground based yarding is being used. Overall, it is unlikely that it will be 

economically desirable to remove wood in stands younger than 25 years of age, or in stands with total 

volumes less than 20 mbf/acre. However, there are no magic numbers in terms of age, standing 

volume, or tree size for when wood should be removed during a thin. Site specific conditions, 

prescription objectives, contractor rates, log prices, thinning history, and many other factors play into 

these stand by stand decisions. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 60

Due to the relatively low economic value of western hemlock (which will be the primary species 

removed within the SWBCA), the removal of small diameter trees, and the amount of steep ground 

that will require cable yarding, it will be a challenge to ensure that thinning projects are economically 

viable. To address this reality, managers should creatively factor in logging system requirements into 

prescriptions and work constructively with contractors. For example, heavier thin areas and gaps can be 

placed in areas that are closer to landings and easy to yard from, while lightly thinned areas and skips 

can be left to the logging contractor to place in areas that are difficult to yard from. If done with care, 

this approach can reduce costs without sacrificing any of the desired ecological objectives. 

Costs for pre-commercial thinning (young drop-and-leave), planting, and vegetation control are also 

driven by production rates. Dense stands with larger trees will be more expensive to pre-commercial 

thin. Also, complex prescriptions that are hard to understand and implement will increase costs. Yet, 

with creativity and through trial and error, prescriptions that achieve the desired ecological objectives 

can be made simple enough for most contractors to implement at competitive rates. SWBCA managers 

have already begun to work closely with contractors to make this happen. Costs for road 

decommissioning are determined by the level of re-contouring desired, topographic position, grade, 

road width, the amount of fill or side cast material to be removed, the number of culverts and stream 

crossings, and how the final surfaces will be treated (mulched, covered with slash, seeded, etc). In 

general, managers must weigh the ecological gains of full vs. partial contouring against the 

exponentially higher cost of full re-contouring. 

Revenues

Gross revenues from thinning projects will depend on the prices of the species and log sizes that are 

removed. The primary species to be harvested will be western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and red alder, in 

that order. Small diameter Sitka spruce and western redcedar may occasionally be removed from stands 

dominated by those species. Log prices from local mills as of October, 2006 are provided in Table 9, 

for the three primary species. Although log prices will fluctuate significantly through time, it is likely 

that the relative order of value for different species will remain the same over the next 10-15 years. 

Markets for FSC certified logs or logs with unique qualities should be periodically explored as higher 

prices may be found. 

The basic log sizes, or ―sorts‖ currently used by mills are based on inside bark, top diameters, but 

typical dbh values are also presented using a log length of 30 feet (Table 9). These sorts are likely to 

change through time as markets and mill technologies evolve. Minimum top diameters are currently 4.5 

or 5 inches, which translates into a minimum 7 inches dbh tree. Logs with a top diameter smaller than 

4.5 inches may be removed and sold as pulp, but pulp prices are currently too low to make this 

economical. 

Table 9: Average log prices in southwest Washington for Oct 2006. Prices are per thousand board feet (mbf). 

Tonnage prices for chip and saw logs were converted using 6.9 tons/mbf for Douglas-fir and 7 tons/mbf for 

western hemlock. Source (Log lines, Oct 2006) 

Sort Western Hemlock Douglas-fir Red Alder

Chip & Saw (#4 saw)

5-7‖ top (7-12‖ dbh)

$315 $445 $625

Small Sawlogs (#3 saw)

8‖-11‖ top (12-15‖ dbh)

$410 $500 $730

Large Sawlogs (#1-2 saw)

12‖+ top (15-22‖ dbh)

$440 $575 $830
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 61

3. Applicable forest practice laws and policies

The Refuge and the Conservancy must comply with similar but somewhat different set of state and 

federal laws and regulations when conducting forest management activities. The Conservancy, as a 

private forest owner, must comply with Washington State Forest Practice Act (FPA) and water quality 

laws. This requires the Conservancy to apply for permits under FPA regulations for forest 

management actions that may affect the resources of the state. The Refuge, as a federal agency, is not 

required to obtain state permits for similar work (the Refuge nonetheless strives to conduct work at or 

above these standards). The Refuge is required, however, through the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), to conduct a review of significant management actions. NEPA also requires the 

Conservancy to consult with federal natural resource management agencies prior to using federal 

dollars to conduct management actions. 

Riparian Areas, Shorelines, and Wetlands

Based on the current FPA, the approximately 45 miles of fish bearing (type F) streams within the 

SWBCA are required to have a 170 foot buffer for site class 2 areas and a 140 foot buffer for site class 

3 areas on both sides of the stream. Shorelines have the same buffer requirements. Partial harvesting 

can take place outside of an inner, 50 foot no cut buffer. Non-fish bearing, perennial streams (type N) 

are required to have a 50 foot no cut buffer on each side, on half of the entire stream length. Harvest 

machinery is not allowed in forested wetlands, but trees may be removed via skyline or ground based 

cable yarding. 

Topography and Unstable Landforms

As described previously, the steep terrain, heavy precipitation, and susceptible bedrock types make soils 

in the SWBCA prone to mass wasting events. The Map – Ellsworth Creek Unstable Landforms

displays the watershed contains a large number of convergent headwalls, bed rock hollows, inner 

gorges, and unstable sections of former deep-seated landslides (Map – SWBCA Slope Stability Hazard). 

These features will need to be carefully identified on the ground when managers plan forest thinning 

and road removal projects. In order to remove wood from these areas, FPA rules require a Class 4 

Special permit. This involves obtaining a geotechnical design and report that describes how the risk of 

mass wasting and damage to streams, shorelines, and public safety will not be increased. 

State and Federal Listed species

The Conservancy and Refuge must follow all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to active 

management which could impact endangered species. As stated above, a particular emphasis will be 

placed on avoiding disturbance to listed species. All forest management activities will be aimed at 

increasing suitable habitat over time. 

The principal operational constraints on forest management activities pertaining to listed species occur 

in relation to marbled murrelets and, to a lesser degree, spotted owls. Both species have specific 

protection measures codified within FPA regulations. These regulations are largely intended to control 

the level of impact from industrial scale forest practices, such as clearcut harvesting, where listed 

species are present. Since forest restoration is the primary goal within the SWBCA, alternative 

practices may be appropriate. The Conservancy will consult with the appropriate State and Federal 

regulators prior to implementing alternative practices. 

4. Access, road network, and logging systems

The extensive road network in the SWBCA provides sufficient and often redundant access for wood 

removal for almost every part of the landscape. Recent and planned road obliteration has and will 

remove access to some areas, although a significant number of road segments can be removed from 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 62

the system without reducing the number of acres that can be accessed. Maintaining roads on the steep 

terrain of Bear River Ridge will require significant time and resources. Fully putting road segments in 

steep terrain to bed between treatments is possible in most cases, but may not be much more 

economically advantageous than obliteration. The roads on gentle topography to the west and south of 

Bear River Ridge and on Long Island, however, will be much easier to put to bed between treatments. 

On terrain with slopes below 35%, ground based yarding is possible in most cases (Kellog et al. 2002) 

whereas on steeper ground cable yarding will be necessary. Forwarders can operate on slopes as high as 

45%, but they can only move downhill when loaded and must have a gentler path to get to the top of 

the slope. In stands that are mostly below 35% slope, but have occasional steeper pitches, ground 

based machinery can pull logs in with a winch when necessary. Landings appear sufficiently close 

together, in most stands throughout the SWBCA, to avoid the need for temporary spur roads. As the 

road system is mainly on ridgetops, most stands are well positioned for uphill cable yarding with 

maximum yarding distances of around 1,200-1.800 feet. Yarding corridors for cable thinning are 

typically 100-150 feet apart and are 6-12 feet wide. Several contractors in the region have small, light, 

and mobile yarders that are well designed for thinning small diameter trees and have experience 

implementing ecologically oriented prescriptions. 

5. Community & stakeholder context and desires

Various people, communities and organizations have interest in the Refuge for a variety of reasons and 

purposes, and must be considered in making management decisions. Local individuals and tourists 

have common interests in the Refuge as a place that provides hiking, boating, hunting, camping, 

wildlife viewing, bird watching and interpretation of the natural world. The Refuge is also valued for 

its role in protecting and enhancing wildlife and natural habitats, apart from these recreational 

offerings. Local communities use the Refuge as a place to conduct educational field trips. The Refuge 

is also valued for the aesthetic beauty it imparts to the area and the effect that has on quality of life for 

residents and for the draw it imparts on tourists. 

Local individuals have mixed feelings about the Ellsworth Creek Preserve’s value considering its recent 

history as commercial timberland and the importance of logging jobs and revenue to the local 

economy. However continuing uses such as hiking and hunting mean that the land is valued for similar 

purposes under the Conservancy’s ownership. Camping is not permitted on the Preserve, and nature 

interpretation is not currently presented in any regularly organized fashion. The limited drive-in access 

is valued because most private forestland roads in the area are gated. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 63

RESTORATION PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE

Excavator recontouring at a stream crossing road removal site
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 64

A. MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1. Silvicultural System

A silvicultural system is a progression of treatments during the life of a stand designed to achieve the 

desired stand level structural objectives (Smith D.M. et al. 1997). The set of treatments is heavily 

influenced by the ecosystem characteristics, landowner goals, and management constraints of a 

particular ownership. The system outlined here for the SWBCA reflects the over-aching goal of 

restoring resilient old-growth forests and habitat for threatened species, the desire to generate revenue 

to help defray the costs of landscape restoration, and the ecological dynamics of spruce-cedar-hemlock 

forests. The system combines silvicultural treatments with natural stand development processes and 

disturbance agents to shift stands onto development trajectories that meet the DFCs (Figure 13 –

Conceptual Harvest Systems). A key principal of the system is to restore the species diversity, spatial 

complexity, and decadence that exist in natural young stands recovering from disturbance but are not 

present due to past management. A second key principle is to accelerate the development of large trees, 

future large snag and CWD recruitment, and vertical canopy layering. A third principal is that while 

natural processes serve as an important guide, actively manipulating developmental processes to 

achieve the DFCs may move stands through an unnatural pathway for a period of time. 

Response to Disturbances and Forest Health Issues

Unlike traditional silvicultural systems, the system for the SWBCA does not view natural disturbances 

and forest health issues as factors that must be controlled and stopped to reduce losses to timber value. 

Instead, disturbances are viewed as key architects of the complexity inherent in old growth forest 

(Franklin et al. 2002). Dwarf mistletoe, for example, plays a key role in developing murrelet nesting 

platforms in western hemlock and will generally be promoted in treatments. Wind and annosum root 

rot act together as major drivers of overstory mortality, decadence creation, and horizontal 

diversification. Salvage operations to remove wood in blow down patches will not likely occur, as 

downed logs are a key habitat feature and substrate for tree species colonization. Animal damage often 

creates decadence in trees that lead to cavity formation in live trees. Decadence in live or dead trees 

provides critical nesting, hiding, and foraging habitat for suites of wildlife, fungal, and insect species. 

While most disturbances are ―natural‖, they may or may not push the stand towards the DFC’s. Thus, 

when disturbances threaten to move stands away from key structural goals, they will be managed or 

contained as much as is practical. Fire, while a historic disturbance agent, will be actively suppressed, 

given the small amount of old growth forest left with the regional landscape. Too much annosum root 

rot can lead to early mortality of the overstory and preclude the development of large diameter trees. It 

will not be encouraged and stumps will be cut at least 12 inches high to avoid spread. Planted seedlings 

will be protected from browse to improve their chance of survival. Salvage may occur in cases of severe 

blow down where subsequent outbreaks of Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuage) or other beetles 

threaten remaining stands. Most importantly, stands will be managed to promote species and structural 

diversity that will act as a buffer against epidemic outbreaks of hemlock looper, spread of Swiss Needle 

cast, or catastrophic blow down (Edmonds et al. 2000, Thies and Goheen 2002). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscap

Figure 13: Conceptual diagram of silvicultural system designed for the Refuge and Conservancy ownerships.

Current Conditions

• Structure: legacies, 

density, species 

composition, spatial 

patterning, HDR, LCR, 

decadence, etc

• Key Processes: 

Competitive exclusion, 

biomass accumulation, 

understory development, 

etc. 

Management History

• Harvesting + 

retention?

• Broadcast burning

• Planting

• Shrub/hardwood 

control

• PCT

Natural Development 

Processes

• Species colonization

• Stand dynamics: 

competitive exclusion 

differentiation, crown 

lifting, etc.

• Disturbance: Wind, 

pathogens, herbivory, 

insects, fire. etc

Natural Development 

Processes

• Species colonization

• Stand dynamics

• Disturbance

• Climate Change: 

mortality, species 

shifts, growth rates

Management Actions

• Drop & Leave

• Biomass removal

• Understory Mgnt

• Decadence 

Acceleration

Desir

• Land

wind 

chang

• OG s

trees

canop

patch

devel

• Land

wasti

sedim

heter

Catas

• Wind 

• Clim

insec
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 66

New Terminology:

In an effort to distinguish ecologically oriented silvicultural systems from traditional wood production 

forestry, other ownerships and authors have coined many new terms such as ―Thinning for diversity‖ 

(Hunter 2001), ―Ecological thinning‖, ―Restoration thinning‖ (Erckmamn and others 2000), ―New 

forestry‖ (Holmberg et al. 2006), and ―Biodiversity pathways‖ (Carey et al. 1999b). These terms are often 

vague descriptions of approaches that involve a mix of truly new restoration techniques and traditional 

silvicultural tools applied to non-traditional objectives. They have generated confusion among stakeholders 

and the forestry community and skepticism among some older foresters. To avoid confusion, terms from 

traditional silviculture are used in this plan where possible. However, the silvicultural system defined here is 

fundamentally different from traditional even or uneven-aged systems where the primary reason to grow 

and harvest trees is wood production and revenue generation. In this system, the primary reason to cut, 

remove or plant trees is to achieve ecological objectives. In many cases, the felled trees will be left on the 

ground. In other cases, the wood will be removed to generate income for other restoration when it can be 

done without compromising long term ecological objectives. Thus new terms were created for this system 

to where it is necessary to capture this fundamental difference and also to use terms that more precisely 

reflect their meaning. 

Treatments 

The silvicultural system consists of 4 different treatment categories that are described below, each 

containing multiple treatment types (Table 10). Treatments will be done at various stages of stand 

development with an end goal of an old growth dominated, self-sustaining forest ecosystem that is not 

dependent on perpetual management intervention. Unlike even-aged or uneven-aged silvicultural systems, it 

does not have a regeneration harvest component. 

Table 10: Categories and treatment types for the Conservancy/NWR 

Category Treatment Type Acronym

Drop and Leave 1. Young: Variable Density Thin

2. Mature: Individual Tree Selection

YDL 

MDL 

Biomass Removal 1. Variable Density Thin

2. Individual Tree Selection

3. Group Selection

BR

Understory Management 1. Planting

2. Shrub Control (around seedlings)

3. Browse Protection (seedlings)

4. Understory, Variable Density Thin

5. Invasive Species Control

UT

Decadence Acceleration 1. Snag or Wildlife Tree Creation

2. Course Wood Creation

3. Fungal/Mistletoe Inoculation

DA

a. Drop and Leave

This category applies to all treatments where trees are felled and left on the ground to decompose. Such 

treatments will be used in both young and older stands when it is not ecologically appropriate and/or 

economically viable to remove wood from a stand. In dense, young stands (typically 12-25 years old) 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 67

with small diameter trees that are not merchantable, young drop and leave treatments (YDL) will be 

used. While these are similar in many respects to ―pre-commercial thinning‖ (PCT) and PCT crews will 

be contracted to get the work done, they will not be designed to set stands up for commercial harvest, 

and thus a different name is warranted. Instead of thinning for spacing as in traditional PCT treatments, 

―variable density thinning‖ (VDT) (Public Forestry Foundation 2001) will be used. Variable density 

thinning is similar to traditional thinning in that it seeks to reduce stand density to increase diameter 

growth and crown development on residual trees throughout a stand. It differs, however, in that it also 

seeks to create varying densities in a stand to promote horizontal patchiness, species diversity, and 

multiple canopy layers (Carey 2003b, Lindenmeyer and Franklin 2002). This patchiness is achieved in 

prescriptions by a combination of favoring certain tree species; varying spacing targets; leaving pairs or 

clumps of dominant trees, and by adding in ―skips‖ or no thin areas, and heavy thin areas, or gaps. 

In older stands, drop and leave treatments will be generally be targeted at fostering specific, individual 

tree attributes in certain parts of a stand, and not involve treating entire stands to achieve a specific 

density reduction goal. Examples include increasing habitat suitability near large trees with murrelet 

nesting platforms, releasing understory conifers in red alder dominated stands, accelerating diameter 

growth of a selected number of dominant conifers on unstable slopes or riparian areas for future LWD 

recruitment, and creating small gaps where conifers can be planted. The best term for this approach is 

―Individual Tree Selection‖ (Smith D.M. et al. 1997), which is used in uneven-age management systems 

to target individual trees or small groups of trees for release or removal. This approach has also been 

called ―Individual Tree Culturing‖ or ―Crop Tree Management‖ – here we use the term mature 

individual tree selection or just mature drop-and-leave (MDL). In some cases, girdling may be used to 

kill trees instead of falling them. This is cheaper and usually effective as girdled western hemlock trees 

tend to fall over quickly (Hennon and Loopstra 1991). 

b. Biomass Removal

This category applies to treatments where felled trees can be removed from stands without 

compromising long term ecological objectives. Treatment types used will generally be variable density 

thinning, individual tree selection, or a combination of the two. Group selection may also be used to 

transition some mature red alder stands to conifer dominated stands by creating larger gaps or patch 

cuts, or to treat extremely dense conifer stands that will not respond well to thinning and are likely to 

experience significant windthrow. Generally, biomass removal (BR) treatments will occur in 30-80 year 

old stands were net positive revenue generation is possible, or at least where projects are revenue 

neutral. While biomass removal treatments are similar to ―commercial thinning‖, they are not 

―commercial‖ in that they are not designed to be intermediate treatments that set stands up for a final 

regeneration harvest where revenue generation is a major goal. Instead, they are designed to accelerate 

or reduce specific stand development processes to create complexity and develop old growth structure. 

What distinguishes them ecologically from drop and leave treatments is that the logs or ―biomass‖ 

created from felling targeted trees will be removed from the system. Hence, the term ―Biomass 

Removal‖. Where necessary or more appropriate, areas of drop and leave treatments may be embedded 

within an overall biomass removal treatment for a specific stand (i.e. shoreline buffers, unstable slopes, 

etc). 

c. Understory Management

While natural regeneration will be relied on as the main source of understory colonization in stand 

development, trees may be planted in some circumstances at various stages of stand development. To 

accelerate the development of a large western redcedar component, it may be planted in stands where it 

is poorly represented and few overstory trees exist to provide seed source. In stands heavily dominated 

by red alder, a mix of conifers may be planted in gaps to prevent shrubs from dominating the site and 

making natural regeneration very difficult (Tappeiner et al. 2002). In general, planted seedlings, along 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 68

with some natural seedlings of desired species, will be protected from the heavy browse and intense 

shrub competition that exist in this area until they are ―free to grow‖. Without such follow-up 

management, survival and growth of planted seedlings is typically poor (Emmingham et al. 2000). Nonnative species will also be controlled as needed, especially highly invasive species that can overwhelm 

native plant communities. Manual and chemical means will be used. 

In older stands where the understory tree layer is uniformly dense throughout a stand and is shading 

out other understory plants, variable density thinning of the understory layer (UM) may be used to 

create patchy understory and midstory canopy layers. This may be necessary in stands where dense 

western hemlock regeneration results from heavy overstory thinning or has already occurred in small 

fragments of mature or old growth forests adjacent to clearcuts. While this type of thinning is similar to 

young drop and leave treatments, it is specific to managing the understory. In general, understory 

management will typically be done in conjunction with overstory treatments, but may occur on its own 

in certain cases. 

d. Decadence Acceleration

Downed logs, snags, or wildlife trees (e.g., live trees with broken tops, cavities, large branch platforms, 

or other decadence) may be created in stands deficient in these critical habitat structures. Inoculation of 

trees with specific fungi or mistletoe may also be pursued where deemed necessary. These treatments 

may be done in conjunction with other treatments, but may also occur on their own. 

2. Determining and Prioritizing Forest Treatments 

Landscape Scale Management Designations

The first step in determining which parts of the Conservancy and Refuge ownerships should be treated, 

and which treatment method was appropriate, was done at the landscape scale. Areas of high value to 

landscape processes, areas high in biodiversity, or other unique or sensitive areas were first identified and 

the appropriate type of management determined. The experimental treatment (control, road removal, or 

thin) designations for each basin within the Ellsworth Creek Adaptive Management area was then 

incorporated. Next, the remaining portions of the landscape were analyzed to determine what categories of 

treatments were appropriate, given stand conditions and landscape scale considerations (Figure 14 –

Decision Model). 

As both ownerships had been previously partitioned into defined stands based on past timber management, 

the final step was to place each stand into a specific management designation based on the above analysis 

(Map – SWBCA Management Designations). In most cases, designations were clearly prescribed by the 

management objectives, legal requirements, or practical considerations such as road access or social factors. 

As new knowledge is gained, forest conditions change, and roads are removed through time changes in 

designations may occur and boundaries are expected to shift. The designations are described below: 

Reserves. These include the existing blocks of old growth larger than 5 acres and the Research 

Natural Areas. The only management intervention that may take place is fire suppression and 

removal of invasive non-native species. The area in this category is 965 acres. 

Control Areas: These are areas where silvicultural treatments will not take place, for at least the next 

10 years, in order to have an experimental control to evaluate the effects of restoration silviculture 

in other parts of the landscape. They also provide for landscape heterogeneity by ensuring that a 

portion of young stands remains in an untreated condition. They include the no-thin and road 

removal basins within the Ellsworth Creek Adaptive Management area, as well as a control area on 

the north end of Long Island. The total area in this category is 2,418 acres.

Limited Management Areas: These are areas where biomass removal treatments are rarely appropriate 

given regulatory requirements or organizational management constraints. Other silvicultural 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 69

treatments such as drop and leave, decadence acceleration, or understory management treatments 

may be more appropriate to achieve ecological objectives. Limited management areas include 

shoreline, wetland, and stream buffers; 300 ft. murrelet buffers around existing old growth stands 

and occupied habitat; unstable landforms; and a visual buffer around the Refuge headquarters 

complex. The approximate area in this category is 3,961 acres, although this number is likely to rise 

as additional unstable slopes or other sensitive areas may be identified and reclassified in the 

future. 

Unreserved Management Areas: This is the remaining part of the landscape where restoration 

silviculture may be fully applied. The types of treatment used in specific areas will be driven by the 

process outlined in the decision model (Figure 14– Decision Model). In areas where wood can be 

economically removed without compromising long term ecological objectives, biomass removal 

treatments will be done. In other areas, young or mature drop and leave, decadence acceleration, or 

understory management treatments may be done as needed to achieve ecological objectives. Areas 

that are not appropriate, or are not expected to benefit from active management, will not be 

entered (i.e., estuarine forested wetlands, no cut ―skips‖ embedded within other treatments, etc). 

The total area in this category is 6,828 acres. However, as additional unstable slopes and other 

sensitive areas may be designated, the total acreage in this category is likely to decrease. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 70

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is the stand within a current “road removal” 

No Treatment or “control” experimental basin?

Yes Is the stand within an Ecological Reserve 

or reached its desired future condition?

No

Yes

Would other treatments move it 

towards the DFC more quickly 

than leaving it alone?

No

Yes

No

Implement as needed:

Mature Retention Thin (MR)

Decadence Acceleration (DA)

Understory Management (UM)

Would density management accelerate 

the stand towards its DFC?

No

No

Is future commercial thinning 

appropriate for this stand?

Biomass Removal (BR)

Develop a thinning prescription 

which promotes economic return 

without compromising predicted 

long-term ecological objectives.

Yes

Young Retention Thin (YR)

Develop a thinning prescription 

to promote tree growth, species 

diversity, structural diversity, 

and assure future economic 

return through commercial 

thinning. Thin to 175-250 TPA.

Young Retention Thin (YR)

Develop a thinning prescription to 

promote tree growth, species 

diversity, structural diversity, and 

assure the stand is on a pathway 

towards its DFC. Thin to 50-80 TPA.

Given ecological objectives, can the stand 

be thinned and also generate a positive 

economic return?

Is the stand age greater than 25 years old?

Implement as needed:

Mature Retention Thin (MR)

Decadence Acceleration (DA)

Understory Management (UM)

Figure 14: Decision Model for designating treatments on the Ellsworth Creek Preserve and Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 71

Prioritization Framework for Scheduling Treatments

Prioritization is rarely a linear, formulaic process. Instead, it involves considering and balancing a number 

of overlapping, conflicting, or interconnected factors that operate on multiple scales. In order to prioritize 

treatments for this plan within the given management designations, the following set of considerations were 

used. The framework provides guidelines for future planning and scheduling efforts and is summarized in 

Table 11.

Table 11: Prioritization framework for scheduling treatments

Factors Components 

Contribution to Major 

Landscape Goals 

Expand and connect blocks of late-seral forest 

Stream Network Function (LWD & sediment) 

Murrelet Habitat

Landscape Windthrow Dynamics (restoring landscape level 

disturbance resiliency) 

Coordinating treatments 

with road system needs 

Grouping stands for treatment within a road system 

Putting road systems ―to bed‖ after area is treated

Treating stands were road removal is a high priority 

Stand Level Structural 

Conditions 

Stand density 

Windthrow susceptibility: Topographic position and HDR

Response to thinning: Live crown ratio & diameter growth 

Thinning window: projected loss of crown & stability 

Species loss: competitive Exclusion of WRC 

Economic Factors Markets, harvest costs, revenue potential

Revenue potential now vs. later weigh against structural tradeoffs 

Management Needs: Experimental design needs 

Regular and manageable work flow 

Stable revenue stream

The contribution of individual stands to landscape processes and the timeline in which they can provide 

key functions were the first considerations that were evaluated. Stands that could expand marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat, increase availability of large woody debris to the stream network, or enlarge and connect 

existing blocks of old growth habitat in the short to medium term (5-50 years) were given high priority. 

Examples include mature drop and leave or biomass removal treatments in 60-80 year old stands to 

promote trees with large branch platforms, or mature drop and leave treatments in riparian areas where 

midstory conifers are suppressed by mature red alders. The potential for a particular stand to improve its 

contribution to functional landscape linkages through treatments should always be the first consideration in 

restoration silviculture as the major goals are generally landscape based. In contrast, focusing first on the 

stand level makes sense when wood production is the driving goal. 

Coordinating treatments with road system needs was another major factor. In most cases, groups of stands 

that are accessed by the same road system will be treated in the same time period. Roads will be opened or 

re-constructed to access a particular area and then those that are not critical to the overall road network will 

be obliterated, put to bed, or converted to trails once the treatments are completed. Roads that are put to 

bed can then be re-opened to access stands that will receive another biomass removal treatment in 15-30 

years and subsequently obliterated. This will allow for operational efficiencies and reduce the number of 

road system miles that have to be kept open and maintained. Groups of stands accessed by roads that are a 

high priority for removal were given extra priority in the near term. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 72

Stand level structural conditions such as stand density, wind firmness, crown ratios, and competitive 

exclusion of key species were also factored in. Stands that are nearing the end of their ―thinning window‖, 

the period when response to thinning will be high and the risks of post-thinning windthrow the lowest, 

were given high priority. Key thresholds used were height to diameter ratios (HDR) that are approaching 

80 (measured at dbh) (Mustard and Harper 1998, Newton and Comeau 1990, Wonn and O'Hara 2001) and 

live crown ratios (LCR) approaching 40% (Emmingham et al. 2000, Holmberg et al. 2006, Oliver and 

Larson 1996) in the dominant and co-dominant trees. An HDR threshold of 60 was used for stands in 

topographic positions that are subject to high winds. The wind model was also used to evaluate the 

windthrow risks of thinning vs. not thinning. Trees can recover from high height to diameter ratio and low 

live crown ratio, but as trees exceed the levels described above the risk of windthrow increases significantly 

and response to thinning will take a long time (Deisenhofer 2000, Kneeshaw et al. 2002, Wright E.F. et al. 

2000). In general, if even-aged stands in this forest type are kept below an overstory Stand Density Index of 

350-400 they will not miss their thinning window (Holmberg et al. 2006). Stands that have exceeded these 

levels and are well past their window were given a lower priority and may be more suitable for a group 

selection treatment. Another factor included was increased competitive exclusion of understory plants as 

canopies close and shade out the understory with time. In particular, the likelihood of losing western 

redcedar if thinning was delayed and the opportunity to promote its growth and presence within the 

overstory was examined. 

Structural conditions were also weighed against economic considerations. For some 25-60 year old stands, 

waiting 5-10 years before thinning will not make much difference structurally, but will have a big impact on 

the revenue side. For example, in some young stands that missed an early young drop and leave treatment 

waiting until a revenue positive biomass removal treatment was feasible made sense as increases in heigh to 

diameter ratios, declines in live crown ratios, and effects on long term diameter growth were minimal. On 

the other hand, implementing a drop and leave treatment in the next few years sends other stands on a 

faster track to achieving old growth structure and created an opportunity for a net positive second thinning 

entry in 10-20 years. High and low prices for particular species were also considered in cases where 

ecological factors were roughly equal. Staying attuned to market changes in the future will likely have a 

significant impact on revenue generation without compromising ecological objectives. 

Growth models, economic analysis tools, and wind models within LMS were used to evaluate the ecological 

and economic tradeoffs between treating stands under alternative treatment scenarios. While these must be 

balanced with field evaluation and human judgment, they provide powerful analytical tools for managers to 

use in future planning efforts provided that their limitations are fully understood. 

A final set of considerations used in prioritizing stands were management needs. The ―vegetation 

manipulation‖ basins within the Ellsworth Creek Adaptive Management Area were prioritized for early 

treatment in the same year to begin the experiment and minimize treatment differences. The other 

management need was a regular work flow that fit within staffing and budgetary constraints and produced a 

stable revenue stream. As a good portion of the young plantation stands in the SWBCA have not been

thinned, there is backlog of thinning needs. Not all stands will be able to be thinned at their ideal time, 

however, due to the practical limits of management resources. 

3. Determining and Prioritizing Road Treatments

Forest roads within the SWBCA were built with commercial timber hauling as the main purpose. Purchase 

for the purpose of conservation has changed that rationale. Although timber hauling for restoration 

purposes will remain a priority for some time, ecological considerations have become equally or more 

important. The Ellsworth road inventory ranked mass wasting hazards by severity and imminence, each on 

a scale of 1 to 10. Approximately three miles of the higher combined ranking roads have been removed 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 73

already. The Refuge road inventory identified hazard sites and highlighted the most urgent. One mile of 

road including multiple urgent hazards has already been removed at Teal Slough. 

On the Ellsworth Creek Preserve, roads located within experimental basins were randomly assigned a fate. 

All roads will be removed from road removal basins (although roads skirting the edges along the ridge top 

between two basins may be kept to avoid creating a highly inefficient road system). Roads within the 

control basins and thinning basins will be maintained to standards that reduce threats to the forest and 

aquatic ecosystems. Some roads in these basins will be removed if that is the most appropriate threat 

reduction strategy. Roads completely outside the experimental basins will be upgraded to similar high 

standards or decommissioned depending upon the access need and the inventoried condition and risk, as 

well as timing considerations and available budget. 

On the refuge, experimental considerations do not apply. Forest road upgrade and removal decisions on 

the refuge were made with the following considerations: In general, in order to reduce forest 

fragmentation, roads will be removed as soon as access is no longer required. Mainline roads required for 

emergency access will be maintained. Other roads may be kept as or converted to hiking trails. Where 

near-term hazards are minimal roads will be kept until forest restoration activities can take place. 

4. Generalized Forest Treatment Scenarios 

The generalized prescription concepts that follow focus on the main, stand level processes at play. Site 

specific factors such as protection and special management for sensitive habitats, legacy features, unstable 

slopes, riparian areas, etc are implicit and not described here. Actual stand-level prescriptions are not 

presented in this plan as they cannot be developed without a forester completing a detailed assessment of 

the forest inventory data and evaluating site specific field conditions (see Appendix B for a more detailed 

process to follow in developing actual stand-level prescriptions). 

Young Stands: Cohort establishment (0-10 years)

The key developmental process occurring in these stands are cohort establishment and canopy closure. If 

canopy closure has not set it and openings in the young canopy are still present, the opportunity to impact 

the long term species composition of the overstory by planting exists. Once canopy closure sets in, 

introducing new species that will occupy the overstory will be practically impossible for many decades. 

Also, western redcedar is unlikely to naturally colonize the understory until much later in stand 

development. In several very young stands that were clearcut and planted just prior to being acquired by 

the Conservancy or Refuge, abundance of western redcedar and Sitka spruce is quite low. Thus planting 20-

50 trees per acre is recommended, and some shrub control and removal of western hemlock around the 

seedlings will likely be necessary as part of the planting effort. Browse control will also be necessary. 

Young Stands: Canopy Closure (10-30 years)

In stands where canopy closure is just occurring, an early young drop and leave treatment combined with 

planting can achieve the twin goals of increasing the abundance of western redcedar and Sitka spruce where 

necessary and maintaining rapid diameter growth throughout early stand development by delaying the onset 

of crown recession. Seedlings should be planted in small gaps. Depending on the height of the existing 

trees, the seedlings may not grow into the overstory over time, but will form a midstory layer. 

Once canopy closure sets in, the main processes that will shape long term vertical and horizontal 

complexity at this stage of stand development are crown class differentiation and early stratification. Young 

drop and leave treatments should seek to prevent a portion of intermediate western redcedar and Sitkaspruce from being overtopped and relegated to the midstory by having wide spacing targets around select 

trees of those species. In the rest of the stand, trees of all species that are at lower end of the height 

distribution and clearly in the midstory should be left to form a future mid-story. This can be accomplished 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 74

with a minimum height threshold. Care should also be taken to not eliminate fine scale heterogeneity: 

clusters or pairs of dominant trees. Upper diameter targets, or specifying that trees within a certain distance 

of each other be left, can achieve this. 

In terms of density reduction targets, the projected timing of the next entry and the landscape level need 

for early-seral habitat are key factors. The heavier the thinning, the longer crown closure, the onset of 

increasing height to diameter ratios, and competitive exclusion of shrubs and slower growing western 

redcedar will be delayed. The thinning window for future thinning entries will also be prolonged. If 

thinning is very heavy (below 150 tpa), however, a second wave of cohort establishment may occur that will 

set back the density reduction goals of the treatment and possibly create a need for another young drop and 

leave treatment. Also, opportunities for future, revenue generating biomass removal treatments will be 

reduced. 

To introduce additional spatial complexity in young drop and leave treatments, some areas of the stand 

should be left un-thinned or lightly thinned to allow for the onset of competitive exclusion and all the 

habitats and subsequent processes associated with it. For example, understory tree colonization later in 

stand development is greatly facilitated by an understory with few no shrubs and other plants. This in turn 

is one of the key processes of vertical canopy development and horizontal complexity. Unless there is a 

landscape level need to maintain early-seral shrub communities throughout stand development, gaps are 

generally unnecessary. Likewise, introducing additional variation in spacing is typically not necessary unless 

further treatments are not likely for the particular stand. In that case, 20-50 dominant trees per acre should 

be thinned to a wider spacing so they can maintain rapid diameter growth and avoid intense competition 

for many decades. This can be done with a diameter and species rule, where trees of a certain species 

and/or above a certain diameter receive a wider spacing target. Uniform, heavy thinning (below 150 tpa) 

should be avoided as it tends to homogenize stands and sets back the natural processes that set stands up 

for later development of horizontal and vertical complexity. In general, multiple thinning entries are 

preferable to a single entry as unintended consequences are not as severe and mid-course corrections are 

possible. The option of follow-up mature drop and leave treatments should be maintained if possible where 

future biomass removal treatments are unlikely. 

In stands with high proportions of Douglas-fir or red alder in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes 

and where future biomass removal treatments are likely, young drop and leave treatments should seek to 

keep a significant proportion of these two species while maintaining a component of intermediate or 

suppressed western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and western redcedar that will be overtopped by the dominant 

trees and move into the midstory. Eventually, much of the Douglas-fir and red alder can be ―thinned from 

above‖ to produce revenue and release the remaining trees. As long as the other species do not have too 

much side competition from other trees in their cohort, they should retain enough crown to maintain their 

release potential (Deisenhofer 2000, Emmingham et al. 2000, Kneeshaw et al. 2002, Miller and 

Emmingham 2001, Wright E.F. et al. 2000). 

Finally, within older stands in this category, where competitive exclusion has been the dominant process for 

some time, the thinning window may have passed. In such cases, the understory is typically completely 

shaded out, crowns have lifted beyond 40% live crown ratio, and midstory trees (often western redcedar) 

have very high height-to-diameter ratios and low live crown ratios leading to low vigor and imminent 

mortality. In these cases, a moderate to light young drop and leave treatment, with heavier release of 

dominant trees and any western redcedar that has a lower height-to-diameter ratio and higher live crown 

ratio is advised. Gaps that open the stand to excessive windthrow risk should be avoided. Once the stand 

has recovered live crown and height-to-diameter ratios, another entry will likely be necessary to keep 

excessive competition from returning to the stand. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 75

Mid-age stands: Competitive exclusion and biomass accumulation (30-60) years

Once the process of competitive exclusion is well underway, opportunities to shape species composition, 

manipulate stratification to encourage midstory development, build stem stability, slow crown recession, 

and maintain diameter growth begin to decrease exponentially with time in dense stands. If a stand received 

a prior young drop and leave treatment, densities are not too high, understory shrub communities are still 

present, and height to diameter ratios of the overstory trees are below 60, a similar approach as described 

above for young drop and leave treatments should be taken. 

Several key differences exist, however. Selecting 20-50 dominant trees per acre for heavy release should be 

given high priority. These are the ―golden years‖ of height and diameter growth and the opportunity to 

influence the development of large trees with long full crown is greatest at this stage. Understory tree and 

shrub colonization will likely be stimulated in these areas. Depending on how much past PCT treatments 

homogenized the stand in terms of spacing and species composition, small gaps and planting may be 

necessary to add trees species diversity. For stands dominated by Douglas-fir or red alder, a large portion of 

these species can be removed from the overstory at this time. If any midstory western redcedar exist and 

have good stem form, they should be released. Skips are still necessary for the reasons stated above, and to 

allow for intense competition to create areas with unstable trees in parts of the stand. If a whole stand 

consists of large, stable trees, the ability of wind to create heterogeneity later in stand development may be 

reduced. Skips will also be necessary to protect sensitive habitats, critical habitat features, and provide 

refugia for fungal mats that can be damaged by ground based thinning (Colgan et al. 1999, Smith J.E. et al. 

2002). In general, the more complex these stands are, the less additional heterogeneity will need to be 

introduced. Creating or greatly expanding gaps to promote early-seral habitat is likely to be low priority at 

this phase as maintaining these early-seral habitats can be accomplished with greater success in younger or 

older stands. Likewise, accelerating decadence through snag or CWD creation at this stage is not likely to 

be a high priority. Protecting existing snags and wildlife trees, relying on natural decadence formation 

processes, and waiting until trees are larger is advisable. Habitat needed at the landscape must be taken into 

account, however. 

In stands where competition has been intense for many years, height to diameter ratios are high, and live 

crown ratios are low, several critical questions must be addressed: Do the dominant and co-dominant trees 

have sufficient live crown to respond to thinning? Is the stand heavily dominated by hemlock, or is a 

significant Sitka-spruce, western redcedar, and Douglas-fir component present? How much will thinning 

increase the risk of major windthrow? Given the answers to these questions, is shifting the stand away from 

a catastrophic windthrow trajectory possible? If it is, then several light, relatively uniform thinning entries 

with skips and attention to fine scale heterogeneity should be pursued. If not, and the stand is important at 

the landscape scale for marbled murrelet habitat, it should be left alone or given a light MDL treatment 

targeted at enhancing branch structures on specific trees to create better marbled murrelet nesting 

platforms. If the stand is not important for marbled murrelets, a group selection approach can be taken to 

create large gaps or expand existing ones. This will accelerate the process of re-initiating the stand through 

gap-phase development as wind will expand the gaps over time. If natural regeneration of western redcedar 

and Sitka spruce is not sufficient, they will need to be planted in the gaps to ensure that relatively species 

composition shifts away from hemlock. Group selection can also be used in red alder stands to transition 

large patches of pure red alder towards mixed conifer stands. A significant portion of the alder should be 

left however. 

Mature stands (60-100 years)

Similar to the previous category, the stability, risk of windthrow, and existing complexity of these stands 

will determine what treatments are appropriate. As height growth is peaking and beginning to slow at this 

stage, opportunities to build crown, significantly increase diameter growth, and build stem stability by 

thinning are declining. Wind and other exogenous mortality agents are likely to start breaking these stands 

up and thus gap creation, understory tree colonization, mid-story development, and decadence creation will 

slowly become the dominant processes as competitive exclusion wanes. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 76

In stands with a high ratio of trees with long crowns and a balanced composition of species, opportunities 

to prolong the period of rapid diameter growth and crown development still exist. A mix of heavier release 

of dominant and midstory trees, small gap creation or expansion to stimulate understory development, light 

to moderate thinning in the rest of the stand, and significant areas in skips should be pursued. Individual 

tree selection approaches to target specific species and trees for release and to promote large branches or 

epicormic branching should be included. In areas where murrelet habitat is a high priority, lighter, more 

uniform thinning and avoiding heavy stimulation of the understory is preferable. Decadence acceleration 

through snag creation or drop and leave treatments should be considered in stands where windthrow or 

other agents are not creating these structures. 

In stands in this category where competition has been intense for many years and height-to-diameter ratios 

are high, the same questions and choices must be faced as stands in this condition in the last category. 

Thinning these stands too heavily will significantly increase their risk of windthrow. Group selection 

treatments combined with planting are likely to be preferable to thinning. Either way, treatments must be 

designed with a higher level of stand examination and analysis. 

5. Sale and collection of non-timber forest products

Many current non-timber forest products exist on SWBCA ownership such as: cedar shake/shingle logs, 

salal, ferns, moss, and hard rock with the potential to generate revenue. However, the expected revenues 

from these non-timber forest products, when compared to expected timber sale revenue, would generate 

less than 1% of projected revenues for the Conservancy and/or Refuge lands. The level of ecological risk 

associated with these activities likely ranges from minor to severe. In addition, a program to sell and 

administer contracts to remove these minor forest products is very labor intensive and difficult to monitor 

and control. 

Since cedar logs and trees are recognized as being valuable for their contribution to LWD, long-term snag 

retention, and other ecological processes, it would be counter-productive to have it removed as shake or 

shingle bolts. Therefore, it will be the policy of SWBCA to not engage in marketing commercial cedar bolt 

sales. 

The removal of salal, fern, moss, and other minor forest products may impact the long-term ecological 

recovery of SWBCA forests. Furthermore, a program to sell, monitor and administer contracts for these 

products would likely exceed the revenue that would be generated. Therefore, it will be the policy of 

SWBCA to not engage in marketing commercial minor forest products. 

6. Development and use of onsite rock resources

Within the local area, hard rock is a limit resource and in high demand. Because the supply of hard rock on 

the ownership is scarce and can be quite costly to purchase, even from neighboring Templin Pit, it is not 

advisable to sell hard rock if only to preserve it for long term use within the ownership. It will be the policy 

of SWBCA to not engage in marketing its limited rock supply. 

The Conservancy is committed to developing and using its hard rock resources in a manner that limits the 

disruption of natural systems. All rock development activities will be conducted following a written Pit 

Development and Reclamation plan. These plans will identify the limits of mining and present the 

intended methods and sequence of development and reclamation. Methods to minimize the delivery of 

sediment to the aquatic ecosystem are by nature, very site specific and will be addressed on a site by site 

basis within the Pit Development and Reclamation plan for each rock source. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 77

Disturbance potential from loud rock development activities, especially blasting, on nesting murrelets and 

their chicks is of particular concern. Fortunately, because none of the available rock pits occur near 

suitable murrelet habitat, the likelihood of disturbance is minimal in the near term. As adjacent forests 

mature, disturbance potential could rise. To minimize potential for disturbance, where rock pits occur 

within 1⁄4 mile of suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat, the Conservancy will not conduct blasting or 

mechanical crushing activities during the breeding season, from April 1 to September 15. Less noisy 

activities like loading and hauling at these rock pits will not occur during the ―daily peak activity period‖ of 

one hour before to two hours after sunrise, and one hour before to two hours after sunset during the 

breeding season. Where pits occur more than 1⁄4 mile from suitable habitat blasting will normally be 

restricted to dates outside the breeding season, but loading and hauling will not be limited by the daily peak 

activity period. 

7. Use of chemicals 

Forest management on the SWBCA will employ silvicultural systems, integrated pest management, and 

strategies for controlling pests or invasive species that minimize the need for the use of chemicals. 

Specifically, chemicals should only be used where less environmentally hazardous techniques have been 

shown through research or empirical experience to be ineffective. Chemical use may be necessary to 

control invasive weed species that have the potential for altering forest habitat function and in some cases 

where invasive or native species are aggressively encroaching on active forest roads. When chemicals are 

applied, the least environmentally hazardous option will be used to minimize effects on non-target 

organisms or ecological systems. Furthermore, where chemical use is deemed necessary, trained applicators 

will follow all applicable safety precautions and chemicals will be stored and disposed of in a safe and 

environmentally appropriate manner. 

8. Local access and hunting

Both the Refuge and the Conservancy are committed to continue providing access for hunting, hiking and 

other hike-in recreational activities. Hunters and hikers may be affected by the removal of roads, but 

sufficient active roads and trails will remain to provide reasonable access. Vehicular access is likely to 

remain restricted to the existing open roads.

Vehicular access is to remain restricted to the existing open roads. Use of off road vehicles (i.e. 

motorcycles, ATV’s, 4-wheel drive trucks, etc.) often cause unacceptable impacts to soil and water 

resources, and are difficult to monitor and control. Therefore, it will be the policy of SWBCA to not allow 

these motorized vehicles in the forest, unless specifically granted to conduct authorized research, 

monitoring activities, and directly related Conservancy and/or Refuge business. 

Although it generally does not allow hunting on its preserves, the Conservancy recognizes the importance 

of the long-valued local tradition of hunting in the Ellsworth Creek/Bear River to the community. 

Therefore, hunting for Roosevelt elk, Black-tailed deer, and black bear in accordance with State laws and 

regulation is allowed on Ellsworth Preserve. Incidental take of cougar and coyotes is known to occur but is 

not condoned. Refuge forestlands are also generally open to hunting activities. 

9. Use of revenue generated from timber sales

As discussed above, revenue generation is expected when thinning commercial aged forests to reach 

ecological targets. These revenues will be solely used to fund additional restoration work within the project 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 78

area in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations and guidelines, and policies of the 

Conservancy and Refuge System. Accounting mechanisms have been put in place to ensure detailed 

tracking of these restoration revenues. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 79

B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

1. Restoration Thinning and Road Treatment Schedule

Based on the landscape level management designations, the generalized treatment scenarios described 

above, and other factors outlined in this plan, forest stands throughout the SWBCA were placed in a 

treatment category (i.e., biomass removal, drop and leave, etc). Stands where active management will occur 

were then scheduled for treatment at least once in the 20 year planning horizon considered in this plan. 

Five time periods used for scheduling were used (Table 12); an annual basis for the first three years (2007-

2009), the subsequent 7 year period (2010-2016), and concluding with a final 10 year period (2017-2026), 

(see corresponding Treatment Maps for these periods). The first three years were planned out in greater 

detail to give managers a concrete action plan for the immediate future. It is likely, however, that minor 

changes will be made in these first three years due to more detailed site specific analysis, market changes, 

and management practicalities. The forth (2010-2016) and fifth (2017-2026) time periods should be 

considered pools of stands in which treatment will likely be appropriate, based on current data and growth 

modeling. The fifth period includes approximately 2,900 acres of stands treated in the first 4 periods that 

are likely to be ready for a second entry. In this plan, a special effort was also made to optimize the timing 

and extent of management activities so road improvements and thinning are coordinated to reduce road 

system impacts and achieve operational and cost efficiencies. 

Managers will need to continually re-assess the thinning pool and establish concrete management schedules 

in 2-3 year annual increments. It is likely that not all the acres identified in a single time period will actually 

be treated as some will be deferred or deemed not necessary to achieve the overall ecological objectives. 

What is important is that all of the stands within each pool are assessed at the beginning of the time period 

to determine when a treatment is appropriate. New information from adaptive management, natural 

disturbances, changing markets, and evolving management approaches will affect management direction 

over time, and thus more concrete plans for the forth and fifth time periods were not made at this time. 

Table 12: Restoration thinning treatment types and acres per time period for each ownership. 

Treatment Owner 2007 2008 2009 2010-2016 2017-2026 Totals

Young 

Drop & 

Leave

TNC 405 674 544 762 188 2573

WNWR 163 0 108 671 45 987

Total 567 674 652 1433 233 3561

Mature 

Drop & 

Leave

TNC 0 0 26 59 0 85

WNWR 8 98 169 13 0 288

Total 8 98 195 72 0 373

Biomass 

Removal1

TNC 0 261 345 871 3238 4715

WNWR 0 148 0 26732 519 3339

Total 0 409 345 3545 37563 80541&3

1 Not all the acres in this category will be treated as up to 1/3rd of the total acreage in individual stands

may be left in buffers or skips for streams, sensitive areas, or stand level variability. A portion of these 

buffers may be treated with MDL treatments where appropriate. 

2 Some of the BR treatments in years 2010-2016 may pushed off until 2017-2026

3 This includes acres that receive YDL and BR treatments in years 2007-2016 and will likely be ready 

for a second treatment in years 2017-2026.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 80

It should be noted that wood will not be removed from all the acres within the biomass removal category. 

In each stand, up to 1/3rd of the total acreage may be left in buffers or skips for streams, unstable slopes, 

sensitive areas, or stand level variability. A portion of these buffers or skips may be treated with mature 

drop and leave treatments where appropriate. For example, many stands on Long Island slated for a 

biomass removal treatment will contain shoreline buffers where mature drop and leave treatments or no 

treatment will occur. In addition, the 8,054 total acres in the biomass removal category (Table 12) includes 

3,000 acres of 2nd entries into stands that were treated with young drop and leave or biomass removal 

treatments in the first four time periods years. Subtracting these 3,000 acres and assuming 20% of the 

remaining acres will be left in buffers or skips, an approximate total of 4,000 acres of the SWBCA will be 

treated with biomass removal treatments. This equates to roughly 30% of the 14,170 acre of forested 

habitat in the SWBCA. 

From 2007 through 2016, the active road system will be reduced by a projected total of 53.8 miles (Table 

13) or roughly half of the current total for the total landscape. This is in addition to the 4.5 miles of road 

that have already been obliterated. Roughly 5.7 miles of new road will be built, primarily to move the road 

system to ridge top locations and away from mid and lower slope positions. Following treatments, the road 

density will decline significantly from the current level throughout the SWBCA. The road treatments listed 

in table 13 and shown in the Treatment Maps do not include the re-opening of previously put-to-bed roads

for 2nd entries in the 2017-2026 time period. As the need for 2nd entries for specific stands is not certain at 

this time, it is difficult to predict which roads will be re-opened and when. After the 2nd entry, these roads 

may be obliterated or put to bed again, depending on the likelihood of future entries. 

Table 13: Road treatment types per time period and ownership 

Treatment Owner 2007 2008 2009 2010-2016 Totals

Obliterate TNC 2.8 6.6 8.9 0.3 19.3

WNWR 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.8

Total 3.1 6.6 8.9 9.7 29.1

Put to Bed TNC 7.2 1.5 2.3 3.0 15.8

WNWR 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.3 2.7

Total 7.2 2.9 2.3 4.2 18.5

Convert to Trail TNC 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.1

WNWR 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.1

Total 0.1 0.0 0.8 5.3 6.2

Build TNC 2.1 1.3 2.1 0.0 5.7

WNWR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 2.1 1.3 2.1 0.0 5.7

2. Landscape Simulation of Treatments

The Landscape Management System (LMS) was used to model the effects of restoration thinning. Stands 

were grown out 50 years in 5 year increments and treated according to their scheduled timeframe and type 

of treatment young drop and leave, biomass removal, mature drop and leave, or no entry. Only treatments 

in the first 20 years, as covered by this plan, were included. A no-treatment scenario was also run as a 

baseline to compare to the effects of thinning. The Pacific Northwest Coast variant of FVS was used in the 

model and was calibrated based on data from the LOGS Studies (Curtis and Marshall 1986, Hoyer et al. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 81

1996). As complete inventory data was not available for all stands, average stand metrics were used to 

create a ―sample‖ stand for each stand type. These ―sample‖ stands were used to model stands for which 

stand data was not available. Treatments were not designed to exactly mimic the individualized treatments 

for each stand that will occur in reality. Instead generalized treatments were used for each treatment type. 

Also, FVS and LMS cannot model variable density thinning or group selection treatments. Thus the 

rationale for the modeling scenario is not to predict the exact consequences of treatments, but rather to 

examine the relative effects of thinning vs. no-thinning on different components of forest structure and 

explore the hypothesis that thinning will accelerate the development of late-seral structure. While modeling 

cannot provide an answer to this hypothesis, it can provide important insights and help frame questions for 

monitoring and experimentation over time. The treatments incorporated into the landscape model were as 

follows: 

Young drop and leave : Thin trees over 5 inches dbh from below to 100 SDI, thin trees under 5 

inches to 150 TPA, then plant 75 tpa of western red cedar and 75 tpa of Sitka spruce. The 

stands that are slated for follow-up biomass removal treatment in years 2017-2026 in the plan 

were then thinned back down to 100 SDI in from below, but leaving all trees under 8 inches 

dbh. This follow-up treatment was done in year 2025. 

Biomass removal: Stands were thinned to 50 tpa from below in the 6-12 inch dbh range and 25 

tpa from below in 12-20inch dbh range. All trees less than 6 inches dbh and larger than 20 

inches dbh were retained. This thinning from the middle approach was derived from the rules 

in the WA DNR Forest Practices Regulations for buffers adjacent to marbled murrelet habitat 

(WAC 222-16, 2006) While this treatment removed too many large trees in some stands, it was 

a good generalized prescription that thinned stands heavy enough to see significant effects 

from thinning 50 years in the future. Actual prescriptions for older conifer stands will generally 

be lighter and may involve multiple entries. Red alder stands were thinned with this same 

prescription as it removed most of the alder and left behind the smaller conifers. 

Mature drop and leave: Reduce BA of all trees in the 8-20 inch dbh range by 50%, leaving all 

trees less than 8 inches and greater than 20 inches dbh. 

No entry: Approximately half the stands in the SWBCA are within reserves, control areas, or 

limited management areas. 

. 

The Modified Old Growth Index (MOGI), as described previously, was used as the primary metric to 

evaluate the results of the modeling exercise. The MOGI scores for all the stands in the entire SWBCA 

landscape were calculated at 5 year intervals for both the thinning and no-treatment scenarios (Figure 15).

The box plots reveal very little difference in MOGI scores between the treatment and no-treatment 

scenarios. Further analysis of the data showed no statistical differences. This result should be viewed with 

caution due to a number of factors. First, roughly half of the stands in the SWBCA landscape will not be 

entered and thus have the same MOGI scores in both scenarios. This suppresses the effect of thinning vs. 

not thinning. Second, an examination of the 4 different components of the MOGI shows that thinning 

increases some components while depressing others. Third, thinning effects on MOGI scores vary 

considerably for different stand types and age classes. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 82

A. No Treatment Scenario

B. Treatment Scenario

 

Figure 15: Modified Old Growth Index Scores (MOGI) for all stands within the SWBCA landscape for both nothinning and thinning scenarios. The median value is represented by the solid line in each box and the upper and 

lower edges of the boxes are the 25% and 75% percentile values. The top and bottom of each ―whisker‖ or vertical 

line show the upper and lower quartile of the data and the end of each whisker is the maximum and minimum value. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 83

Modified Old Growth Index

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

MOGI Score

Diameter Diversity Index

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

DDI Score

Trees 40"+ dbh

0

1

2

3

4

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

TPA

Trees 20"+ dbh

0

10

20

30

40

50

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

TPA

Snags over 20" dbh

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

 Snags/ Acre

Downed Log Volume

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

1000 Ft

3/Acre

Notes: H1: WH/SS/RC 1-14 yrs; H2: WH/SS/RC 15-30 yrs; H3: WH/SS/RC 30-60 yrs; 

H4 WH/SS/RC 60-100 yrs; D1: DF 1-14 yrs; D2 15-30 yrs; R1: RA 1-14 yrs; R3 RA 30-60 yrs; R4 60-100 yrs

Figure 16: Overall Modified Old Growth Index scores (MOGI) and different MOGI components in 2055 by stand 

type. Data is from 87 stands that have full inventory data and are slated to receive treatment entries.

B

C

Treatment No Treatment

A

D

E F
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 84

In order to tease out these factors, MOGI scores in the year 2055 were analyzed for stands that receive 

treatment entries and have actual inventory data (Figures 16). When overall MOGI scores are broken down 

by stand type (Figure 16A), it becomes clear that stands treated at a young age (under 15 yrs: H1, D1) show 

the biggest gains from thinning treatments in the model. This is due to the fact that increased diameter 

growth following thinning sends the number of trees per acre over 20 inches dbh significantly higher. 

While the tpa of trees over 20 inchesdbh is not one of the 4 main components of the MOGI, it improves 

the diameter diversity index component (Figure 16B) and the number of snags over 20 inches dbh per acre 

component (Figure 16E). As more live trees over 20 inches dbh exist, more are available to become snags. 

In addition to a greater number of trees over 20 inches dbh, the diameter diversity index was improved by 

additions to the lower diameter classes from planting and faster movement of trees through all diameter 

classes. The downed log volume component is not significantly affected by thinning at this early age (Figure 

16F). Similar to the large snags, the increase in tree size leads to larger downed wood that decays more 

slowly. This offsets the higher total amount of dead wood recruitment in the untreated stands that is 

smaller in diameter and thus decays more quickly. Also, additional 2nd entry biomass removal treatments are 

light thinnings from below that do not remove many trees in the co-dominant and dominant crown classes. 

The number of trees over 40 inches dbh is not affected in these younger stands as the dominant trees do 

not reach this size in the 50 year modeling timeframe. While FVS was calibrated based on field data to 

model diameter growth increases from thinning for this model run, it likely is still underestimating diameter 

growth. It is possible that at least some dominant trees in stands on high productivity sites will be over 40 

inches dbh when they reach ages 60-65. 

Stands in the 15-30 year age class showed slight increases in overall MOGI scores. Similar to the very 

young stands, increased diameter growth in treated stands pushed up the diameter diversity index, tpa of 

trees over 40 inches dbh, and snags/acre over 20 inches dbh. However, roughly half of these stands 

received the marbled murrelet biomass removal treatment that removed a significant portion of trees in the 

co-dominant and dominant crown classes, leading to a significant decline in downed wood volume 

compared to the no-treatment scenario. Despite the calibration of FVS to address its typical overestimation 

of mortality, especially in un-thinned stands, it is likely that downed log recruitment is still being overestimated in un-thinned stands. Also, while competition mortality kills the most trees in young stands, 

exogenous mortality (windthrow, pathogens, insects, etc) is often responsible for a majority of the total 

volume of downed wood as it typically kills larger trees in a stand (Lutz and Halpern 2006). Predicting 

mortality from stochastic events such as windthrow is very challenging and is not well modeled in FVS 

mortality functions. As thinning increases both windthrow and spread of annosum root rot, treated stands 

will likely experience significant recruitment of larger downed wood that is not accounted for in this 

modeling scenario. Also, the downed wood component of the MOGI does not distinguish between 

different sizes of logs. While many wildlife species use smaller down logs, large logs are critical for many 

species (Marcot et al. 2002) and a defining element of old growth forests (Harmon et al. 1986). Thus in 

terms of habitat value, the loss of smaller diameter dead wood from thinning vs. no-treatment may be 

offset by higher recruitment levels of large dead wood in thinned stands that results from increased 

diameter growth and elevated exogenous mortality of large trees. 

The older conifer stands (H3, H4) and all the red alder stands experienced small declines in MOGI scores 

following treatment. While the increased diameter growth from treatment pushes up the tpa of trees over 

40 inches dbh, the removal of a significant portion of trees in the co-dominant and dominant crown classes 

depresses all the other MOGI components relative to the no-treatment scenario. The diameter diversity 

index is also lower in the treated scenario as thinning moves trees out of the lower diameter classes faster 

than under the no-treatment scenario. Natural regeneration, which is stimulated by thinning, is not 

accounted for in FVS and thus replenishment of trees in the lower diameter classes is not occurring in the 

model. Similar to 15-30 year old stands, the large difference in downed log levels between treated and 

untreated stands is likely overestimated. However, the model clearly demonstrates that relatively heavy 

thinning from the ―middle‖ and the resulting removal of dominant and co-dominant trees reduces the pool 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 85

of mid and larger sized trees from which snags and downed logs can be recruited. While windthrow will 

likely create more snags and downed logs in thinned stands over time, it will also reduce the pool of live 

trees that will develop into large, old growth trees. In stands where windthrow is not too high, the total 

amount of dead wood recruitment is likely to be lower in treated stands in the medium term (50-100 yrs). 

Where high windthrow leads to high mortality and dead wood recruitment, stands may not have sufficient 

overstory canopy left to meet late seral canopy cover thresholds (50-70% canopy cover from the overstory). 

Downed wood could also be created by dropping, girdling, or topping trees, although one of the goals of 

management in the SWBCA is to restore natural processes of decadence formation. 

In order to gauge the effects of thinning on windthrow , treated and untreated stands were run through the 

windthrow probability model that was built into LMS (Scott and Mitchell 2005) (Figure 17). While the 

effect of treatment is negligible in most stand types, it roughly doubles in the older conifer stand types (H3 

& H4). This is the result of the relatively heavy biomass removal treatment in these mostly dense stands 

that have high height to diameter ratios. It confirms that recruitment of larger dead wood is likely in 

thinned stands. Also, the model assumes that stands remain closed throughout the 50 year period and does 

not factor in creation and expansion of windthrow pockets over time and the resulting exponential increase 

in pocket area. As heavy thinning will significantly open up these older stands, it is likely to accelerate the 

break up of stands compared to the no-treatment scenario, especially on exposed sites. The group selection 

approach to high risk stands was not included as FVS cannot model group selection. Group selection 

leaves most of a stand intact and thus windthrow is likely to be lower overall and concentrated on the edges 

of gaps. In younger stands, the decreases in height to diameter ratios and increases in crown ratios from 

thinning appear to make up for the lower density and inter-tree sheltering. The higher resilience of western 

red cedar to windthrow is not accounted for by the model. 

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

H1 H2 H3 H4 D1 D2 R1 R3 R4

Windthrow Probability

Treatment

No Treatment

Notes: H1: WH/SS/RC 1-14 yrs; H2: WH/SS/RC 15-30 yrs; H3: WH/SS/RC 30-60 yrs; 

H4 WH/SS/RC 60-100 yrs; D1: DF 1-14 yrs; D2 15-30 yrs; R1: RA 1-14 yrs; R3 RA 30-60 

yrs; R4 60-100 yrs

Figure 17: Windthrow probability in 2055 by stand type. Data is from 87 stands that have full inventory data and are 

slated to received treatment entries. 

Overall, the modeling exercise illustrates the key tradeoffs from thinning vs. no-treatment. Thinning 

increases diameter growth of residual trees which leads to earlier recruitment of larger dead wood as well as 

―bigger trees faster‖. It also moves small and medium sized trees through the diameter class distribution 

faster, which translates into accelerated development of mid-story layers. However, by reducing overall 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 86

stand biomass it may reduce overall dead wood recruitment, at least in a 50 year time horizon. If 

prescriptions are heavy and remove significant number of trees in the upper half of the diameter 

distribution, numbers of medium to large sized live trees will be reduced which will shrink the recruitment 

pool for similar sized snags and downed logs. Exogenous disturbance agents, primarily wind in this case, 

are likely to compensate for the reduction in competition mortality driven dead wood recruitment. Heavy 

thinning, however, is likely to result in high levels of windthrow in a short timeframe that may reduce 

overstory canopy cover beyond levels typically associated with late seral forests for a significant period of 

time. 

These tradeoffs explain why MOGI scores were essentially unchanged across the SWBCA landscape by the 

treatment scenario compared to no-treatment. In 50 years, the model shows that roughly half of the 

landscape will have a MOGI score above 50, with the older managed stands nearing 60, compared to the 

current average old growth score of 62. This does not mean that the managed stands will be fully functional 

old growth, however. The overestimation of downed wood recruitment by LMS is likely inflating scores. 

There is also a large degree of variance in FVS’s predictions of stand conditions 50 years in the future, 

especially in older stands. Most important, the MOGI only considers 4 variables, whereas the structure of 

old growth forests is much more complex. What the high MOGI scores do suggest, however, is that these 

stands will begin displaying many of the components of current old growth forests within 50 years and, 

therefore, may also begin to support some old growth dependent species. 

Modeling results also suggest that thinning can generate an economic return without compromising desired 

structural development objectives. Beyond this minimum threshold, results indicate that thinning can 

accelerate the development of at least some components of old growth structure, especially when thinning 

is done early in stand development. Thinning prescriptions must be light enough to ensure than sufficient 

biomass remains for dead wood recruitment and to avoid excessive windthrow, yet heavy enough to 

promote diameter growth, under and midstory development, and encourage some windthrow. The 

individualized LMS prescriptions created for a 70 year old stand earlier in this document came close to 

achieving this balance and increased the overall MOGI score relative to no-treatment. Similar individualized 

prescriptions could be designed and re-run through the LMS model for all stands and would likely increase 

the treatment effect on landscape level MOGI scores. 

The objective of this modeling exercise, however, was to examine the relative effects of thinning vs. nothinning on different components of forest structure, not to show that thinning could achieve higher 

MOGI scores. This type of modeling exercise cannot incorporate all of the real-world details required to 

develop site-specific prescriptions. These modeling results do provide a preliminary test of the use of 

thinning to accelerate the development of late-successional forest conditions, and offer a foundation from 

which site specific prescriptions can be developed. Creating such prescriptions will take time, careful 

thought, and trial and error. Over time, they will provide an opportunity to empirically test the hypothesis 

that thinning can accelerate the development of late-seral structure and refine our understanding and 

models of forest development. 

3. Projected Volume and Revenue Outputs

A preliminary economic analysis of the planned treatments over the next 20 years was performed to obtain 

a crude estimate of volume production and revenue flow. The TNC and WNWR ownerships within the 

SWBCA were grouped together for this analysis. In order to provide an accurate estimate that accounts for 

different log sort and species prices, volume per acre outputs for different stand types, and ground based 

vs. cable yarding costs, a forecasting spreadsheet was designed. The spreadsheet can be adjusted over time 

as prices and costs change. Log prices were based on October 2006 prices (Table 9). Logging costs were 

assumed to be $225/mbf for cable yarding, $175/mbf for ground based yarding (processer/forwarder 

combination), and $40/mbf for hauling. Each stand slated for a biomass removal treatment was evaluated 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 87

to determine the extent of ground based vs. cable yarding required. The number of ground based and cable 

acres of each forest type for each time period where biomass removal treatments will occur was then 

calculated. The total acreage for each stand was reduced by 20% to account for buffers and skips. Volume 

produced per acre for different stand types was determined in LMS by growing them forward until their 

planned thinning date, running several different thinning treatments, and then adjusting for overestimation 

of volume by LMS. Adjustments were based on stand volumes from actual forest inventory data vs. LMS 

volume, and professional experience from thinning similar stands. The values are conservative by design 

and range from 7 mbf/acre for thinning in 25-35 year old stands to 13 mbf/acre for 60+ year old stands. 

Actual volume per acre outputs may be higher, especially within older stands. 

The total volumes by species, sort, and time period were then calculated (Table 14 – also see Table 12 for 

acreage figures) for the analysis. The estimated total harvest volume is 65 million board feet over 20 years, 

which equates to an average of 3.25 million board feet per year; however, annual volume production will 

fluctuate over this time period. As the ecological need and economic viability of planned 2nd entries in years 

2017-2026 will be not known for some time, thinning acreages and volume production may be lower than 

projected, especially towards the end of the planning period.. 

While logging costs are subtracted for this analysis, estimated revenue generation by species, sort and time 

period (Table 15) do not reflect the costs of forest or road management. To account for inflation, totals for 

each time period were discounted by 5%. For time periods 2010-2016 and 2017-2026, midpoint years were 

used for discounting. The total net present value is $6.5 million, which equates to an annual revenue stream 

of $325,000. This number will of course fluctuate based on prices, costs, and annual volume production. 

Table 14: Volume production by species, sort, and time period. All numbers are Scribner volumes in thousand board 

feet (mbf). 

Species Sort 2007 2008 2009 2010-2016 2017-2026 Total

WH-SS

#4 0 1896 1630 15208 11461 30195

#3 0 1437 1158 9873 4550 17019

#1-2 0 392 303 2446 1471 4612

DF

#4 0 262 249 2828 4819 8157

#3 0 0 0 891 3225 4117

#1-2 0 0 0 0 0 0

RA

#4 0 0 0 217 67 284

#3 0 0 0 433 134 567

#1-2 0 0 0 325 100 425

Total 0 3,987 3,341 32,221 25,828 65,376

Annual Volume 

Production 0 3,987 3,341 4,603 2,583

Total Thinning 

Acres1

0 327 276 2836 3005 6443

Average Mbf/Acre 0 12.2 12.1 11.4 8.6 10.1

1: This total assumes that 20% of the Biomass removal acres listed in table 12 will be left

in skips or buffer. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 88

Table 15: Revenue generation by species, sort, and time period.

Species Sort

Price/

mbf 2007 2008 2009 2010-2016 2017-2026

WH

#4 $315 $0 $597,258 $513,402 $4,790,470 $3,610,251

#3 $410 $0 $589,151 $474,960 $4,048,129 $1,865,396

#1-2 $440 $0 $172,330 $133,358 $1,076,335 $647,424

DF

#4 $445 $0 $116,578 $110,885 $1,258,313 $2,144,258

#3 $500 $0 $0 $0 $445,566 $1,612,746

#1-2 $575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RA

#4 $625 $0 $0 $0 $135,364 $41,835

#3 $730 $0 $0 $0 $316,210 $97,727

#1-2 $830 $0 $0 $0 $269,645 $83,335

Gross Total $0 $1,475,318 $1,232,606 $12,340,034 $10,102,973

Total Logging Costs $0 $983,761 $838,530 $7,279,661 $6,194,767

Net Revenue $0 $491,557 $394,076 $5,060,372 $3,908,206

Net Revenue per Acre $0 $1,504 $1,427 $1,785 $1,301

Net Present Value 

(5% Discount Rate) $0 $468,150 $357,438 $3,776,128 $1,879,914

Total Net Present Value $6,481,630

Annualized NPV Revenue Stream $324,082
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 89

C. MONITORING

Monitoring the success of restoration treatments and recovery of late-successional forest species is an 

important component of the management plan for the SWBCA; however, resources for monitoring are 

limited. Compliance and validation 

monitoring of specific road and forest 

management treatments is expected to 

occur as a regular component of such 

actions. Effectiveness monitoring of fish 

and wildlife populations, and habitat 

responses to management actions will occur 

as funding and resources allow. The Refuge 

is planning to continue limited breeding 

season surveys of marbled murrelets in 

select forest stands following standard 

protocols (Evans et al. 2003). Other 

ongoing monitoring includes chum salmon 

spawning counts along a reference stream 

reach in the Ellsworth Creek drainage 

conducted annually by the WDFW. The 

foundation for monitoring the effectiveness 

of forest management and restoration 

within the SWBCA, however, will rely on an extensive experimental adaptive management study within the 

Ellsworth Creek watershed. This adaptive management study is one of the most extensive studies 

concerning forest restoration at a landscape scale in the Pacific Northwest. 

1. Adaptive Management

A considerable amount of research has taken place in the Pacific Northwest concerning old-growth forest 

ecology, growth and yield in young-managed forests, stream ecology, and wildlife-habitat relationships and 

other topics; however, as outlined in this plan, debate continues over how young-managed forest 

landscapes should be managed for restoration (e.g., Young Stand Management Forum, Olympia 

Washington, April 2003). Hot topics in this debate concern the economic motives of forest thinning, within 

stand damage caused by thinning treatments, impacts of forest roads, and effects on aesthetic or spiritual 

values in forest landscapes. Findings from ongoing research do not resolve these issues, and leave managers 

with several management alternatives – many of which are equally scientifically and socially justifiable. 

Managing these forest landscapes through an adaptive management process (Walters and Holling 1990) 

offers a method to test alternative management practices simultaneously and improve our understanding of 

how these systems respond to various forms of management intervention. In the Siuslaw National Forest, 

the Five Rivers Landscape Management Project (USFS 2001) has recently been implemented specifically to 

address these management questions. In the SWBCA, the Ellsworth Creek watershed offers an additional 

site, time within the Sitka spruce Zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1988), where these questions can be 

addressed at a landscape scale. 

To meet the mutual goals of restoring the Ellsworth Creek Preserve, and addressing the key scientific 

uncertainties that remain regarding restoration treatments, the Conservancy will follow an active adaptive 

management process. Furthermore, the Conservancy will work toward linking this project with other 

landscape restoration efforts throughout the Pacific Northwest to promote synergistic mechanisms for 

increasing our collective knowledge of ecosystem recovery within young-managed forest landscapes. 

Taking measurements at one of 224 permanent forest plots.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 90

An active adaptive management system offers the best chance to rapidly increase our management 

knowledge because it takes an experimental approach to simultaneously testing multiple restoration 

treatments - all of which have equal validity given our current state of knowledge (Bormann et al. 1999, 

Taylor B. et al. 1997, Walters and Holling 1990). In contrast, more commonly applied reactive and passive 

adaptive management systems (Figure 18) inhibit rapid learning because they apply only a single 

management regime to a problem (reactive and passive), or do not include monitoring as a key element of 

the design (reactive) (Bormann et al. 1996). Due to its landscape-scale size, topographical and 

geomorphological layout (i.e., multiple westward flowing tributary basins), single ownership, and the 

Conservancy’s flexibility toward implementing a range of management regimes, the Ellsworth Creek 

watershed is an ideal setting to implement an active adaptive approach to restoration. 

Reactive A B C D

External Stimuli (e.g. Congress, lawsuits, research)

Passive A Monitor,

evaluate

Monitor,

evaluate

B

External Stimuli (e.g. Congress, lawsuits, research)

External Stimuli (e.g. Congress, lawsuits, research)

Active A Monitor,

evaluate

Design

B1

B2

B3

Design

C1

C2

C3

Figure 18. The flow of knowledge and modification of management regimes (A, B, C, D) under 

reactive, passive, and active adaptive management strategies. In an active adaptive management 

strategy, equally appropriate management treatments (B1, B2, B3) are simultaneously applied and 

tested using an experimental design (Adapted from: Bormann et al. 1996). 

The Conservancy worked with an external science review panel to develop a study design (Rolph and Beggs 

2006) (that will simultaneously test rates of ecosystem recovery and cost effectiveness using three different 

restoration pathways (Map – Ellsworth Creek Experimental Basins). Each pathway is equally justifiable 

given our current understanding of forest restoration. 

1. Road Removal – forest stands will be left to develop without management intervention and all roads will 

be permanently abandoned (unless constrained by management or legal restrictions). 

Advantages – very low cost of forest management, quickly eliminates signs of human management 

(e.g., roads, new stumps), forest stands may develop different characteristics than thinned stands, 

reduces forest fragmentation and sediment delivery from roads. 

Disadvantages – high initial financial costs for road abandonment, forest growth models predict 

stagnation within the stem exclusion stage, windthrow may be high due to increasing stemdiameter ratios, lack of access for management. 

2. Vegetation Management – forest stands will be actively thinned during the initial treatment period (first 10 

years) and at recurring intervals to promote forest growth and the development of structural 

complexity. Roads will be maintained to allow for harvest and other management operations. 

Advantages – the time period for forest stands to obtain characteristics typical of late-successional 

forests should shorten: tree growth rates should increase, stands should quickly develop structural 

and compositional complexity, understory vegetation diversity should increase, large wood delivery 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan - Page 91

should increase in shorter timeframe. Some revenue generation from sale of commercially thinned 

trees. 

Disadvantages – increased ground disturbance and potential for invasive species introductions, 

higher sediment production and delivery to streams, higher forest fragmentation from roads, 

windthrow may be high in areas with high stem/diameter ratios and along road corridors, 

continued cost of road maintenance, signs of human management will be evident. 

3. Control – forest stands will remain unthinned during the initial treatment period (first 10 years) and all 

roads will be maintained or repaired as needed. This management pathway will be re-evaluated in 10 

years in an adaptive management context. 

Advantages –lowest initial cost of management, sign of human management is reduced within 

forest stands, forest stands may develop different characteristics than thinned forests over time. 

Disadvantages – moderate potential for introduction of invasive species along road corridors, 

continuing threat of sediment delivery from roads, ongoing costs of road maintenance, ongoing 

stand fragmentation from roads, future management options within forest stands may decline as 

young stands develop with high stem densities.

The Conservancy began implementing the experimental adaptive management study in 2005. Baseline data 

is currently being collected on a variety of indicator variables and will continue through the winter of 2007-

2008. Indicator variables include: 

Stream hydrology 

Physical stream habitat 

Hydrologic connectivity of roads and streams 

Forest structure and composition 

Forest bird abundance 

Headwater stream amphibians abundance 

Spawning populations of coho salmon 

Stream macroinvertebrate composition 

LiDAR data 

In general, no active management will occur within the adaptive management study area during the baseline 

data collection period. Two exceptions to this rule include: a) roads rated as high hazards for failure or 

showing imminent signs of failure will be treated uniformly throughout the study area, and b) thinning for 

restoration purposes within young-managed forest stands (less than 20 yrs of age) may occur within the 

study area, but only outside of the 8 designated experimental tributary basins.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page a

REFERENCES

Acker SA, Sabin TE, Ganio LM, McKee WA. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber 

volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology and Management 104: 265-280.

Acker SA, Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Greene SE. 2000. Biomass accumulation over the first 150 years in 

a coastal Oregon Picea-Tsuga forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 725-738.

Alaback PB, Herman FR. 1988. Long-term response of understory vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18: 1522-1530. 

Amoroso MM. 2004. Are mixed species stands more productive than single species stands? Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Masters. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Andrews LS, Perkins JP, Thrailkill JA, Poage NJ, Tappeiner JC. 2005. Silvicultural approaches to develop 

Northern Spotted Owl nesting sites, central coast ranges, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20: 

13-27.

Atkinson KJ. 1987. Cedar Grove Research Natural Area proposal. . Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, 

Washington. 

Bailey AW, Poulton, C.E. 1968. Plant communities and environmental interrelationships in a portion of the 

Tillamook Burn, northwestern Oregon. Ecology 49: 1-13. 

Bailey JD, Tappeiner JC. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40-100 years Douglas-fir 

stands in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage 108: 99-113. 

Barndt SA, Coley TC, Taylor JC, Ensign BA. 2000. Physical and Biological Characteristics, and Salmonid 

Restoration Potential, of 7 Willapa National Refuge Waterbodies. Vancouver, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Barnes GH. 1962. Yield of even-aged stands of western hemlock.: U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1273. 

Beach EW, Halpern CB. 2001. Controls on conifer regeneration in managed riparian forests: effects of seed 

source, substrate, and vegetation. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 471-482.

Beechie T, S. , Bolton S, Pess G, Bilby RE, Kennard P. 2000. Rates and pathways of recovery for woody 

debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 20: 436-452.

Beese WJ. 2001. Windthrow: Monitoring of alternative silvicultural systems in montane coastal forests. in 

S.J. Mitchell aJR, ed. In S.J. Mitchell, and J. Rodney (comp.). Proceedings of a workshop on windthrow 

assessment and management in British Columbia. Richmond, BC: BC Forestry Continuing Studies 

Network [available on line http:www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFD/library/documents/windthrow.pdf]. 

Benda LE, Miller DJ, Dunne T, Reeves GH, Agee JK. 1998. Dynamic landscape systems in Naiman RJ, 

Bilby RE, eds. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. . New York: 

Springer. 

Benda LE, Poff NL, Miller DJ, Dunne T, Reeves GH, Pess, Pollock M. 2004. The network dynamics 

hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54: 413-427. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page b

Berg DR, Brown TK, Blessing B. 1996. Silvicultural systems design with emphasis on the forest canopy. 

Northwest Science 70: 31-36. 

Berger A, Loutre, M.F. 1991. Insolation values for the last 10 million years. Quaternary Science Reviews 10: 

297-317.

Bergeron K. 2003. The effects of an organic soil amendment on native plant establishment and physical soil 

properties on an obliterated forest road (MS thesis).University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Bilby RE, Bisson PA. 1998a. Function and distribution of large woody debris. Pages 324-346 in Naiman RJ, 

Bilby RE, eds. River Ecology and Management: Lessons From the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: 

Springer-Verlag. 

—. 1998b. Function and distribution of large woody debris. in R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby e, ed. River 

Ecology and Management: Lessons From the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Biondi F, A. Gershunov, D.R. Cayan. 2001. North Pacific decadal climate variability since 1661. Journal of 

Climate 14: 5-10.

Bloom A. 1998. An assessment of road removal and erosion control treatment effectiveness: a comparison 

of 1997 storm erosion response between treated and untreated roads in Redwood Creek Basin, 

northwestern California (unpublished MS thesis).Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Bormann BT, Cunningham PG, Gordon JC. 1996. Best management practices, adaptive management, or 

both? Proceedings National Society of American Foresters convention held at Portland, Maine, October 28 

to November 1, 1995. 

Bormann BT, Martin JR, Wagner FH, Wood G, Alegria J, Cunningham PG, Brookes MN, Friesema P, 

Berg J, Henshaw J. 1999. Adaptive management. . Pages 505-534 in Johnson NC, Malk AJ, Sexton W, 

Szaro R, eds. Ecological Stewardship: A common reference for ecosystem management. Amsterdam. : 

Elsevier. 

Bradley K. 1997. An evalutaion of two techniques for the utilization of logging residues: organic mulch for 

abandoned road revegetation and accelerated decomposition in small chipped piles (MS thesis)University of 

Montana, Missoula, MT. 

Carey AB. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological 

applications 10: 248-257.

—. 2003a. Managing For Wildlife: A Key Component for Social Acceptance of Compatible Forest 

Management. Pages 401-425 in Monserud RA, Haynes RW, Johnson AC, eds. Compatible Forest 

Mangement. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

—. 2003b. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial 

heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76: 127-136.

Carey AB, Johnson ML. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. 

Ecological applications 5: 336-352.

Carey AB, Horton SP, Biswell BL. 1992. Northern Spotten Owls: influence of prey base and landscape 

character. . Ecological Monographs 62: 223-250.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page c

Carey AB, Thysell DR, Brodie AW. 1999a. The forest ecosystem study: background, rationale, 

implementation, baseline conditions and silvicultural assessment. in Service UF, ed: USDA Forest Service, 

Portland, OR. 

Carey AB, Lippke BR, Sessions J. 1999b. Intentional systems management: managing forests for 

biodiversity. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 9(3/4): 83-125. 

Carey AB, Kershner J, Biswell B, de Toledo LD. 1999c. Ecogical scale and forest development:squirrels, 

dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildlife Monographs 142: 1-71.

Carey AB, Courtney SP, Franklin JF, Marzluff JM, Raphael MG, Tappeiner JC, Thornburgh DA. 2003. 

Managing second-growth forests in the redwood region to enhance marbled murrelet habitat.: Scientific 

Panel on Restoration of Marbled Murrelet Habitat, Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 

Cederholm CJ, Bilby RE, Bisson PA, Bumstead TW, Fransen BR, Scarlett WJ, Ward JW. 1997. Response 

of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to placement of large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 947-963.

Chambers CJ. 1974. Empirical yield tables predominantly alder stands in western Washington.: Wash. State 

Dep. Nat. Resour. Rep. 

Chappell C. 1997. Washington Natural Area Heritage Program Site Evaluation, Ellsworth Creek - Elkhorn 

Creek. Washington Natural Area Heritage Program. 

Cloyd C, Musser K. 1997. Effectiveness of road stabilization. Pages 19–23. in Plumley H, ed. Assessment 

of the effects of the 1996 flood on the Siuslaw National Forest. Corvallis, OR: US Department of 

Agriculture, Siuslaw National Forest. 

Colgan WI, Carey AB, Trappe JM, Molina R, Thysell D. 1999. Diversity and productivity of hypogeous 

fungal sporocarps in a variably thinned Douglas-fir forest. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 1259-1268.

Collins BD, Montgomery DR, Sheikh AJ. 2002. Reconstructing the historical riverine landscape of the 

Puget Lowland. Pages 79-128. in Montgomery DR, Bolton SM, Booth DB, Wall L, eds. Restoration of 

Puget Sound Rivers. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 

Comer P, et al. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial 

Systems. . Arlington, Virginia.: NatureServe. 

Conklin CL. 2003. Willapa Bay Refuge Macroinvertebrate Survey. 

Corn PS, Bury BR. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and stream 

amphibians. . Forest Ecology and Management 29: 1-19.

Curtis RO. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science 28: 92-94.

Curtis RO, Marshall DD. 1986. Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study In Douglas-Fir: Report No. 8 

- The LOGS Study: Twenty-Year Results. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 124 p. 

Curtis RO, Clendenen GW, Henderson JA. 2000. True fir-hemlock spacing trials: design and first results. 

USDA Forest Service. PNW-GTR-492.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page d

Curtis RO, DeBell DS, Harrington CA, Lavender DP, St.Clair JB, Tappeiner JC, Walstad JD. 1998. 

Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir Region. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-435.

CWC. 2001. Ellsworth Creek Roads Assessment. A report submitted to The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, 

Washington.: Coastal Watershed Consultants. . 

—. 2003. A Chronology and Historical Analysis of Forest Harvest and Regeneration, Logging Road 

Construction, and Landslide Activity in the Ellsworth Creek Watershed, Willapa Bay Ecosystem, Pacific 

County, Washington. A report submitted to The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. 

Dawson TE. 1998. Fog in the California redwood forest: ecosystem inputs and use by plants. Oecologia 

117: 476-485.

de Montigny L, de Jong RJ. 1998. Effects of thinning and fertilizing mixed western hemlock-Sitka spruce 

stands in 13 RR, ed: British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program. . 

Deal RL, Tappeiner JC. 2002. The effects of partial cutting on stand structure and growth of western 

hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in southeast Alaska. Forest Ecology and Management 159: 173-186.

Deal RL, Tappeiner JC, Hennon PE. 2002. Developing silvicultural systems based on partial cutting in 

western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands of southeast Alaska. . Forestry 75: 425-431.

Deal RL, Hennon PE, Orlikowska H, D.V. DA. 2004. Stand dynamics of mixed red alder – conifer forests 

in southeast Alaska. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 969-980.

DeBell DS, Curtis RO, Harrington CA, Tappeiner JC. 1997. Shaping stand development through 

silvicultural practices. Pages 141-150 in Kohm KA, Franklin JF, eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st 

century: the science of ecosystem management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Deisenhofer FU. 2000. Influence of light on the growth of advance regeneration in the understory of 

Douglas-fir dominated forests in western Oregon. Masters. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Diaz HF, Markgraf V, eds. 2000. El Nino and the Southern Oscillation Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Donnelley DM. 1997. Pacific Northwest variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. . Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service Forest Management Service Center: 52. 

Drew TJ, Flewelling JW. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to 

Douglas-fir plantations. For. Sci. 25: 518-532.

Duncan S. 2001. Invasion of the exotics: the siege of western Washington. . Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Durall DM, Jones MD, Wright EF, Kroeger P, Coates KD. 1999. Species richness of ectomycorrhizal fungi 

in cutblocks of different sizes in the Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests of northwestern British Columbia: 

sporocarps and ectomycorrhizae. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 1322-1332.

Dyrness CT. 1972. Diamond Point Research Natural Area. Federal Research Natural Areas in Oregon and 

Washington-A guidebook for scientists and educators. . Portland, Oregon.: Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page e

Edmonds RL, Agee JK, R.I. G. 2000. Forest Health and Protection: McGraw-Hill Company. 

Emmingham B, Chan S, Mikowski D, Owston P, Bishaw B. 2000. Silviculture practices for riparian forests 

in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry, Forest Research 

Laboratory. 

Erckmamn J, others. 2000. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Cedar River Watershed, 

Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle. 

Evans MD, Ritchie WP, Nelson SK, Kuo-Harrison E, Harrison P, Hamer TE. 2003. Methods for 

surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land management and research. . Pacific 

Seabird Group. 

Fogarty FW, Berch S, D’Anjou B. 2001. Effects of alternative silvicultural treatments on the diversity of 

forest fungi in the Roberts Creek Study Forest.: Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests. Forest Research Extension Note EN-006.

Fox MJ. 2001. A new look at the quantities and volumes of in-stream wood in forested basins within 

Washington State. . M.S. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Franklin JF, Dyrness CT. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. . Corvallis, Oregon: 

Oregon State University Press. 

Franklin JF, Spies TA. 1991. Composition, function, and structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Pages 

pp. 71-80 in Ruggiero LF, Aubry KB, Carey AB, Huff MH, eds. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Franklin JF, Van Pelt R. 2004. Spatial aspects of structural complexity. Journal of Forestry 102: 22-27.

Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R. 2005. Definition and inventory of old growth forests on DNR managed 

lands.: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 

Franklin JF, et al. 2002. Disturbances and Structural Development of Natural Forest Ecosystems with 

Silvicultural Implications, using Douglas Fir Forests as and Example. Forest Ecology and Management 

5624: p 1-25.

Garman SL, Cissel JH, Mayo JH. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in young 

managed Douglas-fir stands: a simulation study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW GTR 557, 57p.: USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Greene SE, Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Spycher G. 1992. Patterns of growth, mortality, and biomass 

change in a coastal Picea sitchensis – Tsuga heterophylla forest. . Journal of Vegetation Science 3: 697-706.

Gucinski H, Furniss M, Ziemer R, Brookes M, ed. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Information. U.S. Forest Service. 

Hagar J, Howlin S, Ganio L. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young 

Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 333-347.

Halpern CB. 1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance and resilience of forest communities. . 

Ecology 69: 1703-1715.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page f

Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Greene SE. 1990. Changes in biomass and production of 53 years in a coastal 

Picea sitchensis – Tsuga heterophylla forest approaching maturity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 

1602-1610.

Harcombe PA, Greene SE, Kramer MG, Acker SA, Spies TA, Valentine T. 2004. The influence of fire and 

windthrow dynamics on a coastal spruce-hemlock forest in Oregon, USA, based on aerial photographs 

spanning 40 years. Forest Ecology and Management 194: 71-82.

Harmon ME, et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological 

Research 15: 133-302.

Harr R, Nichols R. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: a northwest Washington 

example. Fisheries 18: 18-22. 

Harrington CA, Roberts SD, Brodie LC. 2005. Tree and understory responses to variable-density thinning 

in western Washington. Pages 97-106 in Peterson CE, Maguire DA, eds. Balancing ecosystem values: 

innovative experiments for sustainable forestry: Proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-635, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Harris AS. 1989. Wind in the forest of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing damage. : PNW-GTR-224. 

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Hayes JP, Weikel JM, Huso MP. 2003. Response of birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests. . 

Ecological Applications 13(5): 1222-1232.

Hayes JP, Chan SC, Emmingham WH, Tappeiner JC, Kellogg LD, Bailey JD. 1997. Wildlife response to 

thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. . Journal of Forestry 

95(8): 28-33.

Helfield JM, Naiman RJ. 2006. Keystone interactions: salmon and bear in riparian forests of Alaska. 

Ecosystems 9: 167-180.

Hennon PE, Loopstra EM. 1991. Persistence of western hemlock and western redcedar trees 38 years after 

girdling at Cat Island in Southeast Alaska. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

PNW-RN-507.

Heusser CJ. 1977. Quaternary palynology of the Pacific Slope of Washington. . Quaternary Research 8: 

282-306.

Heusser CJ, L.E. Heusser, D.M. Peteet. 1985. Late-Quaternary climatic change on the American North 

Pacific Coast. Nature 315: 485-487.

Hildebrand DM, Hostetler BB. 2003. Forest Health Assessment of Willapa Bay National Refuge. Sandy, 

OR: Mt. Hood National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. 

Holman ML, D.L. Peterson. 2006. Spatial and temporal variability in forest growth in the Olympic 

Mountains, Washington: sensitivity to climatic variability. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 92-104.

Holmberg P, Aulds R, Biesecker R. 2006. Thinning forest stands, Westside: An interactive self-study and 

reference pamphlet. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Silviculture & Regeneration, 

Land Management Division. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page g

Hoyer G, E., Andersen NA, Marshall D. 1996. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: 

report no. 13 --- the Francis study: 1963-90. . Portland, OR: : U.S.D.A Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Hunter MG. 2001. Communiqué No. 3: Management in young forests. Corvallis, Oregon.: Cascade Center 

for Ecosystem Management. 

IRM. 2005. Willapa NWR & Ellsworth Creek Forest Inventory Progress Report. Integrated Resource 

Management. 

Jane GJ. 1986. Wind damage as an ecological process in mountain beech forests of Canterbury, New 

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 9: 25-39.

Jones J, Swanson F, Wemple B, Snyder K. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and 

disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14: 76-85.

Keeton WS, Franklin JF. 2005. Do remnant old-growth trees accelerate rates of succession in mature 

Douglas-fir forests? Ecological Monographs 75: 103-118. 

Kellog LD, Milota GV, Stringham B. 2002. Timber Harvesting to Enhance Multiple Resources. Pages 172-

190 in Hobbs SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, Reeves GH, Spies TA, Tappeiner JC, Wells GE, eds. Forest and 

Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

King JE. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Centralia, WA: Weyerhaeuser 

Forestry Paper, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center. No. 8. 

Kneeshaw DD, Williams H, Nikinmaa E, Messier C. 2002. Patterns of above- and below-ground response 

of understory conifer release 6 years after partial cutting. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 255-265. 

Kohm KA, Franklin JF. 1997. Creating a forest for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management. 

Washington D.C.: Island Press. 

Latham P, Tappeiner JC. 2002. Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density in. western 

Oregon forests. Tree Physiology 22: 137-146.

Lindenmeyer DB, Franklin JF. 2002. Conserving. Forest Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Lindh BC, Muir PS. 2004. Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: does thinning help restore 

old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 192: 285-296.

Long CJ, Whitlock C. 2002. Fire and vegetation history from the coastal rain forest of the western Oregon 

Coast Range. . Quaternary Research 58: 215-225.

Long JN. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle 61: 23-27.

—. 1995. Using stand density index to regulate stocking in uneven-aged stands in O'Hara KL, ed. Unevenaged Management: Opportunities, Constraints, and Methodologies. Missoula, Montana: Montana Forest 

and Conservation Experiement Station. 

—. 1996. A Technique for the Control of Stocking in Two-Storied Stands. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry 11: 59-61.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page h

Luce CH. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration 

Ecology 5: 265-270.

—. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by 

forest roads: what do we still need to learn? Hydrol Process 16: 2901–2904.

Lutz JA, Halpern CB. 2006. Tree mortality during early forest development: a long-term study of rates, 

causes, and consequences. Ecological Monographs 76: 257-275.

Madej M, Barr B, Curren T, Bloom A, Gibbs G. 2001. Effectiveness of road restoration in reducing 

sediment loads. Arcata, CA: US Geological Survey, Redwood Field Station. 

Maguire DA, Kershaw JA, Hann DW. 1991. Predicting the effects of silvicultural regime on branch size 

and crown wood core in Douglas-fir. Forest Science 37: 1409-1428.

Mantua NJ, S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation 

with impacts on salmon production. . Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78: 1069-1079.

Marcot BG, Mellen K, Livingston SA, Ogden C. 2002. The DecAID Advisory Model: Wildlife Component. 

Pages 561-590 in Shea PJ, Laudenslayer WF, Valentine B, Weatherspoon CP, eds. Proceedings of the 

Symposium on The Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in Western Forests, Reno, Nevada. , vol. 

PSW-GTR-181. : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 

Marshall DD, Curtis RO. 2002. Volume, value, and thinning: logs for the future. Science Findings, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 48. 

Mason WL. 2002. Are irregular stands more windfirm? . Forestry 75: 347-355.

McCarter JB, Wilson JS, Baker PJ, Moffett JL, Oliver CD. 1998. Landscape management through 

integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry 96(6): 17-23.

McClain ME, R.E. Bilby, and F.J. Triska. 1998. Nutrient cycles and responses to disturbance. in R.J. 

Naiman and R.E. Bilby e, ed. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. 

New York: Springer. 

McKenzie D, Peterson DW, Peterson DL, Thornton PE. 2003. Climatic and biophysical controls on 

conifer species distributions in mountain forests of Washington State, USA. Journal of Biogeography 30: 

1093-1108.

Megahan W, Kidd W. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition from 

steep terrain. Journal of Forestry 70: 136-141.

Miller M, Emmingham B. 2001. Can selection thinning convert even-age douglas-fir stands to uneven-age 

structures? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16: 35-43. 

Mitchell SJ. 2000. Stem growth response in Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce following thinning: implications 

for assessing wind-firmness. Forest Ecology and Management 135: 105-114.

Montgomery D. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. Water Resources 

Research 30: 1925-1932.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page i

Muir PS, R.L. M, J.C. T, Bailey JD, Elliott WE, Hagar JC, Miller JC, Peterson EP, Starkey EE. 2002. 

Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Corvalis, OR: Forest and 

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. ISSN 1081-292X. 

Mustard J, Harper G. 1998. A summary of the available information on the height to diameter ratio. 

Victoria, B.C.: Forest Dynamics Research, Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests. 

Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, Bisson PA. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. 

Bioscience 50: 996-1011.

Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of 

Streamside Communities. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Press. 

Naiman RJ, Featherston KL, S.J. M, Chen J. 1998. Riparian forests. . Pages 289-323 in R.J. Naiman and 

R.E. Bilby e, ed. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: 

Springer. 

Nakawatase JM, Peterson DL. 2006. Spatial variability in forest growth – climate relationships in the 

Olympic Mountains, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 77-91.

Neitlich PN, McCune B. 1997. Hotspots of epiphytic lichen diversity in two young managed forests. . 

Conservation Biology 11: 172-182.

Newcombe C, P. , MacDonald DD. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. N Am J 

Fish Manage 11:: 72–82.

Newman M, G.P. Compo, M.A. Alexander. 2003. ENSO-forced variability of the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation. Journal of Climate 16: 3853-3857.

Newton M, Comeau P. 1990. Control of competing vegetation. Pages 256-265 in Lavender DP, R. P, 

Johnson CM, Montgomery G, Vyse A, Willis RA, Winston D, eds. Regenerating British Columbia's 

Forests. Vancouver, B.C.: U.B.C. Press. 

NOAA. 2007. Western Regional Climate Center. 

Norvell LL, Exeter RL. 2004. Ectomycorrhizal epigeous basidiomycete diversity in Oregon Coast Range 

Pesudotsuga menziesii forests - preliminary observations. in Cripps CL, ed. Fungi in forest ecosystems: 

systematics, diverisity and ecology. . Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden. 

O'Hara KL. 1996. Dynamics and stocking-level relationships of multi-aged Pondersoa Pine Stands. Forest 

Science, Monograph 33 42: 1-34.

O'Hara KL, Gersonde RF. 2004. Stocking control concepts in uneven-aged silviculture. Forestry 77. 

Oliver CD, Larson BC. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Peterson DW, Peterson DL. 2001. Mountain hemlock growth responds to climatic variability at annual and 

decadal time scales. Ecology 82: 3330-3345.

Peterson EB. 2002. Epiphytic lichens and bryophytes: macrolichens on trees and shrubs. in Muir PS, 

Mattingly R, Tappeiner JC, Bailey JD, Elliott WE, Hagar JC, Miller J, Peterson EB, Starkey EE, eds. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page j

Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon.: US Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Biological Sciences Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006. 

Peterson EB, McCune B. 2001. Diversity and succession of epiphytic macrolichen communities in lowelevation managed conifer forests in western Oregon. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 511-524.

Plotnikoff RW, Wiseman C. 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols for Rivers and Streams,. Olympia, 

WA.: Pub No. 01-03-028, Environmental Assessment Program. 

Poage N, Tappeiner JC. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth 

Douglas-fir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1232-1243. 

Pollock MM. 1998. Biodiversity. Pages 430–452 in Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, eds. River Ecology and 

Management: Lessons From the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Powell J, Lebovitz AD, Rudolph J, Penttila BA. 2003. A Chronology and Historical Analysis of Forest 

Harvest and Regeneration, Logging Road Construction, and Landslide Activity in the Ellsworth Creek 

Watershed. Bone River, Willapa Bay: CWC Coastal Watersheds Consulting. 

Pringle RF. 1986. Soil Survey of Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific County, 

and Wahkiakum County, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 

in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University, and 

Agriculture Research Center. 

Public Forestry Foundation. 2001. A Forest Management Strategy for the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, 

Washington. Forestry Program, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, US Army Corps I, Fort 

Lewis Militarty Reservation. 

Puettmann K, J, Hann DW, Hibss DE. 1993. Evaluation of the Size-Density Relationships for Pure Red 

Alder and Douglas-Fir Stands. Forest Science, 39: 7-27.

Rebertus AJ, Kitzberger T, Veblen TT, Roovers LM. 1997. Blowdown history and landscape patterns in the 

Andes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Ecology 78: 678-692.

Reineke LH. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. our. Agric. Res. 46: 627-638.

Rentmeester SA. 2004. An Assessment of Large Woody Debris and Riparian Forest Resources at Ellsworth 

Creek Watershed and a Comparison of Riparian Management Options. Masters. University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA. 

Rolph DN, Beggs L. 2006. Restoration of the Ellsworth Creek watershed, pacific County, Washington: 

Project rationale and adaptive management study design. . Seattle, Washington: The Nature Conservancy of 

Washington. 

Roni P, Beechie T, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR. 2002. A Review of Stream Restoration 

Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1-20.

Ruel JC. 1995. Understanding windthrow: silvicultural implications. Forestry chronicle 71: 434-445.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page k

Ruth RH, Harris AS. 1979. Management of western hemlock-stika spruce forests for timber production. 

General Technical Report, USFS Pacific Nortwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Portland, OR 

PNW-88.

Schowalter T, Zhang, YL, Rykken, JJ. 2003. Litter invertebrate responses to variable density thinning in 

western Washington forest. Ecological Applications 13: 1204-1211.

Schultz ME, De Santo TL. 2006. Comparison of terrestrial invertebrate biomass and richness in young 

mixed red alder-conifer, young conifer and old conifer stands of southeast Alaska. Northwest Science 80: 

120-132.

Scott RE, Mitchell SJ. 2005. Empirical modeling of windthrow risk in partially harvested stands using tree, 

neighborhood, and stand attributes. For. Ecol. Manage. 218: 193-209.

Shafer SL, Bartlein PJ, Thompson RS. 2001. Potential changes in the distributions of western North 

American tree and shrub taxa under future climate scenarios. Ecosystems 4: 200-215.

Shaw DC. 2000. Application of Stand Density Index to Irregularly Structured Stands. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 15: 40-42.

Sillett SC, McCune B, Peck JE, Rambo TR, Ruchty A. 2000. Dispersal limitations of epiphytic lichens result 

in species dependent on old-growth forests. Ecological applications 10: 789-799.

Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS. 1997. The Practice of Silviculture: John Wiley & Sons. 

Smith JE, Molina R, Huso MMP, Luoma DL, McKay D, Castellano MA, Lebel T, Valachovic Y. 2002. 

Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal 

sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the 

Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A. Can. J. Bot. 80: 186-204. 

Spies TA, Cissel JH, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Poage N, Pabst R, Tappeiner JC, Winter L. 2002a. Summary 

of Workshop on Development of Old-Growth Douglas Fir Forests along the Pacific Coast of North 

America: A Regional Perspective. H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Blue River Oregon. 

Spies TA, et al. 2002b. The Ecological basis of forest ecosystem management in the Oregon Coast Range. 

in S.D. Hobbs JPH, R.L. Johnson, G.H. Reeves, T.A. Spies, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E. Wells, ed. Forest 

and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Forest and Stream Management in the 

Oregon Coast Range. 

Stewart GH. 1988. The influence of canopy cover on understory development in forests of the western 

Cascade Range, Oregon, USA. Vegetatio 76: 79-88.

Stringer D. 2005. Willapa NWR Forest Inventory Progress Report. Submitted to The Nature Conservancy 

and Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington.: Integrated Resources 

Management. 

Suzuki N, Hayes JP. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 67: 352-371.

Swanson F, Dyrness C. 1975. Impact of clear-cutting and road construction on soil erosion by landslides in 

the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 3: 393-396. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page l

Switalski T, Bissonette J, DeLuca T, Luce C, Madej M. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 21-28.

Tappeiner JC, Emmingham WH, E. HD. 2002. Silviculture in the Oregon Coast Range forests. Pages 172-

190 in Hobbs SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, Reeves GH, Spies TA, Tappeiner JC, Wells GE, eds. Forest and 

Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Tappeiner JC, Huffman D, Marshall D, Spies TA, Bailey JD. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in oldgrowth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 910-920. 

Taylor AH. 1990. Disturbance and persistence of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr.) in coastal 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, North America. Journal of Biogeography 17: 47-58. 

Taylor B, Kremsater L, Ellis R. 1997. Adaptive management of forests in British Columbia. . Victoria, 

British Columbia.: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch. 

Thies WG, Sturrock RN. 1995. Laminated Root Rot in Western North American. USDA Forest Servive 

General Technical Report Pacific Northwest Research Station PNW-GTR-349.

Thies WG, Goheen EM. 2002. Major Forest Diseases of the Oregon Coast Range and their Management. 

Pages 191-210 in Hobbs SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, Reeves GH, Spies TA, Tappeiner JC, Wells GE, eds. 

Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Thysell DR, Carey AB. 2001. Manipulaiton of density of Pseudotsuga Menziesii canopies: premilinary effects 

on understory vegetation. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1513-1525. 

Turner ME, Gardner RH, O'Neill RV. 2001. Landscape ecology: in theory and practice. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. 

USFS. 2001. Five Rivers Landscape Management Project: Waldport Ranger District, Siuslaw National 

Forest. Final Environmental Impact Study. . USDA Forest Service, Suislaw National Forest. 

—. 2003. Road decommissioning monitoring report. Orofino, ID: US Forest Service, Clearwater National 

Forest. 

USFWS. 1979. Long Island Forest Management Plan, Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. Pacific County, 

Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

—. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (Washington, Oregon and 

California Population). . Portland, OR.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

—. 1999. Environmental Assessment: Willlapa National Wildllife Refuge Additions, Pacific County, WA. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

—. 2004. Nestucca oil spill: Revised restoration plan. . Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Lacey, Washington.: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

—. 2006. Endangered and threatened wilidlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the marbled 

murrelet.: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Volume 71, No. 176. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page m

Vander Schaaf, et al. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregion Assessment. . Portland, Oregon.: The 

Nature Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. . 

WADNR. 2005. State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2005 Update. Olympia.: Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 

—. 2006. Washington forest practices board manual. Olympia, WA.: Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources. 

Walder B, Bagley S. 1998. An explanation and assessment of road removal in varied habitats. Missoula, MT: 

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. 

Walters CJ, Holling CS. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. . Ecology 71: 

2060-2068.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Washington forest practices board manual. 

Olympia, WA.: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 

Weetman G, Prescott C. 2001. The structure, functioning and management of old-growth cedar-hemlockfir forests on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. . Pages 275-287 in Evans J, ed. The Forests Handbook, 

Volume 2, Applying Forest Science for Sustainable Management, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Wegmann KW. 2004. Mass Wasting Assessment: Landslide Hazard Zonation Project Level II Assessment, 

Lower Naselle Watershed, Pacific County, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources. 

Wells RE. 1989. Geologic map of the Cape Disappointment-Naselle River area, Pacific and Wahkiakum 

Counties, Washington:. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Wemple B, Jones J, Grant G. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western 

Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195-1207. 

Whitlock C. 1992. Vegetational and climatic history of the Pacific Northwest during the last 20,000 years: 

implications for understanding present-day biodiversity. Northwest Environmental Journal 8: 5-28.

Whitlock C, Shafer SL, Marlon J. 2003. The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and 

future fire regimes in the northwestern UW and the implications for ecosystem management. Forest 

Ecology and Management 178: 5-21.

Wilson JS, Oliver CD. 2000. Stability and density management in Douglas-fir plantations. Can. J. For. Res. 

30: 910-920.

Wimberly MC, Spies TA. 2001. Influences of environment and disturbance on forest patterns in coastal 

Oregon watersheds. Ecology 82: 1443-1459.

Winter LE, Brubaker LB, Franklin JF, Miller EA, DeWitt DQ. 2002a. Initiation of an old-growth Douglasfir stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction from tree-ring records. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 32: 1039-1056.

—. 2002b. Canopy disturbances over the five-century lifetime of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the 

Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – References Page n

Wolf EC. 1993. A Tidewater Place: Portrait of the Willapa Ecosystem. . The Willapa Alliance: 48. 

Wonn HT, O'Hara KL. 2001. Height:diameter ratios and stability relationships for four northern Rocky 

Mountain tree species. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16: 87-94.

Woodall CW, Miles PD, Vissage JS. 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species 

stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. Forest Ecology and Management 216: 367–377.

Woodall CW, Perry CH, Miles PD. 2006. The relative density of forests in the United States. Forest 

Ecology and Management 226: 368–372.

Wright EF, Canham DD, Coates KD. 2000. Effects of suppression and release on sapling growth for 11 

tree species of northern, interior British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1571-1580.

Wright W, Callaghan J. 2002. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Stream Assessments. Applied 

Environmental Services. 

Yoshinaka M, Stone J. 2004. Fish, Macroinvertebrate, and Habitat Survey of Three Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge Streams. Vancouver, Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries 

Program Office. 

Zenner EK. 2005. Development of tree size distributions in Douglas-fir forests under differing disturbance 

regimes. Ecological applications 15: 701-714.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 1

APPENDIX A: ECOLOGY OF SPRUCE-HEMLOCK FORESTS

By: Andrew Larsen and Derek Churchill

Natural Disturbances

Disturbances play important roles in structuring the coniferous forests of western North America (Agee 

1993, Franklin et al. 2002, Veblen et al. 1994). Their variation in type, extent, intensity and frequency lead 

to unique post-disturbance conditions and forest developmental pathways. Stand replacing disturbances 

initiate the forest development sequence while chronic, small-scale disturbances are important agents of 

tree mortality and pattern formation within the development sequence. Wind is the primary disturbance in 

coastal Sitka spruce Zone forests. Storms with hurricane force winds—potential stand replacing events—

have swept the western Washington coast approximately once every 20 years in the last 200 years 

(Henderson et al. 1989). Of these events, the ―21 Blow‖ of 1921 and the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 

were the most significant, with estimated 7 and 11 billion board feet of timber volume blow down in the 

storms, respectively. In addition, smaller windstorms blow down or damage individual trees or groups of 

trees on a much more frequent basis. Additional complexity is introduced by feedbacks between windcreated edges along canopy gaps and blowdown areas, which expose additional trees to wind disturbance 

(Greene et al. 1992). As a consequence, wind disturbance become chronic, and blowdown patches can be 

seen to grow and migrate across coastal forest landscapes at annual to decadal time scales in complex wave 

and partial wave patterns (Harcombe et al. 2004). The net effect of this variable-intensity wind disturbance 

regime is a complex landscape mosaic of different patch types and sizes, often with high within-patch 

heterogeneity. 

Fires, while rare, also perturb coastal Sitka spruce Zone forests. The incidence of fire in these forests is low 

because ignition sources are infrequent and ignitions rarely coincide with fuel moisture levels conducive to 

carrying wildfire. The limited available fire history data for Sitka spruce forests indicates that stand 

replacement fires occur only during extreme weather conditions associated with dry east winds (Agee 1993). 

Long and Whitlock (2002) estimated a fire return interval of 240 ± 30 years over the past 2700 years at a 

site just south of the project area in northwest Oregon. In the Sitka spruce Zone forests of the Olympic 

Peninsula fires have burned with a return interval of approximately 900 years (Henderson et al. 1989). A 

major stand-replacing fire event—the Nestucca Fire— burned Sitka spruce Zone forests at what is now the 

Cascade Head Experimental Forest in northwest Oregon sometime between 1845 and 1849 (Morris 1934, 

Munger 1944). The Nestucca fire started in the Willamette Valley and was pushed over the Coast Range by 

strong east winds. It is unknown if this significant fire was of natural or human origin. In any case, stand 

replacement fire events are certainly possible in the Sitka spruce Zone, although the probability of 

occurrence is quite low. 

Reconnaissance in the largest old-growth patch on Long Island revealed occasional isolated fire-scarred 

western redcedar snags, confirming that fire has been present to some degree in recent centuries. As the 

old-growth patch has no evidence of a recent stand-replacement event, these solitary fire-scarred snags 

likely represent trees that were struck by lightening and subsequently smoldered and charred, with the fire 

remaining small in extent. Recent lightening strikes in 2005 on Long Island and within the Ellsworth Creek 

watershed provide circumstantial evidence in support of this idea. 

Landslides are another major disturbance type that affects coastal forests, (Powell et al. 2003, Skaugset et al. 

2002, Wegmann 2004). Shallow, rapid translational landslides appear to comprise the bulk of soil mass 

movements in the Ellsworth Creek watershed, although deep-seated landslides are also apparent (Wegmann 

2004). They can be categorized as either debris slides, where the debris is deposited at the foot of the failure 

scarp, or debris flows, in which material has a high water content, is mobilized down slope, and enters the 

stream channel network (Skaugset et al. 2002). By creating sites with exposed mineral soil in the terrestrial 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 2

uplands, landslides create opportunities for early successional species to establish and thus maintain 

diversity in upland forest plant communities. Another important function of landslides, specifically debris 

flows, is to transport sediment and large woody debris from terrestrial uplands to the stream network. They 

reconfigure aquatic ecosystems (Montgomery D.R. and Buffington 1998) and deliver pulses of the basic 

habitat elements required for streams to develop optimal habitat function (Reeves et al. 1995). 

Forest Development Pathways

Old-growth Sitka spruce Zone forests are structurally similar to old-growth Douglas-fir forests (Franklin et 

al. 2005). The well studied structural development of Douglas-fir forests (Franklin et al. 2002, Zenner 2005) 

is helpful in understanding structural development in Sitka spruce forests, especially in managed stands as 

historic clear-cutting was typically a high severity disturbance that placed new stands on an even-aged 

trajectory similar to Douglas-fir stands after a high severity fire. However, the dominant disturbance in 

natural Sitka spruce Zone forests—wind—differs from that of Douglas-fir forests, which are influenced 

relatively more by fire. The silvics of the major species are also different. Thus, while reviewing the 

developmental sequence of Douglas-fir forests, we will also identify the key differences of Sitka spruce 

Zone forests. 

Franklin et al. (2002) present an eight stage conceptual model for Douglas-fir forest development following 

stand-replacing disturbance. Each structural stage is named for the dominant structural development 

processes at that point in development. Many developmental processes operate at any one time in stand 

structural development, however; forests do not develop in an orderly fashion. General trends are certainly 

identifiable, but high variability in natural forests is the rule rather than the exception. 

The developmental sequence is initiated in the disturbance and legacy creation stage. The type and intensity 

of the stand replacing disturbance create the substrate and biological legacies (living organisms, dead 

organic matter, and biologically-derived spatial patterns that persist following a disturbance) that set the 

stage for stand development. Stand replacement windstorms create a complex substrate of overturned 

rootwads with depressions of exposed mineral soil, downed logs, and intact pre-disturbance forest soils that 

is very different from the predominance of exposed mineral soil after a high intensity fire. In addition a 

larger number of live trees tend to persist through windstorms as opposed to high intensity fire. Much 

recent research on biological legacies has focused on residual live green trees, including their distribution 

(Keeton and Franklin 2004, Keeton and Franklin 2005) affects on stand volume growth (Acker et al. 1998, 

Zenner et al. 1998), influence on spatial patterns of regenerating trees (Goslin 1997), contribution to stand 

structural complexity (Zenner 2000), and influence on rates of forest succession (Keeton and Franklin 

2005). In all these examples, the influence of the stand-initiating disturbance, and especially the biological 

legacies, is apparent decades or even centuries later in stand development. 

Following disturbance and legacy creation, stands enter the cohort establishment stage. This stage is 

characterized by the establishment of a new cohort of conifer tree seedlings that is highly variable in time 

and space. The establishment of tree populations is limited or facilitated by five broad factors: seed 

availability and dispersal; environmental conditions; competition with non-tree vegetation; seed and 

seedling loss to herbivory and pathogens; and repeat disturbance prior to the sexual maturity of the new 

cohort. The first three factors operate in serial progression. Environmental conditions only limit tree 

regeneration after viable seed reaches the site, and competing non-tree vegetation only becomes limiting 

after tree species germinants have survived the initial environmental filter. The last two factors operate 

more-or-less throughout the tree establishment process. 

In the moderate, moist Sitka spruce Zone cohort establishment is typically a relatively rapid process. Both 

spruce and hemlock are prolific seed producers (Ruth and Harris 1979) and seedlings typically establish at 

very high densities. Western redcedar also establishes, but at lower densities. The growing conditions are 

also quite favorable for competing non-tree vegetation however; if seed source is limiting immediately 

following fire a dense shrub layer may establish, limiting further tree seedling recruitment (Tappeiner et al. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 3

2002). Because the dominant disturbance in the Sitka spruce Zone is wind, advanced regeneration often 

survives in its relatively sheltered position in the understory and can dominate the new cohort. Cohort 

establishment thus precedes the disturbance and legacy creation stage. 

The next structural development stage following cohort establishment is distinguished by closure of the 

tree canopy. Canopy closure brings about extremely rapid shifts in the environmental conditions at the site. 

Understory light levels shift from nearly full sun to quite dark. Temperature and moisture regimes become 

moderated by the tree canopy, as well as understory wind speeds. Community composition begins to 

change following canopy closure. Shade intolerant, early successional herb and shrub species begin to be 

excluded from the site and successful establishment of additional tree seedlings ceases. 

With the development of a closed, interlocking canopy forest development enters a developmental period 

marked by intense competition and biomass accumulation. At extreme levels, competition results in the 

mortality of those plants unable to capture enough resources to compensate for respiration costs. 

Competition in the moist Sitka spruce Zone forests is assumed to be primarily competition for light, which 

is generally thought of as a one-sided process (Cannell and Grace 1993, Cannell et al. 1984, Ford 1975, 

Ford and Diggle 1981) . In one-sided (asymmetrical) competition for light, a tall plant does not compete 

with a short plant, at least not above the level of the highest foliage on the shorter plant, while short plants 

compete directly with adjacent taller plants.. Alternately, two-sided or symmetrical competition occurs 

when plants share scarce resources in proportion to their size. If symmetrical competition is occurring even 

small plants will adversely affect the growth of large plants, as in the ponderosa pine/grand fir (Pinus 

ponderosa/Abies grandis) stands studied by McDowell and colleagues (2003), where water use by young grand 

fir limited growth of old-growth ponderosa pine. Competition for belowground resources is generally 

thought of as a two-sided process; the ability of a plant to extract limited belowground resources is 

proportional to the size of its root system. In reality, both one-sided and two-sided competition likely 

occurs in Sitka spruce Zone forests. However, stand structural development is likely influenced more 

strongly by one-sided competition for light than by two-sided below ground competition. 

Competition related tree mortality prevails during the competitive exclusion/biomass accumulation stage. 

Growth rates and early canopy differentiation determine the ―winners‖. Slower growing species such as 

western redcedar are often out-competed and decline in relative abundance. The spatial outcome of 

competitive tree mortality is an overall homogenization of the forest stand structure. Subordinate trees and 

plants die, and recruitment of additional tree seedlings is excluded (Harcombe 1986) resulting in a canopy 

structure characterized by a single uniform layer of foliage (Van Pelt and Nadkarni 2004). Dense clumps of 

trees self-thin, reducing within-stand variation in tree density. Trees surviving competitive mortality tend to 

be distributed in a spatially regular pattern (Kenkel 1988). While competition related mortality dominates 

tree demography, ecologically significant competition-independent tree mortality due to disturbance 

typically occurs during the competitive exclusion/biomass accumulation stage. For example, in a young 

Cascadian Douglas-fir-hemlock forest (Lutz and Halpern 2006) found that while the frequency of 

suppression mortality of trees was 2.5 times greater than that of mortality due to disturbance, nearly four 

times more biomass was lost to disturbance mortality. 

Gradually, the developing stand transitions from the competitive exclusion/biomass accumulation stage 

into the maturation stage. Maturation is marked by the attainment of maximum height and crown spread. 

As overstory trees slow their crown expansion the intensity of competition for light lessens. Consequently, 

the dominant agents of tree mortality shift from competition related processes to density-independent 

processes, such as small scale disturbance, pathogens and insects. Understory light levels increase, allowing 

the development and re-establishment of understory plants and shade-tolerant tree species in the lower 

canopy. However, this process can be very slow in mature stands with a strong western hemlock 

component—a common scenario in the Sitka spruce Zone. Working in mid-elevation forests in the Oregon 

Cascades Stewart (1986, 1988) found that shade tolerant tree regeneration was delayed and understory plant 

community development was limited in stands with hemlock-dominated overstories , relative to Douglas-fir 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 4

dominated stands. The denser hemlock canopy likely transmits less light, restricting understory 

development. By extension, Sitka spruce Zone forests that established with a high initial western hemlock 

overstory component my experience delays in maturation relative to stands that established with a relatively 

large Sitka spruce overstory component. 

Once understory trees have established, further small-scale canopy disturbances create opportunities for 

growth of shade-tolerant trees into the middle and overstory strata (Winter et al. 2002), resulting in a 

vertically continuous canopy and a diversity of live tree sizes. This stage is termed vertical diversification. 

As overstory trees which have grown to substantial size at this developmental stage succumb to mortality, 

woody debris loads increase from the low levels typical of the early maturation stage to those typical of oldgrowth forests. In coastal forests, much of the overstory tree mortality at this stage arises due to 

interactions between pathogens (root and butt rots) and wind. Large branch systems develop during 

vertical diversification, as does decadence in live trees (e.g. stem rot, cavities, bark scarring, broken tops, 

etc.), creating diverse canopy habitat for animals and epiphytes. 

The horizontal diversification stage follows vertical diversification and describes the process by which a 

forest stand develops a spatially heterogeneous structure in a horizontal plane. Horizontal diversification 

subsumes many tree birth, death and growth processes, of which the net effect is to transform the 

homogenous young stand (i.e. a stand in the competitive exclusion/biomass accumulation stage) into a 

spatially heterogeneous forest. Horizontal heterogeneity, defined as the presence of multiple patches within 

a forest stand which together form a fine scale structural mosaic, is considered an emergent property of 

old-growth forests (Franklin and Van Pelt 2004) and is thought to originate primarily from a combination 

of spatially-aggregated tree mortality and competitive interactions between different subpopulations of trees 

(Franklin et al. 2002, Larson and Franklin 2006). 

The final developmental stage identified by Franklin et al (2002) is pioneer cohort loss, which is simply the 

loss of the last members of the original stand initiation cohort. In the Douglas-fir forests described by 

Franklin et al. (2002) this represents a potential loss of forest structure and function since Douglas-fir 

generally does not regenerate in canopy gaps. The analogue for Sitka spruce Zone forests would be the loss 

of large, dominant spruce. However, in spruce forests the pioneer cohort loss stage does not have the 

same consequences for forest structure, composition and function as in Douglas-fir forests because spruce 

is capable of regenerating in canopy gaps (Taylor 1990), thereby maintaining a spruce component over time 

spans greater than the longevity of the original spruce cohort. 

Two major stand development pathways exist in coastal spruce-hemlock-cedar forests and arise from 

variation in severity of the dominant disturbance, wind (Figure: 1). Sites with greater exposure to wind tend 

to experience high severity disturbance and stand development follows a catastrophic pathway (i.e., 

Franklin et al. 2002). Due to their prolific seed production and rapid early growth, western hemlock, and to 

much a lesser extent, Sitka spruce tend to be the dominant species in this pathway. Relatively less exposed 

sites experience chronic, low severity wind disturbance, which manifests as small scale, canopy-thinning 

disturbances (Winter et al. 2002). The chronic disturbance pathway tends to select for wind resistant, 

western redcedar and leads to relatively open, cedar dominated stands that are increasingly resistant to wind 

disturbance over time (Weetman and Prescott 2001). At the landscape scale, topographic heterogeneity 

create a mosaic of young, even aged stands developing along the catastrophic pathway following high 

severity wind disturbance and old-growth, all aged stands maintained by low and moderate severity wind 

disturbance (Kramer et al. 2001, Weetman and Prescott 2001). 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 5

Topography-mediated wind disturbance

Disturbance

Cohort 

establishment

Maturation

Competitive 

exclusion

High severity 

disturbance and 

legacy creation

High Risk Topography Low Risk Topography

Vertical & Horizontal Diverse

Stand initiation long ago

Low/mid 

severity

“Steady-state” 

mosaic

Mid/high 

frequency

Figure 1: The effects of topography on wind disturbance and forest development 

Long term studies of forest development following stand replacement fire at Cascade Head Experimental 

Forest provide additional insight into forest structural development in the Sitka spruce Zone. Stand 

replacement fire burned the Northern Oregon Coast Range in circa 1845 (Morris 1934, Munger 1944), 

including the area now designated as the Cascade Head Experimental Forest. Following fire, stand 

structural development proceeded along the sequence described by Franklin et al. (2002) up to the end of 

the competitive exclusion stage and beginning of the maturation stage (Harcombe 1986). Permanent plot 

studies then demonstrate accelerating mortality and biomass loss in maturing forests (Acker et al. 2000, 

Greene et al. 1992, Harcombe et al. 1990) from a complex pattern of wind disturbance (blowdown). 

Harcombe et al. (2004) used aerial photographs to characterize this wave like pattern as it advanced 

through Cascade Head over a 40 year period. 

Susceptibility of a forest stand to windthrow increases with stand age in coastal forests (Harmon et al. 2004, 

Harris 1989, Jane 1986, Rebertus et al. 1997, Wimberly and Spies 2001) (Figure 2). As trees grow taller they 

become less able to withstand the physical forces of high velocity winds, leading to increases incidence of 

mechanical failure either by uprooting or stem breakage. Stem, butt and root rots in older (larger) trees also 

increase the likelihood of windthrow (Edmonds et al. 2000). Also, once gaps in the canopy have been 

created, the remaining trees are more exposed and susceptible. Topography interacts with prevailing wind 

directions (storm tracks) such that different locations will have greater or lower susceptibility to windthrow 

(Kramer et al. 2001). On sites predisposed to catastrophic windthrow by the local topographic context, 

forest structural development will be truncated, seldom reaching the later stages (i.e. vertical and horizontal 

diversification) of forest structural development. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 6

Susceptibility to high severity wind disturbance

Structural Stage

Disturbance and legacy creation

Cohort establishment

Canopy closure

Competitive exclusion

Maturation

Vertical diversification

Horizontal diversification

LowHigh

Catastrophic:

• Mid/high severity

• Low/mid frequency

Chronic:

• Low/mid severity

• Mid/high frequency

Stand structure-mediated wind disturbance

Figure 2: The influence of stand structure and wind disturbance on forest developmental pathways. 

In the case of the Cascade Head, both topographic position and decreased resistance to wind disturbance 

due to unstable, single cohort stand structure dominated by tall, slender trees have contributed to the 

observed pattern of partial blowdown waves (Harcombe et al. 2004). These waves initiated from discreet 

canopy gaps that have slowly spread and coalesced through time. A similar phenomenon has been observed 

in other coastal, wind-disturbed forests (Rebertus and Veblen 1993, Rebertus et al. 1997). Thus, the 

implication is that conversion of wind resistant cedar dominated old-growth stands (sensu Weetman and 

Prescott 2001) to even aged hemlock dominated stands has decreased the resistance to wind disturbance, 

particularly on sites with only moderate topographic protection from storm tracks. 

Red alder aggressively invades many sites in the Sitka spruce Zone following disturbances. Consequently, 

pure stands of red alder, or mixed alder - conifer stands often develop following logging or natural 

disturbance (Deal et al. 2004). Red alder is a short lived species; two major successional pathways are 

possible in maturing alder stands. Spruce, hemlock and cedar are all able to persist in the understory of 

alder stands. Thus, a common successional sequence is a gradual transition from alder to conifer 

dominance. Beach and Halpern (2001) found that distance to seed source was the most important 

explanatory variable for patterns of conifer seedling abundance in alder dominated riparian forests. 

Substrate (woody debris) was positively related to hemlock and spruce seedling abundance, while conifer 

seedling abundance declined with increasing herb and shrub cover. The same study found no relationship 

between conifer seedling abundance and overstory cover, suggesting that alder does not competitively 

exclude conifer seedlings from the understory. If conifer seed is not available, or if conifer seedling 

establishment is otherwise limited (e.g. by competition with understory plants or herbivory), shrubs may 

increase in dominance as the alder component senesces, further excluding conifer establishment and 

maintaining a stable shrub community (Spies et al. 2002). Having some portion of the landscape maintained 

in brushfields is not necessarily undesirable; the condition likely occurred naturally. However, management 

action (e.g. planting conifer seedlings) may need to be taken on some sites if past harvesting has removed 

local conifer seed sources. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 7

Mixed alder - conifer stands have the potential to develop heterogeneous stand structures with multiple 

canopy layers and large diameter conifers (Deal et al. 2004). Rapid initial height growth by alder leads to 

canopy stratification, with understory conifers persisting under an overstory of alder. Alder is a short lived 

species however and mortality of overstory trees facilitates the eventual recruitment of suppressed conifers 

into the overstory of mixed alder – conifer stands. Sitka spruce appears to be particularly adept at 

responding to release from overstory alder competition (Deal et al. 2004). 

Stream Geomorphology, Disturbances, and Habitat, including Riparian Areas

Stream geomorphology can be characterized at multiple spatial scales ranging from geomorphic provinces 

to channel reaches. Three basic types of channel reaches exist: (Montgomery D.R. and Buffington 1998). 

Colluvial reaches: These are typified by low volume, ephemeral flows and poor sediment sorting, as 

debris flows are the primary sediment transport process in colluvial reaches. 

Bedrock reaches: These occur where sediment transport capacity exceeds sediment supply, preventing 

the accumulation an alluvial sediment bed. 

Alluvial reaches: These occur where alluvial sediments accumulate and assume several different 

morphologies (cascade, step-pool, plane-bed, pool-riffle, and dune-ripple) depending on the ratio of 

sediment supply to transport capacity. These five types tend to arrange themselves within the channel 

network according to stream gradient, with cascades morphologies typically found in steeper areas and 

pool-riffle and dune-ripple reaches occupying low gradient locations. However, in-channel large woody 

debris alters sediment delivery-transport relationships, forcing channel reaches to assume different 

morphologies than would be expected in the absence of large wood in the stream channel. In-channel 

woody debris can create suitable aquatic habitat in stream reaches that would otherwise be of low 

habitat quality. 

 

Disturbance regimes and processes change throughout the stream network (Montgomery D. R. 1999). As 

stream channels increase in size, dominant disturbance processes transition from landslides and debris 

flows to floods and channel migration/avulsion events. The frequency and magnitude of stream 

disturbance regimes shifts from infrequent and high magnitude disturbances in small streams to higher 

frequency and more moderate intensity in larger channels. Debris flows are primarily responsible for 

delivery of large woody debris in high gradient headwater channels; while downstream transport, bank 

erosion, and stand mortality are the primary causes of recruitment in low gradient, larger channels. Also, 

habitat heterogeneity within channel networks is hypothesized to be strongly influenced by large deposits 

of large woody debris in tributary junctions (Benda et al. 2004). 

Riparian vegetation influences instream microenvironmental conditions, nutrient inputs and the quality and 

quantity of allotochonous organic inputs (Naiman et al. 2000, Naiman et al. 1998, Spies et al. 2002). 

Aquatic biota respond to changes in the quantity and quality of allotochonous inputs from riparian forests 

(Bisson and Bilby 1998). Riparian forests represent an important habitat resource in their own right: 29% of 

wildlife 

References

Acker SA, Sabin TE, Ganio LM, McKee WA. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber 

volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology and Management 104: 265-280.

Acker SA, Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Greene SE. 2000. Biomass accumulation over the first 150 years in 

a coastal Oregon Picea-Tsuga forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 725-738.

Agee JK. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Beach EW, Halpern CB. 2001. Controls on conifer regeneration in managed riparian forests: effects of seed 

source, substrate, and vegetation. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 471-482.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 8

Benda LE, Poff NL, Miller DJ, Dunne T, Reeves GH, Pess, Pollock M. 2004. The network dynamics 

hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54: 413-427. 

Bisson PA, Bilby RE. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. in Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, eds. River 

Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer. 

Cannell MG, Grace J. 1993. Competition for light: detection, measurement, and 

quantification. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 1969-1979.

Cannell MG, Rothery RP, Ford ED. 1984. Competition within stands of Picea 

sitchensis and Pinus contorta. . Annals of Botany 53: 349-362. 

Deal RL, Hennon PE, Orlikowska H, D.V. DA. 2004. Stand dynamics of mixed red alder – conifer forests 

in southeast Alaska. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 969-980.

Edmonds RL, Agee JK, Gara RI. 2000. Forest Health and Protection.: McGraw-Hill 

Ford ED. 1975. Competition and stand structure in some even-aged plant monocultures. . Journal of 

Ecology 63: 311-333.

Ford ED, Diggle PJ. 1981. Competition for light modeled as a spatial stochastic 

process. Annals of Botany 48: 481-500.

Franklin JF, Van Pelt R. 2004. Spatial aspects of structural complexity. Journal of Forestry 102: 22-27.

Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R. 2005. Definition and inventory of old growth forests on DNR managed 

lands.: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Report no. 

Franklin JF, et al. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with 

silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 

399-423.

Goslin MN. 1997. Development of two coniferous stands impacted by multiple, partial fires in the Oregon 

Cascades : establishment history and the spatial patterns of colonizing tree species relative to old-growth 

remnant trees Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Greene SE, Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Spycher G. 1992. Patterns of growth, mortality, and biomass 

change in a coastal Picea sitchensis – Tsuga heterophylla forest. . Journal of Vegetation Science 3: 697-706.

Harcombe PA. 1986. Stand development in a 130-year-old spruce-hemlock forest based on age structure 

and 50 years of mortality data. . Forest Ecology and Management 14: 41-58.

Harcombe PA, Harmon ME, Greene SE. 1990. Changes in biomass and production of 53 years in a coastal 

Picea sitchensis – Tsuga heterophylla forest approaching maturity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 

1602-1610.

Harcombe PA, Greene SE, Kramer MG, Acker SA, Spies TA, Valentine T. 2004. The influence of fire and 

windthrow dynamics on a coastal spruce-hemlock forest in Oregon, USA, based on aerial photographs 

spanning 40 years. Forest Ecology and Management 194: 71-82.

Harmon ME, Bible K, Ryan MG, Shaw DC, Chen H, Klopatek J, Li X. 2004. Production, respiration, and 

overall carbon balance in an old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forest ecosystem. Ecosystems 7: 498-512.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 9

Harris AS. 1989. Wind in the forest of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing damage. : PNW-GTR-224. 

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Henderson JA, Peter DH, Lesher RD, Shaw DC. 1989. Forested plant associations of the Olympic 

National Forest. in Service UF, ed. 

Jane GJ. 1986. Wind damage as an ecological process in mountain beech forests of Canterbury, New 

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 9: 25-39.

Keeton WS, Franklin JF. 2004. Fire-related landform associations of remnant old-growth trees in the 

southern Washington Cascade Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 2371-2381.

—. 2005. Do remnant old-growth trees accelerate rates of succession in mature Douglas-fir forests? 

Ecological Monographs 75: 103-118.

Kenkel NC. 1988. Pattern of self-thinning in jack pine: testing the random mortality 

hypothesis. Ecology 69: 1017-1024.

Kramer MG, Hansen AJ, Taper ML, Kissinger EJ. 2001. Abiotic controls on long-term windthrow 

disturbance and temperate rain forest dynamics in southeast Alaska. . Ecology 82: 2749-2768.

Larson AJ, Franklin JF. 2006. Structural segregation and scales of spatial dependence in Abies amabilis 

forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 489-498.

Long CJ, Whitlock C. 2002. Fire and vegetation history from the coastal rain forest of the western Oregon 

Coast Range. . Quaternary Research 58: 215-225.

Lutz JA, Halpern CB. 2006. Tree mortality during early forest development: a long-term study of rates, 

causes, and consequences. Ecological Monographs 76: 257-275.

McDowell N, J.R. Brooks, S.A. Fitzgerald, and B.J. Bond. 2003. Carbon isotope discrimination and growth 

response of old Pinus ponderosa trees to stand density reductions. Plant, Cell and Environment 26: 631-

644.

Montgomery DR. 1999. Process domains and the river continuum Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association 35: 397-410.

Montgomery DR, Buffington JM. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response. pp. 13-42 in: in 

Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. 

New York: Spring-Verlag. 

Morris RF. 1934. Forest fires in western Oregon and Washington. Oregon Historical Quarterly 35: 313-

339.

Munger TT. 1944. Out of the ashes of Nestucca. American Forests 50: 342-347.

Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, Bisson PA. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. 

Bioscience 50: 996-1011.

Naiman RJ, Featherston KL, S.J. M, Chen J. 1998. Riparian forests. . Pages 289-323 in R.J. Naiman and 

R.E. Bilby e, ed. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: 

Springer. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 10

Powell J, Lebovitz AD, Rudolph J, Penttila BA. 2003. A Chronology and Historical Analysis of Forest 

Harvest and Regeneration, Logging Road Construction, and Landslide Activity in the Ellsworth Creek 

Watershed. Bone River, Willapa Bay: CWC Coastal Watersheds Consulting. Report no. 

Rebertus AJ, Veblen TT. 1993. Partial wave formation in old-growth Nothofagus forests on Tierra del Fuego, 

Argentina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 461-470.

Rebertus AJ, Kitzberger T, Veblen TT, Roovers LM. 1997. Blowdown history and landscape patterns in the 

Andes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Ecology 78: 678-692.

Reeves GH, Benda LE, Burnett KM, Bisson PA, Sedell JR. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach 

to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant units of anadromous salmonids 

in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 334-349.

Ruth RH, Harris AS. 1979. Management of western hemlock - Sitka spruce forests for timber production. 

in USDA, ed: Forest Service. 

Skaugset AE, Reeves GH, Keim RF. 2002. Landslides, surface erosion and forest operations in the Oregon 

Coast Range in S.D. Hobbs JPH, R.L. Johnson, G.H. Reeves, T.A. Spies, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E. Wells, 

ed. Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University 

Press. 

Spies TA, et al. 2002. The Ecological basis of forest ecosystem management in the Oregon Coast Range. in 

S.D. Hobbs JPH, R.L. Johnson, G.H. Reeves, T.A. Spies, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E. Wells, ed. Forest and 

Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Forest and Stream Management in the 

Oregon Coast Range. 

Stewart GH. 1986. Population dynamics of a montane conifer forest, western Cascade Range, Oregon, 

USA. Ecology 67: 534-544.

—. 1988. The influence of canopy cover on understory development in forests of the western Cascade 

Range, Oregon, USA. Vegetatio 76: 79-88.

Tappeiner JC, Emmingham WH, E. HD. 2002. Silviculture in the Oregon Coast Range forests. Pages 172-

190 in Hobbs SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, Reeves GH, Spies TA, Tappeiner JC, Wells GE, eds. Forest and 

Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Taylor AH. 1990. Disturbance and persistence of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr.) in coastal 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, North America. Journal of Biogeography 17: 47-58. 

Van Pelt R, Nadkarni NM. 2004. Development of canopy structure in Pseudotsuga menziesii forests in the 

Southern Washington Cascades. Forest Science 50: 326-341.

Veblen TT, Hadley KS, Nel EM, Kizberger T, Reid M, Villalba R. 1994. Disturbance regime and 

disturbance interactions in a rocky mountain subalpine forest. Journal of Ecology 82: 123-135.

Weetman G, Prescott C. 2001. The structure, functioning and management of old-growth cedar-hemlockfir forests on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. . Pages 275-287 in Evans J, ed. The Forests Handbook, 

Volume 2, Applying Forest Science for Sustainable Management, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix A, Page 11

Wegmann KW. 2004. Mass Wasting Assessment: Landslide Hazard Zonation Project Level II Assessment, 

Lower Naselle Watershed, Pacific County, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources. Report no. 

Wimberly MC, Spies TA. 2001. Influences of environment and disturbance on forest patterns in coastal 

Oregon watersheds. Ecology 82: 1443-1459.

Winter LE, Brubaker LB, Franklin JF, Miller EA, DeWitt DQ. 2002. Canopy disturbances over the fivecentury lifetime of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 32. 

Zenner EK. 2000. Do residual trees increase structural complexity in Pacific Northwest coniferous forests. 

Ecological Applications 10: 800-810.

—. 2005. Development of tree size distributions in Douglas-fir forests under differing disturbance regimes. 

Ecological applications 15: 701-714.

Zenner EK, Acker SA, Emmingham WH. 1998. Growth reduction in harvest-age, coniferous forests with 

residual trees in the western central Cascade Range of Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 102: 75-

88.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 1 

APPENDIX B: PROCESS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING 

STAND LEVEL PRESCRIPTIONS

By: Derek Churchill, Andrew Larson, & Kevin Cedar 

Numerous land management agencies in western Washington such as the Washington State DNR 

(Holmberg et al. 2006), the Olympic National Forest (Shoal 2002), the Cedar River Watershed (Erckmamn 

and others 2000), Fort Lewis Military Reservation (Public Forestry Foundation 2001), and the Pinchot 

Partners (Churchill et al. 2005) have translated the theoretical ideas of accelerating the development of old 

growth structure into operational thinning prescriptions. Various scientists have also provided operational 

level recommendations (Carey, pers. comm., Franklin pers. comm.). However, these recommendations are 

geared towards creating old growth structure suitable for spotted owl habitat in mostly Douglas-fir 

dominated forests. They also do not clearly articulate a thought process for determining the amount, scale, 

and distribution of variability that should be introduced at different stages of stand development in 

different forest types. 

Applying these concepts and implementation strategies to the Sitka spruce forests of Willapa Bay, where 

wind disturbance and prolific hemlock regeneration are defining attributes, is likely to lead to unintended 

consequences. The following process was thus developed to guide managers in developing site-specific 

prescriptions that have a clearly defined rationale of how to meet distinct objectives for particular stands. It 

is an attempt to articulate and define the complete set of factors and thought processes that should be 

addressed when designing prescriptions for a mix of objectives. Many of the steps will be obvious to any 

land manager, while others may not be. It may seem at first glance to be overly complex, yet it is basically 

what experienced foresters do intuitively. By ensuring that the prescription development is done in a 

conscious, systematic fashion with a clear rationale can be explained, unintended consequences from 

cookie-cutter prescriptions that can develop over time are more likely to be avoided. Most of the 

information needed in the process has already been gathered, is presented in this plan, and can be further 

analyzed using the multiple GIS layers, inventory data, and LMS tools collected and developed for these 

ownerships. While this process is laid out in a linear fashion, prescription development is by nature an 

iterative process and will involve going back and forth between steps. 

1. Clearly Articulate Management Goals & Constraints 

While the overall management objectives and landscape level, desired future conditions for the Refuge and 

Conservancy ownerships have been laid out in this plan, it is critical that they be clearly fleshed out for the 

specific stand in question. Getting clear and being upfront about the balance of ecological, economic, and 

social needs and constraints of each particular project will continually refresh and allow for evolution of 

overall management goals, avoid overuse of boilerplate language, and guard against loss of public trust. 

Although this is an obvious and often repeated step, many land management agencies have been slow to 

change their goals, thinking, and strategies as social values, ecological conditions, and scientific knowledge 

have changed. 

2. Assess Stand 

Landscape context: Several questions should be examined to get a clear picture of how the stand is 

connected with the surrounding landscape. What is the condition of the landscape around this stand in 

terms of stand structure, age class distribution, landscape heterogeneity, and habitat connectivity? What 

functions does this stand provide at the watershed and landscape scales? Are there riparian areas, 

streams, wetlands, unstable slopes, special habitats, rare species, or other features that are part of 

important landscape level processes or habitat for key wildlife species? If so, assess the condition of 

these areas relative to providing key functions. If treating several stands that are close together, much 

of this step can be done for multiple stands at once. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 2 

Site characteristics: The key physical factors that affect the vegetation and potential vegetation on the 

site must be clearly understood by identifying the geological history, landform, topographic position, 

soil characteristics, site productivity, and susceptibility to disturbance (primarily wind) of the site where 

the stand is located. Also, identify the plant association group, its defining physiological and ecological 

characteristics (i.e. low or high drought and frost tolerance, light vs. moisture limited, etc), and the 

silvics of the tree species present (regeneration strategies, shade tolerance, lifespan, growth potential, 

etc). 

Stand development history: Summarize how the stand developed by listing all past management 

activities (i.e. clear cut harvest, broadcast burning, planting, pre-commercial thinning, etc) and key 

natural processes that also played a role (i.e. species colonization, windthrow, competitive interactions, 

disease, etc). Next, using the explanation of natural stand development for this forest type provided in 

appendix A, identify key differences between the developmental pathway of this stand and a theoretical 

natural stand of a similar age developing after natural disturbance on this particular site. While the 

natural pathway is not necessarily the ideal or target pathway, it is critical to understand what structures 

and processes are different because of past management (i.e. lack of legacy live trees, snags, and CWD; 

high proportion of Douglas-fir, reduced horizontal patchiness early in stand development, low crown 

class differentiation, low species diversity, etc). Finally, attempt to determine the fine scale distinctions 

in old growth development that exist in the specific plant association and topographic position of the 

particular stand. For example, sites on drier soils on exposed ridge tops appear more conducive to 

western redcedar dominated stands while protected riparian corridors favor Sitka spruce and western 

hemlock. 

Structure and composition of stand: Through both inventory data and thoroughly walking the stand, 

managers should have a firm grasp of the following items: 

- Stand density, diameter and height distribution, and species composition. 

- Live crown and height to diameter ratios 

- Live legacies 

- Size, decay class, and expected longevity of snags, CWD, and wildlife trees: 

- Horizontal patterning: patchiness 

- Understory plant community composition 

- Ongoing disturbances 

Developmental processes: As described in appendix A, Franklin et. al. (2002) built on the work of 

earlier efforts (Carey and Curtis 1996, Oliver and Larson 1996) to develop a series of structural stages 

that describe the development of old growth forests. Most land management agencies use these or 

similar systems to classify stands into structural stages and to prescribe treatment regimes. However, 

stand development is rarely a linear path and stands often have processes from multiple stages 

happening at once (Franklin et al. 2002). This is especially true in systems with chronic disturbance 

regimes. When designing prescriptions, it is much more important to understand the specific processes 

occurring in a stand and their relation to the development of the desired future conditions, than it is to 

define the specific structural stage. From a synthesis of the above authors and several others (Carey 

2003, Spies and Franklin 1990, Spies et al. 2002a, Spies et al. 2002b), the 5 overarching components 

that lead to the development of old growth structure in westside Pacific Northwest forests have been 

broken down into the processes that drive them (table 1). These five overarching components are 

inherently interconnected and many of the processes are thus listed more than once. The processes are 

somewhat sequential, but not necessarily so. In order to better understand where the stand is at and 

where it is headed, the status of the overarching components should be observed in the field and 

analyzed. To do this, processes that are either in full swing, ramping up, declining, or about to begin 

should be identified using table 1. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 3 

Table 1: Stand development processes that lead to development of old growth structure in west side old 

growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.

Stand Development Processes

a). Overstory canopy development

• Cohort establishment & early mortality from weather, herbivory, and shrub competition 

• Canopy closure 

• Crown class differentiation: 

• Competitive exclusion & mortality 

• Biomass accumulation: height growth, diameter growth, and stem form 

• Vertical crown development: height growth, crown lifting, & epicormic re-building 

• Horizontal crown expansion 

b). Horizontal spatial patterning 

Live and dead legacy carry over from previous stand 

Early cohort establishment & mortality weather, herbivory, and shrub competition 

Horizontal packing: canopy closure and competitive exclusion that leads to more 

homogenous spatial pattern.

Small and large gap creation 

Patchy development of multiple canopy layers that creates ―anti-gaps‖ (patches of dense 

mid and understory trees). 

c). Vertical canopy development

Cohort establishment (early tree species colonization) 

Competitive exclusion 

Stratification 

Understory tree species colonization 

Recruitment and decomposition of dead wood: substrate for colonization. 

Development of midstory 

Patchy development of multiple canopy layers. Bottom loaded canopy where majority of 

foliage is in mid and understory tree layers. 

d). Decadence formation

Legacy carry over from previous stand

Biomass accumulation 

Competitive mortality 

Exogenous mortality (pathogens, inserts, wind, fire, etc). 

Damage to live trees: bole damage and crown damage 

Decomposition: fungi, invertebrates, vertebrates, abiotic, etc. 

e). Plant community development (shrubs, herbs, epiphytes, lichens, etc)

Live legacy carry over from previous stand 

Early species colonization & mortality 

Competitive exclusion & suppression. 

Understory re-initiation: species colonization & growth 

Gap formation 

Recruitment and decomposition of dead wood: substrate for colonization. 

Patchy development of multiple canopy layers where mid-understory tree layers create 

complex understory light environment 

Crown colonization: epiphytes, lichens, etc.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 4 

Operational assessment: A rough assessment of the operational needs of different management options 

should be done (access, logging systems, landings, skid trails, etc) and the potential costs, revenues, and 

impacts estimated. The likelihood of a future entry and what type of future entry (MDL vs. BR) should 

also be determined as it will be a critical factor. Key potential impacts to be assessed include: 

Soil compaction 

Erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic systems 

Invasive species 

Loss of key ecological features: snags, tall shrubs, rare plant species. 

Disturbance to sensitive wildlife & plant species. 

Excessive shrub response or western hemlock regeneration 

Social impacts: recreation, cultural sites, scenic value, etc. 

3. Design Prescription: 

Process analysis: The information gathered the stand assessment should be used to answer the 

following questions: 

- Which processes are currently moving the stand towards DFC and which are moving the stand 

away from it? 

- Without any management intervention, what processes and structures will be missing or slow 

to develop with respect to DFC? 

- What processes could be manipulated to move the stand towards DFC? 

- What processes could be set back by a management entry? 

- Will stand benefit from treatment, factoring in the potential impacts? If not, consider 

alternative treatments or do not enter stand. 

Specific treatment objectives: While the management goals provide guidance, more detailed 

quantitative structural targets and a timeline should be clearly articulated for the particular stand given 

all of its site-specific conditions and landscape context. The general goal of developing late-seral 

structure should be broken down into the type of old growth forest that is desired and possible on the 

site. For example, some sites may be conducive to patchy, cathedral like, cedar-dominated old growth 

stands. On other sites, a more uniform, smaller diameter hemlock-spruce old growth forest may be the 

best option given habitat needs for Marbled Murrelets, the site, and the current structure of the stand. 

The intermediate structural stages should be spelled out by establishing quantitative targets of 

dominant tree size, height to diameter ratios, snag abundance, relative species composition, shrub 

cover, and spatial patterning within a 20-50 fifty year timeframe. The short to medium term effects of 

treating the stand should be balanced against the long term goals. Careful analysis of the stand 

inventory data and experimentation with different treatment scenarios in LMS will likely be necessary. 

The level of precision possible will vary for different metrics and a good deal of silvicultural judgement 

will be required. Maintaining future management options should also be factored in. 

Sensitive areas and biodiversity hotspots: From the stand assessment, identify what features and areas 

will need special management or protection. These may include large snags, legacy trees, hardwood 

patches, wildlife trees, midstory trees, riparian areas, wetlands, unstable slopes, rare plants, and habitat 

for endangered wildlife species. Based on landscape and stand level ecological conditions and 

regulatory requirements, determine if they should be managed with a no entry buffer, a drop and leave 

release treatment, or protected through specific marking or contract language protection. 

Operational design: If a biomass removal treatment is being considered, a logging systems analysis 

should be done at this stage. Costs and operational requirements should be calculated. The sensitive 

areas listed above will likely be a major factor to work with. For YDL, MDL, understory management, 

or decadence acceleration treatments, costs and opportunities for operational efficiencies should also 

be examined. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 5 

Desired species composition: Determine what species will be retained and which will be targeted for 

removal. 

Understory management & decadence acceleration: Given the current species composition, snag and 

CWD levels, and what natural regeneration and blowdown is likely after a BR or MDL treatment, 

determine if these treatments are necessary and when. 

Baseline density and diameter targets: (for YDL, BR, and MDL treatments) The baseline density target 

can be considered the ―average‖ or background thinning intensity that can be used to establish the 

range of variability desired in VDT treatments. Decades of silvicultural research provide guidance as to 

expected responses from different intensities of thinning (Marshall and Curtis 2002, Oliver and Larson 

1996). While this research was conducted on plantations managed for wood production, it offers 

important knowledge and tools to achieve ecologically oriented structural goals. 

Density targets should be set in Stand Density Index (SDI) and can then be translated into trees per 

acre or basal area if necessary. The ―Lower Management Zone‖ in stand density diagrams (Curtis 1982, 

Drew and Flewelling 1979, Long 1985, Reineke 1933) can be used as a starting point. This is 35% of 

maximum SDI or 50% of full stocking. It is the point where enough growing space is opened to allow 

residual trees to grow vigorously for a sustained period of time without losing excessive stand level 

volume growth (DeMars 2000, Drew and Flewelling 1979, Oliver and Larson 1996). Ecologically, it is a 

balance between growing large individual trees and maintaining biomass accumulation for future snag 

and CWD recruitment. It will typically result in a small to moderate pulse of understory development 

and tree regeneration that will slow down as the canopy re-closes. If additional understory or midstory 

development is desired or growing large trees is a primary goal, the density target should be lower, 25-

35% of max SDI. In dense stands with high HD ratios or on wind prone sites, density targets may need 

to be set higher to avoid increasing windthrow risk. A general rule for these dense hemlock stands is to 

not lower density by more than 20% of max SDI (Holmberg et al. 2006). If a stand is at 70% of max 

SDI, then it should only be taken down to 50% of max SDI. 

Maximum SDI levels are 790 for western hemlock, 750 for Sitka Spruce and western redcedar, 590 for 

Douglas-fir, and 270 for red alder (Drew and Flewelling 1979, Farnden 2006, Hibbs and Carlton 1989, 

Long 1985, Puettmann et al. 1993, Smith N.J. 1989). Methods for determining maximum SDI levels for 

mixed species, multi-strata stands have only recently been developed (Woodall et al. 2005) and are still 

experimental. However, these stands are able to carry more stocking as different species and strata 

capture growing spacing differently and intra-specific competition is not as intense (Amoroso 2004, 

Long 1995, O'Hara and Gersonde 2004, Shaw 2000, Woodall et al. 2005). Thus maximum SDI levels in 

stands without a clearly dominant species (more than 60% of basal area) should use the highest SDI 

level of all the species in the stand, which will be 790 for western hemlock in most cases. Max SDI in 

stands dominated by Douglas-fir or red alder will need to be lower, and can be calculated using a 

weighted average based on the relative composition of the different species post-thinning. Field testing 

and experimentation through time will be needed to determine site specific maximum SDI levels for 

different mixtures of species and corresponding thinning targets. Also, in stands where individual tree 

or group selection approaches will be used to target specific features or areas of a stand, simple trees 

per acre targets may be more appropriate than using the SDI framework. Likewise, young drop and 

leave treatments are generally done in trees per acre targets. However, the same principles of stand 

density apply. 

In addition to the baseline density target, the decision as to what diameter classes to thin from must 

also be addressed. While thinning from below (removing the smallest diameter classes until the density 

target is reached) is the most common approach in thinning, it can reduce crown class differentiation, 

set back vertical canopy development, reduce species diversity, and generally simplify stand structure. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 6 

Given the goals of accelerating old growth development processes, removing some dominants and codominants is generally necessary and desirable. A proportional thin with lower and upper diameter caps 

can be used to achieve this. A stand table should be used to establish diameter caps 

Finally, determining density and diameter targets requires clearly assessing a number of considerations. 

LMS can be used to experiment with different thinning intensities and to assess trade-offs. Density 

targets should then be field tested to ensure they make sense. Considerations include: 

- Desired growth response of residual trees and time until canopy closure 

- Post-thinning susceptibility to blow-down 

- Effects on understory and midstory development 

- Likelihood of future entries 

- Volume removal and revenue potential 

- Future snag and CWD recruitment potential 

Introducing patchiness: The amount, patch size, and distribution of horizontal patchiness to be 

introduced should be specified and supported by a clear rationale. Structural objectives, answers from 

the process analysis above, and existing patchiness, species composition, midstory condition, logging 

system requirements, access, topographical features, and special management areas should be all 

factored be in. Spatial information from nearby old growth stands can be used as a reference if it is 

available, although natural stand development processes that will shape the young stand over time must 

be factored in. The following items can be used to introduce patchiness and vary understory light 

levels. 

- No entry skips (in addition to those around sensitive features) to maintain dark areas in the 

understory, maintain snag creation from competitive mortality, provide refugia for soil fungi 

that can be negatively impacted from ground based thinning (Colgan et al. 1999, Smith J.E. et 

al. 2002), and set pockets up for future blowdown by maintaining high HD ratios. 

- Heavy release areas to release certain species or trees to achieve high growth rates and large 

crowns, as well as promoting understory development. Heavy release is generally 15-30% of 

max SDI. These can involve releasing single trees, clusters, or extend over multiple acres. 

- Gaps to promote understory development. Some trees can be left in larger gaps to either grow 

into large diameter trees or blow down to create snags and CWD. Often wind will create gaps 

naturally over time or expand ones that are created. 

- Varying the baseline density target in different parts of the stand to achieve the same goals as 

the first three items, but to a lesser degree. 

- Retain clustered or paired dominant trees, thickets of small trees, preserving fine scale 

heterogeneity. These features often are often lost in thinning treatments and are prominent 

features in old growth stands. 

- Retain all trees of a certain species, trees above or below specific diameter targets, or trees with 

specific features such as broken or forked tops. While this is an imprecise tool to create 

variability, it is easy to implement and can be effective at creating patchy stand structure post 

thinning or accelerating the development of a patchy midstory, which will create a variable 

understory light environment in the future. 

There are no set maximum or minimum levels for these items. Objectives and site specific conditions 

must drive prescriptions. In stands that are already high in complexity, preserving and working with 

existing complexity when thinning may be all that is necessary. For example, in stands with a patchy 

component of midstory conifers, thinning the overstory more heavily around some midstory patches, 

leave some skips around areas with no midstory, and thinning the rest of the stand in a relatively even 

fashion will promote the patchy development of multiple canopy layers and lead to a range of smallscale vegetation patch types over time (dark sparse thickets, intermediate patches with low shrubs, 

“parked out” patches with large trees and a lush understory, and open shrubby gaps). On the other 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 7 

hand, in 60-80 year old stands where marbled murrelet habitat is a major goal or where post thinning 

blowdown is likely, a single density target, contract language to preserve fine scale heterogeneity, and a 

few skips may be all that is desired. In uniform 40 year old stands where growing large trees is a major 

goal and a future entry is likely, 20% of the stand in skips, heavy release in 30% of the stand favoring 

western redcedar where it exists, and a lighter thin around the rest of the residual trees may achieve the 

desired results. In 15-20 year old stands, a few areas of light thinning, retaining fine scale heterogeneity, 

and thinning the rest of the stand to a relatively even spacing while focusing on shifting relatively 

species composition may be all that is needed when future entries are likely. If maintaining early-seral 

habitat is a landscape scale need for certain species, then creating several large gaps in young stands 

where canopy closure has not excluded early-seral plant communities should be considered. 

Treatment Type: Make final decisions on what treatment or combinations of treatments to use in the 

stand: YDL, BR, MDL, UT, etc. For BR and MDL treatments, decide whether variable density 

thinning, individual tree selection, or group selection should be used. A combination of treatment 

approaches may often be used. At the operational level, these different approaches often blend 

together. 

Implementation and operational prescription: The final step is this process is to translate the 

management of sensitive sites, species selections, logging systems, desired variability, and density 

targets into an operational prescription that is simple and practical enough to be understood and 

implemented by marking crews and/or contractors in a cost effective manner. A number of 

implementation approaches have been used by other agencies implanting these types of prescriptions: 

- Marking: this is the most straightforward method and the easiest to fine tune. It can be costly, 

however, especially in young stands with high densities. 

- Designation by Description (DxD): This is a method of designating the specific trees that will 

be removed without actually marking. Any person following the prescription will select the 

same trees. It is simple and efficient to implement and can be adjusted with species and 

diameter targets. However, it can be challenging to achieve the desired level and type of 

variability with this method and it can overly homogenize stands. 

- Designation by Prescription (DxP): Known also as ―operator’s choice‖, the contractor selects 

which trees are actually removed using clear guidelines and spacing or basal area targets. It 

offers considerable options and flexibility when designing complex prescriptions and 

incorporates the knowledge and experience of the contractor, which can often reduce stand 

damage and create efficiencies. It requires skilled operators and an experienced sale 

administrator who knows how to work with contractors to avoid miscommunication and get 

the desired results. 

The method used will depend on the stand, treatment type, prescription, management resources, and 

available contractors. In many cases, a combination of some marking with a DxD or DxP prescription 

is ideal. 

References

Amoroso MM. 2004. Are mixed species stands more productive than single species stands? Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Masters. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Carey AB. 2003. Managing For Wildlife: A Key Component for Social Acceptance of Compatible Forest 

Management. Pages 401-425 in Monserud RA, Haynes RW, Johnson AC, eds. Compatible Forest 

Mangement. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 8 

Carey AB, Curtis RO. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: ecosystem management. . Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 24: 610-620.

Churchill DC, Nelson P, Larson A, J. 2005. A Multi-party Monitoring Protocol for the Cat Creek 

Stewardship Project. Packwood, Washington: Pinchot Partners. Report no. 

Colgan WI, Carey AB, Trappe JM, Molina R, Thysell D. 1999. Diversity and productivity of hypogeous 

fungal sporocarps in a variably thinned Douglas-fir forest. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 1259-1268.

Curtis RO. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science 28: 92-94.

DeMars DJ. 2000. Stand-Density Study of Spruce-Hemlock Stands in Southeastern Alaska. USDA Forest 

Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-496.

Drew TJ, Flewelling JW. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to 

Douglas-fir plantations. For. Sci. 25: 518-532.

Erckmamn J, others. 2000. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Cedar River Watershed, 

Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle. Report no. 

Farnden C. 2006. Stand Density Management Diagrams Model Development. British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests and Range. Report no. 

Franklin JF, et al. 2002. Disturbances and Structural Development of Natural Forest Ecosystems with 

Silvicultural Implications, using Douglas Fir Forests as and Example. Forest Ecology and Management 

5624: p 1-25.

Hibbs DE, Carlton GD. 1989. A comparison of for red alder. West. J. Appl. For. 4: 113-115.

Holmberg P, Aulds R, Biesecker R. 2006. Thinning forest stands, Westside: An interactive self-study and 

reference pamphlet. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Silviculture & Regeneration, 

Land Management Division. Report no. 

Long JN. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle 61: 23-27.

—. 1995. Using stand density index to regulate stocking in uneven-aged stands in O'Hara KL, ed. Unevenaged Management: Opportunities, Constraints, and Methodologies. Missoula, Montana: Montana Forest 

and Conservation Experiement Station. 

Marshall DD, Curtis RO. 2002. Volume, value, and thinning: logs for the future. Science Findings, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 48. 

O'Hara KL, Gersonde RF. 2004. Stocking control concepts in uneven-aged silviculture. Forestry 77. 

Oliver CD, Larson BC. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Public Forestry Foundation. 2001. A Forest Management Strategy for the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, 

Washington. Forestry Program, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, US Army Corps I, Fort 

Lewis Militarty Reservation. Report no. 

Puettmann K, J, Hann DW, Hibss DE. 1993. Evaluation of the Size-Density Relationships for Pure Red 

Alder and Douglas-Fir Stands. Forest Science, 39: 7-27.
South Willapa Bay Conservation Area Forest Landscape Restoration Plan – Appendix B, Page 9 

Reineke LH. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. our. Agric. Res. 46: 627-638.

Shaw DC. 2000. Application of Stand Density Index to Irregularly Structured Stands. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 15: 40-42.

Shoal R. 2002. Multiple-Objective Thinning on the Olympic National Forest: An Overview. Olympic 

National Forest, USDA. Report no. 

Smith JE, Molina R, Huso MMP, Luoma DL, McKay D, Castellano MA, Lebel T, Valachovic Y. 2002. 

Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal 

sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the 

Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A. Can. J. Bot. 80: 186-204. 

Smith NJ. 1989. A stand density control diagram for western redcedar, Thuja Plicata. Forest Ecology and 

Management 27: 235-245.

Spies TA, Franklin JF. 1990. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in 

Oregon and Washington. Pages 90-109. in Ruggerio LF, Aubry KB, Carey AB, Huff MH, eds. In Wildlife 

and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests., vol. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285.: USDA For. Serv. 

Spies TA, Cissel J, J.F. F, F. S, Poage N, Pabst R, Tappeiner JC, Winter L. 2002a. Summary of Workshop 

on Development of Old-Growth Douglas Fir Forests along the Pacific Coast of North America: A 

Regional Perspective. H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Blue River Oregon. 

Spies TA, et al. 2002b. The Ecological basis of forest ecosystem management in the Oregon Coast Range. 

in S.D. Hobbs JPH, R.L. Johnson, G.H. Reeves, T.A. Spies, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E. Wells, ed. Forest 

and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Forest and Stream Management in the 

Oregon Coast Range. 

Woodall CW, Miles PD, Vissage JS. 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species 

stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. Forest Ecology and Management 216: 367–377.
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix L. Draft Predator Management Plan 
L-2 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Draft Predator Management Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Leadbetter Point Unit 

November 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L.1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................ L-3

L.1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... L-3

L.1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ L-3

L.1.3 Background ..................................................................................................................... L-4

L.1.4 Relevance to Refuge Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................ L-5

L.1.5 Existing Snowy Plover Conservation and Predator Management Efforts ...................... L-6

L.1.6 Authority and Compliance .............................................................................................. L-6

L.1.7 Cooperators ..................................................................................................................... L-9

L.2 Comprehensive Predator Management Plan ....................................................................... L-10

L.2.1 Comprehensive Predator Management Strategy (Preferred Alternative) ..................... L-10

L.2.2 Predator Damage Management Methods ...................................................................... L-14

L.2.3 Direct Control of Predators - Species Specific Protocols ............................................. L-21

L.3 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... L-27
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

L.1 Purpose and Need for Action

L.1.1 Overview 

Pursuant to its endangered species management responsibilities and in conjunction with other 

wildlife and habitat management activities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would 

implement, per available funding, a predator management program on the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge (Willapa NWR or Refuge). Species expected to directly benefit from this action 

is the federally threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosis). The Federal 

candidate streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) would also benefit from these 

activities because they inhabit the sparsely vegetated sand beaches and dunes used by breeding 

plovers on refuge. Implementation of this program would maximize adult survival and juvenile 

recruitment of western snowy plover as identified in the western snowy plover Recovery Plan by 

reducing the threat posed by certain problem avian and mammalian predators. Predator 

management is identified in Objective 6.1 in Section 2.5 of the draft Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge comprehensive conservation plan/environmental impact statement (CCP/EIS) as one of 

several actions to be implemented in support of listed species occurring on the Refuge. 

This predator management plan has been developed as a comprehensive conservation strategy 

that addresses a range of management actions, from vegetation control and nesting habitat 

enhancement to non-lethal and lethal control, when necessary. The most effective, selective, and 

humane techniques available to deter or remove individual predators or species that threaten 

nesting, breeding, or foraging snowy plovers or horned larks will be implemented. Existing 

predator management plans for the conservation of plovers provided the framework for this 

document and forms the basis for methods used in this proposed plan (USDA 2002, 2005; 

USFWS 2002, 2006). 

A number of species recognized as potential predators of snowy plover eggs, chicks, and adults 

are likely target predator species under this plan. They include crows, ravens, hawks, falcons, 

owls, coyote, fox, weasel, and mice (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 

2002, 2007). American and northwestern crows, common raven, northern harrier, merlin, 

American kestrel, peregrine falcon, coyote, and mice are currently suspected to be potential 

predators for western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks at the Leadbetter Point Unit of the 

Refuge. Elk are also implicated as having an impact on ground nesting birds at Leadbetter Point. 

(Refer to Objective 6.1, Section 2.5 the draft Willapa National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS for the 

proposed elk management strategy.) Those wildlife species requiring management because of 

conflicts with the recovery of listed species could be impacted by removal of a few problem 

individuals. The adverse effects of predator management on the local and range-wide population 

of the affected predator species would be insignificant. 

L.1.2 Purpose 

The Willapa NWR predator management program would aid the Refuge in accomplishing the 

following recovery actions: 

 Maintain a five-year average population of 40 breeding pairs of western snowy plover on 

the Refuge. 
L-4 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Maintain a five-year average productivity of at least 1.0 fledged western snowy plover 

chick per male on the Refuge. 

 Fledge at least one young per western snowy plover pair per year on the Refuge. 

 Reduce the number of problem predators utilizing the Leadbetter Point Unit. Problem 

predators are defined as individual wildlife of species known to prey on western snowy 

plover and streaked horned lark and that are exhibiting hunting behavior in plover and 

lark nesting areas. 

The predator plan is being developed to support the Refuge’s CCP management objectives of 

recovering and maintaining stable snowy plover populations. The 2009 Washington statewide 

western snowy plover nesting population as reported by Pearson et al. (2009) was 35 (95% CI = 

26-44) and the 2009 Oregon nesting population was 145 (Lauten et al. 2009) for a total of 181 

(Confidence Interval = 171-190) nesting adult plovers in Recovery Unit 1. The Federal recovery 

population objective is 250 breeding adults in Recovery Unit 1. The Willapa NWR predator 

management program is designed to integrate with existing refuge management efforts, including 

the Leadbetter Coastal Dune Habitat Restoration Project. 

Developing a metapopulation model for streaked horned larks, determining the prevalence of site 

fidelity, and quantifying movement patterns between sites used for breeding and wintering, is 

currently underway. These are precursors to preparing a regional streaked horned lark 

conservation strategy. The streaked horned lark population is currently estimated around 750 

birds. However, this estimate was derived from data collected from different survey efforts, 

using differing methods, over a period of several years (Pearson and Altman 2005). The 2004 

Washington State breeding population was reported by Stinson (2005) to be 330 birds. A 

conservative 2009 estimate of 9 or 10 breeding pairs on the Refuge is based on available data. 

Pearson et al. (2008) predicted Washington’s streaked horned lark population to be declining 

rapidly at an annual rate approaching 40%. Because predation is identified as a leading cause of 

streaked horned lark nest failure, minimizing predation will be an important component of any 

future conservation strategy (Altman 1999; Pearson and Altman 2005; Pearson and Hopey 2005; 

Pearson et al. 2008). A regional and refuge-based conservation strategy would include criteria 

necessary to attain viable populations, similar to recovery actions for listed species. 

L.1.3 Background 

Predation is one of many mortality factors that influence wildlife populations. Predators often 

play critical roles in the composition and function of wildlife populations in ecosystems (Witmer 

et al. 1996). Normally, predation would be considered part of the function of a healthy 

ecosystem. However, major changes have occurred in the ecosystems of the Pacific coastal 

region. The effects of predation on birds can be detrimental to local populations or islands, 

especially when predator densities are high or when predators gain access to areas not 

historically occupied (Bailey 1993; Stoudt 1982). In general, ground-nesting birds suffer the 

highest predation rates, followed by cliff/burrow nesters. Tree nesters experience the lowest 

rates of depredation (DeVos and Smith 1995). 

Predator removal has been conducted to increase survival of fledglings and to increase breeding 

populations of threatened or endangered wildlife, rare species, and species not traditionally 

hunted (Reynolds and Tapper 1996). Numerous studies have shown that nest predation accounts 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

for the largest share of nest failures of neotropical migratory songbirds and contribute to low 

recruitment rates (Heske et al. 2001; Nelson 2001). Increased rates of nest predation are 

believed to be largely related to habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation, and other changes in 

related landscape features (Heske et al. 2001; Nelson 2001; Sovada et al. 2001). The impacts of 

predation vary geographically because of habitat composition and structure and species 

composition of predator communities (Nelson 2001; Sovada et al. 2001). Also, when 

implemented, the effectiveness of predator removal to protect these non-game species has varied 

due to compensatory mortality (predator species composition), predator removal strategies and 

methodologies used (i.e., human bias), and geographic location. 

Predation by native and introduced species has been identified as a leading cause of reproductive 

failure of the western snowy plover (USFWS 2007). Pearson et al. (2009) reported that 

predation was the primary source (58%) of plover nest failure in Washington in 2009. Crows 

and ravens are recognized as important predators of eggs and juvenile plovers and larks 

(Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002; Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 

1985). Based on studies in Oregon between 1990 and 2000, corvids (ravens and crows) caused 

at least 64 plover nest failures (USDA 2002). Predation was also the most frequent cause of 

streaked horned lark nest failure (69%) in Washington at sites in south Puget Sound in 2002-

2004, while causing 46% of failures at two coastal and one river island sites in 2004 (Pearson 

and Hopey 2005). Liebezeit and George (2002) provide a detailed review of corvids importance 

as predators. The Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan and annual survey and population 

monitoring reports offer additional data on plover predation (Lauten et al. 2009; Pearson et al. 

2009; USFWS 2007). 

L.1.4 Relevance to Refuge Purpose and Need for Action 

The USFWS mission is to conserve natural resources for future generations, the goal being to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. Willapa NWR was established in 1937 to protect migrating and 

wintering populations of brant, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migratory birds. The Refuge 

preserves a number of unique ecosystems including diverse salt marshes, rich tideflats, raindrenched old-growth forest, and dynamic coastal dunes. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR is 705 hectares (1,742 acres) or about 7.05 square 

kilometers (2.72 mi2

) in size. Despite the success in attracting western snowy plovers and 

streaked horned larks to the Refuge’s Leadbetter Point habitat restoration area, the relationship 

between the size of the restoration area and the number of plover nests discovered within this 

area suggest that plovers are not currently habitat limited at Leadbetter Point. The number of 

nests within the restoration area initially increased in 2005 as the size of the area increased but 

has quickly reached a peak at around 20 nests (Pearson et al. 2009) despite the continued 

enlargement of the restoration area. This conclusion is further emphasized by the lack of use of 

the state habitat restoration areas by plovers in 2008 or 2009. 

By taking no actions related to predator management, mammalian and avian predators would not 

be harassed or specifically deterred from traveling or flying through the Refuge or entering the 

nesting areas. Based on previously documented losses of listed species to predation elsewhere in 

Oregon and California (Lauten et al. 2008; USDA 2002; USFWS 2002, 2006, 2007), it is likely 
L-6 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

that the Refuge’s population of western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks would not be 

able to achieve sustainability objectives for adult breeding population levels and fledging 

success. In addition, a dramatic reduction in nest productivity could cause snowy plovers and 

streaked horned larks to abandon the existing nesting areas on the Refuge. Because the 

Leadbetter Point site is one of only two currently active breeding sites in Washington State, a 

management strategy that excludes any form of predator management would place the viability 

of the Refuge’s listed species at risk of extirpation, and would likely make it impossible to 

achieve the Recovery Unit and step-down, refuge-specific objectives. After implementing 

predator management in Oregon, the state’s plover population has experienced an increasing 

population trend for the first time, and unlike the years prior to predator management, fledging 

success has been above 1.0 chicks fledged per male for each year (Lauten et al. 2006, 2007, 

2009; Pearson et al. 2009). 

The two action alternatives proposed in the CCP/EIS for lands managed by Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge include some form of plover predator management beyond nest exclosures that 

are currently being used to protect nests. If Willapa NWR implements predator management at 

Leadbetter Point and the plover population increases, then the restored suitable habitat at 

Leadbetter would likely be needed by the growing population. 

L.1.5 Existing Snowy Plover Conservation and Predator Management Efforts 

Existing snowy plover conservation and predator management efforts at Willapa NWR will 

continue or be expanded through the proposed action. The Refuge and its cooperators will 

continue to monitor snowy plovers to determine hatch and fledge rates as well as adult 

survivorship and population size. A discussion of how impacts of this plan would be monitored 

can be found on page L-14. See Pearson et al. (2009) for details on plover population and 

demographic monitoring. Current management and conservation practices also include seasonal 

use of nest exclosures on some snowy plover and streaked horned lark nests, spreading of 

oystershell in the snowy plover habitat restoration area, invasive tree and beachgrass removal in 

and/or adjacent to nesting areas, and installation of perching deterrents in and around known nest 

locations. 

L.1.6 Authority and Compliance 

Based on agency mission and legislative mandates, the USFWS is the “lead agency” and 

“decision maker” for this EIS, and therefore responsible for the EIS’s scope, content, and 

outcome. As cooperating agencies, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC), and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) provided 

input to this EIS and will provide advice and recommendations to the lead agency on when, 

where, and how predator damage management could be conducted. APHIS-WS would be the 

Service’s authorized agent for implementing removal actions on the Refuge. 

Agency Authority for Endangered Species Management and Conservation 

USFWS. The USFWS is scientific and management authority for implementation and 

enforcement of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended and with developing 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-7

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

recovery plans for many federally listed species. The USFWS cooperated with the WDFW, 

APHIS-WS, and WSPRC by recommending measures to promote the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. The USFWS also makes recommendations to avoid or minimize take of 

threatened and endangered species. The term “take” is defined by the ESA (Section 3(19)) as 

“harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in 

any such conduct.” The terms “harass” and “harm” have been further defined by USFWS 

regulations (50 C.F.R. Section 17.3) as: 1) harass is the intentional or negligent act or omission 

which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering; 2) harm is an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may 

include significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually kills or injures wildlife 

by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. 

APHIS-WS. APHIS-WS is subject to the ESA, which requires Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species. The primary statutory authorities for 

the APHIS-WS program are the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, and the Rural 

Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, which authorize 

APHIS-WS to reduce damage caused by wildlife, in cooperation with other agencies. 

WDFW. The WDFW has the responsibility to manage all protected and classified wildlife in 

Washington, regardless of the land class on which the animals are found (Revised Code of 

Washington [RCW] 77.12.020). The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is 

authorized to cooperate with APHIS-WS and WDFW for controlling predatory birds (RCW 

15.04.110). Washington State law authorizes the removal or killing of wildlife that is destroying 

or injuring property, or when it is necessary for wildlife management or research (RCW 

77.12.240). The law, however, does require the person trapping or killing the wildlife to notify 

WDFW immediately. The department shall dispose of wildlife so taken within three days of 

receiving such a notification and in a manner determined by the director to be in the best interest 

of the state. 

Compliance with Federal Regulations 

Several Federal laws regulate wildlife damage management. The USFWS and APHIS-WS 

comply with these laws, and consult and cooperate with other agencies as appropriate. The 

following Federal laws are relevant to the actions considered in the CCP/EIS for this plan: 

50 C.F.R. 31.14 Official Animal Control Operations. 

(a) Animal species which are surplus or detrimental to the management program of a wildlife 

refuge area may be taken in accordance with Federal and state laws and regulations by Federal or 

state personnel or by permit issued to private individuals. 

(b) Animal species which are damaging or destroying Federal property within a wildlife refuge 

area may be taken or destroyed by Federal personnel. 

50 C.F.R. 31.2 Methods of surplus wildlife population control and disposal. Upon a 

determination that wildlife are surplus to a balanced conservation program on any wildlife refuge 
L-8 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

area, the surplus may be reduced or utilized in accordance with Federal and state law and 

regulation by: 

(a) Donation or loan to public agencies and institutions. 

(b) Sale to public or private agencies and institutions. 

(c) Commercial harvest of fishery resources. 

(d) Official wildlife control operations. 

(e) Public hunting or fishing. 

(f) Trapping.

42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmental documents 

pursuant to NEPA must be completed before actions can be implemented. NEPA requires that 

Federal actions be evaluated for environmental impacts, that these impacts be considered by the 

decision maker(s) prior to implementation, and that the public be informed. This EIS has been 

prepared in compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. Section 4231, et seq.,); the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations(40 C.F.R. Section 1500-1508); Department of the Interior 

regulations (43 C.F.R. 46) and Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA procedures found in the 

Departmental Manual (DM) (516 DM 8). 

16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is Federal policy, under the ESA, that 

all Federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize 

their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA (Sec.2(c)). Section 7 consultations 

with the USFWS are conducted to use the expertise of the USFWS to ensure that “any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such an agency ...is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or threatened species. Each agency shall use the best scientific and 

commercial data available” (Sec.7(a)(2)). The USFWS will complete consultation pursuant to 

Section 7 of the ESA regarding the effects of predator damage management on the Pacific coast 

population of the western snowy plover and other Federally listed species in the area. The full 

results of the evaluation will be contained in the final CCP/EIS. 

7 U.S.C. 136-136y Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (FIFRA). FIFRA 

requires the registration, classification, and regulation of all pesticides used in the United States. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and enforcing 

FIFRA. All chemical methods integrated into any selected program as implemented by APHISWS or other cooperating agencies must be registered with and regulated by the EPA and the 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, and used in compliance with labeling procedures and 

requirements. 

16 U.S.C. 703-712 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

provides the USFWS with regulatory authority to protect species of birds that migrate outside the 

United States. Individuals of these species that do not migrate outside of the United States are 

also protected. All cooperating agencies coordinate with the USFWS on migratory bird issues. 

If migratory birds are found to be preying on plovers, the agencies would request a permit from 

USFWS under the MBTA to “take” these species, if lethal control is determined to be necessary. 

A depredation permit for crows “when found committing or about to commit depredations upon 

ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in a 

manner as to constitute a health hazard” is not required (50 C.F.R. 21.43). The USFWS Office of 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-9

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Migratory Bird Management, Pacific Regional Office, requires notification prior to use of 

chemical substances for control of migratory birds that are not covered by the depredation order. 

7 U.S.C. 426-426c Animal Damage Control Act and the Rural Development, Agriculture, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Acts authorize and direct APHIS-WS to reduce 

damage caused by wildlife in cooperation with other agencies. 

16 U.S.C. 1451-1464 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. All federally conducted or 

supported activities directly affecting the coastal zone must be undertaken in a manner consistent 

to the maximum extent practicable with approved state coastal management programs. 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (EO 13045). Children 

may suffer disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks for many reasons. 

Predator damage management as proposed in this EIS would only involve legally available and 

approved damage management methods in situations or under circumstances where it is highly 

unlikely that children would be adversely affected. Therefore, implementation of the proposed 

action would not increase environmental health or safety risks to children. 

Invasive Species (EO 13112). The Invasive Species Executive Order directs Federal agencies to 

use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control populations of invasive 

species that cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. 

Migratory Birds (EO 13186). Executive Order 13186 directs Federal agencies to use their 

programs and authorities to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS 

outlining how the agency will promote conservation of migratory birds. Other activities called 

for include incorporating bird conservation considerations into agency planning, including NEPA 

analyses, reporting annually on the level of take of migratory birds, and generally promoting the 

conservation of migratory birds without compromising the agency mission. 

Relevant Washington State Regulations 

RCW 77.12.240 Authority to take wildlife—Disposition. Authorizes the removal or killing of 

wildlife that is destroying or injuring property, or when it is necessary for wildlife management 

or research. 

RCW 15.04.110 Control of predatory birds. The director of the state department of agriculture 

may control birds which he determines to be injurious to agriculture, and for this purpose enter 

into written agreements with the Federal and state governments, political subdivisions and 

agencies of such governments, political subdivisions and agencies of this state including 

counties, municipal corporations and associations and individuals, when such cooperation will 

implement the control of predatory birds injurious to agriculture. 

L.1.7 Cooperators 

The proposed predator management plan will be implemented in cooperation with the following 

agencies. 

 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
L-10 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife 

Services 

L.2 Comprehensive Predator Management Plan 

L.2.1 Comprehensive Predator Management Strategy (Preferred Alternative) 

This plan will implement integrated predator management strategies on western snowy plovers 

and streaked horned lark nesting habitats of the Willapa NWR. Before implementing control 

actions, the initial step involves identifying individuals or groups of snowy plover and streaked 

horned lark predators. After identification, the most effective, selective, and humane tools 

available would be used to deter or remove the species that would impact nesting, breeding, or 

foraging adult and young snowy plovers and streaked horned larks within breeding areas. When 

plover and lark numbers increase and their populations stabilize, native wildlife would be 

allowed a more natural interaction with the local species of concern and active predator 

management would be de-emphasized. 

Predator management is based on interagency relationships, which require close coordination 

and cooperation because of overlapping authorities and legal mandates. The Refuge, in 

consultation with WDFW, may request that APHIS-WS conduct direct predator management 

actions to protect the snowy plovers. The Refuge may also take action itself. Under the predator 

management plan, the Refuge and its cooperators will continue to monitor snowy plovers to 

determine hatch and fledge rates as well as adult survivorship and population size. In addition, 

avian predators on the Refuge and adjacent lands will be monitored; information recorded will 

include species observed and their behavior and habits. 

Based on monitoring to identify specific predator(s) impacting nesting birds, agency personnel 

will evaluate the feasibility of particular strategies and methods to reach the desired goal in the 

context of their availability (legal and administrative) and suitability based on biological, 

economic, and social considerations. Following this evaluation, the methods deemed to be 

practical, effective, and most humane for the situation based upon professional judgment will 

form the basis of a management strategy. Monitoring will continue during and after the 

management strategy has been implemented, monitoring is conducted to assess the effectiveness 

of the strategy and to determine reproductive success. Records will be kept and data reported to 

the appropriate wildlife management agencies. This proposal would implement safe and 

practical methods for the prevention and control of damage caused by predators, based on local 

problem analysis, environmental and social factors, and the informed judgment of trained 

personnel. 

An effective program requires that site-specific consideration of the many variables listed above 

be given to allow the wildlife specialist to select and implement the most appropriate technique 

to resolve each unique damage situation. Flexibility in the management approach is important 

because of the high variability found in the natural environment. An adaptive management 

approach will be used by the Refuge in implementing and refining this plan. In order to 

determine when to initiate as well as select management techniques for specific damage 

situations, consideration would be given to: 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-11

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Western Snowy Plover: Achieving breeding population (40 breeding pairs of snowy 

plover) of adults and production of chicks (greater than one chick/adult male) as 

identified in Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan (see objective 2.4.6.1 in the CCP/EIS) 

Streaked Horned Lark: A refuge specific population objective is being developed by 

streaked horned lark working group. 

 geographic extent of threat 

 time of year 

 life cycle of the snowy plover or streaked horned lark 

 vulnerability to each predator species 

 other land uses (such as proximity to recreational areas) 

 feasibility of implementation of the various techniques 

 movement patterns and life cycle of the predator 

 status of target and non-target species (such as protected or endangered) 

 local environmental conditions such as terrain, vegetation, and weather 

 presence of refuge visitors and refuge staff 

 presence of trash that could attract predators 

 potential legal restrictions such as availability of tools or management methods 

 humaneness of the available options1

 cost of control options (the cost of control in this proposal may be a secondary concern 

because of overriding environmental and legal considerations) 

1 The lead and cooperating agencies regard humane methods of predator damage management (including the use of 

lethal methods where allowed) to be those that cause the least pain, suffering, or injury to individual animals under 

the circumstances. Predator damage management would be accomplished only to the extent necessary to meet 

defined objectives, such as, aiding plover recovery by reducing predation. 

Visual and auditory repellants are limited by several factors, including 1) unintentional hazing of 

protected species while attempting to haze predatory species; 2) reduced effectiveness over time 

as some predatory species become accustomed to particular stimuli and begin to ignore them; 3) 

difficulties in effectively deploying such repellents in the field; and 4) limited effectiveness of 

repellents on particular species. 

Predator management priorities will take the following general approach: 

1. non-native and feral species before native species 

2. target offending individuals before predator species as a group 

3. target family groups (e.g., corvids) 

4. primary concern is addressing nest predation for increased hatch rates; predation of 

chicks is second in importance to increasing fledge rates, and third is minimizing 

predation on plover adults 

Although typically adult survival is one of the most important demographic parameters to 

consider, adult predation is not currently thought to be a significant factor at Leadbetter Point. 

Upon positive determination of the predator species that threaten plovers in each case, the 

following tools would be available: 
L-12 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Non-lethal Control—Non-lethal control of predators involves implementing measures such as 

visual and auditory repellents and physical barriers. Increased or improved trash management to 

reduce the amount of available garbage is another form of non-lethal control. Current 

management and conservation practices at Willapa NWR include seasonal use of nest exclosures 

on some snowy plover and streaked horned lark nests, spreading of oystershell in the snowy 

plover habitat restoration area, and invasive tree removal adjacent to nesting areas. An inventory 

and mapping project of perching and nesting structures will be completed for the Leadbetter Unit 

of the Refuge. Complete removal of nonessential structures will be implemented to minimize 

perches available to avian predators in and adjacent to nesting habitat. Installation of perching 

deterrents will be undertaken on all necessary structures in and around known nest locations. 

Beachgrass removal to improve plover habitat on the refuge and increase the area available for 

nesting habitat should reduce predation pressure over time. Habitat restoration actions are 

discussed under Objectives 4.1 and 4.2 in Chapter 2 of the CCP/EIS. 

Predator management tools could include any or all of the following depending upon the 

circumstances: nest or decoy trapping; relocation of live trapped animals; aversive methods that 

deter, harass or condition the behaviors of predators such as foul tasting eggs, pyrotechnics, 

electronic calls, repellants, or effigies; or electrified or non-electrified exclusionary nest site 

fencing and electric wired perches. 

Use of physical barriers would be implemented, which should reduce the need for control of 

some mammals including feral dogs and cats and domestic, free-roaming pets. Increased 

enforcement of pet violations on refuge lands will also reduce some disturbance. However, 

physical barriers in the absence of the ability to remove a predator are ineffective in controlling 

avian predation, as well as some mammalian predation. The use of exclosures over nesting 

plovers has been effective in protecting eggs, but once the chicks leave the exclosure, they are 

once again vulnerable to predation. Although predation could be reduced to some extent through 

indirect control, the potential for loss, particularly from avian predators would remain high, 

therefore, this form of control alone is not considered adequate to achieve the goals and 

objectives of the Refuge for listed species. 

Predator management that relies on the control of all predators using only non-lethal methods 

would not be adequate and could result in devastating impacts on the Refuge’s snowy plover and 

streaked horned lark populations. This is particularly true in situations in which an avian 

predator learns to prey on the eggs or young of a listed species. Past experience elsewhere has 

demonstrated that once an individual predator successfully begins to forage within a nesting 

colony, significant losses to the colony can occur before the individual is successfully trapped or 

otherwise discouraged from returning to the colony. In the case of predation of breeding adults, 

the losses have an even greater effect on productivity because losses of breeding adults can have 

adverse effects on populations for several generations. Without the option to implement lethal 

control when deemed necessary to protect listed species, it may not be possible to support the 

recovery plan and achieve the Refuge goals and objectives for the protection of endangered and 

threatened species. 

Lethal Control—Lethal control could include any or all of the following depending upon field 

circumstances: shooting; euthanasia in conjunction with cage traps; padded-jaw leg-hold traps; 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-13

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

nets; snares; gas cartridges; DRC-1339 (avicide); nest removal and egg destruction; snap traps; 

or zinc phosphide bait (rodenticide).

Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical methods (including 

trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based on 50 C.F.R. 31.2, trapping 

can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced conservation 

program” in accordance with Federal or state laws and regulations. In some cases, non-lethally 

trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the state. A pest 

control proposal (see 7 RM 14.7A-D for required elements) is needed before initiation of 

trapping activities, except those operations identified in 7 RM 14.7E. In addition, a separate pest 

control proposal is not necessary if the required information can be incorporated into an EIS (or 

other appropriate NEPA document). 

Targeted animals that are live trapped are euthanized by lethal injection (sodium phenobarbital), 

shot, or gassed using carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas. It is not likely that all methods 

will be used because site conditions would render some tools more appropriate than others. 

APHIS-WS and Refuge personnel can pre-determine for each unique situation what method or 

combination of methods is most practical and effective using the APHIS-WS Decision Model.

Monitoring—Since 2006, the Refuge and WDFW have completed intensive surveys for snowy 

plovers at nesting areas on the Long Beach Peninsula. The Refuge in coordination with the 

cooperating agencies will monitor any program that results from the CCP/EIS and report those 

results annually. Direct observation and still or video photography will be employed as methods 

to obtain information about the particular species of potential predators. Data on evidence or 

sign of potential predators adjacent to nesting areas will also be collected. 

The impacts discussed in this plan will be monitored and used in two ways: 

1) Determine if any additional information that arises subsequent to the NEPA decision would 

trigger the need for additional NEPA analysis compliance or possibly trigger other compliance 

requirements. The lead agency would review program results annually, or as needed, to ensure 

that the need for action, issues identified, alternatives, regulatory framework, and environmental 

consequences are consistent with the CCP/EIS. 

2) If work plans need modification based on the findings of the program’s effects on plover or 

other environmental issues, APHIS-WS, in coordination with the Refuge and WDFW, would 

monitor impacts on target predator populations through its Management Information System 

(MIS) database when APHIS-WS is involved in direct damage management. The MIS 

information would be used to assess the localized and cumulative impacts of the program on 

predator populations. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the actions would be done by the 

Refuge in coordination with WDFW and APHIS-WS to determine if the program is benefitting 

plovers or if changes are needed. The Refuge would use the results of monitoring to develop site 

specific work plans (annually or as needed) for the Leadbetter Point plover sites, in cooperation 

with WDFW and APHIS-WS. 
L-14 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

L.2.2 Predator Damage Management Methods 

A variety of methods are used by APHIS-WS personnel in predator damage management. 

APHIS-WS employs three general strategies to reduce wildlife damage: resource management, 

physical exclusion, and wildlife management. Each of these approaches is a general strategy or 

recommendation for addressing predator damage situations. Most predator damage management 

methods have recognized strengths and weaknesses relative to each damage situation. APHISWS personnel can determine for each unique situation what method or combination of methods 

is most appropriate and effective using the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). 

All predator damage management methods have limitations which are defined by the 

circumstances associated with individual wildlife damage problems. APHIS-WS considers a 

wide range of limitations as they apply the decision-making process to determine what method(s) 

to use to resolve each damage problem (USDA 1997). Examples of limitations which must be 

considered and criteria to evaluate various methods are presented in USDA (1997) and in the 

following discussions. 

Resource Management. Resource management includes a variety of practices that may be 

used by resource managers or owners to reduce the potential for predator damage. 

Implementation of these practices is appropriate when the potential for or actual damage can 

be reduced without significantly increasing a resource manager owner’s costs or diminishing 

a person’s ability to manage resources pursuant to their goals. 

Habitat Management. Just as habitat management is an integral part of other wildlife 

management programs, it also plays an important role in predator damage management. The 

type, quality, and quantity of habitats are directly related to the animals attracted to an area 

and what the habitat can support. Therefore, habitat can be managed so that it does not 

produce or attract certain species or it repels them. Limitations of habitat management as a 

method of controlling wildlife damage are determined by the characteristics of the species 

involved, the nature of the damage, economic feasibility, and other factors. 

Physical Exclusion. Physical exclusion methods restrict the access of wildlife to resources. 

Nest exclosures are used to protect nesting plovers from predation. The exclosures must 

encompass the sides and top of the structure, and be buried into the sand to help prevent 

burrowing, climbing and flying predators from entering the exclosures. These methods 

provide a means of appropriate and effective prevention of damage in some situations. 

Wildlife Management. Reducing wildlife damage is achieved with many different 

techniques. The objective of this approach is to alter the behavior or population of the target 

animal, thereby eliminating or reducing the potential for loss or damage. 

Frightening Devices. Frightening devices include distress calls, pyrotechnics, propane 

cannons, flags, and reflective tape. The success of frightening methods depends on the 

animal’s fear of and subsequent a version to the stimuli. Once animals become habituated to 

a stimulus, they often resume their damaging activities. Persistent efforts are usually 

required to consistently apply frightening techniques and to vary them sufficiently to prolong 

their effectiveness. In many situations animals frightened from one location become a 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-15

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

problem at another. Some frightening devices may have negative effects on non-target 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Frightening devices will probably 

have severe limitations in protecting plovers since they may affect plovers as much as the 

target species. The use of some frightening devices and techniques in urban and suburban 

environments may be considered aesthetically displeasing such as netting over trees or a 

nuisance by some persons such as the noise from propane cannons. The continued success of 

these methods frequently requires reinforcement by limited shooting (see shooting). 

Pyrotechnics. Pyrotechnics consist of a variety of noise making devices in the form of 

fireworks. Double shotgun shells, known as shell-crackers or scare cartridges, are 12-

gauge shotgun shells containing a fire cracker that is projected up to 75 yards before 

exploding. Noise bombs, whistle bombs, racket bombs, and rocket bombs are fired from 

15-millimeter flare pistols. They are used similarly to shell-crackers, but are projected 

for shorter distances. Noise bombs (also called bird bombs) are firecrackers that travel 

about 75 feet before exploding. Whistle bombs are similar to noise bombs, but whistle in 

flight and do not explode. They produce a noticeable response because of the trail of 

smoke and fire, as well as the whistling sound. Racket bombs make a screaming noise in 

flight and do not explode. Rocket bombs are similar to noise bombs but may travel up to 

150 yards before exploding. These pyrotechnics are often used to frighten birds away 

from crops, roosting locations, or runways. The shells are fired so that they explode in 

front of, or underneath, flocks of birds attempting to enter crop fields, roosts, or the air 

operating area at an airport. The purpose is to produce an explosion between the birds 

and their objective. Birds already in a crop field or at an airport can be frightened away, 

but it is extremely difficult to disperse birds that have already settled in a roost. 

A variety of other pyrotechnic devices, including firecrackers, rockets, and Roman 

candles, are used for dispersing animals. The discharge of pyrotechnics may be 

inappropriate and prohibited in some area such as urban and suburban communities. 

Pyrotechnic projectiles can start fires, ricochet off buildings, pose traffic hazards, cause 

some dogs to bark incessantly, and injure and annoy people. Pyrotechnics may cause fear 

or alarm in urban areas as the sound of discharge sometimes resembles gunfire. 

Propane Exploders. Propane exploders operate on propane gas and are designed to 

produce loud explosions at controlled intervals. They are strategically located (elevated 

above the vegetation, if possible, and hidden) in areas of high wildlife use to frighten 

wildlife from the problem site. Because animals are known to habituate to sounds, 

exploders must be moved frequently and used in conjunction with other scare devices or 

reinforced with lethal methods. Exploders can be left in an area after dispersal is 

complete to discourage animals from returning. However, propane exploders are 

generally inappropriate for use in urban areas due to the repeated loud explosions which 

many people consider an unacceptable nuisance. 

Scarecrows or Effigies. Since personnel are often limited, the use of scarecrows can be 

effective when people are not present at a field. The human effigy is still one of the best 

scarecrows available. These work best with eyes on both sides of the head and dressed in 

clothes similar to the clothes worn by people that are harassing the birds. Other 

scarecrows are available such as “scare-eye” balloons. As with other techniques, 
L-16 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

scarecrows work best when the number is varied, a variety of scarecrows are used, and 

they are moved often. 

Flagging. Flags may have limited effectiveness in frightening birds. Anecdotal reports 

indicate black flagging may be effective at repelling some birds. 

Bioacoustics. Distress and alarm calls of various animals have been used singly and in 

conjunction with other scarring devices to successfully scare or harass animals. Many of 

these sounds are available on records and tapes. Calls should be played back to the 

animals from either fixed or mobile equipment in the immediate or surrounding area of 

the problem. Animals react differently to distress calls; their use depends on the species 

and the problem. Calls may be played for short (few second) bursts, for longer periods, 

or even continually, depending on the severity of damage and relative effectiveness of 

different treatment or “playing” times. 

Chemical Repellents. Chemical repellents are compounds that prevent the consumption of 

food items or use of an area. They operate by producing an undesirable taste, odor, feel, or 

behavior pattern. Effective and practical chemical repellents should be nonhazardous to 

wildlife; nontoxic to plants, seeds, and humans; resistant to weathering; easily applied; 

reasonably priced; and capable of providing good repellent qualities. The reaction of 

different animals to a single chemical formulation varies, and for any species there may be 

variations in repellency between different habitat types. Development of chemical repellents 

is expensive and cost prohibitive in many situations. Chemical repellents are strictly 

regulated, and suitable repellents are not available for many wildlife species or wildlife 

damage situations. Naphthalene (moth balls) has proven to be ineffective as a bird repellent 

(Dolbeer et al. 1988). 

Aversive Agents. Methiocarb, active ingredient in Mesurol, can be useful as an aversive 

conditioning agent, used in eggs, in reducing raven predation of colonial waterbirds (Avery 

et al. 1995). Mesurol is an aversive conditioning egg treatment registered with the EPA to 

reduce predation on the eggs of protected, threatened or endangered species. Mesurol is only 

available for use under APHIS-WS program supervision. After pre-baiting, a limited number 

of treated eggs would be distributed within the nesting colony. To reduce risk to humans, 

non-target animals and pets, a blind would be established during treated egg baiting periods 

so treated egg sites can be observed. In addition, eggs would be wired to the ground so they 

cannot be removed from the site, and thus would be consumed on site. Treated eggs would 

be removed from bait sites when the observer is not present. When used according to label 

directions, methiocarb will not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the 

environment (USEPA 1994, see product label). 

Relocation. Most damaging species are common and numerous throughout Washington, so 

they are rarely, if ever, relocated because habitats in other areas are generally already 

occupied. Relocation of damaging species to other areas following live capture generally 

would not be biologically sound, effective, or cost-effective. Relocation of wildlife often 

involves stress to the relocated animal, poor survival rates, and difficulties in adapting to new 

locations or habitats. Relocation of target predator animals of breeding western snowy 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-17

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

plovers and streaked horned larks is usually not recommended according to state wildlife 

policy 

Lethal Control Methods 

Chemical Immobilizing and Euthanizing Agents. Most APHIS-WS Specialists in 

Washington are trained and certified to use drugs for capturing or euthanizing wildlife. 

Drugs such as sodium phenobarbital derivatives are used for euthanasia. Most drugs, an 

exception is alpha-chloralose, fall under restricted-use categories and must be used under the 

appropriate license from the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency. The 

drugs used by APHIS-WS are approved by a Drug Committee panel. 

Euthanasia. Captured animals may be euthanized. The euthanasia method used is 

dependent on whether the animal is going to be processed for human consumption. Animals 

that are not going to be consumed can be euthanized with a sodium phenobarbital solution 

such as Beuthanasia-D® or other appropriate method such as cervical dislocation, 

decapitation, a shot to the brain, or asphyxiation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is sometimes used to 

euthanize animals which are captured in live traps and when relocation is not a feasible 

option. 

Leg-hold Traps are used to capture animals such as coyotes, bobcats, fox, mink, raccoon 

and skunk. These traps are the most effective, versatile and widely used tool available to 

APHIS-WS for capturing many species. Traps placed in the travel lanes of the target animal, 

using location rather than attractants, are known as “blind sets.” More frequently, traps are 

placed as “baited” or “scented” sets. These trap sets use an attractant consisting of the 

animal’s preferred food or some other lure such as fetid meat, urine, or musk to attract the 

animal into the trap. 

In some situations, a carcass or large piece of meat (i.e., a draw station) may be used to 

attract target animals to an area where traps are set. In this approach, single or multiple trap 

sets are placed at least 30 feet from the draw station. APHIS-WS program policy prohibits 

placement of traps or snares within 30 feet of a draw station to prevent the capture of nontarget scavenging birds. There are only two exceptions to this policy. One is when setting 

leg-hold traps to capture cougars returning to a kill. In these cases the weight of the target 

animal allows pan-tension adjustments which preclude the taking of small non-target 

animals. The second exception is when leg-hold traps are set next to carcasses used to 

capture raptors under permit with the USFWS. 

Two primary advantages of the leg-hold trap are that they can be set under a wide variety of 

conditions, and that pan-tension devices can be used to prevent smaller animals from 

springing the trap, thus allowing a degree of selectivity not available with many other 

methods. Effective trap placement by trained personnel greatly contributes to the leg-hold 

trap’s selectivity. Another advantage of leg-hold traps is that the live-capture of animals 

permits release if warranted. 

Disadvantages of using leg-hold traps include the difficulty of keeping them in operation 

during rain, snow, or freezing weather. In addition, they lack selectivity where non-target 
L-18 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

species are of similar size to target species and are abundant. The selectivity of leg-hold 

traps is an important issue and has been shown to be a function of how they are used. The 

type of set and attractant used significantly influences both capture efficiency and the risk of 

catching non-target animals. The use of leg-hold traps in the APHIS-WS program is costly 

due to the amount of manpower and time involved; however, the technique is indispensable 

in selectively resolving many animal damage situations. APHIS-WS program guidelines 

require warning signs to be posted in the vicinity of control operations. Placement is 

generally confined to areas not visible to or frequently visited by the public. APHIS-WS 

personnel are the most vulnerable to hazard exposures (USDA 1997). 

Snares. Snares, made of cable, are among the oldest existing wildlife damage management 

tools. Snares can be used to catch most species. They are used wherever a target animal 

moves through a restricted lane of travel (i.e., “crawls” under fences, trails through 

vegetation, den entrances, etc.) When an animal moves forward into the snare loop, the 

noose tightens and the animal is held. Snares offer the advantage of being much lighter than 

leg-hold traps and are not as affected by inclement weather. 

Snares can be set as either lethal or live-capture devices. Snares set to capture an animal 

around the neck can be a lethal use of the device, whereas snares positioned to capture the 

animal around the body or leg can be a live-capture method. Careful attention to details in 

placement of snares and the use of slide stops can also allow for the live-capture of necksnared animals. 

The catch pole snare is used to capture or handle problem animals. Catch poles are primarily 

used to remove live animals from traps without injury to the animal or danger to the APHISWS Specialist. Human safety hazards associated with snares are similar to leg-hold traps. 

Risks are minimized by limiting or avoiding use where the public may be exposed, and by 

program guidelines that require warning signs to be posted in the vicinity of control 

operations (USDA 1997). 

Cage Traps. Cage traps are frequently used to capture skunks, raccoons, cougars, and black 

bears. Cage traps can also be used to capture coyote pups, fox, and dogs. Cage traps capture 

the animal by mechanical closure of the entry way via the animal’s actuation of a triggering 

device. Cage traps commonly used or recommended by APHIS-WS to capture skunks and 

raccoons are drop-door wire box traps. Live traps are generally baited with food items as 

attractants. 

The use of cage traps allows the release of captured non-target animals or target animals that 

are to be relocated. Cage traps are frequently recommended to private individuals for 

capturing skunks and raccoons or used operationally by APHIS-WS personnel in situations 

where other methods may not be as safe. These devices pose minimal risk to the humans, 

pets, or non-target animals, and are easily monitored and maintained. However, some 

animals fight to escape from cage traps and become injured. However, live traps, as applied 

and used by APHIS-WS pose no danger to pets or the public and if a pet is accidentally 

captured in such traps, it can be released unharmed. 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-19

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Shooting Birds. Shooting is more effective as a dispersal technique than as a way to reduce 

bird densities when large numbers of birds are present. Shooting is a very individual specific 

method and is normally used to remove a single off ending bird. Shooting to supplement 

harassment typically enhances the effectiveness of harassment techniques and can help 

prevent bird habituation to hazing methods (Kadlec 1968). In situations where the feeding 

instinct is strong, most birds quickly adapt to scaring and harassment efforts unless the 

control program is periodically supplemented by shooting. 

Shooting can be relatively expensive because of the staff hours sometimes required (USDA 

1997). It is selective for target species and may be used in conjunction with decoys and 

calling. Shooting with shotguns, air rifles, or rim and center fire rifles is sometimes used to 

manage bird damage when lethal methods are determined to be appropriate. The birds are 

killed as quickly and humanely as possible. APHIS-WS personnel follow all firearm safety 

precautions when conducting bird damage management and comply with all laws and 

regulations governing firearms use. Also see “Shooting Mammals” for human safety 

consideration. 

Firearm use is very sensitive and a public concern from general safety issues relating to the 

public to misuse. To ensure safe use and awareness, APHIS-WS employees who use 

firearms to conduct official duties are required to attend an approved firearms safety and use 

training program within three months of their appointment and a refresher course every three 

years afterwards (WS Directive 2.615). WS employees who carry firearms as a condition of 

employment, are required to sign a form certifying that they meet the criteria as stated in the 

Lautenberg Amendment which prohibits firearm possession by anyone who has been 

convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 

Shooting mammals. Shooting is selective for the target species but is relatively expensive 

due to the staff hours required. Shooting is, nevertheless, an essential wildlife damage 

management method. Removal of one or two problem animals can quickly stop extensive 

damage. Predator calling is an integral part of ground hunting. Even difficult-to-catch, trapwise predators are vulnerable to calling. Shooting can be selective for offending individuals 

and has the advantage that it can be applied in specific damage situations. 

The primary human health and safety hazard associated with shooting is related to firearms 

handling by the user, making APHIS-WS personnel the most vulnerable. Human health and 

safety risks are minimized by program safety practices which include extensive training and 

experience in safe and effective firearms use; frequent employee evaluations; and use of 

firearms only at safe distances from human habitations or other activities, and in safe 

directions only (USDA 1997). 

Egg, Nest, and Hatchling Removal and Destruction. Egg and nest destruction is used 

mainly to reduce or limit the growth of a nesting population in a specific area through 

limiting reproduction of offspring or removal of nest to other locations. Egg and nest 

destruction is practiced by manual removal of the eggs or nest. This method is practical only 

during a relatively short time interval and requires skill to properly identify the eggs and 

hatchlings of target species. 
L-20 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Chemical Toxicants. All chemicals used by APHIS-WS are registered under FIFRA 

(administered by EPA and WSDA) or by the Food and Drug Administration. APHIS-WS 

personnel that use chemical methods are certified as pesticide applicators by WSDA and are 

required to adhere to all certification requirements set forth in FIFRA and Washington 

pesticide regulations. Chemicals are only used on private, public, or Tribal property sites 

with authorization from the property owner or manager. 

Denning. Denning is the practice of seeking out the dens of depredating coyotes or red 

fox and eliminating the young, adults, or both to stop ongoing predation or prevent 

further depredations. The usefulness of denning as a damage management method is 

proven; however, since locating dens is difficult and time consuming, and den usage is 

restricted to about two to three months of the year, its use is limited to specific, 

appropriate situations that must be determined by a specialist. 

Coyote and red fox depredations often increase in the spring and early summer due to the 

increased food requirements of rearing and feeding young. Removal of pups will often 

stop depredations even when the adults are not removed. When the adults are removed 

and the den site is known, the pups are killed to prevent their starvation. The pups are 

euthanized in the den with a registered fumigant. Denning is highly selective for the 

target species responsible for damage. Den hunting for adult coyotes and fox is often 

combined with other activities (calling and shooting, etc.) 

Den fumigants, also called gas cartridges, are fumigants, or gases, used to manage 

wildlife. They are highly effective but are expensive and labor intensive to use. In the 

APHIS-WS program, fumigants are only used in predator dens. The APHIS-WS 

program manufactures and uses den cartridges specifically formulated for this purpose. 

These cartridges are hand placed in the active den, and the entrance is tightly sealed with 

soil. The burning cartridge causes death from a combination of oxygen depletion and 

carbon monoxide poisoning. 

DRC-1339. DRC-1339 is a slow acting avicide that is registered with the EPA for use on 

a number of species (e.g., ravens, crows, pigeons, gulls, blackbirds, and starlings), on 

various bait carriers, such as grain, meat baits, sandwich bread, and cull French fries. 

DRC-1339 is only available for use under APHIS-WS program supervision. Under 

project conditions, DRC-1339 is available for authorized for use on corvids and gulls (see 

product label). DRC-1339 was marketed as an avicide because of its differential toxicity 

to mammals. DRC-1339 is highly toxic to sensitive species but only slightly toxic to 

non-sensitive birds, predatory birds, and mammals. Most bird species that are 

responsible for damage, including starlings, blackbirds, pigeons, crows, magpies, and 

ravens are highly sensitive to DRC-1339. Many other bird species such as raptors, 

sparrows, and eagles are classified as non-sensitive. Numerous studies show that DRC1339 poses minimal risk of primary poisoning to non-target and threatened and 

endangered species (USDA 1997). Secondary poisoning has not been observed with 

DRC-1339 treated baits. This can be attributed to relatively low toxicity to species that 

might scavenge on birds killed by DRC-1339 and its tendency to be almost completely 

metabolized in the target birds which leaves little residue to be ingested by scavengers. 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-21

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Secondary hazards of DRC-1339 are almost non-existent. DRC-1339 acts in a humane 

manner, producing a quiet and apparently painless death. 

DRC-1339 is unstable in the environment and degrades rapidly when exposed to sunlight, 

heat, or ultraviolet radiation. DRC-1339 is highly soluble in water but does not 

hydrolyze, and degradation occurs rapidly in water. DRC-1339 tightly binds to soil and 

has low mobility. The half-life is about 25 hours, which means it is nearly 100% broken 

down within a week, and identified metabolites (i.e., degradation chemicals) have low 

toxicity. Aquatic and invertebrate toxicity is low (USDA 1997). USDA (1997) contains 

a thorough discussion and risk assessment of DRC-1339. That assessment concluded that 

no adverse effects are expected from use of DRC-1339. 

Zinc Phosphide. Zinc phosphide pellets (2%) may be used only by certified applicators, 

or persons under their direct supervision, for Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice (see 

product label). In the project area, the bait must be placed in tamper-resistant bait 

stations or in burrows because non-target hazards exist to any granivorous birds or 

mammals that occur in areas where zinc phosphide grain bait is applied (USDA 1997). 

The Aleutian Canada goose would potentially be affected by zinc phosphide if allowed to 

consume treated grains. Zinc phosphide poses little secondary risk to non-target wildlife 

since it breaks down rapidly in the digestive tract of affected animals. Domestic dogs and 

cats are more susceptible than other animals (USDA 1997).

L.2.3 Direct Control of Predators—Species Specific Protocols

The direct control of predators has historically been implemented by APHIS-WS through an 

interagency agreement with the Service. It is likely that this arrangement would continue in the 

future, provided funds are available. Contracts would be issued annually and would include 

detailed descriptions of approved control methods, disposition procedures for captured predators, 

and species-specific protocols. Predator management would be implemented year-round, 

although the majority of the contracted activities would occur during the snowy plover breeding 

season. During the non-breeding season for endangered species, APHIS-WS may be contracted 

to control feral dogs and cats and mammalian predators such as skunks and opossums. 

Corvids. The Corvidae family is composed of over 100 species of birds including crows and 

ravens. Corvids are widespread across North America and are found on all continents, except 

Antarctica. Prior to European colonization of North America, corvids likely occurred at lower 

densities than found in many areas today. The ability of crows and ravens to adapt and thrive in 

human-altered landscapes, both rural and urban/suburban, has led to dramatic increases in range 

and population sizes in western North America, including California (Johnston 2001; Liebezeit 

and George 2002; Marzluff et al. 2001; USFWS 2007). Because they are effective predators on 

the nests and young of some threatened and endangered species, including snowy plovers, there 

is concern among management agencies that increases in corvid populations are having negative 

impacts on populations of some listed species (Liebezeit and George 2002). Liebezeit and 

George (2002) provide detailed review of corvid life history, ecology, and importance as 

predators. 
L-22 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus), and 

common raven (Corvus corax) are land birds recognized as potential predators of eggs and 

juvenile plovers and larks (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002; 

Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 1985). All three species are currently suspected to be potential 

predation risks at Leadbetter Point. Some corvids use the lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests 

at Leadbetter Point for resting, foraging, and nesting.

Specific local population data for corvids are currently unavailable. An initial step in the 

predator management plan will be implementation of a monitoring program to ensure that any 

impacts to corvid populations and their behaviors and use patterns can be assessed more 

precisely. The Refuge monitoring program would also reveal more information on the extent of 

threats that corvids pose to plovers and larks at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator 

management strategy, any individual corvid could be controlled when they pose a threat to 

endangered species, as determined by the Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified 

predator control contractor (e.g., APHIS Wildlife Services) as needed to protect the breeding 

population and production (see section L.1.2) . Any actions affecting corvids would only occur 

after consulting with the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist. Individuals of those species 

requiring management because of conflicts with endangered species could be lethally removal. 

The overall adverse effects of control actions on corvid species would be temporary and 

localized in nature. Specifically, the small number of individual problem corvids that would 

potentially be removed by this project each year would not significantly impact their local or 

range-wide populations. Other species such as the savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

and several shorebird species such as the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) would also benefit 

from reduce predation pressure. 

Control of a problem raven or crow exhibiting hunting behavior in and around snowy plover or 

streaked horned lark nesting areas on the Refuge would be authorized. The most effective, 

selective, and humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited circumstances if 

necessary, lethally remove that individual would be implemented. As plover and lark numbers 

increase and meet breeding population and recruitment criteria, resident corvids would be 

allowed a more natural interaction with the local species of concern and active predator 

management would be de-emphasized. Translocation of corvids to other areas may negatively 

impact wildlife or agriculture in those areas, and thus would not be considered as a management 

option for corvids. Additionally, territorial vacancies created by translocation would likely be of 

short duration, because some translocated birds and/or birds from surrounding areas would 

quickly move into the vacated territory. 

Lethal removal of avian predators is most often employed when an individual problem predator 

has focused its foraging activities on a specific nesting area. In this case, an entire colony’s or 

community’s productivity or even survival can be jeopardized in a short time frame. One such 

example occurred in 1997. A pair of burrowing owls was observed preying on adult and chick 

California least terns at the Tijuana Estuary. Refuge staff determined that live trapping was the 

preferred method of control because of a concern for the sensitivity of the local burrowing owl 

population. Over about a 12-day period (the time it took to locate and live-capture the owls), this 

pair of owls had taken between 70 and 80 breeding adult least terns and an unknown number of 

chicks. This one event resulted in the loss of approximately 18% of all breeding individuals in 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-23

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

the colony during that nesting season (Patton 1998). Under this plan, selective removal of 

individual problem predators would be permitted for all avian predators. 

Gulls. Several gull species are recognized as potential predators of snowy plover eggs 

(Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 2002, 2007). All occur on the Refuge; 

however, none are currently suspected as posing a predation risk at Leadbetter Point. Specific 

local population data for gulls are currently unavailable but any adverse effects of predator 

management on the local and range-wide population of the affected gull species would be 

insignificant. 

An initial step in the predator management plan could include a monitoring program to ensure 

that any impacts on gull populations can be assessed more precisely. The refuge monitoring 

program could also reveal more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that gulls 

pose to plovers and larks at Leadbetter Point. Under the proposed predator management plan, 

any individual gull could be controlled when it poses a threat to endangered species, as 

determined by the Refuge Manager, Refuge Biologist, or a qualified predator control contractor 

(e.g., USDA APHIS Wildlife Services). Actions affecting any gulls would only be taken after 

consulting with the Refuge Manager and the Refuge Biologist as needed to protect the breeding 

population and production (see section L.1.2) 

Control of any wildlife, including gull species, that are known to prey on western snowy plovers 

or streaked horned larks and that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas could be authorized. 

The most effective, selective, and humane tools available to deter, relocate, or in very limited 

circumstances if necessary, lethally remove that individual would be implemented. As plover 

and lark numbers increase and their populations stabilize, resident gulls would be allowed a more 

natural interaction with the local species of concern and active predator management would be 

de-emphasized. 

Coyote. The coyote is one of the most widely distributed carnivores in North America. Despite 

more than 100 years of intensive efforts to control coyotes and reduce coyote depredation on 

livestock, coyotes are abundant and have expanded their range (Litvaitis and Mautz 1980). 

Human activities have often unintentionally benefited coyotes. For example, coyotes thrived in 

the Cascades, but only after their habitat was altered by clear cutting, and wolves, which were 

their primary competitors, were extirpated (Toweill and Anthony 1988). 

The coyote’s social organization revolves around the mated pair. Each pair occupies a home 

range that it defends against other coyotes. However, pairs often accept the presence of one or 

more “associates.” These are nonbreeding adults that share the home range and assist in pup 

rearing duties (Andelt 1985; Ryden 1989). Home range size and coyote density varies according 

to prey abundance, topography, and vegetative characteristics (Gese et al. 1988). Home ranges 

often occupy 10 to more than 40 square miles or more (Andelt and Gipson 1979; Gese et al.

1988; Litvaitis and Shaw 1980; Springer 1982), but home ranges may be considerably smaller 

when conditions are favorable. Gese et al. (1988) and Windberg and Knowlton (1988) reported 

home ranges as small as 2.59 square kilometers (1.0 mi2

). Densities may be higher than home 

range size would indicate (Hein and Andelt 1995). Ranges of adjacent pairs may overlap, at least 

at the peripheries (Litvaitis and Shaw 1980), and transient (unmated) individuals whose home 

ranges overlap those of mated pairs are usually present (Andelt 1985; Gese et al. 1989). 
L-24 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Densities and home ranges on the refuge are unknown, but coyotes are common throughout the 

year. Small mammals provide an abundant, year-round, prey base. The frequency with which 

coyotes are observed and heard by refuge staff suggests that two or three mated pairs may be 

occupying the area. Coyote mating on the Willapa NWR typically occurs during January or 

February, and five to 10 pups for each breeding pair typically are born during April or May (Burt 

and Grossenheider 1964). Pups are fed by the adults for several months, and then disperse from 

their parents’ home range before reaching 1 year of age, but they may remain longer (Andelt 

1985; Bowen 1982; Nellis and Keith 1976). Mortality of pups often exceeds 50% during their 

first year (Andelt 1985; Nellis and Keith 1976). 

The typical adult coyote weighs 25 to 30 pounds, although there is some geographic variation 

and occasionally individuals may be larger (Berg and Chesness 1978). Coyotes are 

opportunistic, omnivorous foragers, where the diet is flexible based upon prey that is available. 

Diets can include large and small mammals such as mice, rats, rabbits, and hares; deer and other 

wild ungulates; livestock and domestic pets; and carrion, as well as reptiles, amphibians, fish, 

insects, fruits, and even farm crops such as corn (Bailey 1936; Gier 1957). Deer, especially 

fawns, are often a major food item for coyotes (Andelt 1985; MacCracken 1984; Toweill and 

Anthony 1988). During the breeding season, coyotes seek larger prey (e.g., deer fawns) to feed 

their young (Till and Knowlton 1983). Harrison and Harrison (1984) found that pups at a site in 

Maine were fed deer fawns almost exclusively during June and July. A medium-sized coyote 

requires about 4,800 mice or eight adult deer per year to meet its basic resting energy needs 

(Litvaitis and Mautz 1980). 

Coyotes would only be targeted if field investigations indicate they pose a direct and immediate 

threat to specific plovers, streaked horned larks and their chicks (see section L.1.2). Under the 

proposed action, about 15 to 70 coyotes could be removed, if they are found to be a threat to 

plovers. APHIS-WS estimated that total take of coyotes in 1998, which included fur harvest 

from hunting and trapping and depredation take, amounted to 3% of the population in northwest 

Oregon and 9% in southwest Oregon (unpublished monitoring reports of environmental 

assessments on predator damage management, APHIS-WS). 

It is not expected that taking coyotes to protect plovers would add notably to the cumulative take 

of coyotes. Take is expected to remain well below the established USDA (1995) 70% allowable 

harvest for coyote. Cumulative mortality of coyotes from coastal counties included 775 coyotes 

taken from hunting, trapping, and depredation (ODFW 1999-2000 hunting and trapping and 

USDA MIS for FY 1999). Negligible impacts on the coyote population are expected as a result 

of plover protection. 

Live trapping may include the use of box type mammal traps, bal-chatri traps (a type of baited 

monofilament line leg-hold/cage trap), scent baited padded leg-hold traps and perch pole traps, 

or cage traps. Manual capture methods may also be employed using hand held capture poles or 

other manual techniques. Traps are inspected in accordance with State Fish and Wildlife Code 

and Service policy. Specifically, traps set out overnight for mammalian predators are checked 

within two hours of sunrise and traps left out during daylight hours are monitored regularly and 

checked a minimum of four times per day. The use and monitoring of pole traps will be 

conducted in accordance with Service policy. 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-25

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Targeted animals that are live trapped are euthanized by lethal injection (sodium phenobarbital), 

shot, or gassed using carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas. Lethal methods will be 

implemented as humanely and selectively as possible. It is not likely that all methods will be 

used because site conditions would render some tools more appropriate than others. APHIS-WS 

and refuge personnel can determine for each unique situation what method or combination of 

methods is most appropriate and effective using the APHIS-WS Decision Model. Shooting will 

be conducted only by government personnel trained and certified in firearm safety. In order to 

avoid human safety hazards, shooting will take place only when members of the public are not in 

the area. 

Small Mammals. Small mammals such as raccoons, opossums, weasels, skunks, mice, and rats 

may pose a low level of nest predation risk to plovers and larks, although the likelihood of actual 

predation at Leadbetter Point is thought to be rare. In California, red fox predation on snowy 

plovers was a major reason for the plovers decline on the central coast (USFWS 1993) and is one 

of the major threats to the survival of the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail 

(USFWS and U.S. Navy 1990). The USFWS concluded that red fox are a major factor in snowy 

plover chick losses in California, based on numerous studies and on comparisons between areas 

with and without red fox. By reducing the number of red fox in the vicinity of plover breeding 

areas, the reproductive success of plovers may be dramatically improved (USFWS 1993). Red 

fox are not currently known to occur at Willapa NWR. 

Selective control of problem mammalian predators will involve trapping and euthanizing by 

approved humane methods as described for coyote. Target and non-target predators that are 

injured during trapping will be treated on a case-by-case basis. These animals may be 

euthanized or taken to an approved rehabilitation or veterinary care facility depending on species 

and extent of injuries. Any non-target wildlife (an animal determined not to be a threat to listed 

species) that is captured unharmed would be immediately released near the capture site or at a 

suitable location. 

All free-roaming domestic dogs and cats, when feasible, would be taken to an approved shelter 

facility operated by a cooperating local unit of government, humane society, or a veterinary care 

facility. 

Raptors. Birds of prey, or raptors, are meat eaters that use their feet, instead of their beak, to 

capture prey. They have exceptionally good vision, a sharp, hooked beak, and powerful feet with 

curved, sharp talons. Raptor feeding strategies vary, but most are somewhat opportunistic, 

taking advantage of easily captured prey by using whatever means possible (Sibley 2000). 

Raptors primarily pursue small to medium sized birds and small mammals, or feed on carrion. 

The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), merlin (Falco columbarius), peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) are recognized potential predators of both 

juvenile and adult plovers and larks (Liebezeit and George 2002; Powell et al. 2002; USFWS 

2002). All occur at the Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR, but only the northern harrier and 

merlin are currently suspected to be potential predation risks at Leadbetter Point. Although not 

known to be predators at Leadbetter Point, snowy owls (Nyctea scandiaca) and short-eared owls 

(Asio flammeus) may opportunistically feed on shorebirds or land birds on an infrequent basis. 
L-26 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Specific local population data for raptors are currently unavailable. An initial step in the predator 

management plan will be implementation of a monitoring program to ensure that any impacts on 

raptor populations can be assessed more precisely. The refuge monitoring program would also 

reveal more information on the magnitude and extent of threats that raptors pose to plovers and 

larks at Leadbetter Point. 

Under the proposed predator management plan, any individual problem raptor that poses a threat 

to endangered species, as determined by the Refuge Biologist or a qualified predator control 

agent for the Service (e.g., USDA APHIS Wildlife Services), could be considered for control 

actions. Actions affecting raptors would only be taken after consulting with the Refuge Manager 

and the Refuge Biologist as needed to protect the breeding population and production (see 

section L.1.2). If direct avian predator management is determined to be necessary, it could occur 

year-round but would be concentrated immediately prior to and during the snowy plover and 

streaked horned lark breeding season (March to September). If an individual non-corvid 

predator is evaluated as posing a threat to snowy plovers at the Refuge, it may be trapped and/or 

relocated as needed to protect the breeding population and production (see section L.1.2). The 

determination that relocation is necessary will be made by refuge staff in consultation with 

WDFW biologists. The Refuge Biological Resources Program staff will be responsible for 

monitoring and managing avian predators in cooperation with WDFW, APHIS-WS, and 

WSPRC. 

Direct control of any raptor species would only focus on problem predators, which are defined in 

this context as individuals that belong to species that are known to prey on western snowy 

plovers or streaked horned larks and that exhibit hunting behavior in nesting areas. For most 

predatory species, direct management will be accomplished primarily by intentional hazing 

(scaring off) or live-capture, holding and/or translocation of individual predators from nesting 

areas. Hazing or trapping will be used only on extremely rare occasions when it is demonstrably 

necessary, for example, when there is an immediate threat to snowy plover chicks. The decision 

to haze an avian predator will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and will be based on the 

degree of threat, the breeding phase of snowy plovers and streaked horned larks, professional 

judgment of the situation, and as needed to protect the breeding population and production (see 

section L.1.2). Any traps set for avian predators would be regularly monitored. 

Only licensed and authorized agencies or individuals will implement predator management 

actions. Management actions will be carried out by APHIS-WS, or other such qualified agencies 

or individuals. Refuge personnel and their cooperators may assist with capture efforts. All 

activities will be conducted using the most humane methods available, under the direction of the 

Refuge Biologist. Only non-lethal techniques will be used for problem raptors. A combination 

of live-trapping techniques will be used, including bal-chatri traps, dho gaza nets, bow nets, 

noose mats, net launchers with bait, and lures. Knowledge of the avian predator’s habits will 

determine which trapping technique to employ. Efforts will be made to avoid and minimize 

losses of non-target native wildlife and all uninjured non-target species inadvertently captured 

will be immediately released near the site of capture or at a suitable location at the discretion of 

the Refuge Manager in consultation with the Refuge Biologist. 

Live captured raptors would be removed from the site and held in a licensed and permitted 

rehabilitation or holding center until they can be released back into the wild. Release would 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-27

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

occur after the endangered species nesting season is completed and an appropriate release site 

has been approved by the Refuge Biologist. All translocated birds will be released in an area 

with suitable habitat. Raptors would be banded prior to release. As plover and lark numbers 

increase and their populations stabilize, raptors would be allowed a more natural interaction with 

the local species of concern and active predator management would be de-emphasized. 

The Refuge and its cooperators will continue to research avian predator management alternatives 

that will protect the snowy plover while minimizing disturbance to avian predators. There is 

particular interest in developing management techniques that would permit problem predators to 

remain on the Refuge but would prevent them from hunting in snowy plover nesting areas. 

L.3 Literature Cited 

Andelt, W.F. 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in south Texas. Wildlife Monographs 94. 

Andelt, W.F. and P.S. Gipson. 1979. Home range, activity, and daily movements of coyotes. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 43:944-951. 

Avery, M.L., M.A. Pavelka, D.L. Bergman, D.G. Decker, C.E. Knittle, and G.M. Linz. 1995. 

Aversive conditioning to reduce raven predation on California least tern eggs. Journal of 

Colonial Waterbird Society 18:131-138. 

Bailey, E.P. 1993. Introduction of foxes to Alaska islands—history, effects on avifauna, and 

eradication. Resource Publication 193, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 53 pp. 

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, No. 55. U.S. 

Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 

Berg, W.E., and R.A. Chesness. 1978. Ecology of coyotes in northern Minnesota. Pages 229-247 

in: M. Bekoff, ed. Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. New York: Academic Press. 

Bowen, W.D. 1982. Home range and spatial organization of coyotes in Jasper National Park, 

Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:201-216. 

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1964. A field guide to the mammals. Boston, MA: 

Houghton Mifflin Company. 

DeVos, J.C. and J.L. Smith. 1995. Natural mortality in wildlife populations. International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Washington, D.C. 50 pp. 

Dolbeer, R.A., M.A. Link, and P.P. Wornecki. 1988. Naphthalene shows no repellency for 

starlings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:62-64. 

Gese, E.M., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1988. Home range and habitat use of coyotes in 

southeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:640-646. 

Gier, H.T. 1957. Coyotes in Kansas. Bulletin 393. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Harrison, D.J., and J.A. Harrison. 1984. Foods of adult Maine coyotes and their known-age pups. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:922-926. 

Hein, E.W., and W.F. Andelt. 1995. Estimating coyote density from mark-resight surveys. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 59:164-169. 
L-28 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Heske, E.J., S.K. Robinson, and J D. Brown. 2001. Nest predation and neotropical migrant 

songbirds: piecing together the fragments. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:52-61. 

Johnston, R.F. 2001. Synanthropic birds of North America. Pages 49-67 in: J. M. Marzluff, R. 

Bowman, and R. Donnelly, eds. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. 

Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. 

Kadlec, J.A. 1968. Bird reactions and scaring devices. Appendix 1. Federal Aviation Advisory 

Circular 150-5200-9. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, J.D. Farrar, H.G. Herlyn, and E.P. Gaines. 2009. The distribution 

and reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2009. The 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State 

University. Portland, OR. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, R. Pruner, M. Friel, and E.P. Gaines. 2007. The distribution and 

reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2007. The Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. 

Portland, OR. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, S. Weston, K. Eucken, and E.P. Gaines. 2006. The distribution and 

reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2006. The Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. 

Portland, OR. 

Liebezeit, J.R. and T.L. George. 2002. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and 

endangered species in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation. 

Report 2002-02. California Department of Fish and Game, Species Conservation and Recovery 

Program. Sacramento, CA. 103 pp. 

Litvaitis, J.A. and J.H. Shaw. 1980. Coyote movements, habitat use, and food habits in 

southwestern Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:62-68. 

Litvaitis, J.A. and W.W. Mautz. 1980. Food and energy use by captive coyotes. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 44:56-61. 

MacCracken, J.G. 1984. Coyote foods in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:1420-1423. 

Marzluff, J.M., K.J. McGowan, R. Donnelly, and R.L. Knight. 2001. Causes and consequences 

of expanding American Crow populations. Pages 331-363 in: J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and 

R. Donnelly, eds. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Norwell, MA: Kluwer 

Academic. 

Nelson, H.K. 2001. Impact of predation on avian recruitment: an introduction. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 29:2-5. 

Nellis, C.H. and L.B. Keith. 1976. Population dynamics of coyotes in central Alberta, 1964-

1968. Journal of Wildlife Management 40(3):389-399. 

Patton, R. 1998. The status of the California least tern at San Diego Unified Port District 

properties in 1998 (draft report). 
Appendix L. Predator Management Plan L-29

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Pearson, S.F., C. Sundstrom, W. Ritchie, and K. Gunther. 2009. Snowy plover population 

monitoring, research, and management actions: 2009 nesting season research progress report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, WA. 38 pp. 

Pearson, S.F., A.F. Camfield, and K. Martin. 2008. Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) fecundity, survival, population growth and site fidelity: Research Progress Report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, WA. 21 pp. 

Pearson, S.F. and B. Altman. 2005. Rangewide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 

Pearson, S.F. and M. Hopey. 2005. Streaked Horned Lark nest success, habitat selection, and 

habitat enhancement experiments for the Puget lowlands, coastal Washington and Columbia 

River Islands. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-1. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, WA. 

Powell, A.N., C.L. Fritz, B.L. Peterson, and J.M. Terp. 2002. Status of breeding and wintering 

snowy plovers in San Diego County, California, 1994-1999. Journal of Field Ornithology 

73(2):156-165. 

Reynolds, J.C. and S.C. Tapper. 1996. Control of mammalian predators in game management 

and conservation. Mammal Review 26:127-156. 

Ryden, H. 1989. God’s dog. New York: Lyons and Burford. 

Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 

Slate, D.A., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife 

damage management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 57:51-62. 

Sovada, M.A., R.M. Anthony, and B.D. J. Bratt. 2001. Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra 

and prairie breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:6-15. 

Springer, J.T. 1982. Movement patterns of coyotes in south central Washington. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 46:191-200. 

Stinson, D.W. 2005. Washington state status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked 

horned lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

WA. 129 pp. 

Stoudt, J.H. 1982. Habitat use and productivity of canvasbacks in southwestern Manitoba, 1961-

72. Periodic Scientific Report—Wildlife 248. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

31 pp. 

Till, J.A. and F.F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of denning in alleviating coyote depredations upon 

domestic sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1018-1025. 

Toweill, D.E. and R.G. Anthony. 1988. Coyote foods in a coniferous forest in Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52:507-512. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1995. Environmental Assessment: Wildlife damage 

management in the Roseburg ADC District in southwestern Oregon. APHIS, WS Program. 

Roseburg, OR. 
L-30 Appendix L. Predator Management Plan

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

USDA. 1997. Final environmental impact statement animal damage control program. Revised. 

APHIS, WS-OSS. Riverdale, MD. 

USDA. 2002. Final environmental assessment for predator damage management to protect the 

federally threatened Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover in Oregon. APHIS, 

WS Program. Portland, OR. 

USDA. 2005. Final environmental assessment for the management of predation losses to native 

bird populations on the barrier and Chesapeake Bay islands and coastal areas of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. APHIS, WS Program, Moseley, VA. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. R.E.D. Facts, Methiocarb. Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7508W), EPA-738-F-94-002. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Final rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants; Determination of threatened status for the Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover. Federal Register 58:12864 (5 March1993). 

USFWS. 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment. December 2002. 

USFWS. 2006. San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge Sweetwater Marsh and South San 

Diego Bay Units final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement. 

August 2006. 

USFWS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). 2 volumes. Sacramento, CA. 751 pp. 

USFWS and U.S. Navy. 1990. Final environmental impact statement, endangered species 

management and protection plan, Naval Weapons Station—Seal Beach and Seal Beach National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Wilson-Jacobs, R., and G.L. Dorsey. 1985. Snowy plover use of Coos Bay north spit, Oregon. 

Murrelet 66(3):75-81. 

Windberg, L.A., and F.F. Knowlton. 1988. Management implications of coyote spacing patterns 

in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:632-640. 

Witmer, G.W., J.L. Bucknall, T.H. Fritts, and D.G. Moreno. 1996. Predator management to 

protect endangered avian species. Transactions of the 61st North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 61:102-108. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. Hunting Plan 
M-2 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Table of Contents

M.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ M-3

M.2 Conformance with Statutory Authorities ................................................................... M-4

M.3 Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................. M-5

M.4 Assessment ................................................................................................................. M-6

M.5 Description of the Hunting Program .......................................................................... M-8

M.5.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support Populations of the Target Species ....................... M-8

M.5.2 Target Species ........................................................................................................... M-8

M.5.3 Existing Areas Opened to the Public ....................................................................... M-10

M.5.4 Existing Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities ............................................................ M-10

M.5.5 Proposed Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities ........................................................... M-11

M.5.6 Existing Upland Game Bird Hunting Opportunities ............................................... M-11

M.5.7 Proposed Upland Game Bird Hunting Opportunities .............................................. M-12

M.5.8 Existing Big Game Hunting Opportunities ............................................................. M-12

M.5.9 Proposed Big Game Hunting Opportunities ............................................................ M-12

M.5.10 Species to be Taken and Hunting Periods ............................................................. M-16

M.6 Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Plans ....................... M-20

M.6.1 Biological Conflicts/Impacts ................................................................................... M-20

M.6.2 Public Use Conflicts ................................................................................................ M-22

M.6.3 Administrative Conflicts ......................................................................................... M-24

M.7 Conduct of the Big Game Hunt ............................................................................... M-24

M.7.1 Refuge-specific Big Game Hunting Regulations .................................................... M-24

M.7.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program ............................................. M-26

M.7.3 Hunter Application and Registration Procedures .................................................... M-27

M.7.4 Description of Hunter Selection Process ................................................................. M-27

M.7.5 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing Big Game Hunting ................... M-27

M.7.6 Description of Hunter Orientation, Including Pre-hunt Scouting ........................... M-27

M.7.7 Requirements for Hunting ....................................................................................... M-28

M.8 References ................................................................................................................ M-29
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-3

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

M.1 Introduction 

The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located on Willapa Bay in southwest 

Washington. The Refuge was established in early 1937 by President Franklin Roosevelt in order 

to preserve and manage the important habitats and wildlife of Willapa Bay. The Refuge 

currently manages approximately 16,000 acres including sand dunes, sand beaches, intertidal 

mudflats, saltwater and freshwater marshes, grassland, open water, and forested lands. 

The Refuge’s wetland habitats support wintering populations of waterfowl such as black brant, 

trumpeter swans, Canada geese, scaup, canvasback, bufflehead, scoters, and American wigeon. 

The Refuge also hosts some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the Pacific Coast 

during their spring and fall migrations. These large concentrations of migrating shorebirds and 

the habitats that support them are now recognized as globally significant. The western snowy 

plover, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, nests along the Refuge beaches. 

Marbled murrelet, black bear, black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, bats, bobcats, and grouse can be 

found in the forests and upland habitats. The cool, wet climate of the Willapa hills makes the 

area a “hotspot” of amphibian diversity in Washington. Habitats on the Refuge support up to 13 

of the 24 native amphibians that occur in the state. Coastal rivers and streams on the Refuge 

provide habitat for western brook lamprey; western pearlshell mussels; Chinook, coho, and chum 

salmon; steelhead; and sea-run cutthroat trout. 

The purpose of the Hunt Plan is to outline how the hunting program will be managed on the 

Willapa Refuge. The Hunt Plan documents how the Refuge will provide safe, quality hunting 

opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(Service Manual 605 FW 2). The Hunt Plan will discuss the following topics: compatibility, the 

effect of hunting on Refuge objectives, assessment of target species, description of the hunting 

areas, avoiding biological and public conflicts, and the procedures to conduct the daily hunt. 

The Refuge would maintain current hunting opportunities and expand the wildlife-dependent 

recreational hunting opportunities as identified in this plan and the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental impact statement (CCP/EIS). 

The goals of Willapa Refuge as developed for the long term management of the Refuge in the 

draft CCP/EIS are: 

 Goal 1. Protect, maintain and restore ecologically functional late-successional forest 

habitats (mature and old-growth forest) characteristic of the low-elevation temperate 

forests in the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species, migratory and resident birds, and a diverse assemblage of other native 

species. 

 Goal 2. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats historically characteristic of the 

southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of salmonids, Pacific brant, other 

waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. 

 Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and restore freshwater habitats historically characteristic of the 

southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of migratory birds, salmonids, 

amphibians, mussels, lamprey, and a diverse assemblage of other native species. 
M-4 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Goal 4. Protect, maintain and restore coastal beach and dune habitats historically 

characteristic of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of the western 

snowy plover, streaked horned lark, pink sandverbena, Oregon silverspot butterfly, and a 

diverse assemblage of other native species. 

 Goal 5. Provide short-grass fields (improved pastures) and grasslands for the benefit of 

Canada geese, pacific jumping mouse and other grassland-dependent species and restore 

grasslands for the Oregon silverspot butterfly. 

 Goal 6. Promote the recovery of federally threatened and endangered as well as Federal 

candidate and state-listed species. 

 Goal 7. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, studies) in 

support of adaptive management decisions on the Refuge under Goals 1-6. 

 Goal 8. Foster a connection between refuge visitors and nature. Visitors will have the 

opportunity to participate in safe quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities located 

throughout Willapa NWR. These activities and programs include wildlife observation, 

hunting, fishing, interpretation/education, and photography. 

 Goal 9. Protect and preserve the cultural resources of the Refuge for the benefit of 

present and future generations. 

 Goal 10. Contribute to the protection of the long-term environmental health of the 

Willapa Bay ecosystem. 

 Goal 11. Provide support for off-refuge conservation efforts in southwest Washington in 

partnership with private landowners, agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. 

M.2 Conformance with Statutory Authorities 

National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) and the purposes for which individual refuges were established, as well 

as other policies, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) and 

Service Manual. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use. The Refuge 

Recreation Act requires that 1) any recreational use permitted will not interfere with the primary 

purpose for which the area was established; and 2) funds are available for the development, 

operation, and maintenance of the permitted forms of recreation. 

Fundamental to the management of lands within the Refuge System is the Improvement Act, an 

amendment to the Refuge Administration Act of 1966. The Act provided a mission for the 

Refuge System, and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. Its passage 

followed the promulgation of Executive Order 12996 (April 1996), Management of Public Uses 

on National Wildlife Refuges, reflecting the importance of conserving natural resources for the 

benefit of present and future generations of people. 

The Improvement Act recognized that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-5

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

when determined to be compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and purposes of a 

refuge, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System. Compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and shall 

receive priority consideration in planning and management. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined hunting of waterfowl, coot, snipe, 

elk, deer, bear, and grouse (ruffed and blue) to be a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

use on the Refuge (Waterfowl Hunting and Big Game and Upland Game Bird Compatibility 

Determinations, Appendix C of the draft CCP/EIS). Based upon biological impacts described in 

the Hunting Compatibility Determination (Appendix C, draft CCP/EIS), which are incorporated 

by reference, hunting on the Refuge is a compatible use and will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the purposes for which the Willapa Refuge was established. Stipulations within the 

Hunting CD to ensure compatibility include Refuge-specific regulations; monitoring of hunting 

activities, habitat conditions, public use activities, and wildlife population levels; and routine law 

enforcement patrols.

M.3 Statement of Objectives 

In the draft CCP/EIS, the Service proposes maintaining existing waterfowl, upland game bird, 

and big game hunting and opening areas of the Refuge to elk and deer hunting. The objectives of 

the Hunt Plan directly support several of the Refuge’s long-term management goals and Service 

mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that refuges shall 

provide quality hunting opportunities wherever compatible. 

 Foster a connection between Refuge visitors and nature. Visitors will have the 

opportunity to participate in safe quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities located 

throughout Willapa Refuge. These activities and programs include wildlife observation, 

hunting, fishing, interpretation/education, and photography. 

 Protect, maintain, and restore coastal beach and dune habitats historically characteristic 

of the southwest Washington coastal region for the benefit of the western snowy plover, 

streaked horned lark, pink sandverbena, Oregon silverspot butterfly, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. 

 Promote the recovery of federally threatened and endangered as well as Federal candidate 

and state-listed species. 

This hunting program supports the mandate of the Improvement Act that refuges provide for 

priority public uses, including hunting, where compatible. A Compatibility Determination and 

Section 7 Endangered Species Consultation were completed for the existing and proposed 

waterfowl, upland game bird, and big game hunt (Appendices C and O, draft CCP/EIS). The 

current and expanded hunting program would be conducted to meet Refuge objectives for 

providing quality hunting opportunities, and assisting the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW) with achieving and maintaining state game population objectives. 
M-6 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

M.4 Assessment 

The hunting program would be thoroughly evaluated on an annual basis to determine if the 

Refuge is meeting its objectives. If there have been no unacceptable impacts to other wildlife 

populations or to other public use programs, the hunting program would be continued. At that 

time, the Service will also consider adding additional hunting areas if appropriate, including any 

newly acquired Refuge lands. Any reductions in or other changes to the hunt program would be 

made after evaluation of the program. 

All existing and proposed hunting areas are located within Pacific County, Washington. Hunting 

of waterfowl, coot, snipe, elk, deer, bear, and grouse (ruffed and blue) would be allowed on the 

Refuge consistent and in accordance with all Washington State regulations except as specifically 

noted herein. 

A. Are populations of waterfowl, coot, snipe, elk, deer, bear, or grouse (ruffed or blue) 

present in numbers that are sufficient to sustain an optimum population level for 

priority refuge objectives other than hunting?

Yes, target wildlife populations are present in sufficient numbers for priority refuge 

objectives for wildlife management and for the other priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses (wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation). The Refuge has adopted harvest regulations set by the State, which uses 

concepts of density dependent compensatory mortality and adaptive harvest management 

to ensure sustained game species populations (See Section M.5.10, Species to be taken). 

The Refuge was evaluated to determine the best public use strategy for providing highquality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. The Refuge would offer various 

public use opportunities on nearly the entire Refuge throughout various times of the year. 

Approximately 90 acres of the Refuge are closed to all public use. These areas include 

areas directly adjacent to buildings and are closed for safety purposes. Approximately 

6,000 acres would be open for waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting. There would be 

approximately 11,300 acres available for elk, deer, bear, and grouse (ruffed and blue) 

hunting. Hunting programs need to be based on healthy, sustainable populations of the 

species hunted. The number of elk that enter the Refuge may vary from year to year. For 

the Leadbetter Point Unit, reproduction continues to add to the estimated population of 40 

to 60 animals. Outside recruitment to the herd may also add to this population annually. 

Under this Hunting Plan, the elk and deer populations would be monitored and the 

continual expansion kept in check. According to WDFW Wildlife Biologists, the 

management of the elk and deer herds is necessary to maintain an overall healthy 

population that does not have negative impacts on the environment or create negative 

impacts for the community. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-7

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

B. Is there competition for habitat between target species and other wildlife? 

Possibly. While each species occupies a unique niche, there is a finite amount of space 

available to satisfy various habitat requirements of water, food, cover, breeding, and 

roosting areas. 

Non-native beach grass is abundant on the Leadbetter Point Unit. However, it is unlikely 

that this is much of a food source for elk. Browse is in limited supply on this unit. Shore 

pine dominates much of the shrub/tree community, although willows and other shrubby 

plants do exist. Shrubs and trees occupy greater than 50% of the 1,742-acre unit and 

coupled with the large areas of predominantly beach grasses, it is not surprising that the 

native plants which are occurring in the dune habitat restoration area are being consumed 

or trampled. 

Elk are large animals and require extensive amounts of food. A 700-pound elk will 

typically eat 14 pounds air dry weight (approximately 30 pounds fresh weight) of forage 

per day (Nelson and Leege 1982). A herd of 40 to 60 or more elk on the 1,742-acre unit 

exerts tremendous pressure on the native plant species that do occur and conflicts with 

the nesting wildlife that occupy those areas. 

Elk compete with deer for food and cover. Elk are often classified as being primarily 

grazers (feeding on grasses and forbs), whereas deer are often classified as being 

browsers (feeding on the leaves and twigs of shrubs and trees). However, both elk and 

deer are generalist herbivores and seek out the highest quality forage available at any 

given time, whether it be grasses, forbs (herbs other than grasses), or browse (Nelson and 

Leege 1982; Verme and Ullrey 1984) 

Black bears are omnivores and consume both plants and animal matter, including insects. 

Movement within a home range is associated with seasonal availability of food and 

breeding activities and dispersal. Habitat competition with other species of wildlife is 

negligible. 

C. Are there unacceptable levels of predation by elk/deer/bear on other wildlife forms?

No, target species (waterfowl, coot, snipe, elk, deer, bear, and ruffed and blue grouse) 

generally do not prey on other species at unacceptable levels. 

Although elk and deer are not predators and do not directly predate on other species, in 

large numbers they do create unacceptable levels of competition and habitat destruction 

(see above). 

Predation levels on other species of wildlife have not been observed to be a problem with 

black bear on the Refuge. 
M-8 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

M.5 Description of the Hunting Program 

M.5.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support Populations of the Target Species 

Target game species commonly occurring on the Refuge include waterfowl, coot, snipe, elk, 

deer, bear, and grouse (ruffed and blue). Descriptions of upland forest, estuarine open water, 

intertidal flat, salt marsh, riverine, wetlands, coastal dune and beach, and grassland habitats and 

their associated plant and wildlife species are described in further detail in Chapter 4 of the draft 

CCP/EIS. An overview of hunted target wildlife species is also described below in Section 

M.5.2. 

M.5.2 Target Species 

M.5.2.1 Migratory Game Birds 

Status of Waterfowl, Coots, and Snipe on the Refuge 

Willapa Bay is an important wintering ground for geese and ducks, many of which breed in 

Alaska and northern Canada. The Refuge’s wetland habitats support wintering populations of 

waterfowl such as black brant, trumpeter swans, Canada geese, scaup, canvasback, bufflehead, 

scoters, and American wigeon. Up to 35 species of waterfowl can be observed. 

The Pacific population of western Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti) nest in central and 

southern British Columbia, northwestern Alberta, northern and southwestern Idaho, western 

Montana, northwestern Nevada, northern California, and throughout Washington and Oregon. A 

large segment of this population is nonmigratory and resident throughout the year. In response to 

human activities, such as transplants and artificial nesting structures, the population has 

expanded its historic distribution. Agricultural practices, residential expansion, and park 

development has further expanded this population. In some urbanized areas, the geese have 

become acclimated to human interaction and reside in parks. 

Willapa NWR and the fields and farm pastures adjoining Willapa Bay are the primary stopover 

habitat in Washington State for Aleutian cackling geese during the fall migration from September 

to late November. A peak count at Willapa during the mid-1990s averaged from 300 to 400 birds 

(Hays 1997; Kraege 2005). Winter goose survey numbers in Willapa Bay were much lower, 

comprising less than 1% of the geese examined from 2000 until 2004, when surveys were 

curtailed. Low numbers are typically seen during the northern migration in February and March 

each year. The highest number of spring migrating Aleutian cackling geese in Washington 

through the mid 1990s was 52 birds recorded in Willapa Bay by Pitkin and Lowe (1995). The 

2008 calculated population index for Aleutian cackling geese in the Pacific Flyway was 193,321. 

The most recent three-year average population equals about 179,000, slightly below the Flyway 

objective of 250,000 birds set by the Pacific Flyway Council. 

A primary rationale for creating Willapa NWR in 1937 was conservation of migratory and 

wintering populations of brant. Brant are one of the most abundant waterbird species passing 

through Willapa Bay during annual migrations. Brant utilize eel grass (Zostera marina) beds as 

a primary food source while in Willapa Bay, often numbering in the hundreds of birds. Use of 

the bay is greatest during the northern spring migration, with peak bird numbers observed from 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-9

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

March through May, with use typically highest in April. Brant also winter in the area from late 

October to early May. Total numbers of wintering birds are lower than in the spring, averaging 

several thousand, but overall there is a lesser degree of interannual variation (Wilson and 

Atkinson 1995). Historically the brant population was much higher than at present. Brant 

harvest in the Pacific Flyway states for 2007 was estimated at 2,800 birds, with Washington State 

comprising slightly less than 20% of the total rate of harvest. The 2008 population estimate 

based on an index derived from midwinter surveys totals 24,972. 

M.5.2.2 Upland Game Birds 

Status of Ruffed and Blue Grouse on the Refuge 

Forest grouse in Washington include dusky blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), sooty blue 

grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus), and ruffed grouse (Bonsa umbellus), which occur throughout 

the forested lands in Washington. Statewide biological surveys designed to estimate forest 

grouse populations have not been conducted in Washington (WDFW 2008). Forest grouse can 

be observed throughout the Refuge and adjacent lands 

M.5.2.3 Big Game 

Status of Roosevelt Elk on the Refuge 

The Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) is one of six recognized subspecies of elk in North 

America (Bryant and Maser 1982). They are native to western Oregon and Washington, 

northwestern California, and Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Statewide elk populations are 

difficult to estimate but the statewide total ranges from approximately 55,000 to 60,000 elk 

(WDFW 2009). Southwest Washington and the Willapa Hills, which surround the Refuge, 

support one of the highest concentrations of elk in Washington State. Populations of elk in 

western Washington are variable, ranging from less than 1 elk/mi2

 to12 elk/mi2 (USFWS 1978). 

Elk can be observed throughout the Refuge and adjacent lands. Habitat on the Refuge includes 

open fields, fresh and saltwater marshes, forested areas, and clearings in forests. An estimate of 

the elk population in the late 1970s on Long Island was 40 to 45 animals. 

Records indicate that elk were not present on Leadbetter Point when the area became part of 

Willapa Refuge in the 1960s. It is surmised that a small group of elk located to this area in late 

1980s or early 1990s by travelling up the Long Beach Peninsula. There are also records of elk 

swimming from Long Island to the peninsula. Elk are found on the Mainland and Long Island 

Units of the Refuge on a year-round basis. The population of the mainland elk herds is kept in 

check because the surrounding private lands and portions of the Refuge are open to elk hunting 

annually. 

Elk hunting is currently prohibited within the Leadbetter State Park and the Leadbetter Point 

Unit of the Refuge. Elk numbers have grown gradually and continuously since their 

establishment on the peninsula. In the spring and summer months of 2007, refuge biologists 

observed a herd of approximately 30 elk inside the western snowy plover nesting area. Reports 

of sightings in the area by WDFW and area residents confirm that the overall number of elk has 

increased and now may range from 40 to 60 animals. 
M-10 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Status of Black-tail Deer on the Refuge 

WDFW conducts composition surveys from the air and the ground to index buck, doe, and fawn 

ratios (WDFW 2009). In western Washington, black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) surveys 

are coupled with hunter check station information and harvest data to model populations 

(WDFW 2009). In 2008, population estimates for deer in Game Management Units (GMU) 658, 

660, 663, 672, 673, 681 (which includes the Refuge), and 684 was 25,797 (WDFW 2009). 

Systematic surveys of black-tailed deer are not conducted on the Refuge. However, the Willapa 

Hills and the Long Beach Peninsula support healthy populations of black-tailed deer, and this 

species has been observed throughout the Refuge. 

Status of Black Bear on the Refuge 

The black bear (Ursus americanus) is the most common and widely distributed species of bear 

found in North America. In Washington, black bears inhabit 31 of 37 counties, occupying all 

forested habitats within western Washington, the Cascade Mountain Range, the Okanogan 

Region, and the Selkirk and Blue Mountains ranges (WDFW 2009). Although no formal 

statewide bear surveys are conducted in Washington, the black bear population is around 25,000 

to 30,000 animals (WDFW 2009). Systematic surveys of black bear are not conducted on the 

Refuge. However, the Willapa Hills and the Long Beach Peninsula support healthy populations 

of black bear. This species has been observed throughout the Refuge. Although a population 

estimate does not exist for the entire Refuge, a study in 1973-1975 estimated the bear population 

on Long Island to be approximately 30 animals (Lindzey 1976). 

Hunting pressure for bear on Long Island is limited. 

M.5.3 Existing Areas Opened to the Public 

The Refuge is opened for a variety of wildlife-dependent public uses and currently offers a 

waterfowl, upland game bird, and big game hunting programs: 

M.5.4 Existing Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities 

All hunters are required to use only federally approved nontoxic shot while waterfowl hunting. 

Use or possession of lead shot is prohibited while hunting waterfowl. Hunters may use dogs to 

aid in retrieval of birds, but dogs will need to be kept under control at all times. Hunters may set 

up temporary blinds along the shoreline which must be removed at the conclusion of each 

hunting period. Access to the waterfowl hunting areas will be by boat and/or foot access only. 

M.5.4.1 Leadbetter Point 

Portions of the Leadbetter Unit are open to free-roam duck and goose hunting seven days a 

week. Access is by Stackpole Road. Hunting is prohibited in the snowy plover closure area. 

M.5.4.2 South Bay 

Selected areas of the South Bay Unit: (Riekkola, Tarlatt, Porter Point, Potshot, North Potshot, 

and Stanley Peninsula) are open for waterfowl hunting from assigned blinds only. There are 

eight blinds including one that is accessible to people with disabilities. The Riekkola Unit is 

open to goose hunting only from blinds on Saturday and Wednesday. Hunters may not possess 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-11

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

more than 25 shells per day. One blind is available for disabled hunters. Ducks, coots, and snipe 

may be taken only incidental to goose hunting. Access occurs off 67th Street in Long Beach. 

Blind selection is done by lottery early the morning of each hunt. Gates are open from 6 am to 5 

pm. There is a small fee ($5.00) for use of the blinds. The user fee is $2.50 with a Golden Age 

or Golden Eagle passport. Funds from this fee go to help maintain the blinds. 

Porter Point is open for free-roam waterfowl hunting on Sunday, Monday, and Thursday. The 

Porter Point Unit is suitable for car-top boats and small craft that can be easily moved. The 

freshwater wetland can be accessed by the Porter Point Unit levee or boating the wetland. No 

gas-operated engines are allowed in the freshwater wetland. The saltwater marsh of Willapa Bay 

can be reached from the existing footbridge on the east end of Porter Point Unit or by walking 

into the bay from the levee on the west end of the unit. Access occurs through the Riekkola Unit, 

off 67th Street in Long Beach. 

M.5.4.3 Waterfowl Closure Areas 

On November 7, 1940, the President issued another Proclamation (No. 2439), “Regulation 

Designating As Closed Area under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Certain Lands and Waters 

Adjacent to and in the Vicinity of the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Washington.” As lands 

were acquired into the Refuge, with purposes derived from the earlier Executive Order it is also 

made clear in several Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Memorandum that “A 

Proclamation closes to hunting the water surrounding the island.” That island refers to Long 

Island in south Willapa Bay. The Refuge maintains the Presidential Proclamation Boundary 

specifically prohibiting waterfowl hunting around Long Island. 

Hunting was allowed on the Lewis Unit; however, access via Jeldness Road, a private road off 

U.S. Highway 101, was closed by property owners in 2008. This unit is now closed to hunting. 

M.5.5 Proposed Waterfowl Hunting Opportunities 

M.5.5.1 South Bay 

The proposed expanded waterfowl hunt area identified in Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) of 

the draft CCP/EIS would include opening to waterfowl hunting all newly restored areas in the 

South Bay (Porter Point, Lewis, Riekkola, and Tarlett units). Hunting would be allowed seven 

days a week according to State regulations. 

M.5.5.2 Waterfowl Closure Areas 

The Refuge maintains the Presidential Proclamation Boundary specifically prohibiting waterfowl 

hunting around Long Island. The new headquarters office/visitor contact station would be 

located on the Tarlatt Unit necessitating closure to goose hunting for this unit. 

M.5.6 Existing Upland Game Bird Hunting Opportunities 

M.5.6.1 Long Island Unit 

Archery hunters interested in a remote hunting experience find Long Island (State GMU 699) a 

challenging place to pursue ruffed and blue grouse. A Refuge hunting permit is required to hunt 

on Long Island but there is no fee for the permit. There are no firearms permitted on Long 

Island. 
M-12 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Visitors must provide their own boat transportation to and from Long Island. Access is best at a 

higher tide (6 foot or higher). Construction or use of permanent tree stands is prohibited. 

Camping is permitted only in designated campsites on the island. 

M.5.7 Proposed Upland Game Bird Hunting Opportunities 

No changes are proposed to the upland game bird hunting opportunities. 

M.5.8 Existing Big Game Hunting Opportunities 

Willapa Refuge currently provides several opportunities for big game hunters. Big game hunting 

occurs on both the mainland and Long Island. Existing big game hunting rules and regulations 

on the Refuge are consistent with the state regulations except as specifically noted herein. 

Hunting is permitted in some, but not all, of the management units. Specific species/numbers to 

be taken and hunting periods are set by the WDFW. (see Map 9, draft CCP/EIS) 

M.5.8.1. Long Island Unit 

The Long Island Unit (GMU 699) is annually open to archery elk, deer, and bear hunting. There 

are no firearms permitted on Long Island. Archery hunters interested in a remote hunting 

experience find Long Island a challenging place to pursue Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, and 

black bear. A Refuge hunting permit is required to hunt on Long Island but there is no fee for the 

permit. Many people who hunt on Long Island prefer to camp overnight since tides can make 

travel to and from the island challenging. 

M.5.8.2. East Hills Units 

Existing elk and deer hunting areas include designated portions of the East Hills Units (from the 

Bear River to Teal Slough) (GMU 681). Most of the Refuge lands on the mainland between 

Bear River and Teal Slough with the exception of the quarters (Q88) and headquarters area are 

open for those interested in hunting Roosevelt elk or black-tailed deer using modern firearms or 

archery. The East Hills Units are not open to bear hunting. 

M.5.9 Proposed Big Game Hunting Opportunities 

The proposed action identified in the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) of the draft CCP/EIS 

would open expanded elk and deer sport hunting opportunities in new areas of the Refuge in 

accordance with the State hunting regulations. No new bear hunting opportunities are proposed 

in this plan. 

Proposed elk and deer hunting areas include the upland areas in the South Bay units (Lewis, 

Porter Point, Riekkola and a portion of the Tarlatt Unit); and a proposed regulated elk-only hunt 

on the Leadbetter Point Unit; and any additional lands acquired as identified in the draft 

CCP/EIS, would be considered for opening to elk and deer hunting. (See Map 9, draft 

CCP/EIS.) 

M.5.9.1 South Bay Units 

Deer and elk hunting are currently not open in the South Bay units due to existing facilities, 

refuge management activities and public use programs. It is proposed that elk and deer be 

opened on the upland areas of the South Bay Units once tidal restoration activities are complete 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-13

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

in the South Bay subunits which include Lewis, Porter Point, Riekkola, and a portion of Tarlatt 

Slough. All of the existing South Bay subunits and any future acquisitions are located in the 

same muzzleloader zone as the Leadbetter Point Unit and therefore would typically be open for 

approximately five days in early October. Once tidal restoration is complete in South Bay, there 

will be no roads, trails, fences, equipment facilities, or cattle grazing for pasture management. 

The existing regulated goose hunt program and associated infrastructure will no longer exist, nor 

will the regulated waterfowl hunt. While these areas will be open to goose and waterfowl 

hunting in accordance with state season, the use will be along tidal channels and flats and 

waterfowl hunters will be much less concentrated. The birding public and those out to observe 

wildlife will have access to the South Bay units through the new office/visitor center and 

associated trail and observation tower. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any proposed elk or 

deer hunt will impact nor create a safety problem with other public uses. The South Bay units 

will not be open to bear hunting. 

M.5.9.2 Nemah/Naselle Unit, East Hills Addition 

Elk and deer hunting opportunities would expand upon acquisition of any new areas as identified 

in Alternative 2 of the draft CCP/EIS. Currently the land owners allow elk and deer hunting on 

these proposed refuge acquisition areas. The Refuge would continue this wildlife-dependent 

public use activity for any new acquisitions in the future. Elk and deer hunting opportunities 

would be considered upon acquisition of any new areas in the future and would resolve potential 

problems over the exact position of the refuge boundary and complement local hunting activities 

on adjacent lands. The Nemah/Naselle Unit and East Hills additions will not be open to bear 

hunting. 

M.5.9.3 Leadbetter Point Unit 

An early season muzzleloader elk only hunt and a special permit hunt are proposed on the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. The entire unit would be open to the early elk muzzleloader season, 

which typically lasts approximately five days in early October. The public would be notified that 

the entire unit would be closed to all other uses including hiking and waterfowl hunting. Public 

use of the trails during this time is minimal, due to the inclement weather and seasonal rains that 

regularly flood the trails. The proposed hunt falls outside the general tourist season. Since the 

waterfowl hunting season is much longer than the elk muzzleloader season, there would be little, 

if any, impact on this user group. In keeping with existing elk hunting regulations on adjacent 

private property and for safety purposes, the use of muzzleloader firearms will only be 

authorized. The Leadbetter Point Unit will not be open to deer or bear hunting. 

A special permit elk hunt will be offered sometime between October and February on this unit 

only, if needed. If the elk are not found within the unit during the early muzzleloader hunt 

season, or the elk hunt proves unsuccessful due to weather or other uncontrollable influences, the 

special permit hunt could be implemented. Opening the special permit hunt would offer an 

opportunity to assist the State in management of the expanding elk herd. This additional hunt 

would draw from a pool of hunters who have applied for a muzzleloader permit through WDFW. 

The number of permits in this additional hunt would be determined after consultation with 

WDFW after the early season hunt. 

Since big game hunting on the Leadbetter Point Unit is new and is not an expansion of hunting 

boundaries, more details on the elk and unit are provided below: 
M-14 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

About the Leadbetter Point Unit 

Historically, habitats along the Long Beach Peninsula consisted of low hummocky sand dune 

formations characterized by large areas of open sand with sparsely vegetated native dune plant 

species. Coastal marine and wind processes worked to maintain native plant communities in 

early successional stages on the outer prism of the beach. The dunes were more stable and 

blowouts less frequent; a mosaic of native prairie and dune grasslands, freshwater lakes, swamps, 

bogs, and spruce-dominated forests developed. High rainfall maintained high water tables 

favorable for plant growth. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit encompasses 1,742 acres and is located at the northern tip of the Long 

Beach Peninsula, near the mouth of Willapa Bay. The coastal dune habitats consist of sand 

dunes in various stages of ecological succession including bare unstable sand; beachgrasscovered dunes; a transition zone composed of shrubs, small lodgepole pine (shore pine), and 

grass; lodgepole pine (shore pine); freshwater wetlands; and salt marsh. 

At one time, the Columbia River provided the coastal shoreline with an extensive transport load 

of sediment; the ocean currents influenced by a long-shore drift deposited the sediment creating 

and maintaining the coastal sand beaches. Today, dams on Columbia River have altered 

sediment loads, and jetties at the river mouth and entrances to the bays have altered sediment 

transport along the coast. The beaches no longer have the natural processes depositing large 

amounts of sand and sediment necessary to maintain the sand beaches and dune habitats for a 

variety of native plants. 

The habitat has changed in recent history with an accelerated plant succession that is also due to 

fire suppression efforts. These efforts have encouraged a plant successional progress away from 

the historic herbaceous beach grass, to a shrub (often invasive non-natives such as Scotch broom 

and common gorse) habitat leading to a pioneer lodgepole pine or climax Sitka spruce forest. 

The west side of the unit is characterized by open wind-swept beaches backed by vegetated 

dunes. The extreme tip of the peninsula is largely barren sand, and the east side consists of a 

narrow beach with a few small, sheltered openings cut into the beachgrass by high water in 

winter. A small, isolated portion of beach exists to the east, on Willapa Bay, and is referred to as 

Grassy Island although it is attached to the peninsula. 

The northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula was in a state of gradual northward accretion 

from 1965 to 1999. Invasion by non-native beach grasses has followed accretion, progressively 

filling in the dunes. In conjunction with slowed accretion in more recent years, the vegetation 

line has moved westward and the vegetation-to-water distance has decreased resulting in a 

narrower beach. Recent maps from the Washington State Department of Transportation show 

that the tip or northern portion of the unit has been gradually eroding since mapping efforts 

began in 1999. As the tip has eroded, the peninsula to the southwest has become wider. 

American dunegrass (Leymus mollis or Elymus mollis), a native dunegrass, exists in small 

patches on the Refuge unit. Two invasive non-native beachgrass species, American beachgrass 

and European beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata and A. arenaria), planted to stabilize dunes, 

have changed historical dune morphology and native plant communities. American beachgrass 

is the most abundant of the three grass species on the Long Beach Peninsula dunes, although all 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-15

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

three species can be found growing together and there are patches of these species growing 

separately. The beachgrasses form a continuous band of vegetation parallel to the high tide mark 

along the outer ocean beach. 

Non-native beachgrasses out-compete native vegetation, alter the dune ecosystem, and form 

dense stands that reduce the amount and quality of nesting habitat for native wildlife, including 

the federally threatened, state-endangered western snowy plover and a state-endangered, Federal 

candidate species, streaked horned lark. Non-native beachgrasses have rapidly taken over a 

majority of formerly open sand dunes that provide nesting habitat for these two species. Western 

snowy plover numbers have declined along the U.S. Pacific coast due to habitat degradation as 

well as impacts from the expanding predator populations. One of the most significant causes of 

habitat loss for coastal breeding population of western snowy plovers has been the encroachment 

of introduced beachgrasses. 

The invasion of non-native beachgrasses has also caused a dramatic reduction of coastal native 

plants and is a primary threat to the state endangered pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellata) 

which is also a Federal species of concern. Pink sandverbena and other rare native dune plants 

like yellow sandverbena (Abronia latifolia), grey beach pea (Lathyrus littoralis) and beach 

morning glory (Convolvulus soldanella) are found along the sparsely vegetated sand beaches and 

coastal dunes. 

In order to protect and encourage native plant growth the Refuge has implemented a Coastal 

Habitat Restoration Project. This ongoing project was initiated in 2002 and has continued each 

year with successful results. The mechanical and chemical removal and control of non-native 

beachgrass has resulted in over 120 acres of restored habitat that has successfully attracted 

nesting western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks. Oystershell was added to portions of 

the cleared area to provide camouflage for nests and reduce blowing sand to protect the bird 

nests. This habitat restoration area supports the only known population of pink sandverbena in 

Washington State; this plant species was thought to be extirpated in the state (Federal species of 

concern, Washington State endangered species). In 2006, it was able to re-establish itself, from a 

long-term seed bank, because beachgrass had been removed from the site. Thousands of plants 

now exist at the site due to transplantation of propagated individuals and broadcast seeding 

efforts as well as a high success rate due to natural seeding. 

Leadbetter Point Research Natural Area (RNA) is located entirely in the Refuge and was put on 

the Washington Register of Natural Areas in 1989. The original designation included 1,705 acres 

of the peninsula tip, Grassy Island, and the marsh between the island and peninsula tip; however, 

the unit is now approximately 1,742 acres due to sand accretion at the peninsula tip. This area 

represents the highest quality habitat, largest coastal sand dune ecosystem in Washington State. 

The natural elements protected include salt marsh, native dunegrass, lodgepole pine (shore pine) 

forest, shrub/lodgepole pine (shore pine), and open beach habitats. The bay side of the unit 

contains some of the most significant saltmarsh habitats remaining in Washington. It also 

contains high-quality examples of high salinity Virginia glasswort/inland saltgrass marsh, low 

salinity marsh, and transition zone wetlands. Flora associated with the marshes are of primary 

significance, as are the dune grassland and deflation plain habitat communities. Pockets of 

native plants within the secondary dune, deflation plains, and dune troughs are also significant 
M-16 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

ecological features and are of high quality compared to these remaining plant communities in 

Washington. 

There have been over 200 species of plants have been documented at Leadbetter Point (Sayce 

2001) and over 180 species of birds have been documented. Open water off the point supports 

large concentrations of waterfowl, including brant. Extensive mudflats at low tide support large 

populations of wintering and migrating shorebirds which also utilize the beach side in large 

numbers. It has been estimated that this unit hosts approximately seven percent of Willapa Bay 

shorebirds in the spring. Willapa Bay has some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the 

Pacific Coast during spring and fall migration. A key stopover site along the Pacific Flyway, it 

hosts hundreds of thousands of shorebirds, with dunlin and western sandpipers being the most 

numerous. Although it is not officially a designated site, Willapa Bay meets the criteria for status 

as a site of international significance in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Willapa Bay meets these criteria because it supports up to 15.5% of the Pacific Flyway 

population of wintering dunlin and an average of over 100,000 total shorebirds in the spring. 

Over 35 shorebird species have been documented. 

This area is also considered an important staging site for passerine birds during spring migration. 

The unit also serves as a daytime roost site for brown pelicans and is an important loafing and 

resting area for this species (Cullinan 2001). A variety of raptors can be found here including 

bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and in some years, snowy owls. 

This area of the Refuge is found within the northernmost breeding range for the western snowy 

plover along the Pacific Coast and is also the largest of the remaining nesting areas for the plover 

in Washington. The 374-acre nesting area for the endangered snowy plover is closed to all 

public entry from March through September, though the season can vary due to variation in the 

use by snowy plovers. 

The primary public access occurs at the end of a narrow road near the northern end of peninsula. 

The Refuge provides parking, interpretive signs, vault toilets, hiking trails, and viewing 

platforms. Hiking trails allow visitors to walk through coastal woodlands, salt marshes, and 

beaches. These trails include 1.3-mile Bearberry Trail, 0.5-mile Beach Trail, and a 1.2-mile Bay 

Loop Trail which link to the adjacent Washington State Park trails. These trails are often flooded 

during the rainy season (October through May). 

M.5.10 Species to be Taken and Hunting Periods 

M.5.10.1 Hunting Season and Bag Limits Overview 

Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative 

process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). 

The review of the policies, processes, and procedures for waterfowl hunting are covered in a 

number of documents identified below. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations by the Service for hunted 

migratory game bird species are addressed by the programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting 

of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-17

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

1988. The Service published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 

(53 FR 22582), and the Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA 

considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 53776), the Service announced its intent to develop a 

new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. 

Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006 

Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game 

birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually 

promulgates regulations (50 C.F.R. Part 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Frameworks. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds 

would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and 

limit the hunting of migratory birds. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for 

the states to select that should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based 

upon Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird 

populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is 

conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings 

(Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which 

information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to 

individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public 

hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow 

public comment. 

For waterfowl, these annual assessments include the Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, 

which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and Canada, and is used to establish 

a Waterfowl Population Status Report annually. In addition, the number of waterfowl hunters 

and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the Harvest Information Program and 

Parts Survey. Since 1995, such information has been used to support the adaptive harvest 

management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting regulations. Under AHM, a number of 

decision-making protocols render the choice (package) of pre-determined regulations 

(appropriate levels of harvest) which comprise the framework offered to the states that year. The 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours 

and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive but 

cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each 

State increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl 

populations. 

Each National Wildlife Refuge considers the cumulative impacts to hunted migratory species 

through the Migratory Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on 

Migratory Bird Hunting. Season dates and bag limits for National Wildlife Refuges open to 

hunting are never longer or larger than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of 

an environmental assessment developed when a refuge opens a new hunting activity, season 

dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the state allows. 
M-18 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

M.5.10.2. Refuge Hunt Seasons and Bag Limits 

Hunting will be permitted in accordance with state and Federal regulations (Tables M.1 and M.2 

give examples of annual state hunt seasons for areas within the Refuge) to ensure that it will not 

interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, the sport 

hunting of migratory and upland game birds and big game on the Refuge is in compliance with 

state regulations and seasons, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-ee), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k). 

Table M.1. Willapa Refuge, Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Bag Limit 

Summary for 2010-2011. 

Species Dates Daily Bag 

Limits 

Possession Limit 

Ducks 

(youth hunt) 

September 25-26 7 A 14 A

Ducks October 16-20 & October 23-January 30 

except scaup closed October 16-

November 5 

7 A 14 A

Geese (except brant) 

Mgmt. area 2B 

8 am to 4 pm, Saturdays & Wednesdays 

only October 16-December 22 and 

January 5-15; December 26, 29; January 

2 

4 B

 8B

Brant 

Pacific County 

Jan. 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30 2 4 

American coot October 16-20 & October 23-January 30 25 25 

Snipe October 16-20 & October 23-January 30 8 16 

Archery grouse 

(ruffed and blue) 

GMU 699 

September 1-December 31 4 of any 

species 

12 of any species 

A Daily bag limit: to include not more than 2 hen mallard, 2 pintail, 3 scaup (see restricted dates above), 1 canvasback, and 2 

redhead statewide; and to include not more than 1 harlequin, 2 scoter, 2 long-tailed duck, & 2 goldeneye in western Washington.

Possession limit: to include not more than 4 hen mallard, 4 pintail, 6 scaup (see restricted dates above), 2 canvasback, and 4 

redhead statewide; and to include not more than 1 harlequin, 4 scoter, 4 long-tailed duck, and 4 goldeneye in western 

Washington. 

Season limit: 1 harlequin in western Washington.

B

 Daily bag limit: to include not more than 1 dusky Canada goose & 2 cackling geese in Areas 2A & 2B; and to include not 

more than 1 Aleutian goose in Area 2B. 

Possession limit: to include not more than 1 dusky Canada goose & 4 cackling geese in Areas 2A & 2B; and to include not more 

than 2 Aleutian geese in Area 2 B. 

Season limit: 1 dusky Canada goose. A dusky Canada goose is defined as a dark breasted (Munsell 10YR, 5 or less) Canada 

goose with a culmen (bill) length of 40-50 mm. A cackling goose is defined as a goose with a culmen (bill) length of 32 mm or 

less.
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-19

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Table M.2. Willapa Refuge, Big Game Hunting Season Bag Limit Summary for 2010. 

Species Dates GMU Legal 

General deer 

(black-tailed) 

October 16-31 681, 684 2 pt. min. 

684 A ny buck 

Late deer 

(black-tailed) 

November 18-21 681, 684 2 pt. min. 

684 A ny buck 

Early archery deer 

(black-tailed) 

September 1-24 681 2 pt. min. or antlerless 

684 A ny 

Late archery deer 

(black-tailed) 

November 24-December 8 681 2 pt. min. or antlerless 

November 24-December 15 699 Any deer 

Early muzzleloader 

(black-tailed) 

September 25-October 3 684 Any buck 

Late muzzleloader 

(black-tailed) 

November 25-December 15 684 Any deer 

General elk November 6-16 681, 684 3 pt. min. 

Early archery elk September 7-19 681, 684, 699 3 pt. min. or antlerless 

Late archery elk November 24-December 15 681, 699 3 pt. min. or antlerless 

Early muzzleloader 

(elk) 

October 2-8 684 Any elk 

Late muzzleloader 

(elk) 

November 24-December 15 684 Any elk 

Black bear September 1-November 15 699 2/season 

M.5.10.3 Justification for a Special Permit Elk Hunt on the Leadbetter Point Unit 

The Refuge also proposes a special permit elk hunt to be offered sometime between October and 

February on this unit only. If the elk are not found within the unit during the early muzzleloader 

hunt season, or the elk hunt proves unsuccessful due to weather or other uncontrollable 

influences, the special permit hunt could then be implemented. 

Opening the special permit hunt would offer an opportunity to assist the State in management of 

the expanding elk herd. This additional hunt would draw from a pool of hunters who have 

applied for a muzzleloader permit through WDFW. The number of permits in this additional 

hunt would be determined after consultation with WDFW after the early season hunt. Currently 

the registration process for big game hunting on the Refuge requires an orientation to refuge 

boundaries and hunting regulation review; this same process will be used for the elk hunt at the 

Leadbetter Point Unit. 

By issuing the special permit for the muzzleloader elk hunt, it provides the refuge staff an 

opportunity to control the number and timing of hunters in a specific area thereby reducing 

potential hunter impacts to the resource and/or other Refuge users. Providing permits addresses 

the elk management issue by limiting the amount of animals taken or not taken in the area. Due 

to the size and shape of the unit and limited access points, the number of hunters will be 

regulated. There is the potential for elk hunters to disturb waterfowl and waterfowl hunters at 

certain times of the year. The permit system offers staff the opportunity to monitor take and 

potential impacts to resources while providing an opportunity for a quality and safe hunting 

experience. 

M.5.10.4 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with State 

To ensure that hunted bird populations are sustainable, the WDFW annually reviews the 

population censuses to establish season lengths and harvest levels. In addition, refuge staff 
M-20 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

conducts habitat management reviews of each unit to evaluate wildlife population levels, habitat 

conditions, and public use activities. 

Information on the Refuge’s hunt program will be published in the state’s regulations. If a 

special permit hunt is required at Leadbetter Point, the refuge staff will consult and coordinate 

with the WDFW regional biologists to determine the number and type of elk to be removed. 

M.5.10.5 Methods of Control and Enforcement 

The hunting program is managed in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (50 C.F.R. 

subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable state laws. 

Hunters will be required to obtain and hold a refuge permit from the refuge headquarters prior to 

hunting on specified units of the Refuge. Permitted hunters must report success/failure and any 

hit-but-not-retrieved animals when they turn in their refuge permit tag each day. Refuge and 

Washington State Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers will patrol and check hunters to ensure 

they are complying with all regulations. 

M.5.10.6 Funding and Staffing Required for the Big Game Sport Hunting Program 

It is estimated the following level of involvement by Refuge staff will be required to adequately 

monitor and manage the hunt program. The costs to administer the new program are found in 

Table M.3. 

Table M.3. Willapa Refuge, Funding and Staffing for Big Game Sport Hunting Program 

Position and GS/WG Level Involvement FTE Cost 

Project Leader/Deputy Project Leader 

(GS 12/13) 

Oversight Coordination with Washington 

Department of Fish And Wildlife 

.01 $ 1000 

Wildlife Biologist (GS-11) Elk Monitoring, Reporting, Hunt Plan Updates .05 $4200 

Refuge Manager (GS -11) Oversight of Hunt Program, Field Monitoring 

of Hunters 

.04 $ 3200 

Visitor Services Manager (GS-11) / Refuge Law 

Enforcement Officer (GS-9) 

Hunt Plan Orientation, Law Enforcement .02 $1600 

Total Annual FTE’s And Cost .12 $9800 

The expansion and continuation of big game hunting would not require any new infrastructure or 

personnel. Administration of the hunt and annual coordination with the State of Washington 

would be required as would some law enforcement patrols; however, refuge staff is in place and 

capable of conducting these duties. Revision and printing of the refuge brochure, updating the 

refuge website and other outreach information such as informational signage would be required 

at an estimated cost of $9,800. Base funding is available to cover these costs.

M.6 Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Plans 

M.6.1 Biological Conflicts/Impacts 

M.6.1.1 Biological Environment 

There are several minor impacts to the biological environment that would result from continuing 

the existing big game hunting program and expanding the hunt to areas as proposed. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-21

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Elk, deer, and bear are presently thriving in southwest Washington. There are open elk, deer, and 

bear hunting seasons for archery, modern firearms, and muzzleloaders. While the refuge hunt 

would reduce some elk, deer, or bear, the increased hunting opportunities on the Refuge would 

not have an impact on the overall populations. According to WDFW, controlling elk and deer 

numbers would help diminish the spread of diseases and parasites. It would also help maintain 

shrub habitat, which benefits the elk themselves as well as other wildlife such as many birds and 

small mammals that depend on understory vegetation for food, nests, etc. 

Bear would continue to be hunted only on Long Island. A small number of bear are harvested 

annually due to the archery-only hunt, and impact on the existing population should continue to 

remain small. Disease and parasites are not an obvious problem with the bear population on 

Long Island. 

Based on discussions with WDFW, there are approximately 40 to 60 elk currently accessing and 

utilizing the Leadbetter Point Unit. The population may fluctuate due to hunting pressure and 

disturbance on private property nearby. The number of elk utilizing this unit has steadily 

increased, and elk numbers are expected to further increase through migration and reproduction. 

This additional hunt area on the Refuge would provide an opportunity for a high-quality elk hunt 

and would assist the State with controlling the expanding elk population, while having the added 

benefit of protecting essential habitat for western snowy plovers, streaked horned larks, and pink 

sandverbena. 

This existing and proposed hunting use would result in temporary displacement of migratory 

birds and resident wildlife in the hunt areas. Other species which may be temporarily displaced 

by the existing and proposed hunting program include bald eagles, great blue herons, and other 

birds that reside in and near refuge uplands. 

Nearby resting and feeding areas would be available for use by waterfowl, migratory birds, and 

other resident wildlife species that are disturbed. These species would likely move to other areas 

of the Refuge which are less accessible to the hunters. The combination of limited duration of 

the proposed hunts and the ability of disturbed wildlife to move to secure habitat represents a 

minor disturbance to the above-mentioned species. 

Due to the limited number of hunters and limited field time, no negative effects to vegetation are 

anticipated. In addition, no effects are expected to refuge fish populations because activities will 

not take place in environments used by fish. 

M.6.1.2 Physical Environment 

Hunting activities would not have an impact to the physical environment of the Refuge. The 

limited numbers of people who would be hunting for the short time frames hunting is allowed 

would not be enough to cause damage to features such as soils, air quality, and water quality. 

M.6.1.3 Social and Economic Environment 

There are several minor impacts to the social and economic environment that would result from 

continuing and/or expanding elk/deer hunting. 

Effects to other public recreational uses are expected to be minimal due to the timing of the 

activities and limited duration of the hunt. The state elk/deer/bear hunting seasons occur when 
M-22 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

other public uses are at a minimum because they are outside the main tourist season and 

generally occur during the seasonal inclement weather. On the East Hills and South Bay units, 

many of the areas used for elk/deer hunting are not easily accessible to the general public. 

Access to the Long Island Unit requires a boat, and use of the island during fall’s wet weather 

declines drastically for recreational uses other than hunting. The current headquarters area, 

where trails and visitor information kiosks exist, will remain closed to all hunting activity. 

Maintaining and/or expanding hunting opportunities on the East Hills Units, South Bay Units, 

Nemah/Naselle Unit, and the Leadbetter Point Unit to hunting would complement some of the 

State permitted hunting activities locally. While hunting activity is not expected to increase 

according to surveys described in Chapter 5 of the CCP/EIS, expanding hunting opportunities 

may result in a slight increase in hunting visitation to the area. Having an expanded elk/deer 

hunt could result in slight increases to spending in the local economy. 

Overall, by maintaining the existing elk/deer hunt program and expanding the elk hunt program 

to the Leadbetter Point Unit and future additions, this activity would provide increased 

opportunities for quality wildlife dependent recreation. The hunt activity on the Refuge would 

have minor positive benefits to local economy and reduce impacts to the agricultural community. 

The expanded elk hunt for the Leadbetter Point Unit would create a temporary closure to other 

public uses, but this impact would be temporary and short in duration and would occur outside 

the regular tourist season. 

M.6.2 Public Use Conflicts 

There are several minor public use conflicts that will result from continuing the existing 

elk/deer/bear hunt and expanding the elk/deer hunt to areas proposed in Alternative 2 of the draft 

CCP/EIS. 

Effects to other public recreational uses are expected to be minimal due to the timing of the 

activities and limited duration of the hunt. The state elk/deer/bear hunting seasons occur when 

other public uses are at a minimum because they are outside the main tourist season and 

generally occur during the seasonal inclement weather. On the East Hills and South Bay units, 

many of the areas used for elk and deer hunting are not easily accessible to general public. 

Access to the Long Island Unit requires a boat, and use of the island during fall’s wet weather 

declines drastically for recreational uses other than hunting. The current headquarters area (and 

proposed new headquarters area), where trails and visitor information kiosks exist, would remain 

closed to all hunting activity. 

At the Leadbetter Point Unit, some noise from the muzzleloaders may be experienced from the 

public on the adjacent Washington State Parks lands, and the public may occasionally observe 

elk or other wildlife species flushed into the open due to hunter activity. The hiking trails and 

waterfowl hunting would be closed to other users during the short muzzleloader season. The 

closure would be for safety purposes and to reduce potential user conflicts, but this hunt is only 

for a limited time period and occurs when the trails are flooded due to seasonal rains. Again, due 

to the limited scope and timing of the existing and proposed elk hunt program, all effects are 

expected to be minor and of short duration. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-23

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Without elk hunting on the Refuge, the herd is expected to grow. As the herd increases and 

outgrows the available habitat on the Refuge, the elk and deer may move off the Refuge into the 

surrounding areas in search of food. The largest economic impacts of elk in particular are felt in 

the agriculture industries. Elk and deer may cause damage to local crops and residential 

landscaping. Other incidental negative economic impacts of elk/deer include elk/deer-vehicle 

collisions and damage to fences. Implementing this hunt is expected to reduce the negative 

impacts a larger population of elk/deer may have to the local community. 

For the most part, although bears are known to cross the narrow channel between the island and 

the mainland, most Long Island bears generally remain confined to the island. Bear/human 

conflicts have occurred on the Long Beach Peninsula but have not been reported from Long 

Island. 

To minimize any potential safety issues as well as potential conflicts with other refuge users, the 

following restrictions would apply. 

M.6.2.1. Leadbetter Point Unit 

 Participating hunters would be required to obtain a refuge hunting permit at the refuge 

headquarters. At this time a brief orientation will be given. Detailed maps showing 

roads, hiking trails, and open public use areas would be provided. 

 During the hunt, the entire unit will be closed to other users including waterfowl hunters 

and hikers during the approximately five-day early elk muzzleloader season. 

 Hiking trails would be closed to the non-hunting public on days when elk hunting is 

permitted. 

 To limit the distance a missed shot would travel, only muzzleloader hunting would be 

permitted. (Archery is not a preferred option because of the likelihood of injured animals 

moving into public viewing areas, which would increase the likelihood of conflicts 

between hunters and other users. In addition, archery hunters generally have a lower 

success rate, which is less likely to take sufficient animals to reach management goals.) 

M.6.2.2 Long Island Unit 

 Participating hunters would be required to obtain a refuge hunting permit at the refuge 

headquarters. At this time a brief orientation will be given. Detailed maps showing 

roads, hiking trails, and open public use areas would be provided. 

 Many people who hunt on Long Island prefer to camp overnight since tides can make 

travel to and from the island challenging. Camping permits are required during the early 

archery hunting season. Groups are limited to five people per campsite. Groups are 

limited to 14 consecutive nights camping on the island. 

 There are no firearms permitted on Long Island. 

M.6.2.3 South Bay Units 

 All hunting regulations will be in accordance with WDFW state regulations. 

 All public spaces will be closed to hunting including trails, quarters, and headquarters 

areas. 

M.6.2.4. East Hills Units 

 Hunting methods include modern firearms or archery. 
M-24 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 All hunting regulations will be in accordance with WDFW state regulations. 

 All public spaces will be closed to hunting including trails, quarters, and headquarters 

areas. 

M.6.3 Administrative Conflicts 

At this time, no administrative conflicts are anticipated. The Refuge currently has successful big 

game hunting program. 

M.7 Conduct of the Big Game Hunt 

M.7.1 Refuge-specific Big Game Hunting Regulations 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (50 C.F.R. Part 32.67) 

A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. We allow hunting of geese, ducks, coots, and snipe on 

designated areas of Riekkola, Lewis, Tarlatt Slough, and Leadbetter units in accordance with 

State hunting regulations and subject to the following conditions: 

1. Prior to entering the hunt area at the Riekkola and Tarlatt Slough units, we require you to 

obtain a refuge permit, pay a recreation user fee, and obtain a blind assignment. 

2. At the Riekkola and Tarlatt Slough units, you may take ducks and coots only coincidental 

to hunting geese. 

3. We allow hunting on Wednesday and Saturday in the Riekkola and Tarlatt Slough units 

only from established blinds. 

4. At the Lewis Unit, we prohibit hunting from the outer dike that separates the bay from 

the freshwater wetlands. 

5. At the Riekkola and Tarlatt Slough Units, you may possess no more than 25 approved 

nontoxic shells per day while in the field. 

6. At the Leadbetter Unit, you may possess only approved nontoxic shot. 

7. You may not shoot or discharge any firearm from, across, or along a public highway, 

designated route of travel, road, road shoulder, road embankment, or designated parking 

area. 

B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of blue and ruffed grouse on Long Island, subject to 

the following conditions: 

1. We require you to obtain and carry a refuge permit and report game taken, as specified 

with the permit. 

2. We allow only archery hunting. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-25

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

3. We do not allow firearms on Long Island at any time. 

4. We do not allow dogs on Long Island. 

5. Condition A7 applies. 

C. Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of deer, elk, and bear on Long Island, and deer and elk 

only on designated areas of the Refuge north of the Bear River and east of Willapa Bay, in 

accordance with state regulations subject to the following conditions: 

1. At Long Island you must possess a valid refuge permit and report game taken, as 

specified with the permit. 

2. At Long Island we allow only archery hunting and prohibit firearms. 

3. We prohibit bear hunting on any portion of the Refuge except Long Island. 

4. We prohibit dogs on the refuge 

5. You may not shoot or discharge any firearm from, across, or along a public highway, 

designated route of travel, road, road shoulder, road embankment, or designated parking 

area. 

We allow hunting of waterfowl, coot, snipe, deer, elk, bear, and grouse (ruffed and blue) on 

specific designated units of the Refuge in accordance with state regulations subject to the 

following conditions:

 Law enforcement patrols to ensure compliance with regulations will be conducted. State 

Fish and Wildlife Officers also patrol the Refuge. 

 Harvest and season lengths are established by the State of Washington. 

 Hunters would be expected to comply with all current applicable State and Refuge 

regulations. This will be achieved through a combination of printed information, 

signage, outreach efforts, and enforcement of regulations by state and refuge law 

enforcement officers. 

 Refuge staff and WDFW staff will consult on issues regarding law enforcement and any 

significant changes in the number or behavior of wildlife. 

 Refuge regulations will be in accordance with state regulations. 

 An Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation must be completed with a finding of 

either “No Effect” or a finding of “May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited except in the designated campsites on 

Long Island. 

 Additional help would be allowed to retrieve a downed elk. 

Leadbetter Point Unit. The proposed elk hunt would be conducted using these guidelines: 

 Refuge staff would, in advance, post signs and notify the public via media regarding the 

closure to all other activities on the unit during the elk hunt(s). 
M-26 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 Hunting would be limited to the state early muzzleloader elk season and the special elk 

hunt. 

 All hunters participating in the elk hunt would be required to obtain a refuge permit from 

refuge headquarters and receive a brief orientation of boundaries and refuge regulations. 

 Hunters would be required to park at the existing parking lot and would be required to 

walk into the unit; no motorized vehicles are allowed to assist. 

 Only the use of muzzleloader firearms permitted. 

 Hunters would be required to return their refuge hunt permit at the end of the day, 

reporting any success/failure and any hit-but-not-retrieved animals. 

Long Island Unit hunting is conducted using set guidelines: 

 Hunters must obtain a refuge hunt permit by visiting the refuge headquarters. 

 Campers must register their campsite during the early hunt season at the parking lot kiosk 

prior to travelling to the island. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited except in the designated campsites on 

Long Island. 

 Camping is on a first-come, first-served basis. 

 Use of archery equipment only. 

 Elk/deer/bear/grouse hunters must report success/failure and any hit-but-not-retrieved 

animals when they turn in their refuge permit tag each trip. 

East Hills Units (from the Bear River to Teal Slough) is conducted using set guidelines: 

 Will be set by WDFW and will reflect the adjacent areas open to elk and deer hunting. 

 Areas closed to hunter access include the current refuge headquarters and quarters area. 

South Bay Units (Tarlatt, Riekkola, Porter Point, Lewis, Bear River, Teal Slough): 

 Once estuarine restoration is completed, hunting of waterfowl, coot, and snipe in 

accordance with the state regulations would be expanded to include approximately 6,058 

acres in South Bay. 

 The upland portions would be opened to the public for elk/deer hunting. 

 Areas closed include the proposed site of the new refuge headquarters and wildlife 

observation trail/overlook area. 

M.7.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program 

Public reaction to hunting is expected to be mixed. There is a consistent desire among certain 

segments of the public to open more federally managed property, including the Refuge, to 

hunting. There are very few places in the State of Washington where elk hunters are encouraged 

in specified areas to take cows and small bulls. Limited hunting opportunities on the peninsula 

and in other areas should make the expansion of the hunt areas highly desirable among hunters, 

as hunters would not be crowded and should have an excellent chance at a successful hunt. 

Other members of the public are expected to object to the hunting program on the grounds that a 

Refuge should be “a safe haven” for wildlife with no hunting permitted. One argument often 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-27

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

made is to relocate the deer and elk. The WDFW has stated that they no longer conduct 

relocations for elk or deer. Across the State of Washington, elk are increasingly causing damage 

to private and commercial property including orchards and landscaping. In addition, elk 

relocation in the past has proven to be a very expensive option to implement annually and is not 

considered a feasible long-term solution to the problem; the Refuge is limited on how to manage 

the growing elk population. The bear population is not a problematic on Long Island. The 

population can withstand the small number of bear harvested annually due to the archery-only 

hunt and remain healthy. The impact of the archery hunt on the existing population should 

continue to remain small. Disease and parasites are not an obvious problem with the bear 

population on Long Island. 

Some members of the public may object because they enjoy viewing and photographing the 

waterfowl, elk, deer, and bear. The hunters would be on the Refuge for a very limited time, and 

the waterfowl, elk, deer, and bear would be available to photograph in many other areas of the 

Refuge and throughout the year. 

There may be some opposition to elk hunting on the Refuge by area cranberry growers as they 

may have concerns that the pursued elk may relocate to and impact their cranberry bogs. 

M.7.3 Hunter Application and Registration Procedures 

Hunters would apply through the WDFW state application processes and in addition obtain a 

refuge hunting permit from the refuge headquarters. 

M.7.4 Description of Hunter Selection Process 

The Refuge will be open to those with valid Washington State hunting license. If a special 

permit hunt is necessary, all permits will be issued according to WDFW regulations and 

application process. 

M.7.5 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing Big Game Hunting 

The hunting regulations specific to the Willapa Refuge will be published in the Washington State 

Big Game and Migratory Waterfowl & Upland Game pamphlets. Press releases would be issued 

by the Refuge to local newspapers including The Daily News in Longview, the Wahkiakum 

Eagle, the Pacific County Press, the Daily Astorian, and the Chinook Observer in Long Beach. 

The refuge website would be posted and updated with current hunting information. 

M.7.6 Description of Hunter Orientation, Including Pre-hunt Scouting 

Hunters will be required to obtain a refuge permit from the Refuge headquarters office. At this 

time a pre-hunt orientation of the Refuge will be given. The orientation will include: 

 A review of refuge-specific regulations. 

 Description of check-in and check-out procedures. 

 Handout containing maps and/or aerial photographs of Refuge. 

 Description of the access areas and location on the maps. 
M-28 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

 A review of maps/aerial photographs of the Refuge to familiarize hunters with potential 

safety issues. 

 Description of the current numbers and general location of the elk herd. 

 Review areas (using maps/aerial photos) that have wildlife concentrations or sensitive 

wildlife. Request hunters avoid those areas has much as possible. 

 Hunters will be able to scout the Refuge after receiving their maps/aerial photos prior to 

actual hunt days.

M.7.7 Requirements for Hunting 

M.7.7.1 Age 

Age restrictions will be in accord with WDFW regulations. 

M.7.7.2 Allowable Equipment 

 Hunters will only be allowed to use muzzleloaders for the Leadbetter Point and South 

Bay hunt units. Archery only hunting is allowed on Long Island. Hunting in the East 

Hills Units is in accordance with the State regulations. 

 Weapons must comply with all Washington State weapon restrictions. 

 Dogs, other than certified assistance dogs, are prohibited on the Refuge except while 

hunting waterfowl. 

 Vehicles must remain on county or state roads or in the parking lot at all times. 

 No motorized vehicles are permitted on the Refuge. 

 All hunters are required to use only federally approved nontoxic shot while waterfowl 

hunting. Use or possession of lead shot is prohibited while hunting waterfowl. 

 Hunters may set up temporary blinds along the shoreline, which must be removed at the 

conclusion of each hunting period. 

 Access to the waterfowl hunting areas will be by boat and/or foot access only. 

M.7.7.3 Use of Open Fires 

All open fires are prohibited. 

M.7.7.4 License and Permits 

All hunters will need a valid Washington State hunting license. All deer/elk/bear/grouse hunters 

on Long Island and elk hunters on Leadbetter Unit will also need a refuge hunting permit. 

Currently, all waterfowl hunters at Porter Point and Riekkola units must have a refuge permit. 

Once the South Bay restoration is complete, no refuge permit will be needed for waterfowl. 

M.7.7.5 Reporting Harvest 

Hunters must report hunting success, failure, or any injured but not retrieved elk to refuge 

headquarters at the end of each day. Hunters must fulfill all WDFW reporting requirements. 

M.7.7.6 Hunter Training and Safety 

Hunters must fulfill all state requirements for training and hunter safety classes. 
Appendix M. Hunting Plan M-29

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

M.8 References 

Bryant, L. D., and C. Maser. 1982. Classification and distribution. Pages 1-59 in J. W. Thomas 

and D. E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, PA. 

Cullinan, T. 2001. Important bird areas of Washington. Audubon Washington. Olympia, WA. 

170 pp. 

Hays, D. 1997. Washington State status report for the Aleutian Canada goose. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 18 pp. + appendices. 

Kraege, D. 2005. Washington State status report for the Aleutian Canada goose. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. iii + 26 pp. 

Lindzey, F.G. 1976. Black bear population ecology. Ph.D. dissertaion. Oregon State 

University. Corvallis, OR. 

Nelson, J.R. and Leege, T.A., 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Aspen 

Bibliography. Paper 4276. 

Pitkin, D.S. and R.W. Lowe. 1995. Distribution, abundance and ecology of Aleutian Canada 

geese in Oregon and Washington, 13 October 1994 to 1 May 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Coastal Refuges, Hatfield Marine Science Center. Newport, OR. 

Sayce, K. 2001. Dunes, marshes and beach—Leadbetter Point plant list in Columbia coast 

vascular plants. 148 pp. 

Wilson, U.W. and J.B. Atkinson. 1995. Black brant winter and spring-staging use at two 

Washington coastal areas in relation to eelgrass abundance. The Condor 97:91-98. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1978. Environmental assessment. Acquisition of 

Long Island, Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, Washington. 72 pp. 

Verme, L.J. and D.E. Ullrey. 1984. Physiology and nutrition. Pages 91-118 in L. K. Halls, ed. 

White- tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. 2009-2015 game management 

plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

WDFW. 2009. 2009 game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 
M-30 Appendix M. Hunting Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-1 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Aitkin, J.K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats to anadromous salmonids of the Pacific 

Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, 

Aquatic Resources Division and Puget Sound Program. Lacey, WA. 

Aldous, A., P. Gonzalez, and K. Popper. 2007. A method for incorporating climate change into 

conservation action plans: an example from Oregon. Report produced by The Nature 

Conservancy in Oregon and The Nature Conservancy Global Climate Change Initiative. 

Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon 

and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs. Portland, OR. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon 

and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs. Portland, OR. 

Anderson, T. 2000. Cultural assessment report: a brief history of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation 

to clarify the issues; cultural, environmental and otherwise. Included in the Shoalwater Bay 

Indian Nation FY 2001 Congressional Appropriation request. Shoalwater Bay Tribal Community 

Library. 

Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2001. Pacific County (WRIA 24) strategic plan for salmon 

recovery. Prepared for Pacific County. 61 pp. 

Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2002. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge stream 

assessments. 

Arno, S.F. and R.P. Hammerly. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 

Arvai, J.L., C.D. Levings, P.J. Harrison, and W.E. Neill. 2002. Improvement of the sediment 

ecosystem following diversion of an intertidal sewage outfall at the Fraser River estuary, 

Canada, with emphasis on Corophiumsalmonis (amphipoda). Marine Pollution Bulletin 

44(6):511-519. 

Beach, R.J., A.C.Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy, and B.L. Troutman, 1985. Marine mammals 

and their interactions with fisheries of the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980-1982. 

Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service Northwest, and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Final 

report prepared by Washington State Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management Division. 

Olympia, WA. In: Seyferlich and Joy, 1993. Willapa Bay watershed bacterial evaluation and 

preliminary control strategy. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental 

Investigation and Laboratory Services Program, Watershed Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. 

pp. 3-16. 
N-2 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of 

North America, No. 195. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists Union. 

Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 

Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. Number 17. 

Occasional Papers of the British Columbia Provincial Museum. Victoria, Canada. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Monograph 6. American Fisheries 

Society. 

Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from demographic 

analysis. Pages 385-393 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest 

Service. 420 pp. 

Bellrose, F.C. and D.J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and management of the wood duck. Wildlife 

Management Institute. 

Bierbaum, R.M., J.P. Holdren, M.C. MacCracken, R.H. Moss, and P.H. Raven, eds. 2007. 

Confronting climate change avoiding the unmanageable and managing the unavoidable. Prepared 

for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Sigma Xi and the United 

Nations Foundation. Research Triangle Park, NC, and Washington, D.C. 

Boersma, P.D., S.H. Reichard, and A.N. Van Buren, eds. 2006. Invasive species in the Pacific 

Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. 

Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, and 

M.H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of 

Columbia River salmon. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-68. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 246 pp. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington, eds. 2000. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Bryant, A.A. 1994. Montane alternative silvicultural systems (MASS): pre-treatment breeding 

bird communities. FRDA Rep. No. 216. Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on 

Forest Resources Development. Canadian Forest Service and British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests. Victoria, Canada. 21 pp. 

Buchanan, J.B. 2006. A census of spring migrant red knots Calidris canutus in coastal 

Washington, USA: results from 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:64-66. 

Buchanan, J.B. and J.R. Evenson. 1997. Abundance of shorebirds at Willapa Bay, Washington. 

Western Birds 28:158-168. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-3 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

Birds of North America, No. 506. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American 

Ornithologists Union. Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 

Buick, A.M. and D.C. Paton. 1989. Impact of off-road vehicles on the nesting success of hooded 

plovers Charadrius rubricollis in the Coorong region of South Australia. Emu 89:159-172. 

Burger, A.E. 1995. Inland habitat associations of marbled murrelets in British Columbia. Pages 

151-161 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest 

Service. 420 pp. 

Burgner, R.L., L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tuatz, and S. Ito. 1992. Distribution and origins of 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in offshore waters of the north Pacific Ocean. Bulletin 51. 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Vancouver, Canada. 

Busing, R.T., C.B. Halpern, and T.A. Spies. 1995. Ecology of Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) in 

western Oregon and Washington. Conservation Biology 9:1199-1207. 

Caalambokidis,J., B.D. McLaughlin, and G.H. Steiger. 1989. Bacterial contamination related to 

harbor seals in Puget Sound. Report to Jefferson County and the Washington State Department 

of Ecology in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 

Cascadia Research Cooperative. Olympia, WA. 74 pp. In: Seyferlich and Joy, 1993. Willapa Bay 

watershed bacterial evaluation and preliminary control strategy. Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Environmental Investigation and Laboratory Services Program, Watershed Assessment 

Section. Olympia, WA. pp. 3-16. 

Caicco, S.L. 1989. Research natural area proposal for Leadbetter Point, Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge, Washington. 17 pp. 

Campbell, R.W, M.A. Paul, M.S. Rodway, and H.R. Carter. 1978. Tree-nesting peregrine falcons 

in British Columbia. The Condor 79(4):500-501. 

Canning, D.J. 2001. Climate variability, climate change, and sea level rise in Puget Sound: 

possibilities for the future. Puget Sound Research. Available at: 

http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/01_proceedings/sessions/oral/2c_canni.pdf. Accessed 20 

December 2006. 

Carey, A.B. 2003a. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest. 

Forestry 76:131-140. 

Carey, A.B. 2003b. Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management? Forestry 

76:225-234. 

Carey, A.B. 2007. AIMing for healthy forests: active, intentional management for multiple 

values. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-721. USDA Forest Service. 447 pp. 
N-4 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Case, M. 2004. Fine-scale variability in growth-climate relationships of Douglas-fir and 

lodgepole pine, North Cascade Range, Washington. M.S. thesis. College of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

Cassidy, K.M., M.R. Smith, C.E. Grue, and R.E. Johnson. 1997. The role of Washington State’s 

National Wildlife Refuges in conserving the State’s biodiversity. Washington Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 86 pp. 

Cassidy, K.M., M.R. Smith, C.E. Grue, K.M. Dvornich, J.E. Cassady, K.R. McAllister, and R.E. 

Johnson. 1997. Gap analysis of Washington State, an evaluation of the protection of biodiversity. 

Washington State Gap Analysis Final Report. Vol 5. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 137 pp. 

Caudill, J. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge visitation. 

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge environments in oldgrowth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2(4):387-396. 

Cheo, M.and T. Murdoch. 1991. Streamkeeper’s field guide. Adopt a Stream Foundation. 

Everett, WA. 

Churchill, D., A. Larson, K. Cedar, D. Rolph, and T. Kollasch. 2007. South Willapa Bay 

conservation area: forest landscape restoration plan. Final draft V.3. Prepared for The Nature 

Conservancy and Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 

Coastal Resources Alliance. 2007. Ranking of estuarine habitat restoration priorities in Willapa 

Bay, WA. Final report. 30 pp. 

Cohen, A.N., H.D. Berry, C.E. Mills, D. Milne, K. Britton-Simmons, M.J. Wonham, D.L. 

Secord, J.A. Barkas, B. Bingham, B.E. Bookheim, J.E. Byers, J.W. Chapman, J.R. Cordell, B. 

Dumbauld, A. Fukuyama, L.H. Harris, A.J. Kohn, K. Li, T.F. Mumford Jr., V. Radashevsky, 

A.T. Sewell, and K. Welch. 2001. Washington State exotics expedition 2000: a rapid survey of 

exotic species in the shallow waters of Elliott Bay, Totten and Eld Inlets, and Willapa Bay. 

Report for the Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

Olympia, WA. 

Conklin, C.L. 2003. Willapa Refuge macroinvertebrate survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Vancouver Fisheries Office. 30 pp. 

Connolly, G.E. 1978. Predators and predator control. Pages 369-394 in: J.L. Schmidt and D.L. 

Gilbert, eds. Big game of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 

Corkran, C.C. and C.R. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British 

Columbia. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-5 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Correll, D.L. 1978. Estuarine productivity. BioScience 28(10): 646-650. 

Cous, E.,ed. 1893 History of the expedition under command of Lewis and Clark. Volume 2. 

Paperback edition (1965). New York: Dover Publications. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31. Biological Services Program. 103 pp. 

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. Goshawk reproduction and forest management. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 18:262-269. 

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1995. Northern goshawk reproduction relative to selection harvest in 

Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 29:42-23. 

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. and B. Chaney. 1988. Characteristics of goshawk nesting stands. Pages 

210-217 in: R.L. Glinski, B.C. Pendleton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc Jr., B.A. Millsap, and S.W. 

Hoffman, eds. Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. 

National Wildlife Federation Scientific Technical Series, Washington, D.C. 

Davis, L., Y. Bar-Ness, T. Woolley, D. Shaw, and D. Rolph. 2009. Characterization of biological 

diversity, structure, and composition within old-growth forest refugia and young-managed 

forests in the Willapa Hills, Washington. Final Report. The Nature Conservancy. 

De Santo, T.L. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Comparative reproductive ecology of the auks (family 

Alcidae) with emphasis on the marbled murrelet. Pages 33-47 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. 

Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest Service. 420 pp. 

Deithier, M.N. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 56 pp. 

Dekker, D. 1995. Prey capture by peregrine falcons wintering on southern Vancouver Island, 

British Columbia. Journal of Raptor Research 29:26-29. 

Desimone, S.M. 1997. Occupancy rates and habitat relationships of northern goshawks in 

historic nesting areas in Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Desimone, S.M. and D. Hays. 2004. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Pages 6.1-6.16 in: 

E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. Management recommendations for 

Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Olympia, WA. 268 pp. 

Dowling, B. and M.A. Weston. 1999. Managing a breeding population of the hooded plover 

Thinornis rubricollis in a high-use recreational environment. Bird Conservation International 

9:253-270. 
N-6 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Drut, M.S. and J.B. Buchanan. 2000. Northern Pacific coast regional shorebird management 

plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management. Portland, OR. 

Dyrness, C.T. 1972. Diamond Point Research Natural Area in Federal Research Natural Areas in 

Oregon and Washington—A Guidebook for Scientists and Educators. Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 4 pp. 

Evers, D.C. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the common loon (Gavia immer) 

in North America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, MA. 

Falxa, G.A., J. Baldwin, D. Lynch, S.K. Nelson, S.L. Miller, S.F. Pearson, M.G. Raphael, C. 

Strong, T. Bloxton, B. Galleher, B. Hogoboom, M. Lance, and R. Young. 2009. Marbled 

murrelet effectiveness monitoring. Northwest Forest Plan: 2008 summary report. 19 pp. 

FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program. 1985. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Pacific 

County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community Panel Number 530126 0048 B. 

Finn, S.P., D.E. Varland, and J. Marzluff. 2002a. Does northern goshawk breeding occupancy 

vary with nest-stand characteristics on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington? Journal of Raptor 

Research 36:265-279. 

Finn, S.P., J. Marzluff, and D.E. Varland. 2002b. Effects of landscape and local habitat attributes 

on northern goshawk site occupancy in western Washington. Forest Science 48:1-10. 

Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, P.C. Smith, P.J. Austin-Smith, and R.P. Bancroft. 1988. Piping 

plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and behavioral response to human 

disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:321-330. 

Franklin, J.F. 1984. Letter to Sanford R. Wilbur, Refuge District Supervisor for Oregon and 

Washington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 November 1984. 

Franklin, J.F. 1988. Pacific Northwest forests. Pages 103-130 in: M.G. Barbour, and W.D. 

Billings, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: 

Oregon State University Press. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1991. Life history strategies and habitat needs of the 

northern pintail in waterfowl management handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.1.3. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2003. Role of the estuary in the recovery 

of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead: an evaluation of limiting factors. NOAA 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-7 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Technical Memorandum. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Seattle, WA. 

Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea-level rise and coastal habitats in the Pacific 

Northwest: an analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. 

National Wildlife Federation. Available at: 

http://www.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/PacificNWSeaLevelRise.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2009. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, Canada: 

University of British Columbia Press. 

Hall, J.D., P.A. Bisson, and R.E. Gresswell, eds. 1997. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, 

management, and future conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Corvallis, 

OR. 

Hamer, T.E. 1995. Inland habitat associations of marbled murrelets in western Washington. 

Pages 163-175 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest 

Service. 420 pp. 

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting 

stands. Pages 69-82 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest 

Service. 420 pp. 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water 

resources in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

35:1597-1623. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western U.S. Journal of Climate 18(21):4545-

4561. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

20:1468-1481. 

Hansen, A.J. and D.L. Urban. 1992. Avian response to landscape pattern: the role of species’ life 

histories. Landscape Ecology 7:163-180. 

Hansen, E.M., J.K. Stone, B.R. Capitano, P. Rosso, W. Sutton, and L. Winton. 2000. Incidence 

and impact of Swiss needle cast in forest plantations of Douglas-fir in coastal Oregon. Plant 

Disease 84:773-778. 
N-8 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Harrington, B. and E. Perry. 1995. Important shorebird staging sites meeting Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network criteria in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Hawksworth, F.G. and D. Wiens.1996. Dwarf mistletoes: biology, pathology, and systematics. 

USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 709. 410 pp. 

Hays, D. 1997. Washington State status report for the Aleutian Canada goose. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 18 pp. + appendices. 

Hazeltine, J. 1956. The historical and regional geography of the Willapa Bay area, Washington. 

South Bend, WA: South Bend Journal. 

Hazeltine, J. 1957. The discovery of cartographic recognition of Shoalwater Bay. Oregon 

Historical Quarterly 58(3):251-263. 

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-

393 in: C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, Canada: 

University of British Columbia Press. 

Hedgpeth, J.W. and S. Obrebski. 1981. Willapa Bay: a historical perspective and a rationale for 

research. FWS/OBS-81/03. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C. 52 pp. 

Hemstrom, M.A. and S.E. Logan. 1986. Plant association and management guide: Siuslaw 

National Forest. R6-Ecol 220-1986a. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, 

OR. 121 pp. 

Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Hessl, A.E. and D.L. Peterson. 2004. Interannual variability in aboveground tree growth in 

Stehekin River Watershed, North Cascades Range, Washington. Northwest Science 78(3):204-

213. 

Holman, M. 2004. Forest growth response and sensitivity to climatic variability across multiple 

spatial scales in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. M.S. thesis. College of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

Huppert, D.D., A. Moore, and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of climate change on the coasts of 

Washington State. Chapter 8 in: The Washington climate change impacts assessment: evaluating 

Washington’s future in a changing climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. 

Seattle, WA. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-9 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

IAC (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation). 2002a. An assessment of outdoor 

recreation in Washington State. A state comprehensive outdoor recreation planning (SCORP) 

document 2002-2007. 

IAC. 2002b. Estimates of future participation in outdoor recreation in Washington State: a 

technical report by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Discussion draft, 

November 2002. 60 pp. 

IPCC. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. Working group I contribution in: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, eds. Fourth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Jaques, D. 2001. Snowy plovers at Leadbetter Point, Washington 2000 annual report. Annual 

report to the Washington Department of Transportation. USFWS/WDOT Project # 13552-2000-

3. Chehalis, WA. 15 pp. 

Jeffreis, S.J. 1992. Personal communication with non-game program wildlife biologist, 

Washington State Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA. In: Seyferlich and Joy, 1993. Willapa 

Bay watershed bacterial evaluation and preliminary control strategy. Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigation and Laboratory Services Program, 

Watershed Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. pp. 3-16. 

Johnson, O., M.H. Ruckelshaus, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, A.M. Garrett, G.J. Bryant, K. Neely, 

and J.J. Hard. 1999. Status review of coastal cutthroat trout from Washington, Oregon, and 

California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-37. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Conservation Biology Division. Seattle, WA. 292 

pp. 

Jordan, K.M. and S.K. Hughes. 1995. Characteristics of three marbled murrelet tree nests, 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. In: S.K. Nelson and S.G. Sealy, eds. Biology of the 

marbled murrelet: inland and at sea (a symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group 1993). 

Northwestern Naturalist 76:29-32. 

Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. 

Pages 361-388 in: D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (Managing directors). Wildlife-habitat 

relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 

Kaye, T. 2003. Conservation strategy for pink sandverbena (Abroniaum bellata spp. breviflora). 

Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR. 37 pp. 

Kenward, R.E. 1996. Goshawk adaptations to deforestation: does Europe differ from North 

America? Pages 233-243 in: D. Varland and J. Negro, eds. Raptors in human landscapes: 

adaptations to built and cultivated environments. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 
N-10 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Key Environmental Solutions. 2010. Wetland delineation report for Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge, Tarlett Slough/95th Street Property, Long Beach, Washington. 

Kikuchi, T. 1980. Faunal relationships in temperate seagrass beds. Pages 153-172 in: R.C. 

Phillips and C.P. McRoy, eds. Handbook of seagrass biology: an ecosystem perspective. New 

York: Garland STPM Press. 

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2009. Memorandum: preliminary transportation assessment, 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. December 2009. 

Knowlton, F.F. 1972. Preliminary interpretations of coyote population mechanics with some 

management implications. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:369-382. 

Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 181 pp. 

Kondolf, G.M. and M.G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water 

Resources Research 29(7):2275-2285. 

KPFF Consulting Engineers. 2009. Memorandum: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters, civil concept narrative. December 2009. 

Kraege, D. 2005. Washington State status report for the Aleutian Canada goose. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. iii + 26 pp. 

Kuletz, K.J., D.K. Marks, N.L. Naslund, N.G. Stevens, and M.B. Cody. 1995. Inland habitat 

suitability for the marbled murrelet in southcentral Alaska. Pages 141-149 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. 

Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest Service. 420 pp. 

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315-325. 

Larsen, E.M., ed. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, 

volume III: amphibians and reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

WA. 122 pp. 

Larsen, E.M., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner, eds. 1995. Management recommendations for 

Washington’s priority species, volume I: invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 82 pp. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-11 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Laufle, J.C., G.B. Pauley, and M.F. Shepard. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and 

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)—coho 

salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.48). U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Report TR EL-82-4. 18 pp. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, J.D. Farrar, H.G. Herlyn, and E.P. Gaines. 2009. The distribution 

and reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2009. The 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State 

University. Portland, OR. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, R. Pruner, M. Friel, and E.P. Gaines. 2007. The distribution and 

reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2007. The Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. 

Portland, OR. 

Lauten, D.J., K.A. Castelein, S. Weston, K. Eucken, and E.P. Gaines. 2006. The distribution and 

reproductive success of the western snowy plover along the Oregon coast—2006. The Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. 

Portland, OR. 

Lawler J.J., M. Mathias, A.E. Yahnke, and E.H. Girvetz. 2008. Oregon’s biodiversity in a 

changing climate. Prepared for the Climate Leadership Initiative, University of Oregon. 

Liebezeit, J.R. and T.L. George. 2002. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and 

endangered species in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation. 

Rpt. 2002-02. California Department of Fish and Game, Species Conservation and Recovery 

Program. Sacramento, CA. 103 pp. 

Lindzey, F.G. 1976. Black bear population ecology. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 

Litle, K. and J.K. Parish, eds. 2003. Where the river meets the sea, case studies of Pacific 

Northwest estuaries. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study. Seattle, WA. 

Long, L.L., and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Regulation and observation of human disturbance near nesting 

marbled murrelets. USDA Forest Service, Pacific SW Research Station. Arcata, CA. 18 pp. 

Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau. 2010. Long Beach, Washington 98631. Available at: 

http://www.funbeach.com/towns/index.html. 

Lougheed, L.W. and C. Lougheed. 1998. Demography of marbled murrelets in Desolation 

Sound, British Columbia. Abstract in: Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin 25(1):35-36. 

MacLaren, P.A. and E.B. Cummins. 2000. Streaked horned lark surveys in western Washington, 

year 2000. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 13 pp. 
N-12 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Malt, J.M. 2007. The influence of habitat fragmentation on marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) habitat quality in southwestern British Columbia. M.S. thesis. Simon Fraser 

University. Burnaby, Canada. 

Marshbird Workshop. 2005. Species profile: common loon. Waterbird species conservation 

status assessment. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Patuxent, VA. 

Available at: 

http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/MarshbirdAssessmentProfiles/Common%20Loon5.pdf

Marzluff, J.M., M.G. Raphael, D.M. Evans, D.E. Varland, L.S. Young, S.P. Horton, and S.P. 

Coutrney. 1997. The influence of stand structure, proximity to human activity, and forest 

fragmentation on the risk of predation to nests of marbled murrelets on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Draft report. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Meridian, ID. 54 pp. 

McConnaughey, B.H. and E. McConnaughey. 1985. Audubon Society nature guide: Pacific 

coast. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 

McIntyre, J.W. and J.F. Barr. 1997. Common loon. In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of 

North America, No. 313. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists Union. 

Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 

McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: coho salmon. FWS/OBS-82/10.49. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 29 pp. 

Meehan, W.R. 1974. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska: 4. Wildlife habitats. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-16. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Portland, OR. 32 pp. 

Menge, B.A., F. Chan, and J. Lubchenco. 2008. Response of a rocky intertidal ecosystem 

engineer and community dominant to climate change. Ecology Letters 11:151-162. 

Milne, H. and G.M. Dunnet. 1972. Standing crop, productivity, and trophic relationships of 

fauna of the Ythan estuary. Pages 86-106 in: R.S.K. Barnes and J. Green, eds. The estuarine 

environment. London: Applied Science Publications. 

Moore, R.K. and C.J. Henny. 1983. Nest site characteristics of three co-existing accipiter hawks 

in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 17:65-76. 

Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. GrattoTrevor, and B.A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds. Wader 

Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85. 

Mote, P., A. Petersen, S. Reeder, H. Shipman, and L. Whitely-Binder. 2008. Sea level rise in the 

coastal waters of Washington State. University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and the 

Washington Department of Oceanography. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-13 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the 

twentieth century. Northwest Science 77(4):271-282. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salanthe. 2009. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter 1 in: The 

Washington climate change impacts assessment: evaluating Washington’s future in a changing 

climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Mote, P.W. and N.J. Mantua. 2002. Coastal upwelling in a warmer future. Geophysical Research 

Letters 29(23):53-1-53-4. 

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D.P. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, 

D.W. Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic 

change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61:45-88. 

Naef, V. 1996. 1996. Susceptibility of forest avifauna to nest predation in varying northwestern 

Washington landscapes. M.S. thesis. Western Washington University, Bellingham. 

National Audubon Society. 2004. Cooling the hot spots—protecting America’s birds, wildlife 

and natural heritage from invasive species. Available at: 

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/invasives/pdf/invasives_report_2nd_edition.pdf. 

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. 

Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, Board 

on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 6.2. NatureServe. Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NAWMP (North American Waterfowl Management Plan). 1998. Pacific Flyway management 

plan for the Northwest Oregon-Southwest Washington Canada goose agricultural depredation 

control. Canada goose agricultural depredation working group, Pacific Flyway Study Committee 

[c/o USFWS]. Portland, OR. 

Nedeau, E.J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater mussels of the Pacific 

Northwest. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 51 pp. 

Nelson, S.K. 1997. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, 

eds. Birds of North America, No. 276. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American 

Ornithologists Union. Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

Nelson, S.K. and T.E. Hamer. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on marbled 

murrelets. Pages 89-97 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest 

Service. 420 pp. 
N-14 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Newton, J.A., E. Siegel, and S.L. Albertson. 2003. Oceanographic changes in Puget Sound and 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca during the 2000–01 drought. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 

28(4):715-728. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, R. Carmona, K.E. Clark, N.A. 

Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. Gonzalez, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernandez, K.S. Kalasz, R. Matus, 

C.D.T. Minton, R.I.G. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts, R.A. Robinson, and I.L. Serrano. 2008. 

Update to the status of the red knot Calidris canutus in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Region 5. Pleasantville, NJ. 14 pp. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) National Climatic Data Center. 

2007. Global warming. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html. 

Accessed February 2007. 

NOAA and DOI (Department of Interior). 2010. About the national system of marine protected 

areas. Available at: http://mpa.gov/nationalsystem/. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric soils for Washington. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html. 

NRCS. 2009. Web soil survey. Soil survey area, Grays Harbor County area, Pacific and 

Wahkiakum counties, Washington. Version 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 

NSRE (National Survey on Recreation and the Environment). 2000. The 1999-2000 National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Available at; 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsrerep.html. 

Nur, N., G.W. Page, and L.E. Stenzel. 1999. Population viability analysis for Pacific Coast 

snowy plovers. Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Stinson Beach, CA. 

O’Connell, K.A. 2002. Effects of invasive Atlantic smooth-cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) on 

infaunal macroinvertebrate communities in southern Willapa Bay, Washington. M.S. thesis. 

Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. 

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company. 

Office of Financial Management, Washington State. 2009. Population statistics. Available at: 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/coseries/. Accessed June 2009. 

Pacific County Economic Development Council. 2009. Comprehensive economic development 

strategy for Pacific County. June 2009. Available at: 

http://pacificedc.org/Business/2009%20PCCEDS1.pdf. 

Pacific County, Washington. 2009. Statistical information. Available at: 

http://www.co.pacific.wa.us/geninfo.htm.
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-15 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1983. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific Coast band-tailed 

pigeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1991. Pacific Flyway management plan for the tule greater whitefronted goose. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, 

OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1998. Pacific Flyway management plan for the northwest Oregonsouthwest Washington Canada goose agricultural depredation control. Canada goose agricultural 

depredation working group, Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS]. Portland, OR. 31 pp 

+ appendices. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1999a. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Aleutian cackling 

goose. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council.1999b. Pacific Flyway management plan for the cackling Canada goose. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council.2001. Pacific Flyway management plan for the western population of 

tundra swans. Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Subcommittee on Tundra Swans. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council.2002. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific brant. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2003. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific Coast population 

of greater white-fronted geese. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat 

Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2005. Draft Pacific Flyway management plan for the Aleutian goose. 

Aleutian Goose Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS]. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2006a. Pacific Flyway management plan for the emperor goose. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2006b. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific Coast 

population of trumpeter swans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat 

Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2006c. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Wrangel Island 

population of lesser snow geese. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat 

Program. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2007. Pacific Flyway management plan for the dusky Canada goose. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program. Portland, OR. 
N-16 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the dusky Canada goose. 

Dusky Canada Goose Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS]. Portland, 

OR. 38 pp. + appendices. 

PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2010. Memorandum: electrical/voice/CATV utilities, Willapa 

NWR visitor’s center site. January 2010. 

Parametrix. 2009. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, topographic survey, portion of Nature 

Conservancy Tract (79a) (Section 10, Township 10 North, Range 11 West, W.M., Pacific 

County, Washington). November 2009. 

Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? 

Conservation Biology 8:17-26. 

Patten, K. and C. O’Casey. 2007. Use of Willapa Bay, Washington, by shorebirds and waterfowl 

after Spartina control efforts. Journal of Field Ornithology 78(4):395-400. 

Patten, K., and S. Norelius. 2009. Waterfowl usage of the salt marsh and tideflats in comparison 

to managed dike pastures at the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. Progress Report to USFWS, 

Willapa NWR. Ilwaco, WA. 6pp. 

Patten, K., and C. O'Casey. 2008. Shorebird usage in Willapa Bay in response to Spartina control 

efforts. Progress Report to USFWS, Willapa NWR. Ilwaco, WA. 10pp. 

Patten, K., C. O’Casey, and S. Norelius. 2008. Comparative geese foraging in the Riekkola Unit 

pastures and Porter Point Unit tideflats and salt marsh during fall 2008. Draft. 5 pp. 

Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2004. Mitigating the 

effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Climatic Change 

62:233-256. 

Pearson, S.F. and B. Altman. 2005. Rangewide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Wildlife Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 

Pearson, S.F. and M. Hopey. 2005. Streaked horned lark nest success, habitat selection, and 

habitat enhancement experiments for the Puget lowlands, coastal Washington and Columbia 

River Islands. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-1. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, WA. 

Pearson, S.F., C. Sundstrom, W. Ritchie, and K. Gunther. 2009. Snowy plover population 

monitoring, research, and management actions: 2009 nesting season research progress report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, WA. 32 pp. 

+ appendices. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-17 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Pearson, S.F., M. Hopey, W.D. Robinson, and R. Moore. 2005. Range, abundance and 

movement patterns of wintering streaked horned larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) in Oregon 

and Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-2. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, WA. 12 pp. 

Phillips, R.C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community 

profile. FWS/OBS-84/24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 85 pp. 

Phipps, J.B. 1990. Coastal accretion and erosion in southwest Washington, 1977-1987. 

Publication 90-21. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department 

of Ecology. Olympia, WA. 

Pidwirny, M.2006. Fundamentals of physical geography. 2nd edition. Available at: 

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/contents.html. Accessed 5 December 2006. 

Pitkin, D.S. and R.W. Lowe. 1995. Distribution, abundance and ecology of Aleutian Canada 

geese in Oregon and Washington, 13 October 1994 to 1 May 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Coastal Refuges, Hatfield Marine Science Center. Newport, OR. 

Pollock, M.M., G.R. Pess, and T.J. Beechie. 2004. The importance of beaver ponds to coho 

salmon production in the Stillaguamish River basin, Washington, USA. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 24:749-760. 

Powell, A.N., C.L. Fritz, B.L. Peterson, and J.M. Terp. 2002. Status of breeding and wintering 

snowy plovers in San Diego County, California, 1994-1999. Journal of Field Ornithology 

73(2):156-165. 

Pringle R.F. 1986. Soil survey of Grays Harbor County area, Pacific County, and Wahkiakum 

County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation 

with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University, and 

Agriculture Research Center. 

Proctor, C.M., J.C. Garcia, D.V. Galvin, G.C. Lewis, L.C. Loehr, and A.M. Massa. 1980. An 

ecological characterization of the Pacific Northwest coastal region. Characterization atlas 

regional synopsis. FWS/OBS-79/14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services 

Program. 

Pyle, R.M. 1985. Investigation and monitoring report: Oregon silverspot butterfly in Pacific 

County, Washington. 

Raphael, M.G., S.K. Nelson, P. Swedeen, M. Ostwald, K. Flotlin, S. Desimone, S. Horton, P. 

Harrison, D. Prenzlow Escene, and W. Jaross. 2008. Recommendations and supporting analysis 

of conservation opportunities for the marbled murrelet long-term conservation strategy. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 
N-18 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Ray, V.F. 1938. Lower Chinook ethnographic notes. University of Washington Publications in 

Anthropology 7(2):29-165. 

RCO (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office) 2006 outdoor recreation survey 

final report August 1, 2007. Available at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/rcfb/rec_trends.htm. 

Reynolds, R.T. 1989. Accipiters. Pages 92-101 in: B.G. Pendleton, ed. Proceedings of the 

Western Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop, No. 12. National Wildlife Federation 

Tech. Series. Washington, D.C. 

Richardson, S.A., P.J. Doran, W.A. Michaelis, C.S. Sundstrom, J.L. Anthony, and H.M. Bahn. 

2000. A new snowy plover nesting area in Washington: Midway Beach, Pacific County. 

Washington. Birds 7:25-35. 

Ritchie, W.P. 1998. Identification of marbled murrelet nesting structures: a guide for determining 

suitable forest habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Management Program, Washington 

Department Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 16 pp. 

Ritchie, W.P. (compiler). 2003. Forest survey training workbook for marbled murrelet. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner, eds. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Rogers, R.E., Jr. 1999. The streaked horned lark in western Washington. Washington 

Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Rogers, R.E., Jr. 2000. The status and habitat selection of streaked horned larks, western 

bluebird, Oregon vesper sparrow, and western meadowlark in western Washington. M.S. thesis. 

Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. 

Rossell, F., O. Bozer, P. Collen, and H. Parker. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber 

and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35:248-276. 

Rudnicky, T.C. and M.L. Hunter. 1993. Avian nest predation in clearcuts, forests, and edges in a 

forest-dominated landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:358-364. 

Ruggiero, L.F., L.L.C. Jones, and K.B. Aubry. 1991. Plant and animal habitat associations in 

Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest: an overview. Pages 447-462 in: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. 

Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff, technical coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of 

unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR. 

Ruhlen, T.D., A. Abbot, L.E. Stenzel, and G.W. Page. 2003. Evidence that human disturbance 

reduces snowy plover chick survival. Journal of Field Ornithology 74:300-304. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-19 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Salanthe, E.P., L.R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2009. Regional climate model projections for 

the State of Washington. Chapter 2 in: The Washington climate change impacts assessment: 

evaluating Washington’s future in a changing climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Sayce, K. 1988. Introduced cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora loisel, in salt marshes and tidelands 

of Willapa Bay, Washington. Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract #FWSI87058(TS). 70 pp. 

Schuett-Hames, D., A.E. Pleus, J. Ward, M. Fox, and J. Light. 1999. TFW monitoring program 

method manual for the large woody debris survey. Prepared for the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement. TFW-AM9-

99-004. DNR#106. Available at: http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/. 

Schultz, R. and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourists: competitors on sandy coasts? 

Wader Study Group Bulletin 68:83-91. 

Seyferlich, H. and J. Joy. 1993. Willapa Bay watershed bacterial evaluation and preliminary 

control strategy. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigation and 

Laboratory Services Program, Watershed Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. pp. 3-16. 

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 

Simenstad, C.A. 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific Northwest Coast: a 

community profile. FWS/OBS-83/05. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 181 pp. 

Simenstad, C.A. 1994. Faunal associations and ecological interactions in seagrass communities 

of the Pacific Northwest coast. Pages 10-18 in: S. Wyllie-Echeverria, A.M. Olson, and M.J. 

Hershman, eds. Seagrass science and policy in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a seminar 

series (SMA 94-1). 

Singer, S.W., D.L. Suddjian, and S.A. Singer. 1995. Fledging behavior, flight patterns, and forest 

characteristics at marbled murrelet tree nests in California. In: S.K. Nelson and S.G. Sealy, eds. 

Biology of the marbled murrelet: inland and at sea (a symposia of the Pacific Seabird Group 

1993). Northwestern Naturalist 76:54-62. 

Small, M.F. and M.L. Hunter. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested 

landscapes. Oecologia 76:62-64. 

Smerling, T., M. Steil, B. Stygar, and M.H. Surridge. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea level 

rise on national wildlife refuges: a manual for coastal managers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Natural Resources. Washington, D.C. 

Smith, K.G. 1980. Nongame birds of the Rocky Mountain spruce-fir forests and their 

management. Pages 258-279 in: R.M. DeGraaf (Tech. coordinator). Management of western 

forests and grasslands for nongame birds: Workshop proceedings; 1980 February 11-14; Salt 
N-20 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Lake City, Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. 

Snover, A.K., P.W. Mote, L. Whitely Binder, A.F. Hamlet, and N.J. Mantua. 2005. Uncertain 

future: climate change and its effects on Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Action 

Team by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for 

the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle). 

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. New York: Universe Books. 

Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams. 2000. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in 

the United States. Oxford University Press. 

Stein, J.L. and D. Nysewander. 1995. An estimation of marbled murrelet productivity from 

observations of juveniles on the inland marine waters of Washington State during the 1993 

through 1995 post-breeding seasons. Draft report. Game Division, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Stewart and Associates. 2007. Willapa bay chum salmon investigation. Final report. 61 pp. 

Stinson, D.W. 2005. Washington State status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked 

horned lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot. Olympia, WA. xii + 129 pp. 

Strickland, R. and D.J. Chasan, 1989. Coastal Washington—a synthesis of information. 

Washington State Offshore Oil & Gas. Washington Sea Grant Program. In: Seyferlich and Joy, 

1993. Willapa Bay watershed bacterial evaluation and preliminary control strategy. Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigation and Laboratory Services Program, 

Watershed Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. pp. 3-16. 

Strong, C.S. 1995. Distribution of marbled murrelets along the Oregon coast in 1992. In: S.K. 

Nelson and S. G. Sealy, eds. Biology of the marbled murrelet: inland and at sea (a symposium of 

the Pacific Seabird Group 1993). Northwestern Naturalist 76:99-105. 

Swan, J.G. 1857. The Northwest coast, or three years residence in Washington Territory. 

Paperback edition (1972). University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. 

Tague, C., G. Grant, M. Farrell, J. Choate, and A. Jefferson. 2008. Deep groundwater mediates 

streamflow response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades. Climate Change 86:189-210. 

Taylor, A.H. 1990. Disturbance and persistence of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr.) 

in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest, North America. Journal of Biogeography 17:47-58. 

The Willapa Alliance. 1993. A tidewater place: portrait of the Willapa ecosystem. 

The Willapa Alliance. 1998a. A vision for the recovery of Willapa salmon. South Bend, WA. 32 

pp. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-21 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

The Willapa Alliance. 1998b. Willapa indicators for a sustainable community. South Bend, WA. 

41 pp. 

The Willapa Alliance WISC Committee. 1995. Willapa indicators for a sustainable community. 

Available at: http://www.inforain.org/willapa/catalog/reports/wisc/WISC.HTM#water. 

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A 

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address 

the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park Service. Portland, OR. 

458 pp. 

Thompson, C.W. 1997. Distribution and abundance of marbled murrelets and common murres 

on the outer coast of Washington: 1997 completion report to the Tenyo Maru Trustees Council. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 91 pp. 

Towry, R.K. 1987. Wildlife habitat requirements. Pages 73-210 in: R.L. Hoover and D.L. Wills, 

eds. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. 

Trotter, P.C. 1997. Sea-run cutthroat: life history profile. Pages 7-15 in: J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, 

and R.E. Gresswell, eds. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. 

Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Corvallis, OR. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 1975. Willapa River and harbor navigation 

project—Washington. Environmental impact statement, revised draft. July. 99 pp. In: Hedgpeth, 

J.W. and S. Obrebski. 1981. Willapa Bay: a historical perspective and a rationale for research. 

FWS/OBS-81/03. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, 

D.C. pp. 5-8 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and county quickfacts. Data derived from populations 

estimates, 2000 census of population and housing, 1990 census of population and housing. 

Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/. 

USDA APHIS, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 

2002. Final environmental assessment for predator damage management to protect the federally 

threatened Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover in Oregon. APHIS, Wildlife 

Services Program. Portland, OR. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Restoring complexity: second growth forests and habitat diversity. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science Update Issue 1 (May 2002). 

USDA, Forest Service. 2003. New findings about old-growth forests. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Science Update Issue 4 (June 2003). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1970. Fish and wildlife of Willapa Bay, Washington. 

33 pp. 
N-22 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

USFWS. 1977. Coastal marsh productivity: a bibliography. 

USFWS. 1978. Environmental assessment. Acquisition of Long Island, Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge, Washington. 72 pp. 

USFWS. 1983. The California brown pelican recovery plan. USFWS, Portland, OR. 179 pp. 

USFWS. 1985. Regional marine bird policy. Division of Migratory Birds. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 1986. Refuge management plan—Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 68 pp. 

USFWS. 1987. Proposal for establishment of Cedar Grove Research Natural Area. 7 pp. 

USFWS. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened 

status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–26194. 

USFWS. 1992a .Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened 

status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled murrelet. Federal 

Register 57:45328-45337. 

USFWS. 1992b. Pacific Flyway management plan for dusky Canada geese. Unpublished report. 

Subcommittee on Dusky Canada Geese c/o USFWS. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened 

status for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover; final rule. Federal Register 

58(42):12864-12874. 

USFWS. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final designation of critical 

habitat for the marbled murrelet; final rule. Federal Register. 61(102):26255-26320. 

USFWS. 1997a. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. USFWS. Portland, OR. 203 pp. 

USFWS. 1997b. Control of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) on Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge—environmental assessment. 122 pp. 

USFWS. 2001a. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. 

USFWS. Portland, OR. 113 pp. 

USFWS. 2001b. Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the national wildlife refuge system. Federal Register 66(10):3809-3823. 

USFWS. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management. 

Arlington, VA. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-23 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

USFWS. 2002b. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment— December 2002. 

USFWS. 2003a. Environmental assessment stream restoration efforts, Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 2003b. Willapa fire management plan for wildland fire suppression and prescribed 

burning. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2004a. Unpublished report – Fish, macroinvertebrate, and habitat survey of three 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge streams. Vancouver Fisheries Office, Vancouver, WA 

USFWS. 2004b. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Final comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental impact statement. Olympia, WA. 

USFWS. 2004c. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds: Migratory Bird Program strategic 

plan 2004-2014. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arlington, VA. 21 pp. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbstratplan/mbstratplan.htm

USFWS. 2005a. Regional seabird conservation plan, Pacific Region. USFWS, Migratory Birds 

and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2005b. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s focal species strategy for migratory birds. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 

USFWS. 2007a. Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). 2 vol. Sacramento, CA. 751 pp. 

USFWS. 2007b. Draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus). Bald Eagle Monitoring Team. Arlington, VA. 64 pp. 

USFWS. 2008a. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. 

Portland, OR. 142 pp. 

USFWS. 2008b. Birds of conservation concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management. 

Arlington, VA. 

UWCIG (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group). 2004. Overview of climate change 

impacts in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

UWCIG. 2009. The Washington climate change impacts assessment: evaluating Washington’s 

future in a changing climate. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Vander Haegen, W.M. and R.M. DeGraaf. 1996. Predation rates on artificial nests in an 

industrial forest landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 86:171-179. 
N-24 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Vander Schaaf, D.G., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdaña, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. 

Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest coast 

ecoregional assessment. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy of 

Canada, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nature Conservancy. 

Portland, OR. 129 pp. 

Ward, L.Z., D.K. Ward, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1992. Canopy density analysis at goshawk nesting 

territories on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Final report. Arizona 

Department of Fish and Game. Phoenix, AZ. 

Warrick, R.A. and J. Oerlemans. 1990. Sea level rise. Pages 257-281 in: U.T. Houghton, G.J. 

Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums, eds. Climate Change, the IPCC Assessment. Cambridge University 

Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Warriner, J.S., J.C. Warriner, G.W. Page, and L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Mating system and 

reproductive success of a small population of polygamous snowy plovers. Wilson Bulletin 

98:15-37. 

Washington Administrative Code. Chapter 173-201A WAC. Water quality standards for surface 

waters of the State of Washington. (WAC 173-201A-060(2)). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/wa/wa_10_chapter173-201a.pdf.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1993. Status of the Oregon silverspot 

butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) in Washington. Olympia, WA. 21 pp. 

WDFW. 1995. Washington state recovery plan for the snowy plover. Olympia, WA. 87 pp. 

WDFW. 2000. Coastal chum salmon. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/chum/chum-6.htm. 

WDFW. 2005. Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. WDFW. Olympia, 

WA. 

WDFW. 2006. Olympic-Willapa Hills Wildlife Area management plan. Wildlife Management 

Program, WDFW. Olympia, WA.74 pp. 

WDFW. 2007. Lists of endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, species of concern, and state 

monitor species. WDFW. Olympia, WA. 

WDFW. 2008a. Living with wildlife - coyote. Available at: 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/coyotes.htm. 

WDFW. 2008b. August 2008 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species List. Available at: 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/. 
Appendix N. Literature Cited N-25 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2005. State of Washington Natural 

Heritage Plan 2005 Update. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, 

Washington. 

WDNR. 2007. State of Washington natural heritage program information systems. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists. 

WDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2004. Washington State wetlands rating 

system: western Washington. Revised publication no. 04-06-025. Olympia, WA. 

WFPB (Washington Forest Practices Board). 1997. Permanent rules for the northern spotted owl 

(1996) and marbled murrelet (1997). Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, 

WA. 

Wegmann, K.W. 2004. Mass wasting assessment: landslide hazard zonation project level II 

assessment, Lower Naselle watershed, Pacific County, Washington. Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 

Wells, R.E. 1989. Geologic map of the Cape Disappointment-Naselle River area, Pacific and 

Wahkiakum Counties, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 

Wessen, G. 2008. A cultural resources overview for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, 

Willapa Bay, Washington. Prepared for USFWS. Wessen and Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. 

Wiens, J.A. 1975. Avian communities, energetics, and functions in coniferous forest habitats. 

Pages 226-265 in: D.R. Smith (tech. coordinator). Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds; 1975 May 6-9; Tucson, Arizona. 

General Technical Report WO-1. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. 

Ecology 66:1211-1214. 

Wilson, W.H. 1994. Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds 

of North America, No. 90. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists 

Union. Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 

Wilson, U.W. and J.B. Atkinson. 1995. Black brant winter and spring-staging use at two 

Washington coastal areas in relation to eelgrass abundance. The Condor 97:91-98. 

Wilson-Jacobs, R. and G.L. Dorsey. 1985. Snowy plover use of Coos Bay north spit, Oregon. 

Murrelet 66(3):75-81. 

Windberg, L.A. and F.F. Knowlton. 1988. Management implications of coyote spacing patterns 

in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:632-640. 
N-26 Appendix N. Literature Cited 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Withler, I.L. 1966. Variability in life history characteristics of steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) along 

the Pacific coast of North America. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23:365-

393. 

Woodbridge, B. and P.J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern 

goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:83-87. 

Yahner, R.N. and B.L. Cypher. 1987. Effects of nest location and depredation of artificial 

arboreal nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:178-181. 
Appendix O. Estuarine Restoration Plan O-1

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Bear River Estuary Restoration Plan

and Draft Biological Evaluation 

 
O-2 Appendix O. Estuarine Restoration Plan 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 
www.cherrycrk.com

BEAR RIVER ESTUARY

RESTORATION PLAN and

DRAFT BIOLOGICAL

EVALUATION

Report

Prepared for:

Willapa Bay Regional

Fisheries Enhancement

Group

August 2, 2010
146 N Canal St, Suite 111  Seattle, WA 98103  www.cherrycrk.com

Bear River Estuary Restoration

Draft Biological Evaluation

REPORT

Prepared for:

Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group

P.O. Box 46

South Bend, WA 98586

Attn:  Mr. Ron Craig

Authored by:

Kerrie McArthur

Cherry Creek Environmental, Inc.

August 2, 2010
Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Project Description......................................................................................................................2

2.1 Project and Action Areas ............................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Proposed Action Description...................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Proposed Construction ....................................................................................................4

2.2.2 Project Timeline...............................................................................................................4

2.2.3 Conservation Measures.................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions and Effects of the Action ...................................................... 5

3.1 General....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................6

3.2 Water Quality............................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Sediment, Substrate, and Bathymetry .......................................................................................8

3.3.1 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................8

3.4 Access and Refugia.....................................................................................................................8

3.4.1 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................8

3.4.2 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................8

3.5 Slope, Shoreline Condition, and Habitat Diversity......................................................................9

3.5.1 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................9

3.5.2 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................9

3.6 Flow, Current Patterns, Saltwater–Freshwater Mixing ...............................................................9

3.6.1 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................9

3.6.2 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................9

3.7 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 10

3.7.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 10

3.7.2 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 10
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page ii

3.8 Benthic Epifauna ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.8.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 10

3.8.2 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 10

3.9 Forage Fish............................................................................................................................... 11

3.9.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 11

3.9.2 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 11

4.0 Evaluation of Effects on Listed Species ..................................................................................... 11

4.1 North American Green Sturgeon.............................................................................................. 11

4.1.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat.................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Use of the Action Area ................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Bull Trout ................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat.................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Use of the Action Area ................................................................................................... 12

4.2.3 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 12

4.2.4 Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Marbled Murrelet ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.3.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat ........................................................................... 13

4.3.2 Use of the Action Area ................................................................................................... 13

4.3.3 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 13

4.3.4 Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 13

4.4 Western Snowy Plover ............................................................................................................. 14

4.4.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat ........................................................................... 14

4.4.2 Use of the Action Area ................................................................................................... 14

4.4.3 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 14

4.4.4 Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 14

4.5 Streaked Horned Lark .............................................................................................................. 14

4.5.1 Population Status .......................................................................................................... 14

4.5.2 Use of the Action Area ................................................................................................... 14

4.5.3 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 15
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page iii

4.5.4 Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Cumulative Effects ............................................. 15

6.0 Summary................................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 Cultural Resources Assessment................................................................................................. 16

8.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 17

   
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page iv

Appendices

Appendix A — ESA Species List

Appendix B — Design Sheets

Appendix C — Construction Narrative

Appendix D — Species Life Histories

Appendix E — EFH Assessment

Appendix F — Cultural Resources Assessment
Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 1

BEAR RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION  

DRAFT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group is applying for a permit from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps) to restore 760 acres of intertidal area and obtaining the Corps permit will

require compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The restoration will occur by removing about 5.74

miles of existing dike, 38 culverts, 2 fish ladders, 2 tide gates, and 2 foot bridges, and reconnect 18

estuary channels at the southern end of Willapa Bay, just west of the mouth of the Bear River. Increases

in noise levels and increases in turbidity during construction have the potential to impact species listed

under ESA, but best management practices would be used to reduce these impacts. Therefore, this

biological evaluation reaches the following conclusions:  

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

or its designated critical habitat;

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) or its designated

critical habitat;

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus

marmoratus) or its designated critical habitat; and  

 will have no effect on Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group (WBRFEG) is applying for a permit from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to restore 760 acres of intertidal area. The restoration will occur

by removing about 5.74 miles of existing dike, 38 culverts, 2 fish ladders, 2 tide gates, and 2 foot

bridges, and reconnect 18 estuary channels at the southern end of Willapa Bay, just west of the mouth

of the Bear River. Because this work requires a Section 10 permit from the Corps, it qualifies as an

action by a federal agency, and must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Section 7 of the ESA requires that “actions” of federal agencies should be “not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any [listed] species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat

of such species.” Issuance of permits by federal agencies is considered an “action” and therefore falls

under this requirement. Under ESA Section 7(c), the Corps is required to produce a biological evaluation

(BE) of the potential influence of its action (issuing the permit) on listed species or their critical habitat.

To help the Corps evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on listed species, Cherry Creek

Environmental (CCE), has prepared this BE on behave of WBRFEG.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 2

To determine if listed species or their critical habitat are present in the vicinity of the proposed project,

on June 28, 2010 CCE consulted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2010); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010). Based on

information from NMFS and USFWS (Appendix A), the following listed species may occur in the vicinity

of the proposed project and are therefore addressed in this BE:

 North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris);  

 Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus);

 Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus); and

 Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).

Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), a candidate species, will also be addressed. Should

the lark become listed during the life of the proposed project, this BE could be used to aid the Corps

during any subsequent Section 7 consultation with USFWS.

Based on information from NMFS and USFWS (Appendix A), the following listed species may occur in

Pacific County. Because the following species are found on the outer coast or their habitat

requirements do not exist in the vicinity of the proposed project, they are not addressed in the BE:

 Columbia River smelt (Thaleichthys pacificus);

 southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca)

 humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

 blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

 fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

 sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

 sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus);  

 leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

 green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

 olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

 loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

 brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis )  

 northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina);  

 Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta); and

 short‐tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus )  

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section provides a brief description of the proposed project area and proposed action.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 3

2.1 Project and Action Areas

The “project area” is within the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Pacific County,

Washington at Township 10 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1, 6, 7, 11, and 12 and Township 10N,

Range 10W, Section 6. The project area is within the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola Units in the

Refuge at the southern end of Willapa Bay, just west of the mouth of Bear River. Aerial photographs of

the project area and design sheets are in Appendix B.

The “action area” for fish resources is defined as extending from mean higher high water out to the

minus 30 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) depth contour, which is the elevation where open water

channel depths begin (WNWR 2010). The action area for avian species is defined as a 1‐mile radius

around the project area.

2.2 Proposed Action Description

Historically, the project site was tidally connected to Willapa Bay. During the late 1940's and early

1950's a large portion of area’s salt marsh habitat was eliminated by diking to create pasture lands and

freshwater wetlands, believed to enhance overall waterfowl use of the refuge and increase land

available for agricultural production. The dike was constructed by excavating a borrow ditch along the

shoreward side of the dike. The dike has substantially reduced the amount of historical shoreline

habitat and serves as a barrier, reducing nutrient input to the estuary and interrupting the physical,

chemical and biological processes of the estuarine system. The conversion of estuarine wetlands to

freshwater wetlands and pasture by diking has removed important natural habitat for waterfowl,

waterbirds, shorebirds, and salmon as well as many other estuarine‐dependent species. Construction of

the dike also eliminated fish access to 3 small streams; Lewis Stream, Porter Point Stream and Dolman

Creek to the estuary. In 2001, fish ladders were installed into the dikes to restore some fish passage to

these creeks.

The proposed project would remove 5.74 miles of existing dike, 38 culverts, 2 fish ladders, 2 tide gates,

and 2 foot bridges, and reconnect 18 estuary channels; resulting in up to 760 acres of restored estuarine

habitat. Construction details are depicted in Appendix B. The resorted habitat includes reconnection of

stream channels to the estuarine environment, open water, intertidal flats, and saltmarsh. The

proposed project would provide unrestricted tidal exchange and channels currently isolated landward

of the dike will be reconnected to the estuary. The proposed project will assist in improving and

maximizing the current estuarine system and contribute to the health of the bay and associated

habitats. In addition, the proposed project would reduce or eliminate the extent of a highly invasive

exotic plant, reed canarygrass, which currently infests the refuge's freshwater impoundments.

Similarly, tussock infestation will also be reduced. Other exotic species, including nutria and bullfrogs,

which currently use the freshwater ponds landward of the dike will be eliminated by restoration of

estuarine habitat. Juvenile salmon habitat will be restored and other expected benefits include

increased waterfowl, waterbird, and shorebird use. Finally, protection and restoration of native
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 4

estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal in the Pacific Northwest

Coast Ecoregional Assessment (TNC and WDFW 2006) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional

Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000).

2.2.1 Proposed Construction

The project would be accomplished by removal of dikes, culverts, fish ladders, and tide gates within the

Lewis, Porter Point and Riekkola Units in the Refuge. Dikes will be removed completely to grade and

material will be removed or used to fill in the associated borrow ditch. Approximately 114,812 cubic

yards of fill from the dike will be placed back into the borrow ditch. Fish ladders and tide gates would be

demolished and taken off‐site for disposal and/or recycling. Heavy equipment utilized will include

excavators, bulldozers, scrapers, and agricultural tractors. A detailed narrative of construction

techniques and sequencing is in Appendix C. In summary, the first phase of construction would remove

a portion of the dike fill, which will create a wider area for construction traffic than driving on the

existing top of the dike. Construction would begin at the southern side of the project area, in the Lewis

Unit and work northward/westward. In addition to removing the dike, the fish ladders and tide gates

will be demolished. The demolished fish ladders and tide gates will be disposed of off‐site at an

approved location or recycled. Channels will be excavated as close as possible to their historic locations

and have been sized so that tidal processes would accelerate the establishment of natural topography

and vegetation.

Throughout the project, dewatering will need to occur. Dewatering techniques will be up to the

contractor, but the recommended method (Appendix B) will be to create temporary culverts with tide

gates. These would be placed in the constructed channels to allow construction traffic access during

removal of the dikes and filling of the borrow ditch. This dewatering option would place the culvert and

tide gate in the new channel location, Installation of riprap armoring may be necessary during

construction, but would be removed when the temporary culvert and tide gate is removed.. As

construction within weach unit is completed, these temporary culverts and tide gates would be

removed and the channel enlarged to the required design. The advantage to this approach is that it is a

passive and automatic approach that maintains the separation between the landward and waterward

sides of the dike system.

2.2.2 Project Timeline

The proposed project would be constructed in phases, with each phase occurring during the in‐water

work window. Since there are three phase, the overall construction period is anticipated to last 3 years.

Assuming all permits are received, the project would begin during the in‐water work window of 2011.

As stated above, work would begin at the southern end of the project area in the Lewis Unit. Removal

of the dike and one of the fish ladders within the Lewis Unit would be finished by the end of the 2011 in‐

water work window. Construction would then stop until the beginning of the 2012 in‐water work

window. The cross‐dike, located between the Lewis and Porter units would remain in place to serve as a

sea dike until the 2012 in‐water construction season. During 2012, work within the Porter Unit is
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 5

expected to occur. That is, dike removal work would begin where it was left off during the 2011

construction season and second fish ladder would be removed with construction continuing to work

northward/westward. Removal of the dike and one of the fish ladders within the Porter Unit would be

finished by the end of the 201in‐water work window. Construction would then stop until the beginning

of the 2012 in‐water work window. During 2013, work within the Riekkola Unit is expected to occur.

That is, dike removal work would begin where it was left off during the 2012 construction season and

the proposed project would be completed by 2013.

Prior to leaving the site at the end of each in‐water work window, the active construction area would be

stabilized to reduce erosion.

2.2.3 Conservation Measures

To avoid impacts to aquatic species, construction would occur during the in‐water work window and

occur in the dry as much as p0ssible. Although work would occur below the ordinary high water mark,

material would not likely be placed when tidal waters have inundated the project area. Additionally,

WBRFEG proposes to monitor water quality and dike erosion during and following the first construction

season. This information would be used in adaptive management for subsequent phases of

construction (AMEC 2010).

Vehicles used in the project area will be routinely inspected for petroleum product or hydraulic fluid

leaks, and defective equipment will be serviced before being allowed back into the project area.

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE

ACTION

Presented below are discussions of existing environmental conditions and temporary, permanent,

direct, indirect, and net effects of project activities. This section addresses only environmental

attributes and habitat qualities important to listed species that may be present in the action area and

likely to be affected by the project in some way.

3.1 General

This section describes existing general environmental conditions and effects of the proposed action on

the general environmental conditions of the action area.

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

The Bear River Estuary, located in Willapa Bay, is part of the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. Willapa

Bay is the second largest estuary on the Pacific Coast and is one of the most pristine estuaries in the

United States. The refuge is over 15,000 acres of tidelands, temperate rainforest, ocean beaches and
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 6

small streams. Within the project area the site can be divided into three areas; the Lewis Unit, the

Porter’s Point Unit, and the Riekkola Unit.  

Freshwater impoundments were created behind the dike in the Lewis and Porter’s Point units and their

water levels are managed to provide freshwater foraging areas for migrating waterfowl, mostly ducks

(USFWS 2010). Small seasonal freshwater wetlands are also maintained in the Riekkola Unit. Use of the

freshwater impoundments by waterbirds other than waterfowl, include grebes, herons, bitterns, and

rails. These shallow, vegetated wetlands provide breeding habitat for red‐legged frogs, Pacific tree

frogs, roughskin newts and northwestern salamanders. River otters and non‐native nutria also use the

freshwater impoundments.

Three small streams; Lewis Stream, Porter Point Stream and Dolman Creek flow from the foothills

south of the project area to the estuary. However their historic connection was cut off and altered by

the dike. To improve fish passage to these streams, fish ladders were installed in 2001. Although the

fish ladders have improved fish passage, the conversion of estuarine wetlands to freshwater wetlands

and pasture by diking has removed important natural transition habitat from freshwater streams and

wetlands to estuaries.

The intertidal portion of the project area is dominated by mudflats and salt marsh. The mudflats consist

of fine sediment combined with organic matter. Intertidal mudflats support an abundance of prey

invertebrates including oysters, clams, mussels, amphipods, polychaete and oligochaete worms, insect

larvae and nematodes. Foraging shorebirds follow the receding tide across the mudflats and fish and

waterbirds frequent the mudflats when they are flooded to forage and find refuge (WNWR 2010).

The upper edges of the intertidal flats are ringed by salt tolerant plants which serve as sediment traps

and add much organic matter to the estuarine system. Juvenile salmon and other fish find an

abundance of food in the marshes, as well as shelter from strong currents and predators. Bald eagles,

great blue herons, and other predators are attracted to the abundance of life. The productivity of the

marshes is critical to the health of the estuary (WNWR 2010). It is estimated that Willapa Bay originally

contained approximately 14,620 acres of saltwater wetlands, but only 5,277 acres remain, a 64% loss of

estuarine wetlands (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007 as cited in (WNWR 2010).  

No information on ambient noise levels in the Action Area was identified. A WSDOT noise assessment

on the San Juan Islands identified a baseline of about 35 dBA, with regular noise intrusions from

traffic and aircraft overflights ranging from 45 to 72 dBA (WSDOT 1994). Noise levels from

breaking waves has been measured at levels ranging from 55 dBA to 80 dBA (Allan and Komar 2000;

Bolin 2009; Tetra Tech 2005). For the purposes of evaluating ambient noise levels within the Project

Area, it is assumed that background noise would likely be about 40 dBA.

3.1.2 Effects of the Action
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 7

Existing vegetation on the dikes will be permanently removed during the proposed action. Disturbed

soils are expected to be colonized quickly by salt tolerant vegetation or converted to intertidal mudflats

or stream channels. The streams will be directly reconnected to the estuary through reconstruction of

stream channels where the dike was previously. The reconstructed stream channels are designed to

provide efficient and unrestricted tidal exchange and effective low tide drainage. This will provide a vast

improvement to fish passage in comparison to the existing conditions. Once the dike removal is

complete, the proposed project would restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine open water, salt

marsh, and intertidal flats.

A variety of construction equipment will likely be used in the project area, depending on the activity

that is occurring. Based on average maximum noise levels of different construction equipment, noise

levels associated with construction are likely to be around 80 dBA (WSDOT 2010). Based on existing

site conditions, an estimated ambient noise level o f40 dBA, and a maximum construction noise level of

80 dBA, construction noise would attenuate to ambient levels at a distance of 15,811 feet. The

increased noise level would be temporary and only occur during active construction). Terrestrial

animals not used to the increased noise may avoid the immediate work area. Since the construction is

occurring in the dry there will be no appreciable increases in underwater noise.

3.2 Water Quality  

This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to water

quality in the action area.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

No information on existing water quality in the action areas was identified. Dissolved oxygen and high

temperatures have been determined to be limiting factors affecting the aquatic habitat and fish in the

Willapa system (Ecology 2008a), although the action area is not on Ecology’s 303d list for these or any

other parameters (Ecology 2008b).

3.2.2 Effects of the Action

During active construction and shortly afterward, temporary increases in turbidity are likely to occur.

Construction techniques (e.g. dewatering) would be implemented to reduce increases in turbidity. The

increases in turbidity are not expected to persist long after construction. Construction activities are not

expected to alter dissolved oxygen or temperature conditions in the Action Area. To ensure

construction does not significantly impact water quality during construction, temperature, turbidity,

and fecal coliform levels would likely be monitored as part of the Hydraulic Project Approval permit.  
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 8

3.3 Sediment, Substrate, and Bathymetry

This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to

sediment, substrates, and bathymetry in the action area.

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

The dike was constructed mostly with site soils and some imported fill material. Landward of the dike,

the substrate is likely fine grained with a high organic content because the area is cut off from tidal

exchange and high flows, and is routinely planted with aquatic vegetation. Waterward of the dike, the

area is tidal saltmarsh and mudflat. Since the project area was diked and drained, the surface has

subsided by approximately 1‐3 ft below the natural marsh elevation of mean higher high water (9 ft

NAVD) (Vandever 2010).

3.3.1 Effects of the Action

The proposed project will remove the dike, changing surface elevations along the dike from upland to

intertidal. Sediment transport will be restored to conditions similar to what existed prior to the

construction of the dike. With the removal of the dike and reconnection of the stream channels,

bathymetry will be restored to historic or near historic conditions. Removal of the dike will allow tidal

exchange to be restored. It is anticipated that the removal of the dike and restoration of tidal exchange,

over time, may return the salt marsh surface elevation to the natural elevations of the salt mash outside

of the action area.

3.4 Access and Refugia

This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to refugia

and access in the action area.

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

The conversion of estuarine wetlands to freshwater wetlands and pasture following construction of the

dikes has eliminated refuge habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and estuarine fish (e.g.

juvenile salmon, juvenile flatfish, crabs). Three small streams, Lewis Stream, Porter Point Stream and

Dolman Creek no longer had a direct connection to the estuary. In 2001, WBRFEG and the Refuge

received grants funding to install the two fish ladders in the dikes. Installation of the fish ladders

allowed salmonids to access and refuge habitat in the freshwater ponds landward of the dike, but their

movements are still restricted from their historical spawning and rearing areas.

3.4.2 Effects of the Action

During construction the temporary culverts would allow access to the freshwater ponds and streams

while the fish ladders are removed. Once the dike removal is complete, the proposed project would
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 9

restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine open water, salt marsh, and intertidal flats available for

access and refuge for fish and wildlife.

3.5 Slope, Shoreline Condition, and Habitat Diversity

This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to

habitat diversity, slopes, and shoreline conditions in the action area.

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

Construction of the dikes converted about 760 acres of land from estuarine open water, salt marsh, and

intertidal flats to freshwater ponds, freshwater wetlands, and pasture. The conversion from estuarine

habitats to freshwater/upland habitats reduced habitat diversity. Landward of the dikes, the site is

currently infested with invasive plant species such as reed canarygrass and tussock and animal species

such as nutria and bullfrogs. Waterward of the dike, beyond the dike footprint, the action area is

relatively flat and consists of salt marsh, mudflats, and open water.

3.5.2 Effects of the Action

Removal of the dike will restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine open water, salt marsh, and

intertidal flats, restore the unrestricted tidal exchange to the three small creeks, and reduce or

eliminate non‐salt tolerant invasive plants, such as reed canarygrass and tussock and animals, like

bullfrogs and nutria within the action area. The proposed project does not include planting the area

with native salt marsh vegetation. The Refuge has an existing spartina elimination program and will

monitor the site for spartina infestation and eradicate any infestation.

3.6 Flow, Current Patterns, Saltwater–Freshwater Mixing

This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to flow,

current patterns, saltwater–freshwater mixing in the action area.  

3.6.1 Existing Conditions

Construction of the dikes and installation of the tide gates altered and reduced the saltwater‐

freshwater mixing zone and altered current patterns. Currently, saltwater‐freshwater mixing s limited

within the project area to the areas waterward of the dikes.

3.6.2 Effects of the Action

The proposed project will result in the unrestricted tidal exchange within the project area currently

isolated behind the dikes. The proposed project would assist in restoring the estuarine system,

including historic current patterns and saltwater‐freshwater mixing zones.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 10

3.7 Vegetation

This section describes existing conditions relevant to vegetation and expected effects of the proposed

action.

3.7.1 Existing Conditions

Two vegetation communities are dominant in the action area; freshwater wetlands and salt marsh.

Freshwater wetland plants include bulrush, cattail, sedges, spikerush, bur‐reed, beggarticks, juncus,

smartweed, mannagrass, water pennywort, several species of pondweed and duckweed. Native

emergent and submerged aquatic plants are present as are non‐native invasive species including reed

canarygrass, tussock and bog loosestrife.  

Salt marsh vegetation include pickleweed, seashore salt grass, jaumea, alkali grass, sea arrow grass,

sand‐spurry, seaside plantain, and salt marsh wort. Tufted hairgrass, Pacific silverweed, salt marsh

bulrush and Lyngbye’s sedge are found in higher elevations within the salt marsh, in areas that are

occasionally covered by tidal water.

3.7.2 Effects of the Action

The proposed project will eliminate all of the vegetation on the dikes and effectively drain the

freshwater impoundments. Areas dominated by non‐salt tolerant plant communities will shift to salt

tolerant plant communities. The distinction between freshwater wetland and salt mash will no longer

be a discrete line (i.e. the dike), but become a natural gradient likely similar to historic conditions.

Disturbed soils are expected to revegetate quickly because of the abundant native vegetation in the

immediate vicinity will provide a seed source.

3.8 Benthic Epifauna

This section describes existing conditions relevant to benthic epifauna and expected effects of the

proposed action in the action area.

3.8.1 Existing Conditions

Currently benthic epifauna are limited to the areas waterward of the dike. Although no studies of

species abundance or richness were identified, epibenthic species present within the project area are

likely typical of those found in estuarine mudflats.

3.8.2 Effects of the Action

During construction, benthic epifauna living on the dikes will be eliminated during the dike removal

process. Benthic epifauna are expected to colonize quickly because of the large area of undisturbed

habitat within the action area providing recruitment. Removal of the dike will restore about 760 acres of
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 11

land to estuarine area and restore the unrestricted tidal exchange to the three small creeks. Benthic

epifauna will be able to colonize within areas where it was unable to prior to the dike removal.

3.9 Forage Fish

This section describes existing conditions relevant to forage fish and expected effects of the proposed

action in the action area.

3.9.1 Existing Conditions

Forage fish are limited to estuarine areas of the action area (i.e. waterward of the dike) and are those

typically found in estuaries.

3.9.2 Effects of the Action

During construction, forage fish would likely avoid the vicinity where active in‐water construction is

occurring. However, avoidance of the area is temporary and would not persist after construction.

Removal of the dike will restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine area and restore the unrestricted

tidal exchange to the three small creeks. Forage fish will be able to utilize newly restored estuarine

areas within the action area where it was unable to prior to the dike removal.

4.0 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES

This section discusses use by listed species of the action area, describes effects on listed species from

project activities (Section 2.2), and provides an effect determination. This section discusses only

attributes of listed species that are relevant to the project area and likely to be affected by the project.

Life histories for the species discussed in this section are presented in Appendix D. Appendix E

describes habitat for federally managed commercial fish species, potential project impacts, and

proposed conservation measures.  

4.1 North American Green Sturgeon

4.1.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat

There are no good data on current stock sizes or population trends of the North American green

sturgeon (NMFS 2009). NMFS has proposed designating critical habitat for the southern DPS green

sturgeon in coastal U.S. marine waters within 110 meters (m) depth from Monterey Bay, California

(including Monterey Bay), north to Cape Flattery, Washington, including certain coastal bays and

estuaries in California, Oregon, and Washington, including Willapa Bay (73 FR 52084).

4.1.2 Use of the Action Area
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 12

The North American green sturgeon is present in Willapa Bay (Lindley, et al. 2010), but are not believed

to spawn in any mainstem rivers in Willapa Bay (NMFS 2009). Since spawning is not expected to occur

in the mainstem rivers of Willapa Bay, use of the bay by green sturgeon is likely limited to foraging and

juvenile refuge.

4.1.1 Effects of the Action

During construction, the green sturgeon may avoid the vicinity where elevated turbidity occurs.

However, avoidance of the area is temporary and would not persist after active construction. Removal

of the dike would restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine area. Green sturgeon will be able to

utilize newly restored estuarine areas within the action area.

4.1.2 Effect Determination

Because the proposed project would cause temporary increases in turbidity and restore about 760 acres

of estuarine habitat that could be used by green sturgeon for foraging and refuge, this BE concludes

that the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect North American green sturgeon or

its designated critical habitat.

4.2 Bull Trout

4.2.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat

Willapa Bay does not have a breeding population of bull trout (WDFW 2000). Therefore, any bull trout

in Willapa Bay are likely foraging. While bull trout critical habitat has been designated, no critical

habitat for bull trout has been designated in Willapa Bay.

4.2.2 Use of the Action Area

Bull trout using Willapa Bay are believed to use the bay for occasional foraging. The nearest confirmed

bull trout was caught in the Willapa River, the mouth of which is approximately 22 miles to the north of

the action area. The single fish was caught by a Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

technician near river mile 29, approximately one mile downstream of the Willapa/Forks Creek State

Salmon Hatchery.

4.2.3 Effects of the Action

Bull trout are not expected to use the action area because bull trout are not frequent users of Willapa

Bay. However, during construction, any bull trout in the area may avoid the vicinity where elevated

turbidity occurs. However, avoidance of the area is temporary and would not persist after active

construction. Removal of the dike would restore about 760 acres of land to estuarine area. Any bull

trout in Willapa Bay would be able to utilize newly restored estuarine areas within the action area.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 13

4.2.4 Effect Determination

Because the proposed project would cause temporary increases in turbidity and restore about 760 acres

of estuarine habitat important that could be used by bull trout, this BE concludes that the proposed

project may affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout or its designated critical habitat.

4.3 Marbled Murrelet

4.3.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat

The estimated population size of marbled murrelets in North America is about 950,000 birds (Huff et al.

2006). Most of these birds occur in Alaska (about 860,000) and Canada (about 55,000 to 78,000). Huff et

al (2006) conducted at sea surveys to estimate the marbled murrelet population in the Pacific

Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California). The population was estimated at about

22,000 birds, indicating only a small fraction of the total population (2 to 3%) uses the coast of the

Pacific Northwest. The four year survey was not sufficient to detect population trends (declines or

increases) (Huff et al 2006).

Critical habitat has been designated by USFWS, but there is no critical habitat within the action area

(Appendix A). The closest WDFW Marbled Murrelet Detection Sections is about 0.5 mile to the south of

the action area (WDFW 2010).

4.3.2 Use of the Action Area

No nesting habitat exists within the action area. Since marbled murrelets forage in nearshore waters,

they may fly over the action area to reach foraging habitat near the action area  

4.3.3 Effects of the Action

During active construction, increases in noise would occur. Behavioral effects from noise during

marbled murrelet foraging occur at 70 dBA (WSDOT 2010). Construction noise would attenuate to the

behavioral effects threshold of 70 dBA within 500 feet of the active construction area. However, since

marbled murrelet use is likely limited to an occasional fly over, as the birds head out to open water to

forage or return to their nests effects from construction noise are expected to be negligible.

4.3.4 Effect Determination

Although the proposed project would cause temporary increases in noise during active construction,

marbled murrelet use of the action area is likely limited to occasional fly over’s as they fly to and from

their nesting sites to foraging sites. Thus, this BE concludes that the proposed project may affect, not

likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets or its designated critical habitat.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 14

4.4 Western Snowy Plover

4.4.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat

In Washington, snowy plovers formerly nested at five coastal locations but only three sites currently are

known to be active (Pearson et al. 2009). The average number of breeding pairs over the four years

reported in this study was approximately 25 pairs but the population is declining (Pearson et al. 2009).

Critical habitat has been designated by USFWS, but there is no critical habitat within the action area

(Appendix A).  

4.4.2 Use of the Action Area

The Western snowy plover is found within the refuge in the Leadbetter Point Unit located

approximately 15 miles away from the action area. The western snowy plover uses sparsely vegetated

coastal dunes and beach, since this type of habitat does not exist within the action area, the Western

snowy plover is not expected to be found within the action area.

4.4.3 Effects of the Action

During active construction, increases in noise would occur. However, the Western snowy plover is not

expected to be within the action area because their preferred habitat (sparsely vegetated coastal

dunes) does not exist in the action area.

4.4.4 Effect Determination

Because the Western snowy plover is not expected to be present in the action area, this BE concludes

that the proposed project will have no effect on the Western snowy plover or its designated critical

habitat.

4.5 Streaked Horned Lark

4.5.1 Population Status

Although no systematic range wide attempt has been made to estimate the total population of the

streaked horned lark, results from winter and breeding surveys suggest that the entire population of

this species is likely less than 1,000 birds (Pearson and Altman 2005).

4.5.2 Use of the Action Area

Results from these U.S. and Canadian surveys indicate that the streaked horned lark currently breeds

on beaches and accreted lands near Grays Harbor and Willapa Bays (Pearson and Altman 2005).

However, the streaked horned lark is not expected to be within the action area because their preferred

habitat, sparsely vegetated coastal dunes, is not present there.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 15

4.5.3 Effects of the Action

During active construction, increases in noise would occur. However, like the Western snowy plover, the

streaked horned lark is not expected to be within the action area because their preferred habitat

(sparsely vegetated coastal dunes) does not exist there.

4.5.4 Effect Determination

Because the streaked horned lark is not expected to be present in the action area, this BE concludes

that the proposed project will not jeopardize the streaked horned lark or its habitat.

Should the streaked horned lark become listed as threatened or endangered under ESA during the

construction of the proposed project, this BE would conclude that the proposed project would have no

effect on the streaked horned lark or its designated critical habitat.

5.0 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE

EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are effects from state agency or private activities that are reasonably certain to

occur within the area of the federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). The

future construction of a trail and viewing platform on the 2,000 lineal feet of remaining dike in the

Riekkola Unit would be considered a cumulative action. Federal actions unrelated to the proposed

action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Interdependent actions are from actions with no independent

utility apart from the proposed action. Interrelated actions include those that are part of a larger action

and depend on the larger action for justification.  

6.0 SUMMARY

The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect listed species or their habitat. Construction

could temporarily increase noise and turbidity and possibly causes listed species to avoid the immediate

work area, but best management practices would be used to reduce impacts. Therefore, this biological

evaluation reaches the following conclusions:  

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect North American green sturgeon or their designated

critical habitat;

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout or their designated critical habitat;

 may affect, not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets or their designated critical habitat;

and  
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 16

 will have no effect on Western snowy plover or their designated critical habitat.

Similarly, the proposed project will not jeopardize the streaked horned lark, a species proposed for

listing. Should the streaked horned lark become listed during the proposed project, this BE reaches the

conclusion that the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the streaked horned lark

or their critical habitat.

7.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires any project receiving federal funds or a

federal permit to undergo consultation with the “affected” Native American Tribe(s). To assist the

WBRFEG with the Section 106 consultation, a cultural resources assessment was conducted. This

assessment included a record search of the Washington State Department f Archaeology and Historic

Preservation and a review of the ethnographic ad historical literature on Native American and early

Euro‐American use of the action area. The results of the review and record search are detailed in

Appendix F. In summary, the cultural resources assessment identified two previously documented

archaeological resources directly adjacent to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE).  Sites

45PC125 and 45PC126 are pre‐contact fish traps located within the mudflats adjacent to the Bear River

channel.  Radiocarbon (C‐14) dates on the wooden stakes from 45PC126 dated the site to 1,000 Before

Present (or approximately 1000 AD).  It is anticipated other unknown fish weirs are located within the

Bear River watershed due to the limited survey area covered during the original project which

documented them.

There are no previously documented Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) identified within and/or

directly adjacent to the APE.  Ethnographic research does identify at least one place name associated

with a former village (nu?xw

as?nł ‐ “blackberry town”) that was once located near the confluence of

Bear River and Willapa Bay.  The exact village location is unknown, but it may be closely associated with

the previously documented fish traps in the area.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 17

8.0 REFERENCES

Allan, J.C., and Komar, P.D. 2000. Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Wave Climate of the North

Pacific. Report to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem.

<http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/docs/Publications/ wave_climate_rpt.pdf> (accessed

February 7, 2010).  

AMEC (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.). 2010. Bear River Estuary Restoration Project: Final

Monitoring Protocol. Prepared by Ron Craig, Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement

Group, South Bend, WA by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Bothell, WA.

Bolin, K. 2009. Wind Turbine Noise and Natural Sounds – Masking, Propagation and Modeling. Doctoral

Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, School of Engineering Sciences, Department of

Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, The Marcus Wallenberg Laboratory for Sound and

Vibrational Research, Stockholm, Sweden.

<http://www.vindenergi.org/Vindforskrapporter/V_228_avhandling_bolin.pdf>(accessed

February 7, 2010).  

Drut, M.S. and J.B. Buchanan. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Northern Pacific Coast Regional

Shorebird Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, Portland, OR.

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. River Watershed Water Quality

Improvement Projects, Olympia.<

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/willapa/Willapa.html> (accessed July 14, 2010).

Huff, Mark H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, J. Baldwin. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—The

First 10 Years (1994‐2003): Status and Trends of Populations and Nesting Habitat for the

Marbled Murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Repport PNW‐GTR‐650.

(http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr650.pdf> (accessed July 12, 2010).

Northwest Research Station. Lindley, S.T., M.L. Moser, D.L. Erickson, M. Belchik, D.W. Welch, E.

Rechisky, J.T. Kelly, J. Heublein, and A.P. Klimley. 2010. Marine Migration of North American

Green Sturgeon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa

Cruz, CA.

<http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/portals/1/HumboldtBay/Monitor/docs/Fish_NMFS_sturgeon.

pdf> (accessed July 12, 2010).

NMFS. 2009. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Northwest

Regional Office, Seattle, WA. < http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/greensturgeon.htm> (accessed January 22, 2010).
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 18

Pearson, S.F., and B. Altman. 2005. Range‐wide Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)

Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy. Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/streaked_horned_lark/streaked_horned_lark_assess

ment_strategy.pdf (accessed July 12, 2010).

Pearson, S.F., C. Sundstrom, W. Ritchie, and K. Gunther. 2009. Washington State Snowy Plover

Population Monitoring, Research, and Management: 2009 Nesting Season Research Progress

Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia.

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/documents/siteReports/Washington/2009%20Washin

gton%20Snowy%20Plover%20Research%20Update_lowest%20res.pdf (accessed July 12,

2010).

Tetra Tech (Tetra Tech, Inc.). 2005. Noise Monitoring Report, Mākua Military Reservation, Hawai’. U.S.

Army Engineer District, Honolulu, Programs and Project Management Division, Fort Shafter,

HI. <http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/makuaeis/FinalDocs/

Makua%20FEIS%20Volume%202%20Appendix%20G‐4_

Noise%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf> (accessed February 22, 2010).

TNC (The Nature Conservancy) and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Pacific

Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment. The Nature Conservancy, Portland OR.

<http://conserveonline.org/coldocs/2007/02/PNW%20Coast%20EA%20Final_Main_Report_Au

g21.pdf> (accessed July 12, 2010).

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. United States

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge Program, Ilwaco, WA.

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=13552 (accessed July 14, 2010).

Vandever, J. 2010. Beach Sizing Recommendation for Bear River Restoration Project. Memorandum to

Ryan Bartelheimer, AMEC, Bothell, Washington from Justin Vandever, Philip Williams and

Associates, LTD, San Francisco, CA, dated June 23, 2010.  

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Management

Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Olympia.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/bulltrt/bulldollyfinal.pdf (accessed July 12, 2010).

WNWR (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge). 2010. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, Illwaco, WA.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2010. Biological Assessment Preparation

for Transportation Projects – Advanced Training Manual. Washington State Department of

Transportation, Olympia.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  08/02/10

Page 19

<http://www.wsdot.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm#Manual> (accessed July

14, 2010).
Appendix A— 

ESA listed Species
	

		
				
		
	

(Updated July 1, 2009) 





Current

Endangered

Species Act 

Listing Status2

ESA Listing Actions 

Under Review 

	



Oncorhynchus

nerka

 	 Endangered 

 	 Threatened

 	 Not Warranted

 		 Not Warranted

 		 Not Warranted

  !"	
	 Not Warranted

# 	$
	%	 Not Warranted

&	



O. tshawytscha

' 		(" Endangered 

) *++&
",	+(" Endangered 

- 	+."(" Threatened 

 	/	

(" Threatened 

 $""0 Threatened 

 1&
",	 Threatened 

 *++

	 Threatened 

 &	
2	

+(" Threatened 

  &	
3	&	%	
 Threatened 

# &	
2	

/	

	0	/	

(" Species of Concern 

' *++4
		(5% Not Warranted 

) &	% Not Warranted 

- 	%&	% Not Warranted 

 600
&
",	%+(" Not Warranted 

 *++&
",	%".3	

(" Not Warranted 

 "	07&	
3	&	% Not Warranted 

 8%"%%".3	

(" Not Warranted 

&	



O. kisutch



 &	
&	
3	&	% Endangered 

  ".7&	
3	 Threatened 

# 1&
",	 Threatened &	
	,	

' &	% Threatened 

) "1%	% Undetermined

- $""0.	39	 Species of Concern 

 
+$%"
	 Not Warranted 

&"	



O. keta

 :0&		
"(" Threatened 

 &
",	 Threatened 

 $""0.	39	 Not Warranted 

 $	3&	% Not Warranted 


	0


O. mykiss)

  "&	
3	 Endangered 

# *++&
",	 Threatened 

' &	
&	
3	&	% Threatened 

) "&	
&	
3	&	% Threatened 

- 		% Threatened 

 1&
",	 Threatened 

 &	
3	&	
2	

 Threatened 

 *++

	 Threatened 

 600
&
",	 Threatened 

 7&	
3	 Threatened 

  &	% Species of Concern 

# "1%	% Not Warranted 

' 
+$%"
	 Not Warranted 

) $""0 Threatened &	
	,	

- 4
		6"	%$ Not Warranted 

$	


(O. gorbuscha)  ;(	 Not Warranted 

 00(	 Not Warranted 

 5;<03%	=%+%>
"0	0%++"
	%3	%+%3,	3%1
0
3?/$	3%	
@7<<

/%%%0%	
"	
%3	"@=;*@>	=%+%>"0;<?/$	3%
	0@7<</%%

	%0
	00%++"
	%%
8$%3%0		%=%+%>"0;<?
Page last updated: 2010-06-15 10:22:36

Page Title: ESA Other List

URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/ESA-Other-List.cfm

Other ESA-Listed Species

Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that may occur off Washington & Oregon: 

 distinct population segment, or DPS, of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) (E) in Puget 

Sound 

 distinct population segment, or DPS, of canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) (T) in 

Puget Sound 

 distinct population segment, or DPS, of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus)

(T) in Puget Sound 

 southern distinct population segment, or DPS, of eulachon (Columbia River smelt) 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) (T) 

 southern distinct population segment, or DPS, of north American green sturgeon

(Acipenser medirostris) (T), listed in the NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region

(E) = Endangered 

(T) = Threatened 

ESA Other List Page 1 of 1

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/ESA-Other-List.cfm?renderforprint=1 6/28/2010
Page last updated: 2010-06-15 11:08:13

Page Title: ESA MM List

URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/ESA-MM-List.cfm

ESA-Listed Marine Mammals

Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that may occur: 

off Washington & Oregon

 Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) (E); critical habitat

 humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (E) 

 blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (E) 

 fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) (E) 

 sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) (E) 

 sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) (E) 

 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (T); critical habitat

in Puget Sound

 Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) (E); critical habitat

 humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (E) 

 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (T); critical habitat

(E) = Endangered 

(T) = Threatened 

ESA MM List Page 1 of 1

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/ESA-MM-List.cfm?renderforprint=1 6/28/2010
Page last updated: 2010-06-17 23:03:52

Page Title: ESA Turtle List

URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/ESA-Turtle-List.cfm

ESA-Listed Marine Turtles

Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that may occur off Washington & Oregon: 

 leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (E) 

 green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (E) 

 olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) (E) 

 loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) (T) 

Sightings and strandings of these animals are very rare, and there are no 

breeding beaches in the Northwest Region. 

(E) = Endangered 

(T) = Threatened

Feb. 19, 2010: NOAA Fisheries extended the comment period on the proposed revision 

to existing critical habitat for the leatherback turtle under the Endangered Species Act. 

See the Federal Register notice (PDF 49KB) for details. 

Jan. 5, 2010: NOAA Fisheries proposed to revise and expand critical habitat for the 

leatherback turtle under the Endangered Species Act. Additional information about this 

proposal can be found in the links below and on NOAA Fisheries' Office of Protected 

Resources Website.

 News Release (PDF 73KB -- links to NOAA Fisheries Website) 

 Federal Register notice (PDF 711KB) 

ESA Turtle List Page 1 of 1

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/ESA-Turtle-List.cfm?renderforprint=1 6/28/2010
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL 

HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

IN PACIFIC COUNTY 

AS PREPARED BY 

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE

 

(Revised November 1, 2007)

 

LISTED

 

Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) [outer coast] 

 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

 

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

 

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

 

Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 

 

Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) [outer coast] 

 

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

 

Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of 

project impacts to listed species include: 

 

1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 

 

2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and 

foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 

 

LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRI... Page 1 of 3

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/PACIFIC.html 6/28/2010
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, 

increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may 

result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. 

 

 

DESIGNATED

 

Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 

 

Critical habitat for the western snowy plover 

 

 

PROPOSED

 

None 

 

 

CANDIDATE

 

Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

 

 

SPECIES OF CONCERN

 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] 

Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri) 

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) 

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) 

Makah=s copper (butterfly) (Lycaena mariposa charlottensis) [historic] 

Newcomb's littorine snail (Algamorda newcombiana) 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 

LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRI... Page 2 of 3

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/PACIFIC.html 6/28/2010
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) 

Pacific Townsend=s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) 

Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) 

Van Dyke=s salamander (Plethodon vandykei) 

Western toad (Bufo boreas) 

Abronia umbellata ssp. acutalata (pink sandverbena) 

Dodecatheon austrofrigidum (frigid shootingstar) 

Filipendula occidentalis (queen of the forest) 

Sanicula arctopoides (footsteps of spring; bear=s-foot sanicle) 

LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRI... Page 3 of 3

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/PACIFIC.html 6/28/2010
Phone: 3604843482

Refuge Action: Restoration of historical estuarine habitat (currently managed pasture

and managed freshwater impoundments) is being considered through the CCP

(Comprehensive Conservation Plan) process. Estuarine restoration is planned to occur on

portions of the Lewis, Porter Point and.Riekkola Units within the Willapa National

Wildlife Refuge in Pacific County, WA.

Part 1

I. Project Overview

1. Project Location

The proposed project is located at the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge in Pacific

County, Washington. The specific project sites are the Lewis, Porter Point and Riekkola

Units at the southern end ofWillapa Bay. The legal location ofthe sites is Township 10

North, Range 11 West and Sections 11,12,7,land 6.

2. Description of the Proposed Action

Historically, the project site was tidally connected to Willapa Bay and the Bear River.

Prior actions by the refuge in the late 1940's and early 1950's contributed to loss of this

estuarine habitat. At that time, a large portion of refuge salt marsh habitat was eliminated

by diking to create pasture lands and freshwater wetlands, believed to enhance overall .

waterfowl use of the refuge and increase land available for agricultural production. The

dikes have substantially reduced the amount of historical shoreline habitat and serve as a

barrier, reducing nutrient input to the estuary and interrupting the physical, chemical and

biological processes of the estuarine system. Small streams including Lewis stream,

Porter Point stream and Dolman creek do not connect directly with the estuary. Although

fish ladders were incorporated into two water control structures in the dike system in

2001, anadromous fish species, including salmon, are restricted in their movements to

and from spawning and rearing areas. The conversion of estuarine wetlands to freshwater

wetlands and pasture by diking has removed important natural habitat for waterfowl,

waterbirds, shorebirds, and salmon as well as many other estuarine-dependent species.

The property which consists of managed non-tidal pasture and freshwater impoundments

is currently oflow quality. During this project up to 2760.2 acres will be restored to
be considered as problems may result, including restricted tidal penetration and

circulation, ponding, and erosion (USFWS 2004). Heavy equipment utilized will include

excavators, bulldozers, scrapers, and agricultural tractors. Concentration will be on

restoration of functional processes including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native

vegetative communities and channel networks. These processes will be instrumental to

accomplish associated restoration of historical geomorphology and hydrodynamics. This

action will also reduce or eliminate the extent of a highly invasive exotic plant, reed

canarygrass, which currently infests the refuge's freshwater impoundments, Tussock

infestation will also be reduced. Other exotic species, including nutria and bullfrogs,

which currently use the freshwater impoundments will be eliminated by restoration of

estuarine habitat. Juvenile salmon habitat will be restored and other expected benefits

include increased waterfowl, waterbird, and shorebird use. Protection and restoration of

native estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal in the

North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Plan (1995) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional

Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000).

3. Project Timeline

Work on the project will commence in 2011 after approval of the CCP for the Willapa

National Wildlife Refuge. It is expected that work will occur in several stages and take

several weeks per stage, depending on weather and tides.

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat:

4. Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat

Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) - Federally Threatened. Not found within the refuge

or the action area.

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) - Federally Threatened.

Found within the refuge but not within the action area. No officially designated critical

habitat occurs on the refuge.

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)-- Federally Threatened. Found within

the refuge but not within the action area. Occupied sites exist on the refuge but no

officially designated critical habitat occurs on the refuge.
II. Effects Analysis

Species:

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) - Federally Threatened. Not found within the refuge

or the action area. NO EFFECT

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) - Federally Threatened.

Found within the refuge but not within the action area. No officially designated critical

habitat occurs on the refuge. NO EFFECT

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratusy- Federally Threatened. Found within

the refuge but not within the action area. Occupied sites exist but no officially designated

critical habitat occurs on the refuge. NO EFFECT

Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)- Found within the refuge but not

within the action area. NO EFFECT

Bull Trout

The Bull Trout is a federally listed threatened species. Bull Trout have not been found in

this portion of Willapa Bay. The nearest con finned Bull Trout was caught in the Willapa

River, the mouth of which is approximately 22 miles to the north of the project area. The

single fish was caught by a Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife technician

near river mile 29, approximately one mile downstream of the Willapa/Forks Creek State

Salmon Hatchery. There is not believed to be a breeding population in the Willapa River,

or anywhere offWillapa Bay. Bull Trout are believed to use the Willapa River only for

occasional foraging. Due to the distance from the sighting and the rarity of the sighting,

we believe that this project will not have any impact on Bull Trout.
Western Snowy Plover.

Marbled Murrelet

The Marbled Murrelet is a federally listed threatened species. Marbled Murrelets have

been detected on the Long Beach Peninsula in low densities. The nearest terrestrial

occupied habitat was documented by WDFW biologists about 2 miles southwest of the

project site in TlON, Rll W, Section 23. No potential Marbled'Murre1et habitat exists at

the project site. The project will have no effect on the Marbled Murrelet.

Streaked Horned Lark

The Streaked Homed Lark is a federal candidate species. Habitat consists of sparsely

vegetated coastal dunes. The Streaked Homed Lark is found within the refuge in the

Leadbetter Point Unit located approximately 15 miles away from the action area. It is not

found within the action area. The project will have no effect on the Streaked Homed

Lark.

III. Effects Determination and Response Requested:

Determination

A. no effect/no adverse modification

species:_Marbled Murrelet status:

species:_Western Snowy Plover status:

species: Streaked Horned Lark status:

species: Bull Trout status:

critical habitat: ~----------------------

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

B. may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical

habitat

species:

species

status:

status:
D. may affect, and is likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical

habitat

species: status: Proposed

species: status: Candidate

proposed critical habitat: _

**

**

**

6-28-2010

-----

Signature of Preparer Date

Evaluation by Project Leader:

1. For A & B above: Concurrence X Non-concurrence

-- -- ----

2. Fo~~C.above: ... Formal consultation required _

·3. For D ~bove: Conference r 'quired .

/. \-

. j. A

if /'>lttdi

Signatu ~ of Projectte~er

-/ /

. / Ii ."sr? 2t / / ( J"

. ~ f

i
North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Plan (1995) Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird

Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Final

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
Appendix B—

Design Sheets (AMEC)
































Appendix C— 

Construction Narrative (AMEC)
BEAR RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT: 

70 PERCENT DESIGN NARRATIVE 

Submitted to: 

Ron Craig 

Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group 

PO Box 46 

South Bend, WA 98586 

Submitted by: 

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 

11810 North Creek Parkway North 

Bothell, Washington 98011 

July 16, 2010 

AMEC Project No. 0-915-16933-0 
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 DEWATERING ................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Lewis and Porter Units ......................................................................................... 2

2.2 Riekkola Unit ........................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Pump System Discharge ...................................................................................... 3

2.4 Ditch Fill ............................................................................................................... 3

3.0 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ............................................................................................ 4

4.0 CROSS-DIKES ................................................................................................................ 4

5.0 DIKE MODIFICATIONS AND BREACHING .................................................................... 5

6.0 RIPRAP AND GRAVEL ................................................................................................... 5

7.0 CHANNEL DIMENSIONS AT DIKE CROSSINGS ........................................................... 6

8.0 EARTHWORK QUANTITY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 7

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1 HISTORIC CHANNEL CROSSING DETAILS...............................................7 

 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. Breach sizing recommendations for Bear River Restoration Project. 

Memorandum from PWA to Ryan Bartelheimer dated June 23, 2010. 
2

BEAR RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT 0-915-16933-0 

70 PERCENT DESIGN NARRATIVE 

July 16, 2010 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Willapa Bay Regional Fish Enhancement Group (WBRFEG) hired AMEC Earth & 

Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) and its subconsultant, Philip Williams & Associates (PWA), to 

complete a 70 percent design for the removal of approximately 5 miles of dikes and associated 

roads and drainage features in south Willapa Bay in the vicinity of the Bear River estuary, 

Washington. WBRFEG also directed AMEC to develop and implement a monitoring plan to 

document the environmental changes that will occur on the project site. 

The “Bear River Estuary Restoration Project Basis of Design” (Basis of Design; AMEC, 

May 3, 2010) gives details about the specific objectives, design considerations, and activities 

associated with the design and the monitoring plan. AMEC developed the Basis of Design in 

consultation with a design team comprising representatives of WBRFEG, the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge (WNWR), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Friends of WNWR, 

University of Washington, Pacific County, and a trusted construction contractor. 

The 70 percent design consists of the design drawings and this report, which together depict 

and describe the approach used to fulfill the objectives identified in the Basis of Design. The 

purpose of this report is to supplement information presented in the design drawings, focusing 

on important elements of the design and its implementation. 

The Bear River Estuary Restoration Project Monitoring Plan is on a different schedule and will 

be addressed in a separate report. 

2.0 DEWATERING 

Water levels should be kept low in the construction area behind the dikes in each management 

unit to facilitate construction and minimize water quality impacts. 

2.1 Lewis and Porter Units 

AMEC recommends installing temporary culverts and tide gates in the Lewis and Porter Units 

before starting work on the existing fish ladders or tide gates. This approach will keep tidal 

waters out of the area behind the dikes, while still allowing freshwater to drain to the bay during 

low tide. 

Before construction starts, operate the existing fish ladders and tide gates in the Lewis and 

Porter Units to give the area behind the dikes as much time as possible to dry out. The 

temporary culverts and tide gates will facilitate drainage of these units during construction, up 

until the time the dikes are breached. 
3

In each unit, after the area behind the dike has been dewatered, the contractor should modify 

the cross-section where the temporary culvert and tide gate are to be installed so that a shorter 

culvert can be used. Sheet piling and pumping may be required to stabilize and dewater the 

area where the temporary culvert and tide gate will be installed. Install the culvert and tide gate, 

place and compact backfill to rebuild the dike, and remove the sheet piling. Once the temporary 

tide gate is functioning, the contractor should surround the existing tide gate and fish ladder with 

sheet piling and dewater the area as described in section 2.3, “Pump System Discharge.” 

Temporary culverts can be smaller in diameter (minimum 24 inches) if they are to be removed in 

the same year they are installed. If they are to remain in place for a second year, the culverts 

should be larger in diameter (minimum 36 inches). 

2.2 Riekkola Unit 

In the Riekkola Unit (also referred to as the Parker Slough area), the existing tide gates will 

provide for unit-wide water level control. These tide gates will be removed late in the 

construction sequence when the historic stream crossing is restored at this location. 

2.3 Pump System Discharge 

The contractor should use pumps for any localized dewatering needed in the Riekkola Unit or in 

the vicinity of the fish ladders and tide gates in the Porter and Lewis units. The pump system 

should discharge to a well-vegetated location so that the water is filtered before leaving the 

project area. If the receiving area is not well-vegetated or is not adequately treating the water, 

the contractor should implement other best management practices (BMPs) to meet water quality 

criteria. 

2.4 Ditch Fill 

 Additional dewatering measures may be necessary to avoid problems associated with placing 

fill in ditches with water present. Slurry that forms while working in the ditches can be dealt with 

in one of three ways: 

1. a peristaltic pump system can be used to pump the material to a nearby containment 

area,

2. the slurry can be bailed out with an excavator and allowed to dry on the ground surface, 

or 

3. the slurry can be contained in an isolated portion of the ditch by placing fill on either side. 
4

3.0 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 

All construction access will be from Sandridge Road to 67th Place1. The construction staging will 

occur at the eastern end of 67th Place in the Riekkola Unit. Construction access to all units will 

originate from this location, following the existing roads and dikes on the project site. 

To facilitate two-way vehicle traffic on top of the dikes, AMEC recommends constructing pullouts 

at regular intervals in the Porter and Lewis Units and turnarounds near each fish ladder and tide 

gate. The plan set shows the typical details of the pullouts and turnarounds. The contractor 

should construct pullouts and turnarounds from material available locally in the dike, not brought 

in from other parts of the site. If needed, the pit-run gravelly materials in the southernmost 

cross-dike in the Lewis Unit, or other durable surfacing materials, should be used to top the 

construction travel corridors to maintain the viability of construction traffic on the dikes, pullouts, 

and turnarounds. 

The contractor should haul fill from the inner Riekkola Unit dike or create local borrow sites to 

meet the import requirements in the Lewis and Porter Units, using the top of the main dikes as 

the corridor for moving equipment and materials. The contractor should remove the pullouts and 

turnarounds during the initial stage of dike modifications. The contractor shall place the material 

from the pullouts and turnarounds into the ditches when the initial modification to the dike cross 

section is made in each unit. Typical cross-sections for these areas of the dike are shown within 

the construction drawings. 

4.0 CROSS-DIKES 

Construction will begin first in the Lewis Unit, which contains three cross-dikes. The cross-dike 

just north of the fish ladder can be removed at any time prior to breaching the main dike. The 

cross-dike south of the fish ladder can also be removed at any time prior to breaching the main 

dike, but unlike the other dikes in this unit, it is composed of imported pit-run material. AMEC 

recommends using some of this material at the ends of the ditch plugs to resist erosion. The 

ditch plug material should be at a moisture content that allows it to be placed and compacted to 

be resistant to erosion. The ditch plugs are designed to be constructed in locations that break 

up artificial outboard drainage features but that maintain channel connections downstream to 

minimize the risk of fish stranding. The cross-dike between the Lewis and Porter units will not 

be removed until later, as part of the work in the Porter Unit. 

The cross-dike between the Lewis and Porter Units will serve as a temporary sea dike after the 

Lewis Unit is deconstructed. The cross-dike could be augmented to have a similar top elevation 

and cross section as the outer dike (increasing its strength and reducing the risk of being 

overtopped), or the water level in the Porter Unit could be kept high in the winter, minimizing the 

amount of dike exposed to flowing water and the time it would take for the water levels on either 

side of the dike to equalize. The risk of a premature breach would be very low in either case. 

 

1

 The eastern end of 67th Place is identified on some maps as Honeyman Road. 
5

The design team has discussed the possibility of demolishing the Porter Unit fish ladder and tide 

gate and installing a temporary tide gate at the same time that similar work would be done in the 

Lewis Unit, which would be a year before construction in the Porter Unit. In this scenario, AMEC 

recommends raising the cross-dike between the Porter and Lewis Units, because there would 

not be water impounded within the Porter Unit to reduce the risk of a premature breach in an 

overtopping event. 

The inner dike in the Riekkola Unit may be removed at any time before breaching the main dike. 

This unit has a large surplus of fill; some of this surplus should be hauled to the Lewis and 

Porter Units, or used as fill to raise 67th Place, to help meet the material needs in those 

locations. About 2,000 lineal feet of dike is proposed to remain in the northwestern part of the 

Riekkola Unit. The top of this dike is proposed to serve as the location of a future trail and 

observation platform. AMEC recommends filling the borrow ditch along this dike and creating a 

flatter dike backslope that stays within the ditch footprint. The flattened slope will improve the 

dike’s stability, resistance to erosion during storms, aesthetics from the trail, and will provide a 

habitat face that allows wider bands or zones of different vegetation types. 

5.0 DIKE MODIFICATIONS AND BREACHING 

The Basis of Design identified the goal of completing as much work as possible before creating 

the initial dike breach in each unit. This approach relies on maintaining dry work conditions, 

excavating drainage channels, removing as much dike material as possible, and filling borrow 

ditches before breaching. Material can be removed from the top and inboard side of each dike, 

and then hauled away or placed into nearby borrow ditches. This material will be drier than 

earth fill located on the outside and lower parts of the dike. It will be easier to place and 

compact and should therefore be more resistant to erosion than wetter materials. AMEC 

recommends hauling the minimum materials needed to address fill deficits in each area, 

primarily for the outboard ditch plugs. As mentioned previously, fill should be moved between 

and within units to meet the import needs before the initial modification to the dike cross section, 

in order to make use of the existing road surface atop the dike. 

After the dike in each unit is modified as described above, the contractor should remove the 

remaining material during a neap tide cycle (minimal tidal range) in order to avoid or minimize 

the amount of water flowing into and over the construction areas. The contractor should make 

the initial breach as large as possible during an incoming tide, which will keep the outbound 

water velocities low as the first high tide recedes, minimizing sediment movement and water 

quality issues outside the project area. The contractor should finish the remaining dike 

deconstruction and ditch filling work during the same neap tide cycle, when the high tide levels 

are low enough to minimize water contacting the construction area. 

6.0 RIPRAP AND GRAVEL 

Some sections of dike or cross-dike contain riprap armoring, pit-run, or other rocky materials. 

These materials should either be buried under a minimum of 2 feet of fine-grained material to 
6

leave exposed soils that are most suitable to recreate mudflat habitat or incorporated in the 

exposed ends of the ditch plugs to minimize the potential for erosion there. 

7.0 CHANNEL DIMENSIONS AT DIKE CROSSINGS 

AMEC designed channels to be located as close as possible to where they historically existed 

and sized them so that tidal processes would accelerate the re-establishment of natural 

topography and vegetation conditions. AMEC used regression equations that correlate 

measured tidal channel characteristics to the size of tidal marsh areas that drain through these 

channels, and compared the results to measurements obtained from recent and historic aerial 

photographs. The stormwater flow rates were calculated using USGS regression equations. 

The drainage basin and the tidal basin areas used in the calculations were derived by 

delineating these basins from available elevation data. The channel sizes on this project are 

dictated by tidal processes rather than precipitation processes, which will be clarified later in this 

section. 

The plans depict the channels as trapezoidal in cross section. The most important parameters 

are the elevation and width of channel bottoms and the slope of the channel sides. In all cases, 

AMEC calculated that much larger channels are needed to convey tidal waters than runoff from 

precipitation. Table 1 lists the recommended depths and bottom widths for channels to be 

reconnected at dike crossings in the restored units. The recommended depths and widths for 

the channels have been computed conservatively. These recommended configurations 

represent predicted channel sizes and depths, using empirical relationships from other 

locations, extrapolated to the tide range at this project site. There are a number of uncertainties 

in the relationships, local factors, and data. Therefore, the historic channel depths should be 

constructed at an elevation no higher than existing, and as close as possible to the 

recommended elevation. Similarly, the bottom width should be constructed at least as wide as 

the existing channels on both sides of the restored crossing, and as close as possible to the 

recommended width. AMEC recommends that side slopes should be made at least as flat as 

the existing outboard channel, with as close to 3:1 as possible. Because of the shallow side 

slopes needed for stability, the resulting channel top widths are greater than those calculated by 

the regression equations. The cross-sectional areas of the reconnected channels should 

therefore be adequate to convey tidal flows under conditions that will exist following 

construction. If the existing channel on the bay side of a historic channel crossing is at a lower 

elevation or is wider than what is listed in the table, the channel should be constructed to the 

lower elevation and/or wider width of the existing channel. AMEC also recommends removing 

vegetation and root mass along the top and edges of the existing inboard and outboard 

channels, and excavating a transition area between the restored channels and the existing 

channels. 
7

Table 2. Historic channel crossing details 

Historic 

Crossing 

To Be 

Restored

Bottom 

Elevation 

(NAVD ft)

Bottom Width 

(feet)

RX1 -4.8 31.0

RX2 -0.2 10.0

RX3 -5.8 42.0

RX4 -3.3 16.0

RX5 -3.2 16.0

PX1 1.8 3.0

PX2 1.3 6.0

PX3 2.0 3.0

PX4 1.9 3.0

PX5 1.6 6.0

PX6 1.1 4.0

PX7 0.0 12.0

LX1 0.2 3.0

LX2 -1.5 8.0

LX3 3.6 8.0

LX4 3.1 12.0

LX5 0.4 4.0

LX6 1.9 6.0

The ground on the landward side of the dikes has subsided by approximately 1-3 feet since the 

dikes were built, so the quantity and rate of water flowing through the reconnected channels will 

be greater than in a salt marsh without subsidence. However, the beds of historical channels 

outside the dikes have since aggraded due to a reduction in tidal flows through them since the 

dikes were built. Following construction, outboard channels are expected to eventually revert to 

their historical sizes and depths. Channels on the inside of the dikes can be expected initially to 

deepen and widen but then gradually to aggrade and become more narrow as sediment is 

deposited over the larger subsided area. Channels will reach equilibrium when ground 

elevations on the inside of the dike approximately equal those on the outboard side. As this 

happens, AMEC predicts that the channels will evolve to sizes and depths closer to those 

predicted by the tidal drainage area relationships than what currently exists. 

8.0 EARTHWORK QUANTITY CONSIDERATIONS 

AMEC calculated earthwork quantities for this project using survey data from CTS Engineers, 

where available. For those features not surveyed, volumes are best professional estimates 

based on interpretation of aerial photography and comparison with similar surveyed features on 

site. All volumes were calculated as in-place yardage. The overall balance of material to be 

imported or exported depends significantly on the conditions experienced in the field. To 

address potential material shortages resulting from varying conditions, AMEC has identified 

contingency borrow areas in both the Porter and Lewis Units. 
8

Cut and fill actions are organized in an approximately sequential order in the table on Sheet 25 

of the design set. Cut features are listed on the left-hand column of the table, with the proposed 

destinations for that material shown as fill features across each row of the table. Although 

organized in the table by unit, certain earthwork actions, most notably the removal of the inboard 

Riekkola Unit dike, in different units can be completed concurrently without breaching external 

dikes. Variations in soil material, quality, and moisture content, along with compaction 

conditions, will result in volumes different from those calculated. 
Appendix D— 

Species Life Histories
Bear River BE.pdf  7/31/10

Page 1 

APPENDIX D 

LIFE HISTORIES

INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides brief descriptions of the life histories of species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) that may occur in the action area of the proposed project. The species discussed 

herein include:

 North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris);

 Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus); 

 Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus); and

 Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata).

NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON

This section presents descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population trends of the North 

American green sturgeon. 

Life History

The North American green sturgeon (green sturgeon) is a long-lived, slow-growing fish and the most 

marine-oriented of the sturgeon species. Mature males range from 4.5 to 6.5 feet in fork length and do 

not mature until they are at least 15 years old, while mature females range from 5 to 7 feet in fork 

length and do not mature until they are at least 17 years old. Maximum ages of adult green sturgeon are 

likely to range from 60 to 70 years. 

Green sturgeon lack scales; however, they have five rows of characteristic bony plates on their body 

called scuutes. The backbone of the green sturgeon curves upward into the caudal fin, forming their 

shark-like tail. On the underside of their flattened snouts are sensory barbels and a siphon-shaped, 

protrusible, toothless mouth. Recent genetic information suggests that green sturgeon in North 

America is taxonomically distinct from morphologically similar forms in Asia (NMFS 2009b). 

Green sturgeon are believed to spend the majority of their lives in nearshore oceanic waters, bays, and 

estuaries. Early life-history stages reside in fresh water, with adults returning to freshwater to spawn 

when they are more than 15 years of age and over 4 feet in size. Spawning is believed to occur every 2 

to 5 years. Adults typically migrate into fresh water beginning in late February; spawning occurs from 

March to July, with peak activity from April to June. Females produce 60,000 to 140,000 eggs. Juvenile 

green sturgeon spend 1 to 4 years in fresh and estuarine waters before dispersal to saltwater. They 

disperse widely in the ocean after their out-migration from freshwater (NMFS 2009b). 
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 2 

The only feeding data available for adult green sturgeon shows that they eat benthic invertebrates, 

including shrimp, mollusks, amphipods, and even small fish (NMFS 2009b). 

Distribution and Habitat

The green sturgeon is the most broadly distributed, wide-ranging, and marine-oriented species of the 

sturgeon family, ranging from Mexico to at least Alaska in marine waters, and is observed in bays and 

estuaries up and down the west coast of North America (NMFS 2009b). 

The historical and current spawning distribution of this species is unclear, as green sturgeon make 

non-spawning movements into coastal lagoons and bays in the late summer to fall, and because their 

original spawning distribution may have been reduced due to harvest and other anthropogenic effects. 

Today, green sturgeon are believed to spawn in the Rogue River, Klamath River Basin, and the 

Sacramento River. Spawning appears to occur rarely in the Umpqua River. Green sturgeon in the South 

Fork of the Trinity River were thought extirpated, but juveniles have been captured at Willow Creek on 

the Trinity River, and it is suspected that the fish could be coming from either the South Fork or the 

Trinity River. Green sturgeon appear to occasionally occupy the Eel River (NMFS 2009b). 

Green sturgeon utilize both freshwater and saltwater habitat, spawning in deep pools or “holes” in 

large, turbulent, freshwater river mainstems. Eggs are likely broadcast over large cobble substrates, 

and may be deposited in clean sand to bedrock substrates as well. Regardless, it is likely that cold, clean 

water is important for proper embryonic development (NMFS 2009b). 

Adults live in oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries when not spawning. Green sturgeon are known to 

forage in estuaries and bays ranging from San Francisco Bay to British Columbia (NMFS 2009b). 

Population Trend

Good data on current population sizes does not exist and data on population trends are lacking (NMFS

2009b). 

BULL TROUT

This section presents descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population trends of bull trout.

Life History

Bull trout typically use pristine headwater areas to spawn (WDFW 1998). Spawning begins in late 

August, peaks in September and October, and ends in November. Fish in a given stream spawn over a 

period of two weeks or fewer. Almost immediately after spawning, adults begin to work their way back 

to the mainstem rivers, lakes, or reservoirs to overwinter. Some of these fish stay in these areas while 

others move into salt water in the spring. Bull trout will spawn a second or even third time. Kelts (adults 

that have spawned) feed aggressively to recover from the stress of spawning (WDFW 1998).
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 3 

Newly hatched bull trout emerge from the gravel in the spring (WDFW 1998). Adfluvial, fluvial, and 

anadromous bull trout typically spend two years in fresh water before they migrate to lakes, reservoirs, 

the mainstems of rivers, or salt water. Nonmigratory populations spend their entire lives in the same 

stretch of headwater stream. Fish that exhibit this behavior may not mature until they are 7 to 8 years 

old, and rarely reach sizes greater than 14 inches in length (WDFW 1998).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, eating aquatic insects, shrimp, snails, leeches, fish eggs, and fish.

Contrary to earlier beliefs, these fish are generally no longer considered serious predators of salmon 

and steelhead (WDFW 1998).

Distribution and Habitat

The historical range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest at about 41 to 60 

degrees North latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the 

Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in the Northwest Territories, Canada. To 

the west, bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and 

southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and tributaries within the basin, 

including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of 

south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the 

Saskatchewan River in Alberta and Montana and in the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British 

Columbia, Canada (USFWS 2002).

Population Trend

Although bull trout are presently widespread within their historical range in the coterminous United 

States, they have declined in overall distribution and abundance during the last century. Retaining 

migratory forms of bull trout in a population is important because these forms allow fish access to more 

resources (i.e., food and habitat), opportunities for genetic exchange, and the ability to recolonize 

habitats after local extirpations (e.g., by a watershed-wide disturbance affecting all bull trout in a 

resident population) (USFWS 2002). In Washington, WDFW has identified 80 bull trout populations, of 

which 14 were considered in healthy condition, two were in poor condition, six were in critical condition, 

and 58 were in unknown condition (WDFW 1998).

MARBLED MURRELET

This section presents descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population trends of the marbled 

murrelet.

Life History

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird that nests in the coastal, old-growth forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. In contrast to other seabirds, murrelets do not form dense colonies and may fly about 43 

miles or more inland to nest, generally in older coniferous forests. They are more commonly found 

inland during the summer breeding season, but make daily trips to the ocean to gather food and have 
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 4 

been detected in forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending their 

days feeding and then moving several kilometers offshore at night (SEI 2006). 

The breeding season of the marbled murrelet generally begins in April, with most egg-laying occurring 

in late May and early June. Peak hatching occurs in July after a 27- to 30-day incubation. Chicks remain 

in the nest and are fed by both parents. By the end of August, chicks have fledged and dispersed from 

nesting areas (Marks and Bishop 1997). The marbled murrelet differs from other seabirds in that its 

primary nesting habitat is old-growth coniferous forest within 50 to 75 miles of the coast. The nest 

typically consists of a depression on a moss-covered branch where a single egg is laid. Marbled 

murrelets appear to exhibit high fidelity to their nesting areas and have been observed in forest stands 

for up to 20 years (Marks and Bishop 1997). 

Marbled murrelets are presumably a long-lived species but are characterized by low fecundity (one egg 

per nest) and low nesting and fledging success. Fledging success has been estimated at 45 percent.

Nest predation on both eggs and chicks appears to be higher for marbled murrelets than for other 

alcids and may be cause for concern. Principal predators are birds, primarily corvids (jays, ravens, and 

crows) (Marks and Bishop 1997). 

At sea, foraging murrelets are usually found as widely spaced pairs. In some instances murrelets form or 

join flocks that are often associated with river plumes and currents. These flocks may contain sizable 

portions of local populations (Ralph and Miller 1994). 

Distribution and Habitat 

The marbled murrelet inhabits the Pacific Coast of North America from the Bering Sea to central 

California (SEI 2006). 

Marbled murrelets are more commonly found inland during the summer breeding season, but make 

daily trips to the ocean to gather food, primarily fish and invertebrates, and have been detected in 

forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending their days feeding and 

then moving several kilometers offshore at night (SEI 2006). Marbled murrelets feed in nearshore 

marine waters, mainly within 1 to 2 km from shore, consuming small fish such as Pacific herring, Pacific 

sand lance, sardines, and juvenile salmonids, as well as invertebrates such as euphasids and shrimp 

(USFWS 1997). 

Throughout the forested portion of the species’ range, marbled murrelets used forest stands with 

old-growth forest characteristics, generally within 80 km of the coast for nesting. The farthest known 

nesting site from the marine environment in Washington is 63 km. In Washington, marbled murrelet 

detections increased when old-growth/mature forests comprised more than 30 percent of the 

landscape, but decreased when the percentage of clear-cut/meadow in the landscape increased above 

25 percent (USFWS 1997). 
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 5 

Population Trend

With declines documented separately for Conservation Zones 1 through 5 (coastal area from California 

to Washington) and Conservation Zone 6 (Strait of Juan de Fuca/Puget Sound), the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that the listed population has declined significantly since 2002, the 

year of the estimate in the USFWS’ previous 5-year review. For Conservation Zones 1 through 5 

combined, population estimates from monitoring for 2000 to 2008 indicate an annual rate of decline in 

the range of 2.4 to 4.3 percent. For Conservation Zone 6, new data indicate an annual decline of about 

15 percent between 2003 and 2008. Based on the tri-state estimate of about 24,400 birds used in the 

analysis for the 2004 5-year review, the 2008 population estimate of about 18,000 birds represents a 

decline of about 26 percent across the listed range from that estimate (USFWS 2009a). 

WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER

This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and 

conservation efforts for the western snowy plover. 

Life History

The western snowy plover is a small shorebird distinguished from other plovers (family Charadriidae) by 

its small size, pale brown upper parts, dark patches on either side of the upper breast, and dark gray to 

blackish legs. Snowy plovers weigh between 1.2 and 2 ounces. They are about 5.9 to 6.6 inches long 

(USFWS 2010a). 

The nesting season extends from early March through late September. The breeding season generally 

begins earlier in more southerly latitudes, and may be 2 to 4 weeks earlier in southern California than in 

Oregon and Washington. Fledging of late-season broods may extend into the third week of September 

throughout the breeding range. Nests typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates.

Vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent. The typical clutch size is three eggs but can 

range from two, and in rare cases, up to six eggs (USFWS 2010a). 

Snowy plover chicks leave the nest within hours after hatching to search for food. They are not able to 

fly for approximately 4 weeks after hatching, during which time they are especially vulnerable to 

predation. Adult plovers do not feed their chicks, but lead them to suitable feeding areas. Adults use 

distraction displays to lure predators and people away from chicks. Adult plovers signal the chicks to 

crouch, with calls, as another way to protect them. They may also lead chicks, especially larger ones, 

away from predators. Most chick mortality occurs within 6 days after hatching (USFWS 2010a). 

Snowy plovers are primarily visual foragers. They forage on invertebrates in the wet sand and among 

surf-cast kelp within the intertidal zone; in dry, sandy areas above the high tide; on salt pans; and along 

the edges of salt marshes, salt ponds, and lagoons. They nest in open, flat, sparsely vegetated beaches 

and sand spits above the high tide. Plovers often return to the same breeding sites year after year 

(USFWS 2010a). 
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 6 

Distribution and Habitat 

The Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover is defined as those individuals that nest 

beside or near tidal waters, and includes all nesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore 

islands, adjacent bays, and estuaries from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico.

Historic records indicate that western snowy plovers nested in at least 29 locations on the Oregon 

coast. Currently, only eight locations in Oregon support nesting western snowy plovers, a 72-percent 

reduction in active breeding locations. 

The Pacific Coast population of western snowy plovers breeds on coastal beaches from southern 

Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. Plovers lay their eggs in shallow depressions in sandy 

or salty areas that generally do not have much vegetation. Because the sites they choose are in loose 

sand or soil, nesting habitat is constantly changing under the influence of wind, waves, storms, and 

encroaching plants (USFWS 2010a). 

Population Trend

The current Pacific Coast breeding population of snowy plover extends from Damon Point, 

Washington, to Bahia Magdalena, Baja California, Mexico (ICF 2009). There are approximately 2,230 

breeding birds along the Pacific coast of California, 162 resident adults in Oregon, and 70 adult birds in 

Washington (ICF 2009). In 2008, the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center observed 187 to 199 

adult snowy plovers; a minimum of 129 individuals were known to have nested. The adult plover 

population was the highest estimate recorded since monitoring began in 1990 (USFWS 2009b). A 

survey of breeding snowy plovers along the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico, in 1991 and 1992 

found 1,344 adults. A current population estimate for Baja Mexico is 2,470 (ICF 2009).

The Pacific Coast population of snowy plover in Oregon was once found along the entire coast but is 

currently located among eight breeding areas from Florence south (ICF, 2009). Oregon breeding sites in 

2006 included Sutton Beach, the Siltcoos River Estuary, beachgrass removal sites at Dunes Overlook, 

the Tahkenitch Creek Estuary, the Tenmile Creek Estuary, Coos Bay North Spit, Bandon State Nature 

Area, and the New River spit area. Other Oregon sites where snowy plovers have nested in the recent 

past (since 1980) include the beach between Clatsop Spit and Gearhart, mouth of the Necanicum River, 

Bayocean Spit, Sand Lake Spits, South Beach (Newport), mouth of the Siuslaw River, Threemile 

Creek/Umpqua River, Menasha Spoils (Coos Bay North Spit), and the Floras Lake area (ICF 2009). 

As early as the 1970s, observers suspected a decline in plover numbers. The primary cause of decline is 

loss and degradation of habitat. The introduced European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) contributes 

to habitat loss by reducing the amount of open, sandy habitat and contributing to steepened beaches 

and increased habitat for predators. Urban development has reduced the available habitat for western 

snowy plovers while increasing the intensity of human use, resulting in increased disturbance to nesting 

plovers. 
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 7 

STREAKED HORNED LARK

This section presents descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population trends of the streaked 

horn lark.

Life History

The streaked horned lark is small, ground-dwelling songbird with conspicuous feather tufts, or “horns,” 

on its head. Its back is heavily streaked with black, contrasting sharply with its deeply ruddy nape and 

yellow underparts.

Nesting begins in late March and continues into June. The nest consists of a shallow depression built in 

the open or near a grass clump and lined with fine dead grasses. The female lays a clutch of three to five 

heavily streaked white eggs. Incubation is only 11 days and the young are able to fly within 9 to 12 days 

after hatching. Horned larks are mainly insect eaters but may eat seeds in winter (USFWS 2010b).

Distribution and Habitat

The streaked horned lark once occurred from British Columbia, Canada, south to northern California. In 

Oregon, the streaked horned lark was a common summer resident in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and 

Willamette Valleys, as well as many other smaller valleys on the west side of the Cascade Mountain 

range. Streaked horned larks winter in eastern Washington, Oregon, and Northern California (USFWS 

2010b).

The streaked horned lark nests and breeds in short herbaceous vegetation (<30 centimeters [cm] tall 

[about 12 inches]) where woody plants are absent and a relatively high percentage of bare ground and 

patches of sparsely vegetated areas are interspersed with more densely vegetated patches (Altman 

1999). Canadian and U.S. surveys indicate that the streaked horned lark currently breeds on prairie 

remnants and airports in the southern Puget lowlands, on beaches and accreted lands near Grays 

Harbor and Willapa Bays, on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River, on an industrial site along the 

lower Columbia River in Oregon, and on a number of agricultural, pasture, grass, and mudflat habitats 

in the Willamette Valley from Portland to Eugene, Oregon. Streaked horned larks winter along the 

Washington Coast on dunes and beaches adjacent to open water with few or no trees and shrubs 

(Pearson and Altman 2005).

Population Trend

Although population estimates are not exact, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 

estimates that there are approximately 774 streaked horned larks with 29 percent breeding in the Puget 

lowlands, 11 percent breeding on the Washington Coast, 9 percent breeding on the lower Columbia 

River, and 51 percent breeding in the Willamette Valley (Pearson and Altman 2005).
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 8 

REFERENCES

Altman, B. 1999. Status and conservation of state sensitive grassland bird species in the Willamette 

Valley.: Unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis.

ICF (ICF Jones & Stokes). 2009. Habitat Conservation Plan for the western snowy plover, August (J&S 

06537.06) [online report]. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Parks and 

Recreation Department, Salem. URL: <http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/HCP-EIS.shtml> 

(accessed February 11, 2010).

Marks, D., and Bishop, M.A. 1997. Status of the marbled murrelet along the proposed Shepard Point 

Road corridor – interim report for field work conducted May 1996 to May 1997, Habitat and 

Biological Assessment Shepard Point Road Project. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Copper River Delta Institute, U.S. Forest Service, Cordova, Alaska.

NMFS. 2009b. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) [online report]. NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. URL: <http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/greensturgeon.htm> (accessed January 22, 2010).

Pearson, S.F., and Altman, B. 2005. Range-wide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

assessment and preliminary conservation strategy [online report]. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. URL: <http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/ 

streaked_horned_lark/streaked_horned_lark_assessment_strategy.pdf> (accessed May 23, 

2006).

Ralph, C.J., and Miller, S. 1994. Marbled murrelet conservation assessment research highlights. Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Forest Service, Arcata, 

California. 

SEI (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute). 2006. Endangered species – marbled murrelet [online report]. 

SEI, Portland, Oregon. URL: <http://www.sei.org/murrelet.html#core> (accessed January 23, 

2006). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. USFWS, Portland, 

Oregon.

USFWS. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, 

Oregon.

USFWS. 2009a. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-year review [online report]. USFWS, 

Portland, Oregon. URL: <http://ecos.fws.gov/ 

speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08C> (accessed August 5, 2009).
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Assessment

Bear River BE.pdf  07/13/10

Page 9 

USFWS. 2009b. Western snowy plover, key information on the Oregon Coast population [online 

report]. USFWS, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Newport Field Office, Newport. URL: 

<http://www.fws.gov/oregonFWO/FieldOffices/Newport/ WesternSnowyPlover/default.asp> 

(accessed January 27, 2010). 

USFWS. 2010a. Species fact sheet, western snowy (coastal) plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

[online report]. USFWS, Oregon Fish & Wildlife Office, Pacific Region Ecological Services, 

Portland. URL: <http://www.fws.gov/oregonFWO/ 

Species/Data/WesternSnowyPlover/default.asp> (accessed February 11, 2010). 

USFWS. 2010b. Species Fact Sheet, Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) [online 

report]. USFWS, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland. URL: 

<http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/StreakedHornedLark/> (accessed July 5, 2010).

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. Washington bull trout and Dolly Varden 

fact sheet [online report]. WDFW, Olympia. URL: 

<http://wdfw.wa.gov/outreach/fishing/char.htm> (accessed July 5, 2010).
Appendix E— 

EFH Assessment
Bear River BE.pdf   7/31/10

Page 1

APPENDIX E

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

ACTION AGENCY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

LOCATION

The project is located within the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Pacific County,

Washington at Township 10 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1, 6, 7, 11, and 12 and Township 10 North,

Range 10 West, Section 6. The project area is within the Lewis, Porter Point, and Riekkola Units in the

Refuge at the southern end of Willapa Bay, just west of the mouth of Bear River.  

PROJECT NAME

Bear River Estuary Restoration, Pacific County, Washington

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND

The Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104‐267), requires federal agencies to consult with the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that

may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (NMFS, 1999).  

This assessment evaluates the impacts of the proposed project to determine whether it “may adversely

affect” designated EFH for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action area. The

assessment also describes conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential

adverse effects of the proposed action on designated EFH.  

IDENTIFICATION OF EFH

Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that could have designated EFH in the action

area are listed in the table below. Several of these species are not typically found in the high‐energy

regime of the action area. Assessment of the impacts on species that may occur in the action area is

based on life‐history stages described in Casillas et al. (1998) and PFMC (1998a, 1998b, and 1999).  
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  7/31/10

Page 2

Species of Fish with Designated Essential Fish Habitat in the Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Groundfish Groundfish (cont.)

arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus

big skate Raja binoculata   petrale sole Eopsetta jordani

black rockfish Sebastes melanops   quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger  

bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis   ratfish Hydrolagus colliei  

brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus   redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki  

butter sole Isopsetta isolepis redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger  

cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus

California skate Raja inornata   rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata

canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger   rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus  

China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus  

copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus   rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus

curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria

darkblotch rockfish Sebastes crameri   sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus  

Dover sole Microstomus pacificus sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus

English sole Parophrys vetulus   shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus  

flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias  

greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus   splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa  

hake Merluccius productus   starry flounder Platichthys stellatus  

jack mackeral Trachurus symmetricus striptail rockfish Sebastes saxicola  

kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus

lingcod Ophiodon elongatus   vermilion rockfish Sebastes miniatus

longnose skate Raja rhina   yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus  

Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus  

Pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus  

Coastal Pelagic Salmonid Species

anchovy Engraulis mordax   Chinook salmon   Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

market squid   Loligo opalescens   coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch  

Pacific mackerel   Scomber japonicus   pink salmon   Oncorhynchus gorbuscha  

Pacific sardine   Sardinops sagax  
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  7/31/10

Page 3

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project would remove about 5.74 miles of existing dike, 38 culverts, 2 fish ladders, 2 tide

gates, and 2 foot bridges, and reconnect 18 estuary channels; resulting in up to 760 acres of restored

estuarine habitat. The resorted habitat includes reconnection of stream channels to the estuarine

environment, open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh. Unrestricted tidal exchange is the goal and

historic channels currently isolated within diked areas which are now removed from tidal influence will

be reconnected to the Willapa Bay estuary. The proposed project will assist in improving and

maximizing the current estuarine system and contribute to the health of the bay and associated

habitats. In addition, the proposed project would reduce or eliminate the extent of a highly invasive

exotic plant, reed canarygrass, which currently infests the refuge's freshwater impoundments. Tussock

infestation will also be reduced. Other exotic species, including nutria and bullfrogs, which currently use

the freshwater ponds behind the dike will be eliminated by restoration of estuarine habitat. Juvenile

salmon habitat will be restored and other expected benefits include increased waterfowl, waterbird,

and shorebird use. Protection and restoration of native estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major

ecoregional and recovery goal in the Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment (TNC and WDFW

2006) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000).

For a more detailed project description, see Section 2.2 of the Draft Biological Evaluation.  

POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

Groundfish Species

The proposed project could affect EFH beneficially for a limited number of groundfish species by

creating 750 acres of intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats. Construction could affect EFH adversely by

creating temporary and localized increases in turbidity and could eliminate nonmobile benthic and

epibenthic food sources within the footprint of the base of the dike area.  

Coastal Pelagic Species

The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect EFH for coastal pelagic species because the

project area is limited to intertidal and subtidal zones, where coastal pelagic species are unlikely.  

Salmonid Species

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch), particularly juveniles of these

species, may occur in the project area or immediately offshore at any time of the year. Because of

project timing, few, if any, juvenile or adult Chinook are expected to be in the action area during

construction. The proposed project would increase turbidity briefly in the project area, possibly causing

salmonids to avoid certain areas in the vicinity. This possible impact would be temporary and not

persist beyond the construction period. The proposed project would affect salmonids beneficially by

creating 750 acres of intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats.
Bear River Estuary Restoration Biological Evaluation

Bear River BE.pdf  7/31/10

Page 4

CONSERVATION MEASURES

Implementing the conservation measures specified in Section 2.2.3 of the Draft Biological Evaluation

would avoid and minimize potential adverse effects of the proposed project.

CONCLUSION

As described above, the proposed activities may cause temporary, localized adverse impacts on certain

EFH parameters but should not reduce the overall value of the EFH of managed species. After

completion of the proposed project, the disturbed areas would be recolonized and the benthic and

epibenthic communities should return to conditions similar to those before project construction. The

project would create 760 acres of intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats. Although the proposed project may

have localized and temporary adverse effects on designated EFH for groundfish and salmonids, the

conservation measures described above would avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset such adverse

effects.  

REFERENCES

Casillas, E., Crockett, L., deReynier, Y., Glock, J., Helvey, M., Meyer, B., Schmitt, C., Yoklavich, M.,

Bailey, A., Chao, B., Johnson, B., and Pepperell, T. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast

Groundfish Appendix. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.  

Drut, M.S. and J.B. Buchanan. 2000. U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Northern Pacific Coast Regional

Shorebird Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat consultation guidance. NMFS,

Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland.  

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998a. The coastal pelagic species fishery management

plan – amendment 8. PFMC, Portland, Oregon.  

PFMC. 1998b. Final environmental assessment/ regulatory review for amendment 11 to the Pacific

Coast groundfish fishery management plan. PFMC, Portland, Oregon.  

PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon plan – appendix a, description and

identification of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation

measures for salmon. PFMC, Portland, Oregon.  

TNC (The Nature Conservancy) and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Pacific

Northwest Coast ecoregional assessment. The Nature Conservancy, Portland Oregon.

<http://conserveonline.org/coldocs/2007/02/PNW%20Coast%20EA%20Final_Main_Report_Au

g21.pdf> (accessed July 12, 2010).
Appendix F— 

Cultural Resources 

Assessment (AMEC)
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET 

Author: Cooper, Jason B., M.A., R.P.A

 

Title of Report: Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Bear River 

Estuary Restoration Project, Pacific County, Washington 

Date of Report: July 30, 2010

County: Pacific Section: 1, 11, and 12 Township: 10 North Range: 11 W and 

Section: 6, 7, and 18 Township: 10 North Range: 10 W

Quads: Chinook, Long Beach, Ocean Park, and Cape 

Disappointment Acres: 760

PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes

Historic Property Export Files submitted? Yes No

Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No

TCP(s) found? Yes No

Replace a draft? Yes No

Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No

DAHP Archaeological Site #: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Submission of paper copy is required. 

• Please submit paper copies of reports 

unbound. 

• Submission of PDFs is required. 

• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to 

DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, 

graphics, appendices, attachments, 

correspondence, etc., compiled into one 

single PDF file. 

• Please check that the PDF displays 

correctly when opened. 

 
PROJECT REVIEW SHEET – EZ1 

HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW 

PROPERTY / CLIENT NAME: 	

FUNDING AGENCY: 




Project Applicant: 
	

Contact Person: 

Address:  

City, State: !" Zip: #$%$   County: 

Phone/ FAX: & '$(% ')*& '$(%%$')

E-Mail: +,-


Funding Agency:

 Organization: 


 Address: '#.(

 City, State: 
/01 Zip: #$%'2'#.(

Phone: 3& '4#')2

5

Date prepared: July 30, 2010 

PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED WORK AND DETAIL ALL GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDE 

PHOTOS OF AREAS OF WORK. 

Provide a detailed description of the proposed project: 

See attached existing conditions report. 

 

 Describe the existing project site conditions: 

See attached existing conditions report. 

 

 Describe the proposed ground disturbing activities: 

See attached existing conditions report. 

 

 Check if building(s) will be altered or demolished. If so please complete a DAHP 

Determination of Eligibility “EZ2” form for each building effected by the proposed 

project. 

PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF WORK TO BE COMPLETED 

(Be as detailed as possible to avoid having to provide additional information)
 

Project Location 

Township: 10 and 11 North Range: .'.. Section: /

 Address: City: County: Pacific

See Figures within the attached existing condition report 

Please be aware that this form may only initiate consultation. For some 

projects, DAHP may require additional information to complete our review 

such as plans, specifications, and photographs. An historic property 

inventory form may need to be completed by a qualified preservation 

professional. 

 

PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF A 7.5 SERIES 

USGS QUAD MAP AND OUTLINE THE PROJECT INPACT AREA. 

(USGS Quad maps are available on-line at http: www.topozone.com)
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 

11810 North Creek Parkway N 

Bothell, Washington 98011 

(425) 368-1000 Phone 

(425) 368-1001 Facsimile 

www.amec.com 

July 30, 2010 

9-915-17055-0 

Cherry Creek Environmental 

146 North Canal Street, Suite 111 

Seattle, Washington 98103-8652 

Attention: Kerrie McArthur 

Subject: Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Bear River Estuary 

Restoration Project, Pacific County, Washington 

Dear Kerrie: 

A record search and literature review was conducted on July 26, 2010 on the Washington State 

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) electronic database by a qualified 

AMEC cultural resources specialist for the Bear River Estuary Restoration Project (Project). A 

one-mile study area was investigated surrounding the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), 

which is situated in Pacific County, Washington. The proposed Project is located partially within 

Sections 1, 11, and 12 of Township 10 North, Range 11 West and Sections 6, 7, and 18 of 

Township 10 North, Range 10 West, Willamette Meridian (USGS Chinook, Long Beach, Ocean 

Park, and Camp Disappointment, WA-OR 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles [1949; 

photorevised 1984]) (Figure 1). 

In 2009, the Willapa Bay Regional Fish Enhancement Group obtained funding from the 

Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board 1 to develop design plans for removing 

approximately 5 miles of levees, thereby restoring tidal exchange and high quality estuarine 

habitat to 760 acres on its landward side (Figure 1-1). The levees and associated water 

management features were constructed over the last 50 years. Since the Project will be 

receiving either federal funds and/or federal permit to complete this work, it must comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), its 

implementing regulations in 36 C.F.R. 800. 

To assist Cherry Creek Environmental in submitting a Biological Evaluation for the Project, 

AMEC conducted a background literature review and record search of the DAHP electronic 

database and provided an existing conditions report that documents our results of the record 

search. The level of effort and information provided in this document is geared toward initiating 

the Section 106 of the NHPA process. Formal consultation, known as government-togovernment consultation, is required between the lead federal agency and affected Native 
Page 2 

Bear River Estuary Restoration Project July 2010 

Project No.: 0-915-17055-0 

American tribes under Section 106. AMEC was scoped to assemble cultural resources 

information that is known about the APE and identify areas that may contain unknown and 

significant cultural resources. There was no fieldwork associated with this phase of cultural 

resources work. If fieldwork is determined necessary at a later date, this effort will be conducted 

under a separate task order. 

RECORD SEARCH RESULTS 

The record search and literature review indicated that there are two previously documented 

archaeological sites within and/or adjacent to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). 

Sites 45PC125 and 45PC126 are fish traps and located approximately 500 feet east of the APE 

near the point where Bear River reaches Willapa Bay. They were recorded during a surveying 

effort to map archaeological resources of the Willapa Bay area (Losey 2006a). 

Site 45PC125, termed Big Bear River Fish Trap, consists of three closely spaced lines of 

densely packed vertical wood stakes that parallel the river channel for much of their length. 

Stakes in the features were a mix of branch wood and split stakes. Many protruded far above 

the mudflat surface. All wood stakes were vertical, and no horizontal elements were noted 

(Losey 2006b). 

Site 45PC126, termed Otter Fish Trap, consists of four lines of densely arranged stakes and two 

lines of widely spaced single larger posts/stakes. The features are being eroded at their north 

end by the outer edge of the river channel as it turns northward. Stakes in the features were a 

mix of branch wood and split stakes. Radiocarbon tests on the portions of two wood stakes 

resulted in dating the age of the fish trap to approximately 1000 B.P. (Losey 2006c). 

The first systematic attempt to identify archaeological resources near the Project area was 

conducted by Dr. Richard Daugherty in the 1940s. Dr. Daugherty (1947) surveyed large coastal 

sections of Washington, including the Willapa Bay area. 

Abramowitz (1980) reported on a cultural resource survey of portions of the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge in Pacific County for the Office of Public Archaeology. No evidence of cultural 

resources were recorded during their survey, but the author did indicate that archaeological 

deposits may be present further upstream on Bear River associated with potential Chinook 

winter village locations or for travel camps (Abramowitz 1980). 

Cooper (2009) conducted a cultural resources survey and evaluation of the Oman Berm-Tarlatt 

Slough Set-Back Project for WSDOT. A pedestrian survey coupled with an extensive subsurface exploration program (i.e., shovel test probes and mechanical trenching) failed to identify 

any archaeological resources. AMEC documented a primary ditch, east/west lateral ditches, a 

dike and several footbridges as a historic-era structure. AMEC recommended the water 

management feature as not being eligible for listing in the NRHP because it lacked association 

with an historic event and/or persons. 
Page 3 

Bear River Estuary Restoration Project July 2010 

Project No.: 0-915-17055-0 

GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 

The APE is predominately covered by Ocosta silty clay loam, a clayey alluvial soil deposited in 

coastal bays (Pringle 1986). Upland areas within the project area are generally covered by 

Willapa silt loam soils, which typically develop in marine sediment on coastal terraces. The APE 

is categorized as Agriculture (AG) by the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan. Agricultural land 

in the County is classified as: (1) “agricultural land of long-term significance,” including all land 

devoted to the production of aquaculture, cranberries, or other bog related crops; and (2) 

“agricultural land of local importance,” including diked tideland involved in existing and ongoing 

activities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

There are two previously documented archaeological resources directly adjacent to the Project’s 

Area of Potential Effects (APE). Sites 45PC125 and 45PC126 are pre-contact fish traps located 

within the mudflats adjacent to the Bear River channel. Radiocarbon (C-14) dates on the 

wooden stakes from 45PC126 dated the site to 1,000 Before Present (or approximately 1000 

AD). It is anticipated other unknown fish traps are located within the Bear River watershed due 

to the limited survey area covered during the original project which documented them. 

Based on the evaluation of historic aerial photographs of the APE, the dike and ditch drainage 

system that extends from Tarlatt Slough around Porter Point to the Bear River channel was built 

/ improved upon between 1942 and 1959. This would make the water management feature at 

least 50 years old. 

There are no previously documented Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) identified within the 

APE. Ethnographic research does identify one place name associated with a former Chinook 

village (nu?xwas?nł - “blackberry town”) that was once located near the confluence of Bear River 

and Willapa Bay, immediately outside the Project’s APE. The exact village location is unknown, 

but it may be closely associated with the previously documented fish traps in the area. 

Government-to-government consultation with all affected Native American tribes, as directed by 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, is required for this 

project. Consultation with the affected Native American tribes may identify culturally sensitive 

areas within the watershed that would require further evaluation. 

Please feel free to call (425.368.0953) or email (jason.cooper@amec.com) if you have any 

questions about this existing conditions report. 
Page 4 

Bear River Estuary Restoration Project July 2010 

Project No.: 0-915-17055-0 

 Sincerely, 

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 

Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA 

Senior Archaeologist 

Attachments-Figures 1, 1-1, and 1-2 

REFERENCES 

Abramowitz, A.W. 

1980 A Cultural Resource Survey of Lewis, Porter Point and Riekkola Units, Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge, Pacific County, Washington. Submitted to U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Lower Columbia River Refuge Complex, Longview, 

Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

Daugherty, R.D. 

1947 Archaeological Research Conducted along the Coastal Area of the State of 

Washington. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 

Cooper, J.B. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Oman Berm Tarlatt Slough Set-Back 

Project, Pacific County, Washington. Prepared for WSDOT under Contract Y10800-AA. Submitted by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Bothell, Washington. 

Losey, R.J. 

2006a Report on the Survey of Willapa Bay, Washington for Ancient Fish Traps. 

Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 

2006b Site 45PC125. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file 

at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 

Olympia. 
Page 5 

Bear River Estuary Restoration Project July 2010 

Project No.: 0-915-17055-0 

2006c Site 45PC126. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file 

at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 

Olympia. 

Pringle, R.F. 

1986 Soil Survey of Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific County, and Wahkiakum 

County, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

and Washington State University, Agriculture Research Center. 

























 





















Bear Rive

Willapa Bay Regiona

Willapa Na

Legend

 Water Control Structures/Crossings To Be Removed

Historic Channels To Be Restored

Roads To Be RemovedDitches To Be FilledDikes To Be RemovedDike To Remain For Trail



1,000 0 1,000 500

Feet

AMEC Earth & Environmental11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011

2006 Aerial Photo with2009 Aerial Photoin Right Center of Map

Tarlatt Slough

Parker Slough

Lewis Fish 

Riekkola

Tide 

Gate

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

Appendix P. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Draft Site Plan P-1 

Appendix P. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters Draft Site Plan 

 
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS 

P-2 Appendix P. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Draft Site Plan 
WILLAPA NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE HEADQUARTERS

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

August 2010

VISITOR CENTER

EVENT SPACE

SHOP BUILDING

LARGE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

FILLING STATION

BONEYARD

HAZMAT

SMALL EQUIPMENT STORAGE

CARPORT

BOAT STORAGE

95 TH STREET

STANDARD EQUIPMENT 

STORAGE

DROP-OFF

VISITOR AND STAFF PARKING

FLEET VEHICLES AND

STAFF PARKING

100’ DIAMETER

VEHICLE 

TURNAROUND

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

COVERED SHELTER 

(TO ACCOMODATE 60 PEOPLE)

NATURE PLAY AREA

ENTRY SIGN

TARLETT SLOUGH

DRAFT 

SITE PLAN

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

0’ 50’ 100’ 200’
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

3888 State Route 101

Ilwaco, WA 98624-9707

Phone: 360/484 3482

Fax: 360/484 3109

http://www.fws.gov

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 2010

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

is working with others to conserve, protect, and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Cover Photos:

Black brant / © David Pitkin

River otters / © Dmitri Azovtsev

Snowy plover / © Peter LaTourrette

Chum salmon / © Rudy Schuver

Pacific giant salamander / California State University, Chico