Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Nisqually National

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives,

and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best

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

substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service

strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a

commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases or funding for

future land acquisition.


Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND.................................................... 1-1 

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

1.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purpose .......................................... 1-2 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ................. 1-7 

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................ 1-8 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................................... 1-8 

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System.................................................. 1-8 

CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS........... 2-1

2.1 The Nisqually NWR CCP Process............................................................. 2-1 

 2.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others ............................................... 2-2 

2.2.1 Public Involvement....................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.2 Interest Group and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination ...... 2-4 

2.2.3 Tribal Consultation/Coordination.................................................. 2-5 

2.3 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EIS................................. 2-5 

2.4 Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.......................................... 2-5 

CHAPTER 3: REFUGE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 3-1

 3.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................ 3-1 

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

3.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.3 Geology........................................................................................ 3-3 

3.1.4 Soils ............................................................................................. 3-4 

3.1.5 Environmental Contaminants ....................................................... 3-5 

3.2 Vegetation and Habitat Resources............................................................ 3-8 

3.2.1 Habitats and Vegetation Communities ......................................... 3-8 

3.2.2 State and Regional Trends for Key Habitats Represented 

at Nisqually NWR....................................................................... 3-24 

3.2.3 Plants, Including Exotic and Invasive Species ........................... 3-24 

3.3 Fisheries Habitats and Resources........................................................... 3-26 

3.3.1 Pacific Salmon ........................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.2 Forage Fish................................................................................ 3-30 

3.3.3 Other Fishes .............................................................................. 3-31 

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Fish.............................................. 3-33 

3.4 Wildlife..................................................................................................... 3-34 

3.4.1 Waterfowl ................................................................................... 3-34 

3.4.2 Waterbirds and Seabirds............................................................ 3-37 

3.4.3 Shorebirds.................................................................................. 3-38 

3.4.4 Landbirds ................................................................................... 3-39 

3.4.5 Marine Mammals........................................................................ 3-41 

3.4.6 Land Mammals........................................................................... 3-41 

3.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................... 3-42 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page ii Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

3.4.8 Invertebrates .............................................................................. 3-42 

3.4.9 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species .......................................... 3-43 

3.4.10 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species........................ 3-43 

3.4.11 State-listed Species ................................................................... 3-44 

3.5 Special Uses............................................................................................ 3-44 

3.5.1 Haying........................................................................................ 3-44 

3.5.2 Scientific Research .................................................................... 3-44 

3.5.3 Tribal Fishing.............................................................................. 3-44 

3.6 Public Access, Education, and Recreational Opportunities ..................... 3-45 

3.6.1 Public Access............................................................................. 3-45 

3.6.2 Recreation.................................................................................. 3-46 

3.6.3 Environmental Education ........................................................... 3-52 

3.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-53 

3.7.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape...................... 3-53 

3.7.2 Euro-American Cultural History.................................................. 3-54 

3.8 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................... 3-56 

3.8.1 Socioeconomic Setting............................................................... 3-56 

3.8.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 3-60 

3.8.3 Land Use.................................................................................... 3-61 

3.8.4 Refuge Management Economics .............................................. 3-64 

3.8.5 Area Recreation Sector.............................................................. 3-67 

3.8.6 Agricultural Sector .................................................................... 3-69 

3.8.7 Commercial Shellfishing............................................................. 3-69 

CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................... 4-1

4.1 Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines........................................... 4-1 

4.2 Land Protection Policies and Guidelines ................................................... 4-1 

4.2.1 Refuge Boundary and Expansion................................................. 4-1 

4.2.2 Land Protection Methods ............................................................. 4-2 

4.2.3 Land Protection Priorities ............................................................. 4-3 

4.3 Management Plan for Nisqually NWR ....................................................... 4-3 

4.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................... 4-11 

4.4.1 Overview .................................................................................... 4-11 

4.4.2 Detailed Description of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ... 4-11 

CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ............................................. 5-1

5.1 Funding and Personnel............................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Step-Down Management Plans.................................................................. 5-1 

5.3 Partnership Opportunities........................................................................... 5-4 

5.4 Projects ...................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................ 5-12 

5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................ 5-12 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page iii 

FIGURES: 

Figure 1.1-1 Regional Context............................................................................... 1-3 

Figure 1.1-2 Current Ownership within the CCP Study Area ................................. 1-5 

Figure 3.2-1 Major Habitat Types and Wildlife Typical of the Refuge .................... 3-9 

Figure 3.2-2 CCP Study Area Habitat Types ....................................................... 3-11 

Figure 3.2-3 National Wetland Inventory of Regional Estuarine Wetlands .......... 3-15 

Figure 3.2-4 Historic (1878) and Current Wetlands in the Nisqually Delta........... 3-17 

Figure 3.2-5 Overall Losses in Salt Marsh Acres for Puget Sound 

River Deltas..................................................................................... 3-25 

Figure 3.2-6 Distribution of Invasive Reed Canary Grass, 1997.......................... 3-27 

Figure 3.4-1 Waterfowl Survey Units ................................................................... 3-35 

Figure 3.6-1 Current Authorized Public Recreation within the Study Area........... 3-47 

Figure 3.8-1 Special Designated Areas ............................................................... 3-65 

Figure 4.3-1 Management Plan ............................................................................. 4-5 

TABLES: 

Table 3.2-1 Summary of Habitat Types and Acres Within the CCP Study 

Area................................................................................................. 3-13 

Table 3.3-1 Representative Fish Species Inhabiting the Estuarine Habitats 

of the Refuge................................................................................... 3-29 

Table 3.8-1 Local Population Trends.................................................................. 3-57 

Table 4.3-1 Components of the CCP.................................................................... 4-7 

Table 5.1-1 Current Staffing ................................................................................. 5-2 

Table 5.1-2 Future (Proposed) Staffing ................................................................ 5-2 

Table 5.2-1 Step-down Management Plans ......................................................... 5-3 

Table 5.4-1 Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List................................ 5-6 

Table 5.5-1 CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects.......................................... 5-14 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page iv Table of Contents 

APPENDICES 

A* Glossary of Terms/Acronyms & Abbreviations 

B Distribution List 

C* References 

D Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 

E* Nisqually NWR Species List 

E.1 Plant List 

E.2 Wildlife List 

F1 Plan Implementation 

G* Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Actions 

G.1 Recreational Boating 

G.2 Recreational Fishing 

G.3 Waterfowl Hunting 

G.4 Environmental Education 

G.5 Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

G.6 Research 

G.7 Agriculture - Haying 

H List of Preparers 

I

2

 Goals, Objectives and Strategies 

J* Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary 

K* Land Protection Plan 

L* Wilderness Review 

M Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses 

N*3

 Record of Decision (ROD) 

*Appendices in bold and designated with an asterisk (*) are included with this 

CCP. Unbolded appendices (without an asterisk) are included only with the Final 

CCP/EIS document, but are cross-referenced as appropriate throughout this CCP. 

1

Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 5 of this CCP. 

2

Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 4 of this CCP. 

3

New appendix, exclusive to the CCP (not part of the CCP/EIS).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 

Introduction & Background 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 1-1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is located at the southern end of Puget 

Sound, Washington in the Nisqually River delta (Figure 1.1-1). The 2,925-acre Refuge, located 

in Thurston and Pierce counties, is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and 

protects one of the few relatively undeveloped large estuaries remaining in Puget Sound. The 

Refuge has international significance as a staging area, sanctuary, and migration stopover for 

migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. The Refuge also has regional importance as migration 

and rearing habitat for salmon, particularly the Federally listed fall chinook salmon. A more 

detailed description of the environment and resources on the Refuge is contained in Chapter 3. 

The south Puget Sound region, with its rapidly growing urban development, is undergoing 

dramatic changes in population and landscape. Some areas within the study area that are 

currently proposed for development are ecologically inseparable from Refuge habitats. Eighty 

percent of estuarine habitat has been lost in Puget Sound in the last 150 years, contributing to the 

decline of many fish and wildlife that depend on estuaries, including several salmon species 

(Dean et al. 2000). The Refuge’s diked freshwater wetlands were historically estuarine and 

habitat quality has declined. 

Nisqually NWR has become an urban Refuge easily accessible to outdoor enthusiasts. Visitor 

use and interest in the Refuge have increased as residential developments expand in the nearby 

cities of Lacey, DuPont, Olympia, and the Seattle-Tacoma area. Thousands of students and 

teachers participate in the Refuge’s environmental education program. The Refuge is an ideal 

setting to provide an improved and expanded education program to respond to this growing 

need. More than 100,000 visitors come to Nisqually NWR each year to participate in wildlife 

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

shellfishing. As Refuge use has increased, so have conflicts among visitors and concerns over 

meeting the needs of fish and wildlife species. These planning issues, concerns, and 

opportunities are described further in Chapter 2. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Nisqually NWR describes a bold new vision 

for management of Nisqually NWR. The vision is detailed in Chapter 4, Management Direction, 

which contains new goals, objectives, and strategies. Most significant are its new objectives for 

habitat restoration including restoring 699 acres of diked freshwater marsh to estuarine habitat. 

Also, the CCP nearly doubles the size of the Refuge boundary and contains numerous other 

management strategies to increase the quality of Refuge public use activities or bring them into 

compatibility with Refuge purposes and policies and guidelines of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS or System). The CCP will guide management of Refuge operations, habitat 

restoration, and visitor services for the next 15 years. The CCP replaces the 1978 Conceptual 

Plan (CH2M Hill et al. 1978) as the primary management guidance document for the Refuge. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background 

The former approved Refuge boundary totaled 3,936 acres. Figure 1.1-2 identifies the CCP 

Study Area, which was used during the planning process to identify potential areas for Refuge 

expansion that could be incorporated into the various action alternatives in the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) developed to analyze CCP implementation (USFWS 2004). The CCP 

Study Area totals 9,326 acres and includes the bluffs east of the Refuge and lands south of 

Interstate 5 (I-5) along approximately 6 miles of the Nisqually River corridor and 2.5 miles up 

McAllister Creek to its headwaters at McAllister Springs. The new approved Refuge boundary 

consists of 7,415 acres, and thus reflects a portion of the CCP Study Area. Any reference made 

to the study area in this document refers to the 9,326-acre CCP Study Area. 

1.2 HISTORY OF REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE 

The proximity of the Nisqually delta to two major urban centers, Tacoma and Olympia, has 

exposed it to numerous development threats over the years. In 1965, the Port of Tacoma 

proposed developing 1,100 acres of the Nisqually River Estuary as a deepwater port facility. 

Largely as a result of citizen efforts led by conservationist and teacher Margaret McKenny and 

the Nisqually Delta Association, the proposal was denied (Burg 1984). In 1967, the Port of 

Olympia proposed development of an aluminum mill on the delta (Stevenson 1998). In 1966 and 

1967, to further stave off development, the Washington State Department of Game (now the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]) purchased holdings of approximately 

616 acres of delta tidelands and salt marshes (USFWS 1977; Guth 1998). 

In 1970, the Nisqually River Task Force (see Section 5.4.2 in the CCP/EIS) was created to assist 

in preserving and protecting the river and delta. In 1971, in recognition of the significance of the 

area as a natural estuarine and aquatic ecosystem, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated 

the estuarine portion of the Nisqually River delta as a National Natural Landmark (see Figure 

1.1-2). The Nisqually River Task Force recommended in 1972 that the delta be set aside as a 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

In February 1974, in recognition of the area’s unique fish and wildlife resources, the Brown 

Farm property and tidelands were acquired for inclusion in the NWRS as Nisqually NWR. In 

total, 1,285 acres of diked grasslands, freshwater marshes, and tidelands were initially purchased 

with funds approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act and subsequently placed under the management of the Service 

(Hesselbart 1977a). Revenue from the sale of Duck Stamps is the primary source of funding for 

those lands purchased under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Three other funding sources 

include appropriations authorized by the Wetlands Loan Act, import duties collected on arms 

and ammunition, and receipts from the sale of Refuge admission permits. Nisqually NWR was 

established with the following purposes: 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds” (16 U.S.C. ss 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 
!

!

!

!

!

!

TUALATIN 

RIVER 

NWR

BASKETT SLOUGH NWR

ANKENY NWR

WILLIAM L. FINLEY NWR

DUNGENESS

NWR

PROTECTION

ISLAND

NWR

GRAYS 

HARBOR

NWR

WILLAPA

NWR

JULIA BUTLER HANSEN

REFUGE FOR THE COLUMBIAN 

WHITE TAIL DEER

SILETZ BAY 

NWR

STEIGERWALD LAKE NWR

FRANZ LAKE NWR

PIERCE NWR

BANDON

MARSH

NWR 

NESTUCCA 

BAY NWR

BLACK RIVER 

UNIT

CAPE MEARES

NWR

COPALIS

NWR

QUILLAYUTE

NEEDLES

NWR

FLATTERY

ROCKS

NWR

THREE ARCH

ROCKS NWR

LEWIS AND

CLARK NWR

OREGON

ISLANDS

NWR

RIDGEFIELD NWR

SAN JUAN

ISLANDS

NWR

P

a

c i f i c

O

c

e

a

n

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA NEVADA

IDAHO

Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge

¥¦§5

¥¦§90

¥¦§84

¥¦§82

Salem

Eugene

Tacoma Olympia

Seattle

Portland

Area

Enlarged

Pacific 

Flyway

Regional Context

Figure 1.1-1

N

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003 P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\Figure1_1_1.mxd

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge

Nisqually River Watershed

North Pacific Coast Ecoregion

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

March 2005 Page 1-3
 ̈§¦5

Nisqually River

Sound

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

Nisqually Delta

McAll si ter C reek

Puget

McAllister Springs

 ̈§¦5

Nisqually River

Sound

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

Nisqually Delta

McAll si ter C reek

Puget

McAllister Springs

Current Ownership within CCP Study Area

Figure 1.1-2

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003 P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\Figure1_1_2.mxd

0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles

1:70,000

Legend

Current Ownership within CCP Study Area

Nisqually Tribe WDFW

Private USFWS

City of Olympia

Ft. Lewis Military 

Reservation

County

No Data

CCP Study Area

N

Aerial Photo 1990

Approved Nisqually 

NWR Boundary

Burlington-Northern

Railroad

County Line

March 2005 Page 1-5
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 1-7 

“... 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 1977, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to expand the Refuge boundary and 

authorize the acquisition of approximately 3,780 acres of delta lands (USFWS 1977). One year 

later, a Conceptual Plan and associated EA were developed for the Refuge (CH2M Hill et al. 

1978). These documents provided initial direction for managing wildlife, habitat, and public 

use. The Conceptual Plan designated a Research Natural Area (RNA) in the northeast corner and 

habitat management, surface water control, and haying within the diked interior to provide 

forage and cover for waterfowl. 

In 1996, the Service acquired a 107-acre parcel on the top of the West Bluff. Funding for this 

parcel came from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is supported by proceeds from 

off-shore oil and gas development. A total of 516 acres of tidelands was also transferred from 

the Department of Army to the Refuge. 

By 2000, the Service had acquired 76% (or 2,925 acres) within the approved Refuge boundary. 

These lands consist primarily of the Nisqually River, the delta estuary, McAllister Creek, diked 

freshwater wetlands and grasslands, and upland bluffs to the west. The diked area includes 

approximately 1,000 acres of Refuge lands between the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. 

Refuge buildings, roads, parking lots, and an old orchard are located at the southeast corner of 

the Refuge. 

In November 2000, Congress appropriated an additional $2 million of Land and Water 

Conservation Funds earmarked for a land purchase on the East Bluff of the delta. In December 

2004, the Service purchased 20 acres of forested habitat from the Cascade Land Conservancy, 

who had purchased the land from Quadrant, a subsidiary of Weyerhauser on behalf of the 

Service. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION 

PLAN 

The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to provide the Service, the NWRS, 

partners, and citizens with a management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions 

and Refuge infrastructure for wildlife and public use on Nisqually NWR over the next 15 years. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) requires 

that all National Wildlife Refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. 

Implementing the approved CCP will ensure that the Service manages Nisqually NWR to 

achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, and goals and to help fulfill the mission of the NWRS. 

Specifically, the CCP: (1) determined that the Refuge boundary should be expanded; (2) 

determined the extent of restoration of historic estuarine habitat; (3) addressed the compatibility 

and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education; (4) addressed 

waterfowl hunting and related needs for sufficient wildlife sanctuary; and (5) provided a basis 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 1-8 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background 

for budget requests to support the Refuge’s operational needs for staffing, operations, 

maintenance, and capital improvements. 

1.4 LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE 

Nisqually NWR and its management and administrative activities are managed as part of the 

NWRS within a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines. The Refuge is guided by 

the mission and goals of the NWRS, the purpose of the Refuge as described in its acquisition 

authority, Service policy, Federal laws and executive orders, and international treaties. Below is 

a discussion of concepts and guidance for the System covered in the NWRS Administration Act 

of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (USFWS 1981), and, more recently, through the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. A list of other laws and Executive Orders 

that may affect the CCP for Nisqually NWR or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is 

provided in Appendix D of the Final CCP/EIS. 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Nisqually NWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the 

Interior. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing 

the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this 

responsibility with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific 

trust responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and certain 

anadromous fish and marine mammals. The Service also has similar trust responsibilities for the 

lands and waters it administers to support the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife. 

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: 

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

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) 

Starting with the first Refuge, Florida’s Pelican Island NWR established in 1903 by President 

Theodore Roosevelt, the NWRS has grown to 100 million acres in size, including 542 National 

Wildlife Refuges. The NWRS is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and 

wildlife conservation in the nation. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on 

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

The administration, management, and growth of the NWRS are guided by the following goals 

(Director’s Order No. 132, as amended on March 31, 2003):

• Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve Refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission. 

• Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 1-9 

• Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations. 

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

• Conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems. 

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and their 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, high quality, and compatible wildlifedependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

1.4.2.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amends the 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by defining a unifying mission for all Refuges, 

including a new process for determining compatible uses on Refuges, and requiring that each 

Refuge be managed under a CCP. The Act expressly states that wildlife conservation is the 

priority of NWRS lands and that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Refuge lands are maintained. Each Refuge must 

be managed to fulfill the NWRS mission and the specific purposes for which the Refuge was 

established. The first priority of each Refuge is to conserve, manage, and, if needed, restore fish 

and wildlife populations and habitats according to its purpose. The Service has statutory 

authority under the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act and the Improvement Act to 

regulate activities that occur on water bodies “within” a Refuge. The Improvement Act requires 

that a CCP be completed for each Refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an 

opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is Service policy that 

CCPs are developed in an open public process and that the agency is committed to securing 

public input throughout the process. 

Compatibility Policy 

Lands within the NWRS are different from other, multiple-use public lands in that they are 

closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No Refuge use may be allowed 

unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound 

professional judgement of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the mission of the NWRS or the purposes of the Refuge. The Improvement 

Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As priority public uses 

of the NWRS, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and 

management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans...” The policy is an additional directive for Refuge managers to follow 

while achieving Refuge purpose(s) and System mission. It provides for the consideration and 

protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on Refuges and 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 1-10 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background 

associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for Refuges, 

Refuge Managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their Refuges’ contribution 

to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound 

professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of Refuge resources, Refuge 

role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation 

with others both inside and outside the Service. 

1.4.2.2 Research Natural Area Policy 

Research Natural Areas (RNA) have special status on lands managed by the Service. 

Guidance for the operation of RNAs is provided in Section 8 RM 10 of the Service’s 

Refuge Manual. The purposes of RNAs are: 

(1) “...to preserve adequate examples of all major ecosystem types or other outstanding 

physical or biological phenomena;” 

(2) “To provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and others in the 

observation, study, and monitoring of the environment;” and 

(3) “...to preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and 

animals, including endangered or threatened species.” 

According to the Manual: 

“activities on RNAs are limited to research, study, observation, monitoring, and 

educational activities that are non-destructive, non-manipulative, and maintain 

unmodified conditions. Picnicking, camping, collecting plants, gathering nuts and herbs, 

picking berries, hunting, fishing, trapping, and other public uses which contribute to 

modification of a Research Natural Area should be discontinued or expressly prohibited 

if such uses threaten serious impairment of research and education values.” (USFWS 

1981) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 2-1 

CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANNING 

PROCESS 

2.1 THE NISQUALLY NWR CCP PROCESS 

The CCP process for Nisqually NWR met the dual requirements of compliance with the 

Improvement Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), both of which require the 

Service to actively seek public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents. 

NEPA also requires the Service to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives to its Preferred 

Alternative including the “No Action” alternative, which represents continuation of current 

conditions and management practices. The Final CCP/EIS, dated August 2004, evaluated four 

alternatives for Refuge management. The Record of Decision (ROD), dated November 1, 2004, 

selected Alternative D as the Proposed Action. 

Key steps in the CCP/EIS process include: 

1. Form the Planning Team and conduct pre-planning 

2. Initiate public involvement and scoping 

3. Identify issues and develop vision and goal statements 

4. Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects 

5. Identify the Preferred Alternative 

6. Publish the Draft CCP and NEPA Document 

7. Revise and Publish a Final Plan 

8. Implement the CCP 

During the summer of 1995, Nisqually NWR staff initiated preliminary habitat management 

planning. Interest was based on a desire to reevaluate how habitat was managed and to guide 

improvements for areas of deteriorating habitat quality. After the Refuge experienced severe 

flooding in 1996, comprehensive planning was initiated, and public scoping meetings were held 

during 1996 and 1997 to gather comments on issues to be addressed in the CCP. The CCP 

process is guided by the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 

602 FW2.1, Draft, November 1996 and Final, June 2000). 

In 1997, a core team of Refuge and Regional Office staff was established to prepare the CCP. 

An internal Service technical work group was also formed to advise on the technical aspects and 

management strategies of the plan. This technical work group met five times during the 

planning process to review and comment on the progress of the plan. The list of preparers as 

well as other participants can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix H of the Final CCP/EIS. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 2-2 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

During 1997, the Refuge also established a cooperative management agreement with Ducks 

Unlimited (DU) to assist with the CCP and provide technical support on habitat management and 

restoration. In early 1998, the Service and DU hired ENSR, a Redmond, Washington-based 

consulting firm, to prepare a hydrodynamic and sediment transport model to assess restoration 

alternatives on the Nisqually River delta. The model and evaluation of restoration alternatives 

were presented in a technical report completed by ENSR in May 1999. A summary of this report 

can be found in Appendix J. 

In this same month, an analysis in support of the CCP, titled “The Regional Context of Intertidal 

Habitat Restoration in the Nisqually River Delta” was produced by Curtis Tanner (1999). Also, 

a “Characterization of Fishes in the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach” was developed by 

Carrie Cook-Tabor (1999) in support of the planning process. In September 2000, the Service 

hired EDAW, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to assist the agency in completing the 

CCP/EIS and assist with public involvement. 

Like most Refuges, the CCP process was carried out at the same time that existing management 

programs continued. Habitat management and public use programs steadily increased in size 

and complexity during this time and the Refuge met all of its administrative demands. The 7- to 

8-year timeframe to complete the CCP and its EIS was long, but one should consider the 

following factors. Flood damage to the Refuge and its facilities in 1996 resulted in a complete 

rebuilding of the Refuge headquarters including design and construction of a new visitor center, 

maintenance complex, parking lot and entrance road, and boardwalk trail (completed in 1999); 

planning guidance was lacking as the national planning and compatibility policies were being 

written during the early stages of the plan (policies were completed in 2000); many staffing 

changes occurred; the Refuge Complex was restructured, splitting it into two complexes in 1999; 

and the Refuge had to respond to damage caused by a 2001 earthquake measuring 6.8 magnitude 

with the epicenter located in the Nisqually River delta. Since its establishment in 1974, the 8 

years, 1996 to 2004, will stand out in Nisqually’s history. It seemed that several events 

converged and were in some way connected to the significant change in management direction 

proposed by the CCP. 

2.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 

This section describes consultation and coordination efforts with the public, interested groups, 

other agencies, and tribes. A Public Involvement Plan was completed February 4, 1998 that 

described goals and procedures that would be used to ensure full public involvement in 

developing the CCP. 

2.2.1 Public Involvement 

Public involvement is an important component of Federal planning and was given considerable 

attention in the Nisqually NWR CCP process. Public involvement began with a preliminary 

scoping meeting on July 25, 1996. Refuge staff gave more than 50 presentations to a variety of 

groups. Tools used to encourage public involvement included public meetings, Planning Update 

newsletters, workbooks, workshops, presentations, web pages, and Federal Register notices. The 

Final CCP/EIS was revised from the Draft CCP/EIS (released in December 2002) based on 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 2-3 

extensive public comment received on the draft document. The full comment and response 

process of the Draft is described in detail in Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS. 

The following summarizes public outreach, including public meetings/open houses, workshops, 

Planning Update mailings, and Federal Register notices. 

2.2.1.1 Public Meetings / Open Houses 

Scoping Meeting: The first scoping meeting was held on July 25, 1996 in Lacey, Washington. 

Thirty participants came to discuss habitat management concerns within the diked area, provide 

input on key issues, and help to identify partners. 

Open Houses: Two open houses were held on November 18 and 19, 1997 in Lacey and 

Tacoma, Washington. The purpose of these meetings was to encourage public input by 

providing an informal opportunity for the public to learn about and comment on the CCP 

process. The meetings were attended by 151 people who provided input on Refuge goals, 

Refuge expansion, eight draft habitat restoration alternatives, and a wide range of public use 

issues, including trail access and configuration, waterfowl hunting, fishing, environmental 

education, personal watercraft, boating, and wildlife disturbance issues. 

Public Meetings: Two meetings were held on January 15 and 16, 2003, to provide the public 

opportunities to review, discuss, and provide comments on the Draft CCP/EIS. The meetings 

were held at Nisqually NWR and in Tacoma and were attended by 250 people. A wide range of 

subjects were discussed and are summarized in Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS. 

2.2.1.2 Workshops 

Grassland Workshop: On May 13, 1998, a technical Grassland Workshop was conducted at 

Nisqually NWR. Eight technical experts reviewed historic and current grassland conditions and 

developed recommendations for improving grassland wildlife habitat on the Refuge. 

Public Use Workshop: Sixty-five representatives of local groups or organizations with specific 

interests in public use and education participated in a Public Use Workshop on June 2, 1998 in 

Lacey, Washington. Workshop attendees were divided into six focus groups to provide input on 

these topics: (1) boating and kayaking; (2) hunting and fishing; (3) hiking, photography, and 

bird watching; (4) outdoor recreation providers and planners; (5) tourism; and (6) environmental 

education. 

Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Workshops: Two technical workshops were held on June 

29-30, 1998 and June 3, 1999 to focus on estuarine and freshwater wetland management on the 

Refuge. Fifteen to 18 technical experts reviewed historic and current habitat conditions, 

conducted site visits, and provided recommendations for future restoration and management of 

Refuge wetlands. They provided input on estuarine restoration, wetland loss, invasive species, 

monitoring, and provided recommendations on specific habitat restoration alternatives. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 2-4 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

2.2.1.3 Planning Update Mailings 

The Service published eight Planning Updates and one Issues Workbook as part of public 

outreach efforts. These were sent to everyone on the CCP mailing list. In addition, the Issues 

Workbook was handed out at the November 1997 public open houses. Planning Update #6 was 

also summarized in the April 2002 issue of the McAllister Water News published by the City of 

Olympia. The seventh Planning Update announced the release of the Final CCP/EIS and the last 

update announced release of the Record of Decision. Planning Updates were published in 

August 1996, November 1996, November 1997, April 1998, December 1998, June 2001, August 

2004, and November 2004. 

2.2.1.4 Federal Register Notices 

A formal “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan and Associated 

Environmental Document” was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1997. Later in 

the process, the Service decided to prepare an EIS for the CCP. For this, a second Notice of 

Intent was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2000. A Notice of Availability was 

published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2002, which announced the availability of the 

Draft CCP/EIS for public review with comments due on February 21, 2003, and two public open 

house meetings to be held in January 2003. A Notice of Availability of the Final CCP/EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2004. A Notice of Decision and Availability of 

the Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2004.

2.2.2 Interest Group and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination 

Refuge staff gave more than 50 presentations to a variety of groups on- and off-Refuge, 

providing a summary and update on the CCP process, key issues, and soliciting public input. 

These groups included: local Audubon chapters, Evergreen College classes, Kiwanis Club of 

Olympia, Rotary Club in Tacoma, National Marine Fisheries Service technical group, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers wetland training classes, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Sierra Club, Thurston 

County Leadership Council, Nisqually Summer Lecture Series, among others. 

Service staff participated in panel discussions on estuarine wetland restoration at two Society of 

Wetland Scientists Northwest Chapter Meetings on May 6, 1996 in Olympia, Washington with 

approximately 45 attendees and on May 21, 1998 in Tacoma, Washington with about 200 

participants. The panelists included university scientists, agency and tribal representatives, and 

other restoration professionals. Discussions centered around the issues and challenges of 

estuarine restoration in Puget Sound as related to Nisqually NWR. 

The Refuge Manager met individually with the three Thurston County Commissioners on May 

17 and June 4, 2001, summarizing the CCP key issues and focusing on Refuge expansion. A 

meeting was held with representatives of Congressman Adam Smith’s and Congressman Brian 

Baird’s local offices on May 23, 2001 to summarize CCP key issues, the schedule, and focus on 

Refuge expansion. Briefings were provided to Congressmen Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, and 

Brian Baird during the planning process, and to representatives from Senator Patty Murray’s 

office. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 2-5 

Several meetings were held with major landowners within the expansion study area, including 

Fort Lewis, Weyerhaeuser, City of Olympia, and some of the farmers with the largest land 

holdings in the Nisqually Valley, to summarize the CCP process, key issues, and schedule, with 

a focus on Refuge expansion and solicit further comment. Coordination meetings were also held 

with the City of DuPont. Fort Lewis was given the opportunity to comment on the internal 

review draft of the CCP/EIS. 

The Service gave five presentations to the Nisqually River Council during the planning process. 

The Council includes more than 20 key partners and citizen participants. Meeting dates included 

November 19, 1999; May 18, 2001; August 17, 2001; April 19, 2002; and January 17, 2003. 

The Service met with the WDFW seven times during the planning process. WDFW was given 

the opportunity to comment on an internal review draft of the CCP/EIS. Meeting dates were on 

January 29, 1998; November 9, 2000; April 17, 2001; May 1, 2001; May 17, 2001; September 

14, 2001; and October 5, 2001. 

2.2.3 Tribal Consultation/Coordination 

The Service met with the Nisqually Indian Tribe 14 times during the course of the planning 

process, and they were given the opportunity to comment on an internal review draft of the 

CCP/EIS. Meeting dates included: 

June 23, 1999 

July 20, 1999 

January 25, 2000 

February 29, 2000 

April 24, 2000 

June 9, 2000 

August 10, 2000 

January 31, 2001 

August 27, 2001 

October 1, 2001 

October 15, 2001 

February 14, 2002 

March 19, 2002 

April 18, 2002 

2.3 COMMENT RESPONSE PROCESS ON THE DRAFT CCP/EIS 

Public comments on the Draft CCP/EIS were accepted from December 20, 2002 to February 21, 

2003; in addition, comments dated within one week after the official close of the comment 

period were accepted and analyzed. All comments were reviewed and analyzed; the information 

contained in those comments was used to help develop the Final CCP/EIS and the refined 

Preferred Alternative. A detailed summary of the comment process, all comments, and the 

Service’s responses to those comments is included as Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS. 

2.4 PLANNING ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions with key contacts, 

workshop participants, and through the public scoping process. The following section 

summarizes seven major issues that were identified and analyzed as part of the CCP/EIS process. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 2-6 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

ISSUE 1: REFUGE BOUNDARY EXPANSION 

Should the Service play a larger role in protecting the lower Nisqually watershed and expand 

its Refuge boundary and, if so, what areas should be included? 

When the Refuge was originally established, protection was focused on the part of the delta that 

was imminently threatened with development. The CCP process provided an opportunity to 

consider whether the original boundary provided sufficient protection to the delta and lower 

Nisqually watershed, or whether additional lands beyond the approved Refuge boundary should 

be included within an expanded Refuge boundary. The CCP/EIS evaluated the potential for and 

environmental consequences of Refuge expansion onto lands along the East Bluff and on 

adjacent habitats of the Nisqually Valley on the south side of I-5 along the Nisqually River and 

McAllister Creek. Public comments indicated almost unanimous support for Refuge expansion. 

An additional 3,479 acres have been added to the approved Refuge boundary as a part of the 

CCP, for a total approved boundary of 7,415 acres. 

ISSUE 2: HABITAT RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DIKED 

AREA 

Should Nisqually NWR restore historical estuarine habitat and, if so, to what extent should 

this occur? 

This issue focused primarily on the 1,000 acres of former estuarine habitat within the Brown 

Farm Dike. This area was historically a major part of the Nisqually River Estuary but was diked 

for farming in the late 1800s. This habitat is currently managed by the Service as a mosaic of 

freshwater wetlands and non-native grasslands to benefit a variety of migratory waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. However, the quality of this habitat has become degraded due to the 

spread of reed canary grass, limited water level management capabilities, plant succession to 

shrub habitats, and deterioration of the dike system, which has required costly repairs. The dikes 

were further damaged by flood conditions in 1996 and 1997, as well as the Nisqually Earthquake 

of 2001. 

Estuarine habitat loss in Puget Sound and throughout the West Coast area has led to the decline 

of many estuarine-dependent fish and wildlife species. Estuarine restoration is considered the 

highest priority to recover the Nisqually Chinook salmon, a federally threatened species. 

Estuarine restoration would also benefit many key migratory birds and restore a critical part of 

the Nisqually Estuary. 

Public input was wide ranging, but a majority who expressed preference for an alternative 

supported the Preferred Alternative. People who supported estuarine restoration did so for a 

variety of reasons, including restoring an historic habitat, improving protection of the Nisqually 

delta, restoring ecological function in the estuary, enhancing recovery of salmon, improving 

control of invasive plants, and reducing costs of maintaining the dike system. Those who 

opposed estuarine restoration or the amount of restoration selected did so for various reasons, but 

the majority focused on the effects on the trail system and the conversion of freshwater or nonnative grassland habitats and the effects on associated migratory birds and mammals. The 

Preferred Alternative will restore 699 acres to estuarine habitat, leaving 263 acres of freshwater 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 2-7 

wetlands to be managed more intensively than under current conditions. Freshwater wetland 

restoration was also identified as a high priority in expansion areas. 

ISSUE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 

Should the Refuge expand its environmental education program and facilities to serve the 

growing urban community? 

Environmental education is a priority use of the NWRS and a high priority use for urban refuges 

like Nisqually NWR. The Refuge is ideally located to reach a diverse group of students in the 

surrounding, growing urban community. Public scoping identified environmental education as a 

highly valued purpose and activity of Nisqually NWR. The current environmental education 

program and facilities are inadequate to meet both current and projected future demands for 

environmental education opportunities. The Service also sees an opportunity to develop and 

strengthen a partnership with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center to provide a coordinated 

environmental education program in the Nisqually delta area. Public input showed strong 

support for the environmental education program, and some commentors indicated a preference 

for a larger expansion of the program than described in the Preferred Alternative. The CCP 

includes a variety of program improvements and will triple the number of students served 

annually, from 5,000 to 15,000. 

ISSUE 4: WILDLIFE OBSERVATION, HIKING, AND TRAIL 

CONFIGURATION 

What areas of the Refuge will be accessed by trails and available to visitors if estuarine 

restoration occurs? 

The Refuge supports 7 miles of trails, including the 51⁄2-mile Brown Farm Dike Trail and the 1-

mile Twin Barns Loop Trail. During the scoping process in public meetings, workshops, and 

Issues Workbooks, many commentors said that fish, wildlife, and habitat needs should take 

priority. Some expressed the desire to have access to all habitat types in whatever changes were 

selected. Changes to the Brown Farm Dike associated with habitat restoration activities will 

greatly reduce the length of the dike trail and change the configuration so it is no longer a loop. 

During the public comment period on the Draft CCP/EIS, of those who commented specifically 

on the trail, slightly more expressed a preference for maintaining the trail as is, than changing it. 

 The effects of trail changes will be reduced in the Preferred Alternative through construction of 

new trails, including a 0.75-mile boardwalk trail that would extend into the estuary, a 2.5-mile 

loop trail on the east side of the Nisqually River, and a 0.5-mile primitive trail through surgeplain habitat. The 1-mile Twin Barns Loop Trail will remain intact. 

ISSUE 5: WATERFOWL HUNTING ON NISQUALLY NWR 

How can unauthorized hunting on the Refuge be resolved? Is sufficient wildlife sanctuary 

currently provided within the Refuge? Should waterfowl hunting occur on Nisqually NWR? 

Would consolidation of hunting on Refuge and State lands in the tideflats provide the best 

location for a hunting area? Should the Service in cooperation with the WDFW take a more 

direct role in managing the waterfowl hunting program? 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 2-8 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

The CCP process provided an opportunity to re-evaluate waterfowl hunting in the delta and 

consider implementation, consolidation, or enforcement of closure of a waterfowl hunting 

program on Refuge lands to resolve the current unauthorized hunting on a closed Refuge. Since 

its establishment, Nisqually NWR has never been formally opened to waterfowl hunting. 

However, waterfowl hunting is a popular State-managed activity that occurs in the delta, October 

through January each year. Waterfowl hunting is permitted on three parcels (inholdings within 

the Refuge boundary) owned by WDFW. These parcels have irregular boundaries and are not 

distinguished from Refuge lands by boundary markers, so hunters often hunt on Refuge lands. 

Except in limited areas where some posting has been done, the Service has not enforced the 

hunting closure. The most comments received on the CCP addressed this key issue, with the 

great majority opposed to opening Nisqually NWR to waterfowl hunting. Many comments 

specifically objected to the reduction in size of the Research Natural Area to accommodate 

hunting. A number of comments recommended additional restrictions to reduce wildlife 

disturbance or conflicts with other visitors. Some provided suggestions on other areas to be 

opened to hunting or walk-in or accessible hunting opportunities. The selected alternative will 

open 191 acres of Refuge lands to waterfowl hunting adjacent to State lands, but provides 

improved wildlife sanctuary in other portions of the Refuge. The RNA will be reduced by 73 

acres to accommodate hunting, but 44 acres will be added to the south end. 

ISSUE 6: FISHING AND SHELLFISHING 

What opportunities should the Refuge provide for bank fishing, boat fishing, and shellfishing? 

The Refuge offers fishing for salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in McAllister Creek and the 

Nisqually River, and for shellfish and bottomfish in the tideflats. No fishing is allowed inside 

the dike. Some fishing and shellfishing occur within the RNA although this is not allowed by 

Service policy. Relatively few people commented on these issues on the Draft CCP/EIS. Public 

comments during the scoping process identified concerns over limited access and opportunities 

for bank fishing, increases in use and crowding, conflicts with other users, and the need for 

fishing facilities accessible to people with disabilities. The Preferred Alternative provides 

continued boat fishing opportunities but eliminates the McAllister bank fishing access due to 

dike removal for restoration. New opportunities for bank fishing access along the Nisqually 

River are included, as well as exploration of sites along McAllister Creek if suitable sites are 

acquired in Refuge expansion. The RNA closure to consumptive uses will be enforced to 

provide improved wildlife sanctuary. 

ISSUE 7: BOATING 

Is boating a compatible use and, if so, what restrictions are necessary? 

Limited launch sites, shallow water conditions, and narrow boating corridors along the Nisqually 

River and McAllister Creek currently limit the amount of boat traffic in the Refuge. However, 

boat use, estimated at 6,700 visits per year for motorized and non-motorized use, is increasing. 

High speeds and erosion caused by boat wakes, pollution, and wildlife disturbance are the 

primary management concerns. Other management concerns include lack of access control, 

disturbance to Refuge wildlife, conflicts with other Refuge visitors, and the absence of 

educational materials at launch sites. Wildlife disturbance caused by boating could also 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 2-9 

potentially increase in areas currently diked. Under Thurston County regulations, all watercraft 

are restricted to a speed of 5 mph within 200 feet of any shoreline; however, the speed limit is 

minimally enforced. Many people opposed allowing personal watercraft use on the Refuge. 

Some expressed a desire to eliminate all motorized boating in Refuge waters. The selected 

alternative continues to provide boating opportunities, but also reduces wildlife disturbance 

through a 5 mph boat speed limit in all Refuge waters, a seasonal closure in the RNA during 

winter months, and closure of all estuarine restoration sites. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 2-10 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 

Refuge Environment 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-1 

CHAPTER 3: REFUGE ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes the environment that may be affected by land acquisition and 

management activities of Nisqually NWR. The Refuge environment includes important portions 

of the Nisqually delta and lower reaches of the Nisqually River watershed. For this document, 

the affected environment includes the CCP Study Area, which includes the lands within the 

former approved Refuge boundary (3,936 acres) and areas considered for Refuge expansion 

(5,390 acres), for a total study area of 9,326 acres. The new approved Refuge boundary includes 

7,415 acres, and this reflects a portion of the CCP Study Area. The study area (Figure 1.1-2) 

includes four distinct areas: McAllister Springs and Creek area, Nisqually River corridor, 

Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain, and East Bluff. The McAllister Springs and Creek 

area, Nisqually River corridor, and Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain are located south 

of the current Refuge and are bordered on the north by I-5, on the east and west by bluffs, and on 

the south by a combination of railroad tracks, bluffs, and property boundaries of residential 

housing developments. The East Bluff area is east of the Refuge and is bordered on the north by 

Sequalitchew Creek, on the west by Puget Sound, on the south by I-5, and the eastern boundary 

follows property lines, including most of the forested habitat west of Fort Lewis. 

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Elements of the physical environment considered include climate, hydrology, geology, soils, and 

contaminants. 

3.1.1 Climate 

Maritime air masses have a moderating effect in south Puget Sound year round, creating a 

modified Mediterranean climate. Air quality is generally high due to climate, location, and few 

industries that produce particulates. Average annual rainfall is 53 inches in nearby Olympia. 

During the fall and spring seasons, the climate of the Nisqually delta is relatively mild. Winters 

are usually wet and mild, with intermittent moderate to heavy rain rather than snow. Summers 

are generally cool and dry. 

The Olympic coast and Cascade ranges protect south Puget Sound from strong south-southwest 

prevailing winds associated with winter storms. Average fall and winter daytime temperatures 

range from 40°F to the low 50s. Winds are northeasterly during the summer and fair-weather 

periods. July, August, and September temperatures average 60 to 70°F, exceeding 90°F on 

approximately six days each summer. The average growing season is 250 days, depending on 

elevation and distance from Puget Sound (D. Weaver, pers. comm.; USFWS 1978; Thurston 

County Advance Planning and Historical Preservation 1994). 

3.1.2 Hydrology 

3.1.2.1 Freshwater 

Freshwater sources in the CCP Study Area include the Nisqually River, McAllister and Red 

Salmon creeks, Medicine Creek, McAllister Springs, and groundwater aquifers and artesian 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-2 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

wells. Surface drainage primarily enters the delta from the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, 

and Red Salmon Creek (USFWS 1978). A subsurface aquifer is located 175 feet below the delta 

(USFWS 1977, 1978). 

Originating on the south slope of Mount Rainier, the Nisqually River is 78 miles long and has a 

712 square mile drainage basin. Flow volumes in the upper half of the Nisqually River result 

from runoff and snow melt into the tributaries (Canning 1986). Located at river mile 44.2 and 

42.5 are Tacoma City Light’s Alder and LaGrande hydroelectric dams, respectively. These 

dams and their reservoirs have altered the natural flow regime by regulating downstream 

discharge (Whiley and Walter 1998). From the town of Yelm to the delta, the floodplain width 

broadens to 1 mile, bordered by bluffs on both sides rising 200 feet. Peak flows on the Nisqually 

River occur during winter (December through February) and late spring (May and June). Low 

flow periods occur in August and September. Low flows of about 1,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) usually occur in June through October in the watershed; wet season flow values are 

typically around 2,000 cfs (ENSR 1999). Flood flows of about 13,000 cfs were recorded in 

December 1995. River discharges over 18,000 cfs can overflow onto the riverbanks (Consoer, 

Townsend, and Associates 1974; USFWS 1977). 

McAllister Creek originates at McAllister Springs in the lower Nisqually River Valley at 6.7 feet 

above mean sea level. Numerous small springs and seeps also feed into the creek near its 

headwaters (Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management 1993). McAllister 

Springs is the source for the municipal water supply for the City of Olympia (Consoer, 

Townsend, and Associates 1974). A wellhead protection plan was developed and implemented 

in 1995 to decrease the possibility of contamination of the drinking water supply and to provide 

reaction time for a town to find another water source or install a treatment system in the event of 

water contamination (City of Olympia 1995). 

McAllister Creek flows north through the study area and Refuge for 6 miles to the Nisqually 

Reach in Puget Sound. A very low stream gradient allows the tide to influence the creek all the 

way to its source, and creek salinity varies with the tide. The streambed changes to sand, peat, 

and muck downstream toward the delta. Medicine Creek is the longest tributary to McAllister 

Creek, originating near the Nisqually River and flowing 31⁄2 miles, joining McAllister Creek at 

river mile 4.1. Another tributary to McAllister Creek is Little McAllister Creek. In wetlands 

above McAllister bluff, Little McAllister Creek travels through a steep ravine into agricultural 

ditches that outfall into McAllister Creek (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste 

Management 1993). 

Red Salmon Creek originates in the eastern uplands above the delta as a shallow gradient creek 

that courses through marshes to the east delta bluffs, where it enters the Nisqually River 

(USFWS 1978). 

Groundwater aquifers and several artesian wells are located within the study area. Generally, 

groundwater flows toward Puget Sound and major drainages, but patterns can vary locally. 

Groundwater of the Nisqually River watershed occurs mostly in the glacially deposited 

unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers. Infiltrated precipitation recharges the central and 

western portions of the watershed (Emmett 1995). A 500 square mile south-central Pierce 

County aquifer extends north and east to the Puyallup River and Ohop Creek, bordering the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-3 

Nisqually River and Puget Sound to the south and west. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has designated this aquifer as a sole source aquifer and is a primary drinking 

source for Pierce County (Emmett 1995; Moulton 1994; White 1997). 

Population growth in the watershed is increasing the demand for water. Currently, 225,000 

people live in the watershed, with 169,000 using the Pierce County aquifer as their sole source 

for drinking water (which supplies on the average of 42 million gallons of drinking water per 

day) (Emmett 1995). The City of Olympia withdraws 7 to 15 million gallons of water per day 

from McAllister Springs to serve approximately 40,000 customers (V. Decillo, pers. comm.). 

Groundwater withdrawals within all the drainages have the potential to adversely affect critical 

flows (Emmett 1995). 

3.1.2.2 Estuary 

The Nisqually River provides the majority of the freshwater to the estuary. The tidally driven 

reach currents distribute the turbid plume of river waters and sediment into a crescent-shaped 

pattern across the delta front (Thom et al. 1985). McAllister Creek also opens into a broad, 

tidally influenced estuary with a silt and muck streambed, braided distributaries, and mudflats at 

Nisqually Reach (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). 

The delta undergoes two daily high and low tides. The mean higher high water (MHHW) line in 

the Nisqually Reach is 13.5 feet, and the maximum yearly tide is 18.7 feet (J.G. Dunbar, pers. 

comm.). Tidal influence extends upstream of the Nisqually River to about river mile 3.3 

(Canning 1986). Very low tidal cycles (below Mean Low Low Water [MLLW]) usually occur 

twice a month, and the lowest tides occur during the spring and summer (-3.5 feet MLLW) 

(Wisseman et al. 1978). 

3.1.3 Geology 

The Nisqually delta is one of several river-mouth estuaries within the greater fjord-type estuary 

of Puget Sound. The delta is located in the Puget Trough, a broad structural and topographic 

depression formed at the time of the final uplift of the Cascade and Coast Range mountains, 11 

million years ago (Burg 1984). Areas of volcanic activity raised large volcanic cones such as 

Rainier and Baker. Sedimentation, glaciation, and pressure between plates all worked to form 

the Puget Sound lowlands (White 1997). 

After erosion, deposition, and plate tectonics worked on the landscape in Puget Sound for 

approximately 60 million years, a series of glaciers advanced from what is now British Columbia 

into the lowlands between the Cascade and Olympic ranges (White 1997). After each advance, 

the glaciers receded to the north and up the valleys to higher elevations, where they persist 

today. Between 150,000 and 15,000 years ago, these glaciers formed a glacial drift plain of 

gravels, sand, silt, clays, and tills that comprise the gently undulating surface of the Puget Sound 

lowlands (White 1997). When the last glacier receded about 14,000 years ago, the valleys were 

flooded with sea water and became the major basins and numerous smaller inlets of Puget Sound 

(Burg 1984). In lowland areas around the sound, retreating glaciers left behind a thick mantle of 

lacustrine and outwash sediments over the bedrock as far south as Chehalis, Washington (Burg 

1984). The Nisqually River carved a deep valley into its floodplain, building the present-day 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-4 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

delta when sea level reached its present condition 5,000 years ago. Sediments deposited at the 

mouth of the river built the delta northward a distance of at least 2.4 km until an equilibrium was 

reached between the river’s deposition and tidal current erosion in the Nisqually Reach. The 

delta achieved its unique crescent shape during the final stages of development when more 

extensive outward growth occurred along the east and west margins where tidal currents were 

weaker (Burg 1984). 

3.1.4 Soils 

Refuge soils vary widely, from the hydric soils of tidal marshes to the sandy and gravelly soils of 

the adjacent uplands. The delta is composed of alluvial layers of sand, silt, and clay to a depth of 

138 feet (CH2M Hill et al. 1978). Tidal soils are very deep, poorly drained soils on which salttolerant vegetation grows (Pringle 1982; Burg 1984). Surface sediments of the main river 

channel are composed of silt mixed with sand, clay, and organic matter (Caicco 1989b). 

Soils of the high marsh and sloughs are generally organic with silt, sand, or clay (Caicco 1989b). 

Sediments of the delta marsh and mudflats have been largely derived from glacial material, 

which historically and currently have been carried by the Nisqually River from its glacial source 

on Mount Rainier. The construction of LaGrande Dam in 1910-1912 and completion of Alder 

Dam midway up the river in 1945 reduced the amount of sediment carried to the delta by the 

Nisqually River. 

Pilchuck loamy sand underlies an area known as the surge plain (see Section 3.2, Vegetation and 

Habitat Resources) and is then covered by sandy alluvial deposits of the Nisqually River 

floodplain. 

Soils within the diked interior are silt loams of the Pilchuck, Puget, Puyallup, Sultan, and 

Tacoma series. These soils are compressible, tend toward wetness, and have a high organic 

content, low strength, and slow permeability (CH2M Hill et al. 1978). 

The West Bluff in the Refuge consists of well-drained very gravelly sandy soils on 60 to 90% 

slopes. The East Bluff is composed of similar soils, moderately to excessively well-drained on 

45 to 70% slopes, and are formed in sandy and gravelly outwash (Pringle 1982). In the uplands 

above East Bluff, known as the Hoffman Hill area, the Kitsap formation is associated with a 

significant risk of slope failure. In areas of groundwater seepage, steep slopes tend to break off 

in large blocks (URS Company 1979). 

The McAllister Springs basin soils are found in six or so layers of silt, sand, and gravel. Soils 

consist of glacial till, outwash, and drift, some with peat layers deposited before the Vashon 

glacier advanced. Soils south of I-5 in the agricultural area are primarily Puyallup silt loams, a 

dark brown loamy fine sand, and sandy loam. This moderately rapidly draining soil developed 

in the alluvium, forming floodplain soils. Large pockets of Puget silt loam, a deep, poorly 

drained soil, are found within depressions in the floodplain soils (Pringle 1982). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-5 

3.1.5 Environmental Contaminants 

Between 1985 and 1988, the Service conducted four contaminant investigations on the Refuge. 

As a result of their findings, the Refuge was classified as Category C, which requires 

reconnaissance monitoring for metals. The justification for the classification was based on the 

Refuge’s proximity to urban areas and a dead bald eagle containing extremely high levels of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found on the Refuge in 1982 (Momot 1993). 

The diked interior along I-5, the orchard, Shannon Slough, and McAllister Creek on the Refuge 

were documented as areas of potential concern due to elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and 

mercury. Mice from the Twin Barns contained high levels of lead. Elevated levels of mercury 

were found at McAllister Creek at I-5, Shannon Slough, and the “red-tailed hawk” pump 

(Momot 1993). In 1997 and 1998, amphipod tissue studies conducted in the delta detected 

measurable quantities of heavy metals, especially copper, zinc, and butyltins, in the tissues of 

amphipods (Davis et al. 1997). However heavy metals detected were below what are considered 

levels of concern for these organisms. In 1999, the Washington State Department of Ecology 

tested soils collected from the old orchard area for the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and lead. 

Results detected no presence of cadmium and very low levels of arsenic and lead (J. Mercuri, 

pers. comm.). 

On the Nisqually Reach, vanadium and aromatic hydrocarbons were found in clams and oysters, 

and low levels of PCBs were found in ghost shrimp. Elevated concentrations exceeding National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) standards were also documented for zinc, 

copper, nickel, and manganese (Momot 1993). Heavy metals and chemicals were found in 1987 

and 1992 in sediment chemistry of the Nisqually River delta and reach by the Puget Sound 

Water Quality Authority. They included aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, arsenic, copper, 

cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc, and total organic carbon (Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems 

1987; Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1992). A 1985 study in Puget Sound revealed high 

levels of contaminants in fish, marine mammals, and marine birds. Great blue heron eggshells 

from the heronry in the Nisqually River delta were found to be significantly thinner than a pre1947 mean, likely due to contamination by Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or its 

derivative, DDE (Calambokidis et al. 1985). Aquatic plants, such as eelgrass, appear to 

concentrate metals without being affected, allowing metals to move through the food web 

(Phillips 1984). 

Since the study area is located in the vicinity of I-5, industrial and commercial operations (such 

as the gravel mine and gas stations), and residential developments, non-point sources of 

environmental contaminants exist. In addition, hazardous materials may be transported on I-5, 

the railroad, or by ship in Puget Sound and have potential for accidental spills, which would 

affect Refuge lands and waters. 

It is Service policy to minimize the potential liability of the Department of the Interior and the 

Service by acquiring real property that is not contaminated with hazardous waste unless directed 

by the Congress, court mandate, or as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. In compliance 

with Service policy, we have conducted an initial overview survey to identify actual or potential 

hazardous substances or other environmental problems located in areas identified for Refuge 

expansion. This is the first step in determining the potential for hazardous wastes prior to 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-6 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

acquisition or land transfer. Additional “Level 1” environmental site assessments are also 

required prior to the acquisition of any real property to determine the potential for, and extent of 

liability for hazardous substances or other environmental remediation or injury. This includes 

but is not limited to a determination of the absence or presence of hazardous substances or 

conditions that indicate an existing or past release, or a material threat of a release on the real 

property. The initial site assessment and records search revealed the following: 

East Bluff: A portion of the former DuPont Works, an explosives manufacturing plant from 1906 

until the mid-1970s, is within the Refuge expansion area. Contamination resulted from the 

manufacturing process, waste disposal, pesticide use, and decommissioning of the site buildings. 

 In July 1991, Department of Ecology, Weyerhaeuser, and DuPont Companies signed a consent 

decree to conduct a remedial investigation/risk assessment/feasibility study (RI/RA/FS). The 

site was divided into two main areas: Parcel 1 (the former production area, about 636 acres) and 

Parcel 2 (about 205 acres). Parcel 2 (the black powder area or Area 40) was cleaned up to 

industrial standards and was removed from the 1991 consent decree in August 1997. 

A final EIS was issued in July 2000 for a golf course/containment facility in Parcel 1 which 

would isolate and manage lead and arsenic-contaminated soil (WDOE 2003). The main 

contaminants of concern are lead and arsenic in soil. While lead was detected site-wide, arsenic 

contamination, generally from pesticide use, was restricted to more discrete areas. Other 

hazardous substances discovered are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), mercury, di- and 

trinitrotoluenes (DNT/TNT), and benzo(a)pyrene. DNT is the only chemical of concern in 

groundwater and concentrations are generally low, at levels that meet drinking water standards. 

The Department of Ecology, Weyerhaeuser, and DuPont Companies have agreed on a cleanup 

for the former explosives plant. The consent decree, including the cleanup action plan, requires 

Weyerhaeuser and DuPont Companies to take several actions, which include disposal of higher 

level-contaminated soils at a hazardous waste landfill, excavating and consolidating lower levelcontaminated soil within approximately 90 acres of the planned golf course area, capping it with 

a 180-acre engineered golf course including 18 inches of clean gravel and soils, and monitoring 

groundwater. Deed restrictions would limit site use to primarily commercial purposes that will 

not disturb the cap/cover system and to control groundwater so it will not be used for drinking 

water (WDOE 2003). The cleanup regulation also requires the Department of Ecology to review 

site conditions every five years to make sure that human health and the environment are being 

protected. The Department of Ecology will oversee the project to ensure that all terms of the 

consent decree are satisfied. 

Expansion Area South of I-5: The portion of the study area managed by the Fort Lewis Military 

Reservation includes areas used for light training and areas zoned as Research Natural Area 

(RNA). A Level 1 contaminants survey would be conducted prior to the land transfer process. 

Other locations in the study area south of I-5 with potential for contaminants include farms, the 

Holroyd gravel mine, the Nisqually Exit 114 gas stations, and McAllister Creek State Fish 

Hatchery (now closed). All may have underground or above-ground fuel storage tanks that have 

potential for leaking or past spills. Other potential contamination may occur in equipment 

maintenance areas or from pesticide storage and use. Fish hatchery operations may also have 

other sources of contaminants that would be investigated in a Level 1 survey prior to acquisition. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-7 

Initial reconnaissance of the City of Olympia McAllister Springs site has indicated that there is a 

low probability of contaminants located at this site due to its history as a drinking water source 

for the City. 

3.1.5.1 Water Quality 

The Nisqually River, from its headwaters on Mount Rainier to Alder Dam (river mile 44), is 

listed by the Department of Ecology as Class AA, which means that its waters are expected to 

meet criteria characteristic of extraordinary quality water (Emmett 1995). From Alder Dam to 

the delta, the river is listed as Class A, with expected criteria characteristic of good and fair 

quality waters. Water analyses of monitoring stations indicate that significantly higher fecal 

coliform concentrations occur below river mile 34 (within the mainstem Nisqually River) in 

comparison to upriver locations, particularly during storm events (Whiley and Walter 1998). 

This increase is linked to both an increase in nonpoint source fecal coliform loading and to 

decreased dilution. While significant increases in fecal coliform concentrations were observed 

for the lower portion of the river, those increases were well within the Washington State Water 

Quality Standard. The trend in fecal coliform for the lower river indicates that concentrations 

have reduced over the past 19 years from a median level of 33 colony-forming units (cfu)/100 ml 

to a present median of 10 cfu/100 ml (Whiley and Walter 1998). 

McAllister Creek provides the most continuous source of fecal coliform to the marine areas of 

the Nisqually Reach (Whiley and Walter 1998). A positive correlation was detected between 

fecal coliform concentrations within the creek during storm events to corresponding increases in 

bacterial levels found over shellfish growing areas. In 1992, the Washington State Department 

of Health reclassified 2,130 acres of commercial and recreational shellfish beds in the Nisqually 

Reach from “approved” to “conditionally open” after finding elevated levels of fecal coliform 

bacteria in the reach following storm events (Whiley and Walter 1996; Emmett 1995). 

Following further evaluation, the shellfish beds were closed to harvest in spring 2000 (W. 

Clifford, pers. comm.). Water testing is conducted regularly to monitor contaminant levels. 

The Nisqually River regularly experiences high turbidity or cloudiness during the summer due to 

its glacial source. Summer fluvial flows in all rivers and creeks within the CCP Study Area are 

extremely low and are not supporting existing water rights or fish populations, nor are they 

reducing the effects of pollutants or providing for recreation. The sand and gravel outwash 

deposits throughout the aquifer are susceptible to contamination from surface sources, such as 

land application of wastes (Emmett 1995). 

River temperatures on the Nisqually River vary seasonally, with maximums greater than 60.8°F 

observed in August or September (at the gaging station at river mile 3.4). Minimum 

temperatures at this station are observed in January or February with values below 42.8°F 

(ENSR 1999). 

Salinity profiles were sampled in 1977 in the Nisqually Reach during low slack water and flood 

tide (ENSR 1999). Freshwater in this area flows over the marine water in a very thin layer, 

estimated at 3 to 5 cm. Salinity measurements varied from 0 to 30 parts per thousand (ppt), with 

the most stratified conditions occurring near the Nisqually mudflats. The Nisqually Reach water 

is replaced every 8 days and is considered well flushed (ENSR 1999). Saltwater and tidal 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-8 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

influence have been observed from the mouth of Nisqually River to the old US Hwy 99 bridge 

(river mile 0.0-3.3) (Canning 1986). Salinity ranged from 0 to 6.3 ppt at McAllister Creek from 

October 1984 to May 1985 (ENSR 1999). 

3.1.5.2 Air Quality 

The delta is susceptible to localized low level inversions, which can entrap both gaseous and 

particulate pollutants (Hesselbart 1977b). Stationary sources of air pollution in south Puget 

Sound include pulp mills, lumber mills, veneer dryers, and sand and gravel companies. North to 

Seattle and Snohomish County, stationary sources also include steel plants, flour mills, cement 

plants, aluminum smelters, sawmills, and grain elevators (WDOE 1991). Deteriorating air 

quality in the local area is necessitating burn bans of increasing duration and area. 

3.2 VEGETATION AND HABITAT RESOURCES 

The Nisqually NWR represents an important regional wildlife habitat resource. Information is 

presented below on important habitats and plant species (including exotic and invasive species) 

present on the Refuge and in the entire study area. Habitats in the study area include estuarine, 

freshwater wetland, riverine and riparian, and upland. Figure 3.2-1 is a graphic representation of 

the habitat types and wildlife typical of the Refuge. This section ends with a discussion of 

regional trends for important habitats. 

3.2.1 Habitats and Vegetation Communities 

A habitat type map covering the approved Refuge as well as the entire study area was created 

based on analysis of a 1997 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) image. The amounts of each 

habitat type present within the approved Refuge boundary, the study area outside the approved 

Refuge boundary, and within the total study area are shown in Figure 3.2-2 and listed in Table 

3.2-1. 

3.2.1.1 Estuarine Habitat 

The Nisqually River Estuary, one of the most extensive and productive estuaries in Puget Sound, 

is one of the few remaining vegetated nearshore estuarine habitats in the sound (Copping 1990). 

Estuarine habitat includes open water, aquatic bed, unconsolidated shore, and vegetated 

intertidal areas (Figure 3.2-3). The estuary is a complex and highly integrated system that serves 

as important habitat for migrating waterbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and salmon 

populations (Thom et al. 1985; URS Company 1979). Estuarine habitats attract a diversity and 

abundance of wildlife species and provide nursery areas for juvenile salmon and other fish. 

Many species of plants and animals depend on the delta for one or more phases of their life 

cycles (Canning 1986). 
Page 3-9

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

March 2005
Nisqually

River

Puget Sound

McAllister Creek

Red Salmon Cr eek

Shannon Slough

Nisqually

River

Puget Sound

McAllister Creek

Red Salmon Cr eek

Shannon Slough

CCP Study Area Habitat Types

Figure 3.2-2

Source: 1997 Landsat TM Image; USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003

March 2005

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_2.mxd

N

0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

1:70,187

Legend

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary CCP Study Area

Open Water, Salt

Open Water, Fresh

Unconsolidated Shore

Aquatic Bed

Vegetated Intertidal

Freshwater Wetland

Riparian and Forested Wetland

Upland Forest

Grassland

Agriculture

Bare Land

Developed

Aerial Photo 1990

Page 3-11
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-13 

Table 3.2-1. Summary of Habitat Types and Acres Within the CCP Study Area.

Acres

Habitat

Approved Refuge 

Boundary

Study Area Outside 

of Refuge 

Boundary

Total Study Area 

Open Water, Salt 393 43 436 

Open Water, Fresh 142 244 386 

Unconsolidated Shore 1,115 64 1,179 

Aquatic Bed 295 0 295 

Vegetated Intertidal 623 10 633 

Freshwater Wetland 623 48 671 

Riparian and Forested Wetland 259 1,913 2,172 

Upland Forest 71 1,262 1,333 

Grassland 434 305 739 

Agriculture 93 1,108 1,201 

Bare Land 0 89 89 

Developed 5 304 309 

TOTAL ACRES 4,053 5,390 9,443

Source: Service data, Ducks Unlimited, and National Wetlands Inventories. 

Includes State, Nisqually Indian Tribe, and Private lands. Acres presented in this table were calculated from 

Geographic Information System (GIS) database; variations in the GIS cover type data result in slight discrepancies 

in acreage totals presented elsewhere in this CCP.

Historically, the Nisqually delta supported 6,207 acres of intertidal estuarine habitat (Figure 3.2-

4). Currently, 5,016 acres of this habitat remains, which represents a loss of 1,191 acres or 19%. 

Especially significant is the loss of vegetated intertidal habitat or salt marsh, which has 

decreased from 1,458 acres to 674 acres (a loss of 784 acres or 54%) because of diking, channel 

migration and straightening, and land filling around I-5 (Tanner 1999). The landward extent of 

the historical salt marsh, depicted on a 1878 topographic survey map (Bortleson et al. 1980; 

Figure 3.2-4), reached southwest to Martin Way, just south of I-5. Tidal channels crossed the 

forested lowland. Since 1878, the Nisqually River channel shifted laterally and straightened 

from the I-5 crossing to the river mouth (Burg 1984). At the turn of the century, the Brown Farm 

Dike was constructed and converted estuarine habitat to approximately 1,000 acres of freshwater 

wetlands and non-native grasslands in the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 1978). The 

construction of the dike also significantly reduced the amount of shoreline by cutting off the 

upper reaches of tidal channels and former river distributaries. 

The dike is a barrier preventing nutrients, produced in the freshwater wetlands it encompasses, 

from being released into the estuary. Once an energy and nutrient source to the estuary, the 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-14 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

diked interior is now interrupting the physical, chemical, and biological processes of the 

estuarine system. The alteration of estuarine wetlands to freshwater wetlands by diking has 

removed habitat for waterfowl, salmon, and other estuarine-dependent species, resulting in 

detrimental effects (Burg 1984). 

The construction of two dams on the Nisqually River reduced the amount of sediment carried to 

the delta, which may have altered the equilibrium between erosion and deposition toward erosion 

and recession. The river discharges about 105,000 tons of sediment annually, nearly all of which 

is currently deposited in Alder Lake (Nelson 1974). The dike may also have caused tidal 

velocities to increase, resulting in erosion of the mudflats (Consoer, Townsend, and Associates 

1974; USFWS 1977; Burg 1984; Canning 1986). 

Estuarine Vegetation Community Descriptions 

Estuarine habitat surrounds the diked area in the delta. Below are described three general 

categories of estuarine habitat–aquatic bed, unconsolidated shore, and vegetated intertidal–and 

their distinct vegetation communities (Figure 3.2-2). 

Aquatic Bed 

Aquatic bed refers to wetlands and deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow principally 

on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season (Cowardin et al. 1979). One 

of the most important vegetation communities of the aquatic bed in the Nisqually delta is 

eelgrass beds. Eelgrass provides shelter for fish and invertebrates and is an important source of 

food for shorebirds, waterfowl, benthic invertebrates, and a large number of other animals. 

Eelgrass is restricted to habitats where erosion and sedimentation are in equilibrium because its 

rhizomes tend to grow horizontally (Phillips 1984). The Nisqually River delta is the southernmost source of eelgrass in Puget Sound (T. Mumford, pers. comm.). 

Eelgrass beds covering about 49 acres in 1978 were found to occur from the County line 

northeast to the sandspit on the eastern shore (Wisseman et al. 1978), and covered about 25% of 

the RNA in the Nisqually Reach (Caicco 1989a). The northeast eelgrass meadows are in the 

lower intertidal and shallow subtidal areas (Wisseman et al. 1978). The delta front, from the 

County line to McAllister Creek, is devoid of eelgrass, presumably due to strong tidal scouring 

action in the reach. High concentrations of eelgrass (22 acres) were found in the McAllister 

Creek channel in 1978, extending well into the creek mouth and reach (Wisseman et al. 1978). 

The eelgrass beds in this area are sparsely distributed and less dense than eelgrass beds in other 

parts of Puget Sound (A. Sewell, pers. comm.). 

Unconsolidated Shore (Saltwater)

Unconsolidated shore areas consist of mudflats, sandflats, and rocky shores characterized by a 

lack of vegetation, except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods 

when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce 

these landforms (Cowardin et al. 1979). These areas attract many wildlife species including 
#

#

#

Olympia

 ̈§¦5

Lacey

DuPont

Anderson 

Island

Hartstene

Island

Squaxin Island

Johnson

 Point

P

U

G

E

T

S

O

U

N

D

#

#

#

Olympia

 ̈§¦5

Lacey

DuPont

Anderson 

Island

Hartstene

Island

Squaxin Island

Johnson

 Point

P

U

G

E

T

S

O

U

N

D

National Wetland Inventory of

Regional Estuarine Wetlands

Figure 3.2-3

March 2005

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

N

1:150,000

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_3.mxd

012 0.5

Miles

Wetland Type

Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bed

Estuarine Intertidal Beach/Bar

Estuarine Intertidal Open Water

Estuarine Intertidal Flat

Estuarine Intertidal Emergent

Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore

Estuarine Subtidal Open Water

Legend

Former Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Major Road

Railroad

Page 3-15
 ̈§¦5

 ̈§¦5

Historic (1878) and Current Wetlands 

in the Nisqually Delta

Figure 3.2-4

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; Tanner 1999; EDAW, 2002

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

March 2005

N

0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

1:60,004

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_4.mxd

Current Wetland Resources

Wetland Type

Estuarine Subtidal (Open Water), E1

Estuarine Intertidal, E2

Upland, U

Palustrine (Freshwater), P

Riverine, R

Former Approved Nisqually

Historic Wetland Resources, 1878

Wetland Type

Estuarine Subtidal (Open Water), E1

Estuarine Intertidal, E2

Upland, U

Palustrine (Freshwater), P

No Label

Former Approved Nisqually

Historic Composition

33% 17%

48%

2%

E1 (2499 ac)

E2 (3708 ac)

U (1254 ac)

P (152 ac)

R (0 ac)

Current Composition

1%

37%

28%

14%

20% E1 (2851 ac)

E2 (2165 ac)

U (1512 ac)

P (1082 ac)

R (46 ac)

NWR Boundary

NWR Boundary

Page 3-17
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-19 

shellfish and other invertebrates, shorebirds, and mammals. The delta mudflats and 

unconsolidated substrate harbor microalgae and over 80 seaweed species. Microalgae, which 

attaches to sediment, is a possible source of carbon to the detritus-based food web, which plays a 

primary role in estuarine production (Thom et al. 1985). Sparse mudflat vegetation includes 

Lyngby’s sedge, seashore saltgrass, seaside arrowgrass, fleshy jaumea, and pickleweed (Kunze 

1984; Burg et al. 1980). The sparsely vegetated mudflats transition into the more abundant 

vegetation and dense drainage channels of the low salt marsh (see Vegetated Intertidal, below). 

Vegetated Intertidal (Estuarine Emergent)

Vegetated intertidal or estuarine emergent areas are better known as salt marshes. These areas 

can be further subdivided into low, middle, and high salt marsh communities based on salinity 

patterns, elevation, and other factors such as substrate, wave energy, marsh age, sedimentation, 

and erosion. Low salt marsh generally occurs between the lowest margin of the marsh and mean 

high water (MHW). Middle salt marsh occurs between MHW and MHHW. High salt marsh 

occurs between MHHW and the highest margin of the marsh. High salt marsh vegetation 

typically mixes with upland plant species in the marsh/upland zone (Figure 3.2-1). 

Low salt marshes are found on low terraces where the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek 

meet the reach and in sandy intertidal marsh areas along the outer fringe of the Brown Farm 

Dike. The topography is hummocky with a diffuse drainage pattern and attracts an abundance of 

migrating waterfowl species, rails, and bitterns. In the delta toward the reach, low salt marshes 

are of moderate salinity, with silty and sandy soils. Low to intermediate salt marsh plant 

communities are dominated by pickleweed, Lyngby’s sedge, gumweed, tufted hairgrass, seaside 

arrowgrass, seashore saltgrass, fleshy jaumea, halberd-leaf saltbush, and scattered patches of 

Baltic rush (Burg 1984; Burg et al. 1980; Mason et al. 1974). In sandy, low intertidal marsh 

areas, plant communities include seashore saltgrass and pickleweed (Kunze 1984; WNHP 1998). 

The broad, relatively level vegetated areas of the high salt marsh, separated by wide drainage 

channels up to 6 feet deep, were formed by distributaries of the Nisqually River prior to diking 

(Klotz et al. 1978; Burg 1984). Migrating waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks, utilize the rich 

food sources available in these areas. The high salt marsh is composed of plant communities that 

tolerate low and moderate salinity. Along the river, communities include tufted hairgrass, Baltic 

rush, Pacific silverweed, Lyngby’s sedge, and red fescue (Burg et al. 1980; Burg 1984). 

Quackgrass, redtop, velvetgrass, and orchardgrass are found high on the banks of McAllister 

Creek. 

Salt marsh productivity is dependent upon the health of its vegetation (URS Company 1979). 

Nisqually salt marsh studies in 1980 showed a production weight recorded for Lyngby’s sedge 

that is among the highest rates recorded for salt marshes in the Pacific Northwest (Thom et al. 

1985). Lyngby’s sedge, covering roughly 20 acres in the delta, was the most productive plant 

type at both high and low elevations (Burg et al. 1980). 

3.2.1.2 Freshwater Wetland Habitat (Palustrine Emergent) 

Freshwater wetlands in the CCP Study Area include permanent and seasonal ponds, marshes, 

wet meadows, and scrub-shrub habitats. These are also known as palustrine emergent wetlands. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-20 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

Riverine and riparian wetlands are other types of freshwater wetlands, discussed separately 

below. Freshwater wetlands provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl (especially dabbling 

ducks), herons and other waterbirds, shorebirds, landbirds, mammals, amphibians, and 

invertebrate species. 

Since the mid-1800s, a loss of wetlands in the Nisqually River delta and watershed has occurred, 

not only in estuarine but also in freshwater wetlands (Canning 1986). Freshwater wetland losses 

have been caused by draining, filling, and diking of lands. Losses are also due to competing 

activities and practices such as agriculture, grazing, forestry, and recreation (Canning 1986). 

When the dike was built in the late 1800s, estuarine habitat was converted to freshwater habitat, 

increasing freshwater habitat in the delta by 610% (Tanner 1999). With the cessation of 

agricultural practices, the diked area became progressively wetter. Since Refuge establishment, 

the diked area has been managed as freshwater wetlands and non-native grasslands. 

Freshwater wetlands within the current Refuge boundary are found primarily within the diked 

area and include permanent and seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, marshes, and scrub-shrub 

habitats. These wetlands are fed by several artesian wells and rainfall and are found around 

artesian wells, in low lying depressions, along historically tidal slough channels, and in borrow 

ditches. During high flood conditions, freshwater also flows into the diked area through two 

overflow channels from the Nisqually River. Normally, there is no direct flow from the 

Nisqually River or McAllister Creek into the diked area. Saltwater seepage through the dike 

occurs frequently, allowing both freshwater and brackish vegetation to grow in the borrow ditch 

and sloughs. Interspersed within the dike’s emergent wetlands and seasonally flooded 

freshwater depressions are non-native grasslands (see Upland Habitat, below). 

Vegetation dominating wet meadows commonly includes rushes, cattails, sedges, and grasses. 

Scrub-shrub vegetation scattered through the marsh areas includes mixed grasses and forbs and 

is dominated by native shrubs. Aquatic vegetation found in permanent ponds includes 

pondweeds, smartweeds, knotweeds, bulrushes, sedges, and grasses (Burg 1984). 

During the past 20 years, the habitat quality of the diked interior freshwater wetlands at 

Nisqually NWR has declined. Reed canary grass, a highly invasive exotic plant, is rapidly 

spreading throughout much of the area and now occupies more than 30% of the total acreage. 

Water level management has become increasingly limited, and portions of the diked area are 

becoming too wet to easily manage. Plant succession has been allowed to occur in large sections 

of the diked area, allowing wetlands and grasslands to gradually convert to scrub-shrub habitats. 

 

Approximately 48 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands occur in the study area outside of the 

currently approved Refuge boundary. All of these wetlands are found south of I-5. The majority 

of them occur in the McAllister Creek basin in potholes and upland depressions. Wetland 

vegetation ranges from sedge stands to cattails, bulrushes, willows, salmonberry, and skunk 

cabbage (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). Other freshwater 

wetland locations are also found along the Nisqually River and adjacent floodplains. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-21 

3.2.1.3 Riverine and Riparian Habitats 

This group of habitats includes riverine, freshwater unconsolidated shore, riparian, and forested 

wetlands areas in the CCP Study Area. They are found within and alongside the Nisqually 

River, McAllister Creek, and Red Salmon Creek. Natural riverine and riparian corridors are 

diverse, dynamic, and complex habitats supporting a wide variety of fish and wildlife. Although 

riparian areas constitute a small portion of the surface landscape, they are very productive, and 

approximately 85% of Washington’s wildlife species have been known to use riparian habitat 

associated with rivers and streams (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Habitat for many upland species is 

also directly enhanced by the presence of adjacent riparian and riverine habitat. 

Most of the Nisqually River floodplain in the study area is comprised of riparian vegetation 

(Canning 1986). The original extent, and subsequent loss to conversions, of the riparian forests 

is unknown. Historically, losses occurred primarily due to timber harvest, livestock grazing, 

road construction, and reservoir impoundments (Canning 1986). On the Refuge, agricultural 

fields, roads, and building sites are located on historical riparian and bottomland habitat along 

the Nisqually River. These disturbed areas have been colonized mainly by non-native grasses 

and forbs (Klotz et al. 1978). 

Riverine and Unconsolidated Shore 

Riverine habitat is home to some aquatic plants but is dominated by open water. Unconsolidated 

shore includes sandflats containing pioneering plants that are periodically disturbed by floods 

and other erosive events. The Nisqually River provides good wintering habitat for bald eagles 

(URS Company 1979). A peak count of 200 eagles on the Nisqually River has been observed 

(Stalmaster 2001). Other species that use the riverine habitat in the study area include several 

anadromous (migratory) salmonids, such as chinook and chum salmon, and a variety of 

amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. 

Riparian and Forested Wetland (Deciduous and Mixed) 

Riparian forests in the study area are typically deciduous or mixed forests along the Nisqually 

River and McAllister Creek. Deciduous riparian forests are dominated by big-leaf maple, black 

cottonwood, and red alder. In areas where coniferous tree species are present (mixed forests), 

Douglas-fir or western red cedar are typical. Understory vegetation includes salmonberry, 

snowberry, Indian plum, and red-osier dogwood. Riparian vegetation along the upper 

McAllister Creek grows in a broad wetland with some saltwater intrusion. Vegetation consists 

of willows, red elderberry, ninebark, and Indian plum. From the middle reach of the creek to the 

estuary, agricultural dikes and lawns with scattered wetland plants occur, as well as riparian 

habitat limited to narrow bands along the streambanks (Thurston County Dept. of Water and 

Waste Management 1993). Riparian areas provide habitat for more bird species, including 

passerines, woodpeckers, waterfowl, and raptors, than all other habitat types combined (Knopf et 

al. 1988; Kirby et al. 1992). 

Within the Refuge, a high quality example of a surge plain—a high energy, high nutrient, tidal 

freshwater forested wetland–can be found along the Nisqually River. The approximately 70-acre 

forested wetland community is regularly influenced by tidal waters. The surge plain is flooded 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-22 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

during high tides and freshwater storm events. Between inundating floods and high tides, the 

forested wetlands remain wet to saturated by slightly brackish water and freshwater, and the 

water table is near the surface (WNHP 1998; Caicco 1989a). The surge plain consists primarily 

of deciduous forests with small pockets of mixed canopy. The deciduous stands are dominated 

by black cottonwood, big-leaf maple, red alder, with a very dense shrub layer (Caicco 1989a). 

The shrub layer consists of two communities—one dominated by common snowberry and the 

other by salmonberry (Klotz et al. 1978; Caicco 1989a). Other plants found in the understory 

include various willow species, vine maple, red-osier dogwood, Oregon ash, and red elderberry 

(Caicco 1989a; URS Company 1979). 

3.2.1.4 Upland Habitat 

Upland habitat consists of lands not inundated by water except during catastrophic events. 

Upland habitat in the CCP Study Area includes upland forest, grassland, and agricultural land. 

Most of the upland areas within the approved Refuge boundary are in the southwestern portions 

of the diked area, on the western property above the bluffs, the eastern hillside near Mounts 

Road, and the area around the Refuge administrative buildings and parking lot. Upland areas 

within the study area outside the Refuge boundary include the bluffs along the Nisqually River, 

McAllister Creek and along the eastern boundary of the Refuge, and agricultural lands in the 

valley. Upland forest habitats support a variety of nesting birds, including the bald eagle, redtailed hawk, great blue heron, woodpeckers, and passerines, as well as mammals and 

amphibians. Agricultural lands and grasslands, depending on specific management regime, can 

be good foraging areas for some landbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. 

Within the Refuge, upland forests were formerly highly diverse and probably contained western 

hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas-fir, which flourished in openings created by fire, wind, 

drought, insect damage, and disease (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 

1993). By the mid-1800s, the upland forests were cleared as settlers created fields for cultivation 

amidst transitional freshwater wetlands (Burg 1984). Forests throughout the Puget Sound 

lowlands, including the Nisqually River watershed, have been heavily affected by logging. Red 

alder, which was much less common before settlement and logging of the delta, is now more 

abundant (URS Company 1979). The overall reduction in structure and complexity of forests in 

the watershed compared to their historical counterparts may offer less stormwater protection and 

habitat diversity (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). 

Soil map analysis of the study area suggests that prior to European settlement, forested uplands 

and riparian forested bottomlands grew adjacent to the estuarine wetlands of the delta. Native 

grasslands were, at that time, restricted to uplands and prairies south and east of the delta. 

Upland Forest 

The Refuge and study area lie entirely within the Puget Sound Douglas-fir ecoregion/vegetation 

zone, adjacent to the Woodland/Prairie Mosaic zone on Fort Lewis. Forests cover about 87 acres 

of the Nisqually delta and bluffs (Klotz et al. 1978). The delta bluffs are dominated by mixed 

coniferous-deciduous upland forests (USFWS 1977). Forests along the west delta bluffs are 

mixed deciduous-conifer species. Douglas-fir is predominant, mixed with big-leaf maple, 

western hemlock, and red alder at lower levels on the bluffs. The upland area adjacent to the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-23 

West Bluff between Meridian Road and the top of the bluff was historically a dense forest of 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and some western red cedar. Most of the trees were clearcut from 

the southern two-thirds of the property in the early 1990s, before the Service purchased the 110-

acre tract. The parcel has since reverted to a field of Scot’s broom with some occurrences of 

natural revegetation. The uplands were acquired by the Refuge as a wildlife corridor to the West 

Bluff and to stabilize the slope above the creek and protect the biological and aesthetic integrity 

of the Refuge. Reforestation efforts were initiated in the late 1990s. 

Forests in the remainder of the study area are comprised of second-growth coniferous and mixed 

forests (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). The bluff along the 

eastern boundary of the Refuge and along McAllister Creek south of I-5 is dominated by 

coniferous trees, primarily Douglas-fir. Mixed deciduous forests are scattered along the 

Nisqually Valley lowlands. 

Grassland 

Approximately 230 acres of the diked interior are former pastures that were historically 

extensively cultivated and heavily grazed. Today, pasture grasses that dominate these areas and 

elevations of these former pasture lands fluctuate slightly with distinct vegetation changes, 

creating a mixture of non-native grasslands and wet meadows. In lower depressional areas of the 

diked interior, non-native grasses, such as creeping bentgrass and common velvetgrass, and 

occasional stands of rushes are found (Mason et al. 1974). Reed canary grass dominates the 

transition zone between former pasture land and wet meadows, comprising more than 30% of the 

diked interior. 

Since 1974, between 75 and 450 acres have been mowed or hayed each year each to control reed 

canary grass and provide fall browse vegetation for waterfowl, particularly American wigeon. 

The area mowed or hayed varies from year to year, depending on rainfall. Currently, 

approximately 300 to 350 acres are mowed or hayed each year. 

Agriculture 

With over 1,100 acres in crops and pasture in the CCP Study Area outside of the Refuge 

boundary, agriculture is one of the predominant land uses south of I-5. The principal crops 

grown in this area include hay, corn, and Christmas tree farms. To maintain the existing rural 

environment of the Nisqually Valley, agricultural lands in this area became part of Thurston 

County’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program since 1994 (S. Morrison, pers. 

comm.; Thurston County Planning Department 1992). The PDR program permanently preserves 

farmland while supporting the farming community. 

3.2.2 State and Regional Trends for Key Habitats Represented at 

Nisqually NWR 

Historically, presettlement wetland acreage in Washington ranged from 1.17 to 1.53 million 

acres (Lane and Taylor 1996). Estimates of wetland loss in Washington range from 20 to as 

great as 50% decline during the past 200 years due to dredging, filling, diking, and industrial and 

residential development (Lane and Taylor 1996). The Puget Sound area has experienced even 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-24 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

greater losses of up to 70 to 100% of historic wetlands in some urbanized areas (White 1997; 

Lane and Taylor 1996). Freshwater wetlands throughout the state were subject to a high rate of 

loss until the 1940s. Since then, the trend of wetland loss has slowed considerably since fewer 

wetlands remain to be converted, particularly in urbanized areas (Boule et al. 1983; Lane and 

Taylor 1996). Of the estimated 900,000 acres of wetlands currently in Washington State, about 

22% are estuarine and 78% are freshwater (also known as palustrine) (Boule et al. 1983; Lane 

and Taylor 1996). 

Over 80% of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound, and up to 33% of its eelgrass beds, have been 

lost (White 1997; Lane and Taylor 1996; Dean et al. 2000). In south Puget Sound, estuarine 

intertidal areas comprise only 6% of wetland areas and are dominated by vast expanses of 

shoreline (Tanner 1999). Figure 3.2-5 shows large overall losses in salt marsh acreage for 11 

major river deltas in Puget Sound. Currently, salt marsh habitat is one of the smallest wetland 

components, comprising just 0.3% or approximately 1,529 acres of wetland and deepwater 

resources in the south Puget Sound region (Tanner 1999). 

Roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of freshwater wetlands are filled each year in western Washington 

(White 1997). Current loss and degradation of freshwater wetlands in western Washington are 

due to urban expansion, forestry and agricultural practices, industrial development, and invasive 

or exotic plants and animals (Lane and Taylor 1996). Currently, freshwater wetlands comprise a 

significant component (18%) of wetlands in the south Puget Sound region (Tanner 1999). 

Freshwater wetlands in the region are dominated by vegetated wetland classes, with emergent 

wetlands comprising 35% of all freshwater wetlands found in this region (Tanner 1999). 

3.2.3 Plants, Including Exotic and Invasive Species 

A list of plant species found on the Refuge is located in Appendix E.1. There are no rare plants 

inhabiting the Refuge or study area. As many as 437 species of plants have been recorded on the 

Refuge (USFWS data). These include a variety of forbs, trees, shrubs, grasses, and sedges. The 

most abundant group of plants are forbs, with over 200 species. Shrubs are the next most 

abundant, with 60 species. The number of species of grasses and trees is similar, with about 35 

species each. An inventory of plants within the study area has not been conducted. See Habitats 

and Vegetation Communities, above, for examples of plant species found in various habitat 

types. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-25 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Nooksack

Lummi

Samish

Skagit

Stillaguamish

Snohomish

Duwamish

Puyallup

Nisqually

Skokomish

Dungeness

River Delta 

Wetland Acres

Historical (ac)

Present day (ac)

Figure 3.2-5. Overall losses in salt marsh acres for Puget Sound river deltas 

Nisqually NWR has numerous invasive weed species that compete aggressively with native plant 

communities. One species in particular, reed canary grass, has invaded most non-forested 

freshwater wetlands. Figure 3.2-6 displays the best available data showing the distribution of 

reed canary grass on the Refuge. 

Canary grass grows under a variety of moisture conditions; however, optimal growth occurs on 

moist or wet soils, particularly in wetlands. Canary grass infestations establish quickly and 

expand rapidly. Because canary grass is highly competitive, it poses a major threat to native 

wetland vegetation. Many wetlands throughout the Pacific Northwest have become infested 

with dense, monotypic stands of canary grass, decreasing the diversity of flora and fauna. 

In 1997, reed canary grass dominated at least 30% of the diked interior and it continues to spread 

rapidly. Effective control is extremely difficult and costly, requiring an intensive combination of 

mowing, discing, prolonged and deep flooding, and herbicide application. 

Other weed species are monitored and controlled annually to prevent them from taking over 

Refuge habitats. Scot’s broom was introduced to the Pacific coast as a garden ornamental by 

early settlers. Scot’s broom aggressively grows into dense, pure stands eliminating native forbs, 

grasses, or young trees. In Washington, this plant interferes with re-establishment of conifer 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-26 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

seedlings on harvested lands. Other pest species include common reed, poison hemlock, rush 

skeletonweed, gorse, Canada thistle, and tansy ragwort. The Refuge is surveyed throughout the 

year for the presence of these species, and plants are removed manually. The non-native 

Himalayan blackberry is an aggressive invader of pastures and seasonal freshwater wetlands, 

forming dense monotypic stands. Control requires aggressive measures including mowing, 

discing, scraping, hand removal, and herbicide application. 

3.3 FISHERIES HABITATS AND RESOURCES 

As many as 94 species of fishes from 30 different families have been observed in the Nisqually 

Basin, Estuary, and Reach (Cook-Tabor 1999). These species include salmonids, lamprey, 

herring, smelt, cods, sculpins, rockfish, surfperches, pricklebacks, gobies, sandlances, flounders, 

and flatfishes. There are few freshwater species residing in the Nisqually River, McAllister 

Creek, and associated tributaries that would be affected by this plan. The description presented 

in this CCP focuses on the selected species listed in Table 3.3-1 below (see Wildlife Species 

List, Appendix E.2). All of these species are considered indicators of estuarine environmental 

health and are meant to represent the broader set of fish species using estuarine habitats of the 

Refuge and study area (Emmett et al. 1991). The species listed in the following table are 

described below by species group. 

3.3.1 Pacific Salmon 

Salmonids are probably the most abundant fishes in the Nisqually River Basin, with ten species 

found in the Nisqually River and Estuary, McAllister Creek, and independent tributaries. Six of 

the salmonids observed in the Nisqually Basin are Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon are an integral 

component of the Pacific Northwest, supporting industry, recreation, and culture (Nehlsen et al. 

1991). The Pacific salmon runs present in the Nisqually River include summer/fall chinook, 

winter chum, coho, and pink salmon, and cutthroat and winter steelhead. Chum salmon are the 

most abundant species, followed by coho salmon, pink salmon, steelhead, and chinook salmon. 

Due to high numbers of releases of hatchery fish in the Nisqually River Basin, the summer/fall 

chinook and coho salmon runs are considered to be of mixed hatchery/native origin. All other 

Pacific salmon runs are of native origin. 

Extensive losses of salmonid populations throughout the Pacific have occurred over the last 150 

years. Adverse effects of habitat alterations, dams, and hatchery operations are widely 

recognized as major contributors to the decline of salmon in the region. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 

associate these activities with over 90% of the documented stock extinctions or declines. The 

importance of habitat is underscored in coastal watersheds with declining salmon populations. 

The generalized life history of Pacific salmon includes spawning in freshwater, migration 

through estuaries to the ocean, and subsequent maturation and migration back to freshwater for 

spawning. Juveniles migrate from the river to the estuary primarily during spring and early 

summer, and the occurrence of juvenile salmon within different estuarine habitats varies by time, 

species, and size, with species residing in estuaries from a few days to many months. Of the 
Puget Sound

 ̈§¦5

Nisqual yl R

vi er

McAllister Creek

Puget Sound

 ̈§¦5

Nisqual yl R

vi er

McAllister Creek

Distribution of Invasive Reed 

Canary Grass, 1997

Figure 3.2-6

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

March 2005

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_6.mxd

N

0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles

1:30,007

Legend

Former Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Dike

Seasonally Flooded Reed Canary Grass

Page 3-27
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-29 

Table 3.3-1. Representative Fish Species Inhabiting the Estuarine Habitats of 

the Refuge.

Species Group Family

1. Pacific Salmon

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Salmonidae, trouts 

Chum salmon (O. keta) Salmonidae, trouts 

Coho salmon (O. kisutch) Salmonidae, trouts 

2. Forage Fish

Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) Clupeidae, herrings 

Surf smelt (Hypomesus prettiosus) Osmeridae, smelts 

Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) Ammodytidae, sand lances 

3. Other Fishes

White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) Acipenseridae 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Salmonidae, trouts 

Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) Gadidae, cods 

Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) Cottidae, sculpins 

Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) Embiotocidae, surfperches 

Arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) Gobiidae, gobies 

Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders 

English sole (P. vetulus) Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders 

Pacific salmon found in the Nisqually River, chinook salmon are the most dependent on estuaries 

to complete their life cycle, followed by chum, pink, and coho salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout 

(Aitkin 1998). 

Estuaries provide important habitat for foraging, predator avoidance, and for the physiological 

transition from fresh to saltwater (Healey 1982; Simenstad et al. 1982; Iwata and Komatsu 

1984). Juvenile anadromous salmonids use intertidal and shallow subtidal sloughs and tidal 

channels during the critical transition from spawning habitats in freshwater to the marine feeding 

grounds of the north Pacific Ocean (Simenstad et al. 1992). Juvenile salmonids congregate in 

areas where estuary morphology favors detritus retention, such as weed beds and channels with 

braided and meandering morphology (Healey 1982). 

Chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, are the largest of the Pacific salmon. Nisqually 

River chinook salmon are included, with 27 other distinct stocks, in the Puget Sound 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) determined by NMFS (Myers et al. 1998; Stout et al. 2001). 

Abundance of native chinook salmon in this ESU has declined substantially; NMFS has 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-30 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

determined this ESU to be at risk of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future and 

listed this ESU as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999 (63 FR 11482). 

Chinook salmon have the most diverse life history strategies of the Pacific salmon (Myers et al. 

1998) and remain at sea commonly from 2 to 4 years, with some proportion remaining as little as 

2 or 3 months or as long as 6 years (Gilbert 1912; Mullen et al. 1992). The majority of juvenile 

chinook salmon out-migration to the estuary has been found to occur between mid-February and 

early June (Williams et al. 1975). The principal prey items eaten by juvenile chinook salmon in 

the estuary were insects (primarily dipteran flies) as well as spiders, decapod zoea, harpacticoid 

copepods, amphipods, and fish (Pearce et al. 1982). The highest growth rates for juvenile 

chinook salmon have been recorded in estuaries (Simenstad et al. 1982). Results of studies in 

the Sacramento River and Skagit River systems suggest that juvenile chinook salmon reared in 

estuaries grow faster than chinook salmon reared in upper river habitat, and this may increase 

their marine survival (Kjelson et al. 1982; Congleton et al. 1982). Tag recovery data from 

hatchery fish indicate that juvenile chinook salmon originating from other river systems in south 

Puget Sound utilize the Nisqually Estuary (Pearce et al. 1982). 

Winter chum salmon in the Nisqually River are considered native in origin. The main prey of 

juvenile chum salmon in the Nisqually River Estuary was found to shift over the period of outmigration from bottom-dwelling prey, primarily harpacticoid copepods and gammarid 

amphipods, to prey found in shallow waters, such as calanoid copepods, crustacea larvae, and 

hyperiid amphipods (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). 

Nisqually River coho salmon were included in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU 

determined by NMFS in their status review of coho salmon stocks of Washington, Oregon, and 

California (Weitkamp et al. 1995). This ESU is under consideration for listing (candidate 

species) under the ESA due to the continuing loss of habitat, high artificial production rates, high 

harvest rates, and a severe decline in average size of spawners. Coho salmon juveniles remain in 

the system for more than 1 year, rearing in the accessible length and tributaries of the Nisqually 

River, the independent tributaries of the south shore of the Nisqually Reach, and McAllister 

Creek (Williams et al. 1975). The majority of out-migration to saltwater occurs between late 

February and early June. Juvenile coho salmon located in shallow sublittoral (water zone to 

about 600 feet) habitat in the Nisqually Reach feed primarily upon bottom-dwelling organisms, 

such as gammarid amphipods, harpacticoid copepods, cumaceans, isopods, and mysids, as well 

as sand lance and surface drift insects (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). 

3.3.2 Forage Fish 

Herring species observed in the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach include American shad, a 

non-native species, and Pacific herring (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). Pacific herring are 

a significant part of the prey base of finfish, marine mammals, and seabirds of Puget Sound 

(Lemberg et al. 1997; Stewart 1977; West 1997). The herring found utilizing the Nisqually 

Reach and Estuary is the Squaxin Pass stock, the southernmost stock in Puget Sound (Lemberg 

et al. 1997). A Biological Review Team (BRT) from NMFS reviewed the declining status of 

Pacific herring in Puget Sound and concluded that it is neither at risk of extinction, nor likely to 

become so. However, the report also found that there is evidence pointing to the potential for 

human-caused factors to be disrupting the Puget Sound ecosystem (Stout et al. 2001). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-31 

Prior to spawning, adult herring hold in the Nisqually Reach and, once ready, spawn in south 

Puget Sound from mid-January to mid-April (Lemberg et al. 1997). Herring usually deposit 

eggs on intertidal and shallow subtidal eelgrass and marine algae. Juveniles remain in nearshore 

shallow-water areas until fall, when most disperse to deeper off-shore waters. Alterations of 

water quality, prey species, spawning substrate, and habitat can also affect populations. Puget 

Sound herring reside in an increasingly urbanized and threatened environment and are 

particularly susceptible to influences of shoreline development (O’Tool et al. 2000). The 

maintenance of these stocks is dependent upon protection of their critical habitats—intertidal and 

shallow subtidal locations. 

Surf smelt in all life stages are found in estuarine and marine waters (Emmett et al. 1991). They 

are a significant part of the total Puget Sound forage base (Lemberg et al. 1997). Surf smelt 

spawn in 2.5 to 5 cm of water in the upper intertidal zone, depositing eggs that stick to sand 

(Emmett et al. 1991). Surf smelt spawning habitat has been documented in the Nisqually 

Estuary (Lemberg et al. 1997). Due to its strict spawning habitat requirements, this species is 

considered an indicator of environmental health (Emmett et al. 1991). 

Pacific sand lance have been observed in very large numbers in the Nisqually Reach and Estuary 

(Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). Sand lance spawn within the upper intertidal zone 

(Emmett et al. 1991; Lemberg et al. 1997). Sand lance can be an important component of 

seabirds and salmon prey bases, with reports of 19 to 53% of the diet of coho, sockeye, and 

chinook salmon consisting of sand lance (Beacham 1986; Manzer 1969; Pearce et al. 1982). Due 

to their importance as prey for many species of marine vertebrates and sensitivity to oilcontaminated sediments, Pacific sand lance are considered an indicator species of environmental 

stress (Emmett et al. 1991). 

3.3.3 Other Fishes 

White sturgeon are anadromous, spawning in large rivers and residing in both marine and 

freshwater. This species tolerates a wide range of saltwater concentrations and is common in 

estuaries of large rivers of the Pacific coast. Larvae and very young juveniles are riverine, while 

older juveniles and adults are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats. White sturgeon 

are not usually found in intertidal areas, although they may feed on intertidal flats at high tide. 

Juvenile and adult white sturgeon are primarily carnivorous benthic feeders. This species is 

considered an indicator of environmental stress because it is long-lived and may concentrate 

contaminants. White sturgeon are considered to be a priority species for conservation and 

management by WDFW. 

Pacific tomcod spawn from late winter to spring in Washington in marine coastal waters 

(Emmett et al. 1991; Walters 1984). Larvae and small juveniles are pelagic (i.e., free swimming 

in open water) occurring in nearshore marine waters and estuaries, while adults and juveniles are 

demersal (i.e., near the bottom of the ocean) in salinities above 18 ppt. Pacific tomcod larvae are 

consumed by many fishes, while juveniles and adults are eaten by large fishes, harbor seals, and 

other marine mammals (Emmett et al. 1991). 

Sculpin are small to moderate-sized bottom-dwelling fishes (Hart 1973). Twenty-two 

freshwater, marine, and estuarine species of sculpin have been observed in the Nisqually River, 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-32 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

Estuary, and Reach (Cook-Tabor 1999). Of these species, the Pacific staghorn sculpin is 

considered an indicator species of environmental health and is usually found in shallow water 

(<50 m) in the sand or mud (Emmett et al. 1991; Love 1991). Large numbers of Pacific staghorn 

sculpin have been found in the Nisqually Reach and Estuary (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 

1982). Pacific staghorn sculpin feed at high tide on mudflats (Love 1991) and are eaten by large 

fishes, birds, and mammals. 

Most surfperches inhabit shallow intertidal locations along sandy or muddy shores (Lamb and 

Edgell 1986). Unlike most fish, they bear large and fully developed young. Shiner perch, 

striped seaperch, and pile perch have been found in the Nisqually Estuary and Reach with shiner 

perch in large numbers (Fresh et al. 1979; Perce et al. 1982). Shiner perch are considered an 

indicator species of environmental health. They are commonly associated with docks and pilings 

and aquatic vegetation (eelgrass) in nearshore intertidal and subtidal areas with depths of less 

than 50 feet (Emmett et al. 1991; Love 1991). Shiner perch move into shallow bays and 

estuaries in spring and summer, and offshore into deeper water in fall and winter (Emmett et al. 

1991) and are eaten by large marine fishes, marine mammals, and fish-eating birds. 

Most gobies live in shallow to moderately deep coastal waters and prefer sandy, silty bays and 

tideflats (Lamb and Edgell 1986). Gobies are active bottom-dwelling and small-sized fish. The 

arrow goby is considered to be an indicator of environmental stress because it depends on 

estuaries (Emmett et al. 1991). They spawn year round on intertidal mudflats or sand flats of 

estuaries. Arrow gobies are eaten by birds and other fish (Lamb and Edgell 1986). 

Nine righteye flounder species occur in the Nisqually Estuary and Reach (Cook-Tabor 1999). 

Of those species, Dover sole, rock sole, butter sole, English sole, and sand sole are considered 

common or of economic importance by WDFW (Palsson et al. 1997). Very large numbers 

(~10,000) of starry flounders have been captured in the Nisqually Estuary and Reach (Fresh et al. 

1979; Pearce et al. 1982). Puget Sound stocks spawn between February and April near river 

mouths and sloughs in shallow water (Emmett et al. 1991). Juveniles most commonly live in 

estuaries in shallow water and are also found in sandy, intertidal, and freshwater areas. Starry 

flounder are preyed upon by marine mammals and fish-eating birds (Emmett et al. 1991; Love 

1991). 

English sole in Puget Sound spawn from January to April over soft-bottom substrates at depths 

of 50 to 70 m (Emmett et al. 1991). Larvae are transported to nearshore nursery areas (primarily 

estuaries) by tidal currents, feed on plankton, and metamorphose into juveniles in spring and 

early summer. Due to its reliance on estuaries for rearing, alterations and pollution of estuarine 

habitats adversely affect English sole (Gunderson et al. 1990). English sole are eaten by larger 

fishes, marine mammals, and fish-eating birds. 

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Fish 

Threatened and endangered fish species present in the Nisqually Basin include chinook salmon, 

coho salmon (a Candidate species), as well as bull trout. Information regarding chinook and 

coho salmon is presented in Section 3.3.1. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-33 

Bull trout have historically occurred in the Nisqually River watershed. Bull trout are closely 

related to Dolly Varden. Bull trout populations are threatened by habitat degradation, dams and 

diversion, and predation by non-native fish. The anadromous form of bull trout is the least 

understood and documented of the four life history forms (resident, fluvial, adfluvial, and 

anadromous) (USFWS 1998). Adult fish have been occasionally seen in lower sections of Puget 

Sound rivers, Grays Harbor, and Skagit River estuaries and are presumed to be anadromous 

forms (Brix et al. 1974; Kraemer 1994; WDFW 1998). 

Habitat is available in the Nisqually River for all life history forms: anadromous, fluvial, 

adfluvial, and resident. Not much is known about the native char in the Nisqually River system. 

 Bull trout/Dolly Varden were described as entering the Nisqually River in "vast numbers" in 

historical accounts (Suckley and Cooper 1860), but little is known about the current status of the 

population (WDFW 1998). The anadromous form of bull trout, if present in the Nisqually River, 

is likely only in small numbers (J. Michaels, pers. comm.). 

Bull trout within the Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) were listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act on 1 November 1999 (64 FR 58909). Based on 

their geographic distribution, Nisqually River bull trout were classified by WDFW as “distinct” 

from other Puget Sound char stocks in their Salmonid Stock Inventory (WDFW 1998). Due to 

insufficient information, the stock status was classified as “unknown.” 

Bull trout generally spawn from August through November in small tributaries and headwater 

streams. Because bull trout eggs incubate about 7 months in loose, clean gravel, they are 

especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation (Fraley and Shepard 1989). 

Hatching occurs in late winter or early spring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Anadromous bull 

trout juveniles typically spend 2 to 3 years rearing in tributary streams before migrating to sea. 

Bull trout eat aquatic and terrestrial insects, macrozooplankton, mysids, and fish (Shepard et al. 

1984). Large bull trout may feed almost exclusively on fish (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Shepard 

et al. 1984). 

Bull trout distribution has been reduced by an estimated 40 to 60% since pre-settlement times, 

due primarily to local extirpations, habitat degradation, and isolating factors. In general, bull 

trout need habitat providing cold water, complex cover, stable substrate with a low percentage of 

fine sediments, high channel stability, and stream/population connectivity (Fraley and Shepard 

1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; USFWS 1998). Bull trout also readily interbreed with nonnative brook trout, causing genetic introgression. Brook trout may also exclude bull trout from 

native habitats (USFWS 1998). In addition, native char are easily caught and are highly 

susceptible to fishing pressure (Fraley and Shepard 1989). 

3.4 WILDLIFE 

The mosaic of saltwater estuary, freshwater wetlands, riparian, and open or forested upland 

habitats at Nisqually NWR results in a diversity of more than 300 species of birds, mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians (see Wildlife Species List, Appendix E.2). The Nisqually delta is an 

important non-coastal resting and feeding area for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds between 

the Skagit Flats and the Columbia River within the Pacific Flyway. Eelgrass beds and tidal 

mudflats provide feeding and roosting areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. Some birds 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-34 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

in the estuarine and freshwater ecosystem are year-round residents, or remain for the summer or 

winter season at the end of their migrations. The Nisqually Estuary is rich in microorganisms 

and invertebrates that support a variety of wildlife including waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, 

marine mammals, and shellfish. Located in the lower Nisqually River watershed, the larger 

study area also provides freshwater, riparian, and upland habitats for a variety of wildlife. 

3.4.1 Waterfowl 

Waterfowl migrating in the Pacific Flyway begin arriving on the Nisqually delta in late 

September, with many remaining through the winter. While some birds may use the area only 

for short periods of time during migration, they are dependent upon the area and its rich food 

sources. Other birds remain for the winter on the delta, traveling between the estuary and 

flooded agricultural or grass fields and wetlands on or off the Refuge. Off-Refuge sites are 

primarily found south of I-5. Nisqually NWR staff have been conducting aerial surveys to 

monitor waterfowl population numbers on the Refuge since 1975. Since 1984, waterfowl data 

were collected in association with five distinct survey units (Figure 3.4-1): (1) McAllister Creek, 

(2) Nisqually tideflats, (3) diked area, (4) Nisqually River and east side estuarine habitats, and 

(5) northwest shoreline to Johnson Point. 

Dabbling ducks comprise more than 90% of all Refuge waterfowl sightings. Peak population 

numbers were observed during October or November with an average of 5,125 birds observed 

annually (1984-2000). The highest annual average was 9,641 in 1994 and the lowest was 1,630 

in 1997. The American wigeon was the most abundant (76% of all dabblers) waterfowl species 

observed on the Refuge. Numbers of wigeon observed peaked at 12,813 in November 1987 but 

have been declining in recent years. About 90% of wigeon are found in Units 1, 2, and 4, which 

are primarily estuarine. The remaining 10% of average wigeon numbers were found in diked 

habitats in Unit 3. 

Other commonly observed dabblers include mallard, northern pintail, and green-winged teal. 

Dabblers consume vegetation mainly in shallow water, on mudflats, and in the salt marsh. 

Dabblers, as well as other waterfowl, feed on species such as eelgrass and wigeon grass present 

in the estuary (Klotz et al. 1978). In the fall and winter, during hunting season, a majority of the 

delta waterfowl rest far out on the reach. When not on the outer reach, they may rest and drink 

in freshwater wetlands during the day (i.e., in the Nisqually Valley and move out to the salt 

marsh to feed at the tide’s edge throughout the night) (Berge et al. 1974; Shanewise 1996). 

Some animal foods, including crustaceans, insects, and mollusks, comprise a small component of 

their fall and winter diets. Most of the dabbling ducks feed primarily on seeds of aquatic plants, 

but the American wigeon prefers stems and leafy portions. Berge et al. (1974) stated that large 
P u g e t S o u n d

To Johnson Point

Transect

1

3

2

4

5

¥¦§5

Nisqually

R

vi er

McAll si ter Cre

e

k

P u g e t S o u n d

To Johnson Point

Transect

1

3

2

4

5

¥¦§5

Nisqually

R

vi er

McAll si ter Cre

e

k

Waterfowl Survey Units

Figure 3.4-1

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

March 2005

N

0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles

1:35,005

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd\Figure3.4-1.mxd

Legend

Former Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Survey Unit Boundary

2 Waterfowl Survey Unit

Page 3-35

Aerial Photo 1990
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-37 

numbers of waterfowl were seen on the reach in November, indicating that American wigeon, 

pintail, green-winged teal, and northern shoveler, among other waterfowl, opted for the estuarine 

areas over the diked interior. The inner diked areas of the Refuge are used by wigeon and other 

waterfowl in smaller numbers, especially during the period when seasonally flooded ponds are 

present. When the dike was breached in 1975 and the diked interior remained flooded in a 

brackish or altered estuarine state for a year and a half, it was heavily used by waterbirds (Klotz 

et al. 1978). Plants in the inner diked areas that are primary foods of waterfowl include 

pondweed, smartweed, bulrush, and grasses (Klotz et al. 1978). 

Other waterfowl commonly observed on the Refuge include Canada geese, northern shoveler, 

bufflehead, and scoter. Both migratory and resident Canada geese subspecies are observed on 

the Refuge. Migratory Canada geese (primarily cackling subspecies) are present during fall and 

winter months, while resident (western subspecies) are present in much smaller numbers 

throughout the year. Observations of geese, primarily migrating subspecies, have increased 

since the early 1990s. The number of geese observed during winter waterfowl surveys peaked at 

687 in 2000. Most Canada geese are observed in grassland areas of Unit 3. Northern shovelers 

are filter feeders in shallow water and consume a greater amount of small aquatic animals than 

other surface feeders (Klotz et al. 1978). Small numbers are commonly observed in ponds 

located in the inner diked area (Unit 3). Scoter are observed most often in Unit 2. Diets of 

scoter primarily consist of mollusks but can include decapods (crabs, shrimp), amphipods, 

barnacles, insects, fish, and plants (Klotz et al. 1978). Bufflehead feed on similar items, with 

insects making up a more important component of their diet. Bufflehead are observed most often 

in Units 4 and 2. Seaducks, including scoter and scaup, have declined in Puget Sound according 

to WDFW surveys (Nysewander and Evenson 1998). 

Waterfowl are also found in the study area south of the Refuge, primarily in freshwater wetlands 

and seasonally flooded agricultural fields. Many waterfowl species travel between the delta 

estuary and freshwater habitats south of the Refuge. 

3.4.2 Waterbirds and Seabirds 

Waterbirds and seabirds commonly observed on the Refuge include great blue and green herons, 

American bitterns, American coot, Virginia rail, grebes, loons, cormorants, and gulls. Most 

birds within this group use the Refuge as feeding or resting grounds, with many departing the 

delta during the breeding season. Most of these birds also use the river, creeks, and sloughs 

within the study area south of the Refuge. 

A few species, such as the great blue heron, feed and nest on the Refuge. The great blue heron 

hunts on the mudflats, salt marsh, and diked area, with principal foods consisting of fish, frogs, 

small mammals, insects, and crustaceans (Klotz et al. 1978). Great blue herons are found in all 

four units of the Refuge, but they are frequently seen feeding along McAllister Creek and the 

mudflats. The northwest bluffs of McAllister Creek provide habitat for a great blue heron 

colony (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). Herons were first 

observed nesting in this area in 1977 (1 nest). Nesting activity increased gradually to a high of 

101 nests in 1994. Since then, nest counts have declined to 3 nests in 2001. This decline 

corresponds to the establishment of a nearby bald eagle nest. Predation by bald eagles appears to 

have influenced the movement of the nesting colony northward on the bluff, farther away from 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-38 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

the bald eagle nest. The colony has also been abandoned during the chick rearing stage in recent 

years resulting in nesting failure. It is unknown whether eagle predation, human disturbance, or 

changes in the heron food resource are causing the decline in nesting birds and nesting failure. 

The great blue heron is a monitored and priority species in the State of Washington because of 

the increasing loss of foraging and breeding habitats as well as increasing environmental 

pollutants associated with human expansion and development. Small numbers of American 

bitterns and Virginia rails are frequently observed on the Refuge in the spring and summer 

during nesting season (Ramsey 1997). Soras are less common but can be observed during spring 

and summer (Ramsey 1997). Sandhill cranes (3-4 at a time) have been observed infrequently in 

the inner diked area since 1983 (Ramsey 1997; USFWS data). 

Western grebes are common migrants and winter residents. Pied-billed and horned grebes are 

common along McAllister Creek during winter and spring. Eared grebes can be observed 

occasionally on the Refuge. Fish are the primary food of western grebes. Other grebes feed on 

fish, crustaceans, insects, and mollusks. 

Common and red-throated loons are commonly observed on the Refuge during the winter 

months. The common loon is considered a State candidate threatened species due to limited 

nesting locations and increasing human disturbances (Rodrick and Milner 1991). The yellowbilled loon, which is on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list (USFWS 2001), is an 

accidental vagrant to this area. Loons feed primarily on fish but do take other foods including 

crustaceans, mollusks, and insects. 

Double-crested cormorants are commonly observed in McAllister Creek and the Nisqually 

River, or perched on driftwood or large snags in Unit 2. Gull species commonly observed on the 

Refuge include Bonaparte’s gull, mew gull, ring-billed gull, California gull, and glaucouswinged gull. Gulls, primarily fish eaters and scavengers, forage on the exposed and flooded 

mudflats in Unit 2 and the reach. Large numbers of gulls are due in part to the proximity of the 

Hawks Prairie Landfill, where some gull species feed. Closure of the landfill in 2000 has likely 

changed gull abundance on the Refuge since numbers have declined slightly. Caspian tern 

sightings are becoming more common on the Refuge since the establishment of a colony in 

nearby Commencement Bay in Tacoma. Although this colony was displaced in 2001, Caspian 

tern sightings are still common in the spring and summer. Common murres and rhinoceros 

auklets are infrequently observed in tidal waters during the winter months. 

3.4.3 Shorebirds 

Shorebirds (42 species which occur in the Pacific region [Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, 

Oregon, and California]) migrate long distances from breeding grounds in Alaska and Canada to 

wintering grounds in Central and South America. Habitats used by these shorebirds include 

coastal wetlands, freshwater lakes, seasonally flooded wetlands and grasslands, and salinealkaline lakes. Only 30% of the original coastal wetlands remain in the Pacific region (Helmers 

1992). Numerous interior wetland and estuarine areas have been lost to agriculture or industry. 

Large numbers of shorebirds, up to 22 species, feed on the Refuge mudflats and salt marsh as 

they pass through during spring and fall migrations. Western sandpipers and dunlin, the 

predominant species, can be observed feeding on the exposed mud at low tides, concentrated in 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-39 

higher areas along the marsh, or in the inner diked area. Western sandpipers feed on annelid and 

nematode worms, arthropods, and other invertebrates, as well as salt marsh sandspurry seeds 

(Klotz et al. 1978). Greater yellowlegs, least sandpipers, killdeer, and common snipe are also 

commonly observed during the spring and summer. Other occasional sightings during this time 

of year include lesser yellowlegs, spotted sandpipers, semipalmated plovers, sanderlings, 

whimbrels, and dowitchers. A small number of common snipe and killdeer nest on the Refuge. 

A wintering population of dunlin has also been observed on the Refuge. An average of 480 birds 

(peak of 2,000 birds) have been observed during aerial winter waterfowl surveys; however, tidal 

conditions during surveys are often not conducive to high shorebird numbers. Black-bellied 

plovers are also occasionally seen on the tideflats in the winter months. On very rare occasions, 

marbled godwits and Wilson’s phalaropes are seen. 

3.4.4 Landbirds 

Over 100 species of landbirds have been observed on the Refuge, including 22 species of raptors 

(owls, hawks, falcons, and eagles), 17 nonpasserines (e.g., woodpeckers, hummingbirds, 

kingfishers, doves, and pigeons), and 77 species of passerines (e.g., sparrows, finches, warblers, 

flycatchers, and swallows). Landbirds found on the Refuge and study area include both residents 

and migrants. Long-distance migrants travel between breeding grounds in temperate North 

America and wintering grounds in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. 

Short-distance migrants travel between wintering grounds north of the Mexican border and 

breeding grounds to the north. Resident species both breed and winter in the local area. 

Landbirds can be found in all habitats of the Refuge including riparian woodlands, agricultural 

lands, and freshwater wetlands. 

In the 1980s, scientists observed a decline in numbers of migratory landbirds across the nation, 

apparently due to habitat loss and degradation both on breeding and wintering grounds. 

Nationwide efforts are now underway to identify more clearly the causes of these population 

declines, monitor populations of the most affected species, and reverse the declines, e.g., where 

possible through large- and small-scale land management efforts. Several species (olive-sided 

flycatcher, white-crowned sparrow, and pine siskin) on Nisqually NWR have been identified as 

priority species in this effort, and the Service is actively monitoring these populations. 

3.4.4.1 Raptors 

Raptors are found throughout all habitats of the Refuge. Some of the 22 species found on the 

Refuge are considered neotropical migrants because they spend their winters in South America. 

Northern harriers are the most regularly observed raptor, hunting over the salt marsh and nonnative grasslands throughout the year. Other frequently observed species on the Refuge include 

bald eagles, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great-horned owls, and American kestrels. 

Greater species diversity and larger numbers are observed in the fall and winter months. 

Northern harriers, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and great-horned owls are known to nest 

on the Refuge. Barn owls have also been observed to nest in either one of the Twin Barns. 

Ospreys and merlins are observed occasionally on the Refuge. Ospreys feed exclusively on fish 

and are a State-monitored species that breeds along coasts, rivers, and lakes of coastal North 

America in the summer. Limiting factors include availability of snags, suitable live trees, or 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-40 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

other suitable nest structures near large bodies of water that produce adequate fish supplies 

(Rodrick and Milner 1991). Northern goshawk, a BCC list species, is seen in the area on rare 

occasions. 

Fall and spring migrating peregrine falcons are commonly observed hunting over the Refuge. 

They feed primarily on medium to small-sized birds such as pigeons, doves, shorebirds, 

waterfowl, and woodpeckers. Occasional sightings have been recorded from April through 

October. Peregrine falcons were recently taken off the Endangered Species List because their 

populations have rebounded. However, they are still listed as endangered by the State and are on 

the BCC list, and populations will be monitored for several years to ensure the population is 

stable or increasing. Falcons are observed most often hunting over the salt marsh and along the 

Nisqually River. 

3.4.4.2 Nonpasserines 

Common species in this group include rufous hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, downy 

woodpecker, belted kingfisher, and band-tailed pigeon. Hummingbirds arrive in late March and 

depart the Refuge by August. While downy woodpeckers are common, the Lewis’s woodpecker 

is an uncommonly seen BBC list species. Belted kingfishers are commonly observed along 

McAllister Creek and the salt marsh areas, with nesting pairs observed along McAllister Creek. 

Band-tailed pigeons are commonly observed on the Refuge and the East Bluff throughout March 

and April early in the breeding season. Primary food sources include cascara, elderberry, wild 

cherry, huckleberry, dogwood, and madrone (Rodrick and Milner 1991), all of which are found 

on the Refuge and study area. Rufous hummingbird and band-tailed pigeon populations have 

been declining in this region (Sauer et al. 2000). 

3.4.4.3 Passerines 

Most of the 81 species of passerines found on the Refuge are observed during the spring and 

summer months. Fifty passerine species are known to nest on the Refuge, including the 

American robin, cedar waxwing, common yellowthroat, song sparrow, red-winged blackbird, 

and four species of swallows. American goldfinches and savannah sparrows nest in open 

grassland areas. Many species migrate south after breeding (e.g., common yellowthroats and the 

swallows), but some remain on the Refuge throughout the year (e.g., black-capped chickadee, 

Bewick’s wren, and American robin). Western meadowlarks winter on the Refuge and can be 

observed from September through December in areas adjacent to mowed fields. A few species 

on the BCC list include olive-sided flycatchers, white-crowned sparrows, and pine siskins that 

probably breed in the area; horned larks and golden-crowned kinglets that are seen during 

migration; and vesper and sage sparrows that are accidental visitors. 

The salt marsh, freshwater, and brackish marsh habitats provide a year-round home for the marsh 

wren. Other passerines that feed on the salt marsh, often in large flocks, include the European 

starling, blackbirds, and finches. Crows commonly forage on the mudflats. Barn, cliff, violetgreen, and tree swallows are commonly observed feeding on insects over estuarine habitats 

during spring and summer (Ulmschneider 1976). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-41 

The riparian woodlands along the Nisqually River on the Refuge and in the study area are a 

critical habitat for several breeding species with significantly declining region- or nation-wide 

population trends. These include the yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, downy woodpecker, and 

Swainson’s thrush (Sauer et al. 2000). 

3.4.5 Marine Mammals 

Puget Sound has a rich diversity of marine mammals that either feed or breed in these waters. 

Some, such as the harbor seal, are year-round residents. Other species, such as the gray whale, 

may move into Puget Sound during their migration between wintering and breeding grounds. 

The harbor seal is the most abundant marine mammal observed in the Nisqually delta. Seals 

haul out on logs in the Nisqually River mouth or on flooded mudflats in the northeast area of the 

delta. They are also often observed swimming in the Nisqually River or McAllister Creek. In 

the 1940s, the delta was described as an important breeding ground for the harbor seal. 

Currently, no seals are known to breed on the delta, most likely because of human disturbance 

and harassment by boaters and other users of the delta (Klotz et al. 1978). Gray whales, minke 

whales, false killer whales, and orcas are occasionally sighted during the winter months in the 

Nisqually Reach. Sea otters are occasionally sighted in the Nisqually delta reach. California sea 

lion observations have increased in recent years, with a few sightings of the Federally threatened 

Steller sea lion. 

3.4.6 Land Mammals 

Forty-eight species of land mammals have been observed on the Refuge. Common large land 

mammals observed on the Refuge include Columbian black-tailed deer, coyote, river otter, longtailed weasel, mink, eastern gray squirrel, raccoon, skunk, opossum, eastern cottontail, and 

beaver. All of these species probably occur in the study area as well. The eastern gray squirrel 

is an introduced species from the eastern United States that now commonly occurs in urban areas 

of the west. Observations of this species have been increasing on the Refuge in recent years. 

Native western gray squirrels have been observed in the study area near McAllister Creek and 

east of the Nisqually River (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993; 

WDFW 2001). Western gray squirrels prefer oak woodland habitats, and it is unlikely that a 

population historically or currently occurs on the Refuge. Small mammal trapping conducted in 

1977 and 1978 resulted in the identification of vagrant shrews, shrews, shrew moles, deer mice, 

Oregon voles, Townsend voles, and Pacific jumping mice on the Refuge (Klotz et al. 1978). 

Townsend’s vole, deer mice, and vagrant and masked shrews were also found in grassland 

habitats, with Townsend’s voles at the highest density (120.7/ha) (Bowman and Dobos 1976). 

Deer mice, on the other hand, are abundant in forested areas. Townsend voles and deer mice can 

also be found in salt marsh areas (Bowman and Dobos 1976). In addition, various species of 

bats have been observed on the Refuge, but there are little data on abundance and distribution. 

3.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Sixty-two species of amphibians and reptiles occur in the Pacific Northwest (Nussbaum et al. 

1983), 13 of which have been observed on the Refuge. Red-legged frogs, Pacific tree frogs, and 

garter snakes inhabit open grassland and riparian areas of the Refuge (Klotz et al. 1978) and 

most likely occur in similar habitats in the study area. Long-toed salamanders, rough-skinned 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-42 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

newts, and the introduced bullfrog are also found in emergent wetland, ponds, and woodland 

areas (Klotz et al. 1978). In recent years, northwestern and western red-backed salamanders 

have been observed on the Refuge. 

The western pond turtle is listed by Washington State as an endangered species due to limited 

distribution, low numbers, and isolated populations. Historically, the Puget Sound lowlands 

were considered the northernmost limit of their range, but they were considered extirpated from 

this area and many other parts of Washington State by the 1980s (Hays et al. 1999). Western 

pond turtles spend much of their life in streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands, but they also require 

terrestrial habitat for nesting, dispersal, dormancy during parts of the warmest months, and 

overwintering (Hays et al. 1999). The Refuge has suitable habitat for western pond turtles; 

however, none have been seen in recent years. In 1991, a western pond turtle was found near 

McAllister Creek under highway I-5 (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 

1993). The turtle was released within the Refuge, but after two weeks it was not seen again. No 

western pond turtles were found during extensive surveys in the Fort Lewis area (Cassidy et al. 

1997). 

The Oregon spotted frog, recently differentiated from the closely related Columbia spotted frog, 

is listed in Washington State as an endangered species and is also a candidate species under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act. The frog’s limited number of existing populations and lack of 

protection for these populations warrants State and Federal protection (McAllister and Leonard 

1997). While Oregon spotted frogs have a wide variety of predators, they are particularly 

vulnerable to introduced species including bullfrogs and numerous warmwater fishes. Oregon 

spotted frogs require freshwater emergent wetlands, which were historically found in the 

floodplains of many larger bodies of water. Much of this habitat has been drained, filled, diked, 

or degraded due to exotic plants like reed canary grass (McAllister and Leonard 1997). The 

Nisqually NWR has appropriate Oregon spotted frog habitat, but there are no known populations 

occurring on the Refuge or in the area. 

3.4.8 Invertebrates 

Many of the organisms found within estuaries depend on small marine invertebrates as a food 

resource. The marine invertebrate community in the Nisqually delta has been minimally studied 

in the past. A survey conducted in 1978 (Wisseman et al. 1978) found an abundance of ghost 

shrimp, bivalves, polychaetes, spionids, and nematodes in mudflats in the RNA portion of the 

Refuge. Polychaete assemblages found in cobble and mixed sediment areas contrasted sharply 

with those found in muddy areas. Small crustacea (tanaid and cumacean) and numerous 

amphipod species were found in sediment surfaces in high numbers. Bivalves were the most 

abundant species found in the mudflats between the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. This 

area also contained gastropods and opisthobranchs at lower tide levels as well as amphipods, 

which were abundant in the sandy flats. Geoducks were found occasionally, low in the intertidal 

along the delta front (Wisseman et al. 1978). 

Terrestrial invertebrates are also very important to the wildlife community. No complete 

inventory has been conducted on the Refuge or study area. In 1992, a specimen collection was 

prepared for educational purposes. It included 82 specimens from nine families, ranging from 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-43 

damselflies and grasshoppers to wasps and bees (USFWS data). During the summer of 1994, a 

butterfly study detected 47 different species of butterflies on the Refuge (USFWS data). 

3.4.9 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species 

European starlings are abundant on the Refuge during the nesting season and winter months. 

Their early nesting behavior has eliminated many cavities for wood ducks, American kestrels, 

and swallows. Non-native bullfrogs are a threat to native amphibians because they prey on 

juveniles and adults. Competition between larval bullfrogs and larvae of native amphibians may 

also be a factor in the decline of native species. Mitten crabs and green crabs are aquatic 

nuisance species that are rapidly spreading in coastal Washington, but they have not yet been 

found on the Refuge or elsewhere in south Puget Sound (K. Aitkin, pers. comm.). Monitoring 

programs are being designed to ensure early detection of these invasive species. 

3.4.10 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species 

The Federally threatened bald eagle, marbled murrelet, and Steller sea lion, and endangered 

brown pelican occur on Nisqually NWR. Of these species, the bald eagle is most commonly 

observed. Wintering bald eagles are observed feeding and resting on the Refuge from October 

through March. A peak count of over 90 individuals has been observed feeding on the Refuge 

tideflats, whereas as many as 200 have been observed on the Nisqually River (Stalmaster 2001). 

 Bald eagles are scavengers but also hunt for fish and birds. Nesting activity occurs from 

February through mid-July. A pair of eagles has used the same nest site along the western bluff 

of McAllister Creek every year since 1992. This breeding pair has fledged two healthy chicks 

every year, with the exception of 1997. Three other breeding pairs have been identified within 

the vicinity of the Refuge, including one in the study area on the eastern bank of the Nisqually 

River south of I-5. These birds most likely use the Refuge as feeding grounds. Eagles depend 

on dead or weakened prey such as fish, waterfowl, seabirds, and small mammals (Rodrick and 

Milner 1991). 

Brown pelicans have been observed occasionally in the Nisqually Reach. Marbled murrelets 

have been observed in or heard flying over the Nisqually Reach. The Nisqually Reach probably 

serves as important feeding grounds for much of the south Puget Sound population (B. Ritchie, 

pers. comm.). Murrelets probably travel from the reach through the study area, using the 

Nisqually River corridor, to unidentified nesting locations in forested upland areas. The WDFW 

considers all of Thurston County potential marbled murrelet habitat (Thurston County Dept. of 

Water and Waste Management 1993). 

The Steller sea lion is observed occasionally in the Nisqually Reach. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries is the Federal agency 

responsible for Federally listing most marine life as threatened or endangered, including fish. 

Federally listed fish species are discussed in Sections 3.3.1 (Pacific Salmon) and 3.3.4 

(Threatened and Endangered Fish). 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-44 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

3.4.11 State-Listed Species 

There are several Washington State-listed species that are discussed in previous sections. These 

include the endangered western pond turtle, Oregon spotted frog, brown pelican, and sandhill 

crane. Washington State threatened species include the Steller sea lion, bald eagle, and marbled 

murrelet. Among the Washington State candidates for listing or species of concern, 11 species 

are either known to occur or potentially occur on the Refuge. These are Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, common loon, western grebe, Brandt’s cormorant, northern goshawk, merlin, common 

murre, pileated woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, willow flycatcher, and purple martin. 

3.5 SPECIAL USES 

3.5.1 Haying 

Since 1974, permittee(s) have hayed the non-native grasslands on the Refuge in late summer to 

provide fall browse for migrating waterfowl, primarily American wigeon. The total acreage 

hayed varies from year to year with each permittee and depending on rainfall. Acreage cut has 

ranged from 100 to 312 acres. Currently, approximately 250 acres of non-native grassland are 

cut once from July 1 through September 30. Haying is delayed until July to maximize survival 

of any ground-nesting birds. The permittee pays a percentage per ton of hay cut. 

3.5.2 Scientific Research 

It is Service policy to encourage and support research and management studies to provide 

scientific data upon which decisions regarding management of units of the Refuge System may 

be based. Priority is granted to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural 

diversity. All special use permits issued for research specify that they be conducted in a manner 

to cause minimal effects on wildlife and habitat. The Refuge is occasionally used for various 

research projects addressing vegetation, habitat, bird, small mammal, and other resources. 

3.5.3 Tribal Fishing 

Tribal fishing by members of the Nisqually Indian Tribe occurs in McAllister Creek and the 

Nisqually River. The fishing is provided for in the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854 (10 Stat. 

1132). The Nisqually Indian Tribe fishes in McAllister Creek, the Nisqually River, and adjacent 

marine waters, using set nets or other traditional methods, or with modern, improved fishing 

techniques without curtailment of the right of access to these fishing areas. Tribal fishing is 

conducted by power boat in both the creek and the river with set nets. The commercial tribal 

fishery occasionally causes unintentional take of non-target species such as harbor seals or 

diving birds. 

3.6 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION, AND RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

This section describes the public access, education, and recreation opportunities at the Nisqually 

NWR. Recreation features and access points on the Refuge are shown in Figure 3.6-1. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-45 

3.6.1 Public Access 

The Refuge is open daily during daylight hours. The main access point is by road at Exit 114 off 

I-5. In addition, visitors access the Refuge by boat. Most boaters launch from the State-owned 

Luhr Beach boat ramp at the northwest corner of the Refuge. The Refuge has a daily entrance 

fee of $3.00 per family. The Golden Eagle, Golden Age, Golden Access Passports; Refuge 

Annual Pass; and Federal Duck Stamp also admit one family. Children under 16 are free. The 

entrance fee is waived for educational groups studying nature as part of a course of curriculum. 

Visitors pay the entrance fee at a fee station at the entrance to the Visitor Center. 

The Visitor Center and its parking area is the primary destination for Refuge visitors. A paved 

1⁄2- mile access road located within the Refuge boundary brings visitors to the Refuge Visitor 

Center, trailheads, and its 100-car parking lot. The entrance road provides access for cars and 

school buses with occasional bicycle use. Bicycle racks are provided at the Visitor Center. A 

city bus does not serve the Refuge at this time although the Refuge supports this possibility. 

Recent upgrading and improvements to the entrance and parking lot are adequate for the life of 

this plan other than expected routine maintenance. 

Refuge lands east of the Nisqually River are currently closed but can potentially be accessed via 

Mounts Road, Exit No. 116. No public parking currently exists on the east side. A narrow 

road/underpass under the main line of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) 

provides road access but is narrow and may present vehicle size limitations and safety concerns. 

The only public access points within the study area are outside of the Refuge boundary located 

on WDFW and Fort Lewis lands for bank fishing access on the Nisqually River. Existing 

parking capacity at the State-owned Luhr Beach is approximately 30 vehicles. Visitors park 

loosely in an area that is a combination of gravel and hard surface. South of I-5 in the study 

area, vehicles associated with fishing park unofficially within the Trotters Woods unit of the Fort 

Lewis Military Reservation. No estimate of capacity is given for this area because of the highly 

dispersed parking and disturbed nature of this site. 

Other potential public access points within the study area include a WDFW bank fishing site 

with some parking capacity on the west bank of the Nisqually River. Also, potential access and 

parking in the study area include the closed State fish hatchery site and the City of Olympia 

McAllister Springs site. 

3.6.2 Recreation 

3.6.2.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 

More than 100,000 people per year visit the Refuge to participate in a variety of wildlifedependent recreational and educational activities. These include wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, environmental education, and fishing. A 7-mile trail system, Visitor 

Center, Environmental Education Center, designated bank fishing access, and photoblinds 

support these activities. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-46 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Although wildlife observation and photography are good year round at the Refuge, the best times 

for wildlife viewing are fall, winter, and spring. The Refuge’s location, with its wildlife 

diversity and mosaic of habitats and trail access to those habitats, makes it a popular place for 

birdwatchers; Nisqually NWR is considered by many to be one of the best birding areas in Puget 

Sound. 

The Refuge’s 7 miles of trails include a 51⁄2-mile loop trail and a 1-mile loop trail for walking 

only. Bikes, jogging, and pets are not allowed on the Refuge. Wildlife observation is also 

conducted by Refuge visitors entering the Refuge by canoe or kayak. 

The Brown Farm Dike Trail is a 51⁄2-mile loop in which all major habitats on the Refuge can be 

viewed. The trail is on the dike and is flat, wide, and easy to walk. Along the trail are benches, 

an observation tower, two photoblinds, and two short spurs, a 1⁄2-mile Ring Dike Trail and the 

McAllister Creek bank fishing area. The Brown Farm Dike Trail is a popular trail for hikers and 

birdwatchers; because of its length, ease of walking, and access to many habitats, it is unique in 

the area. Visitors spend anywhere from 2-6 hours on this trail. On any given day, birdwatchers 

can tally upwards of 60 different bird species seen along this trail. 

From early October to mid-January, 3 miles of the Brown Farm Dike Trail (between the Ring 

Dike and McAllister Creek) are closed during the waterfowl hunting season; specific dates vary 

from year to year. The trail is closed because waterfowl hunting is allowed on WDFW 

inholdings that are adjacent to large portions of the trail. The trail closure provides a dual 

purpose: to ensure safety for trail users and provide wildlife sanctuary. Waterfowl benefit by 

being able to move into the closed diked interior undisturbed by trail users when the trail is 

closed. This annual trail closure negatively affects large numbers of Refuge visitors unable to 

access certain areas of the Refuge during fall and winter. It is the single largest conflict among 

visitors within the Refuge boundary. Although the trail is closed with a gate and signs explain 

the closure, trespassing regularly occurs. 

The Twin Barns Loop Trail is a 1-mile long boardwalk trail, which is fully accessible to people 

with disabilities. Along the trail, visitors pass through riparian habitat, freshwater wetlands, and 

grasslands. Habitat restoration along the 1-mile boardwalk trail has improved wildlife 
Puget Sound

Nisqually River

Twin

Barns

Visitor

Center

Temporary

Education 

Center

 ̈§¦5

McAllister Creek

Luhr Beach Boat Ramp and 

Nisqually Beach Nature Center

Puget Sound

Nisqually River

Twin

Barns

Visitor

Center

Temporary

Education 

Center

 ̈§¦5

McAllister Creek

Luhr Beach Boat Ramp and 

Nisqually Beach Nature Center

Current Authorized Public Recreation

within the Study Area

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

March 2005

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 3.6-1

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_6_1.mxd

N

0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

1:70,000

Legend

CCP Study Area

Bank Fishing Access

Recreation Trail

WDFW Hunting Area

(All Refuge waters outside dike open 

to boating and fishing)

Ring Dike Trail

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Page 3-47

Aerial Photo 1990
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-49 

observation opportunities. At various locations along the trail, there are benches, viewing decks, 

scopes, and interpretive panels. SaniCans and trash receptacles are located at the northern end of 

the trail. Here, the trail also extends to include an elevated viewing platform with four different 

levels, scopes, and benches. Two short spur trails offer views of the Nisqually River and surge 

plain habitat. This trail is used by education groups and visitors who have less time to spend at 

the Refuge or want a shorter walk. 

Interpretation 

A new 4,800-square foot Visitor Center was opened to the public in fall of 1999. The Visitor 

Center has an interpretive exhibit room with displays that focus on the Nisqually River 

watershed, the Pacific Flyway and migratory birds, and the Nisqually River Estuary and delta. A 

100-person auditorium, with full audiovisual capacity, is used for special events, lectures, and 

training sessions. The auditorium also has a rotating wildlife art exhibit. 

The Visitor Center is open Wednesday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Trained Refuge 

volunteers staff the information desk, answering questions, handing out brochures, and selling 

entrance passes and items from the cooperating association sales outlet. The Friends of 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge operates the sales outlet and help support Refuge programs. 

Refuge staff are on-site at all times. 

Refuge staff and volunteers conduct special events throughout the year to help people learn more 

about Nisqually’s fish and wildlife resources. These events include International Migratory Bird 

Day, a Summer Lecture Series, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and the Nisqually Watershed 

Festival. The Twin Barns Loop Trail has interpretive panels at a number of locations that focus 

on the habitats and wildlife along the trail. 

A private non-profit organization operates the Nisqually Reach Nature Center at Luhr Beach on 

WDFW land. The center is open to the public two days a week and has a variety of interpretive 

displays on the various fish and wildlife dependent on the marine waters of the Nisqually delta. 

Fishing 

The Refuge offers fishing opportunities for salmon, steelhead, and trout in McAllister Creek and 

the Nisqually River, and for shellfish and bottomfish in the tideflats. All State fishing 

regulations are in effect. No fishing is allowed inside the dike. The Refuge estimates that 3,800 

visitors fish at the Refuge each year, but the number is difficult to verify as no counting system 

is in place. Some fishing occurs within the RNA in the northeast part of the Refuge. This is 

considered an administratively uncontrollable area as the RNA is not signed. 

Most anglers access the Refuge by boat from Luhr Beach. Bank fishing is permitted only in the 

designated McAllister Creek bank fishing area, located on the east side of the creek and 

accessible from the Brown Farm Dike Trail. Anglers must walk 3/4 of a mile to access the bank 

fishing area. Persistent and numerous illegal entries occur from anglers entering this area at the 

southern boundary of the Refuge near the I-5 ramp. However, WDFW recently closed the 

McAllister Creek Hatchery so fishing opportunity in McAllister Creek will decline dramatically. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-50 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

In 1996, due to loss of trails, river bank, and bank instability, the bank fishing area along the 

Nisqually River was closed. Currently, there is no Refuge bank fishing access along the 

Nisqually River although anglers use several points of illegal entry. Two bank fishing sites on 

the Nisqually River that are open to the public are located south of I-5 and within the study area. 

 This includes a State-managed site on the west bank of the river and a site on Fort Lewis 

property on the east bank. The State site is owned and managed by WDFW and provides 

parking, bathrooms, and accessible bank fishing. However, changes in the river have made this 

site less usable for anglers with disabilities. The Fort Lewis site is open to the public with 

minimum management. The public is allowed to drive through riparian habitat down to the 

riverbank. A variety of dirt roads have been created from this off-road driving activity. There 

are no restroom facilities on-site. 

In 1992, the Washington State Department of Health reclassified 2,130 acres of commercial and 

recreational shellfish beds in Nisqually Reach from “approved” to “conditionally open” after 

finding elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the reach following storm events (Whiley 

and Walter 1996; Emmett 1995). Following further evaluation, the shellfish beds in the vicinity 

of Luhr Beach were closed to harvest in spring 2000 (W. Clifford, pers. comm.). Prior to these 

closures, recreational shellfishers accessed the tideflats by foot from Luhr Beach during spring 

and summer low tides to collect shellfish including littleneck, butter, and horse clams; crab; and 

geoduck. Dungeness crab is also harvested with pots in deeper water. Dungeness crab harvest is 

not affected by the Luhr Beach closure. Signs notifying the public of the shellfishing closure 

and health hazards are posted at Luhr Beach, and compliance is entirely voluntary. No 

enforcement is conducted and violations do occur. Shellfishing activity at Luhr Beach creates 

trespass problems on the Refuge tideflats and shoreline by attracting other visitors onto the 

tideflats. Dog and beach walkers enter the area illegally during low tides. 

Hunting 

Currently, the only authorized public waterfowl hunting that occurs within the delta is on State 

WDFW tidelands. Refuge lands are not open to hunting. The Nisqually NWR Conceptual Plan 

(CH2M Hill et al. 1978) proposed a quality waterfowl hunting program in the Nisqually tideflats 

area and on land east of the Nisqually River. This program was not implemented because the 

Service was not able to come to an agreement with the State on the hunting program design. In 

addition, the Refuge had been unsuccessful in acquiring the inholdings east of the Nisqually 

River. Because the Refuge and WDFW lands are not adequately posted, waterfowl hunting does 

occur on some Refuge tidelands (up to 1,189 acres) that are administratively uncontrollable. 

Refuge staff and volunteers have been monitoring waterfowl harvest activities associated with 

State lands in the Nisqually delta almost annually since 1981. Prior to 1998, monitoring efforts 

consisted of sporadic hunter bag checks, conducted at the Luhr Beach boat ramp, varying in 

effort from year to year. Analysis of the 1990-1997 data set showed that the annual number of 

ducks harvested per hunter visit ranged from 1.5 to 1.9 ducks/hunter visit. The number of geese 

harvested ranged from 0.0 to 0.2 geese/hunter visit. Between 1991 and 1997, annual hunter 

visits ranged from 11 visits/day in 1997 to 31 visits/day in 1991 and 1994. The vast majority of 

ducks harvested were dabblers, primarily American wigeon, mallards, and green-winged teal. 

American wigeon comprised 51% of the total duck harvest over all years. Fifty-five percent of 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-51 

hunter visits occurred in the area known as Survey Unit 2, the Nisqually tideflats area (Figure 

3.4-1) (Seto 1998). 

In October 1998, an intensive hunter bag check project was initiated to better document and 

understand hunting activity on the delta. All hunting activities occurring on weekend days, 

holidays, and 41% of weekdays were monitored throughout the waterfowl hunting season. The 

results of this monitoring effort showed similar results in terms of species harvested with 

wigeon, teal, and mallard comprising over 80% of the harvest. Hunter success averaged 1.5 

birds/hunter visit over the season. There were an estimated 1,000 to 1,200 hunter visits during 

the entire season. Hunter visits were four times higher on weekends, averaging 20.5 hunters 

visiting each weekend day, and only 5.2 hunters per weekday. The level of hunting activity was 

relatively stable throughout the season, with only a slight decrease in activity after midNovember. No information was collected to map the distribution of hunters throughout the area 

(Seto 1999). 

Some private hunting (Medicine Creek Hunt Club) occurs on property south of I-5 in the study 

area, although use levels are believed to be low. Waterfowl hunting also occurs in the Trotter’s 

Woods area by approximately 3-4 hunters. 

3.6.2.2 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation Activities 

Non-wildlife dependent recreational activities that occur on the Refuge include boating, personal 

watercraft (PWC) use, and fruit and berry picking. 

Boating 

Both motorized and non-motorized recreational boating occur in all waters of the Refuge outside 

the Brown Farm Dike. Some of these activities are wildlife-dependent and are addressed above. 

 The majority of boaters access the area from Luhr Beach. Commercial rafting, canoe, and 

kayak tours use the waters of the Refuge on a year-round basis. No boating is allowed inside the 

Brown Farm Dike. Boating occurs within the RNA in the northeast portion of the Refuge. 

It is estimated that 6,700 boaters access the Refuge annually, although this number is difficult to 

verify as no counting system is in place. Recreational boating has increased dramatically and is 

expected to continue to increase in concert with residential development underway on adjacent 

lands. Luhr Beach is one of the few launch sites in the area with access to Puget Sound. 

Prior to implementation of this CCP, there was no boat speed limit for motorized craft in open 

waters, except for Thurston County’s Shoreline Protection regulation that limits speeds of 

motorized watercraft to 5 mph within 200 feet of the shoreline (Thurston County Regulations, 

Title 16, Waterways and Vessels [16.04.110]). A compatibility determination completed in 1994 

stipulated several restrictions that have not been put in place, including: a posted no-wake zone, 

area and seasonal closures on the tideflats, regulations information in brochures and at Luhr 

Beach, and closure of most of the water of McAllister Creek year round. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-52 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

PWC Use 

PWC use occurs on the Refuge, mostly along McAllister Creek and in the reach, with users 

typically launching from Luhr Beach. There are no good estimates as to the amount of PWC use 

that occurs. Several complaints have been received from trail users about the disturbance caused 

by PWC activity related to noise and wildlife disturbance. 

Fruit and Berry Picking 

During the historical farming period, an apple and pear orchard was planted in what has now 

become the maintenance compound and adjacent areas. The Service does not routinely maintain 

the orchard trees, and the trees produce a large crop of fruit each year. Visitors are allowed to 

pick up windfall fruit or pick fruit off the trees that they can reach from the ground. No climbing 

of the trees or knocking down of fruit is allowed. 

Visitors are also allowed to pick small amounts of blackberries that grow profusely in thickets 

along the Refuge trails and parking lot. The harvest of both fruit and berries is for personal use 

only; no picking for commercial use is allowed. Blackberry picking occurs during August and 

September, while the harvest of orchard fruit occurs from September through November. 

Most picking of fruit and berries is done along the trails by small groups of visitors that are at the 

Refuge to walk and observe wildlife. However, off-trail berry picking and picking of large 

quantities of fruit and berries do occur, creating a trespassing problem and oversight problem for 

Refuge staff. 

3.6.3 Environmental Education 

Since the establishment of the Refuge, educators and youth professionals have been using 

Nisqually NWR as an outdoor classroom to enhance course curricula. The Refuge’s 

environmental education program serves educators and youth professionals who work with preschool through college-age youth. Educators include teachers, professors, and outdoor education 

leaders. Youth professionals include leaders for Scouts, 4H, and Campfire. 

Each year, approximately 5,000 students and teachers from King, Pierce, Thurston, and Mason 

counties participate in the Refuge’s environmental education program. Although educational 

groups use the Refuge throughout the year, the highest use period is from early April through 

mid-June. Summer use has increased dramatically in the past several years. 

Environmental education field trips at Nisqually NWR are teacher-led. Due to limited Refuge 

staff availability, teachers and group leaders are expected to plan and lead their own field trip 

activities with minimal assistance from Refuge staff. It is recommended that teachers visit the 

Refuge prior to their field trip, walk the trail, and prepare clearly defined field trip goals and 

objectives. The Refuge offers lesson-planning assistance to teachers and orientation talks to 

school groups while at the Refuge. Approximately eight volunteers work with 90% of the school 

groups visiting the Refuge. Volunteers provide an orientation talk and may walk with groups 

along the trails. They also talk with the teachers prior to their trip about their goals and 

activities. Since November 2000, an Environmental Education Intern has been hired through the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-53 

Washington Conservation Corps AmeriCorps program. This full-time position helps improve 

and facilitate the education program. Plans are to recruit and fill this position each year as 

AmeriCorps positions are available and funding allows. Starting in 2004, the Friends of 

Nisqually NWR has begun funding this important work, by hiring a half-time education 

coordinator. 

Prior to visiting, educational groups are required to make a reservation indicating pre-trip 

activities, goals, field trip activities, locations and times, and what assistance they would like 

from the Refuge. If the educational group is coming as part of a course of curriculum to study 

nature, the entrance fee is waived. Education groups visiting the Refuge are limited to 100 

students per day. Groups are only allowed on the trails, the Environmental Education Center, 

Visitor Center, and currently in three designated environmental education (EE) study sites. They 

may not collect samples or go off trail unless allowed through a special use permit. 

The Twin Barns Education Center was severely damaged and closed following the 2001 

Nisqually Earthquake. The Environmental Education Center has been temporarily moved to a 

trailer near the maintenance compound. A replacement facility is required to upgrade facilities 

and ensure a safe, quality experience for school children participating in the program. 

The only other education center within the Refuge or study area is located at Luhr Beach. The 

private, non-profit Nisqually Reach Nature Center doubles as a wildlife interpretation center and 

an educational center for school children ranging from 3rd to 12th grades. The educational focus 

at the Nature Center is on the marine environment. They have supported up to 2,000 students 

per year. In 2000, the Refuge provided half the cost to fund an AmeriCorps intern to enhance 

the program as part of a growing partnership with the Nature Center. 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape 

From 13,500 to 8,000 years ago, aboriginal peoples may have used the delta estuary as a travel 

corridor between the sound, upland prairies (which were more prevalent at that time), and the 

glacial Lake Nisqually drainage channels (Forsman et al. 1998). 

Aboriginal people were known to have a village at the mouth of the Nisqually River about 5,000 

years ago (Stevenson 1998). During and since 3,000 years ago, winter and seasonal camps for 

foraging were maintained on the Nisqually River. Winter villages and camps have also been 

recorded at several locations along the lower reach of the Nisqually River. 

The Nisqually Indians lived along the Nisqually River and its tributaries in numerous small 

villages. Permanent villages were noted for their cedar planked houses, while seasonal camps on 

the delta were characterized by temporary shelters. The variety of ecozones–prairies, woods, 

and the delta estuary–provided rich resources for fishing, hunting, and gathering activities. 

Coho, king, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon constituted a major part of their diet. Shellfish 

(clams, oysters, geoducks, mussels, and barnacles) were gathered along the shores of the river. 

Small and large game (deer, bear, and beaver) and waterfowl were also hunted. The delta and 

river basin supplied abundant plant resources for food, medicine, basketry, and other 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-54 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

technological needs. The open prairies were used for social gatherings and ceremonies (Forsman 

et al. 1998). 

The Refuge is the site of the signing of the first Indian treaty in Washington Territory. In 

December 1854, at a grove of trees along the east bank of McAllister Creek now known as the 

Treaty Trees, representatives of southern Puget Sound tribes met with Territorial Governor Isaac 

Stevens to negotiate and sign the Medicine Creek Treaty. Through the treaty, Indian tribes 

relinquished rights to the land and agreed to relocate to certain reservations. The Nisqually 

Indians received a reservation along the Nisqually River 5 miles upstream from the delta. In 

1918, the 3,300-acre holding in Pierce County was condemned to establish Fort Lewis. The 

Nisqually Tribal reservation currently includes 1,400 acres in Thurston County (Thurston 

Regional Planning Council 1997). The treaty reserved certain fishing, hunting, and gathering 

rights for the tribes. Members of the Nisqually Indian Tribe still exercise these treaty rights, 

fishing for salmon in Refuge waters (G. Walter, pers. comm.). 

3.7.1.1 Archaeological Resources 

Twelve recorded archaeological sites are located within the existing boundary of the Refuge. 

Prehistoric sites occur primarily along the west bank of McAllister (previously known as SheNah-Num or Medicine) Creek and in various locations along the adjacent bluffs. Historical sites 

are found predominantly in the south-central portion of the Refuge. Of the 12 sites, six fall 

within the boundaries of the waterways managed by WDFW. 

One prehistoric site, known ethnographically as She-Nah-Num and archaeologically as the 

Medicine Creek Site, was determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) in 1977. A nomination was prepared but never submitted, however, so its status 

remains “eligible.” It is one of the six sites outside Service jurisdiction. The site contains both 

prehistoric (shell, fire-cracked rock, bone, and lithics) and historical (bricks and bottles) 

elements. A shell midden site located on the McAllister Rod and Gun Club, which also contains 

an historical component, was determined ineligible to the NRHP. The remaining six prehistoric 

sites are all characterized as shell concentrations suffering from various degrees of tidal erosion. 

Eighteen additional recorded cultural resources are located within the boundaries of the study 

area. Among the most significant of these resources is a shell midden with both prehistoric and 

historical components, which is identified as the probable home site of Sinnaywak, a noted 

Nisqually leader and shaman who lived from 1814-1904. Radiocarbon dating on another 

prehistoric midden deposit in the study area has returned occupation dates between 5,000 and 

1,300 years ago, making it one of the oldest shell midden sites known in the southern Puget 

Sound area. A third shell midden site occurs in the study area but has received no in-depth 

archaeological research. 

3.7.2 Euro-American Cultural History 

In 1833, the Hudson’s Bay Company established a trading post and farm in the Nisqually River 

delta. Soon after, Euro-Americans began to settle in the area, attracted by the proximity to water 

and the large, unforested tracts of land. By 1839, the character of the Nisqually Valley began to 

change as a major part of the economy shifted from fur trading to raising sheep and agricultural 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-55 

pursuits. In 1845, the McAllister family settled on Medicine Creek, now McAllister Creek. By 

1852, James McAllister had dammed McAllister Creek and built a sawmill which produced 

some of the first lumber to be exported from Puget Sound to San Francisco (Stevenson 1998; 

Guth 1998). Other early settlers included the Shazer family, William Packwood, and Joel 

Myers. Land survey maps of 1853 described the area around McAllister Creek as “rolling hills 

and burnt timber” (United States Surveyor General 1853). 

North of present-day I-5 on the southeast corner of current Refuge lands, low-lying upland areas 

along the Nisqually River were cultivated by homesteaders such as the Shazers and Myers. 

During the late 1800s, many estuarine habitats were lost, including parts of the Nisqually River 

Estuary, as pioneers throughout the Puget Sound diked and drained deltas for agriculture. 

George Shannon acquired the Shazer property, located north of I-5 on the Refuge, in 1872. He 

began to dike the property to grow grain and hay, raise cattle and horses, and develop private 

hunting and fishing areas. Delta lands east of the river were purchased and diked in the late 

1890s by Ollie Braget (Stevenson 1998). Ditches, dikes, and fence remnants on the tidelands 

seaward of the main dike found today indicate past use of some marsh areas. Old pilings and 

cable in the surge plain forest suggest past logging activities (Kunze 1984). 

In 1904, Alson L. Brown and his wife purchased about 2,350 acres of the Nisqually River 

Estuary west of the mouth of the Nisqually River and along the McAllister Creek hillside. 

Brown constructed the original 4-mile dike which is now a prominent feature of the Refuge. The 

dike, which altered the hydrologic regime of the delta, was built using a horse-drawn scoop and a 

crew of 30 men. In 1910, the dike was reinforced by a dredge that filled in the remaining 

sloughs. The fertile river delta soils were converted to crop production. The farm also 

maintained chickens, hogs, a dairy operation, shipping operations, and a general store. The 

foundations of various buildings, most probably associated with the A.L. Brown Farm, are 

scattered around the delta. In addition, the apple orchard adjacent to the Refuge headquarters is 

also a remnant of the farm’s early years. Structural and landscape elements associated with the 

Brown Farm are eligible to the NRHP. Although Brown went bankrupt after WWI, the farm 

continued to operate under the subsequent owners who rebuilt the dike, higher than the first, and 

built the Twin Barns in 1932. These barns were determined to be ineligible to the NRHP in the 

1970s. 

Historical sites within the study area, but outside of the former approved Refuge boundary, 

include examples of residential complexes, civil infrastructure, and structures associated with 

various organizations. Seven homestead locations were recorded, with settlement dates ranging 

from the 1870s to the 1940s. In some instances, a collapsed building or foundation marked the 

site of a structure at the time of recording, but in most cases the presence of fruit trees, clearings, 

and other landscape features was the only evidence remaining. Since these sites were first 

recorded in the late 1970s and 80s, it is likely that further deterioration or complete obliteration 

has occurred. At least two of the homestead sites occur on land originally allotted to Nisqually 

Indian Tribal members. While most of the sites have not been evaluated, two of the homesteads 

have been determined ineligible to the NRHP. 

Other historical structures recorded within the study area include: the Indian Agency 

Headquarters dating to 1859, an old Boy Scout Camp structure, a gas station, and a structure of 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-56 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

unknown function which may have been constructed and utilized by the U.S. Army. Of the four, 

both the Boy Scout Camp structure and gas station have been determined ineligible, and the 

others have not been evaluated. Foundations of four historic bridges and/or trestles, two of 

which date from the 1930s, have also been recorded. At least two of the bridges have been 

completely destroyed. 

3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

This section provides an overview of the local demographic, land use, and economic setting in 

the vicinity of the Nisqually River delta and watershed, with emphasis on issues specific to 

inform comprehensive conservation planning efforts. The study area includes the lower 

Nisqually River Valley, including the delta. Socioeconomic data for both Pierce and Thurston 

counties are cited in this section. 

3.8.1 Socioeconomic Setting 

Nisqually NWR is located in south Puget Sound, straddling the Pierce and Thurston County 

border and within easy driving distance of approximately 4 million residents. The Seattle 

metropolitan area is the largest population concentration nearby, located roughly 50 miles to the 

northeast. Other large populations reside in the vicinity of Tacoma, 20 miles to the northeast, 

and Olympia, 10 miles to the west. All of these urban areas are provided an easy access to the 

Refuge via I-5. 

Government provides the greatest share of employment in the vicinity of the Refuge. Olympia, 

the State Capitol, is the nearest major employment center to the Refuge. Fort Lewis, a major 

Army installation, is located adjacent to and northeast of the Refuge. The major private sector 

employers in Thurston County include St. Peter Hospital, Capital Medical Center, Group Health, 

Crown Cork & Seal, Miller Brewing Company, and CNC Corporation (Thurston County 

Economic Development Council 2001). The nearest major Pierce County employers are Intel 

and State Farm Insurance, both located in the nearby City of DuPont. 

3.8.1.1 Population and Demographics 

The population of Washington State has grown by 1.3 million since 1985, from 4.7 million to 6 

million residents in 1999. Forecasters expect this figure to rise to approximately 6.5 million by 

the year 2005 (Office of Financial Management [OFM] 2001). The Puget Sound region, 

consisting of Pierce, Kitsap, King, and Snohomish counties, contains the largest population 

concentration in the state, with an estimated 1999 population of 3,125,200. This figure has 

increased by 441,130 new residents since 1990, an annual average increase of 1.8% (Thurston 

Regional Planning Council 2000; Puget Sound Regional Council [PSRC] 2000). Consistent with 

regional trends, urban growth and resulting population pressures in the area surrounding the 

Refuge have expanded dramatically over the last 50 years. 

The population of the Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 30% in the next 15 years 

(White 1997). Table 3.8-1 shows the 1999 estimated population and growth projections for the 

areas surrounding Nisqually NWR, including both Thurston and Pierce counties and the nearest 

local communities of Lacey (including Hawks Prairie) to the west and DuPont to the east. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-57 

Table 3.8-1. Local Population Trends.

Locality

Estimated 

Population 

1999

Anticipated 

Population, 

2020

Percent Growth

Thurston County 202,700*** 29,6734 46

 Olympia 40,210** 54,020 34 

 Lacey 29,020** 45,760 57 

 Hawks Prairie 3,000 12,250 398 

Pierce County 700,000** 84,8610 23 

 Lakewood 63,790* 81,290**** 27 

 Tacoma 187,200* 249,000***** 33 

 City of DuPont 1,755*** No Estimate Unknown 

Fort Lewis Military Reservation and 

McChord AFB 

46,438 No Estimate Unknown 

Sources: *PSRC (2000) 

**Thurston County (2001) 

***OFM (2000) 

 City of Lakewood 2000 (Note: projection for 2017 not 2020) 

** ***City of Tacoma 2001; City of Tacoma (Note: projection for 2017 not 2020) 

Thurston County 

Thurston County has consistently exceeded the State’s overall rate of growth since the 1960s and 

remains one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. Thurston County’s 2000 population was 

estimated to be 204,300, having increased on average by 2.4% per year since 1990 (Thurston 

Regional Planning Council 2000), representing a 27% growth between 1990 and 1999 (DoA 

2002). Thurston County’s population is split between incorporated jurisdictions and 

unincorporated areas of the county. The county’s seven incorporated cities have a combined 

population of 88,950, while the remaining (unincorporated) parts of the county have 115,350 

residents. Lacey, the second largest city in the county with an estimated 2000 population of 

29,240, lies to the west of Nisqually NWR. Since 1990, Lacey has averaged the fastest 

population growth rate of any large community in the county at 4.3% (Thurston Regional 

Planning Council 2000). 

The community of Hawks Prairie, a portion of the City of Lacey located largely within the 

McAllister Creek basin to the west of Nisqually NWR, had a 1999 estimated population of 

3,000. The population within Hawks Prairie is estimated to climb significantly to 12,250 by the 

year 2020 (V. Tabbutt, pers. comm.). 

In 1997, Caucasians made up about 90% of the county’s population, with 5.5% of the population 

comprised of Asians and Pacific Islanders. The African American population constitutes 2.5% 

of Thurston County, and the Indian/Eskimo/Aleut population is less than 2% of the Thurston 

County population (Thurston Regional Planning Council 1998). 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-58 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

Pierce County 

Pierce County is the second-most populated county in Washington State (Thurston Regional 

Planning Council 2000). In 1990, 57% of the county’s population lived in unincorporated areas 

(Pierce County Public Works and Utilities 1997). Pierce County’s 1999 population was 

estimated at approximately 700,000 residents. This number is forecasted to grow by 21% over 

the next two decades to reach approximately 848,610 by 2020 (National Association of Counties 

2000). 

The cities of Tacoma and Lakewood contain the largest concentrations of Pierce County’s 

current population. Pierce County is also home to two sizable military installations, the Army’s 

Fort Lewis Military Reservation and McChord Air Force Base (AFB). 

Fort Lewis supports 16,870 troops plus nearly an equal number of military dependants. Of these, 

9,308 military personnel plus 9,192 dependants live on post, with the remainder residing in 

adjacent communities. In addition, 4,920 local civilians are employed by Fort Lewis. The Army 

expects to add 1,500 additional troops by the year 2003, many of whom will be accompanied by 

dependants (CH2M Hill 2001). 

The population of McChord AFB includes 3,631 active duty personnel and 2,514 reserves. Of 

these, 1,441 live on base along with 1,669 out of a total of 4,547 dependants. In addition, 2,310 

civilians are employed at McChord AFB (S. Eggman, pers. comm.). 

No population growth estimates were available for Fort Lewis Military Reservation or McChord 

Air Force Base (AFB). 

The City of DuPont lies in Pierce County to the east of the Nisqually delta. In 1992, the City of 

DuPont had a population of 600 people. This figure increased to an estimated 1,755 residents by 

1999. By 2025, DuPont is expected to reach a population level of 10,994 people (OFM 2000). 

A significant component of DuPont’s population and employment growth is located within a 

planned unit development currently under construction by the Weyerhaeuser Real Estate 

Company called Northwest Landing. Northwest Landing is particularly relevant to the Nisqually 

NWR because portions of the Northwest Landing abut the Nisqually NWR and are visible from 

many places on the delta. Completed portions of the 3,000-acre project currently accommodate 

approximately 2,000 residents. At full build-out in 2010, the project may grow to 11,000 

residents and 20,000 jobs (Martinson, pers. comm.). 

In 1998, almost 80% of Pierce County’s population was Caucasian. African Americans 

comprised the largest minority population, making up approximately 7% of the population; 

Asians and Pacific Islanders comprised 6% of the population, with a variety of minorities 

comprising the remainder (National Association of Counties 2000). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-59 

3.8.1.2 Employment and Income 

Thurston County 

The Thurston County economy is primarily supported by employment by the State government, 

headquartered in Olympia. In addition to providing the largest share of the county’s jobs, the 

government sector also provides the highest average wage. 

The real (adjusted to account for inflation in 1998 dollars) per-capita income was $28,443 in 

1998 (Thurston Regional Planning Council 2000). In 1998, 48.1% of wages and 39.3% of 

employees were based in the government sector. Also in 1998, the service industry was 

responsible for roughly 23% of employees and 20% of wages. Retail trade was responsible for 

just under 20% of employees and about 10% of wages. Manufacturing, construction, 

agriculture, forestry, fishing, transportation, and wholesale covered about 17% of employment 

and wages. In total, 4.6% of the county’s labor force (4,600 workers) were unemployed in 1999, 

slightly lower than the statewide average of 4.7% (Thurston Regional Planning Council 2000). 

Pierce County 

The Pierce County economy is primarily supported by employment in the Fort Lewis-McChord 

AFB military complex, the City of Tacoma, local manufacturing in Tacoma, and aerospacerelated industries. The largest employment sectors include services, government, and retail 

trade. The three largest individual private employers are all hospitals (Tacoma-Pierce County 

2001). 

The closest major employers to Nisqually NWR are Intel and State Farm Insurance, which both 

maintain large campuses in DuPont’s Northwest Landing with a combined total of 

approximately 2,750 employees (Northwest Landing 2001). Employment within the Nisqually 

River Valley itself primarily includes education, retail trade, government, tourist services, 

agriculture, and forest production and harvesting (Pacific Coast Joint Venture 1996; Consoer, 

Townsend, and Associates 1974). 

In 1998, real Pierce County per capita income was estimated to be $27,493 (Tacoma-Pierce 

County 2001). The largest employers were in the services sector (27%); Federal, State, and local 

government (21%); and retail trade (20%). Manufacturing, construction, real estate, agriculture, 

forestry, and other services in the industrial sector comprised approximately 25%, with the 

remaining 7% employed in other sectors. In 1999, Pierce County had a resident civilian 

unemployment rate of 4% (Tacoma-Pierce County 2001). 

3.8.1.3 Transportation Patterns 

The major transportation corridor providing access to Nisqually NWR is I-5, a major interstate 

highway linking many cities and major destinations in western Washington. I-5 provides 

convenient, direct access to Refuge lands at the Nisqually Interchange, Exit 114. In 2000, the 

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) estimated traffic flow past Exit 114 at 

approximately 72,400 trips west of Exit 114 per day and 79,700 vehicles per day east of the 

Nisqually exit. In 1999, average daily flow of traffic was more than twice what it was in 1976. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-60 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

Peak traffic can reach as high as 132,000 vehicles per day (R. Decker, pers. comm.). Ramp 

counts of vehicles using Exit 114 were 1,550 westbound vehicles entering the freeway per day. 

Daily counts of vehicles exiting the freeway and Exit 114 averaged 1,450 and 5,100 westbound 

and eastbound, respectively. Three-fourths of the residents of Pierce County who commuted to 

Olympia or elsewhere in Thurston County passed the Refuge to and from work (PSRC 1993). 

The CCP Study Area contains a network of arterial roads that bisect the area. I-5 is the 

predominant transportation corridor with great impacts on the Refuge including traffic noise and 

an ecological barrier for many terrestrial wildlife species. In addition to I-5, there are several 

arterials including Old Pacific Highway, Reservation Road, Martin Way, Meridian Road, 

Nisqually Cut Off, Steilacoom Road, and Meridian Road in Thurston County. Many of these 

roads in the Nisqually Valley south of I-5 are “rural” in character with few shoulders and 

designed for low traffic volumes. Thurston County’s Transportation Goal for the Nisqually 

Valley Sub-Area states: Develop a transportation system which addresses regional needs while 

still retaining the rural character of the Nisqually Planning Area and primarily the agricultural 

lands along the valley floor (Thurston County Planning Department 1992). 

The Thurston County transportation planning that occurred in the early 1990s has been effective 

in directing new roads and commuter traffic away from the valley and preserving its rural 

character. In addition, County plans contain strategies to add a non-motorized path and trail 

system in the valley, preserve historic resources such as barns and the old Nisqually School, and 

add a system of interpretive signs. The proposed trail would connect to Nisqually NWR and 

connect key view points. 

In Pierce County are Mounts Road as well as a network of new roads associated with the 

Northwest Landing development. The City of DuPont has proposed a road parallel to the east 

bluff of the Refuge. The exact location of this road is somewhat flexible. 

The BNSF Railway line extends from Tacoma through and along the east side of the Refuge to 

Vancouver, Washington. This line is used by WSDOT as part of the Federally designated 

Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail Corridor. Over the next 20 years, there are plans to increase 

the number of mainline tracks from two to three south of I-5 and to reconstruct and reroute the 

Pt. Defiance Bypass and branch line connecting Lakewood and Tacoma. The Service will work 

with the WSDOT rail office in Olympia to coordinate rail line improvements with Refuge 

expansion. 

3.8.2 Environmental Justice 

In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, requiring that all Federal 

agencies seek to achieve environmental justice by “identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” (Executive Order 

12898). Environmental justice is defined as the "fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, 

and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines low income as 80% of 

the median family income for the area, subject to adjustment for areas with unusually high or 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-61 

low incomes or housing costs. The 1999 estimated median family income was $43,475 in 

Thurston County and $43,624 in Pierce County, respectively. This compares with an estimated 

state-wide median income of $48,289 (OFM 2001). Since median family incomes for both 

counties were approximately 90% of the state median family income, neither county would be 

classified as low income. Caucasians made up about 90% of Thurston County’s population and 

80% of Pierce County’s population in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Significant minority 

populations included Asians and Pacific Islanders and African Americans (National Association 

of Counties 2000). 

The 400-member Nisqually Indian Tribe’s reservation is located within the Nisqually River 

Valley, making the tribe the minority group most affected by the CCP. In addition to the tribe’s 

reservation, there are numerous parcels of Nisqually Trust land in the valley, as well as the 

newly acquired 325-acre Braget parcel which is located within the Refuge. 

3.8.3 Land Use 

This section presents an overview of land uses within the study area. Because the Refuge 

straddles the boundaries of both Pierce and Thurston counties, the land use practices and 

regulations of both counties are presented. This section also emphasizes the lands comprising 

the Nisqually delta, especially special status lands within the study area such as the site’s 

National Natural Landmark designation, RNA, Nisqually Public Use Natural Area, Shoreline of 

Statewide Significance, and National Recreation Trail. 

3.8.3.1 General Land Use and Management 

Historically, the Nisqually delta supported a variety of land uses, including subsistence hunting 

and gathering, logging, commercial shipping, recreational and commercial fish and shellfish 

harvesting, and agriculture (Burg 1984). Today, low density residential and agriculture 

constitute the prevailing land uses surrounding the Refuge (Thurston County Dept. of Water and 

Waste Management 1993). The Refuge itself provides open space and quality wildlife habitat 

and wildlife-dependent recreation and education to an expanding regional population (Pacific 

Coast Joint Venture 1986). 

Growing demand for residential, commercial, and industrial land poses continuing threats to 

natural resource areas, including estuaries, freshwater wetlands, and agriculture (Klein and 

Reganold 1997). In 1990, Thurston County adopted an ordinance that allows development on 

rural lands to a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. In 1992, the Thurston County Planning 

Department created the Nisqually Planning Area south of I-5 to protect the Refuge from adjacent 

developments. The boundaries of this area, shown on Thurston County planning maps as the 

“Heart of the Valley,” fall within the CCP Study Area south of I-5 (OFM 2000). To maintain the 

existing rural environment of the Nisqually River Valley, agricultural lands in this area became 

part of Thurston County’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program since 1994 

(Thurston County Planning Department 1992). The PDR program permanently preserves 

farmland while supporting the farming community. The PDR program is administered by 

Thurston County using perpetual conservation easements attached to each deed. Within the 840 

acres of PDR properties, agricultural uses would continue. These can include growing, raising, 

and producing horticultural and agricultural crops, as well as the processing and marketing of 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-62 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

these products. Other uses include raising, processing, and marketing of animals and the lying 

fallow or disuse of the land. Structures allowed can include residences, barns, machine sheds, 

permanent greenhouses and associated structures, retail and processing facilities, surfaced 

parking areas, surfaced driveways, surfaced roadways, and surfaced pads. Non-tillable surfaces 

can include asphalt, concrete, gravel, and any other material not normally associated with soil 

cultivation. Structure placement and non-tillable surfaces could occur on up to 5% of any parcel 

or lot and result in approximately 44 acres being removed as potential wildlife habitat. 

Pierce County has a similar PDR program called “Conservation Futures,” administered by the 

Pierce County Parks program. Conservation Futures is a land preservation program for the 

protection of threatened areas of open space, timber lands, wetlands, habitat areas, and 

agricultural lands within the boundaries of Pierce County. Conservation Futures funds are used 

to acquire the land or the rights to future development of the land (Pierce County 2001). 

Consistent with State Growth Management Act (GMA) and County planning requirements, 

population growth in Washington is directed within incorporated cities and designated urban 

growth areas. The City of Lacey’s urban growth area (UGA) is just west of the Nisqually 

Valley. Since 1995, a number of new homes have been constructed along the eastern edge of the 

UGA, close to the edge of the plateau which overlooks the Nisqually Valley (Thurston Regional 

Planning Council 2000). New single-family home construction activity is also occurring within 

the Nisqually Valley south of the Refuge both on and in the vicinity of the Nisqually Indian 

Reservation. 

Under Thurston County’s Nisqually Sub-Area Plan (Thurston County Planning Department 

1992), much of the land in the Nisqually Valley is zoned Rural Residential in recognition of the 

limited water supply, and agricultural and delta resources of the valley. The Refuge itself is 

designated Public Reserve in the Sub-Area Plan. In general, land zoned Rural Residential may 

be developed for single-family housing with development densities of up to 1 dwelling unit per 5 

acres. 

The portion of the Nisqually River Valley referred to above as “the Heart of the Valley” is 

protected with a special zoning designation of Nisqually Agriculture (NA). Agricultural 

activities, including logging and other forestry practices, are the primary uses within this zone. 

Housing and other development are permitted, but only ancillary to agriculture. The 

development standards mandated by this zone are unique to the Nisqually Planning Area, and 

this zone is applied to those lands within the Nisqually Planning Area that: (1) contain large 

farms on primary agricultural soil, (2) have been farmed for several generations, or (3) are 

enrolled in or eligible for enrollment in the Agricultural Open Space Tax Program (Thurston 

County 2001). 

Some local jurisdictions are actively preserving their natural heritage. The City of DuPont, for 

example, has identified 22% of the land area as open space to protect wetlands, steep slopes, 

buffers, and other areas, including oak savannah habitat (P. Clarke, pers. comm.). 

Major land uses on Fort Lewis properties include cantonment (temporary living quarters for 

troops), range, and training areas. Effect areas such as artillery ranges are surrounded by buffer 

areas to prevent noise and safety effects to surrounding areas. Fort Lewis lands between the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-63 

bluff and the Nisqually River buffer the range, located on the prairie above the bluff. At this 

time, the range is expected to remain operational for the foreseeable future; the Army expects to 

continue to rely on its holdings between the range and the river as an unpopulated buffer area 

(W. Vanhoesen, pers. comm.). 

3.8.3.2 Special Status Lands 

The Service manages several areas on the Refuge that fall under special designations. These are 

shown in Figure 3.8-1 and described below. 

National Natural Landmark Designation 

The Nisqually delta was added to the National Park Service’s Registry of Natural Landmarks in 

March 1971 (Boyer 1993). The designation was based on its significance as one of the best 

examples of a nationally representative river delta and estuarine ecosystem (Washington State 

Game Department 1971; USFWS 1978). The delta supports one of the five highest quality 

known examples of Washington and Oregon salt marshes (Friedman 1987). 

The designated 2,765-acre landmark includes public and private ownerships of land, including 

lands of the National Audubon Society and WDFW. The 1,000 acres of diked Refuge lands are 

not included in the designation. The landmark status holds no legal obligations; however, the 

Service has a resource management responsibility for high quality habitat types, as recognized in 

the Landmarks Program (USFWS 1978). 

Research Natural Area 

Located at the mouth of the Nisqually River, the 793-acre Nisqually delta RNA was established 

by the Service in 1989 (Caicco 1989b). RNA objectives are limited to: (1) preserving and 

protecting the delta as a significant natural ecosystem; (2) serving as a gene pool for the 

preservation of native and endangered species; and (3) providing educational and research areas 

for the study of scientific aspects, including successional trends. Management activities that 

modify or alter natural ecological processes, including consumptive uses, are not allowed in 

RNAs (CH2M Hill et al. 1978; USFWS 1981). The Nisqually RNA boundaries are as follows: 

the east boundary of the RNA runs along the border of the East Bluff; the north boundary runs 

along the Nisqually Reach; and the west boundary runs along the Thurston-Pierce County line. 

The southern boundary generally runs east-west from the top (northernmost section) of the 

Brown Farm Dike across to the East Bluff. 

A candidate RNA on Fort Lewis property is located in the Nisqually floodplain, along the 

eastern bank of the river, partially within the CCP Study Area. The boundaries of this Nisqually 

Floodplain Candidate RNA include the Nisqually River to the west, the top of the Seventh 

Infantry Bluff to the east, I-5 to the north, and the confluence of Muck Creek and the Nisqually 

River to the south. This area is representative of a low elevation stream and riparian system in 

the Puget Trough. Nearly all of the original low elevation riparian systems in the Puget Trough 

have been converted to agriculture or have been altered for development. The Nisqually 

Floodplain Candidate RNA is the largest remaining example of such a system in this 

physiographic province. This riparian system has statewide significance. Contained within the 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-64 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

upland bluffs rising from the river valley, old river channels, oxbows, and other 

hydrogeomorphic features illustrate the dynamic processes of a low elevation riparian floodplain 

system. The mosaic of vegetation communities found within the floodplain supports rich and 

varied wildlife use. 

Nisqually Public Use Natural Area 

Forty acres of the Nisqually River surge plain in the Refuge were designated as a Public Use 

Natural Area (PUNA) in 1990 (Caicco 1989a). PUNAs are designated by the Service to ensure 

the preservation of significant Refuge natural areas through restricted public access (USFWS 

1981). Permitted public use activities are hiking, birdwatching, and fishing. The high quality 

freshwater surge plain includes a forested riparian area with a dense shrub layer along the west 

bank of the Nisqually River. The river is influenced by tidal waters from Puget Sound (Kunze 

1984; Caicco 1989a). During high tides and floods, overflow in tidal channels carries fresh and 

slightly brackish water into and over the wetland area (Caicco 1989a). 

Shoreline of Statewide Significance 

In 1976, the Thurston County Shoreline Master Program designated the Nisqually Reach and 

River, from Alder Lake to Puget Sound, as shorelines of statewide significance (Giebelhaus 

1998). The program segments the shoreline into different designations to regulate development 

(Thurston County Planning Department 1992; see F,S,L Policies, Plans and Zoning section). 

Shoreline regulatory criteria protect water quality, aquatic habitats and public health, and public 

access, which preserve or enhance shoreline characteristics that existed prior to public access, 

and require preservation of aesthetic, scenic, historic, or ecological qualities (Thurston Regional 

Planning Council 1990). 

National Recreation Trail 

The Brown Farm Dike was designated as a National Recreation Trail in 1981 (Boyer 1993) as a 

result of the National Trails System Act of 1968. National recreation trails provide for a variety 

of outdoor uses in or near urban areas. The 51⁄2-mile dike trail designation allows for appropriate 

public uses on Service lands. The Service retains full latitude to control or restrict public use of 

the Brown Farm Dike in favor of wildlife resources (Waddell 1981; Watt 1981; Heritage 

Conservation and Recreation Service no date). 

3.8.4 Refuge Management Economics 

In 1999, the existing Refuge staff consisted of eight permanent and two temporary employees 

who accounted for an annual payroll (including salaries and benefits) of approximately 

$380,000. Seventy trained volunteers are part of the Refuge’s volunteer program. In 1999, 

volunteers 
Puget Sound

Nisqually

River

McAllister Creek

Puget Sound

Nisqually

River

McAllister Creek

Special Designated Areas

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

March 2005

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 3.8-1

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd\Figure3.5-1.mxd

N

0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

1:70,246

Legend

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

National Recreation Trail

Shoreline of Statewide Significance

Public Use Natural Area

FWS Research Natural Area

Ft. Lewis Research Natural Area

National Natural Landmark

Purchase of Development Rights

Aerial Photo 1990

Page 3-65
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-67 

contributed 8,000 hours assisting with the public use and biology programs, and maintenance 

and administration of the Refuge. Training for new volunteers is conducted once a year. In 

addition to providing salaries and benefits, the Refuge purchased goods and services totaling 

approximately $948,000 in 1999, approximately 70% of which was spent in Thurston County. 

Some of these expenditures (e.g., for flood damage restoration and maintenance management 

system projects) were one-time costs and are not expected to be repeated. The baseline nonsalary costs of Refuge management were estimated at approximately $197,000 per year, mostly 

for operations and maintenance activities. Approximately 30% of these purchases involve 

wildlife- and habitat-related projects, with the remaining 70% involving public use-related 

projects. 

National Wildlife Refuges contribute funds to local counties through two revenue sharing 

programs, one that applies to Refuge lands reserved from the public domain, and one that applies 

to lands purchased in fee title. The majority of lands comprising the Refuge are held by the 

Service in fee title. For fee lands, the Federal government typically pays the counties up to 

0.075% of the appraised value of the land each year out of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund. In 

1999, for example, the Federal government paid $2,613 to Pierce County and $18,167 to 

Thurston County. 

3.8.5 Area Recreation Sector 

In 1996, 45% of Washington State’s adults age 16 and older participated in outdoor recreational 

activities that included some form of hunting, fishing, or wildlife-watching. Thirty-nine percent 

of Washington State’s adults participated in wildlife-watching. Additionally, in 1996 almost $3 

billion was spent on wildlife-associated recreation in Washington, and over $1.6 billion of the $3 

billion was spent on wildlife-watching. Consumer spending for wildlife-watching has a 

significant effect on local, state, and national economic activity and employment. Wildlifewatching can directly benefit the local economies around the Nisqually Valley. Benefits can be 

derived through sales of food, lodging, and transportation, as well as through expenditures such 

as binoculars, cameras, books, wild bird food, and touring vehicles (Gibilisco and Filipek 1998). 

The increasing economic benefits from wildlife-associated uses create a compelling need for 

greater conservation of the delta’s natural resources, which help generate these funds. 

3.8.5.1 Thurston County 

The Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department developed a full range of recreation 

opportunities to support the recreation needs of its residents. Thurston County provides many 

cultural, historic, natural, passive interpretive, and other recreation opportunities. County 

Natural Area Preserves focus on preserving natural areas (Thurston County Parks and Recreation 

Department 1996). 

Thurston County policy is to acquire land and develop its resources to support the leisure 

activities of residents and visitors. Along with State and Federal lands, Thurston County is 

establishing a coordinated approach to recreation services with the cities of Olympia, Lacey, and 

Tumwater. These cities maintain approximately 1,222 acres of park lands. Rural Thurston 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-68 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

County cities maintain an additional 80 acres of park lands (Thurston County Parks and 

Recreation Department 1996). 

In 1996, the Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department had a total land inventory of 

2,595 acres of park lands, recreation lands, trails, and open space preserves. Twenty-one 

Thurston County parks include six natural area preserves and 23 miles of trails. Sixteen parks 

have freshwater and saltwater access. Roughly 71⁄2 miles (39,580 feet) of freshwater waterfront 

can be accessed, as well as over 1⁄2 mile (3,296 feet) of saltwater access (Thurston County Parks 

and Recreation Department 1996). Trail systems, such as the Chehalis Western Trail (southwest 

of Nisqually NWR) and the Yelm-Tenino Trail (south of Nisqually NWR), provide a regional 

system of trails for walking, bicycle, equestrian, and hiking use (Thurston County Parks and 

Recreation Department 1996). 

The Nisqually Sub-Area Land Use Plan recommends that the Thurston County Public Works and 

the Thurston County Parks and Recreation departments work together with WSDOT, the City of 

Olympia, and local bicycle clubs to locate park and bike locations at areas such as the Nisqually 

Interchange, McAllister Springs, Old Nisqually, and the Nisqually Tribal Center. South of 

McAllister Springs, State Route 510 has an improved bike lane adjacent to the travel lane 

(Thurston County Planning Department 1992). The Thurston Regional Transportation Plan 

recommends that bike lanes be constructed with all future road projects of regional significance 

(Thurston Regional Planning Council 1997). 

3.8.5.2 Pierce County 

The Pierce County Parks Department maintains over 2,000 acres at over 30 park sites, including 

two recreation centers, five boat launch sites, trail corridors, and a large variety of passive and 

active facilities (Pierce County 2001). Pierce County also offers a number of outdoor recreation 

opportunities. The Foothills Trail is a planned 25-mile trail initiated in 1991 for non-motorized 

users. The trail parallels the Puyallup River from McMillin to Carbonado. Four trail sections of 

over 8 miles are open to the public. Popular bicycle trails include a 7-mile trail at Fort 

Steilacoom Park and a 3-mile Breseman Forest trail system at Spanaway Park. Other shorter 

trails for non-motorized users can be found at Seeley Lake Park, the wooded Chambers Creek 

Trail, Sunrise Beach Park, and Lake Tapps Park. Waterfront sites can be found at Half Dollar 

Park, Orangegate, Parkland Habitat, Rimrock Park, Riverside Park, South Hill Park, Swan Creek 

Park, and Wilkeson Creek Park (Pierce County 2001). The Pierce County growth management 

plan also lists a trail in the planning stage from Nisqually NWR to Mount Rainier. 

A goal of the 1995 DuPont Comprehensive Plan is to develop a system of parks and open spaces 

that provides for passive and active outdoor recreation, preserves cultural and archaeological 

sites, and protects unique physical features. Preservation of oak savannah habitat with limited 

trails and buffering and providing trails around creeks and wetlands are policies of the plan. A 

pedestrian trail system is recommended to enhance public enjoyment of natural areas, historic 

and cultural sites, and scenic views (McConnell/Burke et al. 1995). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 3-69 

3.8.5.3 Nisqually NWR 

More than 100,000 people per year visit the Refuge to participate in a variety of wildlifedependent recreational and educational activities. These include wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation, environmental education, and fishing. These visits include 

approximately 5,000 students and teachers from King, Pierce, Thurston, and Mason counties 

who visit the Refuge to participate in the environmental education program. 

Located adjacent to a major interstate highway, Nisqually NWR is also likely to continue to 

serve as a secondary destination for visitors en route to better known recreation destinations such 

as Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and 

Olympic National Parks. 

3.8.6 Agricultural Sector 

Approximately 1,108 acres of agricultural lands are located within the CCP Study Area. The 

principal crops grown in this area that represent the majority of economic activity include hay, 

corn, and Christmas tree farms. Agricultural uses in Thurston County cover 56,000 acres and 

produced $36 million worth of farm products in 1997 (Thurston Regional Planning Council 

2000). The Nisqually River Management Plan (Nisqually River Task Force 1987) states that 

enhancement of the natural-resource-based economic sectors and supporting land uses should be 

preferred to others throughout the river valley. 

Agriculture is expected to remain an important component of the south Puget Sound economy, 

but farmland is increasingly being subdivided and developed for other uses (Pacific Coast Joint 

Venture 1996). In Thurston County, farmland conversion to non-farm uses is often associated 

with increases in land values and property tax assessments. Environmental regulations requiring 

expensive and complex livestock waste management have also resulted in the reduction of land 

in dairy farms (Klein and Reganold 1997). Traditional local resource-based economies are 

expected to decline in the area, and commercial activities such as manufacturing, trade, and 

service-related industries such as outdoor recreation and tourism will continue to grow and 

diversify (Pacific Coast Joint Venture 1996). The County has addressed this concern through its 

PDR program (see Section 3.8.3.1). 

3.8.7 Commercial Shellfishing 

At Nisqually NWR, shellfishing is allowed throughout tidal habitat, under State regulations. 

RNA closures are currently not being enforced. 

Commercial shellfish growers in Thurston County marine waters use about 10,000 acres of 

commercial shellfish beds. More oysters are grown here than anywhere else in Puget Sound. 

Shellfish growers support the Puget Sound shellfish industry by producing about 120,000 gallons 

of oysters and 140,000 pounds of clams annually. Over ten million pounds of geoduck clams, 

worth $60 million, are found subtidally (Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic 

Preservation 1994). However, commercial geoduck tracts in the Nisqually Reach have never 

been open because of seasonal pollution due to heavy rainfall events. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 3-70 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment 

The commercial shellfish growing area incorporating 2,130 acres of the Nisqually Reach was 

downgraded in 1992 from “Approved” to “Conditionally Approved” by the State Health 

Department. On November 1, 2000, 74 of these acres near Luhr Beach were further downgraded 

to “Restricted” meaning no commercial shellfish harvest is allowed. Both downgrades were due 

to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria (S. Davis, pers. comm.). Operations for geoduck 

harvesting in the delta are being considered by the Nisqually Indian Tribe (Washington State 

Department of Health 1997).

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4 

Management Direction 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 4-1 

CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

4.1 REFUGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 

Management at Nisqually NWR is based on Refuge goals and objectives, NWRS policy and 

guidelines, and also site-specific considerations. Management decisions are affected by local 

and regional conditions, including growing urban pressures, habitat loss and degradation, a 

growing human population, and high public visitation. These factors sometimes mean that more 

intensive habitat management practices or greater restrictions in public use are needed to ensure 

sufficient protection of wildlife and habitat and high quality visitor experiences are maintained. 

Freshwater wetland management will be more intensive to increase the value of the remaining 

freshwater habitat for some migratory birds. In addition, public restrictions in the form of 

compatibility stipulations have been identified to protect wildlife and a visitor's experience. 

4.2 LAND PROTECTION POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 

A significant component of the management direction in the CCP is the Refuge expansion and 

habitat acquisition program. This section includes information about Service policies and 

guidelines relevant to protecting lands that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

including newly acquired lands. More detail is provided in Appendix K – Land Protection Plan. 

4.2.1 Refuge Boundary and Expansion 

The former Refuge boundary was approximately 3,936 acres. The acquisition program is 

ongoing and the Service has acquired approximately 2,925 of the 3,936 acres in fee title, 

conservation easements, and leases as of August 2004 within the former Refuge boundary. NonRefuge lands within the former boundary total approximately 1,011 acres. The expansion would 

add approximately 3,479 acres for a total authorized boundary of 7,415 acres. The expansion 

includes 512 acres of upland habitat and 2,963 acres of floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. 

 The boundary increases habitat protection on the East Bluff north of I-5 to include a forested 

corridor. It also extends the boundary south of I-5 to include floodplain, bluff, wetland, and 

upland forested habitats along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. 

When Nisqually NWR was established in 1974, the original boundary was designed to protect 

the Delta from specific threats of development. During the ensuing 30 years, increased 

development has resulted in habitat loss and degradation throughout the Puget Sound area, 

including the lower Nisqually watershed, contributing to declines of many fish and wildlife 

species. Refuge expansion will help alleviate the effects of increased habitat degradation, loss, 

and development pressures in adjacent parts of the lower watershed. Expanding the approved 

Refuge boundary allows the Service to negotiate with willing participants within the new 

approved boundary to acquire lands or interests in land and water. Lands, or interests in lands 

acquired by the Service, will be managed as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(System). The System is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and 

wildlife habitat. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on Refuges, in contrast to 

other public lands managed for multiple uses. The administration, management, and growth of 

the System are guided by the goals listed in Chapter 1 of this CCP. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page 4-2 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

4.2.2 Land Protection Methods 

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. 

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 with Fort Lewis could 

involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Techniques to provide improved 

protection of USA Trust lands would be restricted to cooperative agreements. 

• 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 applied to land under any type of 

ownership. 

• Conservation Easements. Conservation easements transfer some, but not all, property 

rights to the Service as specified by mutual agreement. 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 responsibility for 

paying property taxes. The Service can negotiate conservation easements on land under any 

type of ownership. 

• 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page 4-3 

transfers all property rights held by the landowner to the Federal government. A fee title 

interest may be acquired by purchase, donation, or exchange. 

4.2.3 Land Protection Priorities 

Appendix L includes a detailed list of the lands within the expansion boundary and within the 

approved Refuge boundary, by tract number, inset map, total acres, priority, and possible 

method(s) for resource protection (ownership information is from the Pierce and Thurston 

County Assessor Offices and subject to change). Tracts are 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 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. However, the expansion boundary provides the Service with 

future habitat protection options if willing sellers and participants and available funds present 

themselves in the future. 

4.3 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NISQUALLY NWR 

The CCP for Nisqually NWR was developed from Alternative D (the Preferred Alternative) 

presented in the CCP/EIS. The most notable elements of the CCP include the following: 

• The plan provides for a 3,479-acre expansion of the Refuge boundary, for a total of 7,415 

acres. 

• The plan maximizes estuarine restoration, while improving freshwater wetland and riparian 

habitats on the Refuge. 

• The environmental education program will be improved and expanded. 

• The existing loop trail will change significantly to allow for estuarine restoration. 

• A small portion of Refuge lands will be opened to hunting, 7 days per week, with no changes 

to hunting on WDFW lands. Hunting boundaries will be clarified and enforced. 

Components and details of the CCP are illustrated in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. Key 

elements of the CCP are summarized below. 

The plan expands the Refuge boundary, adding an additional 3,479 acres for a total authorized 

boundary of 7,415 acres. The expansion includes 512 acres of upland habitat and 2,963 acres of 

floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. The boundary increases habitat protection on the East 

Bluff north of I-5 to include a forested corridor along the crest of the bluff. It also extends the 

boundary south of I-5 to include floodplain, bluff, wetland, and upland forested habitats along 

the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. This boundary expansion will protect the riparian 

forested river corridor, including a portion of the proposed RNA on Fort Lewis property, as well 

as greater protection in the floodplain and forested habitat in the Nisqually Valley. Overall, the 

management plan provides protection for bluffs, floodplain wetlands, and the river corridor south 

of I-5. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-4 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

The CCP maximizes estuarine restoration while still providing freshwater wetland and riparian 

habitat on the Refuge. Under the plan, 699 acres (70%) of the diked area will be restored to 

estuarine habitat. This component is based on the results of a scientific workshop hosted by the 

Service in June 1998. The restored area will reconnect a majority of the historic slough systems 

in the Nisqually delta to Puget Sound, creating a more complete and functional estuarine system. 

This will require breaching the existing Brown Farm Dike in specific locations and removing 

much of the dike down to grade. Material from the dike will be used to fill in the associated 

borrow ditch. Some of the artificial bench of sediments that have accumulated along the outside 

edge of the dike may be removed to allow full tidal circulation. Small sections of the exterior 

dike will be left in place to reduce the loss of the largest deciduous trees along the Nisqually 

River. A new exterior dike will be built to protect the remaining freshwater habitat. The 

management plan will require the construction of 12,000 linear feet of new exterior dike and 

10,500 linear feet of a new interior dike system. New internal and external dikes will be planted 

with vegetation to stabilize banks, prevent erosion, and provide screening and habitat. Dikes 

will continue to be maintained with periodic resurfacing (graveling), mowing, brushing, and 

other techniques. A total of 15,000 linear feet of exterior dike will be maintained. 

The remaining 263-acre area within the dike will be managed primarily as freshwater wetlands 

and riparian habitat. A much more intensive freshwater wetland, grassland, and riparian habitat 

management regime will be implemented in the remaining diked habitat, except within a smaller 

area. Internal dikes will be built to create five management units. Grassland habitat will be 

managed as a smaller component within a mosaic of freshwater wetland habitats, scattered in 

patches and along the edges of freshwater wetlands. Some riparian plantings will occur north of 

the headquarters building and along slough systems within the diked area to mimic native 

riparian habitat historically found in the delta. In addition, 38 acres of riparian/surge plain 

habitat will be created to increase the acreage of this important habitat along the Nisqually River. 

 

Under the management plan, the environmental education program will serve up to 15,000 

students annually. Improvements will include development of site-specific materials and 

curricula; providing teacher training, field trip support, and enhanced facilities; developing and 

strengthening partnerships with others to coordinate programs in the area; and serving as a model 

for other programs. Increased staff support will be required to perform at this 

improved/expanded level. The Luhr Beach area (Nature Center and boat landing) will be 

managed under a cooperative management agreement if possible, and use of the Nisqually Reach 

Nature Center will be coordinated with the Refuge environmental education program. 

The management plan will have a large impact on the trail system. The existing 51⁄2-mile loop 

trail will be reduced to provide an approximately 31⁄2-mile round trip trail by combining the Twin 

Barns Boardwalk Loop Trail (1 mile), existing and new exterior dike, and a new boardwalk trail 

extension into the estuary. The trail will no longer be configured in a loop. The boardwalk 

extension will help offset changes in the trail and improve wildlife viewing opportunities in 

estuarine habitat. The boardwalk extension along McAllister Creek will be seasonally closed to 

prevent conflicts with waterfowl hunters on WDFW property. A primitive 1⁄2-mile loop trail will 
h

h

h

h

E

FW

R

Visitor Center

Puget Sound

Nisqu

al yl R

vi er

McAllister Creek

Nisqually River

E

Trail Seasonally Closed

Twin

Barns

Nisqu

al yl Rive

r

§ ̈¦5

h

h

h

h

E

FW

R

Visitor Center

Puget Sound

Nisqu

al yl R

vi er

McAllister Creek

Nisqually River

E

Trail Seasonally Closed

Twin

Barns

Nisqu

al yl Rive

r

§ ̈¦5

Figure 4.3-1

Pac ific Ocea n

Puget

Sound

CANADA

OREGON

WASHINGTON

N

Aerial Photo 1990

0 0.3 0.6 0.15 Miles

1:36,000

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003

Nisqually NWR

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Research Natural Area

h Accessible Fishing Access

h Bank Fishing Access

NWR Hunting Area

WDFW Hunt Area

Public Recreation Trail

Dike Changes

Berm

Existing

Removed

Internal

External

Land Ownership

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Fort Lewis (U.S. Army)

Nisqually Tribe

County Land

City of Olympia

Private Land

No Data

Riparian Restoration

Estuarine Restoration

Freshwater Wetland Enhancements

 R

 E

FW

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Management Plan

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\new_mxd\Nisqually_NWR_2005.mxd

March 2005 Page 4-5
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-7 

Table 4.3-1. Components of the CCP. 

Resource Area Components of the CCP (Plan Features) 

REFUGE EXPANSION 

Refuge Boundary Continue to complete the Refuge, acquiring or protecting lands within 

the former boundary, including cooperative management agreement 

for Luhr Beach area. Expand Refuge boundary (listed below). 

Strengthen partnerships within the watershed to improve priority 

habitat protection. 

Acres Additional 3,479 acres. 

East Bluff Protect 512 acres of a forested corridor along the East Bluff, north of 

I-5. 

Nisqually River Valley Protect 1,952 acres of freshwater wetland, riparian, and forested 

habitat. 

Nisqually River Corridor Protect 1,011 acres of the Nisqually River corridor south of I-5. 

HABITAT RESTORATION

Estuarine Habitat 70% full (699 acres) 

Allow Nisqually River and McAllister Creek to follow more natural 

flow. 

Freshwater Habitat 263 acres 

Improved management with 5 new interior management units. 

Freshwater wetland restoration and management on lands acquired 

south of I-5. 

Riparian Habitat Limited riparian plantings north of headquarters and along sloughs 

within diked areas; riparian restoration on McAllister Creek and 

Nisqually River south of I-5; and additional 38 acres of riparian/surge 

plain restoration along the Nisqually River. 

Exterior Dike (linear feet remaining) A total of 15,000 feet 

(retain 3,000 feet, new 12,000 feet) 

Breach and remove dike to grade; fill borrow ditch. 

Interior Dike System 10,500 feet 

5 diked, freshwater units. 

Nisqually Tribal Land, east of River Estuarine restoration on portions of 325 acres, managed by the 

Refuge under Cooperative Agreement. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

On-site Program Expand and improve program. Develop site-specific materials and 

curricula, provide teacher training, provide increased field trip 

support, and serve as a model for other programs. 

Students Served 15,000 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-8 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Table 4.3-1. Components of the CCP. 

Resource Area Components of the CCP (Plan Features) 

Facility(ies) Acquire or manage Luhr Beach under cooperative management 

agreement, including Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Replace 

Environmental Education Center. 

Off-site Program Develop and strengthen partnerships in the area. 

Staffing Needs Provide increased staff support. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION, HIKING, AND TRAIL CONFIGURATION

Dike (main) Trail 31⁄2-mile round-trip trail, including a boardwalk extension into the 

estuary; no loop configuration. 

Twin Barns Boardwalk Loop Trail Accessible loop trail (1 mile) with interpretive panels remains. 

New Trails Unimproved, primitive 1⁄2-mile trail in Nisqually River surge plain 

forest. Also, new 21⁄2-mile loop trail on tribal and Refuge lands east 

of the Nisqually River. Possible new trail option on the East Bluff, if 

acquired. 

Facilities Visitor Center and interpretive displays, focusing on existing habitats 

and wildlife, with additional interpretation on estuarine restoration. A 

new Visitor Contact Station at Luhr Beach, plus new Visitor Contact 

Station and parking on the east side of the Nisqually River. 

Seasonal Closures A portion of main trail would be closed seasonally during waterfowl 

hunting season. New eastside trail seasonally closed during 

waterfowl hunting season for the duration of private duck club 

operation. 

WATERFOWL HUNTING

Refuge Open to Waterfowl Hunting Refuge will open 191 acres of Refuge lands to a 7 day/week hunt 

program, creating a single block hunt area with WDFW lands north of 

the Brown Farm Dike. Quality hunt provision of 25-shell limit on all 

lands. No limit on number of hunters. Total area available for 

hunting, including WDFW lands, would be 808 acres. 

WDFW Lands Hunting occurs on 617 acres of WDFW lands; management 

responsibility by WDFW, with quality hunt provision of 25-shell limit. 

Acreage Changes Refuge opens 191 acres to hunting. Reduce RNA by 73 acres to 

allow hunting, but add 44 new acres to the south. 

Sanctuary Moderate increase in sanctuary. 

Luhr Beach Hunter Access Hunting on Refuge lands managed by the Service; hunting on 

WDFW lands managed by WDFW. 

Staffing Needs Provide maximum increased staff support for management of hunting 

program and enforcement. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-9 

Table 4.3-1. Components of the CCP. 

Resource Area Components of the CCP (Plan Features) 

FISHING

General Regulations Fishing would be allowed by boat, following State regulations, in all 

Refuge waters outside of the dike, except that the RNA fishing 

closures would be enforced and any tidal restoration area would be 

closed to fishing. 

McAllister Creek bank fishing area Bank fishing along McAllister Creek would no longer be available due 

to dike removal. 

RNA closures The RNA would be closed to fishing and closures enforced. 

New fishing opportunities An improved Nisqually River bank fishing area, if acquired south of I5 (Trotter’s Woods area) would be provided. Accessible fishing site 

at Luhr Beach would be provided if feasible under cooperative 

management agreement. 

A bank fishing area along the Nisqually River north of I-5 (on tribal 

and Refuge lands east of the river) may be provided. 

An additional option for accessible fishing site at the Nisqually River 

Overlook from the Twin Barns Loop Trail would be investigated, and 

new fishing opportunities on McAllister Creek would be explored in 

expansion areas if acquired. 

BOATING

General Regulations A speed limit of 5 mph would be established in all Refuge waters. 

RNA closures All consumptive uses, including associated boating, would be 

prohibited in the RNA. In addition, the RNA would be closed to all 

boating from October 1 to March 31 to provide a seasonal sanctuary 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Luhr Beach Boat Ramp Area Manage through a cooperative management agreement to enhance 

Refuge outreach efforts and provide Refuge boating regulations and 

general Refuge and wildlife information at a Visitor Contact Station. 

be provided in the surge plain habitat. An approximately 21⁄2-mile loop trail will be developed 

on tribal and Refuge property east of the Nisqually River, with temporary seasonal closures 

during the waterfowl hunting season until the private hunt club is discontinued on tribal lands. 

This trail will provide new wildlife viewing opportunities. A bridge will be needed across Red 

Salmon Creek to support a loop configuration. The specific design of this trail will be developed 

during implementation of the CCP. Interpretation will focus on existing habitats, estuarine 

restoration, improved management, and wildlife. Other new trail options include trails on the 

East Bluff as part of a larger Pierce County trail system. 

Under the CCP, the Service will open 191 acres of Refuge lands to a 7 day/week hunting 

program during the waterfowl hunting season. These lands are located adjacent to the WDFW 

parcel north of the Brown Farm Dike. The RNA will be reduced by 73 acres, with the RNA 

boundary moved to the east to provide a high quality hunting area at the mouth of the river. An 

additional 44 acres will be added to the RNA at the south end, resulting in a total reduction of 29 

acres in the RNA to 764 acres. By opening 191 acres of the Refuge to waterfowl hunting, the 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-10 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

hunting area north of the Brown Farm Dike will be configured in a single rectangular block, 

reducing confusing boundary issues. Areas designated as “No Hunting Areas” will be posted 

and enforced, eliminating the unauthorized hunting that has occurred previously on the Refuge. 

Waterfowl hunting will continue on all WDFW lands. A 25-shell limit will be instituted on 

Refuge and WDFW lands. WDFW will maintain jurisdiction and management responsibility 

over WDFW lands and the Service will manage the hunting program on Refuge lands. Refuge 

outreach, education, and enforcement programs will benefit hunting programs on State lands as 

well. The area within the Brown Farm Dike, including the estuarine restoration area, will be 

closed to hunting. 

The bank fishing area along McAllister Creek will no longer be available due to dike removal. 

However, the closure of the McAllister Creek Hatchery (in July 2002) has reduced fishing 

opportunity dramatically, lessening the effect of this change. Bank fishing access along 

McAllister Creek south of I-5 will be provided in the future if acquisition or land protection 

occurs in appropriate locations. Two new fishing areas along the Nisqually River will also be 

provided, including the Trotter’s Woods area south of I-5 if an agreement is reached with Fort 

Lewis, and an area off a new loop trail east of the Nisqually River north of I-5 on tribal and 

Refuge properties. Fishing access on tribal and Refuge property east of the Nisqually River will 

be associated with the development of the trail, parking area, and visitor contact station, as 

described above. Accessible fishing access at Luhr Beach will be provided, if feasible, 

following development of a cooperative management agreement. An additional accessible 

fishing access only area at the Nisqually River Overlook off the Twin Barns Loop Boardwalk 

Trail will also be investigated to determine if a stable fishing platform can be maintained along 

that portion of the river. The RNA will be closed to fishing with closures enforced. The area 

within the new exterior dike and any tidal restoration area will be closed to fishing. 

Under the CCP, recreational shellfishing will continue to be allowed in tidal habitats according 

to County and State regulations. However, the Luhr Beach area has been closed since summer 

2000 because of high levels of fecal coliform contamination. Commercial geoduck harvest will 

continue under State regulation in waters in or adjacent to the Refuge.

The CCP includes both speed restrictions and seasonal closures for boats. A speed limit of 5 

mph will be established for watercraft in all Refuge waters. This will broaden the current 5 mph 

speed restriction for all watercraft within 200 feet of any shoreline by Thurston County 

regulation. The RNA will be closed to all boating from October 1 to March 31 to provide a 

seasonal sanctuary for migratory birds and other wildlife. In addition, boating activity and its 

potential effects on wildlife will continue to be monitored to ensure that boating remains 

compatible with Refuge purposes and that new boating restrictions provide sufficient wildlife 

protection. Future closures or additional restrictions will be considered if undue wildlife 

disturbance occurs. 

Resource monitoring will be an important part of the management plan. Monitoring efforts will 

focus on key fish, wildlife, and habitats to be used to evaluate habitat management and 

restoration activities. Biological and public use monitoring will be used to support adaptive 

management. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-11 

4.4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

4.4.1 Overview 

The following goals for Nisqually NWR are broad statements of desired future condition and 

provide guiding statements for Refuge development and management efforts. They represent a 

step down from the Refuge vision statement, from National Wildlife Refuge System goals, and 

from broader regional and national programs. 

Nisqually NWR Goals: 

I. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife 

species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory 

birds and salmonids. 

II. Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered 

species, species of concern, and their habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

III. Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and 

habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to 

enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and 

cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

In contrast, Refuge objectives are concise statements of what will be achieved to meet a 

particular goal. When possible, Refuge objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, 

results oriented, and should be time-fixed within the 15-year life span of the CCP. 

Refuge strategies describe specific actions, tools, and techniques that can be used to meet 

objectives. In some cases, strategies describe specific projects in enough detail to assess funding 

and staffing needs. In other cases, further site-specific detail is required to implement a strategy; 

this usually takes the form of a step-down management plan, restoration plan, or site plan. 

The objectives and strategies are listed below as they apply to each of the four Refuge goals. 

4.4.2 Detailed Description of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL I: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant 

and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on 

migratory birds and salmonids. 

Objective 1.1: Restore Estuarine Habitat 

Within 3 years of the CCP’s approval, implement restoration of 699 acres of estuarine habitat in 

the Nisqually River delta estuary and nearshore environments. The desired future conditions 

include: (1) a mosaic of estuarine habitats, including native salt marsh communities; (2) major 

reduction of invasive reed canary grass; (3) enhanced use by juvenile salmon; (4) most ponds 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-12 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

being connected at low tides to minimize fish entrapment; and (5) increased waterfowl, 

shorebird, and waterbird use. 

Rationale: 

During the last century, over 80% of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound, and up to 33% of its 

eelgrass beds, have been lost to dredging, filling, diking, and industrial development (Dean et al. 

2000; White 1997; Lane and Taylor 1986). Estuarine marsh habitats (salt marsh) are now rare in 

the Puget Sound region, comprising only 0.3% of the wetland and deepwater resources found 

here (Tanner 1999). Estuarine areas provide important feeding and rearing habitat for a variety 

of fish and wildlife, including the threatened chinook salmon. In the Nisqually delta itself, a loss 

of 54% of intertidal emergent marsh (salt marsh) habitat occurred through agricultural 

conversion in the early 1900s. Restoration of intertidal wetlands within the Nisqually River 

delta could substantially increase the amount of salt marsh in south Puget Sound. Restoring 70% 

of the currently diked area in the Nisqually NWR to tidal influence would increase estuarine 

habitat in the south Puget Sound area by 46% (Tanner 1999). Protection and restoration of 

native estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal as identified in 

the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Plan (1995), Nisqually Basin Fall Chinook Recovery Plan 

(2001), and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and 

Buchanan 2000). This objective would benefit estuarine-dependent fish and wildlife species 

including waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, shorebirds, salmon, and invertebrates. Estuarine 

restoration will also improve the health and function of existing estuarine habitats in the delta. 

Restoration efforts will focus on habitat-forming processes and functions including tidal 

influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 

Strategies:

• Hire a 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, to work with partners, 

including Ducks Unlimited, to develop and implement an estuarine restoration and 

monitoring plan. 

• Develop an estuarine restoration plan by 2006. The plan will include the design for the 

physical modifications needed to restore 699 acres of estuarine habitats, including removing 

dikes to grade, filling borrow ditches, and excavating breach sites and historic slough 

channel depths. Modifications should promote the development of a gradient and mix of 

estuarine habitat types. 

o In coordination with other CCP restoration programs, obtain permits and 

implement the estuarine restoration plan within 3 years after CCP approval. 

o Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to monitor and manage 

invasive/exotic species to increase the native species establishment and support an 

adaptive management approach. This includes identifying all invasive/exotic 

species that pose a threat to estuarine habitat and associated control methods. 

o Monitor restoration project results to determine the extent of estuarine habitat 

development. Monitoring should focus on amount, distribution, and processes. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-13 

Hire a 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to develop and update 

GIS data associated with monitoring program. 

o Develop and implement a monitoring program to document fish and wildlife 

response in the estuarine restoration area by 2006. Implementation of this 

program prior to restoration will allow for the collection of baseline data, 

resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. 

Hire a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-9/11, to focus on this monitoring program. 

Objective 1.2: Reduce Human Disturbance

Reduce human disturbance in estuarine habitat of the Nisqually River delta to protect and 

enhance fish and wildlife dependent on this resource. Provide a minimum of 764 acres in the 

RNA and other areas within the approved Refuge boundary where wildlife can rest, feed, and 

nest with minimal human disturbance. 

Rationale: 

Refuge estuarine habitat provides crucial feeding and resting areas for a variety of sensitive or 

declining migratory birds and species of management concern. There are very few areas in 

Puget Sound that provide long-term, low disturbance areas for fish and wildlife in estuarine 

habitat. Many areas receive some measure of protection from development, but most allow 

public access such as boating, PWC use, hunting, or fishing activities. Current public use 

management is contributing to wildlife disturbance throughout almost all estuarine habitats on 

the Refuge, providing no sanctuary areas in the estuary. Unauthorized waterfowl hunting is 

allowed in large portions of Refuge estuary habitat, and required RNA closures to consumptive 

uses are not enforced. The only remaining substantial eelgrass beds in the Nisqually delta are 

located in this RNA. Boating occurs year-round with few restrictions throughout Refuge 

estuarine habitat. There is a need to reduce human disturbance in the estuary, including the RNA 

and in newly restored estuarine habitat, so natural processes and wildlife response can occur 

without disturbance from human activities. Implementing use restrictions in the RNA is also 

consistent with RNA management policy (Refuge Manual 8 RM 10.8). The Service will 

conserve these areas for scientific research, wildlife and habitat monitoring, and environmental 

education. 

Low disturbance areas are extremely important for wildlife on Refuges that allow hunting and 

other public uses because they provide high quality habitat for feeding, breeding, resting, and 

thermal protection. Without these areas, wildlife species exposed to repeated human 

disturbances may change food habits and distribution patterns, feed only at night, lose weight, 

have decreased reproductive success, or abandon the feeding, nesting, and resting areas. 

Strategies: 

• Manage the existing RNA (764 acres instead of 793 acres) to reduce disturbance to estuarinedependent wildlife by enforcing prohibitions on consumptive uses and establishing seasonal 

closures, including posting and signing RNA boundaries. The RNA will be closed to boats 

from October 1 through March 31. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-14 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

• Designate the restored estuarine habitats within the Brown Farm Dike (699 acres) and 

Nisqually Indian Tribal land (300 acres), east of the Nisqually River, as a sanctuary for 

estuarine-dependent wildlife by prohibiting public boating and consumptive uses and 

restricting public access to trails along the edge of the site. 

• Work with surrounding landowners to assist as volunteer observers to monitor effects of 

human activities in the Nisqually delta to identify the need for additional wildlife protection 

measures. 

• Implement and enforce 5 mph boat speed limit on all Refuge waters to improve wildlife and 

habitat protection and reduce disturbance. 

• Monitor watercraft activity and reevaluate annually to ensure that restrictions are effective in 

minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance and use is compatible. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer, GS-7, to conduct all enforcement patrols associated with 

boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge lands and waters. 

• Monitor wildlife use distribution and abundance to evaluate effectiveness of public use 

restrictions to allow for adaptive management. 

• Post closure signs at Luhr Beach notifying public of closed Refuge property south of Luhr 

Beach Nature Center. 

• Develop cooperative agreement with WDFW to manage Luhr Beach and establish a visitor 

contact station that includes information on Refuge regulations and ethical viewing advice to 

reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Objective 1.3: Freshwater Wetlands and Grasslands

By 2020, the Service would protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater 

wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to 

serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, 

mammals, and native amphibians. A mix of habitats would generally include 5% permanent 

freshwater, 10-20% grassland, 15-30% riparian, and at least 60% seasonal freshwater habitat. 

Rationale: 

Although the actual amount of acres lost is unknown, estimates of freshwater wetlands lost in 

Washington range from 20% to as much as 50% during the past two centuries (Lane and Taylor 

1996). Roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of freshwater wetlands are filled each year in western 

Washington (White 1997). Current loss and degradation of freshwater wetlands in western 

Washington are due to urban expansion, forestry and agricultural practices, industrial 

development, and invasive or exotic plants and animals (Lane and Taylor 1996). Currently, 

freshwater wetlands comprise only 18% of wetlands in the Puget Sound area (Tanner 1999) yet 

they provide habitat for many fish and wildlife species observed in South Puget Sound. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-15 

Improved management of Refuge lands within the diked area will greatly improve the habitat 

quality for fish and wildlife. 

Much of the lands within the expansion area located south of I-5 were historically freshwater 

wetland lowlands. There is excellent potential for wetland restoration on these farmed and 

drained wetlands. A mixture of permanent and seasonal wetlands and scrub-shrub/grassland 

habitats would provide a mosaic of freshwater wetlands that can be used by a variety of fish and 

wildlife (waterfowl, raptors, passerines, and small mammals) throughout the year. Freshwater 

habitat would also provide diverse wildlife viewing opportunities and interpretive programs for 

visitors. 

Wetland Management Strategies: 

• In cooperation with partners, develop and implement a restoration plan with adaptive 

management strategies to restore and enhance 263 acres within the diked area as 

approximately 5% permanent freshwater, 10% grassland, 25% riparian, and 60% seasonal 

freshwater habitat within 5 years after CCP approval. This would include providing 

seasonally flooded wetlands and grasslands to serve as forage areas for waterfowl during the 

fall and winter months. 

• In cooperation with partners, identify and secure funding for restoration 3-4 years after CCP 

approval. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, within 1 year after CCP approval to supervise 

implementation of the restoration and monitoring plan. 

• The freshwater area would be subdivided into five units by new internal/external dikes to 

allow intensive management, thereby improving habitat quality and allowing effective reed 

canary grass control. Internal dikes would have 5 to 1 slopes while the external dikes, 

constructed to 12 feet in elevation, would have 3 to 1 slopes. 

• Seasonal wetlands would be created and enlarged by excavating and sculpting areas with 

higher elevations. Seeding and planting would be implemented to stabilize soils and speed 

recovery of wetland plants. Where appropriate, small permanent ponds would be created. 

• New water control structures or pumps would be installed between units to allow water 

movement through the units, and to provide the ability to drain and flood individual 

impoundments. Units and ponds would be designed to allow flooding in selected areas to at 

least 3 feet deep for up to 9 months to improve reed canary grass control. 

• Management techniques would include a rotating cycle of draining, mowing, discing, 

scraping, herbicide application, seeding, and flooding to control reed canary grass, prevent 

brush invasion, and halt succession in these habitats; hire a 1.0 FTE Maintenance Worker, 

WG-8, within 3 years to conduct this work. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-16 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

• The water delivery system would be periodically maintained, including the excavation or 

cleaning of sloughs, ditches, and water control structures, or replacement of water control 

structures as needed. 

• Where appropriate, planting and seeding along the dikes would occur to provide habitat, 

screening, and erosion control. 

• Riparian habitat along the slough would be enhanced with appropriate native plants. 

• Work with willing sellers in the expansion area on future possibilities of land acquisition, 

including focusing on areas with the highest potential for restoration to quality freshwater 

wetland habitat. If fee title acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative 

agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of these areas. 

Grassland Management Strategies: 

• Grassland species diversity and palatability will be increased for waterfowl by cutting once 

in July and again in September. Periodic discing, reseeding, and fertilizing will be conducted 

to reduce weed species and improve forage quality for waterfowl. Grasslands will be 

managed to support a variety of non-native grasses (pasture mix) used by waterfowl. Native 

grass species will be encouraged where possible. Soil tests will be conducted to determine 

appropriate amounts of fertilizer. 

• Surveys for ground-nesting bird species will be conducted prior to haying or mowing before 

July 1. 

Other Management Strategies:

• Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan for all habitat types on the 

Refuge to identify invasive species control priorities and preferred control methods for 

specific species and locations. Include adaptive management strategies and the ability to 

evaluate the effectiveness of our actions and adjust accordingly. 

• Develop and maintain a database and mapping system to track the locations and sizes of nonnative invasive species infestations over time. 

• Recruit and train volunteers to help with non-native invasive species surveys, monitoring, 

and control measures, including data collection, entry, and analysis. 

• Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan (see Appendix K), work with 

willing sellers in the expansion area on land acquisition, focusing efforts on priority areas 

including protection of properties that would allow long-term wetland restoration of at least 

350-400 acres in the Nisqually Valley lowlands. If acquisition is not possible, conservation 

easements or cooperative agreements are an alternative to ensure long-term protection and 

enhancement of these areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-17 

• As applicable, restoration and management on properties acquired south of I-5 will follow 

these same strategies. Hire a 1.0 FTE Maintenance Worker, WG-8, to conduct maintenance 

and operational work on wetlands in the expansion area within 5 years. 

• Manage future major flood events inside the diked area by designing and implementing water 

control methods, which could include spillways, pumps, or water control structures. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9/11, to provide assistance and technical expertise to 

interested landowners in the expansion area with programs to enhance habitats and wildlife 

populations on private land. 

• Develop and implement a long-term monitoring and evaluation protocol, including fish and 

wildlife response, to measure effectiveness of and provide recommendations for current and 

future management of freshwater wetlands and grasslands. Implementation of this program 

prior to restoration will allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better 

assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. This will require hiring a 0.5 

FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9/11, and 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to 

focus on this monitoring program. 

Objective 1.4: Riparian Habitat

Provide for the protection, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of the ecological 

functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian mature mixed forest habitat in the Nisqually 

River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident 

landbirds and fish. Desired conditions include habitat connectivity; vegetation diversity in terms 

of age, native plant species composition, and vegetation layers; vegetation vigor; abundance of 

snags and woody debris; unimpeded occurrences of natural disturbances; minimization of 

human disturbances; and an irregular shape and a width adequate to retain riparian habitat 

functions (Knutsen and Naef 1997) 

Rationale: 

Natural riparian forests are diverse, dynamic, and complex habitats supporting a variety of fish 

and wildlife. Although riparian areas constitute a small portion of the surface landscape, they 

are highly productive. Approximately 85% of Washington’s wildlife species use riparian habitat 

associated with rivers and streams (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Habitat for many upland species is 

also directly enhanced by the presence of adjacent riparian habitat. Riparian areas provide 

habitat for a variety of bird species, including passerines, woodpeckers, waterfowl, and raptors. 

As much as 90% of riparian habitat has been lost or modified since the early 1800s (Knutson and 

Naef 1997). Conditions of several riparian habitats in the expansion area are degraded (EDT 

Workgroup 1999). Improved protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River corridor will 

contribute to the conservation of riparian-dependent species and also to salmon recovery. This 

objective will contribute to ecoregional plan goals, as well as goals of the Conservation Plan for 

Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and Washington and the Nisqually Basin 

Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. As a key conservation agency in the Nisqually delta, the Service 

would play a larger role in protecting and improving riparian habitat on the Fort Lewis Military 

Reservation and on private lands in the expansion area upriver from the Refuge. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-18 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategies:

• Develop a riparian restoration project to include planting a variety of native riparian tree and 

shrub species and restoring natural hydrology on 38 acres of currently diked habitat on the 

Refuge. This may include constructing a bench that would mimic natural sediment 

deposition bars along the Nisqually River to reduce frequency of tidal inundation and 

promote sediment deposition. 

• Develop and implement a monitoring program to document habitat development and bird 

response in the restored area. Implementation of this program prior to restoration will allow 

for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts and 

management decisions. This will require hiring a 1.0 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS7/9, to conduct monitoring projects. 

• Work with Fort Lewis to acquire or manage under a cooperative agreement riparian habitat 

east of the Nisqually River to protect and restore the native riparian forest. This would 

require development of a site plan for fishing and vehicle access and hiring a 0.5 FTE Refuge 

Officer, GS-7 to implement the plan. 

• Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing sellers in the 

expansion area on future possibilities of land acquisition, including focusing on a 200-foot 

protection zone of riparian habitat along both sides of the Nisqually River corridor between 

I-5 and the Nisqually Indian Reservation boundary. In addition, restore riparian habitat 

along both sides of McAllister Creek, where feasible. If acquisition is not possible, 

conservation easements or cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term 

protection of these areas. 

• Based on the restoration plan, add large woody debris where appropriate and restore function 

of large woody debris recruitment in the Nisqually River. 

• Develop and implement an invasive species monitoring and integrated pest management 

control program using both manual and chemical treatment methods. This would require 

hiring a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to conduct the monitoring program and 

guide treatment efforts. 

• Some riparian plantings will occur north of the headquarters building and along slough 

systems in the southern portion of the remaining diked area to widen the corridor of riparian 

habitat, mimicking native riparian habitat historically found in the delta. Since these areas 

are not directly connected to a system with natural hydrology, they would not function as 

native riparian systems. 

Objective 1.5: Upland Forest

In 15 years, the Refuge would protect and restore 400-600 acres of native upland forest habitat 

along McAllister Creek and in the eastern and western bluffs of the Refuge. Protection would 

occur through restoration of 100 acres of upland forest on existing Refuge lands on the West 

Bluff and acquisition of priority bluff parcels or through easements or cooperative agreements. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-19 

Protection and restoration actions would provide habitat for coniferous and deciduous forest 

dependent species especially tree-nesting species, such as great blue herons and bald eagles, as 

well as protect water quality, continuous wildlife habitat corridors, and scenic values of the 

Nisqually delta. 

Rationale: 

Forested bluff areas in southern Puget Sound are often lost to or compromised by residential 

development or logging. Urbanization surrounding the Refuge is rapidly occurring. Activities 

by residents and their pets can disturb nesting birds, and in some cases compromise the stability 

of the slope, which can lead to erosion and siltation into adjacent Refuge creeks and rivers. 

Protecting forested habitat would provide a continuous wildlife corridor connecting adjacent 

habitats with the Refuge. The great blue heron is a monitored and priority species in the State of 

Washington because of the increasing loss of foraging and breeding habitats and increasing 

environmental pollutants associated with human expansion and development. Protection of the 

West Bluff parcel will not only benefit the great blue heron population nesting along McAllister 

Creek, but also a pair of bald eagles, a Federally listed threatened species, that also nests in the 

West Bluff area. Maintaining the integrity of the forested bluffs would also be critical in 

protecting the visual character of the landscape. 

Strategies:

• Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing sellers in the 

expansion area on land protection, focusing on bluff properties and at least 200 feet along the 

top of bluff along the eastern boundary of the Refuge and McAllister Creek to protect slope 

stability, water quality, and foraging and nesting habitats of birds. If acquisition is not 

possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure 

long-term protection of these areas. 

• Work with the Department of Ecology to monitor water quality in McAllister Creek. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to assist in monitoring the establishment of 

invasive species and implementing control measures as necessary. 

• Continue to maintain closure to public use on steep bluffs to protect slope integrity and 

nesting birds (West Bluff parcel). 

• Monitor and prevent illegal tree cutting and trespassing on the West Bluff above McAllister 

Creek. 

• Implement an educational program focusing on the importance of forested bluff areas and 

involve the local community and school groups with restoration efforts. 

• Work with landowners and County and City government to manage and control stormwater 

runoff to maintain slope stability. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-20 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

• Restore and enhance approximately 100 acres of Douglas-fir dominated mature forest on the 

West Bluff parcel of the Refuge to reduce fragmentation of forested habitat and provide a 

habitat and wildlife corridor between Refuge habitats and adjacent lands. 

GOAL II: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened 

and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the 

Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Objective 2.1: Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout

The Service would protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of estuarine, freshwater, 

stream, and riparian habitats to protect declining runs of chinook salmon and bull trout, which 

are Federally listed as threatened.

Rationale: 

The chinook salmon was listed as threatened in 1999 and resides in the Nisqually River and 

estuary. The Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan has identified restoration of estuarine habitat 

within the Nisqually River delta as a top priority component to the recovery of this species 

(Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001). The bull trout has historically resided in the 

Nisqually River system. Any protection to spawning, migration, and rearing habitats would 

support recovery goals of these two species in the Nisqually River watershed. 

Strategies:

• Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the delta. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to monitor response of fish populations 

to restoration efforts. 

• Implement sections of the Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe that 

support estuarine restoration of the eastside parcels (east of Nisqually River). 

• Protect and restore approximately 1,000 acres along the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, 

and their tributaries through acquisition or other land protection measures to protect riverine 

and riparian habitats essential to the recovery of chinook salmon and bull trout. Where 

needed, restoration measures will include planting native tree and shrub species, erosion 

control measures, control of invasive plant species, and reducing physical damage or 

disturbance to soils and riparian habitats. Hire a 1.0 FTE Maintenance Worker, WG-5/6, to 

conduct planting, invasive plant control, and other restoration measures within 5 years. 

Objective 2.2 Species Recovery

The Refuge and Service would work with WDFW to support recovery efforts of the western pond 

turtle and Oregon spotted frog by protecting and restoring suitable habitats and considering 

future reintroduction in areas of the Refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-21 

Suitable habitat for western pond turtle includes a complex of small ponds near sea level; 

abundant emergent basking sites; isolation from large bodies of water and streams; emergent 

vegetation and a mud bottom; abundant invertebrate and larval amphibian as prey; few or no 

non-native predators like largemouth bass and bullfrogs; and diversity of upland habitats, 

including open grassy areas for nesting and dense clumps of deciduous trees and shrubs for 

overwintering. 

Suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog includes emergent wetlands associated with lakes, 

ponds, and slow-moving streams; shallow emergent wetlands, 5-30 cm deep for breeding; few or 

no non-native predators like largemouth bass, perch, and bullfrogs; and abundant invertebrates 

and larval amphibians as prey.

Rationale: 

Both the Oregon spotted frog and the western pond turtle have highly restricted distributions in 

western Washington. Spotted frog habitat is scarce, as they now occur in only 10-22% of their 

historic range in Washington. Only four populations remain within the State (McAllister et al. 

2004). The western pond turtle has been extirpated from most of its range in Washington, with 

only two populations remaining in the Columbia River Gorge (Hays et al. 1999). Reestablishing self-sustaining populations is vital to the recovery of these species. The Oregon 

spotted frog and western pond turtle need a permanent source of freshwater such as wetlands, 

ponds, or slow-moving streams. 

Strategies:

• Consult with others to identify potential reintroduction sites; if sites are not suitable on 

Refuge lands, initiate efforts for acquisition within approved acquisition boundaries or 

pursue other means of protection. 

• Identify suitable habitat within the expansion area essential for the protection and 

conservation of these two species. Assist in developing and implementing improved 

management practices to enhance habitat and reduce impacts by non-native predators such as 

the bullfrog. 

• Work with WDFW to conduct surveys and promote research and monitoring to better 

document basic life history information for the two species. Use information for 

management and recovery of the species. 

Objective 2.3: Other Special Status Species

Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing 

on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing.

Rationale: 

The Service manages endangered and threatened species as trust species and, wherever possible, 

strives to assist in the recovery of endangered and threatened species that occur within the 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-22 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Refuge System. A high priority management principle is to benefit species proactively before 

they become listed to prevent further decline. Federal species lists and recovery plans are found 

at http://www.r1.fws.gov/es/endsp.htm. WDFW maintains a list of special status species through 

Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011 that can be found through their 

web site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw. 

Strategies:

• Develop and implement a monitoring program with detailed protocols for monitoring the 

status of special-status species, including methods to assess habitat needs and management 

actions. 

• Protect the active bald eagle nest from human disturbance, using Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1989) guidelines (dates and distances). 

• Encourage research on special-status species on the Refuge to investigate ecology relevant to 

improved conservation measures. Research could be conducted by local universities or other 

organizations with assistance from the Refuge in the form of funding, supplies, volunteers, or 

technical assistance. 

• Identify special-status species locations outside of Refuge lands and prioritize these areas for 

acquisition or work with partners to ensure long-term protection.

GOAL III: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, 

wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Objective 3.1: Environmental Education - Program Management

Provide a quality environmental education program at Nisqually with specific learning 

objectives and diverse opportunities that: (1) meet State standards for learning; (2) are based on 

Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation and management programs; (3) support the 

mission of the Service; and (4) provide stewardship opportunities. 

Rationale: 

With its variety of natural resources, facilities, and proximity to major population centers, 

Nisqually NWR is in a unique position to offer local education agencies, teachers, and students 

an opportunity to study natural resource management and conservation issues in an outdoor 

setting. Since the establishment of the Refuge, educators and youth professionals have been 

using Nisqually NWR as an outdoor classroom to enhance course curricula. The existing 

program serves approximately 5,000 students per year. The demand for environmental 

education (EE) is high and expected to grow. 

Environmental education in Washington State is strongly supported by the State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction (SPI). In 1990, the Washington State School Board directed public schools 

to incorporate environmental education into all appropriate subject areas. Nisqually NWR is in a 

position to assist local educators in meeting Essential Academic Learning Requirements. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-23 

To meet student needs, Refuge staff are committed to looking for ways to teach about wildlife 

and habitat conservation. The field trip program enhances classroom learning with hands-on 

outdoor experiences. Summer camps provide students with more in-depth study. As habitat 

restoration projects are undertaken, students and teachers will be included in hands-on 

restoration and monitoring activities. These types of activities require management support and 

commitment of personnel and funds. 

Strategies: 

• Hire a permanent-full time environmental education specialist (GS-09) to manage the 

environmental education program, within 2 years after CCP approval. 

• Provide for additional program assistance through trained volunteers, interns from local 

colleges, AmeriCorps, or the Student Conservation Association. 

• Hire a second full-time environmental education staff person (GS-09) within 4 years after 

CCP approval, to serve 15,000 students per year. This staffing would be comparable to other 

environmental education programs of that size. 

• Provide opportunities during the summer for students to participate in an extended, more indepth study of the natural environment. 

• As changes are made to habitats on the Refuge, opportunities would be created to include 

teachers and students in these long-term restoration activities. These could be one-time 

activities such as planting, or long-term involvement including planning, design, and actual 

on-the-ground implementation for a restoration site. 

• As changes are made to the habitats on the Refuge, specifically tidal restoration, monitoring 

activities for students would be developed. Plots could be identified and teachers recruited 

who would work over the course of the school year to carry out monitoring activities with 

their students on vegetation, wildlife, and water quality. 

• Support the water quality testing projects conducted by the Nisqually River education project 

and project GREEN. 

• Develop a butterfly/native garden in the area of the Education Center. 

• Conduct regular evaluations with feedback from teachers and students to improve and 

modify program as needed. 

Objective 3.2: Environmental Education - Students Served 

Provide adequate information, site-specific materials, curricula, and facilities to accommodate a 

year-round field trip program that serves up to 100 students per day, 5 days a week, 15,000 

students per year. 

Rationale: 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-24 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Nisqually NWR serves 5,000 students and teachers annually and in 1998, reached approximately 

8,000 students and teachers on and off-site. It is estimated that the Refuge could accommodate 

up to 15,000 on site each year if: (1) an education staff of up to 3 people ran the program fulltime; and (2) educators were trained and could be recruited to utilize the Refuge during all 

months of the school year, not just in May and June. With more opportunities and a more 

structured program where teachers are trained to use the site and are provided with site-specific 

materials and tools, educators should be eager to use the Refuge year-round. A triple-wide 

trailer currently serves as the temporary indoor facility for the EE program. A new 4,000-

square-foot EE facility, which will be located near the Visitor Center, is envisioned as the central 

focus of the EE program with 7 outdoor study sites located on the Refuge. 

Strategies: 

• The Refuge will have readily available information about the environmental education 

program, will respond to all inquiries in a timely manner, and will provide information to 

local schools. 

• Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes will be limited to 100 

students per day and will be required to make reservations in advance through the Refuge 

Office. Reservations will be taken on a first come-first served basis. 

• Group leaders must attend a workshop or orientation session before bringing their classes to 

the Refuge. 

• Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be limited to the trails 

and designated environmental education study sites, except by special use permit. Seven 

environmental education study sites would be designated in the area of the Twin Barns Loop 

Trail where students can participate in more in-depth study by 2005. 

• Develop and provide site-specific materials and tools for educators’ use, both on and off site. 

 These materials would include an educator’s guide “Where the River Becomes a Delta,” 

which would serve as a site-specific field trip guide and a companion guide to the others that 

have been developed for the Nisqually River Watershed—“The Living River,” “Where the 

River Begins,” and “Where the River Meets the Sound.” 

• Provide Discovery Packs for use by small groups and non-formal education groups. 

• A triple-wide trailer will be used as the temporary indoor classroom facility until a new 

facility is built by 2007 and would be available for environmental education groups on a 

reservation basis. Once constructed, the new 4,000-square-foot facility will have small 

group learning areas, a large group presentation room, bathrooms, a small kitchen, office 

space, parking, lunch area, and a lab to conduct activities such as water quality testing. 

Objective 3.3: Environmental Education - Field Trip Program
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-25 

Provide a Refuge field trip program where trained educators, volunteer adult leaders, and youth 

professionals lead their own students in active, hands-on field investigations focusing on the 

conservation of our natural resources. 

Rationale: 

Using the “multiplier effect,” educators and youth professionals will conduct their own field trips 

to the Refuge. This allows for the maximum number of students participating in the program 

with less commitment of staff time. The multiplier effect occurs when the Refuge education 

staff trains educators who can then use their knowledge and skills year after year with students. 

Other adults involved in the program also gain new knowledge and awareness and tell their 

friends and community leaders who influence public policy. Staff are then available to train 

more educators and work on program growth and development. 

Strategies: 

• Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide guidance to educators interested in 

teaching about natural resource issues by assisting in lesson and field trip planning on the 

phone or in person. 

• The Refuge will provide educator workshops and courses sponsored by the Refuge or by 

Refuge partners on topics related to natural resources and the environment such as Project 

WET. 

• Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide regularly scheduled field trip orientation 

workshops for educators and youth professionals. 

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education Partners and Networking 

Refuge staff will work with other agencies and organizations to provide assistance to other 

programs by designing, conducting, or hosting at least one regionally based environmental 

education field trip, workshop, seminar, or study course each year. 

Rationale: 

Many opportunities exist for the Service to work together with partners to both enhance the 

program at the Refuge but also to provide coordination and assistance to other local programs. 

Refuge staff will be available and will seek out ways to collaborate in environmental education 

efforts throughout south Puget Sound, both on and off the Refuge. 

The education staff at Nisqually NWR are also in a position to network and provide assistance to 

other agencies and individuals working in environmental education throughout the region. As a 

Federal agency with a high profile program, Refuge staff have an opportunity and responsibility 

to participate on a regional level in coordinating and furthering environmental education efforts. 

Strategies:
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-26 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

• Work with partners to strengthen education programs in the Nisqually River watershed 

including the Nisqually River Council Education Committee, the Nisqually Reach Nature 

Center, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. 

• Work with partners outside the Nisqually River Watershed including Project GREEN and 

Sound Stewards. 

• Refuge education staff would participate in regional environmental education efforts to 

coordinate environmental education activities, programs, and curricula with educators 

throughout the region. 

• Nisqually NWR would serve, upon request of the Regional Office, as the Washington State 

Coordinating office for the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Design Contest. 

• Refuge staff, materials, and facilities would be made available to other groups wishing to 

gather ideas for their programs and would serve as a model for other local, State, and Federal 

environmental education programs. 

GOAL IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and 

outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and 

enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the 

Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Objective 4.1: Wildlife Observation

Provide safe, attractive, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities in all primary habitat 

types represented on the Refuge including estuarine, freshwater wetland, grassland, riparian 

forest, riverine, and upland forest. 

Rationale: 

As a priority public use, wildlife observation programs receive priority consideration in Refuge 

planning and management, secondary to the needs of fish and wildlife. Wildlife viewing and 

nature observation are the primary visitor activities at Nisqually NWR. The Refuge is 

considered by many to be one of the best birding areas in Puget Sound. High quality wildlife 

viewing will continue to be provided on the Refuge through the development and maintenance of 

trails, boardwalks, and observation sites (i.e., elevated viewing platforms). Wildlife viewing 

opportunities will be provided for more than 100,000 visitors who come to Nisqually NWR each 

year. Estuarine restoration will result in the loss of large portions of the existing 5.5-mile dike 

loop trail and will require new trails and modifications to existing trails to provide quality 

wildlife viewing opportunities, access to a variety of habitat types, and to accommodate high 

visitor demand, while minimizing wildlife disturbance and providing sufficient wildlife 

sanctuary. 

Quality wildlife observation is defined by several elements including: (1) opportunities exist to 

view wildlife in their habitat and in a natural setting; (2) observation opportunities promote 

public understanding of Nisqually NWR resources and its role in managing and protecting those 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-27 

resources; (3) observations occur in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife; (4) 

facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to a broad spectrum of the public; (5) viewing 

opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational opportunities; and (6) observers have 

minimal conflict with other visitors or Refuge operations. 

Strategies:

• Within 4 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan that covers all 

Refuge public use programs. 

• As part of the estuarine restoration project, provide an accessible 1-mile loop trail and 

additional trail length with boardwalk extensions. Pursue funding for a 0.75-mile one-way 

boardwalk spur along McAllister Creek which would provide a 3.5-mile round-trip trail, 

portions of which would be closed during waterfowl hunting season. 

• If interests in Luhr Beach site are developed through cooperative management agreement, 

maintain and enhance current parking and viewing facilities. Evaluate fee collection at this 

site. Provide adequate parking, restrooms, signs, and gate. An information kiosk (Visitor 

Contact Station) will provide public use regulations to visitors to increase safety and reduce 

the frequency of visitors entering closed areas on the Refuge. 

• Establish a 0.5-mile unimproved trail in the surge plain forest. This trail will not be fully 

accessible. 

• In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, design, construct, and manage a seasonal 

loop trail including parking and necessary road improvements, on tribal and Refuge lands 

east of the Nisqually River. Seasonal closures of this trail will be required during waterfowl 

hunting season until private hunt club ceases. 

• If East Bluff property is acquired or protected, pursue the development of a new East Bluff 

upland forest trail connecting to the City of DuPont/Northwest Landing trail system, 

including an overlook and interpretive sites. 

• If appropriate areas are acquired south of I-5, develop up to 4 parking areas for a total of 75 

cars for public access to overlooks and interpretive sites. 

• Maintain habitats to ensure abundance of wildlife for optimum viewing. 

• Promote wildlife viewing and interpretation by incorporating Refuge information into 

Amtrak passenger train service. 

• Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9, (0.5 FTE). 

Objective 4.2: Wildlife Interpretation

Refuge staff will continue to provide a variety of quality interpretation programs, facilities, and 

services to Refuge visitors. In addition, each year Refuge staff will identify and serve one new or 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-28 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

non-traditional audience to communicate important messages about fish and wildlife 

conservation and provide opportunities for people to connect with nature at Nisqually NWR. 

Rationale: 

The Refuge is located in an ever-growing urban area with decreasing open space and places for 

people to connect with the natural world. Nisqually NWR, with its visitor facilities and access to 

wildlife habitat, is a uniquely situated natural area in this region because of its proximity to a 

major freeway and large urban population. 

More than 100,000 people visited the Refuge in 2000. The Refuge provides a variety of 

programming and services to these visitors, from a state-of-the-art Visitor Center with 

interpretive exhibits to special events communicating important messages about fish and wildlife 

conservation and connecting people with nature. But the potential is much greater. Continued 

growth of the area will mean an increasing need to provide people with information about the 

Refuge, fish and wildlife conservation, and stewardship of our natural resources. Access to 

wildlife habitats would continue to be a primary focus for interpretation programs and facilities. 

Interpretive programs will include interpretation on habitat restoration designed to help visitors 

understand the importance of this program and its benefits to wildlife. New and non-traditional 

audiences must be reached. Refuge staff will look for ways, through partnerships, special 

events, and off-site programs, to reach new audiences with wildlife conservation messages. 

Strategies:

• Within 4 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan that covers all 

Refuge public use programs. 

• Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9 (0.5 FTE). 

• Provide interpretation on Refuge trails through the use of interpretive panels and self-guided 

trail brochures. 

• Maintain visitor center exhibits that interpret broad issues such as the watershed, flyway, and 

estuary. Replace exhibits as needed to keep them current and well maintained. 

• Maintain a rotating wildlife art exhibit in the Visitor Center auditorium. 

• Support efforts of the Friends of Nisqually NWR in providing quality educational and 

interpretive programs, materials, and sales items. 

• Work together with partners to produce quality special events at the Refuge such as the 

Summer Lecture Series, Nisqually Watershed Festival, International Migratory Bird Day, 

and National Wildlife Refuge Week, which communicate fish, wildlife, and habitat 

conservation messages. Special events will identify one new or non-traditional audience to 

include in publicity efforts. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-29 

• Provide weekend volunteer naturalist led interpretive programs on topics such as history of 

the Brown Farm, spring wildflowers, and bird migration. 

Objective 4.3: Wildlife Photography

Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography opportunities to increase visitor understanding 

and appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta resources. 

Rationale: 

Wildlife photography is one of six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Photographic opportunities promote public understanding and increase 

public appreciation for America’s natural resources and incorporate a message of stewardship 

and conservation. The Refuge will provide a high quality photography program where 

compatible with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, other objectives, and other 

compatible uses. 

Strategies:

• Following habitat restoration activities and, as part of a visitor services plan, determine the 

need for and locations of permanent photo blinds. New photo blinds would be constructed 

and placed in areas with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. 

• Evaluate current use and needs of photographers on the Refuge. 

• In trail development, include spur trails or widened trail or boardwalk push outs to allow 

photographers space for equipment. 

• Provide a wildlife photography interpretive program. 

• Have wildlife photo exhibits as part of rotating wildlife art exhibit in the Visitor Center. 

• Include information on photography and ethical behaviors in Refuge brochure. 

• Conduct regular evaluations, including feedback from photographers, to determine whether 

objective is being met. 

Objective 4.4: Waterfowl Hunting

The Refuge will open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week within 2-3 years after 

CCP approval. Refuge lands will combine with WDFW lands to create more manageable and 

enforceable hunt boundaries that will reduce conflicts with other users, reduce confusion for 

hunters, provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded conditions, and ensure a reasonable 

harvest. The Refuge will also explore new opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting as 

property is acquired south of I-5. 

Rationale: 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-30 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Hunting is a traditional activity in the Nisqually delta and one of the priority public uses of the 

Refuge System. Waterfowl hunting is open to the public on WDFW lands (617 acres) with 

around 1,100 visits estimated per year. A private hunt club operates on tribal lands east of the 

Nisqually River (approximately 325 acres) as part of life tenant uses by the previous landowner. 

 Regulations such as hunting days, maximum number of hunters, etc. are different on these lands. 

 Currently, much of the Refuge tidelands and salt marsh is administratively uncontrollable 

because of the irregular boundaries of the three WDFW parcels located within Refuge 

boundaries and the inability to keep these boundaries posted. As a result, unauthorized hunting 

occurs on large portions of Refuge lands, including the RNA. This unauthorized hunting occurs 

in spite of the fact that the Refuge has never been officially opened to hunting. This existing 

condition provides insufficient wildlife sanctuary and allows an unauthorized use to continue on 

large parts of the Refuge. 

By opening a limited portion of Refuge lands (191 acres) to waterfowl hunting, a more 

manageable block of lands can be posted and enforced, and waterfowl hunting in the Nisqually 

delta will continue to be provided along with increased sanctuary. The RNA will be reduced by 

73 acres to provide additional high quality hunting lands at the mouth of the Nisqually River. 

However, a 44-acre area will be added to the RNA at the south end. State lands will continue to 

be open to waterfowl hunting with no changes. Each agency will be responsible for managing its 

respective hunt program. 

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide high quality experiences. A quality hunting 

experience means that: (1) hunters are safe; (2) hunters exhibit high standards of ethical 

behavior; (3) hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) hunters have reasonable 

harvest opportunities; (5) hunters are clear on which areas are open and closed to hunting; and 

(6) minimal conflicts occur between hunters and other visitors, such as kayakers, anglers, and 

trail users. In general, hunting on Refuges should be superior to that available on other private 

or public lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge Manual 8.RM5.14). Measures 

are often used to ensure quality, including limited hunt days and shell limits and using buffers 

for public use trails eliminating the need for seasonal trail closures. A limited waterfowl hunt 

program on the Refuge will accomplish the following: 

• Accommodate the existing hunt program on WDFW lands; 

• Establish consistent regulations across all lands; 

• Provide a quality hunting experience that meets Refuge guidelines and policies; and 

• Provide sufficient sanctuary and resolve the current unauthorized hunting situation. 

Strategies:

• Write a hunting plan to be consistent with the CCP (hunting location, 7-day/week hunt, 25-

shell limit, and 200-yard buffer from trails) and complete process to open Refuge to hunting 

within 2-3 years after CCP approval. 

• Reach agreement with the State to implement a 25-shell limit on WDFW lands. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-31 

• Provide sufficient feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl in areas closed to hunting as a 

sanctuary. 

• Post and sign a manageable hunting area including redefining and reducing the RNA by 73 

acres at river mouth and add 44 acres to south end. 

• Develop a hunting brochure that includes information on hunter ethics, safety precautions, 

and restrictions. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-07) to enforce hunting program regulations, to ensure 

quality and safety, and to protect natural resources. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician (GS-5/6/7) to conduct hunter bag checks to monitor 

harvest and compliance with State waterfowl hunting program regulations. 

• Manage the Luhr Beach boat landing area through cooperative agreement with WDFW and 

upgrade facilities to use as a hunter contact station. 

• Lands acquired through Refuge expansion south of I-5 will be evaluated for hunting 

opportunities as they come under Refuge jurisdiction. 

• Regularly monitor and evaluate hunting program with feedback from hunters and other users 

to determine if objectives are being met and to allow for adaptive management. 

Objective 4.5: Fishing and Shellfishing

The Refuge will provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing experiences in selected areas 

which are safe, consistent with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge resources and 

purposes. The Refuge fishing and shellfishing program will promote responsible and ethical 

behavior and a deeper appreciation and understanding of fishery resources of the Nisqually 

delta.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-32 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Rationale: 

The Nisqually delta supports a diverse fishery resource including shellfish, bottomfish, 

anadromous fish, and other freshwater species. Declines in populations of many species and 

area restrictions require an informed and responsible angler. Fishing is a priority activity of the 

Refuge System and a traditional form of recreation in the delta. Compatible opportunities can be 

provided with reasonable restrictions, good compliance with regulations, and if administrative 

oversight required is minimal. One bank fishing site will be maintained and developed on the 

existing Refuge, with potential for a second site designated as a disabled visitor access only. 

Additional bank fishing and water access sites will be considered on lands south of I-5 as they 

are added to the Refuge. Location criteria for new sites considered will be accessibility, 

feasibility, minimal conflicts with other users, maintenance, compatibility, and potential to 

promote a quality fishing experience. The Trotter’s Woods fishing site will be designated and 

managed for fishing if acquired from Fort Lewis or managed under cooperative agreement. 

In 2000, recreational shellfish beds were closed in the Nisqually tideflats due to high coliform 

levels and health concerns. The Service can educate visitors about these closures. If water 

quality improves, these beds could be opened in the future. 

A quality fishing or shellfishing experience means that: (1) anglers/shellfishers are safe; (2) 

anglers/shellfishers exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) anglers/shellfishers are 

provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) anglers/shellfishers are clear on which areas are open 

and closed to fishing; and (5) minimal conflicts occur between anglers/shellfishers and other 

visitors, such as hikers, hunters, and kayakers. 

Strategies:

• Within 3 years after CCP approval, update the fishing management plan to be consistent with 

the CCP and State regulations. 

• As additional lands are acquired, work with partners to select and locate fishing access sites 

and appropriate parking to provide a range of fishing opportunities in riverine and tidal 

locations including Trotter’s Woods in Fort Lewis on the Nisqually River south of I-5. 

• As part of the update of the fishing management plan, determine if an accessible bank fishing 

site could be located at the boardwalk river overlook on the Twin Barns Loop Trail. 

• Work with Nisqually Indian Tribe to provide parking, trail, and a bank fishing site on the east 

side of the Nisqually River. 

• Provide accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach and parking improvements, if feasible, 

following development of a cooperative management agreement with WDFW. 

• Provide safe fishing conditions by maintaining trails, signs, and information to alert anglers 

of regulations and to hazards. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-33 

• Periodically monitor and evaluate fishing program and users to determine if objectives are 

being met. 

• Provide specific information for shellfishing at the Luhr Beach access, including closure 

information in cooperation with other agencies. 

• Restrict boaters from landing and bank fishing in closed areas through policy and regulation. 

• Enforce boat speed limits in Refuge waters. 

• Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-7) to conduct all enforcement patrols associated with 

boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge lands and waters. 

• Take steps to close the RNA to fishing and shellfishing, including posting, providing 

information on regulations at Luhr Beach and other appropriate locations, outreach, and 

conduct monitoring of results. 

Objective 4.6: Outreach and Partnerships

The Refuge will take a leadership role in developing and strengthening partnerships, including a 

volunteer services program, and will conduct a variety of outreach efforts to more effectively 

achieve Refuge goals and contribution to the protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River 

watershed. 

Rationale: 

Strong partnerships will be essential for the Service to achieve its vision and goals for the 

Refuge. Cooperative efforts with key partners will greatly further habitat protection and 

restoration, watershed efforts, and education and interpretation. The Refuge’s location in the 

Nisqually delta provides a focal point that encourages participation by a variety partners to come 

together to strengthen watershed protection. The volunteer services program is a critical part of 

the Refuge workforce, benefiting all programs and goals, and strengthening community 

relations. Volunteers contribute the equivalent of 3.7 FTEs annually, donated by more than 70 

volunteers. Outreach efforts will enable the Refuge to reach new audiences. 

Strategies: 

• Within 2 years of CCP approval, hire a GS-7/9 volunteer coordinator to strengthen and 

enlarge the volunteer services program to provide effective training and program 

management of the program for a corps of 100 volunteers. Continue to involve volunteers in 

a variety of Refuge programs to strengthen ties with the community. 

• Conduct special events to reach out to new audiences and involve partners, for example the 

Nisqually Watershed Festival, International Migratory Bird Day, and Summer Lecture 

Series. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-34 Chapter 4: Management Direction 

• Work to provide funding and other support to partners to strengthen the outreach and 

education program through challenge grants and other grant programs. 

• Participate in off-site community events to further Refuge goals. 

• Continue active participation in critical partnership efforts such as the Nisqually River 

Council and the Audubon Refuge Keepers. 

• Strengthen coordination with the Friends of Nisqually NWR through regular meetings, 

assisting in providing training, and coordination with the volunteer program. 

Objective 4.7: Cultural Resource Program

Implement a proactive cultural resource management program that focuses on meeting the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, including consultation, identification, 

inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources. 

Rationale: 

The management and protection of cultural resources is an integral element in fulfilling Refuge 

goals. The Refuge supports a variety of cultural resources and has opportunities to provide 

interpretation and education to diverse audiences on these unique aspects of the Nisqually delta 

area. Refuge expansion and changes to Refuge habitats and facilities warrant a comprehensive 

cultural resource management program. 

Strategies:

• Develop an interpretive program that presents accurate information about Native American 

history of the Nisqually delta and lower watershed. 

• Protect and record the values of the Refuge’s historical landscape and archaeological 

resources while managing habitat and wildlife. 

• 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. 

• Develop a GIS layer for cultural resources that can be used with other GIS layers for the 

Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive information. 

• Develop partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe for cultural resources inventory, 

evaluation, and project monitoring, consistent with the regulations of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 4-35 

Objective 4.8: Cultural Resources Education and Interpretation

Develop, in partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe and other preservation partners, a 

program for the education and interpretation of cultural resources of the Nisqually NWR. 

Rationale: 

Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, interpretation of cultural resources can instill a 

conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or manage them. The goals of the 

cultural resource education and interpretive program are fourfold: (1) translate the results of 

cultural research into media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety of publics, (2) 

engender an appreciation for the Native American culture and perspective on cultural resources, 

(3) relate the connection between cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans 

in the environment, and (4) instill an ethic for the conservation of our cultural heritage. 

Strategies:

• Prepare interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relate the cultural resources 

and Native American perspective and Euro-American settlement history of the Refuge for 

visitors. 

• Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for use in education center schools 

concerning cultural resources, the perspective of Native Americans, the history of the area, 

and conservation of natural and cultural resources. 

• Develop partnerships with educational institutions for the interpretation and protection of 

cultural resources at the Refuge. 

• Consult with the Nisqually Indian Tribe to identify the type of cultural resources information 

appropriate for public interpretation. 

• Develop an outreach program and materials so that the cultural resource messages become 

part of cultural events in the area, including: Washington Archaeology Month, National 

Wildlife Refuge Week, and appropriate local festivals. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 4-36 Chapter 4: Management Direction 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5 

Implementation and Monitoring 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 5-1 

CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 

Following public notification regarding the Service’s decision and CCP approval, Refuge staff 

will begin to implement the CCP. This chapter describes the various components required to 

implement the plan over the next 15 years. 

5.1 FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently a critical staffing level of 11 permanent and no temporary/seasonal positions has been 

approved by the regional office for Nisqually NWR, but current funding covers only 9 

permanent and no temporary/seasonal positions. Current staffing levels are summarized in Table 

5.1-1. Current budgeting is listed below. 

• Base budget FY 2004 = $600,531 

• Fee Funds for FY 2004 = $42,755 

• AmeriCorps members = 4 FTEs (6 FTEs in previous years) and 889 Refuge Volunteers 

contributed 6.6 FTEs for FY 2004. 

To complete the extensive restoration, habitat acquisition, habitat and wildlife management, and 

education/interpretation projects (as well as associated inventorying, monitoring, and mapping 

projects), more permanent staff will be needed, including up to 27 additional full-time positions 

in the various disciplines of Refuge management, biology, maintenance, public use, and 

administration. Projected future staffing requirements are listed in Table 5.1-2, including 

employment status and salary rating. The highest priority positions are included in the Refuge 

Operating Needs List (Table 5.4-1). The rate at which this Refuge achieves its full potential of 

contributing locally, regionally, and nationally to wildlife conservation; appropriate, compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation; and environmental education is dependent upon receiving 

adequate funding and staffing. 

5.2 STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The CCP is one of several plans necessary for Refuge management. The CCP provides guidance 

in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several Refuge program areas but may lack 

some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will be 

developed for individual program areas within approximately 5 years after CCP completion. All 

step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance; implementation may require additional 

permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of 

these step-down plans. Anticipated step-down management plans are listed in Table 5.2-1. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-2 Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring 

Table 5.1-1. Current Staffing. 

Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating 

Management

Project Leader PFT GS 13 

Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12 

Refuge Operations Specialist PFT GS 9 

Administrative

Administrative Officer PFT GS 9 

Receptionist/Clerk TFT GS 4 

Biology

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11 

Public Use

Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11 

Park Ranger PFT GS 7 

Maintenance 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 

Maintenance worker TFT WG 8 

PFT = Permanent Full Time; TFT = Temporary Full Time 

Table 5.1-2. Future (Proposed) Staffing. 

Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating 

Management 

*Project Leader PFT GS 13 

*Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12 

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11 

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11 

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11 

Refuge Operations Specialist PFT GS 9/11 

Administrative 

*Administrative Officer PFT GS 9 

*Receptionist/Clerk PFT GS 4/5 

Receptionist/Clerk PFT GS 4/5 

Purchasing Agent PFT GS 6 

Biology 

*Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11 

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 9/11 

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9/11 

Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9 

Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9 

*Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7 

Restoration Ecologist PFT GS 11 

Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 5-3 

Table 5.1-2. Future (Proposed) Staffing. 

Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating 

Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7 

GIS/Data Management Specialist PFT GS 9 

Public Use 

*Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11 

Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 9 

*Environmental. Education Specialist 

(Coordinator) 

PFT GS 9/11 

Environmental. Education Specialist 

(Coordinator) 

PFT GS 9/11 

Interpretation & Education Specialist PFT GS 9 

Visual Information Specialist PFT GS 7/9 

Volunteer Services Coordinator PFT GS 7/9 

*Park Ranger PFT GS 7 

Refuge Officer PFT GS 7 

Refuge Officer PFT GS 7 

Maintenance 

*Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 

*Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 

Engineering Equip. Operator PFT WG 8/10 

* Indicates Minimum Critical Staffing, includes Black River Unit needs.

Table 5.2-1. Step-down Management Plans. 

Step Down Management Plan Schedule 

Estuarine Restoration Plan 

· Site-specific restoration plan 

· Compliance process including necessary 

permits 

(Sec. 404 wetlands permit, Sec. 7 

endangered species consultation, etc.) 

2006 

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Plan 2006 

Waterfowl Hunt Plan 2006 

Environmental Education Plan Update by 2006 

Fishing Plan 2007 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2005 

Occupational Safety and Health Plan 2005 

Fire Management Plan Available 

 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-4 Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring 

5.3 PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

The long-term health and protection of Nisqually NWR depends on an informed public and 

knowledgeable stakeholders. Consistent outreach, good communication, and continued 

coordination with these Refuge constituents are imperative to successful implementation of the 

CCP. To maintain and strengthen this important constituency, the CCP provides goals, 

objectives, and strategies which are not only aimed at protecting, restoring, and conserving 

wildlife habitat, but also address expanded educational and appropriate, compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. This section identifies the partnership opportunities, 

projects (Refuge Operating Needs System List), monitoring, staffing, and funding necessary to 

successfully implement the CCP. 

Because of the Refuge’s location within a well-known watershed with numerous partners and in 

a large metropolitan area, the Refuge is uniquely situated to develop and strengthen unique and 

creative partnerships in the Puget Sound region. Partnerships will continue to play a crucial role 

in the protection of the Nisqually delta and the lower watershed and in achieving Refuge goals 

and objectives. Partnerships will increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support 

as well as reduce costs. There are numerous opportunities to create or strengthen partnerships 

with community groups, tribes, organizations, agencies, and others. The Nisqually delta, and 

therefore the Refuge, provides an important focal point and demonstration area within south 

Puget Sound to increase environmental awareness and community involvement. 

Coordinated efforts will focus on habitat restoration, land protection, environmental education, 

fish and wildlife monitoring, outreach, and quality wildlife-dependent recreation. The Refuge 

will continue to strengthen partnerships with the Nisqually River Council, Nisqually Indian 

Tribe, WDFW, WSDOT, land trusts, and other non-profit organizations in the areas of habitat 

restoration and land protection. The Refuge will strive to exchange information and provide 

technical assistance to neighboring landowners to further the protection of the lower watershed. 

A cooperative agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe will greatly strengthen coordinated 

efforts within Refuge boundaries east of the Nisqually River, benefiting habitat restoration and 

management and public use programs. This effort will strengthen the growing partnership with 

the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Cooperative agreements with Ducks Unlimited and the Washington 

Conservation Corps will continue to contribute greatly to habitat restoration and management 

programs. Partnerships with WSDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can 

provide habitat improvements and wildlife corridors, as well as improve public access to the 

Refuge. 

Access to Nisqually NWR is primarily by road via private motor vehicle. Secondary access to 

Refuge waters is through the State boat launch at Luhr Beach. The Refuge Roads Inventory 

shows it has 1⁄2 mile of public use roads, one parking lot with capacity for 100 cars, and no 

bridges. Funding for parking improvements has been requested in the Refuge Roads Program 

for $500,000. Nisqually NWR does anticipate the need for additional transportation facilities 

during the 15-year life of this CCP. The Thurston Regional Planning Council is the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization 

(RTPO) in the county. Nisqually is not a Metropolitan Area within the RTPO in the county. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 5-5 

Future transportation changes will be coordinated with FHWA, WSDOT, and Thurston and 

Pierce counties. 

The Service had a Federal Lands Highway Program created in TEA-21, the Refuge Roads 

Program (RRP). Funds for Refuge public use roads, parking lots, bridges, restrooms, and trails 

may be sought from the RRP. These funds can also be used for interpretive enhancements 

associated with these projects, as long as the costs for the interpretive facilities do not exceed 5% 

of the project budget. 

RRP funds can be used as the non-Federal match for FHWA funds available through state 

departments of transportation. Refuges can also use appropriated Service funds as the nonFederal match for these funds. This matching ability can be used to further city, county, and 

state transportation and transit funds that could be spent on compatible roads and transit projects 

adjacent to, connecting to, or running through a refuge. 

An essential partner will continue to be the volunteer services program of the Refuge. This large 

program is instrumental in achieving much more in all program facets than would be possible 

with staffing alone. This effort also encourages community involvement and support, as 

numerous people can directly contribute to Refuge programs. The Friends of Nisqually NWR 

will continue to grow. As a key partner to the Refuge, they will help to further Refuge 

education, interpretation, and habitat programs. 

Collaboration with colleges, universities, local educators, conservation organizations, and 

environmental education consortiums will enable the Refuge to carry out its plans to improve 

and enlarge the environmental education, research, and monitoring programs. Cooperative 

efforts with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center will continue to be strengthened, to improve 

coordination, and increase the amount and quality of environmental education in the delta area. 

Conservation organizations and other non-profit groups will contribute significantly to Refuge 

and delta protection and enhancement. For example, Tahoma Audubon is an Audubon Refuge 

Keeper providing support to Nisqually NWR. Black Hills Audubon also provides community 

support on conservation issues and environmental education. 

5.4 PROJECTS 

Table 5.4-1 lists the prioritized projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS). Brief project descriptions and their associated costs are provided. This list of projects 

reflects Refuge needs and provides the basis for funding requests from the U.S. Congress, which 

must be approved by the Service, DOI, and the President’s Office of Management and Budget, 

before being forwarded to Congress. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-6 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

High Priority Projects Expand operation of new public use facilities: operating costs Cover recurring base operating costs of providing 7-day a week access to the Refuge and full operation of public use and environmental education programs for the 4 million people within 100 miles of the new Visitor Center/Office complex. 

 

Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: Biologist The Refuge and the Nisqually Indian Tribe will cooperatively restore 270 acres to benefit migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered and sensitive species. 

1 65 

Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: dike removal and construction Remove and construct dikes to restore this area to tidal action for management under a cooperative agreement between the Service and the Tribe, including accomplishing all compliance requirements. Ducks Unlimited will also be a partner. 

 125 

Improve visitor services and administrative efficiency: Office Assistant A Refuge office assistant will serve as receptionist, answer phone inquiries, and provide improved administrative efficiency for growing Refuge programs including enhanced visitor services, new habitat restoration projects, and new Refuge acquisitions. 

1 50 

Improve habitat management, restoration, and protection: Assistant Refuge Manager Assistant Refuge Manager will implement, manage, and monitor restoration of the Black River Unit, accomplishing all compliance requirements, as well as provide law enforcement, resource protection, outreach, and visitor safety services. 

1 65 

Develop environmental education program: Environmental Education Specialist An Environmental Education Specialist will develop printed curriculum, design and conduct teacher workshops, and implement an education program to reach up to 15,000 students annually. 

1 65 

Monitor habitat restoration and associated wildlife and fish use Biologist will conduct migratory bird, amphibian, and fish surveys and habitat monitoring on 1,000 acres of freshwater and tidal wetland restoration areas to assess and improve habitat restoration and management techniques. 

1 76 
Comprehen

 March 2005 

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

Improve volunteer services program Improve and expand volunteer services program with a volunteer coordinator as well as basic supplies, equipment, and uniforms. Volunteers are used to staff the new Visitor Center, support the growing environmental education program, and help accomplish a diversity of projects, including wildlife surveys, exotic vegetation control, and special events. 

1 76 

Brown Farm Marsh wetland enhancement In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, enhance migratory waterfowl and other waterbird habitat in the Brown Farm Marsh by restoring 2 miles of interior ditches and sloughs to enhance water flow, constructing internal dikes to create manageable wetland units, installing water control structures and pump to allow effective flooding and de-watering, and meeting all compliance requirements. 

 298 

Restore tidelands within Brown Farm Dike In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage 699 acres of estuarine habitat by removing portions of the Brown Farm Dike to restore tidal action. This project will support the recovery of Nisqually chinook salmon and other declining salmonids, as well as benefit many other estuarine-associated species and meet compliance requirements. 

1 2,900 

Restore 40 acres of surge plain riparian habitat In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage approximately 40 acres of surge plain riparian habitat along the Nisqually River to benefit migratory bird species, primarily neotropical songbirds. Project includes dike removal and berm construction to allow the Nisqually River to flood the site during high flows and allow tidal influence during extreme high tides. 

 175 

Install tideland boardwalk trail Install boardwalk with interpretive panels and spotting scopes into estuary along old Brown Farm Dike Trail to provide access and viewing of existing tidelands of McAllister Creek and newly restored tidelands within former diked area. 

 800 

Install visitor contact station at Luhr Beach public boat launch In cooperation with WDFW, install visitor contact station to provide information and interpretation at Luhr Beach public boat launch, which is the main entrance to public waterways on the Refuge. 

 39 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-8 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

Expand public use programs including new waterfowl hunt program Expand public use programs through the implementation, management, and enforcement of public waterfowl hunting and implement new public use regulations to reduce wildlife disturbance. A full-time law enforcement officer is needed to conduct enforcement, prevention, ensure visitor safety, and successfully implement new public use programs and regulations. 

1 76 

Expand freshwater wetland management A Maintenance Worker will maintain greatly intensified freshwater wetland management through the manipulation of water control structures, dike maintenance, discing, mowing, and planting. Management will also contribute to improved invasive plant control in freshwater wetlands, upland forests, and riparian habitats. 

1 65 

Restore riparian corridor along Nisqually River and McAllister Creek Restore and replant a corridor of native riparian habitat along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek to improve fish and wildlife habitat conditions. More than 1,000 acres of habitat will benefit through site preparation, native tree and shrub planting, invasive plant control, and ongoing maintenance to better protect the river and streams. 

 115 

Manage and monitor wetland restoration sites A GIS/Data Management Specialist will develop and maintain mapping and monitoring of large-scale restoration sites in various habitats to be used to evaluate restoration programs and conduct adaptive management in response to changing conditions. Mapping will also be used to monitor and assess invasive species, wildlife use, and public use patterns. Specialist will also manage multiple linked databases supporting broad Refuge management programs. 

1 65 

Install East Side Loop Trail In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, a new 2.5-mile loop trail will be installed on Refuge and tribal lands, under a cooperative management agreement. The trail will be a combination of graveled surface and boardwalk, and provide new wildlife viewing opportunities in a diversity of habitats. Bank fishing access on the Nisqually River, parking, and a visitor contact station will also be installed. 

 410 
Comprehen

 March 2005 

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

Medium Priority Projects Improve water management to restore freshwater wetlands Restore and enhance 200 acres of freshwater wetlands by improving the water management and delivery system. 

 235 

Restore forested uplands for sensitive species In cooperation with many community partners, reforest 100 acres of clear-cut along McAllister Creek with Douglas-fir and other native trees to improve wildlife habitat and watershed protection. 

 132 

Install visitor contact station and parking lot on Nisqually River east side In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, install visitor contact station to provide Refuge information and interpretation at Nisqually Indian Tribe east side property in association with a new public trail and bank fishing site along the Nisqually River. 

 120 

Install accessible bank fishing site Construct an accessible bank fishing platform on Nisqually River to provide new opportunities for a broader group of anglers and meet accessibility requirements. 

 120 

Conduct study to enhance salmonid habitat Conduct study to determine importance and contributions of the Nisqually Estuary to salmonids and the effects of estuarine restoration. The information will be used to help contribute to the recovery of the recently listed chinook salmon and monitor the restoration of the Nisqually delta ecosystem. 

 141 

Install wildlife observation deck Install wildlife observation deck with benches and interpretive panels along main trail to provide an additional viewing location. Spotting scopes will also be installed at this site and at other trail locations to enhance wildlife observation opportunities for visitors. 

 88 

Expand environmental education program Following completion of the new Environmental Education Center, an environmental education specialist will be needed to fully implement and operate the expanded education program to reach 15,000 students. This program will reach a more diverse group of students, strengthen partnerships with the community, and greatly enhance the education program at the Refuge. 

1 65 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-10 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

Maintain habitat restoration sites A maintenance worker will maintain diverse habitat restoration sites throughout the Refuge, including discing, mowing, invasive species control, water control structure manipulation and replacement, native seeding and planting, and upkeep of additional public use facilities and infrastructure, including Refuge expansion areas. More support is needed to improve and maintain habitat quality and keep facilities safe and functional. 

1 65 

Expand priority public use program As restoration is conducted and replacement or new public facilities are completed, the public use program will greatly expand in scope and extent. Public facilities, trails, and uses will occur in multiple locations, and an outdoor recreation planner will be needed to develop, monitor, and support these additional public programs. Additional support will help to maintain the quality of public experiences that are compatible with Refuge purposes. 

1 76 

Enforce public use regulations at new Refuge sites and facilities A law enforcement officer will be needed to monitor, enforce, and educate the public regarding uses and regulations in new use areas, along new parking and trail sites, and new fishing and hunting access points on the Refuge, including in expansion areas. Increased law enforcement coverage will be essential to ensure visitor safety, resource protection, and to accomplish outreach and preventive law enforcement in this growing urban area. Enforcement will be conducted throughout the Refuge Complex, including at Black River. 

1 76 

Monitor public use activity and effects on wildlife Following the implementation of new public use regulations, uses, and restrictions, a biological technician will monitor the uses to assess the effectiveness of the new programs. Monitoring will include fish and wildlife use, habitat condition, invasive species, and public use activity including waterfowl hunting, trail activity, and boating impacts. Data will be essential to manage and improve public uses, ensure compatibility, and manage special designation areas including the RNA. 

1 60 
Comprehen

 March 2005 

Table 5.4-1. Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List. 

Operating Costs (in 

FTEs One-Time 

Develop and install interpretive panels on new trails Interpretive panels are needed to provide improved visitor experiences along the new 2.5-mile loop trail on the East Side and to improve education and outreach regarding new estuarine restoration and habitat management programs. Panels will focus on estuarine restoration, native fish and wildlife, cultural resources, and ecosystem function. Panels will be viewed by thousands of visitors using new trails. 

 55 

Low Priority Projects Pest plant control using Washington Conservation Corps members Utilizing WCC crews for mechanical and hand pulling of pest plants reduces the need for chemical control and the amount of staff time required to accomplish pest plant control goals. WCC crews also assist in maintenance, construction, and trail improvements. 

 15 

House interns, volunteers, temporary staff, and researchers 

A Refuge housing unit for use by interns, volunteers, temporary employees, and visiting researchers will greatly increase the ability to accomplish important management studies, surveys, and provide improved education and visitor services. 

 250 

Increase outreach and education with traveling exhibits Design and fabricate two traveling exhibits on refuges in the complex for special events, fairs, public meetings, and loaning to schools and cooperators in the area. 

 28 

Develop video to increase outreach and education Complete, on contract, Refuge video focusing on wildlife and habitat resources of Nisqually NWR, to enhance outreach efforts and strengthen education program. 

 54 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-12 Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring 

5.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring is the process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated or 

assumed results of a management program are being realized, or if implementation is proceeding 

as planned (USDA, USDI 1994). 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management that is directed by the 

results of ongoing monitoring activities. Management techniques, objectives, and strategies 

(Chapter 4) are regularly evaluated over time and the new data are used to adapt both 

management objectives and techniques to better achieve the Refuge's goals. 

Monitoring has been an ongoing activity on Nisqually NWR. Past monitoring efforts on the 

Refuge have generally focused on key species and habitats, typically those considered sensitive 

(e.g., threatened or sensitive species), or those identified in Refuge purposes (e.g., migratory 

waterfowl). While these are adequate to identify trends in relative abundance or habitat use for 

higher priority species, they usually fail to examine the entire Refuge landscape. Ideally, a 

Refuge monitoring program would occur across several levels of biological organization 

including genetic, population/species, community/ecosystem, and regional landscapes. 

However, limited funding usually results in monitoring programs focused on selected 

components that are representative of many other species/habitats (considered indicator species). 

 In recent years, most of the monitoring efforts on the Refuge have been concentrated on 

documenting the location and extent of waterfowl use of estuarine and freshwater habitats. 

Monitoring has been identified as a strategy for six of the CCP objectives and will be an ongoing 

and important program on Nisqually NWR for the life of the CCP. The CCP monitoring 

program will focus on measuring the success of CCP implementation, particularly the 

effectiveness of the various habitat restoration projects. The program is designed to provide 

some flexibility in CCP implementation by allowing the Refuge to change or adapt management 

practices or monitoring methods as the result of monitoring data. 

The various monitoring programs that will be implemented on the Refuge under the CCP are 

briefly described in Table 5.5-1. This conceptual framework will serve as a starting point for 

preparation of a step-down monitoring plan, which will provide detailed methods, timing, and 

costs. Staffing needs have been identified in the strategies for each of the objectives that 

includes monitoring. 

5.6 PLAN AMENDMENT AND REVISION 

The CCP is intended to be a dynamic plan based on the concept of adaptive management. 

Consistent with this concept, the Nisqually NWR CCP will be reviewed annually to decide if it 

requires any amendments or revisions. The Service will document and make minor plan 

modifications whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation determine that changes 

are needed to achieve Nisqually NWR purpose(s), vision, and goals. Modifications will be 

coordinated with partners and subject to appropriate NEPA compliance. 

The Nisqually NWR CCP will be revised when significant new information becomes available, 

ecological conditions change, or when the need for major changes has been identified during 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

March 2005 Page 5-13 

annual plan reviews. A revision of the Nisqually NWR CCP should occur in 15 years (2020). A 

CCP revision would follow the procedures outlined in Service Planning Policy (602 FW 1) for 

preparing CCPs and would require NEPA compliance including public involvement and tribal 

consultation. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-14 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.5-1. CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective (see Chapter 4) IndicatoProgram: Habitat Monitoring Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species repr

Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon. 

Project 1: Estuarine Habitat Mapping 

Determine the amount and development of restored estuarine habitat

over time

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks.

Developmenrestored estuarine habitat rangfrom mudflahigh salt ma

Project 2: Vegetation Sampling 

Document vegetation response in restored habitats

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. 1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident land birds and fish. 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley.

Vegetation cover and pspecies composition

Project 3: Water Quality 

Monitor water quality in estuarine restoration area

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 

Dissolved oxygen, saliwater temperaturesediment deposition
Comprehen

 March 2005 

Table 5.5-1. CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective (see Chapter 4) IndicatoProject 4: Invasive Species Monitoring 

Track the locations and abundance of invasive species on the Refuge, monitor new introductions, and incorporate data into an Integrated Pest Management Plan

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. 1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident land birds and fish. 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley.

Invasive species (we

and exotic wildlife)presence andistribution

Program: Wildlife Monitoring Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species repr

Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon. 

Project 1: Waterfowl 

Surveys 

Document waterfowl use of restored estuarine and freshwater habitats

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. 

Waterfowl seasonal abundance, distribution, species composition
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-16 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.5-1. CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective (see Chapter 4) IndicatoProject 2: Shorebird Surveys 

Document shorebird use in estuarine restoration area

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 

Shorebird seasonal abundance, distribution, species composition

Project 3: Amphibian 

Sampling 

Document native amphibian species use of restored freshwater wetlands

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Red-legged  abundance distribution

Project 4: Raptor Surveys 

Document raptor use of restored freshwater wetlands and grasslands

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Raptor abundance adistribution

Project 5: Landbird Monitoring 

Document migratory and resident landbird use of restored riparian habitat 

1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological functions of approximately 1,500 acres of riparian habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident land birds and fish.

Landbird relative abundance adistribution
Comprehen

 March 2005 

Table 5.5-1. CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective (see Chapter 4) IndicatoProgram: Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Monitoring Associated Goal: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species, spe

their habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Project 1: - Fish Monitoring 

Document fish response in restored estuarine habitat and support threatened and endangered species recovery efforts

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore environments.... including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks. 2.1 - Protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of estuarine, freshwater, stream, and riparian habitats to protect declining runs of the chinook salmon and bull trout, which are Federally listed as threatened.

Salmonid abundance adistribution

Project 2: Bald Eagle Monitoring 

Monitor bald eagle nesting activity and population trends on the Refuge

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of 

the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley. 2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing. 

Nesting activproductivity, abundance, distribution

Project 3: Great Blue 

Heron Monitoring 

Monitor great blue heron nesting activity and population trends on the Refuge

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley. 2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing. 

Nesting activ productivityabundance, distribution
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Page 5-18 Chapter 5: Implemen

Table 5.5-1. CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective (see Chapter 4) IndicatoProgram: Environmental Education Associated Goal: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the N

watershed. 

Project 1: Environmental Education Program Monitoring 

Monitor effectiveness of environmental education program

3.1 - Provide a quality environmental education program at 

Nisqually with specific learning objectives and diverse opportunities that 1) meet State standards for learning; 2) are based on Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation and management programs; 3) support the mission of the Service; and 4) provide stewardship opportunities. 

Teacher and student evaluations

Programs: Wildlife-dependent Recreation Associated Goal: Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance publ

understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Project 1: Hunt Program Monitoring 

Monitor quality of hunt program

4.1 - Open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week within 2-3 years after CCP approval. Refuge lands would combine with WDFW lands to create more manageable and enforceable hunt boundaries that would reduce conflicts with other users, reduce confusion for hunters, provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded conditions, and ensure a reasonable harvest. The Refuge would also explore new opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting as property is acquired south of I-5. 

Visitor evaluations; hunter bag check; compliance regulations 

Project 2: Fishing Program Monitoring 

Monitor quality of fishing program

4.2 - Provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing experiences in selected areas which are safe, consistent with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge resources and purposes. 

Visitor evaluations; compliance regulations

Project 3: Wildlife Photography Program Monitoring 

Monitor quality of wildlife photography program

4.5 - Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography opportunities to increase visitor understanding and appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta resources.

Visitor evaluations
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

APPENDICES 

A* Glossary of Terms/Acronyms & Abbreviations 

B Distribution List 

C* References 

D Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 

E* Nisqually NWR Species List 

 E.1 Plant List 

 E.2 Wildlife List 

F1 Plan Implementation 

G* Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Actions 

 G.1 Recreational Boating 

 G.2 Recreational Fishing 

 G.3 Waterfowl Hunting 

 G.4 Environmental Education 

 G.5 Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

 G.6 Research 

 G.7 Agriculture - Haying 

H List of Preparers 

I

2

 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

J* Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary 

K* Land Protection Plan 

L* Wilderness Review 

M Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses 

N*3

 Record of Decision (ROD) 

*Appendices in bold and designated with an asterisk (*) are included with this 

CCP. Unbolded appendices (without an asterisk) are included only with the Final 

CCP/EIS document, but are cross-referenced as appropriate throughout this CCP. 

1

Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 5 of this CCP. 

2

Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 4 of this CCP. 

3

New appendix, exclusive to the CCP (not part of the CCP/EIS) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Glossary of Terms 

Acronyms & Abbreviations 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page A-1 

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 

1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

 

AFB Air Force Base 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

cfu colony-forming units 

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DNT/TNT di- and tri-nitrotoluelenes 

DoA Department of the Army 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU evolutionary significant unit 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

GMA Growth Management Act 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

I-5 Interstate 5 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

MHHW mean higher high water 

MHW mean high water 

MLLW mean lower low water 

mph miles per hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NA Nisqually Agriculture (zoning designation) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

OFM Washington Office of Financial Management 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

PDR Purchase of Development Rights 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page A-2 March 2005 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

ppm parts per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

PRISM Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring 

PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

PWC personal watercraft 

RI/RA/FS Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

SPI Superintendent of Public Instruction 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

TM Thematic Mapper 

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon 

UGA Urban Growth Area 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program 

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 

WWI World War I 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page A-3 

2. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Achievement Strategy. See Strategy.

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 plan. Analysis of results help managers determine whether current management 

should continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial. Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing water. 

Alternative. 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 

CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals 

and contributing to the System mission (draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Amphipod. Any of a large order of small, usually aquatic crustaceans with a laterally 

compressed body (for example, beach fleas). 

Anadromous. Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to fresh 

water to breed. 

Basin. A region drained by a river system. 

Benthic. Refers to organisms associated with the bottom of the sea, lake, or river. 

Biological Diversity. 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 (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, 

biotic communities, and ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Bivalve. Common term for pelecypods, members of the Mollusca in which the hard parts are 

composed of 2 sections fitting together to enclose a space that contains the soft part of the 

organism. 

Brown Farm Dike. The approximately 5-mile long dike that was built in the late 1800s and 

early 1900s to convert salt marsh areas into farmland by preventing saltwater inundation. 

Carrying Capacity. The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat or 

area. 

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 

CFR 1508.4). 

Class A Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited 

distribution or are unrecorded in the state and that pose a serious threat to the state. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page A-4 March 2005 

Class B Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited 

distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state and that pose a serious threat to that region. 

Class C Noxious Weed. Any other noxious weed. 

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 (Draft Service Manual 603 

FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). 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 (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Concern. See definition of “Issue.” 

Cover Type. The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources. The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

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 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Delta. The alluvial deposit at the mouth of a river. 

Demersal. Organisms living at or near the bottom of a sea or lake but having the capacity for 

active swimming. 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., 

fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

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. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page A-5 

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 Assessment (EA). 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 

CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 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, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11). 

Epibenthic. Pertaining to the environment and conditions of organisms living near the water 

bottom. 

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 wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area where the tide 

meets a river current. 

Euryhaline. Organisms that are tolerant of a wide range of salinity. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 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 CFR 1508.13). 

Forb. A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, a columbine. 

Gastropod. Any of a large class of mollusks, usually with a univalve shell or no shell and a 

distinct head bearing sensory organs, such as snails and slugs. 

Gill Net. A type of fishing net utilized by commercial, tribal, and occasionally recreational 

fishing operations. These nets are the center of much controversy due to the high incidence of 

by-catch associated with their use. 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page A-6 March 2005 

Habitat Type. See Vegetation Type. 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions 

and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Intergrade. An individual occurring on the boundary between adjacent subspecies and which 

possesses intermediate characters or traits. 

Introgression. The spread of genes of one population into the gene pool of another by 

hybridization and backcrossing. 

Inversion. A state in which the temperature of the air increases with increasing altitude and 

keeps the surface air and pollutants down. 

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) (Draft Service Manual 

602FW 1.5). 

Lacustrine. Pertaining to, or living in, lakes or ponds. 

Landbird. A category of birds that obtains at least part of their food from the land and nest in 

mainland areas (though some can also be found on islands). Landbirds include raptors and 

songbirds among others. 

Management Alternative. See Alternative. 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Minimal Critical Staffing. The core staffing needed at Nisqually NWR to meet minimum 

resource needs, approved by the Service pre-CCP. 

Mission Statement. Succinct statement of a unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over 

time. 

Mysids. A group of crustaceans, also known as opossum shrimps, that feed upon small 

zooplankton. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies, including 

the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 

1500). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page A-7 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. A branch of the 

Federal government under the U.S. Department of Commerce. The mission of NOAA Fisheries 

is to rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries, promote the recovery of protected species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and protect and maintain the health of coastal marine 

habitats for marine animals. 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the System. 

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. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Under the 

Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to develop 15-year 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans for all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act 

also describes the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. The mission 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. 

Native Species. Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Nematodes. Non-segmented roundworms of the phylum Nematoda. They range widely is size 

and can be free-living or parasitic. 

Neritic. Pertaining to the marine zone between low tides and the edge of the continental shelf, a 

depth of roughly 200 m. A neritic environment supports marine organisms, also described as 

neritic, that are capable of surviving in shallow water with moderate exposure to sunlight. 

Nisqually Reach. Portion of south Puget Sound extending northwest from DuPont Wharf, 

including Nisqually River delta, to the southern end of Case Inlet at Johnson Point. 

Nisqually River Dike. The portion of the Brown Farm Dike that is located along the Nisqually 

River. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insect or disease; or 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 Untied States and to the public health. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page A-8 March 2005 

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 (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Obligate Species. Species that require a specific habitat type or plant species for their existence. 

Oligohaline. Pertaining to water having low salinity, 0.5-3 ppt for brackish or 17-30 ppt for sea 

water. 

Opisthobranchs. Members of a subclass of gastropods containing such groups as the sea hares 

and nudibranchs. 

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. 

Passerines. See songbirds. 

Pelagic. Referring to organisms that inhabit open waters of the oceans or large lakes. 

Personal Watercraft. Personal watercraft (PWC) are small vessels that use inboard motors 

powering water jet pumps. They are known by such trade names as Jet-ski, Waverunner, and 

Sea-Doo. Personal watercraft are high performance vessels, designed for speed and 

maneuverability and are often used to perform stunts. They typically have loud 50 - 100 

horsepower engines and are capable of traveling more than 60 mph.

Pinniped. A suborder of carnivores that are marine mammals, have flippers, and eat mostly fish 

and marine invertebrates (e.g., sea lions, seals).

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., Sitka spruce). 

Polychaetes. Any of a class (Polychaeta) of chiefly marine annelid worms (such as clam 

worms), usually with paired segmental appendages, separate sexes, and a free-swimming 

trochophore larva. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page A-9 

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 that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purpose(s) of the Refuge. The purpose of a refuge is specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit. 

Raptor. A category of carnivorous birds, most of which have heavy, sharp beaks, strong talons, 

and take live prey (e.g., peregrine falcon, bald eagle). 

Refuge Goal. See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

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

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service 

Manual 602 EW 1.5). 

Rhizomes. A rootlike stem growing horizontally below the surface. The rhizome is used for 

food storage and can produce roots and shoots. 

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. Freshwater wetlands and deepwater habitats within a channel containing periodically 

or continuously moving water. It includes wetlands with primarily or mostly submerged 

vegetation but does not include those wetlands with mostly emergent vegetation or shrubs and 

trees. This habitat encompasses a river or stream, its channel, and the associated aquatic 

vegetation. 

Seabird. A group of birds that obtain at least some food from the ocean by traveling some 

distance over its surface. They also typically breed on islands and along coastal areas. Seabirds 

include gulls, alcids, pelicans, albatrosses, storm-petrels, and cormorants, among others. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page A-10 March 2005 

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory. 

Spionids. A type of polychaete. 

Step-down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to 

implement management strategies identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft 

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 (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Study Area. The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. For 

purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within the currently approved Refuge 

boundary and potential Refuge expansion areas. See page 3-1 for more details. 

Sublittoral. Relating to or describing an organism living immediately below low-tide level. 

Subsidence. Movement to a lower level or elevation.

Surge Plain. A type of riparian forest flooded during high tides and freshwater storm events 

from up-river. 

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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

Vegetation Type, Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type. A land classification system based upon 

the concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of 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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Distribution List 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

References 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page C-1 

APPENDIX C: References 

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, Washington. 

Beacham, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

British Columbia. Fishery Bull. 84:77-90. 

Berge, B., C. Burkhart, C. Joslin, K. LaGory, K. LaGory, R. Oakley, and H. Ulmschneider. 1974. Fall birds of the 

Nisqually Delta: population fluctuations, habitat utilization and hunter harvest. Pp. 113-160 in The Nisqually 

Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. 

Bortleson, G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at eleven 

major deltas in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-617. U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Boule, M.E., N. Olmsted, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetland resources and evaluation of wetland management 

in Western Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. Shapiro and Associates. 

102pp. 

Bowman, K.J. and A.M. Dobos. 1976. Distribution and abundance of some small mammal species on the Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, Washington. In Contributions to the natural history of the 

Southern Puget Sound Region, Washington. 

Boyer, M., ed. 1993. The Delta Plan. 

Brix, R., G.J. Husby, G. Roberts, and B. Ward. 1974. 1974 report of juvenile salmonid seining in Grays Harbor and 

tributary rivers and electro-fishing and river seining in the Chehalis River in the vicinity of Washington 

Public Power Supply System’s Project Numbers 3 and 5. Washington Department of Fisheries, Fisheries 

Management Report. Olympia, Washington. 

Burg, M.E. 1984. Habitat changes in the Nisqually River delta and estuary since the mid-1800s. Master's thesis, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 113pp. 

Burg, M.E., D.R. Tripp, and E.S. Rosenberg. 1980. Plant associations and primary productivity of the Nisqually Salt 

Marsh on southern Puget Sound, Washington. Northwest Science. 54(3):222-236. 

Caicco, S.L. 1989a. Public Use Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually surge plain, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 

Washington. In fulfillment of Order No. 13530-89-00135. The Nature Conservancy. 16pp. 

Caicco, S.L. 1989b. Research Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually Delta, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 

Washington. The Nature Conservancy. 18pp. 

Calambokidis, J., S.M. Speich, J. Peard, G.H. Steiger, D.M. Frye, and L.J. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound 

marine mammals and marine birds: population, health, and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA Technical 

memorandum, NOS OMA18. 159pp. 

Canning, D.J. ed. 1986. Nisqually River Management Plan: final environmental impact statement. Shorelands and 

CZM program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 371pp. 

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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. 86pp. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page C-2 March 2005 

CH2M Hill. 2001. Interim Brigade Combat Team Transformation, Ft. Lewis, WA. Environmental Assessment, U.S. 

Army Ft. Lewis, CH2M Hill. July 2001. 

CH2M Hill, EDAW Inc., BEAK Consultants Inc., Office of Public Archaeology, and Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge staff. 1978. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge conceptual plan. Prepared for the U. S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 81pp. 

City of Lakewood. 2000. City of Lakewood Comprehensive Plan FEIS. Lakewood, Washington. 

City of Olympia. 1995. Wellhead Protection Plan for McAllister Springs, Volume 2, City of Olympia Water 

Comprehensive Plan. 

City of Tacoma. 2001. City of Tacoma General Land Use Plan (GLUP). Adopted 12/11/01. Tacoma, Washington. 

Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis, and S.R. Foley. 1982. Distribution, abundance and outmigration timing of chum and 

chinook salmon fry in the Skagit salt marsh. Pp. 153-163 in Salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium 

(E.L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, eds.). School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Consoer, Townsend, and Associates. 1974. Engineering report, Nisqually River basin water quality management plan. 

Water Resource Inventory Area No. 11, consolidated basin planning area No. 13-11-6. 145pp. 

Cook-Tabor, C. 1999. Fishes of the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western 

Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division, Lacey, Washington. 65pp. 

Copping, A. 1990. Puget Sound update, first annual report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget 

Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. ??pp. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the 

United States. For: Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131pp. 

DoA (Department of the Army). 2002. Fort Lewis Environmental Baseline. Fort Lewis, WA. January 2002. 

Davis, S., C. Hansen, and L. Hofstad. 1997. Nisqually Reach non-point remedial action, final project report. Thurston 

County Public Health and Social Services Department, Olympia, Washington. 76pp. 

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White, and C. Tanner. 2000. Skagit Estuary Restoration Assessment-Puget Sound, 

Washington. 20 pp. 

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. 

EDT Workgroup. 1999. Factors affecting salmon production in the Nisqually Basin: summary of an EDT analysis 

using fall chinook as an indicator, February, 1999 - draft. The Nisqually EDT Work Group. 

Emmett, K. 1995. Watershed approach to water quality management. Needs assessment for the South Puget Sound 

water quality management area. Washington State Department of Ecology. 42pp. 

Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: species life history summaries. NOAA/NOS Strategic 

Environmental Assessments Division, ELMR Report Number 8, Rockville, Maryland. 

ENSR. 1999. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge - Habitat Management and Restoration Project. Hydrodynamic and 

Sediment Transport Model Development, Final Report. ENSR Document Number 2334-001-800(2). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page C-3 

Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems. 1987. Puget Sound environmental atlas, Volume I. Prepared for the U.S. EPA, 

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and U.S. Army corps of Engineers. 157pp. 

Forsman, L.A., D.E. Lewarch, M.J. Madsen, and L.L. Larson. 1998. McAllister Springs transmission line, Thurston 

County, Washington, cultural resource assessment. 23pp. 

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4):133-143. 

Fresh, K.L., D. Rabin, C. Simenstad, E.O. Salo, K. Garrison, and L. Matheson. 1979. Fish ecology studies in the 

Nisqually Reach area of South Puget Sound, Washington. University of Washington Fisheries Research 

Institute FRI-UW-7904. 229pp. 

Friedman, J.M. 1987. Proposed change in boundary for Nisqually Delta National Natural Landmark. Washington 

State Dept. Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 15pp. 

Gibilisco, C. and G.M. Filipek. 1998. The economic benefits of wildlife-watching activities in Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program. 15pp. 

Giebelhaus. 1998. Shoreline Maser Program for the Thurston Region, Prepared by Thurston County Regional 

Planning Council. May 15, 1990. 

Gilbert, C.H. 1912. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the U. S. Fish 

Commission. 32:57-70. 

Gunderson, D.R., D.A. Armstrong, Y.B. Shi, and R.A. McConnaughey. 1990. Patterns of estuarine use by juvenile 

English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Estuaries. 13(1):59-71. 

Guth, C. 1998. The Brown Farm, 1904-1974. The Evergreen State College. 21pp. 

Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180. 

Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and D.W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State recovery plan for the 

western pond turtle. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 66pp. 

Healey, M.C. 1982. Timing and relative intensity of size-selective mortality of juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

during early sea life. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39(952-957. 

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, 

MA. 

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. No date. National Recreation Trails, Information and Application 

Procedure. U.S.D.I. 

Hesselbart, W.B. 1977a. Summary narrative mini-report for Dungeness, Nisqually and San Juan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, July 1, 1975 - December 31, 1975. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Olympia, 

Washington. 5pp. 

Hesselbart , W.B. 1977b. Annual narrative report, calendar year 1976. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 

Olympia, Washington. 17pp. 

Iwata, M. and S. Komatsu. 1984. Importance of estuarine residence for adaptation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus 

keta) fry to sea water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41:744-749. 

Kirby, R.E., J.K. Ringelman, D.R. Anderson, and R.S. Sojda. 1992. Grazing on national wildlife refuges: do the 

needs outweigh the problems? Trans. 57th N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 611-626. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page C-4 March 2005 

Kjelson, M.A., P.F. Raquel, and F.W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall-run juvenile chinook salmon, Onchorynchus 

tshawytsca, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pp. 393-411 in Estuarine comparisons (V. 

S. Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York. 

Klein, L.R. and J.P. Reganold. 1997. Agricultural changes and farmland protection in western Washington. J. Soil 

Water Conserv. 52(1):6-12. 

Klotz, S.A., S.J. Madsen, P.A. Miller, and D.F. Smith. 1978. A survey of terrestrial organisms on the Nisqually river 

delta, Washington. Final report, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. Reprinted by 

Cascadia Research Collective. 166pp. 

Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rich, F.B. Samson, and R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the 

United States. Wilson Bull. 100:272-284. 

Knutsen, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. 

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 

Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus 

malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the North Puget Sound Region. Washington Department 

of Wildlife. (Draft). 

Kunze, L.M. 1984. Puget trough coastal wetlands; a summary report of biologically significant sites. Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. 8pp. 

Lamb, A. and P. Edgell. 1986. Coastal fishes of the Pacific Northwest. 

Lane, R.C. and W.A. Taylor. 1996. National water summary-wetland resources: Washington. United States 

Geological Survey. Pp. 393-398. 

Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O'Toole, D.E. Penttila, and K.C. Stick. 1997. 1996 forage fish stock status report. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington, Stock Status Report 

No. 98-1. 

Love, R.M. 1991. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. 

Manzer, J.I. 1969. Stomach contents of juvenile Pacific salmon in Chatom Sound and adjacent waters. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 26:2219-2223. 

Mason, S., E. Ratajak, J. Schuett, and P. Searles. 1974. Vegetation of the Nisqually Delta. Pp. 33-64 in The 

Nisqually Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. 

McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon Spotted Frog. Wash. Dept. 

Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 38pp. 

McAllister, K., T. Schmidt, and M. Walker. 2004. An inventory of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in the 

upper Black River drainage, Thurston County, Washington. WDFW report. 

McConnell/Burke, D. Clarke, R. Untermann, J. J. McCament, and P. Calthorpe. 1995. Comprehensive plan, City of 

DuPont. 60pp. 

Momot, J. 1993. Summary report, Contaminants investigations at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 1985 to 1988. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. 56 pp. 

Moulton, P. ed. 1994. Nisqually River notes. Bimonthly publication of the Nisqually River Council. 7(1):6 pp. 

Mullen, J.W., A. Rockhold, and C.R. Chrisman. 1992. Life histories and precocity of chinook salmon in the midColumbia River. Progressive Fish-Culturist. 54:25-28. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page C-5 

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. 

Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, 

Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC35. 443pp. 

National Association of Counties. 2000. National Association of Counties homepage. Available at: 

http://www.naco.org/counties/counties/index.cfm. Date accessed 11/1/2000. 

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from 

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries: 16(2) 4-21. 

Nelson, L.M. 1974. Sediment transport by streams in the Deschutes and Nisqually river basins, Washington, 

November 1971-June 1973. Open file report. Tacoma, Washington. 31 pp. 

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2001. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan. Thurston County, WA. 

Nisqually River Task Force. 1987. Nisqually River Management Plan. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management 

Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. 19pp. 

Northwest Landing. 2001. Northwest Landing homepage. Available at: http://www.nwlanding.com. Date accessed 

1/10/2001. 

Nussbaum, R.A., Jr. E.D. Brodie, and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. 

Nysewander, D.R. and J.R. Evenson. 1998. Status and trends for selected diving duck species examined by the 

Marine Bird Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife . Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Water 

Quality Action Team, Olympia, Washington. 2:847-867. 

OFM (Office of Financial Management). 2000, 2001. OFM homepage. Available at: 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/demographics.htm. Date accessed 11/2/2000, 2/20/2001. 

O'Tool, M., D. Penttila, and K. Stick. 2000. A review of stock discreteness in Puget Sound herring. A briefing 

statement. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Marine Resources 

Division, Forage Fish/Shellfish Unit, LaConner, Washington. 

Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 1996. 1996 Update, strategic plan, Washington State Component, North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan. Focus areas 7-11. 88pp. 

Palsson, W.A., J.C. Hoeman, G.C. Bargmann, and D.E. Day. 1997. 1995 status of Puget Sound bottomfish stocks 

(revised). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington, 

Report No. MRD97-03. 

Pearce, T.A., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmon in the Nisqually 

Estuary, Washington, 1979-1980. 

Phillips, R.C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community profile. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/24. 85pp. 

Pierce County. 2001. Pierce County homepage. Available at: 

http:www.co.pierce.wa.us/abtus/ourorg/parks/cfutures.htm. Date accessed 1/12/2001. 

Pierce County Public Works and Utilities. 1997. Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Management Committee, 

Watershed Characterization. Water Resources Division. 204pp. 

Pringle, R.F. 1982. Soil survey of Thurston County, Washington. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. 283pp. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page C-6 March 2005 

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 1993. Puget Sound Trends. October newsletter. 

PSRC. 2000. Puget Sound Trends, No. D2. January 2000. 

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1992. The 1992 Puget Sound environmental atlas update. For: the Puget 

Sound Estuary Program. 

Ramsey, G. 1997. Counting birds at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (1986-1994). Unpublished manuscript. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, General 

Technical Report INT-302. 

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. 

Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

Results and Analysis, 1966-1999. Version 98.1. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. 

Seto, N. 1998. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge, 1990-1997. 

Seto, N. 1999. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge, October 1998-January 1999. 

Shanewise, S. 1996. Nisqually Delta saltmarsh restoration, restoration plan. The Coot Company, Olympia, 

Washington. 7pp. 

Shepard, B., K. Pratt, and P. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the upper Flathead 

River basin, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. 85pp. 

Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in 

the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364 in Estuarine comparisons (V. S. 

Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York. 

Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, J.A. Miller, W.G. Hood, and R.M. Thom. 1992. Ecological status of a created 

estuarine slough in the Chehalis River Estuary: assessment of created and natural estuarine sloughs, 

January-December 1991. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute FRIUW-9206, Seattle, Washington. 

Stalmaster, M.V. 2001. Status of the wintering and nesting Bald Eagle population during 2001 on Fort Lewis, 

Washington. U.S. Army Public Works, Fort Lewis Washington. 20pp. 

Stevenson, S. 1998. Draft Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge context statement, August 28. Thurston County 

Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 45pp. 

Stewart, H. 1977. Indian Fishing. Early methods on the northwest coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 

Washington. 181 p. 

Stout, H.A., R.G. Gustafson, W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, D.M. VanDoornik, T.L. Builder, and R.D. Methot. 2001. 

Status review of Pacific Herring in Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. 

Memo NMFS-NWFSC-45. 175pp. 

Suckley, G. and J.G. Cooper. 1860. Explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route 

for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of 

War, in 1853-5, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. 

Executive Document Number 56, Volume XII, Book II. Thomas H. Ford, Printer, Washington, D. C. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page C-7 

Tacoma-Pierce County. 2001. Tacoma-Pierce County homepage. Available at: 

http://triton.co.pierce.wa.us/edb/html/pierce_employment.html. Date accessed 1/10/2001. 

Tanner, C.D. 1999. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge GIS Analysis: the regional context of intertidal habitat 

restoration in the Nisqually River Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. 

Thom, R.M., C.A. Simenstad, R.C. Wissmar, and E.O. Salo. 1985. Nisqually River estuary study design project: an 

environmental baseline and monitoring program. Prepared for the Nisqually Tribe. Fisheries Research 

Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. 114pp. 

Thurston County. 2001. Thurston County homepage. Available at: http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/thurston/index.htm. 

Date accessed 2/9/2001, 6/26/2001, 8/22/2001. 

Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 1994. Thurston County critical areas ordinance, 

Washington. 179pp. 

Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management. 1993. McAllister/Eaton Creek comprehensive 

drainage basin plan, final draft. Storm and surface water program, Olympia, Washington. 257pp. 

Thurston County Economic Development Council. 2001. Development Council homepage. Available at: 

http://www.thurstonedc.com. Date accessed 2/9/2001. 

Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department. 1996. the comprehensive parks, recreation, preserve, and trails 

plan 2015. Adopted by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners. 55pp. 

Thurston County Planning Department. 1992. Nisqually sub-area land use plan and zoning. 66pp. 

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1990. Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region. 317pp. 

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1997. The profile for Thurston County and the cities of: Lacey, Olympia, 

Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm. 190pp. 

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1998. The profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of : Lacey, 

Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm prepared by Thurston Regional Planning Council. 

October 1998. 

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2000. The Profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of: Lacey, 

Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, and Yelm. Prepared by Thurston Regional Planning 

Council. October 2000. 

Ulmschneider, H.M. 1976. A study of the nesting and feeding behavior of five species of swallows on the Nisqually 

River Delta, Washington. 

United States Surveyor General. 1853. General land Office Survey Plat, Township 18 North, Range1 West, 

Willamette Meridian. 

URS Company. 1979. Weyerhaeuser export facility at DuPont. Final environmental impact statement. 462pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1977. Acquisition of lands for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 

Environmental Impact Assessment, Olympia, Washington. 

USFWS. 1978. Adoption and implementation of management and development plans for the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge, Environmental Impact Assessment, Olympia, Washington. 111pp. 

USFWS. 1981. Refuge manual RM 1.8, 11.1. 1981 with various updates. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page C-8 March 2005 

USFWS. 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington 

office, Lacey, Washington. 

USFWS. 1998. ESA Status-Washington State anadromous salmonids-March 1998 and endangered and threatened 

marine mammals and sea turtles under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service that may occur 

in Washington and Oregon. 2pp. 

USFWS. 1998. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species, candidate species and species of concern 

which may occur within the vicinity of the proposed Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan in Thurston County, Washington. Attachment A. 2pp. 

USFWS. 2001. Birds of conservation concern list (BCC). Draft. 

USFWS. 2004. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS), 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Olympia, WA. August 2004. 

Waddell, J.E. 1981. Memo to Refuge Manager, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

Walters, G.E. 1984. Ecological aspects of larval and juvenile Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), walleye pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma), and Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) in Port Townsend, Washington. 

Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 129pp. 

WDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1991. 1989-1990 Annual report, Air Quality Program. 

Publications 91-32. 135 pp. 

WDOE. 2003. Former DuPont Works fact sheet. Publication No. 03-09-031, January 2003. Ecology Southwest 

Regional Office, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, Washington. 

Washington State Department of Health. 1997. 1997 annual inventory of commercial and recreational shellfish areas 

in Puget Sound. Office of shellfish programs, Olympia, Washington. 35 pp. + 15 maps. 

Washington State Game Department. 1971. August 30 News Release. 

Watt, J.G. 1981. Letter to Mr. R. Kahler Martinson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull 

trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington. 

WDFW. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status 

review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258pp. 

West J.E. 1997. Protection and restoration of marine life in the inland waters of Washington state. Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series: Number 6. 

Whiley, A J. and G.F. Walter. 1996. Investigation of fecal coliform sources within drainage to the Nisqually Reach. 

Technical Report No. 2. Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 66pp. 

Whiley, A.J. and G.F. Walter. 1998. Analysis of fecal coliform concentrations in the Nisqually River drainage. 

Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 31pp. 

White, J. 1997. The loss of habitat in Puget Sound. Report. People for Puget Sound. 26pp. 

Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, 

volume 1 - Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page C-9 

Wisseman, R.W., S.F.J. Cook, M.E. LaGory, T.A. Pearce, and P.A. Searless. 1978. A survey of the intertidal macrofauna in the vicinity of the proposed Weyerhaeuser/DuPont Deep Water Port and the adjacent Nisqually 

Delta. Final Report: May 1978. The Evergreen State College. 

WNHP (Washington State Natural Heritage Program). 1998. Natural community element abstracts, Northern Puget 

Trough. Department of Natural Resources. Six abstracts + maps of Nisqually delta. 13pp. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page C-10 March 2005 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

Nisqually NWR Species List 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E.1 

Plant List 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-1 

Appendix E: Nisqually NWR Species Lists 

E.1 PLANTS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Trees

Abies grandis Pinaceae grand fir FACUAcer macrophyllum Aceraceae big-leaf maple FACU 

* Acer saccharum Aceraceae sugar maple 

Alnus rubra Betulaceae red alder FAC 

Amelanchier alnifolia Rosaceae western serviceberry FACU 

Arbutus menziesii Ericaceae pacific madrone 

Cornus nuttallii Cornaceae pacific dogwood 

Crataegus douglasii Rosaceae Douglas’s (black) hawthorn FAC 

* Crataegus laevigata cv. Rosaceae Paul's scarlet 

* Crataegus x lavallei Rosaceae hawthorn 

* Crataegus monogyna Rosaceae common hawthorn 

Fraxinus latifolia Oleaceae Oregon ash FACW 

* Ilex aquifolium Aquifoliaceae English holly 

Malus fusca [Pyrus f.] Rosaceae Oregon crab apple FAC+ 

Picea engelmannii Pinaceae Engelmann spruce 

Picea sitchensis Pinaceae Sitka spruce FAC 

Pinus contorta var. c. Pinaceae shore pine FAC- 

* Populus alba Salicaceae white poplar 

Populus balsamifera Salicaceae black cottonwood FAC 

 ssp. trichocarpa [P. t. ] 

* Populus nigra var. italica Salicaceae Lombardy poplar 

Populus tremuloides Salicaceae quaking aspen FAC+ 

* Prunus avium Rosaceae sweet cherry 

Prunus emarginata var. mollis Rosaceae bitter cherry FACU 

Prunus virginiana var. demissa Rosaceae choke cherry FACU 

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. m. Pinaceae Douglas-fir 

* Pyrus communis Rosaceae cultivated pear

* Pyrus malus Rosaceae cultivated apple 

Rhamnus purshiana [Frangula p.] Rhamnaceae cascara FACSalix scouleriana Salicaceae Scouler’s willow FAC 

* Sorbus aucuparia Rosaceae European mountain ash 

Taxus brevifolia Taxaceae pacific yew FACUThuja plicata Cupressaceae western redcedar FAC 

Tsuga heterophylla Pinaceae western hemlock FACU- 

* Note: * indicates non-native (introduced) 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-2 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Shrubs, Brambles & Vines

Acer circinatum Aceraceae vine maple FACU+ 

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. u.-u. Ericaceae kinnikinnick FACUBerberis aquifolium Pursh [Mahonia a.] Berberidaceae tall Oregon-grape 

Berberis nervosa Pursh [Mahonia n.] Berberidaceae dull Oregon-grape FACU 

Ceanothus sanguineus Rhamnaceae redstem ceanothos NI 

Chaenomeles japonica Rosaceae flowering quince 

Chimaphila umbellata Ericaceae prince's-pine 

Clematis vitalba Ranunculaceae travelers-joy 

Cornus sericea Cornaceae red-osier dogwood FACW 

 ssp. s. [C. stolonifera var. o.] 

Corylus cornuta var. californica Betulaceae hazelnut NI 

* Cotoneaster franchetii Rosaceae cv. cotoneaster 

* Cytisus scoparius var. s. Fabaceae Scot’s broom 

* Euonymus fortunei Celastraceae euonymus 

Gaultheria shallon Ericaceae salal FACU 

* Hedera helix Araliaceae English ivy 

Holodiscus discolor var. d. Rosaceae ocean-spray 

* Humulus lupulus Cannabaceae hops NI 

Linnaea borealis ssp. longiflora Caprifoliaceae western twinflower FACULonicera ciliosa Caprifoliaceae orange honeysuckle 

Lonicera hispidula var. h. Caprifoliaceae hairy honeysuckle 

Lonicera involucrata Caprifoliaceae bearberry honeysuckle FAC 

Oemleria cerasiformis Rosaceae Indian plum FACU 

Oplopanax horridus Araliaceae Devils'-club FAC 

Philadelphus lewisii var. gordonianus Philadelphaceae mock orange 

Physocarpus capitatus Rosaceae pacific ninebark FAC+ 

* Prunus laurocerasus Rosaceae cherry laurel 

Ribes divaricatum. var. d Grossulariaceae straggly gooseberry NI 

Ribes sanguineum var. s. Grossulariaceae red-flowering current NI 

Rosa gymnocarpa var. g. Rosaceae baldhip rose NI 

Rosa nutkana var. n. Rosaceae Nootka rose NI 

Rosa pisocarpa Rosaceae clustered wild rose FACU 

* Rubus discolor Rosaceae Himalayan blackberry NI 

* Rubus laciniatus Rosaceae evergreen blackberry FACU+ 

Rubus leucodermis var. l. Rosaceae blackcap 

Rubus parviflorus var. p. Rosaceae thimbleberry FACU+ 

Rubus spectabilis var. s. Rosaceae salmonberry FAC 

Rubus ursinus ssp. macropetalus Rosaceae pacific blackberry FACU 

Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra [S. lasiandra] Salicaceae pacific willow FACW+ 

Salix sitchensis Salicaceae Sitka willow FACW 

Sambucus caerulea Caprifoliaceae blue elderberry FACSambucus racemosa Caprifoliaceae coast red elderberry FACU 

 ssp. pubens var. arborescens

* Solanum dulcamara Solanaceae bittersweet FAC 

* Spiraea x vanhouttei Rosaceae spiraea 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-3 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Shrubs, Brambles & Vines (continued)

Spiraea douglasii ssp. d. Rosaceae Douglas' spirea FACW 

Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Caprifoliaceae common snowberry FACU 

Symphoricarpos hesperius [S. mollis] Caprifoliaceae creeping snowberry 

Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae poison-oak FACU 

 [Rhus diversiloba] 

* Ulex europaeus Fabaceae gorse 

Vaccinium ovatum Ericaceae evergreen huckleberry NI 

Vaccinium parvifolium Ericaceae red huckleberry NI 

Grasses 

* Agrostis capillaris [A. tenuis] Poaceae colonial bentgrass 

Agrostis exarata var. e. Poaceae spike bentgrass FACW 

* Agrostis gigantea [A. alba var. a.] Poaceae redtop FAC 

Agrostis scabra Poaceae hair bentgrass FAC 

* Agrostis stolonifera Poaceae creeping bentgrass FAC+ 

 [A. alba vars. major & palustris] 

* Aira caryophyllea Poaceae silver hairgrass 

* Aira praecox Poaceae early hairgrass 

* Alopecurus geniculatus var. g. Poaceae water foxtail OBL 

* Alopecurus pratensis Poaceae meadow foxtail FACW 

* Anthoxanthum odoratum Poaceae sweet vernalgrass FACU 

* Arrhenatherum elatius Poaceae tall oatgrass 

* Bromus hordeaceus subsp. h. [B. mollis] Poaceae soft brome 

Bromus pacificus Poaceae pacific brome 

Bromus sitchensis var. s. Poaceae Alaska brome 

* Bromus tectorum Poaceae cheatgrass 

Bromus vulgaris Poaceae Columbia brome UPL 

Cinna latifolia Poaceae wood reedgrass FACW 

* Cynosurus echinatus Poaceae hedgehog dogtail 

* Dactylis glomerata Poaceae orchard grass FACU 

Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis Poaceae tufted hairgrass FACW 

Deschampsia danthonioides Poaceae annual hairgrass FACWDistichlis spicata var. s. Poaceae seashore saltgrass FACW 

* Echinochloa crus-galli Poaceae large barnyard-grass FACW 

Elymus glaucus Poaceae blue wildrye FACU 

Elymus mollis ssp. m.[Leymus m.] Poaceae dune wildrye FACU 

Elymus trachycaulus Poaceae awned wheatgrass FAC- 

 ssp. t.[Agropyron trachycaulum] 

* Elytrigia repens [Agropyron r.] Poaceae quackgrass FACU 

* Festuca arundinacea Poaceae tall fescue FACU 

Festuca rubra Poaceae red fescue FAC 

Glyceria elata Poaceae tall mannagrass FACW+ 

Glyceria leptostachya Poaceae slender-spiked mannagrass OBL 

* Holcus lanatus Poaceae common velvet-grass FAC 

* Holcus mollis Poaceae creeping velvet-grass 

Hordeum brachyantherum Poaceae meadow barley FACW 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-4 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Grasses (continued)

Hordeum caespitosum [H. jubatum] Poaceae foxtail barley FAC 

* Hordeum murinum Poaceae wall barley 

* Hordeum vulgare Poaceae common barley 

Leersia oryzoides Poaceae rice cutgrass OBL 

* Lolium multiflorum Poaceae Italian ryegrass 

* Lolium perenne Poaceae English ryegrass FACU 

Melica subulata var. s. Poaceae Alaska oniongrass 

Panicum capillare Poaceae common witchgrass FAC 

* Panicum miliaceum Poaceae broom corn millet 

* Phalaris arundinacea Poaceae reed canary grass FACW 

* Phleum pratense var. p. Poaceae common Timothy FAC- 

* Phragmites australis Poaceae Common reed FACW+ 

* Poa annua Poaceae annual bluegrass FACPoa compressa Poaceae Canada bluegrass FACU 

* Poa pratensis ssp. p. Poaceae Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

* Poa trivialis Poaceae rough bluegrass FACW 

Puccinellia nuttalliana Poaceae Nuttall’s alkali grass FACW+ 

* Setaria glauca. [S. lutescens] Poaceae yellow bristlegrass 

Torreyochloa pallida Poaceae weak mannagrass OBL 

 var. pauciflora [Puccinella pauciflora] 

Trisetum cernuum Poaceae nodding trisetum 

* Vulpia bromoides [Festuca b.] Poaceae barren fescue 

* Vulpia myuros var. m. [Festuca m.] Poaceae rat-tail vulpia 

Sedges and Rushes

Carex athrostachya Cyperaceae slenderbeaked sedge FACW 

Carex canescens Cyperaceae grey sedge FACW+ 

Carex deweyana. var. d. Cyperaceae Dewey's sedge FACU 

Carex hendersonii Cyperaceae Henderson’s sedge FAC 

Carex lyngbyei var. robusta Cyperaceae Lyngbye's sedge OBL 

Carex obnupta Cyperaceae slough sedge OBL 

Carex stipata Cyperaceae sawbeak sedge OBL 

Eleocharis obtusa var. ovata [E. ovata] Cyperaceae ovate spike-rush OBL 

Eleocharis palustris Cyperaceae creeping spike-rush OBL 

Eleocharis parvula var. p. Cyperaceae small spike-rush OBL 

Juncus articulatus Juncaginaceae jointed rush OBL 

Juncus balticus var. b. Juncaginaceae baltic rush FACW+ 

Juncus bolanderi Juncaginaceae Bolander's rush OBL 

Juncus bufonius Juncaginaceae toad rush FACW 

Juncus effusus var. gracilis Juncaginaceae soft rush FACW 

Juncus gerardii Juncaginaceae mud rush FACW+ 

Juncus tenuis var. t. Juncaginaceae slender rush OBL 

Luzula multiflora var. m. [L. campestris] Juncaginaceae many-flowered wood-rush FACU 

Luzula parviflora var. fastigiata Juncaginaceae small-flowered wood-rush FACScirpus americanus Cyperaceae three-square bulrush OBL 

Scirpus microcarpus Cyperaceae small-flowered bulrush OBL 

Scirpus tabernaemontanii [S. validus] Cyperaceae soft-stemmed bulrush OBL 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-5 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs

Achillea millefolium var. lanulosa Asteraceae common yarrow FACU 

Achlys californica [split from A. triphylla] Berberidaceae vanillaleaf 

Actaea rubra ssp. arguta Ranunculaceae western red baneberry 

* Adenocaulon bicolor Asteraceae trail-plant 

* Ajuga reptans Lamiaceae common bugle 

Alisma plantago-aquatica Alismataceae American waterplantain OBL 

var. americanum 

Allophyllum divaricatum Polemoniaceae pink false gilia 

Amaranthus powellii Amaranthaceae Powell's amaranth 

Ambrosia chamissonis Asteraceae heath burweed 

Amsinckia menziesii Boraginaceae small-flowered fiddleneck 

Anaphalis margaritacea Asteraceae pearly everlasting 

Angelica genuflexa Apiaceae kneeling angelica FACW 

Angelica lucida Apiaceae seacoast angelica FAC 

* Anthemis cotula Asteraceae mayweed FACU 

* Anthriscus caucalis var. c. [A. scandicina] Apiaceae burr chervil 

* Arabidopsis thaliana Brassicaeae thale cress 

* Arctium minus Asteraceae common burdock 

Artemisia suksdorfii Asteraceae coastal mugwort 

Asarum caudatum Aristolochiaceae wild ginger FACU 

Aster subspicatus Asteraceae Douglas aster FAC+ 

Atriplex patula Chenopodiaceae spearscale FACW 

Barbarea orthoceras Brassicaeae American wintercress FACW+ 

Bidens cernua Asteraceae nodding beggar-ticks FACW+ 

Bidens frondosa Asteraceae leafy beggar-ticks FACW+ 

* Brassica rapa [B. campestris ] Brassicaeae field mustard rape 

Callitriche heterophylla Callitrichaceae diverse-leaved water-starwort OBL 

Camassia quamash ssp. breviflora Liliaceae common camas FACW 

Campanula scouleri Campanulaceae Scouler's harebell 

* Capsella bursa- pastoris var. b.- p. Brassicaeae shepherd's purse FACCardamine angulata Brassicaeae angled bitter-cress FACW 

Cardamine breweri var. orbicularis Brassicaeae Brewer's bitter-cress FACW+ 

Cardamine nuttallii var. n. Brassicaeae Nuttall's bitter-cress 

[C. pulcherrima var. tenella]

Cardamine oligosperma var. o. Brassicaeae little western bitter-cress FACW 

* Centaurium erythraea Raf. [C. umbellatum] Gentianaceae European centaury FAC- 

* Cerastium fontanum var. triviale Caryophyllaceae sticky chickweed 

 [C. viscosum] 

* Cerastium glomeratum [C. vulgatum] Caryophyllaceae mouse-ear chickweed 

Chamomilla suaveolens Asteraceae pineapple weed FACU 

 [Matricaria matricarioides] 

* Chenopodium album var. a. Chenopodiaceae lamb’s quarters FAC 

Chenopodium hybridum Chenopodiaceae sowbane 

Circaea alpina ssp. pacifica Onagraceae enchanter's nightshade FACW 

* Cirsium arvense var. horridum Asteraceae Canada thistle FACU+ 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-6 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Cirsium vulgare Asteraceae common thistle FACU 

Claytonia perfoliata ssp. p.[Montia p.] Portulacaceae miner's-lettuce FAC 

Claytonia sibirica var. s. [Montia s.] Portulacaceae Siberian miner’s-lettuce FACW 

Collomia grandilora Polemoniaceae large-flowered collomia 

Collomia heterophylla Polemoniaceae varied-leaf collomia 

* Conium maculatum Apiaceae poison-hemlock FACW- 

* Conyza canadensis [Erigeron c.] Asteraceae horseweed FACU 

Corallorhiza maculata ssp. m. Orchidaceae spotted coral-root FACCorydalis scouleri Papaveraceae Scouler's corydalis FAC+ 

* Cotula coronopifolia Asteraceae brass-buttons FACW+ 

* Crepis capillaris Asteraceae smooth hawksbeard 

Cuscuta.salina var. major Cuscutaceae salt-marsh dodder FACW 

* Daucus carota Apiaceae Queen-Anne's-lace 

Dicentra formosa ssp. f. Papaveraceae pacific bleeding heart 

* Digitalis purpurea var. p. Scrophulariaceae foxglove 

* Dipsacus fullonum [D. sylvestris] Dipsacaceae teasel NI 

Disporum hookeri var. oreganum Liliaceae Hooker fairy-bell 

Elodea canadensis Hydrocharitaceae waterweed OBL 

Epilobium angustifolium ssp. a. Onagraceae fireweed FACU+ 

Epilobium brachycarpum [E. paniculatum] Onagraceae autumn willow-herb 

Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii Onagraceae hairy willow-herb FACW- 

 [E. watsonii] 

* Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae stork's-bill geranium 

Erophila verna [Draba v.] Brassicaeae vernal whitlow-grass 

Erythronium oregonum ssp. o. Liliaceae Oregon fawn lily 

* Eschscholtzia californica ssp. c. Papaveraceae California poppy 

Fragaria vesca ssp. bracteata Rosaceae woods strawberry 

* Fragaria virginiana ssp. platypetula Rosaceae blueleaf strawberry 

* Galanthus nivalis Liliaceae snowdrop 

Galium aparine Rubiaceae cleavers FACU 

Galium trifidum var. pacificum Rubiaceae small bedstraw FACW+ 

Galium triflorum Rubiaceae sweetscented bedstraw FACU 

* Geranium dissectum Geraniaceae cut-leaved geranium 

* Geranium molle Geraniaceae dovefoot geranium 

* Geranium robertianum Geraniaceae Robert geranium 

Geum macrophyllum var. m. Rosaceae Oregon avens FACW+ 

Glaux maritima ssp.obtusifolia Primulaceae saltwort FACW+ 

* Glecoma hederacea var. micrantha Lamiaceae ground ivy FACU+ 

Gnaphalium canescens Asteraceae slender cudweed 

 ssp. microcephalum[G. m.] 

* Gnaphalium uliginosum Asteraceae marsh cudweed FAC+ 

Goodyera oblongifolia Orchidaceae rattlesnake-plantain FACUGrindelia integrifolia var. macrophylla Asteraceae Puget Sound gumweed FACW 

Hackelia deflexa Boraginaceae nodding stickseed 

Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae cow-parsnip FAC 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-7 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

Hieracium albiflorum Asteraceae white-flowered hieracium 

Hippuris vulgaris Hippurodaceae common mare's-tail OBL 

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Apiaceae marsh-pennywort OBL 

Hydrophyllum tenuipes Hydrophyllaceae pacific waterleaf FAC 

* Hypericum perforatum Clusiaceae common St. John's-wort 

* Hypochaeris radicata Asteraceae hairy [spotted] cat's-ear 

Impatiens noli-tangere Balsaminaceae touch-me-not FACW 

Jaumea carnosa Asteraceae fleshy Jaumea OBL 

* Lactuca serriola Asteraceae prickly lettuce FAC- 

* Lamium hybridum Lamiaceae hybrid dead-nettle 

* Lamium purpureum Lamiaceae red dead-nettle 

* Lapsana communis Asteraceae nipplewort 

* Lathyrus latifolius Fabaceae everlasting pea 

Lathyrus polyphyllus Fabaceae leafy peavine 

Lemna minor Lemnaceae small duckweed OBL 

Lepidium virginicum var. pubescens Brassicaeae Virginia pepperweed FACU 

* Leucanthemum vulgare [Chrysanthemum l.] Asteraceae oxeye-daisy 

Lilium columbianum Liliaceae columbia lily FAC 

Lilaeopsis occidentalis Apiaceae western lilaeopsis OBL 

Listera cordata Orchidaceae evergreen orchid FACU 

Lotus micranthus Fabaceae small-flowered deervetch 

* Lotus uliginosus Fabaceae big trefoil 

* Ludwigia palustris var. americana Onagraceae water purslane OBL 

Lupinus bicolor Fabaceae two-color lupine 

Lupinus rivularis Fabaceae stream lupine FAC 

* Lychnis coronaria Caryophyllaceae rose campion 

Lycopus uniflorus Lamiaceae northern bugleweed OBL 

Lysichiton americanum Araceae yellow skunk-cabbage OBL 

Madia madioides Asteraceae woodland tarweed 

Madia sativa var. s. Asteraceae coast tarweed 

Maianthemum dilatatum Liliaceae false lily-of-the-valley FACUMaianthemum racemosa ssp. amplexicaule Liliaceae western Solomon-plume FACMaianthemum stellataum Liliaceae starry Solomon-plume FAC 

* Malva neglecta Malvaceae dwarf mallow 

* Medicago lupulina Fabaceae black medic 

* Melilotus alba Fabaceae white sweet-clover FACU 

* Melilotus officinalis Fabaceae common yellow sweet-clover FACU 

Mentha arvensis var. villosa Lamiaceae field mint FAC 

* Mentha piperita Lamiaceae peppermint FACW+ 

Mertensia paniculata var. borealis Boraginaceae tall mertensia FAC 

Mimulus guttatus Scrophulariaceae yellow monkey-flower OBL 

Mimulus moschatus var. sessifolius Scrophulariaceae musk-flower FACW+ 

Mitella caulescens Saxifragaceae leafy mitrewort 

Moehringia macrophylla [Arenaria m.] Caryophyllaceae big-leaved sandwort 

Monotropa uniflora Ericaceae Indian pipe FACU 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-8 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

Montia dichotoma Portulacaceae dwarf montia FAC 

* Muscari botryoides Liliaceae grape hyacinth 

* Mycelis muralis [Lactuca m.] Asteraceae wall lettuce 

* Myosotis discolor Boraginaceae yellow & blue forget-me-not FACW 

Myosotis laxa Boraginaceae small-flowered forget-me-not OBL 

* Myosotis scorpioides Boraginaceae common forget-me-not FACW 

Myosotis verna Boraginaceae spring forget-me-not FACMyriophyllum hippuroides Haloragaceae western water-milfoil OBL 

* Narcissus pseudonarcissus Amaryllidaceae daffodil 

Navarretia squarrosa Polemoniaceae skunkweed 

Nemophila parviflora var. p. Hydrophyllaceae small-flowered nemophila 

Oenanthe sarmentosa Apiaceae pacific water-parsley OBL 

Osmorhiza chilensis Apiaceae mountain sweet-cicely 

* Parentucellia viscosa Scrophulariaceae yellow parentucellia FACPetasites frigidus var. palmatus[P. p.] Asteraceae sweet coltsfoot FACU 

Phacelia nemoralis ssp. oregonensis Hydrophyllaceae woodland phacelia 

Piperia unalascensis [Habenaria u.] Orchidaceae Unalaska rein-orchid FAC 

* Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae English plantain FACU+ 

* Plantago major var. m. Plantaginaceae common plantain FAC+ 

Plantago maritima var. juncoides Plantaginaceae maritime plantain FACW+ 

* Polygonum aviculare var. a. Polygonaceae common knotweed FACW- 

* Polygonum convolvulus var. c. Polygonaceae climbing knotweed FACU- 

* Polygonum cuspidatum Polygonaceae Japanese knotweed 

Polygonum hydropiperoides var. h. Polygonaceae water-pepper OBL 

* Polygonum lapathifolium var. l. Polygonaceae dockleaf smartweed FACW+ 

* Polygonum persicaria Polygonaceae spotted ladysthumb FACW 

* Potamogeton crispus Potamogetonaceae curled pondweed OBL 

Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogetonaceae ribbon-leaved pondweed OBL 

Potamogeton foliosus Potamogetonaceae close-leaved pondweed OBL 

Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogetonaceae sago pondweed OBL 

Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica [P. p.] Rosaceae pacific silverweed OBL 

Potentilla gracilis var. g. Rosaceae graceful cinquefoil FAC 

Prunella vulgaris var. elongata Lamiaceae self-heal FACU+ 

Pyrola asarifolia Ericaceae common pink wintergreen FACU 

* Ranunculus acris Ranunculaceae tall buttercup FACWRanunculus occidentalis var. o. Ranunculaceae western buttercup FACW 

* Ranunculus repens var. r. Ranunculaceae creeping buttercup FACW 

Ranunculus sceleratus Ranunculaceae celery-leaved buttercup OBL 

Ranunculus uncinatus var. u. Ranunculaceae small-flowered buttercup FAC- 

* Raphanus sativas Brassicaeae wild radish 

Rorippa curvisiliqua var. a. Brassicaeae western yellow cress FACW+ 

Rorippa palustris [R. islandica] Brassicaeae marsh yellow cress OBL 

* Rumex acetosella Polygonaceae sheep sorrel FACU+ 

* Rumex crispus Polygonaceae curly dock FACW 

Rumex maritimus var. feuginus Polygonaceae seaside dock FACW+ 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-9 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Rumex obtusifolius ssp. agrestis Polygonaceae bitter dock FAC 

Rumex occidentalis Polygonaceae western dock FACW+ 

Rupertia physodes [Psoralea p.] Fabaceae Rupert’s scurf-pea 

Ruppia maritima Potamogetonaceae ditch-grass OBL 

Sagittaria latifolia Alismataceae broadleaf arrowhead OBL 

Salicornia virginica Chenopodiaceae American glasswort OBL 

Sanicula crassicaulis var. c. Apiaceae pacific sanicle 

Satureja douglasii Lamiaceae yerba buena 

* Scleranthus annuus Caryophyllaceae annual knawel 

Scutellaria lateriflora Lamiaceae blue skullcap FACW+ 

* Senecio jacobaea Asteraceae tansy ragwort 

* Senecio sylvaticus Asteraceae wood groundsel 

* Senecio vulgaris Asteraceae common groundsel FACU

* Silene latifolia ssp. alba [Lychnis a. ] Caryophyllaceae white campion 

* Sisymbrium altissimum Brassicaceae tall tumble-mustard 

* Sisymbrium officinale Brassicaeae hedge mustard 

* Solanum sarrachoides Solanaceae hairy nightshade 

Solidago canadensis var. salebrosa Asteraceae Canada goldenrod FACU 

* Sonchus arvensis Asteraceae perennial sow-thistle 

* Sonchus asper Asteraceae prickly sow-thistle FACSparganium emersum [S. angustifolium] Typhaceae narrow-leaved bur-reed OBL 

* Spergularia arvensis Caryophyllaceae spurry 

Spergularia canadensis Caryophyllaceae Canada sand-spurry FACW 

Spergularia macrotheca Caryophyllaceae beach sand-spurry FAC 

* Spergularia rubra Caryophyllaceae red sand-spurry FACSpiranthes romanzoffiana var. r. Orchidaceae hooded ladies'-tresses OBL 

Spirodela polyrrhiza Lemnaceae great duckweed OBL 

Stachys cooleyae Lamiaceae Cooley's hedge-nettle FACW 

* Stellaria graminea Caryophyllaceae lesser starwort FACStellaria humifusa Caryophyllaceae spreading starwort OBL 

Stellaria longipes Caryophyllaceae longstalk starwort FACW- 

* Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae common chickweed 

Streptopus amplexifolius Liliaceae clasping-leaved twisted-stalk FACSuaeda maritima [S. calceoliformis] Chenopodiaceae herbaceous seablite FACW+ 

Synthyris reniformis var. r. Scrophulariaceae spring queen 

* Tanacetum vulgare Asteraceae common tansy 

* Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae common dandelion FACU 

* Teesdalia nudicaulis Brassicaeae shepherd's cress 

Tellima grandiflora Saxifragaceae fringecup 

Tiarella trifoliata var. t. Saxifragaceae trefoil foamflower FAC 

Tolmiea menziesii Saxifragaceae youth-on-age FAC 

* Tragopogon dubius Asteraceae yellow salsify 

Trientalis borealis ssp. latifolia [T l.] Primulaceae western starflower FAC 

* Trifolium arvense Fabaceae hare's-foot 

* Trifolium dubium. Fabaceae least hop clover 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-10 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Trifolium hybridum Fabaceae alsike clover FACU+ 

* Trifolium pratense Fabaceae red clover FACU 

* Trifolium repens Fabaceae white clover FACU+ 

* Trifolium subterraneum Fabaceae subterranean clover 

Trifolium wormskjoldii Fabaceae springbank clover FACW+ 

Triglochin maritimum Juncaginaceae seaside arrow-grass OBL 

Trillium ovatum ssp. o. Liliaceae western trillium NI 

Triphysaria pusilla [Orthocarpus pusillus] Scrophulariaceae dwarf owl-clover 

Typha latifolia Typhaceae common cat-tail OBL 

Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis var. lyallii Urticaceae stinging nettle FAC+ 

* Verbascum blattaria Scrophulariaceae moth mullein 

* Verbascum thapsus Scrophulariaceae common mullein 

Veronica beccabunga Scrophulariaceae American brooklime OBL 

ssp. americana [V. a.] 

* Veronica arvensis Scrophulariaceae wall speedwell NI 

* Veronica serpyllifolia var. s. Scrophulariaceae thyme-leaved speedwell FAC 

Vicia americana ssp. a.. Fabaceae American vetch FAC+ 

* Vicia cracca Fabaceae bird vetch 

* Vicia hirsuta Fabaceae tiny vetch 

Vicia nigricans ssp. gigantea [V. g.] Fabaceae giant vetch 

* Vicia sativa Fabaceae common vetch 

* Vicia villosa Fabaceae hairy vetch 

* Vinca major cv. Apocynaceae periwinkle 

Viola sempervirens Violaceae evergreen violet 

Wolffia borealis [W. punctata] Lemnaceae dotted water-meal OBL 

Zostera marina Zosteraceae eel-grass OBL 

Ferns & Allies

Adiantum aleuticum [A. pedatum ] Pteridaceae maidenhair fern FAC 

Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Dryopteridaceae northern lady fern FAC 

Azolla mexicana Azollaceae Mexican mosquito fern OBL 

Blechnum spicant Blechnaceae deer fern FAC+ 

Dryopteris expansa [D. austriaca] Dryopteridaceae spreading wood fern 

Equisetum arvense Equisetaceae field horsetail FAC 

Equisetum hyemale var. affine Equisetaceae scouring-rush FACW 

Equisetum telmateia var. braunii Equisetaceae giant horsetail FACW 

Polypodium glycyrrhiza Polypodiaceae licorice fern 

Polystichum munitum Dryopteridaceae sword fern 

Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Dennstaedtiaceae western bracken FACU 

Lichens

Botrydina vulgaris [B. botryoides]. Lichenized with Omphalina ericetorum (lichen agaric), a Basidomycete 

fungus. 

Cladonia coniocraea Cladoniaceae cup lichen 

Evernia prunastri Parmeliaceae antlered-perfume 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-11 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Lichens (continued)

Hypogymnia physodes Parmeliaceae hooded-bone 

Letharia vulpina Parmeliaceae wolf lichen 

Melanelia elegantula Parmeliaceae elegant parmelia 

Melanelia exasperatula Parmeliaceae roughened parmelia 

Parmelia sulcata Parmeliaceae waxpaper-lichen 

Peltigera canina Peltigeraceae dog-lichen 

Peltigera polydactylon Peltigeraceae frog-pelt 

Physcia sp. Physciaceae lichen 

Platismatia glauca Parmeliaceae ragged lichen 

Usnea subfloridana [U. comosa] Parmeliaceae beard lichen 

Xanthoria candelaria Teloschistaceae orange wall lichen 

Mosses & Liverworts

Atrichum sp. Polytrichaceae atrichum moss 

Aulacomnium androgynum Aulacommiaceae lover's-moss 

Bryum capillare Bryaceae capillary moss 

Climacium dendroides Climaciaceae tree moss 

Conocephalum conicum Conocephalaceae snake-liverwort 

Dichodontium pellucidum Dicranaceae wet-rock moss 

Dicranoweisia cirrata Dicranaceae curly-thatch moss 

Dicranum tauricum Dicranaceae tauricum moss 

Dicranum sp. Dicranaceae bryoid fissidens moss 

Drepanocladus uncinatus var. symmetricus Amblystegiaceae hook-leaved moss 

Fissidens adianthoides Fissidentaceae adiantum moss 

Fissidens bryoides Fissidentaceae bryoides fissidens moss 

Fontinalis antipyretica var. a. Fontinalaceae common water moss 

Funaria hygrometrica Funariaceae cord-moss 

Grimmia pulvinata Grimmiaceae cushion moss 

Homalothecium fulgescens Brachytheciaceae yellow moss 

Hylocomium splendens Hylocomiaceae step-moss 

Hypnum circinale Hypnaceae coiled-leafmoss 

Hypnum subimponens Hypnaceae curly hypnum 

Isothecium stoloniferum [I. spiculiferum] Brachytheciaceae cat-tail moss 

Kindbergia oregana Brachytheciaceae Oregon beaked moss 

 [Eurhynchium oreganum] 

Leucolepis acanthoneuron [L. menziesii] Mniaceae Menzies' tree moss 

Marchantia polymorpha Marchantiaceae lung-liverwort 

Neckera douglasii Neckeraceae Douglas' neckera 

Orthotrichum consimile Orthotrichaceae bristle moss 

Orthotrichum lyellii Orthotrichaceae Lyell's bristle moss 

Orthotrichum sp. Orthotrichaceae little bristle moss 

Plagiomnium insigne [Mnium i.] Mniaceae badge moss 

Plagiomnium venustum Mniaceae magnificent moss 

Plagiothecium undulatum Plagiotheciaceae wavy-leaved cotton moss 

Polytrichum juniperinum Polytrichaceae juniper moss 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-12 March 2005 

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Mosses & Liverworts

Racomitrium canescens Grimmiaceae roadside rock moss 

Rhizomnium glabrescens [Mnium g.] Mniaceae fan-moss 

Rhytidiadelphus loreus Hylocomiaceae lanky-moss 

Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Hylocomiaceae goose-necked moss 

Riccia fluitans Ricciaceae floating liverwort 

Scleropodium cespitans var c. Brachytheciaceae flat-moss 

Tortula princeps Pottiaceae princely moss 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E.2 

Wildlife List 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-13 

E.2 WILDLIFE

This list includes wildlife species that have been observed at least once on Nisqually NWR. The birds' 

common and scientific names and taxonomic order are categorized into family and subfamily groups in 

accordance with the 7th edition (1998) of the A. O. U. Checklist of North American Birds. * Indicates bird 

species known to nest on Nisqually delta. 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Black Scoter Melanitta nigra 

Pacific Loon Gavia immer Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 

Common Loon Gavia immer Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps Hooded Merganser* Lophodytes cucullatus 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus 

Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis 

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias American Kestrel* Falco sparverius 

Great Egret Ardea alba Merlin Falco columbarius 

Green Heron* Butorides virescens Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Greater White-fronted 

 Goose 

Anser albifrons Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus 

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 

Brant Branta bernicla Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus California Quail* Callipepla californica 

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Gadwall* Anas strepera Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola 

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope Sora* Porzana carolina 

American Wigeon Anas americana American Coot* Fulica americana 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 

Cinnamon Teal* Anas cyanoptera Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica 

Northern Pintail* Anas acute Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-14 March 2005 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds (continued) Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi

Willet Catoptrophorus Rufous Hummingbird* Selasphoras rufus

semipalmatus Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularia Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Red-breasted Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus ruber

Red Knot Calidris canutus Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens

Sanderling Calidris alba Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Western Wood-pewee* Contopus sordidulus

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii

Dunlin Calidris alpina Pacific-slope Flycatcher* Empidonax difficilis

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago Cassin’s Vireo* Vireo cassinii

Wilson's Phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor Hutton's Vireo* Vireo huttoni

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus Western Scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 

Heermann's Gull Larus heermanni American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos

Mew Gull Larus canus Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor

California Gull Larus californicus Violet-green Swallow* Tachycineta thalassina

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri Swallow* 

Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Western Gull Larus occidentalis Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica

Glaucous-winged/Western Larus sp. Black-capped Chickadee* Parus atricapillus

 Hybrid Chestnut-backed Parus rufescens

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Chickadee* 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Bushtit* Psaltriparus minimus 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Red-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta canadensis

Common Murre Uria aalge Brown Creeper* Certhia americana

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Bewick's Wren* Thryomanes bewickii

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus Winter Wren* Troglodytes troglodytes 

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris

Rock Dove Columba livia Golden-crowned Kinglet* Regulus satrapa

Band-tailed Pigeon* Columba fasciata Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Barn Owl* Tyto alba Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus Swainson's Thrush* Catharus ustulatus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma American Robin* Turdus migratorius

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius

Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris

Black Swift Cypseloides niger American Pipit Anthus rubescens
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-15 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds (continued) Masked Shrew Sorex cinerus 

Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis 

Orange-crowned Warbler* Vermivora celata Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis

Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Yellow-rumped Warbler* Dendroica coronata Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Black-throated Gray Dendroica nigrescens Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii

Warbler* Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus

MacGillivray's Warbler* Oporornis tolmiei Mountain Beaver Aplondontia rufa

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas Townsend’s Chipmunk Tamias townsendii 

Wilson's Warbler* Wilsonia pusilla Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Western Tanager* Piranga ludoviciana Douglas’ Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii 

Spotted Towhee* Pipilo maculatus Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea American Beaver Castor canadensis

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Columbian Mouse Peromyscus oreas

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys californicus 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus

Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Townsend’s Vole Microtus townsendii

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

White-crowned Sparrow* Zonotrichia leucophrys Black Rat Rattus rattus

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla House Mouse Mus musculus

Dark-eyed Junco* Junco hyemalis Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Black-headed Grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalus False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Killer Whale Orcinus orca

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus Dall’s Porpoise Phocoena dallii 

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus

Yellow-headed Blackbird* Xanthocephalus Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

xanthocephalus Coyote Canis latrans

Brewer's Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater Northern Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus

Bullock’s Oriole* Icterus bullockii California Sea Lion Zalophus californianus

Purple Finch* Carpodacus purpureus Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina

House Finch* Carpodacus mexicanus Raccoon Procyon lotor

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

Pine Siskin* Carduelis pinus Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis Mink Mustela vison

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis

 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Mammals Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Mountain Lion Felis concolor

Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii Bobcat Lynx rufus

Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans aka “Black-tailed Deer” 

Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Coast Mole Scapanus orarius 

Townsend’s Mole Scapanus townsendii 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-16 March 2005 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Amphibians 

Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Reticulate/Riffle Sculpin Cottus perplexus/gulosus

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus

Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa Buffalo Sculpin Enophrys bison

Western Red-backed Plethodon vehiculum Red Irish Lord Hemilepidotus 

 Salamander hemilepidotus 

Pacific Treefrog Hyla regilla Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus

Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Great Sculpin Myoxocephalus 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana polyacanthocephalus 

 Sailfin Sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus

Fish Tidepool Sculpin Oligocottus maculosus

River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Tadpole Sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus

Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni Soft Sculpin Psychrolutes sigalutes

Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Grunt Sculpin Rhamphocottus richardsoni

Spotted Ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Cabezon Scorpaenichthys 

Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias marmoratus 

American Shad Alosa sapidissima Manacled Sculpin Synchirus gilli

Pacific Herring Clupea harengus Northern Spearnose Agonopsis vulsa

Longnose Dace Rhinichythys cataractae Poacher 

Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Pygmy Poacher Odontopyxis trispinosa

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Tubenose Poacher Pallasina barbata

Surf Smelt Hypomesus pretiosus Sturgeon Poacher Agonus acipenserinus

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki Blacktip Poacher Xeneretmus latifrons

Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Ringtail Snailfish Liparis rutteri

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Steelhead (Rainbow Trout) Oncorhynchus mykiss Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Shiner Perch Cymatogaster aggregata

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Striped Seaperch Embiotoca lateralis

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Pile Perch Rhacochilus vacca

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Slender Cockscomb Anoplarchus insignis

Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus High Cockscomb Anoplarchus purpurescens

Pacific Hake Merluccius productus Pacific Snake Prickleback Lumpenus sagitta

Pacific Tomcod Microgadus proximus Penpoint Gunnel Apodichthys flavidus

Walleye Pollock Theregra chalcogrammus Rockweed Gunnel Apodichthys fucorum

Plainfin Midshipman Porichthys notatus Crescent Gunnel Pholis laeta

Northern Clingfish Gobiesox meandricus Saddleback Gunnel Pholis ornata

Tube-Snout Aulorhynchus flavidus Pacific Sand Lance Ammodytes hexapterus

Three Spine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Arrow Goby Clevelandia ios

Bay Pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus Bay Goby Lepidogobius lepidus

Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Pacific Sanddab Citharichthys sordidus

Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Speckled Sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus

Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger Rex Sole Errex zachirus

Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Calico Sculpin Clinocottus embryum 

Kelp Greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus

Rock Greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper

White-spotted Greenling Hexagrammos stelleri Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides 

Painted Greenling Oxylebius pictus elassodon 

Padded Sculpin Artedius fenestralis Dover Sole Microstomus pacificus

Smoothhead Sculpin Artedius lateralis Starry Flounder Platichythys stellatus 

Silverspotted Sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus Rock Sole Pleuronectes bilineata 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 E-17 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Fish (continued) 

Butter Sole Pleuronectes isolepsis 

English Sole Pleuronectes vetulus 

Roughback Sculpin Chitonotus pugetensis 

Sharpnose Sculpin Clinocottus acuticeps 

Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus 

C-O Sole Pleuronichthys coenosus 

Sand Sole Psettichthys melanostictus 

White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus 

 

Insects 

Common Name Family Name 

Shield Bugs Acanthosomatidae Scavenger Beetles Lathridiidae 

Treehoppers Aetalionidae Seed Bugs Lygaeidae 

Mining Bees Andrenidae Plant Bugs Miridae 

Deathwatch Beetles Anobiidae House Flies Muscidae 

Anthomyiid Flies Anthomyiidae Fungus Gnats Mycetophilidae 

Aphids Aphididae Pine Flower Snout Beetles Nemonychidae 

Bees Apidae Onychiurid Springtails. Onychiuridae 

Weevils Apionidae Stink Bugs Pentatomidae 

Stilt Bugs Berytidae Humpbacked Flies Phoridae 

March Flies Bibionidae Large Caddis Flies Phryganeidae 

Braconid Wasps Braconidae Parasitic Wasps Proctotrupidae 

Moss Beetles Byrrhidae Barklice Psocoptera* 

Soldier Beetles Cantharidae Psyllids Psyllidae 

Ground Beetles Carabidae Scentless Plant Bugs Rhopalidae 

Spittlebugs Cercopidae Dung Flies Scatophagidae 

Leaf Beetles Chrysomelidae Dark-winged Fungus Gnats Sciaridae 

Green Lacewings Chrysopidae Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Scolytidae 

Leafhoppers Cicadellidae Carrion Beetles Silphidae 

Tiger Beetles Cicindellidae Globular Springtails Sminthuridae 

Ladybug Beetles Coccinellidae Rove Beetles Staphylinidae 

Narrow-winged Damselflies Coenagrionidae Hover Flies Syrphidae 

Snout Beetles and Weevils Curculionidae Tachinid Flies Tachinidae 

Click Beetles Elateridae Darkling Beetles Tenebrionidae 

Balloon Flies Empididae Sawflies Tenthredinidae 

Entomobryid Springtails Entomobryidae Pygmy Grasshoppers Tetrigidae 

Ants Formicidae Lace Bugs Tingidae 

Earwigs Forficulidae Crane Flies Tipulidae 

Metallic Bees Halictidae Xylophagid Flies Xylophagidae 

Heleomyzid Flies Heleomyzidae 

Hypogastrurid Springtails Hypogastruridae 

Ichneumons (Parasitic Wasps) Ichneumonidae 

Isotomid Springtails Isotomidae 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

E-18 March 2005 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

Plan Implementation 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 

 

Note: Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 5 of 

this CCP. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G 

Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Actions 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.1 

Recreational Boating 










Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.2 

Recreational Fishing 








Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.3 

Waterfowl Hunting 










Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.4 

Environmental Education 






Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.5 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 








Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.6 

Research 







Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G.7 

Agriculture - Haying 






Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H 

List of Preparers 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I 

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 

 

Note: Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 4 

of this CCP. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J 

Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page J-1 

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling 

Summary 

Introduction 

A hydrodynamic and sediment transport model and technical report were developed to evaluate 

tidal restoration alternatives at Nisqually NWR (ENSR 1999). This computer model was used to 

simulate water, sediment, and salinity characteristics under various restoration scenarios using a 

mean tide and mean annual river flow condition, and under 1996 river flood conditions. This 

modeling effort was useful in evaluating critical physical components involved in restoration, 

including water flow, timing, velocity, bed shear, salinity, sedimentation, and extent of tidal 

inundation. The model was also used to assess extreme flood conditions and alternative dike 

configurations. 

Methods 

The study area included the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, I-5, and Puget Sound/Nisqually 

Reach as limits on each side. Existing data were used as much as possible on river and delta 

geometry, bathymetry, currents, salinity, and sediment characteristics. In addition, new data 

were gathered in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek to fill information gaps, including 

river bathymetry, velocity time-series, salinity profiles, water surface elevations, suspended 

sediment concentration, and creek and pond bathymetry inside the diked area. The models used 

were RMA-10 for hydrodynamics and RMA-11 for sediment and salinity transport. These 

models can account for the effects of temperature, salinity, and suspended sediment on flow in 

rivers, estuaries, lakes, and reservoirs. The models were calibrated and verified using data 

collected during spring 1998 from the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. 

Eight alternatives were examined (with a variation in breach width on one alternative), ranging 

from Alternative 1, no changes in existing dike configuration (status quo), to Alternative 8, with 

maximum tidal restoration (approximately 80% of the diked area). Each alternative assumed the 

dikes were reduced down to grade in estuarine restoration areas, and the adjacent borrow ditch 

was filled, except for two alternatives that included breaching and bridging dikes in specific 

locations and retaining the dike system, with the borrow ditch left unfilled. Breaches in 

Alternative 3 had widths of 45 to 55 feet, creating restricted tidal flow. Breach widths were also 

modified in Alternatives 3 and 4 with breach widths sized to be slightly wider than the size of the 

existing tidal sloughs, so as to try ensure that high tidal volumes could enter and exit the 

restoration site. This made breaches very wide, from approximately 240 to 325 feet. These 

modifications were referred to as Alternatives 3W and 4b. Alternative 6, the 70% tidal 

restoration alternative, included a low berm to create a riparian restoration zone along the 

Nisqually River. All alternatives were designed to protect Nisqually NWR headquarters 

facilities within dikes. 

Modeling Results and Discussion 

The model provides important information that is useful in assessing some of the key 

components of estuarine restoration projects. Successful estuarine restoration typically depends 

on recreating a fully functional tidal system, where the tidal prism or volume is sufficient for full 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page J-2 March 2005 

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 will 

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 depends on the ability of sediments to reach the restored site, to 

accumulate soils and build the elevations necessary to grow salt marsh vegetation. Areas 

requiring tidal restoration are often subsided, and sedimentation is a critical component of 

successful restoration. Another important factor in successful estuarine restoration includes 

minimizing areas of high water velocity or bed shear to avoid creating highly erosive features. 

High bed shear could result in erosion of salt marsh, dikes, or breaches that would present 

potential failure sites or constant maintenance needs. 

Dike Configuration and Water Movement: In alternatives where the dikes were removed to 

grade and the borrow ditch filled, full tidal penetration occurred with each of the alternatives. In 

Alternative 3, when dikes were breached with narrow openings along McAllister Creek, the peak 

water surface elevation in the restored area decreased by approximately 1.7 feet, and the peak 

was delayed by 40 minutes from what would be expected with unrestricted tidal conditions. 

Even wide breaches (Alternatives 3W and 4b) produced a slight delay due to the distance from 

the mouth of McAllister Creek. For Alternative 4b, the 50% restoration alternative in which the 

dikes were retained and very wide breaches added, the peak water surface elevation and timing 

of the tide phase were not significantly decreased. However, the wide breaches apparently 

reduced outflow during the receding tide, so stored water could not completely drain, leaving 

ponding within the restored area and in the unfilled borrow ditches. Leaving the borrow ditches 

unfilled (Alternatives 3, 3W, and 4b) also showed that tidal waters were partially diverted into 

the borrow ditches on incoming tides, affecting tidal circulation in sloughs. 

Flooding: During extreme flood conditions, the Nisqually River overtops its banks upstream of 

the Refuge, on the south side of the I-5 bridge. The water inundates the floodplain and flows 

into the diked area, with approximately 70% of flood waters entering the southeast corner of the 

Refuge through a channel and opening under I-5 and about 30% entering through an overflow 

channel adjacent to McAllister Creek. All alternatives showed flooding in the diked area under 

1996 flood conditions. The alternatives that restored 70% and 80% of the diked area and 

eliminated cross dikes along the McAllister Creek side of the Refuge reduced flood impacts to 

the Refuge. These alternatives allowed flood waters from the McAllister Creek overflow 

channel to empty unimpeded into the McAllister Creek tidal system, instead of emptying inside 

of diked habitat. However, diked areas in all alternatives were still flooded by flows from the 

overflow channel at the southeast corner of the Refuge. 

Water Velocities and Bed Shear: Water velocities in tidal channels outside the dike under 

current conditions (status quo) were lower than restored alternatives where dikes were removed. 

This illustrates one of the effects of diking, where tidal channels outside the dike have a reduced 

tidal prism or volume because of the loss of tidal area. Alternatives that created new crossdikes 

that blocked tidal channels created this same backwater effect, producing a reduced volume or 

flow in tidal channels than would occur in a system without dikes. Alternatives with no 

crossdikes along McAllister Creek (70% and 80% alternatives) alleviated this effect, producing 

fuller tidal flow in the sloughs and channels along McAllister Creek. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page J-3 

Water velocities and bed shear, another measure of potential erosion, were much higher in fixed 

breaches, as compared to unrestricted tidal channels where dikes were removed. This illustrates 

the difficulty in protecting fixed breaches from eroding or widening, especially during flood 

conditions. In addition, velocities in the Nisqually River were confirmed to be much higher at 

large bends in the river, particularly during flood conditions, illustrating the highly erosive 

conditions that lead to dike failures, when these high velocities are forced to stay within 

constricted channels. 

Salinity: Salinity patterns were only modeled for two tidal cycles. Longer simulations may 

show greater salinity penetration. Alternatives where dikes were breached and retained showed 

less salinity penetration in the restored area. Less salinity penetration was also observed in 

McAllister Creek in a 50% alternative, due to the dike constriction along McAllister Creek, 

which reduced tidal flow up McAllister. 

Sedimentation: Sediment loads are small in the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and the 

Nisqually Reach during near annual flow conditions. Maximizing sediment deposition in 

restored areas is important to enhance success in a sediment-poor system like the Nisqually delta. 

The major source of sediments comes down the Nisqually River during flood events, when large 

amounts of sediment are carried in flood waters. An extended simulation period may be needed 

to evaluate more long-term deposition patterns; however, deposition during the 1996 flood event 

provides an example of potential sedimentation patterns. Dike configuration affected sediment 

deposition patterns. In general, alternatives where more dike was removed along the Nisqually 

River showed more sediment deposition along the river and in restored areas. Alternative 3, 

which had narrow dike breaches, showed little sediment deposition. 

Conclusions

The model was very useful in evaluating various estuarine restoration scenarios, using a variety 

of dike configurations. Full tidal penetration occurred when dikes were removed to grade and 

the borrow ditch filled. Narrow breaches restricted tidal flow, reducing water surface elevations 

on incoming tides and delaying tidal flows. Breaches greater than the width of channel openings 

also allowed full tidal penetration, but stored water did not completely drain in receding tides, 

resulting in ponding in marshes and borrow ditches. Borrow ditches partially diverted incoming 

tidal flows when left unfilled, affecting circulation in restored tidal channels. Restoration 

scenarios retaining dikes with breaches also reduced sedimentation and altered salinity patterns. 

Water velocities and bed shear in channels moving through dike breaches indicated that fixed 

breaches may be difficult to protect from erosion. 

Flooding upstream of I-5 is not expected to be adversely impacted by habitat restoration. 

Alternatives resulting in 70% and 80% estuarine restoration reduced flooding in the diked area, 

by allowing the McAllister overflow channel to empty directly into McAllister Creek. Salinity 

tended toward marine conditions, but some brackish areas may occur near the margins of marine 

water penetration. The Nisqually River is a sediment-poor system, due to dams upstream on the 

Nisqually River which trap much of the sediments. However, during flood events, the Nisqually 

River provides a major source of sediment. Dike configurations with more dike removed along 

the River allowed a greater amount of sediment to deposit in the restored area. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page J-4 March 2005 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K 

Land Protection Plan 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

LAND PROTECTION PLAN

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

Prepared By: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

100 Brown Farm Road 

Olympia, Washington 98516 

May 2002 

 

 

APPENDIX K 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... K-i 

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

1.2 Project Description............................................................................................................... K-1 

1.3 Threat to or Status of the Resource...................................................................................... K-3 

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Expansion..................................................................................... K-3 

1.5 Land Protection Alternatives ............................................................................................... K-5 

1.5.1 Willing Seller Policy............................................................................................. K-5 

1.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods .................................................................................. K-6 

1.6 Land Protection Priorities ..................................................................................................... K-6 

1.7 Coordination ......................................................................................................................... K-7 

1.8 Social and Cultural Impacts................................................................................................. K-7 

TABLES

Table 1 - Land Protection Priorities for the Expansion Area...................................................... K-9 

Table 2 - Land Protection Priorities for Lands Within the Approved Refuge Boundary......... K-13 

MAPS

Figure 1- Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Tract Map Index.............................................. K-14 

Figure 2 - Area 1 Tract Map ..................................................................................................... K-15 

Figure 3 - Area 2 Tract Map ..................................................................................................... K-16 

Figure 4 - Area 3 Tract Map ..................................................................................................... K-17 

Figure 5 - Area 4 Tract Map ..................................................................................................... K-18 

Figure 6 - Area 5 Tract Map ..................................................................................................... K-19 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-ii March 2005 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-1 

 

Land Protection Plan

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

May 2002

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Land Protection Plan identifying 

the habitat protection methods that could take place for lands within Alternative D (Preferred 

Alternative) described in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and for lands within the approved boundary of the Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge (Refuge). This plan also includes a priority listing of lands to be considered for 

acquisition within the proposed boundary and within the approved boundary. 

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Nisqually Refuge is located in Thurston and Pierce counties along southern Puget Sound (EIS, 

Figure 1.1-1). The Refuge was established in 1974 to protect the existing estuary from 

development. The approved Refuge boundary is approximately 3,936 acres. The acquisition 

program is ongoing and the Service has acquired approximately 2,925 acres in fee title, 

conservation easements, and leases to date within the approved refuge boundary. Non-refuge 

lands within the approved boundary total approximately 1,011 acres. 

The proposed expansion would add approximately 3,479 acres for a total authorized boundary of 

7,415 acres. The expansion would include 512 acres of upland habitat and 2,963 acres of 

floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. The boundary would increase habitat protection on the 

East Bluff north of I-5 to include a forested corridor. It would also extend the boundary south of 

I-5 to include floodplain, bluff, wetland, and upland forested habitats along the Nisqually River 

and McAllister Creek. 

McAllister Creek Area: McAllister Creek originates from springs and seeps located 

approximately 3 miles south of Interstate 5 (I-5). It flows northerly along the base of forested 

bluffs, passing through the Refuge and emptying into Puget Sound. Medicine Creek originates 

near the Nisqually River and meanders west through developments and agricultural lands until it 

meets McAllister Creek. 

Early in the century, the area surrounding the southern portions of McAllister Creek was likely 

covered with riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands until the majority of it was 

harvested, diked, and drained for use as cropland and pasture. Today, much of the McAllister 

Creek watershed south of I-5 continues to be maintained as pasture and cropland with dikes. The 

area contains freshwater wetlands in the form of potholes and upland depressions. Wetland 

vegetation includes sedge stands, cattails, bulrushes, willows, salmonberry, and skunk cabbage. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-2 March 2005 

The headwater springs of McAllister Creek are surrounded by upland forest habitat consisting 

primarily of second growth Douglas-fir. The agricultural lands would provide grassland habitat 

and restoration opportunities for riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands. 

The agricultural lands south of I-5 are currently used by migratory waterfowl for foraging and 

resting during localized flooding events in the fall and winter period. Common waterfowl 

species include American wigeon, mallards, pintails, green-winged teal, and Canada geese. 

As the high tides cover the estuary, shorebirds are pushed inland and can be found using the 

agricultural lands along McAllister Creek. Typical shorebird species found include dunlin, 

dowitchers, western and least sandpipers, common snipe, and yellowlegs. 

The creek historically contained seven species of salmon and trout, specifically chinook, coho, 

chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat and bull trout, and steelhead. Remnant runs of chinook, coho, 

and chum salmon, bull trout, and steelhead continue to return. 

East Bluffs: The bluffs located along the eastern edge of the study area are covered with upland 

forest dominated by conifers. Douglas-fir is predominant, mixed with bigleaf maple, western 

hemlock, and red alder. The area drains directly into that portion of the Nisqually River located 

within the Refuge. The forest habitat located in the east bluff area provides habitat for 

passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors. A bald eagle nest has been reported on the bluff. The area 

also serves as a migration corridor for mammal species moving from one habitat to another. 

Nisqually Valley and River Corridor: The Nisqually Valley and River corridor consists of 

agricultural lands, freshwater wetlands, and the riparian corridor contained within upland bluffs 

on the east rising from the river valley. The riparian corridor contains relatively undisturbed 

floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands. Black cottonwood, red alder, 

bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar are the dominant tree species found in the 

riparian corridor. The statewide significance of this area is documented in a proposal completed 

by The Nature Conservancy in December of 1993 which proposed the establishment of a 

Research Natural Area along a portion of the Nisqually River. The forested bluffs in the 

Nisqually River portion of the area include species such as red alder and bigleaf maple, with 

scattered coniferous species including Douglas-fir and western red cedar and is located on the 

east side of the Nisqually River. 

The large and relatively undisturbed floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands 

along the corridor provide an exceptionally productive ecosystem. Examples of species that use 

these types of habitats are the Pacific giant salamander, red-legged frog, tailed frog, great blue 

heron, harlequin duck, wood duck, belted kingfisher, American dipper, water vole, beaver, and 

river otter. The threatened marbled murrelet has been seen along the corridor and other 

inhabitants include passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors. 

Ten species of salmonids occur in the Nisqually River system. Chum, coho, and chinook salmon 

and steelhead all have distinct and healthy stocks in the river, although these runs are decreasing. 

The Nisqually River chinook is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Historical populations of bull trout, currently listed as threatened in Puget Sound, may exist in 

the Nisqually River.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-3 

1.3 THREAT TO OR STATUS OF THE RESOURCE

The South Puget Sound area is experiencing rapid growth in residential, resort, and recreational 

development. Many of these developments threaten the integrity of coastal ecosystems that 

support existing fish and wildlife populations. 

The agricultural land in the McAllister Creek drainage falls within Thurston County, 

Washington. Thurston County recently purchased development rights on an estimated 840 acres 

from several of the landowners in an attempt to preserve the agricultural emphasis of the area 

and to prevent development of high density residential housing. The restricted development 

rights do allow for the conversion of agricultural lands into plant nurseries which are becoming 

popular in Washington. Currently, the agricultural lands contain some habitat values for 

migratory birds and small mammals. Conversion of these lands into nurseries occupied with 

greenhouses would essentially eliminate habitat values. 

Some of the area along the Nisqually River falls within the Fort Lewis Military Reservation and 

is an excellent example of native bottomland riparian forest habitat. Unregulated use by the 

public has resulted in the creation of dirt roads along some of the river corridor. This 

unregulated use is causing habitat degradation and threatens the integrity of the native habitat. A 

limited amount of military training occurs in a portion of the proposed Research Natural Area. 

Thurston County, located west of the Nisqually River, requires a 200-foot setback from the 

bluffs because of a concern for unstable soil conditions along the bluffs. Pierce County, located 

east of the Nisqually River, allows for construction along the top of the bluff with no required 

setback. Weyerhaeuser Company currently has plans to develop approximately 400 acres along 

the top of the bluffs, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. There is a concern that 

developments adjacent to the top of the bluffs would cause increased siltation with 

corresponding degradation of water quality in the Nisqually Delta, fragment habitat, and 

compromise the visual landscape of the bluffs from the Refuge and other parts of the delta. 

 

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION

When Nisqually Refuge was established in 1974, the original boundary was designed to protect 

the Delta from specific threats of development. During the ensuing 25 years, increased 

development has resulted in habitat loss and degradation throughout the Puget Sound area, 

including the lower Nisqually watershed, contributing to declines of many fish and wildlife 

species. Refuge expansion would help alleviate the effects of increased habitat degradation, loss, 

and development pressures in adjacent parts of the lower watershed. Expanding the approved 

Refuge boundary would allow the Service to negotiate with willing participants within the new 

approved boundary to acquire lands or interests in land and water. Lands, or interests in lands 

acquired by the Service, would be managed as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(System). The System is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife 

habitat. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public 

lands managed for multiple uses. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-4 March 2005 

The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals: 

1) preserve, restore, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or 

threatened with becoming endangered, 2) perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and 

marine mammal populations, 3) preserve a natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants, 4) 

preserve and restore representative ecosystems of the United States, including the natural 

processes characteristic of those ecosystems, and 5) foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, highquality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. Such uses includes hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

The Nisqually Refuge falls 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 and 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, can 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 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 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. 

The expansion of the Nisqually Refuge would help achieve Ecoregion goals and objectives by 

1) protecting and restoring habitat for declining populations of anadromous fish, including the 

federally listed chinook salmon and the federally listed bull trout, 2) enhancing and contributing 

to existing habitat protection efforts by the Nisqually Tribe, Fort Lewis Military Reservation, 

Thurston and Pierce counties, Nisqually River Council, Nisqually River Basin Land Trust, and 

local conservation organizations, 3) providing a diversity of native habitats that will maintain and 

enhance healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species native to the Nisqually River 

delta, and 4) providing additional quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

Refuge expansion would contribute to achieving Refuge goals including 1) to conserve, manage, 

restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of 

the Puget Sound lowlands with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon, 2) support 

recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species of 

concern, and their habitats, 3) provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on 

fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed, and 4) provide quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public 

appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of 

the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-5

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. 

1.5 LAND PROTECTION METHODS 

1.5.1 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 percent 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. 

1.5.2 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 with Fort Lewis could 

involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Techniques to provide improved 

protection of USA Trust lands would be restricted to cooperative agreements. 

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 applied to land under any type of 

ownership. 

Conservation Easements. Conservation easements transfer some, but not all property rights to 

the Service as specified by mutual agreement. 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 responsibility for paying property taxes. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-6 March 2005 

The Service could negotiate conservation easements on land under any type of ownership. 

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. 

1.6 LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES 

Tables 1 and 2 list the lands within the preferred expansion boundary and within the approved 

Refuge boundary, respectively, by tract number, inset map, total acres, priority and possible 

method(s) for resource protection (ownership information is from the Pierce and Thurston 

County Assessor Offices and subject to change). Priorities (1, 2, 3, or 4) are assigned to each 

tract, 1 means high, 2 means moderate, 3 means low, and 4 means no longer of interest at this 

time. 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 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. 

1.7 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 

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 (EIS, 

Chapter 6). 

1.8 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 

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 will also enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the 

opportunity to observe active habitat restoration/management activities. In addition, enhanced 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-7

waterfowl and fish habitats may encourage more waterfowl and fish to use the delta, improving 

waterfowl hunting and fishing opportunities (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.6.4.1). 

The Refuge environmental education program would be expanded to accommodate up to 15,000 

students per year. The trail length would be shortened from the current 51⁄2- mile loop trail to a 

31⁄2- mile round trip (non-loop) trail but of improved quality with diversified viewing 

opportunities. A new eastside trail would also be constructed. A trail would be established on 

the East Bluff if appropriate lands were acquired. Approximately 191 acres of the Refuge would 

be open to a quality waterfowl hunting program. Walk-in hunting opportunities would be 

considered south of I-5 if sufficient lands were acquired to allow for adequate wildlife sanctuary 

and minimal conflicts with other priority public uses. Bank fishing opportunities would be 

investigated along McAllister Creek south of I-5, if appropriate sites were acquired. This would 

provide new bank fishing access to help compensate for the loss of McAllister Creek bank 

fishing north of I-5 as a result of estuarine restoration, although the scheduled closure of the 

McAllister Creek Hatchery (July 2002) would reduce fishing opportunity, thereby lessening the 

effects of this loss. New fishing access at Luhr Beach and Nisqually River would be provided. 

Overall, the fishing opportunity at Nisqually Refuge is not expected to decrease (EIS, Chapter 4, 

section 4.6.4.3). 

The Nisqually Indian Tribe would continue to hunt, fish, and gather. There are no anticipated 

adverse health or environmental effects to the Nisqually Indian Tribe from refuge expansion 

(EIS, Chapter 4. section 4.8.1). 

Recreation economic expansion is expected to be proportionate to increased recreation and 

public access resulting from Refuge expansion. Increased revenue for the Refuge and region 

would depend on what lands were acquired. The effects of new facilities, new trails, improved 

habitat, and more student visits would be expected to contribute to an increasing trend in 

visitation, producing increased economic benefits (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.4.4). 

Approximately 1,100 acres of agricultural land in Thurston County and 190 acres in Pierce 

County could be acquired for conservation uses. Within Thurston County, approximately 840 

acres are within the existing Purchase of Development Rights program. Expansion of the 

Refuge could result in the reduction of grazing opportunities and the conversion of some 

agricultural lands to wetlands and riparian habitats, but the impact to the overall agricultural 

economies of these counties would be minor. 

The salary and operating costs for the Refuge with a fully implemented Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan would be approximately $1.8 million dollars, $1.2 million above current 

expenditure, which would be directed towards the Refuge payroll and operational costs and 

contribute directly to the regional economy. There would be an indirect support of 

approximately 55 jobs in the regional economy (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.3.4). In the context 

of the robust economies of Thurston and Pierce counties, these increases would be minor. 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-8 March 2005 

 Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area 

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 

1,a,b USA-ARMY 3,4,5 3 1083.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

2f,g WASH STATE-DEPT OF GAME 2,6 3 3.72 Coop Agree, Fee 

2h WASH-FISHERIES DEPT 4 3 8.09 Coop Agree 

2i WASH STATE-FISH HATCHERY 5 3 8.09 Coop Agree 

3 THURSTON, COUNTY OF 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

3a THURSTON, COUNTY OF 4 3 6.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

4 LACEY, CITY OF 4 3 0.18 Coop Agree 

5 OLYMPIA, CITY OF 5 3 176.33 Coop Agree 

6 FIRE DISTRICT #3 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

12c,d WEYERHAEUSER 2 1 175.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

19c,d,g,h NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 2,5 3 419.72 Easement 

51 HOLLISON, ROBERT AND KATHLEEN 2 1 18.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

52 BENNAR, RAY AND GLENDA 2 2 1.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

53 LEIGH, JOANN 2 2 1.15 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

54 MEGEE, KATHLEEN 2 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

55 MCBRIDE, ALBERT E. JR 2 2 12.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

56 NISQUALLY RIVER LAND TRUST 2 1 12.99 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

57 Unknown 2 1 unk Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

58,a BRIDGES, TERESA M 3 2 99.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

59 WALKER, LESTER B 3 3 0.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

60 SCOTT, CINDY 3 3 0.88 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

61 ALVESTAD, CAREY D ETAL 3 3 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

62 GOTTFRIEDSON, HENRY F/ALISON K 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

63 MATHEWS, MAUREEN H 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

64 DERICKSON, DOUGLAS 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

65 TAYLOR, GARY/JANET 3 3 0.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

66 FRANK, WILLIE 3 3 6.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

67 BLACK, JEFFREY S/CONNIE M 3 3 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

68 CLEMENT, KENDALL S & MARIBETH 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

69 BRUDER, TERESA/RUSS 3 3 1.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

70 ROESSNER, DEBRA D 3 3 0.92 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

71 LOVIK, DENA L 3 3 0.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

72 BOHREN, PATTI 3 3 1.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

73 COLE, CLARA M 3 2 3.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

74 MILLER, RHETT 3 2 0.83 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

75 CAMPBELL, LOIS M 3 2 3.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

76 MC GILLIS, JOHN W 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

77 LOSEY, DAVID L/SHARON 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

78 GRASSI, NELLO L 3 2 4.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

79 TATE, JOHN & JUANITA D 3 2 13.79 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

80 LYON, MICHAEL/JUDY 3 3 0.49 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

81 BREDESEN, CHRISTOPHER L. 3 2 11.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

82 DOERING, AARON M/AMY L 3 2 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

83 PIETRZAK, PAUL R 3 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

84,a SAYONC, BETTY L 3 2 11.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-9 

 Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area 

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 

85 LEAMAN, H DENNIS 3 2 2.11 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

86 COOTS, DEAN E 3 2 2.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

87 SNELL, LLOYD E & ROSE M 3 1 5.56 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

88 NYE, TIMOTHY S JR 3 1 1.01 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

89 SCHMAUDER, ALLEN 3 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

90 COLLINS, JAMES R/JODI K 3 1 0.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

91 ATTWOOD, SALLY J 3 1 1.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

92 ATTWOOD, LARRY E 3 1 1.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

93 KRISHNAMOORTI, SIGNA R 3 1 7.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

94 WARREN, DOROTHY G 3 2 7.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

95 SCOTT, CHAE AN 3 2 7.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

96 HONG, CHANLIP MAN 3 2 10.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

97 SAYONC, HELEN F 3 2 3.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

98 HILL, DOROTHY R 3 2 2.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

99 CHOJNOWSKI, DANIEL/PATRICIA 3 2 1.71 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

100 BROWN, JAMES C 3 2 7.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

101 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E 3 2 12.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

102 MC QUEEN, BRUCE & PATRICIA 3 3 0.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

103,a DAVIS, SCOTT A 3,4 3 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

104 DAVIS, KARIN K 3 3 2.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

105 GLASTETTER, HOWARD/COLLEEN 3 3 1.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

106 ALLEN, DONNA L 3 3 0.21 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

107 FLYNN, MARGARET E 3 3 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

108 BELT ENT INC 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

109 BREWER, LARRY 3 3 0.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

110 CHURILLA, ROBERT J/GLENDA F 3 3 0.31 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

111 BALCOM, MABEL I 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

112 GEORGE, HAROLD F 3 3 1.62 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

113 WICK, ROLF F 3 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

114 SHERMAN, JACK E/CARRIE L 3 3 0.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

115 CLINTON, JON P 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

116 SHEAK, MARGARET 3 3 0.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

117 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E ETUX 3 3 0.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

118 RODRIGUES, DENNIS/IRENE 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

119 CHRISTOFFER, JEROLD F ETUX 4 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

120 GOHEEN, BRYAN C/SYLVIA 4 3 0.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

121 BODEN, DAVID W 4 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

122 YOUNG, RICKEY M/GISELA 4 3 0.45 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

123 CHAMBERLAIN, JESSIE M ET AL 4 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

124 DEAN, MARY LOUISE 4 3 0.30 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

125 LIPSCOMB, C JEAN 4 3 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

126 COOPER, RUBY M 4 3 0.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

127 WATSON, ELIZABETH 4 3 1.20 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

128 SMITH, JOANN M 4 3 0.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

129 LEGWOLD, ROCKY L 4 1 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-10 March 2005 

 Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area 

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 

130 ANDERSON, KENNETH A 4 3 0.37 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

131 ANDERSON, LEE D ETAL 4 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

132 SCHRUM, JOSEPH A/DEVON L 4 3 0.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

133 WATTS, KELLY L/SUSAN A 4 3 0.32 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

134 MELBY, WARD R ETAL 4 1 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

135 PHILLIPS, DOUGLAS S 4 1 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

136 STENKLYFT, JAMES A 4 1 0.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

137 NISQUALLY SPORTSMEN CLUB 3,5 1 68.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

138 ANDERSON, LAURIE 5 1 15.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

139 EBERLING, MARSHALL E 5 2 0.97 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

140 LONERGAN, GEORGE A 5 1 5.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

141 WESTBERG, RAY 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

142 CORP OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 5 1 38.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

143 BLENCOE, LUCILLE M 5 1 37.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

144,a REESE, GARY FULLER 3,5 1 89.04 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

145 BABARE, GEORGE M 5 1 107.48 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

146 WASH DIV INV CORP 3,4 1 0.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

149,a STOKER, GERRIT 3 1 74.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

150 NISQUALLY PLAZA RV PARK 3 3 1.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

151,a,b ELWESS, GENE/ANNIE 3 3 5.96 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

152 SINGH, BAJINDER ETAL 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

153,a JACOBS, JAMES A 3 3 1.09 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

154 THREATT, LORENA E 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

155 ALL MARINE INC 3 3 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

156 BRESSI, PAUL M 3 3 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

157 SCHILTER, JEFF AND STEPHANIE 3 2 5.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

158,a,b SCHILTER, GOTTFRIED J 3 1 73.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

159 INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY 3 1 9.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

160 HAIDUCEK, TIMOTHY J/JOY E 3 2 2.75 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

161 Unknown 3 2 0.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

162 Unknown 3 2 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

163 GABLE, ADRIAN L 3 2 0.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

164 WESTLIN, BERTHA L ESTATE 3 2 1.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

165,a-d THOMSEN JESS INC 3,5 1 740.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

166 TORDEN, THOMSEN, INC 3,5 1 68.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

167 ROLLER, JON/GAIL 5 1 6.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

168 HILL, JAMES J 3,5 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

169 HILL, PAUL 3,5 1 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

170,a,b SCHOLS, HERMAN 3,5 1 124.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

171 BROUGH, ROGER D 5 2 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

172 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 1 1.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

173 LONCAR, PAUL 5 1 5.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

174 VO, TRI M/TRINH, DUNG K 5 1 43.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

175,a NIELSEN PACIFIC LTD 5 2 290.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

176 WARD, HUGO F 5 1 40.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 K-11 

 Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area 

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 

177 MYERS, JAMES H 5 1 40.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

178 PIGMAN, DEAN A 5 1 9.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

179 WILLETTE, JON F/GUILA K 5 1 7.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

180 LOFTIN, FRED E 5 3 4.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

181 LOFTIN, CLAIRE 5 2 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

182,a SMIT, JULIE L 5 3 3.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

183,a BARATZ, JULIUS/LOIS TSTEES 5 3 6.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

184 BERG, JERI L 5 2 97.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

185 GATZKA, JOSEPH A. 5 2 0.73 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

186,a,b MCALLISTER CREEK ASSN 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

187 SUTTON, ROBERT JR./CRISTAN 5 2 0.90 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

188 SELDOMRIDGE, CHARLES B. 5 2 1.17 ++ Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

189 OSTREICH, TROY D. 5 2 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

190 DONALLY, ELFRIEDE H. 5 2 0.77 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

191 MATTESON, JON MICHAEL 5 2 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

192 EVANS, WILLIAM/KATHLEEN 5 2 0.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

193,a BRAGET TRUSTEE, AGNES 5 2 1.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

194 BOEHM, FREDERICK/MICHELLE 5 2 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

195 ZEUTENHORST, PHILLIP 5 2 0.44 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

196 CIRRITO, CAROLYN B. 5 2 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

197 PITTMON, JOANN/DOUGLAS 5 2 0.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

198 MACY, MARSHALL/DEBORAH 5 2 0.82 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

199 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

200 SCHOLS, MARIANN J. 5 2 0.60 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 

 Table 2. Land Protection Priorities for Inholdings 

TRACT 

# OWNER NAME 

Figure 

# PRIORITY ACRES

 PROTECTION 

METHODS 

19,a,b NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 6 1 330 Coop Agree 

2, a-c WASH-GAME DEPT 6 1 625 Coop Agree 

13 CROUSE, CARL N/GLORIA 6 1 1 

Fee, Coop Agree, 

Easement 

16b,c BABARE, ROBERT 6 1 34 

Fee, Coop Agree, 

Easement 

17 MOE, GREGORY 6 1 1 

Fee, Coop Agree, 

Easement 

22 EAGLE CLIFFS SUBDIVISION 6 4 30 

25 BORLEY, CLARENCE 6 1 3 

Fee, Coop Agree, 

Easement 

27 MARTIN, JAMES A/MARY D 6 1 4 

Fee, Coop Agree, 

Easement 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

K-12 March 2005 






Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix L 

Wilderness Review 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 Page L-1 

Appendix L: Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine whether or not to 

recommend lands or waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for designation 

as wilderness. The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of 

the CCP process. Land or waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in 

a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for inclusion in 

the Wilderness System. 

According to Section 13 of the Service’s Director’s Order No. 125 (12 July 2000), in order for a 

refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all or part of the refuge must: 

• Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint substantially 

unnoticeable; 

• Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

• Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres (2000 ha) or be sufficient in size to make practical its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to wilderness 

character through appropriate management, at the time of review; and 

• Be a roadless island. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is not recommended for inclusion in the 

Wilderness System because it does not meet the above criteria. The Refuge comprises only 

3,936 acres; has considerable evidence of past human use; does not have outstanding 

opportunities for solitude; and is not roadless. 

 
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Page L-2 March 2005 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix M 

Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses 

 

[For a copy of this appendix, see the Final CCP/EIS document] 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

March 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix N 

Record of Decision (ROD) 

 












Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

100 Brown Farm Road

Olympia, Washington 98516

360/753-9467

Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

March 2005

The mission of the U.S. Fish and

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.