Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

Type of Action: Administrative

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

Responsible Official: Anne Badgley, Regional Director

For Further Information: Jean Takekawa, Refuge Manager

Nisqually NWR Complex

100 Brown Farm Road

Olympia, WA 98516

(360) 753-9467

Abstract: Four alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are described,

compared, and assessed for Nisqually NWR. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as required by

the National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Selection of this alternative would mean that a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would not be finalized and implemented for the Refuge. This

would result in continued management of the Refuge as it has been over the past several years, and the

existing 1978 Nisqually NWR Conceptual Plan would not be updated. The four alternatives are

summarized below:

Alternative A—No Action: Status Quo – This alternative assumes no change from past management

programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other alternatives. There would be no

changes to the Refuge boundary and no major changes in habitat management or public use programs.

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine Restoration – This

alternative would provide for moderate expansion of the Refuge boundary (2,407-acre addition). It places

new management emphasis on the restoration of estuarine habitat and improved freshwater wetland

management. The current environmental education program would be improved and expanded, to the

largest degree of all action alternatives. There would be fewer changes to the trail system than in other

action alternatives, and the Refuge would remain closed to waterfowl hunting, with the closure posted and

enforced.

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Moderate Estuarine Restoration – This

alternative would provide for the same expansion of the Refuge boundary as in Alternative B (2,407-acre

addition). However, it places a stronger emphasis on the restoration of estuarine habitat, while improving

freshwater wetland and riparian habitats. The environmental education program would be improved and

expanded, although serving fewer students than Alternative B. Moderate changes would occur to the trail

system. The largest portion of Refuge acreage would be opened to waterfowl hunting of any alternative. 

Lands would be consolidated with State lands and waterfowl hunting limited to 3 days per week, if an

agreement can be reached with WDFW. 

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative: Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres and Maximum Estuarine

Restoration – This alternative would provide for the largest amount of Refuge boundary expansion (3,479-

acre addition). It would also maximize estuarine restoration, while improving freshwater wetland and

riparian habitats on the Refuge. The environmental education program would be improved and expanded,

although not to the highest expansion described in Alternative B. The greatest changes would occur to the

trail system of any alternative. A smaller portion of Refuge lands would be opened to waterfowl hunting, 7

days per week, with no changes to hunting on WDFW lands. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Reader’s Guide

Reader’s Guide

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in

accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides longrange guidance on Refuge expansion and management through its vision, goals, objectives, and

strategies. The CCP also provides a basis for a long-term adaptive management process including

implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating and adjusting, and revising plans accordingly. 

Additional step-down planning will be required prior to implementation of certain programs and

projects. 

This document combines both a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS). Following public review and comment, we will publish a

Final EIS followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the alternative selected as the

CCP. We will then publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1, the selected alternative

from Chapter 2, all of Chapters 3, 5, and 6 and the appendices. The four most important

Appendices to review include Appendix F: Plan Implementation; Appendix G: Compatibility

Determinations; Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies; and Appendix K: Land Protection

Plan. The following chapter and appendix descriptions are provided to assist readers in locating

and understanding the various components of this combined document. 

Chapter 1, Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues, includes the regional context,

establishment, and purposes of Nisqually NWR; vision and goals for future management; and the

purpose of and need for a comprehensive conservation plan. This chapter also provides

background on major planning issues identified by Refuge staff; Federal, tribal, State, and local

agencies; and the general public. 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, describes four management alternatives. Each alternative represents a

potential comprehensive conservation plan for Nisqually NWR. Alternative A describes current

management on the Refuge. Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Nisqually NWR.

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the existing physical and biological environment,

public uses, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions. They represent baseline conditions

for the comparisons made in Chapter 4. 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes the potential impacts of each of the four

alternatives on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3. This is perhaps the

most important part of the Environmental Impact Statement component of this document. 

Chapter 5, Relationships to Federal, State, and Local Policies, Plans, provides a brief

description of many national, regional, and local plans that are relevant to the Nisqually Basin. 

These plans were reviewed and considered in this current planning effort. 

Chapter 6, Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others, provides details on

public involvement, interagency coordination, and tribal consultation during the planning process. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Reader’s Guide

Appendix A, Glossary of Terms, contains acronyms, abbreviations, and definitions of terms used

in this document. 

Appendix B, Distribution List, contains the list of Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies; nongovernment organizations; academic institutions; and individuals who received planning updates,

summaries, and other mailings associated with this planning effort. 

Appendix C, References, provides bibliographic references for the citations in this document. 

Appendix D, Applicable Laws and Executive Orders, contains brief descriptions of some of the

more pertinent laws and executive orders applicable to management of Nisqually NWR. 

Appendix E, Species Lists, lists plants and animals that have been observed on Nisqually NWR.

Appendix F, Plan Implementation, includes the Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) list, which

briefly describes projects and costs associated with the Preferred Alternative; monitoring program;

plus current and proposed staffing levels. 

Appendix G, Compatibility Determinations, describe uses, anticipated impacts, stipulations, and

a determination of compatibility or non-compatibility for all existing and proposed public uses on

Nisqually NWR.

Appendix H, List of Preparers, contains the names, positions, education, and years of experience

of persons involved in the preparation of this Draft CCP/EIS. 

Appendix I, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies, links the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System and purposes of Nisqually NWR with the alternatives described and analyzed in this

document. The goals, objectives, and strategies focus on Alternative D (Preferred Alternative),

but include tables to show differences among alternatives. 

Appendix J, Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary, briefly summarizes

the methods and results of a hydrodynamic and sediment transport model used to evaluate

physical components involved in eight tidal restoration alternatives for Nisqually NWR. The

modeling results from these eight alternatives contributed to the development of the four

alternatives that are considered in greater detail in this document, and to the selection of the

Preferred Alternative. 

Appendix K, Land Protection Plan, a document prepared during detailed planning that is

intended to inform landowners and the interested public of the resource protection needs, the

dimensions of the Service’s protection proposal, and the land protection priorities.

Appendix L, Wilderness Review, lists the criteria used in conducting a wilderness review and

describes why Nisqually NWR currently does not meet the criteria. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Reader’s Guide

This page intentionally left blank.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table of Contents i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Reader’s Guide

Table of Contents ........................................................... i

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues ......................... 1-1

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

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

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

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................ 1-7

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................. 1-7

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System .............................. 1-7

1.5 History of Refuge Establishment and Purpose .......................... 1-9

1.6 Refuge Vision and Goals ......................................... 1-11

1.6.1 Vision ................................................. 1-11

1.6.2 Goals .................................................. 1-12

1.7 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ........................ 1-12

1.7.1 The Nisqually NWR CCP Process ............................ 1-13

1.7.2 Public Involvement ....................................... 1-14

1.8 Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ......................... 1-14

Chapter 2: Alternatives ................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives ..................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Alternatives Development ................................... 2-1

2.2 Similarities Among Alternatives ..................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D) ..................... 2-2

2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D) ................ 2-5

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives ............................... 2-6

2.3.1 Alternative A - No Action (Status Quo) ......................... 2-6

2.3.2 Alternative B - Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and 

Minimum Estuarine Restoration ............................... 2-9

2.3.3 Alternative C - Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and

Moderate Estuarine Restoration .............................. 2-14

2.3.4 Alternative D - Preferred Alternative: Refuge Expansion of 

3,479 Acres and Maximum Estuarine Restoration ................ 2-19

2.3.5 Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue ........................ 2-23

2.4 Alternative Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ..... 2-23

Chapter 3: Affected 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

ii Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

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 ................................... 3-29

3.3.1 Pacific Salmon ........................................... 3-30

3.3.2 Forage Fish ............................................. 3-31

3.3.3 Other Fishes ............................................. 3-32

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Fish ............................. 3-34

3.4 Wildlife ...................................................... 3-35

3.4.1 Waterfowl .............................................. 3-35

3.4.2 Waterbirds and Seabirds .................................... 3-36

3.4.3 Shorebirds .............................................. 3-40

3.4.4 Landbirds ............................................... 3-40

3.4.5 Marine Mammals ......................................... 3-42

3.4.6 Land Mammals .......................................... 3-43

3.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................... 3-43

3.4.8 Invertebrates ............................................ 3-44

3.4.9 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species .......................... 3-44

3.4.10 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species ................... 3-45

3.4.11 State Listed Species ....................................... 3-45

3.5 Special Uses .................................................. 3-46

3.5.1 Haying ................................................. 3-46

3.5.2 Scientific Research ........................................ 3-46

3.5.3 Tribal Fishing ............................................ 3-46

3.6 Public Access, Education, and Recreational Opportunities ................ 3-47

3.6.1 Public Access ............................................ 3-47

3.6.2 Recreation .............................................. 3-47

3.6.3 Environmental Education ................................... 3-54

3.7 Cultural Resources ............................................. 3-56

3.7.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape ................. 3-56

3.7.2 Euro-American Cultural History ............................. 3-57

3.8 Socioeconomics ............................................... 3-59

3.8.1 Socioeconomic Setting ..................................... 3-59

3.8.2 Environmental Justice ..................................... 3-63

3.8.3 Land Use ............................................... 3-63

3.8.4 Refuge Management Economics ............................. 3-69

3.8.5 Area Recreation Sector .................................... 3-69

3.8.6 Agricultural Sector ...................................... 3-71

3.8.7 Commercial Shellfishing .................................... 3-72
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table of Contents iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ..................................... 4-1

4.1 Effects to the Physical Environment .................................. 4-2

4.1.1 Alternative A ............................................. 4-2

4.1.2 Alternative B ............................................. 4-4

4.1.3 Alternative C ............................................. 4-7

4.1.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) ........................... 4-9

4.2 Effects to Vegetation and Habitat Resources .......................... 4-11

4.2.1 Alternative A ............................................ 4-11

4.2.2 Alternative B ............................................ 4-13

4.2.3 Alternative C ............................................ 4-18

4.2.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 4-21

4.2.5 Effects to Regional Availability of Wetland Habitats ............... 4-24

4.3 Effects to Fisheries Habitats and Resources ........................... 4-26

4.3.1 Alternative A ............................................ 4-26

4.3.2 Alternative B ............................................ 4-27

4.3.3 Alternative C ............................................ 4-29

4.3.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 4-32

4.3.5 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species ................... 4-35

4.4 Effects to Wildlife .............................................. 4-36

4.4.1 Effects to Birds .......................................... 4-36

4.4.2 Effects to Mammals ....................................... 4-55

4.4.3 Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians ........................... 4-62

4.4.4 Effects to Invertebrates .................................... 4-66

4.4.5 Effects to Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species .................. 4-69

4.4.6 Effects to Endangered and Threatened Species and Selected Birds

of Conservation Concern ................................... 4-72

4.4.7 Effects to State-Listed Species ............................... 4-76

4.5 Effects to Special Uses .......................................... 4-77

4.5.1 Alternative A ............................................ 4-77

4.5.2 Alternative B ............................................ 4-77

4.5.3 Alternative C ............................................ 4-78

4.5.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 4-79

4.5.5 Effects to Tribal Fishing .................................... 4-80

4.6 Effects to Public Access, Education, and Recreational Opportunities ........ 4-81

4.6.1 Alternative A ............................................ 4-81

4.6.2 Alternative B ............................................ 4-84

4.6.3 Alternative C ............................................ 4-88

4.6.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 4-91

4.7 Effects to Cultural Resources ..................................... 4-95

4.7.1 Alternative A ............................................ 4-95

4.7.2 Alternative B ............................................ 4-95

4.7.3 Alternative C ............................................ 4-96

4.7.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 4-96
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

iv Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

4.8 Effects to Socioeconomics ........................................ 4-97

4.8.1 Effects to Environmental Justice ............................. 4-97

4.8.2 Effects to Land Use ....................................... 4-98

4.8.3 Effects of Refuge Management Economics on the Regional Economy 4-102

4.8.4 Effects to Recreation Economics ............................ 4-103

4.8.5 Effects to Commercial Shellfishing ........................... 4-106

4.9 Summary of Effects ............................................ 4-107

4.10 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 4-115

4.11 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources ................ 4-116

4.12 Short-term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ........................ 4-116

4.13 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................... 4-116

Chapter 5: Relationships to Federal, State, and Local Policies and Plans ........... 5-1

5.1 Federal Government ............................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Service Plans, Policies, and Programs ............. 5-1

5.1.2 Fort Lewis ............................................... 5-3

5.2 State of Washington ............................................. 5-4

5.2.1 Watershed Planning Act ..................................... 5-4

5.2.2 Growth Management Act .................................... 5-4

5.2.3 Shoreline Management Act .................................. 5-4

5.3 Nisqually Indian Tribe ............................................ 5-5

5.3.1 Nisqually Watershed Planning - Nisqually WRIA 11 ................ 5-5

5.3.2 Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan ............................. 5-5

5.3.3 Nisqually River Multi-Species Management Plan .................. 5-5

5.3.4 Nisqually Community Vision Plan ............................. 5-6

5.4 Resource-Specific Plans ........................................... 5-6

5.4.1 Nisqually River Management Plan ............................. 5-6

5.4.2 Nisqually River Task Force .................................. 5-6

5.5 Thurston County ................................................ 5-7

5.5.1 County-Wide Planning Policies ............................... 5-7

5.5.2 Comprehensive Plan ........................................ 5-7

5.5.3 Shoreline Master Program ................................... 5-8

5.5.4 Shellfish Protection Districts ................................. 5-8

5.5.5 Nisqually Sub-Area Land Use and Zoning Plan ................... 5-8

5.6 Pierce County .................................................. 5-9

5.6.1 County-Wide Planning Policies ............................... 5-9

5.6.2 Comprehensive Plan ........................................ 5-9

5.6.3 Shoreline Master Program .................................. 5-10

5.6.4 Land Use Regulations ..................................... 5-10
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table of Contents v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter 6: Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others .............. 6-1

6.1 Compliance .................................................... 6-1

6.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others ............................ 6-1

6.2.1 Public Outreach ........................................... 6-1

6.2.2 Interest Group and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination ......... 6-3

6.2.3 Tribal Consultation/Coordination .............................. 6-4

Appendices:

A. Glossary of Terms

B. Distribution List

C. References

D. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

E. Nisqually NWR Species List

E.1 Plant List

E.2 Wildlife List

F. 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. Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

J. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary

K. Land Protection Plan

L. Wilderness Review 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

vi Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Figures:

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

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

Figure 2.3-1 Alternative A: No Action (Status Quo) .............................. 2-7

Figure 2.3-2 Alternative B: Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine

Restoration .................................................. 2-11

Figure 2.3-3 Alternative C: Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and 

Moderate Estuarine Restoration .................................. 2-17

Figure 2.3-4 Alternative D: Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres and Maximum

Estuarine Restoration .......................................... 2-21

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 ........................................ 3-37

Figure 3.6-1 Current Authorized Public Recreation within the Study Area ............ 3-49

Figure 3.8-1 Special Designated Areas ....................................... 3-67

Tables: 

Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component . 2-27

Table 3.2-1 Summary of Habitat Types and Acres Within the CCP Study Area ......... 3-8

Table 3.3-1 Species Selected for Evaluating the Likely Effects of CCP Alternatives on Fish 

Inhabiting the Estuarine Habitats of the Refuge ....................... 3-29

Table 3.8-1 Local Population Trends ........................................ 3-60

Table 4.0-1 Brief Summary of Alternatives Described in Chapter 2 .................. 4-1

Table 4.2-1 Summary of Habitat Restoration Effects to Regional Estuarine and 

Freshwater Wetlands .......................................... 4-25

Table 4.9-1 Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D ........... 4-109
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1

Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose and Need, and

Issues

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. 

This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

(Draft CCP/EIS) for Nisqually NWR. Once finalized, the CCP will guide management of Refuge

operations, habitat restoration, and visitor services for the next 15 years. Guidance within the CCP

will be in the form of goals, objectives, strategies (Appendix I), and compatibility determinations

(Appendix G). The Final CCP will be based on the Record of Decision (ROD) that will identify

the selected alternative. The selected alternative can be one of the alternatives in this Draft

CCP/EIS or it can be a new alternative developed from a combination of these draft alternatives. 

This Draft CCP/EIS evaluates and compares four alternatives containing programs for habitat

restoration, Refuge boundary expansion, and related environmental education and recreational

opportunities. It also identifies the effects of restoration, Refuge expansion, and visitor use on key

physical, biological, social, and cultural resources. The Service’s Regional Director in Portland,

Oregon is the responsible official for approving the Final CCP/EIS and signing the ROD. The

National Director of the Service has final authority on the proposed expansion of Nisqually NWR.

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

Study Area, which includes areas for potential Refuge expansion. 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. 

1.2 Proposed Action

The Service proposes to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Nisqually

National Wildlife Refuge. The Service examined a wide range of alternatives for future

management at Nisqually NWR; of these alternatives, Alternative D best achieves the Refuge

purpose, vision, and goals (see Sections 1.5 and 1.6). Alternative D would provide the largest

amount of Refuge boundary expansion, as well as the largest amount of restoration of estuarine
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-2 Chapter 1 Introduction

habitat. Alternative D addresses the major issues and relevant mandates identified in the CCP

process and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. For details on the

specific components and actions comprising Alternative D, see Chapter 2.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A new CCP is needed to more effectively address the highest priority natural resource needs in the

face of changing conditions since the Nisqually NWR was established in 1974. The Refuge is

currently managed under an outdated 1978 Conceptual Plan (CH2M Hill et al. 1978). The

purpose of the CCP is to shape the future of the Refuge and provide guidance in achieving

management goals and objectives for land protection, habitat restoration, fish and wildlife, special

status species, environmental education, and wildlife-dependent recreation. Implementing the CCP

would provide the Refuge an opportunity to enhance its critical role in the conservation and

management of fish and wildlife resources of the Nisqually River delta and lower watershed and

continue developing high quality environmental education and wildlife interpretation for Refuge

visitors. The CCP will provide Refuge neighbors, visitors, the public, partners, and government

officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge. 

The CCP will also provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs for staffing,

operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.

The south Puget Sound region, with its rapidly growing urban and suburban 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. The

CCP provides an opportunity to consider whether the Refuge could play a more effective role in

habitat protection in the Nisqually delta and lower Nisqually watershed, based on ecological needs.

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. The Refuge provides a unique opportunity to consider restoration of

an historical tidal system, thereby benefitting many fish and wildlife species. 

Located on the I-5 corridor 20 miles from Tacoma and only 8 miles from Olympia, 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. As Refuge use has

increased, so have conflicts among visitors and concerns over meeting the needs of fish and

wildlife species. Boating, personal watercraft (PWC, i.e., jetskiing), waterfowl hunting, fishing,

and shellfishing all occur on the Refuge. Changes are needed to reduce wildlife disturbance; 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-3

Figure 1.1-1, Regional Context - 8 1⁄2 x 11, B&W
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-4 Chapter 1 Introduction

Figure 1.1-1

BACK SIDE
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-5

Figure 1.1-2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan Study Area 8 1⁄2 x 11, color

[Color Figure]
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-6 Chapter 1 Introduction

FIGURE 1.1-2

BACK SIDE
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-7

provide sufficient wildlife sanctuary; protect the Refuge’s Research Natural Area

(RNA); reduce overcrowding, visitor conflicts, and unauthorized activities; improve the quality of

wildlife-dependent recreation; and allow the Service to accomplish its goals on the Refuge.

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance

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

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or System) 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.

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 established in 1903 by President Theodore

Roosevelt, the NWRS has grown to more than 95 million acres in size, including nearly 540

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-8 Chapter 1 Introduction

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

(Draft Mission, Goals, and Purposes Policy, January 16, 2001):

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

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

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

• To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.

• To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

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

including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

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

conservation, by providing the public with safe, high quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent

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, 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-9

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 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)

1.5 History of Refuge Establishment and Purpose

The Nisqually River delta is located approximately 20 miles southwest of Tacoma and 8 miles

northeast of Olympia, Washington, in Pierce and Thurston counties. The proximity to these two
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-10 Chapter 1 Introduction

major urban centers has exposed the delta 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) 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 received from Duck Stamps is the primary source of funding for those lands

purchased under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. However, three additional 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) 

“... 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 in order 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 Environmental Assessment 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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-11

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.

The Service has 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, near the

river. 

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

Conservation Funds which was earmarked for a land purchase on the East Bluff of the delta.

Operation and maintenance funding is provided in an annual appropriation to the Department of

the Interior from the United States Congress. 

1.6 Refuge Vision and Goals

1.6.1 Vision

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge is a landmark in the Pacific Northwest, located where the

freshwater of the Nisqually River flows into Puget Sound. The estuary created by this mixing of

fresh and saltwater is the richest kind of habitat known. Because of its biological significance, the

Nisqually delta was registered as a National Natural Landmark. More than 275 species of

migratory birds, many runs of salmon, and numerous other species come to rest, feed, nest, spawn,

and grow. More than 100,000 visitors also come to view this special place each year, to enjoy and

learn about these fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to share in the experiences of the delta.

The Service has a unique opportunity to restore Nisqually NWR as an historic tidal system, thereby

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

and a wide variety of migratory birds. This restoration effort will contribute significantly to Puget

Sound, where 80% of estuarine habitat has been lost in the last 150 years. Many migratory fish and

wildlife move across the Refuge boundary into the lower Nisqually River watershed on a daily basis. 

Expanded land protection will be based on ecological needs to allow the Refuge to more effectively

protect and restore the Nisqually delta, freshwater wetlands, and riparian forests critical to these

fish and wildlife. 

Nisqually NWR is located within 100 miles of more than 4 million people, providing tremendous

opportunities for many to learn about and experience the diverse habitats, fish and wildlife, and

restoration of an historic system. A model environmental education program will reach a diverse

group of tomorrow’s stewards and leaders, to help them learn about and participate in the

protection and care of our natural areas. Quality wildlife-dependent recreation will be provided to

thousands of people so they can enjoy the abundance of fish and wildlife in a diversity of habitats. 

New, accessible Refuge headquarters facilities provide an ideal venue for these opportunities. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-12 Chapter 1 Introduction

Through strong partnerships and innovative outreach efforts, the Refuge will provide a unique

opportunity to develop a model National Wildlife Refuge, providing leadership in habitat

restoration and management, land protection, environmental education, and quality wildlifedependent recreation. With the support of partners and the community, the Refuge will provide a

focal point in the Nisqually River watershed and throughout Puget Sound to demonstrate sound

land stewardship and restoration of native habitats on a large scale to benefit salmon and migratory

birds. This is an unparalleled opportunity for people to learn about and help build the future of

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

1.6.2 Goals

The following goals provide guiding principles for Nisqually NWR. They are consistent with

Refuge purposes, Refuge System goals, the Improvement Act, Service policy, and international

treaties. These goals apply to all alternatives in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

Goal 1: 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.

Goal 2: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and

endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats. 

Goal 3: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish,

wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Goal 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. 

1.7 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

This Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR is intended to meet the dual requirements of compliance

with the Improvement Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA and the

Improvement Act 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. Chapter 2 presents the alternatives

for Refuge management.

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-13

4. Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects

5. Identify the Preferred Alternative

6. Publish the Draft CCP and NEPA Document

7. Revise the Draft CCP and Publish a Final Plan

8. Implement the CCP

1.7.1 The Nisqually NWR CCP Process

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 Chapters 6 and Appendix H. 

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.

Coordination and cooperation among participating stakeholders was a fundamental element of the

Draft CCP/EIS. The Planning Team consulted with and considered the interests of many agencies

and organizations. Chapter 6 provides additional details on coordination with the following

groups:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

• Nisqually Indian Tribe
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-14 Chapter 1 Introduction

• Nisqually River Council 

• Friends and Volunteers of Nisqually NWR

• City of Olympia

• Thurston County Planning

• Pierce County Planning

• Fort Lewis Military Reservation

• Weyerhaeuser Corporation

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

1.7.2 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. To date, Refuge staff have given 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. 

Chapter 6 provides more details on public involvement activities. 

1.8 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

issues, concerns, and opportunities from all public input received throughout the planning scoping

efforts. Eight major issues were identified, as listed and described below.

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? 

Nisqually NWR currently consists of just under 3,000 acres. If all the lands within the currently

approved Refuge boundary were acquired, the Refuge would consist of 3,936 acres. When the

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

threatened with development. This CCP provides an opportunity to consider whether the original

boundary is sufficient to make the Refuge ecologically whole and meet today’s vision and goals for

the Refuge, or whether additional lands beyond the approved Refuge boundary should be

protected and included within an expanded Refuge boundary. These considerations include

whether expansion is needed to protect all the habitat components necessary to sustain habitat

quality in the delta and whether additional protection is needed for wetlands and riparian habitat

used by Refuge wildlife in the lower Nisqually watershed.

For example, should the Refuge expand its boundary onto lands along the East Bluff of the delta? 

If these lands were acquired and added to the Refuge, they would receive greater protection and

management. Under Refuge management, the East Bluff would provide greater protection for
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-15

wildlife by providing an almost continuous (except for the railroad tracks) corridor of habitats from

wetlands to forested uplands, as well as improve habitat quality and protection of the watershed. 

This corridor would help protect the stability of the steep bluff, reducing erosion and

sedimentation, and contributing to improved water quality. A visual buffer would also help

preserve the character of the delta for years to come. A similar corridor has been acquired on the

West Bluff, including forested uplands along the slope, crest, and top of the bluff. Properties on

the East Bluff of the delta are privately owned; major development is currently proposed, including

bluff-top lands.

The current Refuge and the adjacent habitats of the Nisqually Valley on the south side of I-5 and

along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek are ecologically inseparable. Many migratory birds

move between these areas on a daily basis to feed and roost. Salmon migrate through the Refuge

into the rivers and creeks of the Nisqually Valley. These areas have high wetland and riparian

restoration potential to recreate freshwater wetlands and improve the river corridor. Freshwater

wetland restoration in the lower watershed could also offset the potential conversion of diked

freshwater wetlands back to estuary. Public comments have indicated widespread support for

Refuge expansion, including on the East Bluff.

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 focuses 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 delta 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. Many species of ducks, geese, shorebirds, waterbirds, songbirds, raptors,

invertebrates, and mammals use this area. The dike trails allow easy access to portions of these

habitats, providing excellent wildlife viewing, photography, and educational opportunities.

Since Refuge establishment, frequent and costly breaching of the dike has occurred. In 1973, the

northwest section of the dike along McAllister Creek breached and was quickly repaired (Klotz et

al. 1978). On December 4, 1975, excessive river flood waters, high tide on the sound, and debris

in the flooding river caused the dike again to breach approximately 11⁄2 miles north of I-5 on the

Nisqually River. Approximately 150 linear feet of the dike were destroyed, 400 feet severely

undercut, and another 100 feet were damaged. Repairs to the dike were made in 1975. In 1979,

material was added to the top and sides of the dike to raise its level to 12.5 feet on the Nisqually

side and 12 feet on the McAllister side. New tide gates were also installed (Stevenson 1998). 

Major winter storms and high Nisqually River flows during November 1995 eroded riparian forest

along the river and damaged the Nisqually River dike. Repairs using riprap (bank stabilization

material) occurred in December 1995 and January 1996. In February 1996, a severe flood

inundated most of the Refuge. Flooding and high river flows created two breaches and severe

erosion along the Nisqually River dike. At the south end of the Refuge, overflow channels from the

Nisqually River and McAllister Creek were also a major source of flood waters. Ninety-five
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-16 Chapter 1 Introduction

percent of the diked interior flooded, damaging buildings, water control structures, boardwalks, and

trails. The diked interior was flooded with up to 4 feet of water for days and in some places for

weeks. Emergency dike repairs were conducted as a temporary measure until planning could be

completed. Headquarters facilities replacement was largely completed in 1999. 

In late 1996, subsequent flooding, heavy snowfall, ice, and high winds once again caused damage to

the dike adjacent to the riprap repair of the previous year. Emergency repairs were completed by

February 1997. Approximately $400,000 was spent on emergency dike repairs in 1996 and 1997. 

Flooding and the effects of riprap repairs, which deflected erosive energy to the north, resulted in

the erosion of about 400 feet of riparian habitat as well. A 1998 engineering survey recommended

extensive repairs on much of the dike along McAllister Creek. The February 28, 2001 Nisqually

Earthquake also caused extensive damage to much of the dike system, which is still being assessed. 

The entire dike system would require major repairs to bring it up to today’s safety and structural

standards. 

During the past 20 years, management of the diked area has become increasingly difficult, and

habitat quality has declined for the following reasons: 

• Reed canary grass, a highly invasive exotic plant, is rapidly spreading throughout much of the

area and now occupies more than a third of the total acreage.

• Water level management capabilities are extremely 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 shrub habitats, reducing the value for

waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds. 

• The 100-year-old dike system has required major repairs in 1973, 1975, 1979, 1996, and 1997

and currently needs major repair work. Saltwater seepage occurs along substantial portions of

the dike. 

This diked habitat, now isolated from tidal influence, was historically part of the Nisqually Estuary. 

The footprint of this salt marsh system is still visible within the dike in the form of a network of

sloughs and channels that spread across the land. Estuaries, and their associated mudflats, salt

marshes, tidal channels, and open waters, are one of the most productive habitats on earth. 

However, the location of estuaries has made them vulnerable to development. In Puget Sound

alone, 80% of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, filling, and development (Dean et. al. 2000). 

Even more has been lost throughout the West Coast. As estuarine habitat has diminished,

associated fish and wildlife have also declined. For example, many salmon species and runs have

declined severely in the Puget Sound area.

Through public scoping, the Refuge has learned that some people would like the entire diked area

to be restored as historical estuarine habitat to maximize the recovery of anadromous (migratory)

fish and benefit migratory birds; to restore a type of habitat now rare in Puget Sound; to bring back

an historic, more natural system; and to potentially reduce the costs of future flooding and
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-17

dike repairs. Others believe that only a portion of the diked area should be restored to contribute to

estuarine, wildlife, and fish recovery, with the remaining area managed as freshwater and grassland

habitat. Still others believe that the area should be retained and improved as freshwater and

grassland habitats with no tidal restoration, so that the existing mixture of habitats is retained and

the trail system is left in its current condition.

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

growing urban community surrounding the Refuge. Public scoping identified environmental

education as a highly valued purpose and activity of Nisqually NWR. For all these reasons, Refuge

staff consider environmental education to be one of the highest and best public uses on the Refuge. 

As many as 5,000 students and teachers from King, Pierce, Thurston, and Mason counties

participate annually in the Refuge’s limited environmental education program. The Refuge provides

educators and youth professionals with volunteer support, indoor and outdoor facilities, and limited

equipment. Demand by school groups is growing throughout the year, with the highest use period

from early April through mid-June and a growing demand in the summer months as well. The

current environmental education program and facilities and programs are inadequate to meet the

current and projected future demands for environmental education opportunities. The Twin Barns

Education Center served as a temporary education facility. Safety concerns from the recent

earthquake required moving the education program out of the Twin Barns and into a trailer by the

maintenance shop. The Refuge is currently seeking funding to build a new education center with

greatly improved facilities and to resolve this safety issue and support an enlarged, high quality

program. 

A focus group of educators identified several opportunities for improving the Refuge’s education

program. These included a watershed stewardship theme; having additional trained staff and

volunteers; providing interpretation for all important ecological features of the Refuge; participation

in restoration and research as a means to educate; and user-friendly facilities, gear, and equipment. 

The private, non-profit Nisqually Reach Nature Center at Luhr Beach is located within the CCP

Study Area and doubles as a wildlife interpretation center and an educational center for school

children ranging from 3rd to 12th grades, supporting up to 2000 students per year. The educational

focus at the Nature Center is on the marine environment. The Service 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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-18 Chapter 1 Introduction

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. The Twin Barns Loop Trail was improved in 1999, is fully accessible, and

provides interpretive and educational information. The use and location of the Twin Barns Loop

Trail will not change based on decisions in this CCP/EIS. Three miles of the Brown Farm Dike

Trail closes annually during the waterfowl hunting season to provide increased sanctuary for

waterfowl and other birds and to ensure visitor safety due to the waterfowl hunting occurring on

adjacent WDFW lands. Changes to the Brown Farm Dike Trail would be necessary under all

estuarine restoration alternatives. In some cases, the length of the trail would be greatly reduced. 

Effects of these changes could be reduced through the construction of new trails in other locations

or construction of boardwalk trails in estuarine areas. Many hiking groups and birdwatchers have

provided comments on this topic. Many people commented that whatever the configuration of the

trail system, for example, if the 51⁄2-mile loop is reduced, access should be provided so that visitors

can see wildlife and the variety of habitats on the Refuge and learn about estuarine and freshwater

habitat management and restoration. Some people feel that trails should not be reduced or changed. 

Others believe that if breaches are created in the dikes, the breaches should be bridged if possible,

and the Brown Farm Dike should be retained in its current state to support the existing loop trail. 

Numerous comments suggested new trail options, including building boardwalks into restored

estuarine areas. Many commentors expressed discontent with seasonal trail closures due to hunting. 

The majority of respondents did support seasonal closures if needed to protect wildlife. The

majority of commentors also said that fish and wildlife and habitat needs should take priority in

making trail and restoration decisions.

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? 

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. Estimated use ranges from 1,100 to 2,100 hunter visits per season

(USFWS data). 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 Refuge has not enforced the hunting closure. 

Unauthorized hunting is occurring on large portions of Refuge tideflats, providing insufficient

sanctuary for migratory birds. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-19

The Research Natural Area (RNA) is also hunted in the eastern half of the tideflats. This area

should remain closed to hunting as a sanctuary area since, by policy, hunting and other consumptive

uses are not allowed in RNAs. Restoration proposals to remove the north and west dikes

associated with tidal restoration could remove a visual landmark out in the delta. This physical

change could lead to further confusion and “encroachment” by hunters on Refuge lands.

The original 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act required that all Refuges be inviolate sanctuaries and

deemed that Refuges’ primary purposes were as breeding grounds and habitat for migratory birds. 

Migratory bird hunting was prohibited. The 1938 amendment to the Act gave Refuge managers the

authority to decide if, when, and how bird hunting would be allowed. The subsequent 1949 Duck

Stamp Act allowed waterfowl hunting on all Refuges but restricted the percentage of each Refuge

open to hunting. No more than 40% of the area purchased with Migratory Bird dollars may be

opened at one time for hunting of migratory game birds or resident species of birds. 

Many public comments have been received for and against waterfowl hunting. Some commentors

believe that the Refuge should be open to waterfowl hunting to improve public hunting

opportunities in south Puget Sound. Others specifically requested walk-in and accessible hunting

opportunities. Many commentors requested that the current confusion be resolved and the program

be managed consistently throughout the delta. Many believe that if hunting is allowed on the

Refuge, additional restrictions are needed to ensure that waterfowl hunting is a high quality and safe

experience, and sufficient wildlife sanctuary is provided on the Refuge. Others feel if hunting is

allowed on the Refuge, it should not conflict with other users, including trail users and kayakers. 

Seasonal trail closures, required because of the lack of separation between uses, are a source of

considerable conflict for many Refuge visitors, and many commentors expressed discontent with

these closures. Many commentors believe that the Refuge should not be open to waterfowl hunting

and that the Refuge tideflats should provide sanctuary. Hunting programs typically require a sizable

effort to ensure a high quality experience and sufficient resource protection, including administrative

effort, law enforcement, education, posting, writing and distributing literature, presentations, public

contact, and monitoring. Additional staff would be required, and the hunting program could reduce

resources and labor available for other high priority programs, such as environmental education.

The CCP process provides an opportunity to reevaluate 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. Resolution of this

issue requires close coordination with WDFW because they control the hunting access at Luhr

Beach, and they own the land and waters where the primary hunting occurs. If a decision is made

to open parts of the Refuge to hunting, the Service would need to prepare a Hunting Plan consistent

with the CCP and stipulations in the compatibility determination (Appendix G.4), and formally open

the Refuge to waterfowl hunting.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1-20 Chapter 1 Introduction

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. Public comments 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. One group suggested additional opportunities for youth

fishing, such as constructing a pond on the Refuge. Refuge concerns include the challenges of

enforcing wildlife sanctuary areas from human disturbance, providing quality fishing and shellfishing

opportunities with both boat and foot access, potential loss of current foot access (McAllister

bankfishing), and construction and maintenance costs of sites that are accessible to people with

disabilities. Concerns have been raised about the effects of shellfishing, particularly foot access in

the Luhr Beach area, on sensitive tideflat habitats, shellfish, and wildlife, caused by trampling,

harvesting, and human disturbance. If a decision is made to change the current fishing program, the

Service would need to prepare a Fishing Plan consistent with the CCP and stipulations in the

compatibility determination (Appendix G.3). 

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. General

power boating is not a priority activity of the NWRS. This use is distinguished from boating

associated with fishing or other priority public uses. High speeds and erosion caused by boat

wakes, pollution, and wildlife disturbance are the primary management concerns. Luhr Beach is the

only public water access site in the Nisqually delta. Visitors from this site enter the Refuge or cross

Refuge waters to recreate primarily on the Refuge or on State lands within the Refuge. Luhr Beach

is managed by WDFW. Under current conditions, the State and Nature Center staff have control

over public access for water-based activities on the Refuge, including waterfowl hunting, kayaking,

small craft motorized boating, personal watercraft, and shellfishing. However, no public

information about the Refuge is available to visitors at this site. A public parking area provides

visitors with convenient foot access to Refuge tideflats, shorelines, and bank fishing sites. Other

launch sites in south Puget Sound are also potential sources. Lack of access control, disturbance to

Refuge wildlife, conflicts with other Refuge visitors, and the absence of educational materials at

launch sites are Refuge management concerns. The potential for dike removal has also raised new

concerns over wildlife disturbance by boaters in areas that are currently closed. Under Thurston

County regulations, all watercraft are restricted to a speed of 5 mph within 200 feet of any

shoreline; however, it is minimally enforced. If portions of the dike are removed for tidal

restoration, this speed restriction regulation becomes less effective in the Nisqually delta because

shoreline locations would be altered. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-1

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives

This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action (i.e.,

development and implementation of a CCP), similarities among the alternatives, a detailed

description of each alternative, and a summary comparison of the alternatives by each of the

primary issues. The Proposed Action and the primary issues are described in Chapter 1, Sections

1.2 and 1.8, respectively. Appendix G includes Compatibility Determinations for each secondary

use proposed, which is required to ensure that all uses are compatible with Refuge purposes.

2.1.1 Alternatives Development

NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives to a Proposed

Action. The alternatives should meet the purpose and need of the proposal while minimizing or

avoiding detrimental environmental effects. The NEPA alternative development process allows

the Service to work with the public, stakeholders, interested agencies, and tribes to formulate

alternatives that respond to identified issues. This Draft CCP/EIS documents the Service’s

planning and decision process for the CCP.

Eight preliminary habitat restoration alternatives were developed and presented to the public in an

Issues Workbook at two public meetings in 1997. Comments received on the preliminary set of

alternatives and throughout the public scoping process, as well as input from a series of scientific

and public use workshops, ultimately resulted in the four draft management alternatives presented

in this Draft CCP/EIS. These include a “no action” alternative (as required under NEPA) and

three “action” alternatives, each of which describes several options for managing Nisqually NWR

over the next 15 years and would ultimately result in different future conditions at the Refuge. 

Each alternative describes a combination of habitat and public use management prescriptions

designed to achieve the Refuge purpose, goals, and vision. These alternatives provide different

ways to address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities

identified during the planning process. All of the major issues, activities, and management

concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative. The four alternatives are listed

below and described in detail in Section 2.3. 

• Alternative A—No Action: Status Quo – This alternative assumes no change from past

management programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other

alternatives. There would be no changes to the Refuge boundary and no major changes in

habitat management or public use programs.

• Alternative B—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine Restoration

– This alternative would provide for moderate expansion of the Refuge boundary (2,407-acre

addition). It places new management emphasis on the restoration of estuarine habitat and

improved freshwater wetland management. The current environmental education program
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-2 Chapter 2 Alternatives

would be improved and expanded, to the largest degree of all action alternatives. There

would be fewer changes to the trail system than in other action alternatives, and the Refuge

would remain closed to waterfowl hunting, with the closure posted and enforced.

• Alternative C—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Moderate Estuarine Restoration –

This alternative would provide for the same expansion of the Refuge boundary as in

Alternative B (2,407-acre addition). However, it places a stronger emphasis on the

restoration of estuarine habitat, while improving freshwater wetland and riparian habitats. 

The environmental education program would be improved and expanded, although serving

fewer students than described in Alternative B. Moderate changes would occur to the trail

system. The largest portion of Refuge acreage would be opened to waterfowl hunting of any

alternative, consolidated with State lands, and limited to 3 days per week, if an agreement can

be reached with the WDFW. 

• Alternative D—Preferred Alternative: Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres and Maximum

Estuarine Restoration – This alternative would provide for the largest amount of Refuge

boundary expansion (3,479-acre addition). It also maximizes estuarine restoration, while

improving freshwater wetland and riparian habitats on the Refuge. The environmental

education program would be improved and expanded, although not to the highest expansion

described in Alternative B. The greatest changes would occur to the trail system of any

alternative. A smaller portion of Refuge lands would be opened to hunting, 7 days per week,

with no changes to hunting on WDFW lands. 

These four alternatives are described in more detail below, starting with a summary of similarities

among the alternatives, followed by a detailed description of each alternative.

2.2 Similarities Among Alternatives 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities (i.e., shared features or

management components) among them as well. Following is a description of: (1) the features

common to all alternatives; and (2) features common to all action alternatives.

2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D)

All alternatives contain some common features. These are listed below to reduce the length and

redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions.

• Complete Land Acquisitions within Current Approved Refuge Boundary - Interests would

continue to be acquired in the remaining 1,011 acres within the existing approved Refuge

boundary, either through fee acquisition or other land protection measures. 

• Extensive Repairs to Brown Farm Dike (Exterior Dikes) - The Brown Farm Dike (exterior

dikes) have severely deteriorated and would require extensive repairs to prevent dike failure

and continued seepage. The Brown Farm Dike was additionally damaged by the magnitude
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-3

6.8 Nisqually Earthquake on February 28, 2001. The epicenter was located in the Nisqually

delta. It resulted in thousands of feet of linear cracks in the dike, with the largest amount of

damage along McAllister Creek and secondarily along the Nisqually River. Repairs are

needed, and geologists and engineers have indicated that the dikes do not meet accepted

safety or structural standards. Any portions of the Brown Farm Dike that would remain in

Alternatives A-D would require extensive repairs. 

• Resource Monitoring - Existing and new fish, wildlife, and vegetation monitoring programs

would be conducted by Refuge staff, volunteers, or cooperators to support adaptive

management. Monitoring programs would include monitoring and evaluation of habitat

management and restoration activities, sensitive species, and public uses.

• Restoration of West Bluff Parcel - Restoration of the West Bluff parcel of the Refuge

(formerly the Meek property) would continue under all alternatives. The long-term goals of

restoring this deforested parcel is to create a native conifer forest with Douglas-fir as the

primary species to provide a continuous forested corridor, improve watershed protection, and

create an effective buffer for nesting bald eagles and other migratory birds.

• Improved Protection of West Side of McAllister Creek - Wildlife disturbance caused by illegal

foot access on the west side of McAllister Creek would be reduced by signing the west

shoreline from Luhr Beach south along McAllister Creek. A new visitor contact station with

interpretive information at Luhr Beach and increased visitor contact to educate visitors about

these restrictions would also reduce trespass in this area. These efforts would benefit nesting

great blue herons and bald eagles, as well as other migratory birds.

• Management of Minor Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreational Uses (such as Apple, Berry,

and Mushroom Picking) - Certain non-wildlife dependent recreational activities occur

occasionally on the Refuge. Apple and blackberry collection for off-site consumption would

no longer be allowed. Picking would be restricted to trails only and for consumption only

while on the Refuge. Other plant material and mushroom picking would continue to be

prohibited to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and maintain established wildlife sanctuary areas

closed to public entry. 

• Visitor Center, Boardwalk, and Public Parking - The Visitor Center, 1-mile accessible

boardwalk loop trail, and 100-space public parking lot would remain unchanged under all

alternatives. The Visitor Center offers excellent education and interpretive opportunities for

the public. The boardwalk trail with interpretive panels allows visitors to observe and learn

about wildlife in a diversity of habitats. 

• Protection and Management of Cultural Resources - Under all alternatives, the Service would

continue to manage cultural resources in accordance with public law and agency policy. The

Service is required to consider the effects of its actions on archeological and historic

properties. Small projects require a “Request for Cultural Resource Compliance” form to be

completed in conformance with the Programmatic Agreement among the Service, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the State of Washington Historic Preservation
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-4 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Officer (SHPO). Additional consultation, surveys, and clearance would be required when large

projects are sponsored by the Service.

• Management of Tribal Lands East of the Nisqually River as Part of Nisqually NWR - The

Nisqually Indian Tribe recently purchased the Braget farm east of the Nisqually River,

including two lowland parcels that fall within the approved Refuge boundary. Congress

passed Public Law 106-291, which authorized $850,000 to be granted to the Nisqually Indian

Tribe for part of the purchase, and stated that the lowlands be managed as part of the Refuge

through a 25-year Cooperative Agreement/renewable lease, and that the lands be managed for

Refuge purposes in perpetuity. These lowland parcels would be managed by the Service as

part of Nisqually NWR, under a Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Life

tenant uses on these tribal lands retained by Kenneth Braget (the previous landowner) include

agriculture and a private hunt club. 

• Estuarine Restoration on Tribal Lands East of the Nisqually River - The Nisqually Indian

Tribe, in cooperation with the Service, is in the process of designing and implementing an

estuarine restoration program on approximately 300 acres of lowland portions of the tribe’s

property east of the Nisqually River. Although this would occur on land within the approved

Refuge boundary, the specific restoration project would proceed independent of the Nisqually

NWR CCP and associated EIS. Compliance requirements for the tribe’s restoration plan

would be addressed through the permit process.

The restoration of salt marsh and other estuarine habitats is envisioned by removing dikes and

reconnecting diked fields to Red Salmon Slough, a tidal channel between the Nisqually River

and the East Bluff. A phased approach to restoration has been developed (Wiltermood

Associates, Inc. 2000) and the tribe initiated restoration in 2002, beginning in areas to the

north and working south. 

• Treaty Rights - Tribal fishing, hunting, and gathering rights as reserved in Article 3 of the

Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854 (10 Stat. 1132) are common to all alternatives. 

• Public Access Restricted to Trails Only - Foot access by the public would continue to be

restricted to trails only. Exceptions would include special study areas identified for

environmental education groups and research activities permitted under special use permit.

• Primitive Trail in Surge Plain - A half-mile primitive trail would be established in the forested

surge plain habitat, a tidally influenced riparian forest along the Nisqually River. It would

connect to the existing boardwalk spur in the surge plain to provide a longer experience in this

unique habitat. It would be minimally maintained and would not be fully accessible. Portions

may be flooded by higher tides and storm events.

• Replacement of Twin Barns Environmental Education Center - The Twin Barns

Environmental Education Center was severely damaged by the February 2001 Nisqually

Earthquake, and it was permanently closed to the public for safety reasons. The

Environmental Education Center has been temporarily moved to a trailer near the 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-5

maintenance compound. A new facility is required to upgrade facilities and ensure a safe,

quality experience for school children participating in the program.

• Shellfishing Allowed According to County and State Regulations - Recreational shellfishing

would 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 would continue under State

regulation in waters in or adjacent to the Refuge.

2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D)

These features are common to Alternatives B, C, and D but would not be implemented as part of

the No Action Alternative.

• Protection of Estuarine Restoration Areas for Research and Monitoring - Public access

would be restricted in restored estuarine areas within the Brown Farm Dike. Restored areas

would be closed to public access to provide wildlife sanctuary and a research study area to

document processes of estuarine restoration and fish and wildlife responses with minimal

human disturbance. This closure would also maximize wildlife viewing opportunities for

those restricted to trails. New boardwalk trails would be allowed in limited areas at the edges

of restored areas to provide new wildlife viewing opportunities in estuarine habitats. 

• Improved Fishing Opportunities - Improved quality bank fishing would be provided on the

east bank of the Nisqually River (Trotter’s Woods area) south of I-5, if areas are successfully

acquired or through a cooperative management agreement with Fort Lewis (U.S. Army), the

current landowner. Cooperative efforts with Fort Lewis could also involve key partners,

including the Nisqually Indian Tribe.

• New Walk-in Hunting Opportunities - Walk-in waterfowl hunting with set blinds would be

considered if sufficient lands are acquired south of I-5, which would provide adequate wildlife

sanctuary and minimal conflict with other priority public uses.

• Research Natural Area (RNA) Closures Enforced - The RNA in the northeastern part of the

Refuge would be retained, and requirements to keep this designated area closed to

consumptive uses would be enforced. However, Alternatives C and D propose to modify the

current RNA boundary (reducing the area by approximately 166 and 80 acres, respectively) to

provide a high quality hunting area at the mouth of the river and create a clearly delineated

proposed hunting area that can be posted. The RNA would be posted and fishing,

shellfishing, and waterfowl hunting would be prohibited. 

• Speed Restrictions and Seasonal Closures for Boats - A speed limit of 5 mph would be

established for watercraft in all Refuge waters. This would broaden the current 5 mph speed

restriction for all watercraft within 200 feet of any shoreline by Thurston County regulation. 

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-6 Chapter 2 Alternatives

• Future Boating Restrictions - Boating activity and its potential effects on wildlife would

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 would be considered if undue wildlife disturbance occurs.

• Management of Luhr Beach Area and Nisqually Reach Nature Center - The Refuge would

develop a cooperative management agreement with the WDFW to cooperatively manage the

Luhr Beach boat ramp area, including the Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Boating,

waterfowl hunting, fishing, and Refuge regulations and general Refuge and wildlife

information would be provided at a new Visitor Contact Station. The Refuge would also

work cooperatively with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center to conduct a cooperative

education program to provide an even stronger environmental and public education program

on the marine resources of the Nisqually delta.

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives

2.3.1 Alternative A—No Action (Status Quo)

This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base

from which to compare the other alternatives (Figure 2.3-1). 

The Refuge would continue to complete land acquisition within the approved Refuge boundary

(3,936 acres), but no expansion would occur. 

The area within the Brown Farm Dike, approximately 1,000 acres, would be retained and managed

as freshwater wetlands and grasslands. Some limited improvements would be made to the current

habitat management program to improve habitat quality. Attempts to enhance freshwater habitats

would be investigated but can include installing pumps for existing artesian wells or drilling new

wells to increase the source of freshwater. Water control structures, including culverts and risers,

would be replaced or installed to make minor improvements in the ability to control water levels

and reduce the effects of beaver activity. The extent of ponds and seasonal marshes would be

increased by sculpting and excavating larger wetlands. Limited reed canary grass control would be

conducted where conditions allow, including a combination of mowing, discing, and herbicide

application. The current haying and mowing program would continue (see section 3.5.1). No new

internal dikes or management units would be created, but external dikes (28,000 linear feet) would

need extensive repairs and continued maintenance. Some native riparian plantings would occur

north of the headquarters building and along slough systems within the diked area to mimic 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.

The Service would continue to provide a limited environmental education program, serving up to

5,000 students each year. The program includes a reservation system, trails, and field trip

assistance by Refuge volunteers. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-7

Figure 2.3-1 Alternative A: No Action (Status Quo)

8 1⁄2 x 11 color
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-8 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Back of Figure 2.3-1 

Alternative A: No Action (Status Quo)
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-9

To provide opportunities for wildlife observation, interpretation, and wildlife photography, the

Service would continue to provide 7 miles of trails (primarily using the existing dike system),

including the accessible 1-mile loop boardwalk trail with interpretive panels. As described in

Section 2.2.1, an unimproved, primitive 1⁄2-mile trail would be developed in the Nisqually River

surge plain forest, connected to the existing boardwalk spur. This trail would be minimally

maintained and would not be fully accessible. Public facilities would continue to be provided,

including the Visitor Center, with interpretive displays focusing on existing habitats and wildlife. 

Nisqually NWR would continue to be closed to waterfowl hunting. The current waterfowl

hunting on Refuge lands is unauthorized since the Refuge has not been officially opened to

hunting. Unsigned areas would continue to be administratively uncontrollable, and closures in

these areas would not be enforced. Waterfowl hunting would continue to provide insufficient

wildlife sanctuary, occurring on large portions of Refuge tideflats, in McAllister Creek, and in

portions of the RNA. The area within the Brown Farm Dike would continue to be closed to

waterfowl hunting. The 51⁄2-mile loop trail would continue to be closed seasonally during the

waterfowl hunting season to ensure visitor safety and provide wildlife sanctuary. No new wildlife

sanctuary areas would be established. WDFW would continue to have jurisdiction and

management responsibility over WDFW lands.

Fishing would continue to be allowed by boat, following State regulations. Bank fishing at the

McAllister Creek fishing area, which is accessible by foot or boat, would continue to be allowed. 

A portion would still be seasonally closed during the waterfowl hunting season. RNA closures to

consumptive uses would not be enforced. The area within the Brown Farm Dike would continue

to be closed to fishing. No new fishing opportunities would be developed.

As described in Section 2.2.1, Features Common to all Alternatives, recreational shellfishing

would continue to be allowed according to County and State regulations. Commercial geoduck

harvest would continue under State regulations in waters in or adjacent to the Refuge.

As described in Section 2.2.1, Features Common to all Alternatives, boat access would continue

to be allowed in the tideflats and river/creek systems. PWC use would continue to be allowed. 

Thurston County regulations would apply, requiring a speed limit for all watercraft of 5 mph

within 200 feet of any shoreline, but this regulation would continue to be minimally enforced.

2.3.2 Alternative B—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine

Restoration

As shown in Figure 2.3-2, Alternative B would expand the Refuge boundary by 2,407 acres, for a

total authorized Refuge boundary encompassing 6,343 acres. The proposed addition would

include 512 acres of upland habitat and 1,891 acres of floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. 

Expansion would provide improved habitat protection along portions of the East Bluff north of I5, including a 200-foot wide forested corridor along the crest of the bluff. New areas south of I-5

would include floodplain, riparian, forested, and freshwater habitats, consisting of portions of the

Nisqually Valley floodplain areas, creeks and sloughs, and portions of the forested bluffs along

McAllister Creek. This alternative is distinguished from expansion in Alternative D (the Preferred

Alternative) by protecting only a small part of the Nisqually River corridor (325 acres), including
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-10 Chapter 2 Alternatives

the Trotter’s Woods area just south of I-5, and 386 acres less of floodplain and forested habitat in

the Nisqually Valley. A variety of techniques would be used to improve habitat protection

including cooperative management agreements, leases, easements, fee title acquisition, and

strengthening cooperative efforts with partners. Cooperative efforts with Fort Lewis could also

involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Efforts would continue to complete

acquisition or protection within the existing Refuge boundary, including the development of a

cooperative management agreement with the State to allow consolidated management of the Luhr

Beach area.

Habitat management and restoration in the diked interior would include a combination of 30%

muted estuarine habitat (restored area created by maintaining dikes with selected breach locations

for tidal water influence), 15% full estuarine restoration (restored area created by breaching dikes

in slough channel locations and shaving remaining dikes down to grade), and improved freshwater

wetland management in the remaining diked area. Essentially, this alternative would restore some

estuarine habitat but would retain dikes to minimize the effect of estuarine restoration on existing

trails. 

Approximately 318 acres (30%) of the diked interior would be restored to muted estuarine habitat

by creating bridged breaches and retaining dikes. Muted estuarine habitat would be created by

breaching the dike in five locations to reconnect several historical slough systems with the waters

of Puget Sound. Breaches would be large to maximize tidal volume and flow, varying in width

from 150 to 350 feet depending on the size of the slough being restored. Tides would fully

penetrate the diked unit, but the tide cycle would be slightly delayed, and some ponding would

occur inside the diked tidal area due to the restrictions caused by limited breaches and the barrier

caused by dikes. This would produce a muted, or less than fully functional, estuarine system

(ENSR 1999). Material removed from the dike breaches would be used for interior dike

construction. Heavy armoring, including steel reinforced wing walls and riprap, would be

installed to stabilize breaches and keep them from eroding or becoming enlarged. Bridges would

be built to span the breaches, capable of supporting heavy equipment to allow regular dike

maintenance and repair. A borrow ditch (created when material was “borrowed” to build the

dikes) parallels the dike. The borrow ditch would not be filled in the muted tidal impoundment

because the costs to import sufficient material are prohibitive. Consequently, the borrow ditch

would also pond and channel tidal waters in the area restored to muted tidal circulation.

To prevent failure and continued seepage, exterior dikes would require extensive repairs due to

their severely deteriorated condition and damage sustained during the February 2001 Nisqually

Earthquake. New dike armoring, including riprap, would be needed to protect dikes from erosion

caused by tidal waters and wave action inside and outside the restored area. This alternative

would require the construction of 9,700 linear feet of new exterior dike between the restored

estuarine areas (muted and full) and the diked freshwater habitat and 13,200 linear feet of a new

interior dike system. New internal and external dikes would be planted with vegetation to stabilize

banks, prevent erosion, and provide screening and habitat. Dikes would continue to be maintained

with periodic resurfacing (graveling), mowing, brushing, and other techniques. A total of 33,800

linear feet of exterior dike would need to be maintained.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-11

Figure 2.3-2 Alternative B: Moderate Refuge Expansion and Minimum Estuarine Restoration

11 x 17 color
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-12 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Back of Figure 2.3-2 Alternative B: Moderate Refuge Expansion and Minimum Estuarine

Restoration
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-13

Approximately 140 acres (15%) of diked habitat would be restored to fully functional estuarine

habitat in the northern half of the Shannon Slough system along McAllister Creek, by removing

0.75 mile of dike to grade and filling the adjacent borrow ditch. Removal of some of the artificial

bench of sediments that have built up along the outside of the dike may be needed to allow full

tidal circulation in the restored area. 

Management of 542 acres of freshwater and grassland habitats would be improved in the

remaining diked area by creating a higher proportion of freshwater habitat through conversion of

some grasslands to seasonal freshwater wetlands and ponds. The freshwater area would be

subdivided into five management units by new internal dikes to allow much more intensive

management, thereby improving habitat quality and controlling reed canary grass. However, due

to the large size of management units and freshwater supply limitations, the effectiveness of

management actions may be limited, including the ability to flood large areas to depths sufficient

for invasive vegetation control. A new exterior dike on the north side of the management units

would be placed along the highest contour line to separate the muted estuarine restoration area

from the management habitat. A large amount of material would be required for the new dike due

to this area’s relatively low elevation. The material, at least in part, would be borrowed from

units where pastureland would be converted to freshwater ponds. This would increase the overall

length of exterior dike by approximately 1.25 miles.

Small permanent ponds would be created and seasonal wetlands enlarged by excavating and

sculpting higher areas. Permanent ponds would need to be relatively small because of the limited

water sources currently on the Refuge and to allow more efficient water movement. New water

control structures and pumps would be installed between units to allow water movement and to

provide the ability to drain and flood individual units. Units and ponds would be designed to

allow flooding in selected areas at least 3 feet deep for up to 3 to 4 months to improve reed

canary grass control. 

A more intensive management regime would be implemented to keep freshwater wetlands and

grasslands in high quality condition. Management techniques would include a rotating cycle of

draining, mowing, discing, scraping, herbicide application, and flooding to control reed canary

grass, prevent brush invasion, and halt succession in these habitats. Management of any

remaining grassland areas would include regular mowing. Fertilization and seeding in grasslands

would also be conducted to enhance the quality for fall and winter waterfowl browse. The water

delivery system would be periodically maintained, including the excavation or cleaning of sloughs,

ditches, and water control structures. 

As in Alternative A, some riparian plantings would 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. 

The environmental education program would be improved to provide for the largest expansion of

the program, serving up to 20,000 students each year. The program would include development of

site-specific materials and curricula, provide teacher training and field trip support, develop and

strengthen partnerships in the area, and serve as a model for other programs. This alternative 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-14 Chapter 2 Alternatives

would require the highest level of applicable staff to support this program. As described in Section

2.2.2, for all action alternatives, the Luhr Beach area (Nature Center and boat landing) would be

managed under cooperative management agreement, and use of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center

would be coordinated with the Refuge environmental education program.

Of the action alternatives, Alternative B provides the smallest change in trail configuration. The

existing 51⁄2-mile dike loop trail would be roughly the same length, although in a revised

configuration around the Shannon Slough system. A large portion of the trail would continue to

be closed during the waterfowl hunting season to ensure visitor safety and provide improved

waterfowl sanctuary. Interpretation would focus on existing habitats, estuarine restoration,

improved management, and wildlife. 

A waterfowl hunting program would not be implemented on the Refuge, and the Refuge boundary

would be clearly signed to delineate Refuge lands from WDFW property where hunting is allowed. 

Regulations would be enforced, eliminating the unauthorized hunting that has previously occurred

in unsigned portions of the Refuge. WDFW would continue to have jurisdiction and management

responsibility over WDFW lands. 

The McAllister Creek bank fishing area, accessible by foot or boat, would continue to be provided. 

A portion of the bank fishing area would continue to be closed during the waterfowl hunting

season to ensure visitor safety. The Trotter’s Woods area south of I-5, if acquired or under a

cooperative management agreement, would be managed to provide a high quality bank fishing area

along the Nisqually River while providing improved habitat protection. The boat ramp in the

Trotter’s Woods area would remain available for use by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. An accessible

fishing site at Luhr Beach would be provided, if feasible, following development of a cooperative

management agreement with WDFW. 

Boating and shellfishing are described above in Section 2.2.1, Features Common to All

Alternatives (A-D), and Section 2.2.2, Features Common to all Action Alternatives. 

2.3.3 Alternative C—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Moderate Estuarine

Restoration

As shown in Figure 2.3-3, expansion of the Refuge boundary under Alternative C would be the

same as described under Alternative B (i.e., 2,407 acres, including 512 acres of upland habitat and

1,891 acres of floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat). 

This alternative would restore approximately 515 acres (50%) of the diked interior to estuarine

habitat. Dikes would be breached at major sloughs, remaining dikes would be lowered to grade,

and the material from dike removal would be used to fill in the borrow ditch to allow unimpeded

tidal circulation in the restoration area. 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 would be left in place to reduce the loss of the largest

deciduous trees along the Nisqually River. A new cross dike, approximately 1 mile long, would

be built to enclose the remaining freshwater habitat. Dike armoring would be required on this
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-15

new feature to protect exterior banks from erosion from tidal waters and wave action. New dike

material would be borrowed from freshwater wetland enhancement sites, dikes to be removed,

and adjacent areas. This alternative would retain the Shannon Slough system along McAllister

Creek as diked freshwater habitat. All remaining exterior dikes would require extensive repairs to

prevent seepage and failure. Dikes would continue to be maintained with periodic resurfacing

(graveling), mowing, brushing, and other techniques.

This alternative would allow a new portion of the Nisqually River to flow unrestricted, including

during storm and flood events. Riparian habitat would be enhanced along the Nisqually River by

replanting a 38-acre area north of the Twin Barns to restore forested, surge plain habitat. It

would be protected by constructing a berm to the northwest but would still receive saltwater

influence periodically. The berm would be designed to prevent fish entrapment through the

design of berm height and grading.

Management of the remaining 447 acres of freshwater and grassland habitats would be improved,

with a higher proportion of freshwater habitat created by converting some grasslands to seasonal

freshwater wetlands and ponds. However, due to the large size of management units and

freshwater supply limitations, the effectiveness of management actions may be limited, including

the ability to flood large areas to depths sufficient for vegetation control. The freshwater area

would be subdivided into five units by new internal dikes to allow more intensive management to

improve habitat quality and control reed canary grass. This alternative would require the

construction of 4,600 linear feet of new exterior dike between the restored estuarine area and the

diked habitat (along the northern boundary) and 13,000 linear feet of a new interior dike system. 

New internal and external dikes would be planted with vegetation to stabilize banks, prevent

erosion, and provide screening and habitat. Dikes would continue to be maintained with periodic

resurfacing (graveling), mowing, brushing, and other techniques. A total of 15,600 linear feet of

exterior dike would need to be maintained. A much more intensive freshwater wetland, grassland,

and riparian habitat management regime would be implemented in the remaining diked habitat,

similar to that described in Alternative B except within a smaller area. Some riparian plantings

would occur north of the headquarters building and along slough systems within the diked area to

mimic native riparian habitat historically found in the delta.

This alternative would provide an improved and expanded environmental education programs

similar to Alternative B, except that it would serve up to 15,000 students instead of 20,000 each

year. Refuge staff would have to be diverted to operate a waterfowl hunt program in this

alternative, reducing the effort available for the education program. Improvements would 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 would

be required to perform at this improved/expanded level. As in Alternative B, the Luhr Beach area

(Nature Center and boat landing) would be managed under a cooperative management agreement,

and use of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center would be coordinated with the Refuge

environmental education program.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-16 Chapter 2 Alternatives

As part of this alternative, the existing 51⁄2-mile dike trail would be reduced to a 33⁄4-mile round

trip, including a loop with a boardwalk extension. No seasonal trail closure would be required

because waterfowl hunting would no longer occur along McAllister Creek. An approximately

21⁄2-mile loop trail would be developed on tribal and Refuge property east of the Nisqually River,

with temporary seasonal closures instituted during the waterfowl hunting season to avoid conflict

with the private hunt club. This closure would no longer be necessary when the hunt club ceases

operation. This trail would provide new wildlife viewing opportunities and would also require

construction of a new parking area and visitor contact station. A bridge would be needed across

Red Salmon Creek to support a loop configuration. The specific design of this trail would be

developed during implementation of the CCP. Interpretation would focus on existing habitats,

estuarine restoration, improved management, and wildlife. If lands are acquired, other new trail

options would include trails on the East Bluff to link with planned Pierce County trails.

A consolidated waterfowl hunting area consisting of both Refuge and WDFW lands (1,170 acres

total) would be managed by the Service. More of the Refuge (713 acres) would be open to

waterfowl hunting than in Alternative D. The hunting area would include Refuge tideflats west of

the Nisqually River and north of the current Brown Farm Dike and WDFW lands north and

northeast of the Brown Farm Dike. The WDFW tract in McAllister Creek would be closed to

hunting. The RNA boundary would be modified to provide a high quality hunting area at the

mouth of the river and create a clear delineation (straight boundary line) of the hunting area,

reducing it by 166 acres to 671 acres. The area within the Brown Farm Dike, including the

estuarine restoration area, would remain closed to hunting. The Service would be responsible for

waterfowl hunting management on the newly consolidated hunting area through a cooperative

management agreement with WDFW. Luhr Beach facilities would also be managed by the

Service through a cooperative management agreement. Restrictions to ensure a high quality

hunting experience would include instituting a 3 day/week, 25-shell limit. There would be no

limits placed on numbers of hunters and no designated blind sites. WDFW concurrence would be

required. If an agreement could not be reached by December 2004, the Refuge would follow

Alternative B and officially close to hunting, be posted and enforced, thereby eliminating the

unauthorized hunting on the Refuge. 

The McAllister Creek bank fishing area, accessible by foot or boat, would continue to be

provided. No seasonal closure would be required during the waterfowl hunting season. Two new

fishing areas along the Nisqually River would also be provided, including the Trotter’s Woods

area (as described in Alternative B) south of I-5, 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 would be associated with the development of the trail,

parking area, and visitor contact station, as described above. Accessible fishing access at Luhr

Beach would be provided, if feasible, following development of a cooperative management

agreement. The RNA would be closed to fishing, with the closure enforced. The area within the

Brown Farm Dike and any tidal restoration area would be closed to fishing.

Boating and shellfishing are described above in Section 2.2.1, Features Common to All

Alternatives (A-D), and Section 2.2.2, Features Common to All Action Alternatives. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-17

Figure 2.3-3 Alternative C: Moderate Refuge Expansion and Estuarine Restoration with Limited

Housing

11 x 17 color
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-18 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Back of Figure 2.3-3 Alternative C: Moderate Refuge Expansion and Estuarine Restoration with

Limited Housing
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-19

2.3.4 Alternative D—Preferred Alternative: Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres and

Maximum Estuarine Restoration

As shown in Figure 2.3-4, Alternative D would provide for the largest expansion of the Refuge

boundary, adding an additional 3,479 acres for a total authorized boundary of 7,415 acres. The

proposed 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, as described in Alternatives B and C. 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. The main difference between the

expansion in this alternative and Alternatives B and C is the enlarged protection it would provide

to the Nisqually River corridor and the Nisqually Valley, by improving protection of 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. This

alternative would provide the greatest protection of bluffs, floodplain wetlands, and the river

corridor south of I-5. 

This alternative maximizes estuarine restoration while still providing freshwater wetland and

riparian habitat on the Refuge. Under Alternative D, 699 acres (70%) of the diked area would be

restored to estuarine habitat. This alternative component is based on the results of a scientific

workshop hosted by the Service in June 1998. The restored area would reconnect a majority of

the historic slough systems in the Nisqually delta to Puget Sound, creating a more complete and

functional estuarine system than any other alternative. This would require breaching the existing

Brown Farm Dike in specific locations and removing much of the dike down to grade. Material

from the dike would 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 would be left in place to reduce the loss of

the largest deciduous trees along the Nisqually River. A new exterior dike would be built to

protect the remaining freshwater habitat. Alternative D would 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 would be planted with vegetation to stabilize banks, prevent erosion, and

provide screening and habitat. Dikes would continue to be maintained with periodic resurfacing

(graveling), mowing, brushing, and other techniques. A total of 15,000 linear feet of exterior dike

would need to be maintained.

The remaining 263-acre area within the dike would be managed primarily as freshwater wetlands

and riparian habitat. As described in Alternatives B and C, a much more intensive freshwater

wetland, grassland, and riparian habitat management regime would be implemented in the

remaining diked habitat, except within a smaller area. Internal dikes would be built to create five

management units. Grassland habitat would be managed as a smaller component of a mosaic of

freshwater wetland habitats, scattered in patches and along the edges of freshwater wetlands. As

in Alternatives B and C, some riparian plantings would occur north of the headquarters building

and along slough systems within the diked area to mimic native riparian habitat historically found

in the delta. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-20 Chapter 2 Alternatives

As described under Alternative C, 38 acres of riparian/surge plain habitat would also be created to

increase the acreage of this important habitat along the Nisqually River. 

The environmental education program under the Preferred Alternative would be the same as

Alternative C, serving up to 15,000 students annually.

This alternative would have the largest effect on the existing trail system. The existing 51⁄2-mile

loop trail would 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 would no longer be configured in a loop. 

The boardwalk extension would help offset changes in the trail and improve wildlife viewing

opportunities in estuarine habitat. The boardwalk extension along McAllister Creek would be

seasonally closed to prevent conflicts with waterfowl hunters on WDFW property. As in all

alternatives, a primitive 1⁄2-mile loop trail would be provided in the surge plain habitat. Similar to

Alternative C, an approximately 21⁄2-mile loop trail would 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 would provide

new wildlife viewing opportunities. A bridge would be needed across Red Salmon Creek to

support a loop configuration. The specific design of this trail would be developed during

implementation of the CCP. Interpretation would focus on existing habitats, estuarine restoration,

improved management, and wildlife. Other new trail options would include trails on the East

Bluff as part of a larger Pierce County trail system.

Under the Preferred Alternative, the Service would 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 would be reduced by 73 acres to

764 acres and the RNA boundary moved to the east to provide a high quality hunting area at the

mouth of the river. By opening 191 acres of the Refuge to waterfowl hunting, the hunting area

north of the Brown Farm Dike would be configured in a single rectangular block, reducing

confusing boundary issues. Areas designated as “No Hunting Areas” would be posted and

enforced, eliminating the unauthorized hunting that has occurred previously on the Refuge. 

Waterfowl hunting would continue on all WDFW lands. A 25-shell limit would be instituted on

Refuge and WDFW lands. WDFW would maintain jurisdiction and management responsibility

over WDFW lands, and the Service would manage the hunting program on Refuge lands. Refuge

outreach, education, and enforcement programs would benefit hunting programs on State lands as

well. The area within the Brown Farm Dike, including the estuarine restoration area, would be

closed to hunting.

The bank fishing area along McAllister Creek would no longer be available due to dike removal. 

However, the closure of the McAllister Creek Hatchery (July 2002) is expected to reduce fishing

opportunity dramatically, lessening the effect of this change. Bank fishing access along McAllister

Creek south of I-5 would be provided in the future if acquisition or land protection occurs in

appropriate locations. Fishing alternatives on the Nisqually River and at Luhr Beach would be the

same as described in Alternative C. An additional accessible fishing access only 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-21

Figure 2.3-4 Alternative D: Maximum Estuarine Restoration with Consolidated Hunt Program

Managed by Refuge

11 x 17 color
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-22 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Back of Figure 2.3-4 Alternative D: Maximum Estuarine Restoration with Consolidated Hunt

Program Managed by Refuge
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-23

area at the Nisqually River Overlook off the Twin Barns Loop Boardwalk Trail would also be

investigated to determine if a stable fishing platform can be maintained along that portion of the

river. The RNA would be closed to fishing with closures enforced. The area within the Brown

Farm Dike and any tidal restoration area would be closed to fishing.

Boating and shellfishing are described above in Section 2.2.1, Features Common to All

Alternatives (A-D), and Section 2.2.2, Features Common to All Action Alternatives. 

2.3.5 Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue

Table 2.3-1 (at the end of this chapter) presents an issue-by-issue comparison of the four

alternatives selected for detailed analysis.

2.4 Alternative Components Considered but Eliminated from

Detailed Study

The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Improvement Act is designed to allow

consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. 

During the alternatives development process, many different solutions were considered. The

following alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this Draft

CCP/EIS for the reason(s) described. 

• Larger Refuge Expansion Along the Nisqually River - A larger boundary expansion was

considered along the Nisqually River south of I-5, which would have increased expansion to

5,133 acres (1,654 acres more than Alternative D). This larger expansion was based on a

proposed RNA on Fort Lewis lands and the 100-year flood line. It was not selected because

it overlapped with the Nisqually Indian Tribe’s established reservation boundary. If lands

within that recognized boundary were to become available, the tribe would pursue interests in

them.

• Estuarine Restoration to I-5 Boundary - Maximum estuarine restoration would have

encompassed the entire 1,000 acres of diked habitat. This alternative was not selected

because it would severely restrict opportunities for wildlife-dependent public uses such as

wildlife observation, interpretation, and environmental education, which are considered

priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuges. In addition, it would not provide a diversity

of freshwater habitat types to support the variety of wildlife populations that currently occur

on the Refuge.

• Intensive Freshwater Management Within Diked Area With No Estuarine Restoration -

Under this component, no estuarine restoration would be undertaken. The diked area would

be retained, and the habitat would be managed much more intensively to improve the quality

of freshwater and grassland habitats. Because of the difficulty in maintaining non-native

grassland areas that have become progressively wetter each year, reed canary grass has spread

rapidly and dominates more than 30% of the diked area. In addition, there has been an
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-24 Chapter 2 Alternatives

increase in scrub-shrub habitat because equipment access is limited in these wet areas. The

Brown Farm Dike would need extensive repairs and replacement. An extensive internal dike

system would have to be built to provide the water management capabilities needed for

effective reed canary grass control and freshwater wetland management. Habitat management

within the diked area would require an intensive, regularly rotating regime of draining,

mowing, discing, application of herbicides, and flooding. Existing water sources would need

to be supplemented with more pumping and additional water sources. Current freshwater

sources might be insufficient to provide the volume of water needed for reed canary grass

control. This alternative component would not meet Refuge goals of restoring native habitats

and associated plant and wildlife species, or restoring endangered and threatened species. 

• 85% Estuarine Restoration - Originally considered as part of eight preliminary habitat

restoration alternatives during the public scoping process, 85% estuarine restoration would

reduce freshwater habitats on the Refuge to approximately 150 acres. This alternative

component would limit foot access by the public to a small area. This would make it very

difficult to provide a high quality visitor experience while providing sufficient wildlife

sanctuary areas in freshwater wetland habitat. In addition, the remaining amount of diked area

would provide a limited quantity of freshwater wetland and riparian habitats for freshwaterdependent species. 

• 50% Estuarine Restoration in a Different Configuration - This alternative component would

have restored 50% of the diked area to estuary, with a new cross-dike in a different

configuration (as compared with Alternative C), angling from the northeast along the

Nisqually River, south of the ring dike, down to the southwest, south of Shannon Slough. 

This would retain more of the Nisqually River dike. This alternative component was not

selected because it would only allow a limited water exchange between the restoration area

and the Nisqually River, reducing the opportunities for fish, invertebrates, and other wildlife to

pass freely. In addition, it would reduce the ability of sediment to reach the restoration area

from the major sediment source, the Nisqually River. It would also increase the amount of

new cross-dike needed, which would affect the deposition of sediments and salinity patterns in

the restoration area (ENSR 1999). It would also have eliminated the riparian restoration zone

along the Nisqually River that is part of Alternatives C and D. This dike configuration would

have been less effective than Alternative C in restoring estuarine habitat, allowing the

Nisqually River to move or flow more naturally, and reducing the need to repair and maintain

the dike along the Nisqually River.

• Acquire State Lands and Close to Waterfowl Hunting - Acquisition of State lands and closing

the Refuge to waterfowl hunting was considered but eliminated because it would have

eliminated public waterfowl hunting opportunities in the delta, which is one of the priority

public uses on Refuges; in addition, it would not have met WDFW goals and objectives for

their lands.

• Waterfowl Hunting on the East Side of the Nisqually River - Walk-in waterfowl hunting east

of the Nisqually River was considered but not included as an alternative component. This area

consists of approximately 400 acres of Refuge and tribal lands, including estuarine and diked

habitats. Diked areas will be restored to estuarine and riparian habitats in a phased approach
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-25

over the next several years, led by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. A loop trail, including bank

fishing access, is proposed in Alternatives C and D to offset the trail reduction on the west

side of the Nisqually River. The east side parcel is too small to zone or separate multiple uses

and provide sufficient wildlife sanctuary and a high quality visitor experience. Certain basic

criteria were used to design all alternatives that were not met by this option, including

providing sufficient wildlife sanctuary, a 200-yard buffer between hunt areas and trails, and no

seasonal trail closures. 

• Waterfowl Hunting Across Entire Tideflats - An alternative was initially considered that

would have created a waterfowl hunting area from bluff to bluff (approximately 924 acres),

extending from the western shore of the delta at the Luhr Beach boat ramp east through the

entire delta to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. This alternative was not selected for

several reasons, including: (1) the large hunting area would have stretched across the entire

delta east to west, leaving very little intertidal/salt marsh habitat as undisturbed sanctuary

areas for waterfowl; (2) the hunting area would have extended into portions of the estuarine

restoration area, conflicting with the common provision in all action alternatives to maintain

restoration areas as closed to public access to provide wildlife sanctuary and a research study

area, to document processes of estuarine restoration and fish and wildlife responses with

minimal human disturbance; and (3) hunting would be an open access, 7 day/week program, in

keeping with WDFW lands; this level of hunting activity, in addition to the enlarged hunt area,

would provide insufficient waterfowl sanctuary.

• Waterfowl Hunting in Multiple Sites - An alternative was considered but not selected that

would have retained hunting in all three WDFW parcels and opened more of the Refuge to

hunting. It would have included 3 to 4 set blinds and a one-month delayed opening on the

McAllister Creek tract, opening the northeastern section of the RNA and the northeastern

portion of the restored area to hunting, opening Refuge and tribal lands east of the river for 4

to 6 hunting blinds, requiring seasonal trail closures east of the river. This alternative was

eliminated because it would provide insufficient wildlife sanctuary, compromise the RNA to a

great degree including areas where wigeon concentrate to rest and feed, conflict with the

provision to maintain restored areas as sanctuary and research areas, and would have created

a direct conflict with the proposed east side trail, thereby requiring a seasonal trail closure and

eliminating zoning or separation of uses. 

• Boardwalk Loop Options in Restored Estuarine Area within Brown Farm Dike - Boardwalk

loops were not included as an alternative component in restored estuarine areas because: (1)

loop configurations would affect the quality of the experience by being fully visible from other

parts of the boardwalk, interrupting the visual landscape, and affecting wildlife use patterns,

thereby decreasing wildlife viewing opportunities for visitors on other portions of the

boardwalk; (2) the trail would disturb wildlife in newly restored estuarine areas and fragment

restored estuarine habitats; and (3) the logistical difficulties and costs associated with

installing and maintaining extensive boardwalks would have been prohibitive in an open, fully

tidal system subject to high tides and storms.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

2-26 Chapter 2 Alternatives

• West Bluff Trail - The establishment of a new trail on the 100-acre West Bluff parcel was

considered. It was not selected as an alternative component because of its proximity to a bald

eagle nest. The Recovery Plan recommends an 800-meter buffer (line of sight) from active

eagle nests. The trail would have been well within this buffer area. Further, the trail would

have been at or above the level of the nest in the nest tree, greatly increasing the potential for

human disturbance to nesting or roosting bald eagles. The majority of the parcel was logged

in the early 1990s and has since become dominated by Scot’s broom. The Service is

reforesting the tract, which would greatly increase its value as a corridor for wildlife and a

buffer to nesting bald eagles and great blue herons. In addition, public access would have

required establishment of a parking area within the reforestation area and access off a very

busy main road, Meridian Drive. Reforestation and wildlife protection were considered the

highest priorities for this tract. 

• East Shore Trail - To provide additional trail linkages within the local area, a new east shore

trail was considered along the shoreline below the East Bluff, in the vicinity of the jetty, west

of the railroad bed. This trail would have the potential to link up with trails in DuPont. 

However, further analysis showed that the shoreline was commonly inundated during high

tides and was heavily riprapped and extremely steep, making the installation of a trail

logistically infeasible. Additionally, the active railroad track would have been very difficult to

cross safely to gain access to a trail along the shoreline.

• Full Study Area Boundary Expansion - A larger Refuge expansion (5,390 additional acres)

was considered but not included because of conflicts with other land uses, high costs, and

because some areas were judged to be lower priority for Refuge protection.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-27

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

REFUGE EXPANSION

Refuge Boundary No change in existing approved

Refuge boundary. Continue to

complete the Refuge, acquiring or

protecting lands within the boundary. 

Improve priority habitat protection in

the watershed through strengthened

partnerships outside of the Refuge

boundary.

Continue to complete the Refuge as in

Alternative A, including cooperative

management agreement for Luhr

Beach area. Expand Refuge boundary

(listed below). Strengthen partnerships

within the watershed to improve priority

habitat protection.

Same as Alternative B. Continue to complete the Refuge as in

Alternative B, but with larger boundary

expansion (listed below). Strengthen

partnerships within the watershed to

improve priority habitat protection.

Acres No change. Additional 2,407 acres. Same as Alternative B. Additional 3,479 acres.

East Bluff No proposed acquisition. Protect 512 acres of a forested corridor

along the East Bluff, north of I-5.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Nisqually River

Valley

No proposed acquisition. Protect 1,566 acres of freshwater

wetland, riparian, and forested habitat.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B, but with a total

of 1,952 acres protected.

Nisqually River

Corridor

No proposed acquisition. Protect 325 acres of the Nisqually River

corridor south of I-5. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B, but with a total

of 1,011 acres protected. 

HABITAT RESTORATION

Estuarine Habitat No restoration. 30% muted (318 acres)

15% full (140 acres; Shannon Slough

system). 

50% full (515 acres)

Allow Nisqually River to follow more

natural flow. 

70% full (699 acres)

Allow Nisqually River and McAllister

Creek to follow more natural flow. 

Freshwater Habitat 1,000 acres

Limited management improvements.

542 acres

Improved management with 5 new

interior management units.

447 acres

Retain Shannon Slough system;

improved management with 5 new

interior management units.

263 acres

Improved management with 5 new

interior management units.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

2-28 Chapter 2 Alternatives

Riparian Habitat Limited riparian plantings north of

headquarters and along sloughs

within diked areas.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A with

additional 38 acres of riparian/surge

plain restoration along the Nisqually

River. 

Same as Alternative C.

Exterior Dike (linear

feet remaining)

28,000 feet

Extensive dike repairs and long-term

maintenance required.

A total of 33,800 feet

(retain 24,100 feet, new 9,700 feet) 

Extensive dike repairs and long-term

maintenance required. Dike breached

and bridged in 5 locations with no filling

of borrow ditch. 

A total of 15,600 feet

(retain 11,000 feet, new 4,600 feet)

Extensive dike repairs and longterm maintenance required. Breach

and remove dike to grade; fill

borrow ditch. 

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

No changes. 13,200 feet

5 diked, freshwater units.

13,000 feet 

 5 diked, freshwater units.

10,500 feet

5 diked, freshwater units.

Nisqually Tribal

Land, east of River

Estuarine restoration on portions of

330 acres, managed by the Refuge

under Cooperative Agreement.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

On-site Program Continue to provide limited program:

(1) reservation system for school

groups; (2) trails; and (3) field trip

assistance by Refuge volunteers.

Greatly 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. 

Expand and improve program. 

Same program components as

Alternative B, but for fewer

students. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Students Served 5,000 20,000 15,000 15,000

Facility(ies) Replace Environmental Education

Center.

Acquire or manage Luhr Beach under

cooperative management agreement,

including Nisqually Reach Nature

Center. Replace Environmental

Education Center.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-29

Off-site Program No changes. Develop and strengthen partnerships in

the area. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Staffing Needs No changes Provide increased staff support. Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION, HIKING, AND TRAIL CONFIGURATION

Dike (main) Trail Existing 51⁄2-mile dike trail loop would

remain. 

Existing 51⁄2-mile dike trail loop roughly

the same length although revised in

configuration around the Shannon

Slough system. 

Existing dike trail would be reduced

to approx. 33⁄4-mile round trip,

including a loop with a boardwalk

extension. 

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.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

New Trails Unimproved, primitive 1⁄2-mile trail in

Nisqually River surge plain forest.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 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. 

Same as Alternative C.

Facilities Visitor Center and interpretive

displays, focusing on existing

habitats and wildlife.

Same as Alternative A but with

additional interpretation on estuarine

restoration. A new Visitor Contact

Station at Luhr Beach.

Same as Alternative B, plus new

Visitor Contact Station and parking

on the east side of the Nisqually

River.

Same as Alternative C. 

Seasonal Closures Portion of the 51⁄2-mile loop trail

would continue to be closed

seasonally during waterfowl hunting

season. 

Same as Alternative A. No seasonal closures on main trail. 

New eastside trail seasonally closed

during waterfowl hunting season for

the duration of private duck club

operation.

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

2-30 Chapter 2 Alternatives

WATERFOWL HUNTING

Refuge Open to

Waterfowl Hunting

No, but unsigned areas

administratively uncontrollable. 

Some hunting occurs on Refuge

tidelands, McAllister Creek, and

RNA.

No; sign boundaries to delineate

Refuge from WDFW lands and

enforcement to prevent hunting from

occurring on Refuge lands.

Yes; quality hunting on 1,170 acres

of Refuge and WDFW lands north

of Brown Farm Dike and west of

Nisqually River. Quality hunt

provisions include 3 days/week; 25-

shell limit; no limit on number of

hunters and no designated blind

sites.

Yes; Refuge will open 191 acres of

Refuge lands to a 7 day/week hunt

program, creating a single block 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.

Same as Alternative A. WDFW and Refuge lands, including

Luhr Beach, consolidated and

managed by Refuge preferably

through a cooperative management

agreement. If agreement cannot be

reached by Dec. 2004, same as

Alternative B.

Same as Alternative A, with quality

hunt provision of 25-shell limit.

Acreage Changes None None Refuge opens 713 acres to hunting

and WDFW closes 72 huntable

acres along McAllister Creek. 

Reduce RNA by 166 acres.

Refuge opens 191 acres to hunting. 

Reduce RNA by 73 acres.

Sanctuary No new sanctuary provided. Largest amount of sanctuary. Moderate increase in sanctuary,

including McAllister Creek.

Moderate increase in sanctuary.

Luhr Beach Hunter

Access

Hunting and hunter access managed

by WDFW.

Same as Alternative A Hunting and hunter access

managed by the Service.

Hunting on Refuge lands managed by

the Service; hunting on WDFW lands

managed by WDFW.

Staffing Needs No changes. Provide increased staff support for

enforcement.

Provide maximum increased staff

support for management of hunting

program and enforcement.

Same as Alternative C.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-31

FISHING

General

Regulations

Fishing would be allowed by boat,

following State regulations, in all

Refuge waters outside of the dike. 

The area within the Brown Farm

Dike would continue to be closed to

fishing.

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.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

McAllister Creek

bank fishing area

No change in area but continued

seasonal closures in portions during

waterfowl hunting season. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, except no

seasonal closures.

Bank fishing along McAllister Creek

would no longer be available due to

dike removal. 

RNA closures RNA closures would not be

enforced. 

The RNA would be closed to fishing

and closures enforced. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

New fishing

opportunities

None An improved Nisqually River bank

fishing area, if acquired, located south

of I-5 (Trotter’s Woods area) would be

provided. Accessible fishing site at

Luhr Beach would be provided if

feasible under cooperative

management agreement. 

Same as Alternative B but with an

additional potential bank fishing

area along the Nisqually River north

of I-5 (on tribal and Refuge lands

east of the river).

Same as Alternatives B and C, but 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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS Alternatives by Component.

Plan Features

Alternative A—

No Action: Status Quo

Alternative B—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Minimum

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative C—Refuge Expansion

of 2,407 Acres and Moderate

Estuarine Restoration

Alternative D—Preferred Alternative:

Refuge Expansion of 3,479 Acres

and Maximum Estuarine Restoration

2-32 Chapter 2 Alternatives

BOATING

General

Regulations

No restrictions. A speed limit of 5 mph would be

established in all Refuge waters. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

RNA closures RNA closures would not be

enforced. 

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.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Luhr Beach Boat

Ramp Area

None 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.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-1

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

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

activities of Nisqually NWR. The affected 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 currently approved

Refuge boundary (3,936 acres) and the potential Refuge expansion areas (5,390 acres). 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 on the CCP Study Area include the Nisqually River, McAllister and Red

Salmon creeks, Medicine Creek, McAllister Springs, and groundwater aquifers and artesian
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-2 Chapter 3 Affected 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 et

al. 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 et al.

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 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.

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-6 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-7

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 (Washington State Department of

Ecology 1991). Deteriorating air quality in the local area is necessitating burn bans of increasing

duration and area.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-8 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 presented in Table 3.2-1 and shown in

Figure 3.2-2.

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

Habitat

Acres

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: USFWS data, Ducks Unlimited, and National Wetlands Inventories.

Includes State, Nisqually Indian Tribe, and Private lands. Acres presented in this table were calculated from GIS database;

variations in the GIS cover type data result in slight discrepancies in acreage totals presented elsewhere in this CCP/EIS.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-9

Figure 3.2-1 Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

11 x 17 cross section
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-10 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.2-1
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-11

Figure 3.2-2 Refuge Habitats

[color figure]
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-12 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3.2-2

Back side of figure
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

1

 Sediment load averages between 250,000 and 300,000 tons annually (USFWS 1977). 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-13

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). 

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

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 tons1 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 et al. 1974; USFWS

1977; Burg 1984; Canning 1986). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-14 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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, 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-15

Figure 3.2-3 National Wetland Inventory Regional Estuarine Wetlands

color, 8 1⁄2 x 11
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-16 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.2-3
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-17

Figure 3.2-4 Historic and Current Estuarine Wetlands
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-18 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.2-4
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-19

Salt marsh communities are a primary source of productivity in the

estuary.

D.J. Smith

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 NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-20 Chapter 3 Affected 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 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 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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-21

The riverine and riparian habitats in the Nisqually River are

important for a variety of migratory birds and fish. 

L. Gillespie

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 in which 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-22 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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 (Washington Natural Heritage Program [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

(Cassidy 1998). 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).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-23

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

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 110-acre tract was

purchased in 1996 by the Service. 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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-24 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 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.

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.

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, resulting in decreased diversity of flora and fauna. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-26 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-27

Figure 3.2-6: Invasive Reed Canary Grass

[Color Figure]
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-28 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.2-6
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-29

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. To simplify and focus the

discussion of the effects of the CCP alternatives on fish (presented in Chapter 4), this description

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, with potential effects addressed in Chapter 4. 

Table 3.3-1. Species Selected for Evaluating the Likely Effects of CCP Alternatives on Fish

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-30 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon and 

are highly dependent on estuaries.

D. Vogel

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

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 determined this ESU to be
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-31

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 sea birds 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-32 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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). 

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 sea

birds 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 oil-contaminated

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 fresh

water. 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-33

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,

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-34 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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.

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, WDFW classified Nisqually River bull trout 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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-35

The American wigeon is the most abundant waterfowl species found

on the Refuge.

C. Vadai

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

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-36 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 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 shovelers,

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 bittern, American coots, Virginia rails, grebes, loons, cormorants, and gulls. Most

birds within this group use the Refuge as feeding or resting grounds, 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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-37

Figure 3.4-1. Waterfowl Survey Units
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-38 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.4-1
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-39

Great blue herons are common sightings on the

Refuge throughout the year, but nesting success

has declined in recent years. 

V.J. Anderson

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 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 glaucous-
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-40 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

V.J. Anderson

Dunlins are common winter residents, often feeding on

exposed mudflats. 

winged 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

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,
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-41

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 (e.g., olivesided 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 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’ woodpecker
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-42 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

V.J. Anderson

Marsh wrens use a variety of habitats on the Refuge, including freshwater

wetlands and salt marshes. 

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 77 species of passerines found on the Refuge are observed during the spring and

summer months. American robins, cedar waxwings, common yellowthroats, song sparrows, redwinged blackbirds, and 4 species of swallows nest on the Refuge during this time. 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, violet-green,

and tree swallows are commonly

observed feeding on insects over

estuarine habitats during spring and

summer (Ulmschneider 1976). 

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,
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-43

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 squirrels, 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

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-44 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 2 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

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 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-45

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 25 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. 

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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-46 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-47

More than 100,000 people visit the Refuge annually to participate

in wildlife observation, interpretation, photography, fishing, and

environmental education.

D.S. Pitkin

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.

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 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.

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.

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-48 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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 Nisqually Refuge

Cooperating Association operates the sales outlet and helps support Refuge programs. Refuge

staff are on-site at all times. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-49

Figure 3.6-1. Current authorized public recreation within the study area.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-50 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3.6-1

back side
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-51

J. Takekawa

The Refuge visitor center and administrative headquarters include exhibits

that focus on the watershed, estuary, and migratory birds in the Pacific

Flyway. 

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 2 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. WDFW has recently proposed to close the

McAllister Creek Hatchery; if this occurs, fishing opportunity in McAllister Creek would decline

dramatically.

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 several points of illegal entry exist and are used by anglers. 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 river
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-52 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

bank. 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 has never been implemented because

the Service has not been able to come to an agreement with the State on the hunting program

design. In addition, the Refuge has 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 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 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 harvest with wigeon,

teal, and mallard comprising over 80% of the harvest. Hunter success averaged 1.5 birds/hunter
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-53

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 mid-November. 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, 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. 

There is 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 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. 

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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-54 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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 funding

allows. 

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-55

The Refuge provides an ideal setting to reach a diversity of students and

teachers.

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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-56 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 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)
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-57

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

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,
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-58 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 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

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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-59

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

County 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. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-60 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3.8-1. Local Population Trends.

Locality

Estimated

population 1999

Anticipated

Population, 2020 Percent Growth

Thurston County 202,700*** 296734 46

Olympia 40,210** 54020 34

Lacey 29,020** 45760 57

Hawks Prairie 3000 12250 398

Pierce County 700,000** 848610 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 46438 No Estimate Unknown

Sources: *PSRC (2000)

**Thurston County (2001)

***OFM (2000)

 City of Lakewood 2000 (Note: projection for 2017 not 2020)

** ***GLUP, Adopted 12/11/2001 P. 58, Pers. Comm, Dana Brown, Urban Planner, 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.).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-61

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). 

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 population (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 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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-62 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 et al. 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 (DOT) 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. 

Peak traffic can reach as high as 132,000 vehicles per day (R. Decker, pers. comm.). Ramp
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-63

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). 

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 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 alternatives. 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, Research Natural Area, 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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-64 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-65

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 an oak savannah habitat (P. Clarke, pers. comm.). 

Major land uses on Fort Lewis properties include cantonement, 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 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 un-populated 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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-66 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Research Natural Area

Located at the mouth of the Nisqually River, the 837-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

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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-67

Figure 3.8-1. Special Designated Areas 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-68 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Back of Figure 3.8-1
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-69

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

The existing Refuge staff consists of eight permanent and two temporary employees who account

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

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 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-70 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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 

Thurston County Parks and Recreation 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

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 DOT, 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 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-71

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 archeological 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). 

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 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

3-72 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

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. 

Research Natural Area 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 goeduck tracts in the Nisqually Reach have never

been open because of seasonal pollution due to heavy rainfall events.

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). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-1

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

This chapter identifies the effects of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2 (Table 4.0-1) on

various aspects of the environment within the CCP Study Area. Alternatives under consideration

could have effects on a wide range of existing Refuge characteristics. This chapter is organized

similarly to the Affected Environment chapter. Effects of each alternative are described in three

main action categories–Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program. Also

see Table 4.9-1 at the end of the chapter for a summary of effects.

Table 4.0-1. Brief Summary of Alternatives Described in Chapter 2.

Alternative Habitat Restoration Refuge Expansion Public Use Program

A

Minimal improvements within

diked area

No Refuge expansion Continue to provide limited environmental

education (EE) program (5,000 students);

no changes to trail system, hunting, or

fishing access

B

318 acres muted estuarine and

140 acres full estuarine

restoration, improved

management of 542 acres

freshwater wetlands

Proposed 2,407 acres of

Refuge expansion along

East Bluff and south of I5

Greatly expand EE program (20,000

students), minor changes to trail system,

hunt closure enforced, no changes to

fishing access

C

515 acres of estuarine restoration,

improved management of 447

acres of freshwater wetlands, 38

acres riparian restoration

Proposed 2,407 acres of

Refuge expansion along

East Bluff and south of I5

Expand EE program (15,000 students),

trail reduced to 33⁄4- mile loop and

boardwalk trail, new eastside trail, new

accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach and

Nisqually River, 713 acres of Refuge open

to hunting (with restrictions)

D

699 acres of estuarine restoration,

improved management of 263

acres of freshwater wetlands, 38

acres riparian restoration

Proposed 3,479 acres of

Refuge expansion along

East Bluff, south of I-5

and Nisqually River

corridor

Expand EE program (15,000 students),

trail reduced to 31⁄2-mile round-trip (with

boardwalk in estuary), new eastside trail,

new accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach

and Nisqually River, 191 acres of Refuge

open to hunting
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Effects to the Physical Environment

4.1.1 Alternative A

4.1.1.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Hydrology

Under the No Action Alternative, no significant changes to hydrology are anticipated. The

Nisqually River and McAllister Creek would continue to be contained by dikes in the delta,

restricting the flow and natural movement of these waterways. Seepage of tidal waters through

the dikes would continue until dikes are repaired. 

Minimal changes in flood storage area would occur, and flooding frequency and duration would

not be influenced. Extreme flood events could continue to result in a large surge of water into

the diked area through two major overflow channels. Wetland hydrology within the diked area

would remain as it is currently. Any changes would be similar to those that are currently taking

place, as the invasive reed canary grass encroaches upon open water areas. Existing levels of

groundwater use would continue. Some limited improvements in water management would

occur as a result of water control structure replacement or installation. 

Effects to Soils and Sediments

No significant changes to soils or sediments are anticipated. Sediment carried by the Nisqually

River would continue to be deposited at the mouth of the river and in deeper portions of the

Nisqually Reach, except during extreme flood events that flood the Refuge through overflow

channels or breached dikes. Subsidence associated with diking and draining of organic

(wetland) soils would continue as these soils decompose during dry periods. Extensive dike

repairs would be necessary to strengthen the dike to retain the freshwater impoundment and

prevent further dike failure. The dikes were further weakened by the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually

Earthquake in February 2001, which created thousands of lineal feet of cracking on the surface

of the dike and its slopes, and severely fractured a 500-foot section. Repairs may include

topping or stripping the dike, installing erosion fabric on the outboard side of the dike, graveling

or depositing fill along or on top of the dike, and filling seeps, among other measures. Some

disturbance to existing soils or sedimentation due to construction or added fill would occur

during dike repair. 

Effects to Geology

The only effect to geology anticipated under Alternative A is the possibility of increased erosion

of the bluffs that flank the east and west side of the Refuge. While bluff erosion is a natural

process throughout Puget Sound, development of homes along the edges of bluffs and the

removal of trees and other vegetation by property owners seeking to improve their view often

accelerate this process (Menashe 1993).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-3

Effects to Water Quality and Salinity

Alternative A would cause little direct change to water quality or salinity parameters. Water

chemistry, temperature, and risk of contaminant release would remain unchanged. Some

localized, short-term effects might occur associated with dike repairs. Water quality would

continue to decrease in the summer months within the diked area due to lack of water

circulation, particularly in the borrow ditch. Indirect benefits to water quality would occur if

efforts to strengthen watershed protection through partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary

were successful. 

Effects to Air Quality

No significant changes in air quality are anticipated with Alternative A. Factors that could affect

air quality, such as construction and traffic, would not change from current conditions.

4.1.1.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Other than the completion of the existing approved Refuge boundary, there is no Refuge

expansion proposed in this alternative. There are no effects anticipated to hydrology, soils and

sediments, geology, water quality, salinity, or air quality that are different than that described

above in the Habitat Restoration section.

4.1.1.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

There are limited changes to the public use program in Alternative A; therefore, no major

consequent changes are anticipated to hydrology, soils and sediments, geology, water quality,

salinity, or air quality. Extensive dike repairs would be necessary to strengthen the dike that

supports the 51⁄2-mile Brown Farm Dike Trail. Potential effects associated with dike repair

would be the same as described above in the Habitat Restoration section. A primitive loop trail

would be established in the surge plain forest in this alternative to replace a trail lost during the

1996 flood. It would be minimally maintained, so no gravel or other fill would be added to this

tidal habitat. Effects on hydrology, soils or sediments, or water quality should be minimal from

trail use. Boat and PWC use on the Refuge would continue to be a source of gas and oil

pollution in the water. Erosion of salt marsh areas caused from wakes created by boat and PWC

use in shallow areas would also continue. Bank fishing and shellfishing may have some effects

on soils due to foot traffic and digging in the mudflats. Motorized boat wakes and propellers

would continue to cause some amount of soil disturbance in tidal areas. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-4 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.1.2 Alternative B

4.1.2.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Hydrology

Under Alternative B, more intensive management of freshwater wetland habitats inside the diked

area would increase groundwater use, as greater volumes of water are withdrawn to control reed

canary grass. Changes in wetland hydrology within management units would include creation of

impoundments and more intensive water level management, and these areas would be wetter for

longer periods during the year. Other effects to wetland hydrology would be associated with

estuarine habitat restoration and associated changes from seasonally to semipermanently flooded

freshwater (palustrine) wetlands (see Figure 3.2-2) to regularly flooded estuarine (tidal)

conditions. Areas that would be restored to muted tidal influence may retain more water for a

longer period of time than those fully restored areas where dikes have been removed, particularly

in borrow ditches and lower elevations (Appendix J, Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport

Modeling Summary [ENSR 1999]). While there would be an increase in the flood storage area of

the lower Nisqually River, no measurable upstream flood relief benefits are expected (ENSR

1999). Extreme flood events would continue to result in a large surge of water into the diked

area through two major overflow channels. 

Effects to Soils and Sediments

Alternative B would have little effect on sediment deposition. Dikes along the river would

continue to direct river-borne sediments out toward the delta. Deposition rates would be very

low in breached areas, even during flood events when sedimentation is higher, because of the

limited direct hydrological exchange between the restored area and the Nisqually River, the

primary source of sediment (ENSR 1999). High volumes of water draining through breaches

may lead to water velocities capable of eroding existing sediments outside the dike during ebb

tides (ENSR 1999). Bridged breaches would need to be stabilized through the use of riprap and

wing walls to prevent erosion or widening of the breaches. Some effects on soils and

sedimentation are expected as a result of dike removal and construction. Filling the borrow

ditches, adding new fill material for exterior and interior dikes, and repair of existing dikes

would cause soil disturbance during and after construction, until soils have stabilized. Extensive

dike repairs would be necessary to strengthen the existing dike to retain the freshwater

impoundment and prevent further dike failure (see Alternative A). Repairs would cause some

disturbance to existing soils, or sedimentation due to added fill until soils stabilized.

Based on comparison of topographic elevations inside and outside the diked area, subsidence has

occurred inside the diked area. This observation is consistent with other diked areas, where

marsh surface elevations began to increase following dike breach restoration (Mitchell 1981;

Frenkel and Morlan 1990). Restoration of tidal influence arrests oxidation of organic soils and

associated subsidence. Sediment accretion also increases estuarine habitat elevations. In

intertidal areas with elevations sufficiently high to support salt marsh vegetation, organic soils

would slowly begin to rebuild, reversing the effects of subsidence over time. However, sediment
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-5

accretion would be limited in the muted tidal area because of limited breaches and the continued

presence of dikes (ENSR 1999). 

Intensified management within the diked area would include discing and sculpting to improve

freshwater wetlands and grasslands. These activities may have short-term effects on soils and

sedimentation. Timing, extent, contouring, and reseeding would be designed to minimize

erosion and sediments in runoff.

Effects to Geology

Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) include expansion of Refuge holdings along valley bluffs,

especially on the east side. Protection and revegetation of these areas may cause bluff erosion

rates to stabilize.

Effects to Water Quality and Salinity

Alternative B would have little if any effect on the distribution of environmental contaminants. 

Two areas of potential concern, the orchard and Twin Barns (Momot 1993), would remain

largely undisturbed. Some short-term effects to water quality are expected; specifically,

biological oxygen demand (BOD) would increase locally from the die back and export of

decaying plant matter (reed canary grass) as a result of tidal restoration. Intensified management

within the diked area would include the limited use of fertilizer in the haying program. Timing

and amount would be designed to minimize movement of nutrients into runoff.

In areas where tidal inundation is restored by dike removal, significant salinity concentrations

are expected. However, the presence of dikes with breaches would permit saline waters to enter

the restored area only at certain locations, affecting the overall pattern of saltwater influence. In

places where salinity is reintroduced, soil salinity (pore water salinity) would increase, changing

soil characteristics and associated flora (Frenkel and Morlan 1990).

Effects to Air Quality

Action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) may result in minor effects to air quality from

heavy equipment operation during dike breaching and removal. These activities may lead to

local, short-term effects associated with fugitive dust and engine exhaust.

4.1.2.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Moderate expansion of the Refuge boundary would benefit some of these physical factors. 

Refuge expansion could potentially protect and restore lands that would otherwise be developed

for residential or commercial development or that would not be restored. Additional protection

of areas along the East Bluff north of I-5 would prevent accelerated bluff erosion caused by

development. Retaining more of this bluff habitat in a natural, vegetated condition may improve
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-6 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

water quality in wetlands and waterways by reducing sedimentation and nonpoint source

contamination from stormwater and runoff from adjacent developments and roadways. Areas

that have been logged on the East Bluff would be reforested, improving watershed protection. 

Similar benefits would be gained by stronger protections for bluff habitats south of I-5.

Refuge expansion south of I-5 could lead to freshwater wetland protection and restoration, which

may benefit hydrology and water quality. Wetland areas store flood waters and help maintain

water quality by trapping sediments and removing excess nutrients. Air quality may decline if

residential and commercial development increases in the study area, as effects associated with

increased traffic, industrial development, and other pollutant sources such as wood stoves

increase. Refuge expansion would reduce this possibility. However, only limited benefits would

occur along the Nisqually River corridor south of I-5 since only a small area would be included. 

In addition, approximately 386 acres within the Nisqually Valley could not be provided further

protection from development and gravel mining in comparison to Alternative D, which would

negatively affect some of these physical factors.

4.1.2.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Changes in the public use program under Alternative B are not expected to cause large changes

in hydrology, soils and sediments, geology, water quality, salinity, or air quality. Minor changes

in the trail system would still require extensive dike repairs, as described in Alternative A, since

a large proportion of the existing dike would remain to support the Brown Farm Dike Trail. 

Some disturbance to existing soils, sedimentation, or added fill may occur during dike repairs

and construction of new interior dikes for the freshwater units. New study sites established for

the enlarged environmental education program would produce localized areas of soil compaction

from foot traffic, but locations would be selected to minimize effects.

Effects from bank and shellfishing would be similar to Alternative A. Differences would be in

the enforcement of closures to consumptive uses in the RNA and hunting on Refuge lands. 

These closures would reduce foot, boat, and PWC traffic in mudflats and salt marsh areas and

reduce gas and oil pollution in the water. Motorized boat wakes and propellers would continue

to cause some amount of soil disturbance in tidal areas, although it would be reduced in the RNA

due to winter and consumptive use closures and throughout the Refuge by boat speed

restrictions. In addition, a new bank fishing area would be developed in the Trotter’s Woods

area, if acquired. Some effects on soils would occur from vehicle parking areas and foot traffic,

but these would be expected to be less than current conditions because of planned improvements

in access, including controlling vehicle use. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-7

4.1.3 Alternative C

4.1.3.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Hydrology

Many of the changes in hydrology would be similar to those described under Alternative B, with

the largest difference being the restoration of 515 acres to full tidal influence through the

removal of dikes. The Nisqually River would be allowed to move more freely, overtopping its

banks or changing course in areas where dikes are lowered to grade. The restored area would

have a more direct hydrological connection to the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek than in

Alternative B. Dikes would be removed to grade, and borrow ditches would be filled in the

restored area; therefore, water retention during ebb tide would not occur as it would under

Alternative B. 

Hydrological changes in the area retained within dikes would be similar to those for Alternative

B, except that the impounded area would be smaller and would contain five interior management

units instead of five, with less overall storage capability. Extreme flood events would continue

to result in a large surge of water in the remaining diked area through two major overflow

channels. Water control structures, spillways, or pumps would be needed to reduce flooding

more quickly within the dikes.

Effects to Soils and Sediments

Decrease in soil oxidation and associated subsidence would occur as described under Alternative

B. Differences in effects between Alternatives B and C are largely associated with the

difference in how tidal influence would be restored. Filling the borrow ditches, adding fill

material to construct new exterior and interior dikes, and repairing existing dikes would cause

soil disturbance during and after construction, until soils have stabilized. Alternative C would

require less repair and maintenance of existing dikes than Alternative B. 

Alternative C would lead to the removal of the dike along the west side of the Nisqually River

and north of the Twin Barns area. This would allow for the river to discharge over a larger area,

especially during flood events. Sediments carried by the river during floods would be deposited

over a broader area, unlike Alternative B, and contribute directly to the restoration of estuarine

habitats (ENSR 1999).

Intensified management within the diked area would include discing and sculpting to improve

freshwater wetlands and grasslands, which may have short-term effects on soils and

sedimentation. Timing, extent, and contouring would be designed to minimize erosion and

sediments in runoff.

Effects to Geology

Alternative C includes the removal of the west bank river levee north of the Twin Barns. This

would allow for the lower portion of the river channel to migrate naturally across the floodplain
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-8 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

and through the restored area. Changes in river channel location would alter patterns of river

sediment deposition (ENSR 1999). No roads, buildings, or other infrastructure would be

adversely affected if the Nisqually River changed its course in this portion of the study area.

Effects to Water Quality and Salinity

Alternative C would have no effect on environmental contaminants or short-term effects on

BOD associated with export of decaying plant matter, as described for Alternative B. Additional

effects on water quality parameters associated with these alternatives include potential water

temperature decrease in the lower Nisqually River. Restoration of 38 acres of riparian habitat

and improved protection of existing habitats may increase shading from vegetation cover with a

corresponding reduction in water temperature. Intensified management within the diked area

would include the limited use of fertilizer in the haying program, although the program would be

reduced in area compared to Alternative B. Timing and amount would be designed to minimize

movement of nutrients into runoff.

Alternative C does not include breached, bridged dikes but rather relies exclusively on the

removal of the dike to grade. Therefore, salinity distribution patterns would be more typical of

those associated with a natural estuarine system. Salinity distribution in turn affects soil and

water salinity, soil characteristics, and the flora and fauna associated with estuarine habitats

(Frenkel and Morlan 1990). 

Air Quality

Same as Alternative B.

4.1.3.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Same as Alternative B.

4.1.3.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Except for those noted below, changes in these physical characteristics as a result of the public

use program would be similar to Alternative B. Some disturbance to existing soils or

sedimentation due to construction or added fill would occur during removal and construction of

exterior and interior dikes. This effect is expected to be less than Alternative B. A new

boardwalk section would be installed, extending from the new exterior dike along McAllister

Creek. Boardwalk installation may have some short-term effects on soils; however, these would

be minimized through the use of a pinned foundation boardwalk, eliminating the need to drive

pilings into soils. Because boardwalks in tidal areas would be elevated, effects on hydrology

should be minimal. In addition, a new 21⁄2-mile loop trail would be installed east of the

Nisqually River on Refuge and tribal lands. Large portions of the trail would be on existing low
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-9

roads and dikes. Boardwalk sections would be installed where water levels require them or dike

removal is needed to support habitat restoration. A new bank fishing area on the east side of the

Nisqually River along this new loop trail would be designed to minimize effects on soils through

the placement and extent of the fishing area. The new hunting area on Refuge property is within

the current unauthorized hunting area. Effects from boat activity associated with hunting would

be similar to Alternative B but potentially increased because of the larger hunting area. Some

effects to soils would also occur from foot traffic of hunters in mudflats and marshes. However,

effects to soils and water quality would be reduced in McAllister Creek. 

4.1.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.1.4.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Hydrology

Alternative D would lead to significant changes in wetland hydrology within the currently diked

area, as 699 acres would be restored to tidal influence. As with Alternatives B and C, these

effects would result in changes from seasonally flooded/saturated palustrine to regularly flooded

estuarine conditions in restored areas. The Nisqually River would be allowed to move more

freely, overtopping its banks or changing courses in areas where dikes are lowered to grade. The

restored area would have a more direct hydrological connection to the Nisqually River and

McAllister Creek. The McAllister Creek tidal system would be most functional in Alternative D

because it would not be as constricted by dikes, allowing the major Shannon Slough system to

become tidal over a greater area. 

A smaller area of freshwater wetland management units would occur under Alternative D. There

is an increased likelihood that water level manipulation would be effective in this smaller area

and would be more intensively employed as a management technique. This may lead to

increased use of groundwater resources as a water supply.

Alternative D is expected to reduce future flooding on the Refuge because the McAllister Creek

overflow channel, which carried an estimated 30% of flood volume onto the Refuge in the

February 1996 flood, would empty directly into McAllister Creek instead of into diked habitat

(ENSR 1999). The second overflow channel, which carried the remaining 70% of the flood

volumes in 1996, would continue to flow into the remaining diked area. Water control

structures, spillways, or pumps would be needed to reduce flooding more quickly within the

dikes. 

Effects to Soils and Sediments

Alternative D would have similar effects on soils and sediments as described under Alternative

C, although the size of the restored area is greater under Alternative D. Changes in soil

characteristics associated with tidal inundation and salinity would occur over a broader area. As

in Alternative C, more sediment would be deposited in the restored area due to dike removal

along the Nisqually River (ENSR 1999). Sediment deposition may be slightly increased in the

restored area along McAllister Creek during flood events because the McAllister Creek overflow
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-10 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

channel would empty directly into the restored area. Effects to soils and sediments as a result of

dike construction and removal activities would be similar to Alternative C. Alternative D would

require the least amount of dike repair. 

The remaining diked area is the smallest in this alternative; intensified management would

include discing and sculpting to improve freshwater wetlands and grasslands, which may have

short-term effects on soils and sedimentation. Timing, extent, contouring, and reseeding would

be designed to minimize erosion and sediments in runoff.

Effects to Geology, Water Quality, and Salinity

In general, effects would be the same as Alternative C. In addition, the larger amount of area

restored along McAllister Creek could improve water quality due to increased tidal flushing and

the larger amount of estuarine habitat, which could act as a filter for downstream flows before

they reach the mouth of McAllister Creek and the Nisqually Reach. 

Effects to Air Quality

Same as Alternative B.

4.1.4.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Effects to these physical environment factors under this larger expansion of the Refuge boundary

would be similar to those described for Alternatives B and C, with the following exceptions. 

Implementation of Alternative D would increase boundary expansion in the Nisqually River

corridor and valley by more than 1,000 acres. Improved protection of this portion of the lower

watershed would maintain or improve natural river processes that protect water quality, reduce

flooding effects to human infrastructure, and distribute river sediments. Reduced development

within the floodplain would allow for overbank flooding and decrease the need for river levees,

bank stabilization, and other engineered approaches to flood control. Improved protection of the

river corridor could reduce erosion and sedimentation, improving water quality. 

4.1.4.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Hydrology, Soils and Sediments, Geology, Water Quality, Salinity, and Air Quality

Effects to physical environment factors would be similar to Alternative C. New boardwalk

extensions along McAllister Creek would be longest in this alternative, affecting a slightly

greater area during construction. Effects from boating activity associated with hunting would be

similar to Alternative B, with somewhat more activity at the river mouth.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-11

4.2 Effects to Vegetation and Habitat Resources

The effects to habitats, including estuarine, freshwater wetland, riverine and riparian, and upland

habitats, are described below for each of the four alternatives. Effects to native, exotic (nonnative), and invasive plants are also described.

4.2.1 Alternative A

4.2.1.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Estuarine Habitat

Maintaining the existing diked area would provide no new benefits for estuarine habitats within

the study area. Additional estuarine habitat would not be restored, nor would the indirect

benefits that existing habitats may receive by restoring adjacent diked areas to tidal conditions

occur.

The existing dikes have some negative effect on the estuary. The dikes are potentially increasing

tidal current velocity, which can contribute to the erosion of salt marsh and mudflat habitats

(Burg 1984). The Nisqually River, and the sediments that it carries, would continue to be

confined to its present course. This restriction, combined with reduced sediment load due to

upstream dams (Nelson 1974), would continue to prevent a broader distribution of river

sediments necessary to offset the effects of erosion and sustain estuarine habitats.

Retaining the dike would continue to interrupt tidal channels and keep the tidal prism, water

volumes, and nutrient exchange reduced in existing estuarine habitats. This would limit the

health and function of the salt marshes and sloughs of the delta, including the ability to provide

habitat support for juvenile salmonids (Thom et al. 1985). Sediments would continue to deposit

in artificial patterns, slowly contributing to the buildup of the bench surrounding the dike

exterior. The reduced tidal prism and water volume would also continue to limit the creation of

smaller channels and slough branches, producing a less complex, lower channel order system

that provides less habitat for fish and other wildlife.

Effects to Freshwater Wetland Habitat

Existing diked areas would remain in their current condition with only limited improvements in

management. In the short term, the existing mix of freshwater wetland habitats would persist. 

However, as discussed in Chapter 3, habitat conditions within the dike are slowly changing as

reed canary grass dominance increases, modifying the vegetation community and reducing open

water areas. Higher elevation, drier areas are changing to a scrub-shrub community. To slow

these changes, an increased effort would be placed on reed canary grass management, including

mowing, discing, and herbicide application. However, due to the size of the management area,

feasibility of access in a moist soil environment, freshwater supply limitations, limited

effectiveness of flooding to prevent regrowth, and concerns about widespread herbicide use

within the Refuge, these measures would be limited in their effectiveness. It is expected that
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-12 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

deterioration of freshwater wetland conditions would continue, as well as decreased wildlife

habitat function. Replacement or addition of water control structures would provide some

limited improvements in water management, allowing ponding over longer periods in some

wetlands. The entire dike would also need major repairs to prevent seepage and eventual failure. 

If the dikes were to breach, they would be repaired as soon as possible to stop tidal flooding.

Effects to Riverine and Riparian Habitat

No focused efforts to restore riverine and riparian habitats associated with natural hydrology

would occur under Alternative A. Native tree and shrub plantings would continue to restore

riparian habitat within the diked area, but these diked areas would not be associated with a

hydrological connection with the Nisqually River or McAllister Creek. Efforts to conserve

existing habitats would continue, including preservation of riparian vegetation along dikes where

possible. Extensive dike repairs and dike maintenance would damage riparian vegetation and

brush along dike tops and banks. No restoration of natural flow of the Nisqually River would

occur because all existing dikes would remain.

Effects to Upland Habitat

Existing dikes would be repaired and maintained, and no effects on current upland habitats

within the diked area, including forests, pasture lands, or developed areas, are expected. Some

limited fertilizing, discing, plowing, and reseeding of non-native grasslands would be conducted,

in addition to the haying and mowing program. These techniques would encourage non-native

pasture grass over weed species in limited areas. A long-term goal to re-establish a native

conifer-dominated forest is currently being implemented on the West Bluff parcel and would

continue under all alternatives. The establishment of this forest would reduce erosion from this

West Bluff parcel into McAllister Creek.

Effects to Native, Exotic, and Invasive Plants

Vegetative communities of the Refuge would continue under this alternative, although there is

the potential of an increased acreage of exotic species such as reed canary grass and Himalayan

blackberry. Habitat conditions within the dike are already changing as reed canary grass

dominance increases. Control measures within the diked area would be minimal due to the size

of the management area, feasibility of access in a moist soil environment, freshwater supply

limitations, limited effectiveness of flooding to prevent regrowth, and concerns about

widespread herbicide use within the Refuge; these measures would be limited in their beneficial

effects. It is expected that the spread of exotic species would be a constant challenge and lead to

the deterioration of freshwater wetland conditions, as well as decreased wildlife habitat function.

Although cordgrass is not present on the Refuge, it is spreading in coastal Washington and

portions of north Puget Sound. This alternative does not include any actions that would change

the potential for establishment of this species.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-13

4.2.1.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Under status quo conditions, no expansion of the Refuge boundary would occur. Areas outside

the existing boundary would not be brought under Service protection or management. Indirect

benefits to these habitats would occur if efforts to strengthen watershed protection through

partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary were successful. 

Efforts to acquire in-holdings within the existing boundary would continue, as would plans to

develop and implement a Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe for the Service

to manage properties owned by the tribe on the east side of the Nisqually River as part of the

Refuge. In-holdings and tribal properties include estuarine habitats and some areas that are

being restored to estuary, and Refuge protection and support of these areas would be beneficial

to their long-term conservation. In-holdings along the west side of McAllister Creek include

riparian habitat. Refuge acquisition and management of these parcels would be beneficial to

their long-term conservation. Indirect benefits to riparian habitats would occur if efforts to

strengthen watershed protection through partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary were

successful. 

4.2.1.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Some aspects of the public use program would continue to have limited or short-term effects on

habitats. Trails would be cleared or brushed out periodically. Herbicides would be used on a

very limited basis to keep public facilities maintained. Boardwalks would shade limited portions

of freshwater wetlands, dike banks, and grasslands. Dikes that also support trails would

periodically be mowed, brushed, or graveled. Shellfishing and fishing would result in

disturbance to the habitat caused by foot traffic or digging activity on mudflats, aquatic plants,

and nearby salt marshes. Boat anchoring and foot traffic associated with various recreational

activities such as unauthorized hunting may cause trampling in salt marsh areas. Eelgrass bed

scarring may occur as a result of boat propeller or anchor damage that cuts eelgrass roots, stems,

and leaves (Sargeant et al. 1995). Potential erosion of salt marsh areas caused from boat and

PWC wakes would continue.

4.2.2 Alternative B

4.2.2.1 Habitat Restoration

Estuarine Habitat

A limited amount of estuarine restoration would occur under Alternative B. Approximately 318

acres of the diked area would be restored to a muted tidal condition by creating breaches in the

dike in select locations. In addition, approximately 140 acres of the diked area would be fully

restored to intertidal conditions by removing dikes in the north half of the Shannon Slough area
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-14 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

along McAllister Creek. Approximately 9,500 feet of exterior dike would be constructed, the

largest amount of all action alternatives. Alternative B would benefit the estuarine habitats of

the Refuge by expanding the amount of this habitat type. Although the exact types and

conditions of estuarine habitats resulting from a muted tidal condition are more difficult to

predict than if dikes were completely removed, several generalizations can be made (ENSR

1999):

• If dike breaches are sized to be at least as large as the natural channels that historically

carried water in and out of intertidal areas, it is possible to obtain full tidal penetration in

restored areas. Undersized breaches would lead to less-than-full tidal flooding.

• Breaching dikes would not yield the same distribution of sediment and salinity as dike

removal.

• Incomplete drainage and storage of water in unfilled borrow ditches and other depressions

can occur when dikes are breached and not returned to grade and the borrow ditches are not

filled. Topographic depressions inside the breached dike area could trap fish during low tide.

Borrow ditches also affect tidal channel formation by reducing the amount of hydraulic energy

available to form and maintain the highly developed pattern of tidal channels associated with

natural systems. This in turn results in less overall channel area, a reduced proportion of the

estuarine habitat area connected to channels, and less channel edge ©. Simenstad, pers. comm). 

These factors reduce the ability of restored estuarine habitats to provide functions for fish and

wildlife comparable to those of natural systems. 

The distribution and species composition of vegetation in estuarine habitats are strongly

influenced by physical factors, including the period of inundation and salinity (Burg et al. 1980). 

Exposure to wave energy, sediment supply, and the counterbalancing forces of erosion and

accretion also strongly influence marsh distribution. Therefore, objectives to restore natural

habitat conditions would not be fully met by this alternative. 

The area of north Shannon Slough to be fully restored to tidal influence would provide the

estuarine habitats that are the goals of restoration actions. However, this area would remain

separated from the Nisqually River and the associated freshwater discharge and river-borne

sediments. Shannon Slough itself would remain fragmented. The lower portion of this historic

tidal channel would be connected to the estuary; however, the upper portion would remain

detached, separated by a dike and tide gate system. There may also be reduced circulation in

portions of this area due to the backwater effect caused by the new exterior dikes and limited

tidal prism or volume restored. The configuration of this restoration area could also alter

patterns of sedimentation due to its small size and the presence of dikes on three sides. 

Estuarine habitats would be enhanced by increasing the total estuarine habitat area and tidal

flow. Any increases in the areal extent of marsh vegetation cover would increase total primary

productivity, as well as increase availability and distribution of detrital (decaying plant matter)

material. Detritus is a key ingredient in estuarine habitat food webs, including those that support

prey resources important to juvenile salmon (Naiman and Sibert 1979; Northcote et al. 1979).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-15

Effects to Freshwater Wetland Habitat

Under Alternative B, approximately 45% (458 acres) of the currently diked area of freshwater

wetland habitat would be restored to estuarine habitat. In the northern portion of the currently

diked area, 318 acres of freshwater wetland would be restored to muted tidal conditions. Much

of this area is currently dominated by reed canary grass. The northwestern portions of the diked

area have a higher proportion of seasonal wetlands due to lower elevations and greater saltwater

influence caused by seepage through the dikes. However, in the northeastern part of this area,

there are areas of higher ground that currently support a mixed forest and scrub-shrub

community. Based on the elevation of these areas (3.5 to 4.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical

Datum [NGVD]) relative to reference areas outside of the dikes, these trees and shrubs are

predicted to die back after dike breaching due to saltwater inundation. Similarly, the 140-acre

area near the northern portion of Shannon Slough where dike removal is proposed would change

after tidal influence is restored. Existing vegetation communities would be eliminated, including

reed canary grass and other grasses prevalent in low areas, as well as shrubs that persist in areas

of higher ground and dikes. Historic tidal slough systems that currently provide permanent

freshwater channels within the dikes would revert to tidal sloughs. Freshwater wetland plants

and submerged aquatics would be eliminated.

New internal dikes would be built to improve freshwater wetland management in the remaining

542-acre diked area. This would provide benefits to this habitat type, as reed canary grass

growth would be more effectively managed. A mixture of native vegetation communities in

seasonal wetlands and grasslands would be created in this area, modeled after existing ponds on

the Refuge with high bird use. Other than riparian shrubs planted along sloughs and the edges of

wetland areas, very little scrub-shrub habitat would be created or maintained. However, due to

the large size of management units and freshwater supply limitations, the effectiveness of

management actions may be limited, including the ability to flood large areas to depths sufficient

for vegetation control. Reed canary grass and non-native pasture grasses would continue to

dominate areas that could not be intensively managed, including the edges of some seasonally

flooded marshes and ponds. 

Effects to Riverine and Riparian Habitats

As no active restoration of riverine and riparian habitats is included under Alternative B, effects

to these habitats would be the same as under Alternative A. The dike along the Nisqually River

would continue to be maintained, confining the river and its associated habitats to the current

location. 

Effects to Upland Habitat

In general, implementation of this alternative would likely have little, if any, effect on existing

upland habitats because the areas to be restored are largely freshwater wetlands. Exceptions

would occur along a portion of McAllister Creek where brush habitat lining the dike banks

would be lost due to dike removal. Trees and brush along internal road banks that are removed

or restored in the currently diked area would also be lost. New native trees, shrubs, and

herbaceous vegetation would be planted or seeded along the new exterior and interior dikes,
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-16 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

which would provide new brush habitat, screening, and also protect new dikes from erosion. 

Effects to the West Bluff parcel would be the same as Alternative A. 

Effects to Native, Exotic, and Invasive Plants

Vegetative communities of various habitat types on the Refuge would still occur under this

alternative. The proportion of estuarine habitat vegetation on the Refuge would increase because

of the proposed estuarine restoration. Reed canary grass and blackberry would be expected to be

eliminated in full estuarine restoration areas and largely controlled in muted tidal areas. The

exact types and conditions of estuarine habitats that would result from a muted tidal condition

are more difficult to predict than under complete dike removal (see Effects to Estuarine Habitats,

above). Therefore, objectives of restoring natural vegetative communities may not be fully met

by this alternative, where dike breaching (as opposed to dike removal) may lead to a deviation

from natural conditions for these physical factors. Since this alternative would increase the

acreage of estuarine habitat, the potential areas for Spartina spp. to become established are

increased. Therefore, monitoring efforts would be needed to ensure that Spartina spp. does not

become established on the Refuge.

Management of the remaining diked area would improve with the construction of new internal

dikes that would allow more effective control of reed canary grass. A mixture of native

vegetation communities and water depths could be created in this area. However, due to the

large size of the management units and freshwater supply limitations, the effectiveness of

management actions may be limited, including the ability to flood large areas to depths sufficient

for vegetation control. 

4.2.2.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

The expanded Refuge boundary under Alternative B would allow for acquisition and increased

habitat protection for the upland forest and shrub habitats in the East Bluff area. If acquired,

future development and associated loss and/or degradation of these habitats would be prevented

and reforested where needed. A continuous corridor of protected forested habitat would

potentially be established, improving riparian habitat quality below the bluff and adding to the

diversity of Refuge habitats. 

Inclusion of a limited amount of riparian habitat south of I-5 would allow for some

improvements in habitat protection and restoration. Specific habitats affected would depend on

areas acquired and protected and could include vegetated areas of riparian forest, scrub-shrub,

and emergent (wetland) habitats, as well as unvegetated portions of the river channel and

floodplain, including gravel beaches and bars. For example, riparian restoration, improved

vehicle traffic management in riparian forest, and increased enforcement of the riparian area in

Trotter’s Woods could reduce habitat damage caused by unregulated public access and the

existing network of dirt roads and trails in the riparian corridor. This would have little or no

direct effect on estuarine and freshwater wetland habitats. Indirect effects would include
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-17

benefits associated with maintaining existing bluff slope stability, as well as improved integrity

of riparian and upland corridors adjacent to estuarine habitats.

Expansion south of I-5 in the lower Nisqually Valley could provide extensive freshwater

restoration opportunities, including seasonal wetlands and riparian corridors along sloughs and

creeks, such as the upper portion of McAllister Creek. Seasonal wetland restoration projects on

former agricultural lands would be very similar to those conducted on current Refuge lands

within the diked area. For example, seasonal wetlands west of the headquarters area were

enhanced in 2001 by mowing dense reed canary grass areas, discing, sculpting new depressions

and seasonal ponds, and seeding, followed by flooding during the fall and winter months, greatly

enhancing waterfowl habitat. Depending on the areas acquired, restoration of freshwater

wetlands could reduce the effects from the conversion of freshwater wetlands back to estuarine

habitat north of I-5 and could increase the size and complexity of wetland habitats in the lower

watershed. 

In addition, upland habitats could benefit from improved management and enhancement. 

Specifically, if areas of upland pastureland or grassland south of I-5 were acquired, protection

and improved management for wildlife could offset conversion of grasslands back to estuarine

habitat north of I-5. The opportunity to restore estuarine habitats is limited to the area north of I5, but substantial options for upland and freshwater wetland restoration and protection are

possible south of I-5.

Acquisition of in-holdings and the development of a Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually

Indian Tribe would occur as described under Alternative A.

4.2.2.3 Public Use Program 

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Effects of the public use program under Alternative B are similar to those described under

Alternative A. However, the retention of dikes to support trails would have a larger effect on

habitats in this alternative, by restricting restored estuarine habitat to primarily a muted system. 

Since this alternative would breach dikes and construct bridges to maintain the trail system,

Refuge objectives to restore natural habitat conditions would not be fully met because of reduced

physical processes that are required to build tidal systems (see also sections on physical factors

and habitat for Alternative B above and habitat for Alternative C below).

Closure of the RNA to all consumptive uses and winter boat use would reduce localized effects

of shellfishing, hunting, fishing, boat propellers, anchoring, and foot traffic on algae and

submerged aquatic plants. The enforcement of no hunting areas would reduce some effects to

salt marsh and mudflat areas on Refuge lands currently frequented by hunters. All action

alternatives would reduce potential erosion of salt marsh caused by watercraft wakes. 

Alternative B would serve the largest number of students in the EE program. Some localized

trampling of vegetation would occur as part of the enlarged program; however, study site

locations would be selected to minimize effects to sensitive habitats.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-18 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

A new bank fishing area would be developed in the Trotter’s Woods area, if acquired. Some

effects on riparian habitats would occur from vehicle parking areas and foot traffic, but this is

expected to be less than present conditions because of planned improvements in access, such as

controlling vehicle use. 

4.2.3 Alternative C

4.2.3.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Estuarine Habitats

Alternative C would restore approximately 50% (515 acres) of the currently diked area to

estuarine habitat, an additional 57 acres more than Alternative B.

Perhaps of greater significance are qualitative improvements in the condition of the restored

area. Unlike Alternative B, which would retain large sections of the dike to allow for continued

use of dike-top trails, Alternative C would remove the dike to grade in restoration areas. 

Therefore, the tidal connection between restored areas and the Nisqually River delta would be

complete, with no possibility that “muted” tidal conditions would develop. Unimpeded tidal

hydrology would increase the probability that restored estuarine habitats would function like

natural systems by providing more natural physical conditions, including tidal hydrology,

sediment distribution, and salinity patterns (ENSR 1999).

Removal of the dike along the lower portion of the river would allow the river channel to

migrate naturally across the floodplain and through the restored area, a substantial benefit to

estuarine habitats compared to Alternative B. No longer constrained to the existing channel by

dikes, freshwater from the Nisqually River would be discharged across a larger area. This would

allow for a natural distribution of river-borne sediments and a more variable salinity regime

(ENSR 1999). These more natural physical conditions would provide for a wider distribution of

river-borne sediments that help build and maintain elevations suitable for plant growth, and for

distribution of diverse estuarine habitats throughout the delta. The river could also deliver large

woody debris to estuarine habitat, increasing habitat structure and diversity. As with Alternative

B, an increase in estuarine marsh would enhance functions of existing habitats by increasing

availability and distribution of detrital material.

One drawback of Alternative C, relative to Alternative B, is a limited amount of restoration

along the western margins of the diked area. Specifically, the Shannon Slough system would

remain diked, reducing the amount of historical tidal channel habitat restored along McAllister

Creek. McAllister Creek would remain relatively confined in a narrow area for approximately

one-half of its length below the bridge at I-5. This alternative would result in an area of fully

restored habitat that is largely constrained to the area immediately south of the existing outer

dike face.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-19

Effects to Freshwater Wetland Habitat

Alternative C would concentrate 515 acres of estuarine habitat restoration in the northern portion

of the currently diked area. Freshwater wetlands in this area would be converted to tidal

conditions, changing the current habitat functions. The converted area currently includes areas

of a mixed forest and scrub-shrub community, seasonal wetlands, former pasturelands, and areas

dominated by reed canary grass. Dikes would be removed instead of breached, allowing for a

full tidal connection, increasing the probability that any existing vegetation, including trees and

shrubs on higher ground and reed canary grass, would be displaced by estuarine habitat types

such as salt marsh and mudflats. Management of freshwater wetland management units would

be the same as described for Alternative B, resulting in similar effects. However, since

Alternative C would have a slightly smaller area of freshwater wetlands (447 acres as opposed to

542 acres), water management would be easier; thus, the proportion of seasonal wetlands would

be higher than grasslands and scrub-shrub habitats.

Effects to Riverine and Riparian Habitats

Implementation of Alternative C would restore 38 acres of riparian forest habitat along the

Nisqually River, immediately north of the Twin Barns area. However, the dikes to the east and

north of this area may be removed or lowered (graded) substantially to restore a natural flow to

the Nisqually River. Riparian vegetation on this portion of the dike and its banks, including

many large trees, would be removed or damaged by this activity. Riprap (rock) placed along the

river levee in the past to repair dike breaches and weak spots would also be removed. 

It is expected that much of the riverine and riparian habitat along the Nisqually River would be

sustained and benefitted following restoration in Alternative C. Erosion would most likely be

reduced in high flow or flood events because the river would be able to move freely rather than

have all the energy restricted within a diked channel. In some cases farthest downstream, trees

may be lost due to the marine influence and increased salinities from Puget Sound. However, an

equilibrium would eventually be reached between saltwater and the large freshwater flows

coming down the river, maintaining much of the existing riparian habitat. 

Effects to Upland Habitat

Alternative C would enlarge the area of estuarine restoration and extend it farther south into the

currently diked area. The vast majority of this area is a mosaic of wetland types and pasture

land. Tidal inundation would eliminate these pastures and convert them to estuarine habitats. 

More brush habitat along the McAllister Creek Dike would be lost due to dike removal in

Alternative C, compared to Alternative B. Trees and brush along internal road banks that are

removed or restored in the currently diked area would also be lost. New native trees, shrubs, and

herbaceous vegetation would be planted or seeded along the new exterior and interior dikes,

which would provide new brush habitat and screening, as well as protect new dikes from

erosion. Effects to the West Bluff parcel would be the same as described in Alternative A. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-20 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Effects to Native, Exotic, and Invasive Species

Implementation of this alternative would restore approximately 50% of the diked area to

estuarine habitat. Complete tidal connection between restored areas and the Nisqually River

delta would occur. Unimpeded tidal hydrology would increase the probability that restored

estuarine habitats would function like natural systems by providing more natural physical

conditions, including tidal hydrology, sediment distribution, and salinity patterns. As a result,

reed canary grass and blackberry would likely be eliminated in the restored area. The potential

effects of Spartina spp. introduction and establishment would be the same as described under

Alternative B, but with more acreage available for potential establishment.

Management of freshwater wetland management units would be the same as for Alternative B,

resulting in similar effects. However, Alternative C would have a slightly smaller area of

freshwater wetlands (447 acres compared to 542).

4.2.3.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Effects to Refuge habitats would be the same as described under Alternative B.

4.2.3.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Effects of the public use program described under Alternative B also apply to Alternative C,

without the effects associated with dike retention. Additional effects include the following. A

boardwalk would be installed along McAllister Creek, extending along the northwest side of the

estuarine restoration area. The boardwalk would create some shading along its length, disturbing

plant growth, but effects on habitat would be very localized. Boardwalk installation may have

some short-term effects on estuarine habitats from soil disturbance and trampling. However,

these would be minimized through the use of a pinned foundation boardwalk. Pinned foundation

boardwalks use concrete blocks that are pinned in place to support the boardwalk, eliminating

the need to drive pilings into soils. 

The new trail east of the Nisqually River would be designed to minimize effects on habitat,

including boardwalk sections that would be required in estuarine restoration areas. Effects of the

new Refuge hunting area would include foot and boat traffic in mudflats and salt marsh habitats

within the largest hunting area of all alternatives. However, effects would be eliminated in

closed areas, especially McAllister Creek, and reduced by the 3 day per week restriction. Some

localized trampling of vegetation would result from new study sites in the enlarged

environmental education program; however, study site locations would be selected to minimize

effects to sensitive habitats. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-21

4.2.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.2.4.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Estuarine Habitat

Alternative D represents the largest area of restoration under consideration in this CCP. 

Approximately 699 acres (70% of the currently diked area) would be restored to full tidal

influence by removing large sections of the outer dike to grade. This alternative is most similar

to Alternative 6, 70% estuarine restoration, described in the hydrological modeling study (ENSR

1999). This alternative would lead to an additional 184 acres of restored habitat as compared to

Alternative C. Effects of removing dikes along the lower Nisqually River on estuarine habitats

would be similar to those described under Alternative C.

Alternative D also significantly increases benefits to estuarine habitats in the vicinity of Shannon

Slough and McAllister Creek in the western portions of the delta. Under this alternative,

Shannon Slough would be fully restored to tidal influence. Dikes that might prevent the

migration of the McAllister Creek channel, and the discharge of freshwater to the marsh during

flood of the creek, would be removed. This alternative maximizes the range of physical

conditions (e.g., salinity, elevation) within the area restored to tidal influence, leading to a more

diverse and natural mix of estuarine habitats within the Nisqually delta.

Because Alternative D prescribes the largest contiguous area restored to tidal influence, it would

increase the complexity and diversity of restored estuarine habitats, including producing more

complex channel order and sloughs and greater elevational differences in the salt marsh mosaic. 

Alternative D would have the greatest benefit to existing estuarine habitats currently outside of

the dikes by increasing tidal exchange, volume, and nutrient exchange to marshes north of the

current dike, as well as along the length of McAllister Creek north of I-5.

Effects to Freshwater Wetland Habitat

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the largest conversion of freshwater wetland

area to estuarine habitat. Approximately 263 acres of freshwater wetlands would remain after

estuarine restoration is completed and a new exterior dike constructed. These would be located

in the southeastern portion of the currently diked area. Existing freshwater wetlands in the

northern half of the diked area, as well as the entire Shannon Slough area north of I-5, would be

converted to estuarine habitat by full restoration of tidal influence (699 acres). Based on

acreage, this would be the largest conversion of freshwater wetlands under consideration. 

Qualitatively, the effects would be similar to those described for Alternatives B and C. Tidal

inundation would eliminate existing freshwater wetland vegetation communities. Most of this

area is currently dominated by reed canary grass, but it also includes scrub-shrub and marsh

communities. Higher elevation areas that currently support trees and shrubs would revert to salt

marsh habitats. Lower areas, currently seasonally flooded and/or saturated and dominated by a

mixed herbaceous community of grasses and forbs, would become unvegetated mudflats or low

salt marsh. The Shannon Slough system would convert from permanent freshwater to tidally
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-22 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

influenced sloughs and channels. The permanent freshwater wetlands north of the headquarters

buildings would remain. 

As with the other action alternatives, Alternative D would require new internal dikes to improve

freshwater wetland management options in remaining diked areas. The resulting management

units would be smaller under this alternative and provide less total area of freshwater wetlands

(263 acres). However, the size of these units would allow for more effective management. 

Limited freshwater supplied by the artesian wells would be applied to a smaller area, improving

the ability to control reed canary grass. Higher quality freshwater wetlands with improved

wildlife habitat functions would result. 

Effects to Riverine and Riparian Habitats

With respect to effects on riparian and riverine habitats, habitat restoration in Alternatives C and

D is similar, focusing on restoring 38 acres of riparian habitat along the Nisqually River. The

primary differences between these two alternatives involve the amount of restoration on

McAllister Creek and the Shannon Slough area, which would have little effect on the habitats on

the east side of the delta. Effects related to riparian and riverine habitats are similar to those

described under Alternative C.

Effects to Upland Habitat

Alternative D expands the estuarine restoration described under Alternative C, incorporating the

Shannon Slough area all the way south to the Refuge entrance road. Given the relatively higher

elevations in this portion of the currently diked area, there is a significant potential to affect

existing upland habitat in this area. Areas currently managed as pasture land, and subject to

periodic mowing or haying, probably contain a mix of seasonally flooded “wet meadow”

wetlands and upland pasture land. Restoration of tidal influence in these areas would eliminate

the pasture grass communities and reed canary grass. The higher elevation areas would most

likely transition to salt marsh habitat more quickly than lower elevation areas, which would

initially convert to mudflat habitat.

The brush habitat along the McAllister Creek dike would be lost during dike removal in

Alternative D. Trees and brush along internal road banks that are removed or restored in the

currently diked area would also be lost. New native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation

would be planted or seeded along the new exterior and interior dikes, which would provide new

brush habitat and screening and would also protect new dikes from erosion. Effects to the West

Bluff parcel are the same as described under Alternative A.

Effects to Native, Exotic, and Invasive Plants

Effects of removing dikes along the lower Nisqually River on the vegetation community would

be similar to those described under Alternative C. Since this alternative has the highest amount

of acreage restored to estuarine habitat, the potential for Spartina spp. establishment would be

the largest. Monitoring efforts would need to be the greatest to ensure early detection and

control.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-23

As with the previously described action alternatives, Alternative D would entail building new

internal dikes to improve freshwater wetland management options in the remaining diked areas. 

The resulting management units would be smaller under this alternative and provide less total

area of freshwater wetlands (263 acres). However, the size of these units would allow for more

effective management. Limited freshwater supplied by the artesian wells would be applied to a

smaller area, improving the ability to control reed canary grass. Higher quality freshwater

wetlands with improved wildlife habitat functions would result, similar to habitat improvement

projects completed in 2000 and 2001 in the headquarters area. 

4.2.4.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Alternative D includes the largest expansion of the Refuge boundary. Acquisition of in-holdings

and development of a Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe would occur as

described under Alternative A. No additional estuarine habitat would be included in this

alternative for expanding the Refuge boundary, limiting the direct effects to estuarine habitats. 

However, the proposed area of expansion would include areas where the freshwater wetland

management capabilities of the Refuge could be further developed. Should the Service be able

to acquire manageable properties, a larger, more diverse complex of wetland habitats would

result, contributing to an overall improvement in watershed conditions. Therefore,

implementation of Alternative D could indirectly benefit estuarine habitats at the Refuge.

Alternative D includes a larger expansion of riparian habitat than Alternatives B and C,

including a portion of the Nisqually River corridor. Specific habitats affected would depend on

areas acquired and protected, and could include vegetated areas of riparian forest, scrub-shrub

and emergent (wetland) habitats, as well as unvegetated portions of the river channel and

floodplain, including gravel beaches and bars. Active management and restoration of the

riparian area could reduce habitat damage caused by unregulated public access and the existing

network of dirt roads and trails in the riparian corridor. This would have little or no direct effect

on estuarine habitats. Indirect effects would include benefits associated with maintaining

existing bluff slope stability, as well as improved integrity of riparian and upland corridors

adjacent to estuarine habitats.

Alternative D includes the largest plan for expansion of the Refuge boundary and would have the

potential to enhance or restore the largest amount of freshwater and riparian wetland habitat of

all the alternatives. Similar to Alternatives B and C, extensive freshwater restoration

opportunities could result. Depending on the areas acquired, restoration of freshwater wetlands

south of I-5 could reduce the effects from the conversion of freshwater wetlands to estuarine

habitat north of I-5 and could increase the size and complexity of the wetland habitat mosaic in

the lower watershed. As described in Alternative B, wetland restoration of agricultural lands

could include periodic mowing, discing, sculpting, seeding, and flooding in the fall and winter

months. This alternative would potentially provide additional protection for floodplain and

riparian forest in the Nisqually Valley that is not included in Alternatives B or C. Combined

with the greater potential for riparian protection and restoration, this alternative for Refuge

boundary expansion could provide the greatest long-term benefit to freshwater wetlands.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-24 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Similar to Alternatives B and C, direct benefits for upland habitats could result. Specifically, this

alternative proposes the acquisition of the largest amount of upland bluffs. If areas of upland

pasture land or grassland south of I-5 were acquired, protection and improved management for

wildlife could reduce the effects of the conversion of grasslands back to estuarine habitat north of

I-5. Whereas the opportunity to restore estuarine habitats is limited to the area north of I-5,

substantial options for upland and freshwater restoration and protection may be possible south of

I-5.

4.2.4.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats

Effects of boardwalk construction are similar to those described for Alternative C. All other

effects–from closure of the RNA to boating, fishing, and shellfishing–are the same as described

in Alternative C. Effects from the hunting area would be slightly less than in Alternative C

because of the smaller acreage, but effects to habitats along McAllister Creek would continue. 

This alternative potentially includes new accessible fishing site locations at the Nisqually River

or Luhr Beach, if acquired. These sites would most likely involve construction of small platform

sites that contain all activities. Construction of these platforms would be conducted with

minimal disturbance to adjacent habitats. 

4.2.5 Effects to Regional Availability of Wetland Habitats

A specific analysis was done to better understand how estuarine restoration and freshwater

conversion at Nisqually NWR would affect the larger south Puget Sound area (Tanner 1999). 

This discussion focuses on the effects of habitat restoration only within the current Refuge

boundary in a regional context. Due to the large area of Nisqually NWR wetlands, and the

significant shift in wetland habitat types that would occur if restoration of estuarine habitat is

implemented, the regional context of the alternatives was considered (Table 4.2-1). Using

historical data on the estimated distribution of estuarine habitats (Bortelson et al. 1980) and

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data on current wetland distribution, a geographic

information system (GIS) analysis was completed and is summarized here. For this analysis, a

definition for the region of south Puget Sound consistent with that used by the WDFW for

salmonid stock management was used (see Tanner [1999] for further information on project

boundaries and methods). This area extends north to the Cedar/Sammamish Water Resource

Inventory Area (WRIA) in King County, west to Kennedy/Goldsbourough WRIA in Mason

County, east to Duwamish and Puyallup WRIAs in Pierce County, and south to the Nisqually

WRIA in Thurston County.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-25

Table 4.2-1. Summary of Habitat Restoration Effects to Regional Estuarine and Freshwater

Wetlands.

Alternative

Estuarine

Habitat

Restored (acres)

% Loss of

Regional

Freshwater

Wetlands

% Gain of Regional

Estuarine Habitat

A (Status Quo) 0 0.0% 0.0%

B – Minimum Estuarine Restoration 458 1.7% 30.0%

C – Moderate Estuarine Restoration 515 1.9% 33.7%

D – Maximum Estuarine Restoration 699 2.6% 45.7%

Nisqually River delta estuarine (intertidal and subtidal) habitats have decreased from 6,207 acres

historically to an estimated 5,016 acres currently. Especially significant has been the loss of

intertidal emergent habitat (high and low salt marsh), which has declined from 1,458 acres to

674 acres, a loss of 54%. Much of this loss is associated with diking and the conversion of

estuarine habitats to palustrine (freshwater) wetlands inside the dike system (Tanner 1999). 

Palustrine wetlands comprise a substantial portion (18%) of the remaining wetlands in the south

Puget Sound region. Emergent marshes comprise the largest single class of palustrine wetlands. 

Estuarine intertidal wetlands are much less prevalent in the region and comprise only 6% of nonupland areas. The vast majority of the estuarine intertidal area is comprised of unvegetated

mudflats and beaches. Estuarine marsh habitat (salt marsh) is relatively scarce in south Puget

Sound; approximately 1,529 acres account for 0.3% of the non-upland area in this region.

Freshwater wetlands are an important resource in south Puget Sound and continue to be

threatened by incremental loss and degradation. Estuarine wetlands, historically less abundant,

are becoming increasingly rare throughout Puget Sound, and opportunities for restoration of

estuarine wetlands are limited. The Nisqually River delta historically contained more than twice

the current amount of this wetland type. Restoration of intertidal wetlands at Nisqually NWR

could produce a substantial increase in the amount of salt marsh in south Puget Sound, with a

relatively small reduction in freshwater habitats in the region. From a regional perspective,

estuarine restoration in the Nisqually delta would provide a significant increase in this habitat

type, with important benefits to fish and wildlife resources throughout south Puget Sound and

beyond. Implementation of Refuge boundary expansion alternatives south of I-5 could also

reduce the effects of freshwater wetlands calculated within the diked area in this analysis. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-26 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.3 Effects to Fisheries Habitats and Resources 

The discussion of the effects of the alternatives on fish species focuses on the selected species

described in the Affected Environment chapter (Table 3.3-1). These estuarine and anadromous

fish species are of management concern in the study area and all depend upon estuarine habitats

to some degree. These species are meant to represent what could happen to the broader set of

fish species inhabiting the Refuge. 

Both long-term and temporary effects to fish species may occur in association with each

alternative. Temporary effects to fish species are identified as effects from construction

activities, such as dike removal, road maintenance, and channel modification associated with

estuarine restoration. Long-term effects to fish species may occur through changes in habitat

abundance and diversity and changes in primary production and consequently the food chain. 

The following describes the potential long-term and temporary effects to various fish species that

may occur in association with each alternative.

Effects to fish species listed in Table 3.3-1, Chapter 3 are discussed in this chapter. Species

other than Pacific salmon are discussed collectively as “Forage Fish and Other Fishes” since

these species all depend upon the nearshore marine environment. 

4.3.1 Alternative A

4.3.1.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth (Odum 1971) and are critical

habitat for juvenile Pacific salmon stocks (Levy et al. 1979; Levy and Northcote 1981;

Simenstad et al. 1992). They offer juveniles abundant food sources, refuge from predators, and

the ability to acclimate to higher salinities. Estuaries not only afford rich feeding and growth

opportunities, but also allow fry to delay out-migration until population blooms of marine

zooplankton prey occur, which can double fry survival to adulthood (Salo 1991). Optimal

estuarine conditions are critical for those anadromous salmonid stocks that have evolved a

dependence on the estuary for juvenile rearing. Upon return from the ocean, adult salmonids

often hold in estuarine environments for some time while sexually maturing and adjusting to

lower salinities (Olson 1989). 

Under Alternative A, no estuarine habitat would be restored. Since all of the Pacific salmon

found in the Nisqually Basin depend upon estuarine habitats to some degree, especially juvenile

chinook and chum salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978; Healey 1982; Simenstad et al. 1982), there would

be no expected increase in salmonid populations under this alternative. In addition, there would

be no indirect benefits to these species, resulting from improvements or restoration of existing

habitats to tidal conditions as would occur under the action alternatives. The existing estuarine

habitats would continue to deteriorate under existing management. The dike would be

maintained, continuing to interrupt tidal channels and reducing the tidal prism, water volumes,
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-27

and nutrient exchange in the existing estuarine habitats. Any diking of tidal channel habitat

reduces the rearing capacity of an estuary. The reduced tidal prism and water volume associated

with diking creates a less complex system by limiting the creation of smaller channels and

slough branches, resulting in less habitat for fish (Thom et al. 1985). 

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fish

Effects to Pacific herring, surf smelt, Pacific sand lance, and other estuarine-dependent species

under Alternative A are similar to those described for Pacific salmon. These species depend

upon the nearshore marine environment and estuaries for spawning or rearing, or both. 

Alternative A would not increase foraging or rearing habitat preferred by these species, nor

increase spawning habitat. 

As described in Section 3.3. little is known about the current status of the bull trout in the

Nisqually River system (WDFW 1998). Effects to bull trout in this alternative are the same as

described above for Pacific salmon.

4.3.1.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Pacific Salmon, Forage Fish, and Other Fishes

There is no Refuge expansion proposed in this alternative, so no effects would be expected. 

4.3.1.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Pacific Salmon, Forage Fish, and Other Fishes

This alternative does not propose any major changes in the public use program on the Refuge. 

Therefore, fish populations on the Refuge would not be affected.

4.3.2 Alternative B

4.3.2.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would provide some benefits to the anadromous and

estuarine-dependent fish species in the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach. Restoration of the

estuary under this alternative is expected to result in some increased primary production and

consequent food chain support for fish species that depend upon estuarine and shallow marine

habitats for survival. 

Under Alternative B, a muted tidal condition would be created by breaching the dike in specific

locations. There may be temporary, negative effects on Pacific salmon from increased turbidity

due to dike breaching, channel modification, and bridge construction. Borrow ditches and other
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-28 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

unnatural drainage features would not be filled and could lead to the development of a less

complex channel system. This would result in less overall channel area, a reduced proportion of

the estuarine habitat area that is connected to channels, and less channel edge ©. Simenstad,

pers. comm). Dike breaching, as opposed to dike removal, may result in a deviation from

natural conditions for physical factors that influence the distribution and species composition of

vegetation in estuarine habitats. Borrow ditches would likely pond water between tides (ENSR

1999), which may entrap fish. Topographic depressions inside the breached dike area could also

trap fish during low tide if not connected to tidal channels. Unlike Alternatives C and D, the

dike along the lower portion of the Nisqually River would remain intact. The fully restored area

north of Shannon Slough would remain fragmented and separated from the Nisqually River and

associated freshwater discharge and river-borne sediments that help build and maintain

elevations suitable for plant growth. Therefore, muted estuarine areas of this alternative would

not benefit salmonid populations as much as fully functioning restoration alternatives.

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would provide some benefits to forage fish and other

fish species dependent upon estuarine habitats. This alternative would likely increase the

amount of mudflats, a habitat preferred by juvenile and adult starry flounder, juvenile English

sole, juvenile and adult Pacific staghorn sculpin, and all life-stages of arrow gobies. This

alternative is the only action alternative that retains the dike along the lower portion of the

Nisqually River, causing the restored area to remain fragmented and separated from the

Nisqually River. This would result in less habitat for spawning and rearing of young starry

flounder and less rearing for juvenile English sole than under Alternatives C and D. As with

Pacific salmon, temporary effects to forage and other fishes would occur (see above).

4.3.2.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Compared to Alternative A, the increased protection of Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and

associated tributaries in Alternative B would benefit salmon in the long term by protecting

important spawning and rearing habitat and migrational corridors. If appropriate sites are

acquired along the river or creek, riparian or wetland restoration could contribute to improved

salmon habitat quality.

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

Increased protection of Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and associated tributaries would

likely not affect forage fishes but may benefit Pacific staghorn sculpin and starry flounder, which

spawn and rear in rivers.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-29

4.3.2.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Pacific Salmon

This alternative would allow the Service to manage a current bank fishing location on the

Nisqually River (Trotter’s Woods) and potentially create an accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach

boat ramp. Nisqually River coho, chinook, and chum salmon and steelhead are co-managed by

the State of Washington and the Nisqually Indian Tribe to achieve specific objectives

(exploitation rate, escapement, or quota). Harvest-related effects to these stocks associated with

an increase in sport fishing opportunity would be estimated and taken into consideration in the

development of annual pre-season fishing agreements and associated regulations. Following

post-season analyses and reporting of catch records, any adjustments in fishing regulations

needed to achieve the desired management objectives for each stock would be made. Thus,

effects to Pacific salmon associated with development of additional bank fishing opportunities

would be negligible.

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

The creation of new bank fishing locations along the Nisqually River is not expected to affect

these fish species.

4.3.3 Alternative C

4.3.3.1 Habitat Restoration 

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Alternative C would restore 50% of the diked area to full estuarine habitat. The unimpeded tidal

hydrology of the restored area under this alternative would increase the probability that restored

estuarine habitats would function like natural systems. The removal of the dike along the lower

portion of the river would allow the river channel to migrate naturally across the floodplain. 

This is expected to allow for a wider distribution of river-borne sediments that help build and

maintain elevations suitable for plant growth and high salt marsh development. This would

increase availability and distribution of detrital material to support the food chain, more so than

Alternatives A or B. As in Alternative B, temporary adverse effects to Pacific salmon would

occur from increased turbidity due to dike removal and channel modification.

Chinook Salmon

An assessment of primary critical habitat issues affecting chinook salmon in 15 Washington

State watersheds concluded that estuarine loss was a limiting factor in 14 of the watersheds

(Bishop and Morgan 1996). There are a number of factors controlling chinook salmon

productivity in the Nisqually River, including ocean conditions, conditions in the estuary,

harvest rates, and freshwater habitat effects. To develop comprehensive and integrated multispecies management plans for the Nisqually River basin, the Nisqually Indian Tribe analyzed

environmental factors over multiple life history stages to determine current productivity and
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-30 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

prioritize recovery efforts (EDT Work Group 1999). The authors cited permanent protection and

restoration of the estuary, which contains habitats critical to chinook salmon (an ESA-listed

species), as one of three key factors for rebuilding salmon runs in the Nisqually Basin. Their

analysis indicates that these actions in the estuary alone would double the natural production of

fall chinook salmon in the Nisqually River and provide multi-species, as well as regional,

benefits. Consistent with these observations is the conclusion of the draft Nisqually Basin Fall

Chinook Recovery Plan that states “[t]op priorities for rebuilding natural fall chinook salmon

production include restoration of the estuary...” (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001).

There is some evidence of utilization of restored estuarine areas by chinook salmon. Restored

estuarine marsh habitat in the Fraser River and Puyallup River estuaries has been extensively

used by juvenile chinook salmon (Levings and Nishimura 1997; Shreffler et al. 1990). Juvenile

chinook salmon have accessed and utilized a created estuarine slough in the Chehalis River

estuary (Simenstad et al. 1992). The diets of the fish indicate that likely sources of their prey are

the sediments, marsh and marginal riparian vegetation, and channels. Based on the above

studies, restoration of the Nisqually River Estuary under Alternative C would not only

substantially increase available rearing habitat, but also offer off-channel refuge from high flows

(floods) that could readily sweep fish out to marine waters before they are prepared to go. 

Chum Salmon

Juvenile chum salmon, which reside in estuaries for a period of days to weeks, favor tidally

influenced creeks through fresh and brackish water marshes, the confluence of major and minor

distribution channels in the intertidal zone, and delta margins (Healey 1982). While chum

salmon tend to spend less time in the estuary than subyearling chinook salmon, they still depend

on the detritus-based food web that estuaries support (Sibert et al. 1977). Restored estuarine

marsh habitat in the Fraser, Puyallup, and Snohomish River estuaries has been extensively used

by juvenile chum salmon (Levings and Nishimura 1997; Shreffler et al. 1990, 1992.) Levings

and Nishimura (1997) found that marked chum salmon fry resided in the restored marsh habitat

as long as in undisturbed sites. Juvenile chum salmon have also accessed and utilized a created

estuarine slough in the Chehalis River estuary (Simenstad et al. 1992). 

Based upon the above studies, restoration of the Nisqually River Estuary, particularly under

Alternatives C and D, would not only substantially increase available rearing habitat for juvenile

chum salmon, but also offer off-channel refuge from high flows (floods) that could readily

sweep fish out to marine waters before they are prepared to go. 

Coho Salmon

Coho salmon are less able and take much longer to adapt to saline water than chum or chinook

salmon (Crone and Bond 1976; Kennedy et al. 1976). Estuaries are important staging areas for

coho salmon for the physiological transition needed when moving from fresh to saltwater. 

Downstream migrant coho salmon sub-yearlings that are unable to find suitable low salinity

habitat may be forced to more brackish or marine waters, lowering their chance for survival. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-31

Rapid growth of sub-yearling coho salmon in estuarine side channels of the Chehalis River has

been reported (Miller 1993). Restored estuarine marsh habitat in the Chehalis River estuary and

tidal fresh and oligohaline habitats in the Snohomish River have also been extensively utilized

by juvenile coho salmon (Cordell et al. 1999; Simenstad et al. 1992). These restored sites have

produced juvenile salmon prey organisms in densities that equaled or exceeded those at

reference sites. Food habits of juvenile coho salmon in restored intertidal wetlands also appear

to be similar to those occupying “natural” wetlands (Aitkin 1998). 

Juvenile coho salmon utilize the Nisqually River Estuary during the spring and summer months;

in a study conducted during 1980, the dominant prey item of juveniles was found to be sand

lance (Pearce et al. 1982). An increase in forage fish abundance in the Nisqually Estuary due to

estuarine restoration would likely benefit coho salmon. Based on the above studies, restoration

of the Nisqually River Estuary under Alternative C would not only substantially increase

available habitat for juvenile coho salmon to complete their transition from fresh to marine

waters, but would also increase their forage base and offer off-channel refuge from high flows

that could sweep fish out to marine waters before they are prepared to go.

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

Although there would be some temporary effects to fish from dike removal and channel

modification (see above discussion in Pacific salmon), Alternative C would benefit the fish

resources of the Nisqually River watershed. These benefits would exceed those offered by

Alternative B, where a smaller extent of intertidal habitat restoration and muted tidal habitat

restoration is considered. The unimpeded tidal hydrology of the restored area under Alternative

C would increase the probability that restored estuarine habitats would function like natural

systems. Under Alternative C, habitat for estuarine-dependent fish would be increased in both

quantity and quality. This alternative would likely provide more foraging and rearing habitat

preferred by these species than under Alternative A or B and may provide some spawning

habitat for estuarine spawners.

Restoration of the estuary would increase primary production and consequent food chain support

for nearly all fish species that depend on estuarine and shallow marine habitats for survival,

including prey fish species preferred by bull trout. An increase in forage fish abundance in the

Nisqually Estuary due to estuarine restoration would likely benefit bull trout. Based on field

studies of bull trout in north Puget Sound, restoration of the Nisqually River Estuary under

Alternative C would substantially increase available foraging and rearing habitat for juvenile,

sub-adult, and adult bull trout ©. Cook-Tabor, pers. comm.).

4.3.3.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Pacific Salmon, Forage Fish, and Other Fish

Same as Alternative B.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-32 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.3.3.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Proposals to changes in bank fishing opportunities are similar to Alternative B, except for

additional bank fishing locations on the Nisqually River, east of the river, and north of I-5. This

would result in greater fishing opportunities on the Nisqually River. However, as described in

Alternative B, harvest-related effects to salmon and steelhead stocks would be estimated and

taken into consideration in the development of annual pre-season fishing agreements and

associated regulations. 

Forage Fish and Other Fishes

The creation of new bank fishing locations along the Nisqually River is not expected to affect

these fish species. 

4.3.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.3.4.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Pacific salmon runs in the Nisqually River would benefit most under Alternative D, relative to

all the alternatives. This alternative would restore 70% of the diked area to full estuarine habitat,

creating larger, more complex estuarine system than any other alternative. Management actions

under Alternative D would rehabilitate habitat-forming processes of the estuarine system that

were degraded by the construction of the dike. Alternative D would produce the largest

conversion of freshwater wetland area to estuarine habitats considered, as well as the largest

increase in vegetated salt marsh habitat. Any increases in estuarine habitats with marsh

vegetation cover would lead to increased total primary productivity, as well as increased

availability and distribution of detrital material. Effects to chum, coho, and chinook salmon

would be similar to those described under Alternative C, but would be substantially more

beneficial in this alternative.

The removal of the dike along the lower portion of the Nisqually River would allow the river

channel to migrate naturally across the floodplain. This would allow for a wider distribution of

river-borne sediments that help build and maintain elevations suitable for plant growth, resulting

in increased availability and distribution of detrital material. Detritus is a key component of

estuarine habitat food webs, including those that support prey resources important to juvenile

salmon and other fish species (Naiman and Sibert 1979; Northcote et al. 1979). Decomposing

marsh plants release nutrients that would otherwise remain in the sediments (Dorcey et al. 1978). 

Invertebrates, important food resources for fishes, feed upon the decomposing marsh plants as

they break up into organic particles or detritus. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-33

Due to insufficient study or wide ranges in data on juvenile use of and benefit from estuarine

rearing, it is not possible to accurately estimate the increased salmon production that would

result from restoration of tidal function to the Nisqually River Estuary under the various

alternatives. Monitoring efforts of a small estuarine restoration project on Red Salmon Creek,

east of the Nisqually River, have documented presence of chinook salmon. In May 1999, 3

years after the former pastureland area was restored, 691 chinook salmon were observed (J.

Dorner, pers. comm.). These data, as well as the research findings on the importance of

estuarine rearing cited above, support the expectation that the estuarine restoration proposed in

Alternative D would offer the most substantial benefit to the different populations. Restoration

of the Nisqually River Estuary under Alternative D would not only substantially increase

available rearing habitat but also offer off-channel refuge from high flows (floods) that could

readily sweep fish out to marine waters before they are prepared to go. 

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

Alternative D would offer a variety of benefits that are significant to the fish resources of the

Nisqually River watershed, exceeding those offered by other alternatives. Habitat for estuarinedependent fish would be greatly increased in both quantity and quality. Because of its parallel

orientation relative to the river and floodplain, restoration in Alternative D would provide the

greatest diversity of estuarine habitat types. Greater diversity would result from the range of

elevations, salinity, and exposure, and the full mix of habitats that existed in the estuary

historically would be provided long-term. On the other hand, Alternatives B and C would

increase the amount of intertidal habitat in an east to west orientation across the face of the delta,

and thus would not provide this same diversity in physical conditions and thus habitat types. 

Anadromous bull trout would benefit most under Alternative D, followed by Alternatives C and

B, because of an expected increase in forage fish abundance in the Nisqually Estuary due to

restoration. 

Pacific herring and surf smelt depend on the nearshore marine environment. All life stages of

these species utilize Puget Sound estuaries. They spawn in intertidal or shallow subtidal waters

at very specific locations throughout Puget Sound and rear in nearshore, shallow water areas

(Emmett et al. 1991). Due to this dependence, Alternative D would be the most favorable for

Pacific herring and surf smelt due to the creation of a larger, more complete and functional

estuarine system. This alternative is the most likely to provide not only the most foraging and

rearing habitat preferred by these species, but may also provide spawning habitat. Alternative C

would be the next most favorable, for similar reasons, followed by Alternative B.

Although extensive studies documenting the utilization of restored estuarine habitats in Puget

Sound by non-salmonids are not abundant, some examples are available. Starry flounder were

found to utilize a wetland site restored to tidal inundation by breaching a dike in the Snohomish

River estuary (Cordell et al. 1998). Due to the spawning and rearing requirements of starry

flounder and English sole, Alternative D would be the most favorable for these species. This

alternative would be the most likely to provide not only the most foraging and rearing habitat
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-34 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

preferred by these species, but may also provide more spawning habitat for starry flounders than

currently exists. 

Pacific tomcod, Pacific staghorn sculpin, shiner perch, and arrow goby would also benefit from

estuarine restoration in Alternatives B to D. The increased total available habitat, primary

production, and associated increase in detrital material under the action alternatives would

expand the rearing habitat and foraging opportunities for these species over current conditions. 

In addition, an increase in estuarine habitat may provide more spawning habitat for arrow gobies

and Pacific staghorn sculpin, both estuarine spawners. An increase in forage fish abundance

likely to occur under the action alternatives would benefit the fish-eating fishes, such as adult

Pacific tomcod and large Pacific staghorn sculpin. Pacific staghorn sculpin feed at high tide on

mudflats (Love 1991) and have been found to utilize a created estuarine slough of the Chehalis

River (Simenstad et al. 1992) and a wetland site restored to tidal inundation by breaching a dike

in the Snohomish River estuary (Cordell et al. 1998). Shiner perch were also found to

extensively utilize a created estuarine slough of the Chehalis River (Simenstad et al. 1992). 

4.3.4.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Pacific Salmon

Effects would be similar to Alternative C, except the slightly greater protection of the Nisqually

River corridor under Alternative D would provide even greater benefits.

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

Same as Alternatives B and C.

4.3.4.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Pacific Salmon

This alternative may create two or three new bank fishing locations on the Nisqually River,

resulting in greater fishing opportunity. See Alternative B for a description of the associated

harvest-related effects. 

Effects to Forage Fish and Other Fishes

The creation of new bank fishing locations along the Nisqually River is not expected to affect

these fish species. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-35

4.3.5 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species

4.3.5.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program

This alternative would not increase the amount or quality of essential habitat of chinook salmon

or bull trout. However, these species would benefit, although not significantly, from more

uniform land protection and conservation within the Refuge. The increase in watershed-wide

habitat protection under this alternative may increase water and intertidal habitat quality and

could slightly improve foraging conditions for salmon and bull trout. The public use program

under this alternative is not expected to affect chinook salmon or bull trout.

4.3.5.2 Action Alternatives B - D

Estuarine restoration under Alternatives B, C, or D would increase the amount (458, 515, and

699 acres, respectively) and improve the quality of essential habitats of chinook salmon and bull

trout. No long-term adverse effects to chinook salmon compared to baseline conditions would

be anticipated under the action alternatives. There may be temporary negative effects from

reduced water quality caused by increased turbidity due to dike removal and channel

modifications. 

Little is known about the current status of the bull trout in the Nisqually River system (WDFW

1997). Anadromous bull trout, if present, would benefit most under Alternative D, followed by

Alternatives C, and B, respectively. Restoration of the estuary is expected to result in increased

primary production and consequent food chain support for nearly all fish species which depend

upon estuarine and shallow marine habitats for survival, including prey fish species preferred by

bull trout. An increase in forage fish abundance in the Nisqually Estuary due to estuarine

restoration would likely benefit bull trout. Based upon these studies of bull trout in north Puget

Sound, restoration of the Nisqually River estuary, particularly under Alternatives D and C,

would substantially increase available foraging and rearing habitat for juvenile, sub-adult, and

adult bull trout.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-36 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.4 Effects to Wildlife

Under all alternatives, resource monitoring programs would be implemented. Refuge wildlife

monitoring is a priority for the NWRS and would support adaptive management techniques that

could be utilized for the benefit of various wildlife species (USFWS 2000). Potential effects are

described below for birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, invasive and exotic species, and

threatened and endangered species.

4.4.1 Effects to Birds

4.4.1.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Shorebirds

A number of waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species use the freshwater wetlands

within the diked area on the Refuge, particularly the seasonally flooded ponds. Waterfowl, such

as American wigeon, Canada geese, mallards, and northern shovelers, make extensive use of

specific types of freshwater wetlands and would benefit from the continued existence of this

habitat within the Refuge boundary. Waterbirds that use permanent ponds or sloughs, such as

great blue herons, American bitterns, and Virginia rails, would also benefit from the continued

management of these areas. In addition, dunlin, common snipe, and killdeer use flooded

wetlands and grasslands within the diked area. Shorebirds, such as common snipe and killdeer

have both been documented to be declining in Washington State and across the region (Sauer et

al. 2000) and would benefit from the continued management of freshwater wetlands and

grasslands. 

The management of current grassland habitat would continue to benefit Canada geese,

particularly migrant populations. Geese currently concentrate in Refuge grasslands and would

continue to do so under this alternative. Migratory populations are not considered to be

increasing in Washington, unlike the resident population (United States Department of

Agriculture [USDA] 1999). It is uncertain if Canada geese resident populations would increase

under this alternative, but increases would be likely based on regional trends. Supporting large

resident Canada geese populations can have detrimental effects on other Refuge flora and fauna

(Smith et al. 1999). However, current resident populations are low and are not affecting habitat

conditions.

Benefits to waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds would gradually continue to decline because of

the increased challenge of maintaining the quality of the freshwater wetlands and grasslands

within the diked area. Habitat quality within the dike is declining as reed canary grass

dominance continues, modifying the vegetation community and closing in open water areas (see

Section 4.2.1). Although limited reed canary grass control would be implemented, its expansion

would be expected to increase and would decrease seasonally flooded wetlands in the long term. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-37

The continued conversion of grasslands to scrub-shrub habitat would also decrease the

availability of seasonal wetland habitat used by waterfowl, herons, and shorebirds. 

In addition, the current dike system is not stable and is expected to deteriorate over time. Repair

work may increase short-term sedimentation and thus negatively affect waterfowl and

waterbirds. Long-term examination of the diked system indicates that it would not naturally

maintain itself, contributing to saltwater intrusion, which would decrease habitat value for all

areas (see Section 4.2.1). 

Although freshwater wetlands on the Refuge provide habitat for some ducks and geese, Refuge

monitoring data suggest that the majority of waterfowl use estuary areas (see Section 3.4.1). In

addition, other species, such as herons, dunlins, western sandpiper, loons, gulls, and terns,

concentrate in the estuary areas. The persistence of the current dike system may still affect the

existing estuary due to tidal mudflat erosion, artificial sediment accretion patterns, and reduced

tidal prism (see Section 4.2.1). Populations of American wigeon and other waterfowl on the

Refuge have been declining in recent years. A possible cause for this decline is the change in

habitat types in the region. Additional loss or deterioration of estuarine habitats in Puget Sound

would continue to adversely affect many waterfowl species (Quiñonez 2001).

There is international concern regarding the long-term sustainability of shorebird species (Brown

et al. 2000). Western sandpipers are considered a priority species in Washington due to their

levels of concentration in certain areas (WDFW 2001). Estuaries are critical habitat because

they typically support a great abundance and diversity of shorebirds compared to other habitats

in the North Pacific region (Drut and Buchanan 2000). Threats to estuary-dependent species

would continue under Alternative A due to maintenance of the current dike system, which would

further degrade the existing estuary (Section 4.2.1). This alternative does not address estuarine

restoration priorities identified in the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan (Pacific Coast

Joint Venture 1996) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (Drut

and Buchanan 2000). Overall, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, the estuarine habitats in the delta

would not benefit from actions proposed in this alternative. The limited health and function of

the salt marshes and sloughs of the delta would result in a less productive, less complex, lower

channel order system that provides less habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, and

shorebirds.

Effects to Landbirds

Raptors

Red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and northern harriers would benefit the most of all raptors from

retaining the diked freshwater wetlands and grasslands. However, as described in Section 4.2.1,

habitat quality within the dike is declining. The continued conversion from open wetlands and

grasslands to scrub-shrub or reed canary grass dominated habitat would limit raptor use of the

diked areas in the long term. Populations of other raptor species that forage in estuary areas,

such as eagles, peregrine falcons, and osprey, could be negatively affected in the long-term,

although not significantly, from the continued deterioration of estuarine habitat under this

alternative (see Section 4.2.1). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-38 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

The restoration of the West Bluff parcel, as called for under all alternatives, would enhance

raptor habitat and have positive effects. Bald eagles that nest in this area would benefit from

enhanced forest quality around the nest site. Washington State species guidelines indicate that

eagles benefit from contiguous forested habitat with low human disturbance (Rodrick and Milner

1991). In addition to eagle habitat improvements, other raptor species, such as red-tailed hawks

or owls, would benefit as most of these species nest or perch in trees along the West Bluff

parcel.

Passerines and Nonpasserines

The restoration of the West Bluff parcel, common to all alternatives, would benefit passerine and

nonpasserine species. Notable species that could benefit from enhanced forest habitat include

downy woodpecker, Swainson’s thrush, band-tailed pigeon, rufous hummingbird, olive-sided

flycatcher, and yellow warbler. All of these species are declining in Washington State (Sauer et

al. 2000). 

Species that use the estuary, such as swallows, marsh wren, and finches, could be negatively

affected by the continued deterioration of the estuarine habitat (Section 4.2.1). The retention of

1,000 acres of freshwater wetland and grassland habitat under Alternative A would continue to

benefit certain passerines, such as savanna sparrows and goldfinches, that are associated most

with this habitat type. However, the limited freshwater habitat enhancements under this

alternative are not expected to significantly improve habitat quality over the long term. 

Freshwater wetlands within the current Refuge boundary are expected to deteriorate over time as

a result of ongoing exotic species invasion and conversion to scrub-shrub habitat (Section 4.2.1). 

Thus, benefits from the availability of freshwater wetlands to passerines and nonpasserines are

not expected to increase significantly, but instead could eventually decrease due to deteriorated

habitat conditions. 

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Under Alternative A, no expansion of the Refuge boundary would occur. Indirect benefits to

waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, shorebirds, and landbirds would occur if efforts to strengthen

watershed protection through partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary were successful. 

Increased watershed protection would improve water quality and associated habitat for the

various avian species. 

Efforts to acquire in-holdings within the existing boundary would continue under all alternatives. 

Acquisition of in-holdings consisting of estuarine habitat would eliminate the fragmented

management of estuarine areas within the delta. Coastal wetlands are critical to shorebird

migration as foraging sites (Page and Gill 1994). The documented widespread decline in

estuarine habitat threatens shorebird population viability throughout the region (Drut and

Buchanan 2000). Acquisition and long-term protection of these areas would benefit waterfowl,

waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-39

Public Use Program

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Under Alternative A, the recreational trail system would not change and would continue to be

used for hiking and wildlife observation. Although this activity could have negative effects on

avian species, especially those using habitats adjacent to trails, effects would be reduced through

provisions described below. Studies have shown that migrant waterfowl are particularly

vulnerable to disturbances from trail-based recreation (Klein et al. 1995). Many waterbird

species were found to decrease their foraging time and increase their vigilance when people were

nearby (Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Birds can be affected by human activities on trails when

they are repeatedly disturbed and flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Shorebird

numbers were reduced near people who were walking or jogging and about 50% of flushed birds

flew elsewhere (Burger 1981). Flushing from an area can cause birds to expend more energy, be

deterred from using desirable habitat, affect resting or feeding patterns, increase exposure to

predation, or cause birds to abandon sites with repeated disturbance (Smith and Hunt 1995). 

Recreational effects can have long-term cumulative effects that cause avian species to abandon

otherwise suitable habitat (Riffell et al. 1996). However, since the number of trail users would

be limited by the Refuge parking lot capacity (100-car maximum), the number of Refuge visitors

on the trail system at one time is not expected to be exceptionally high. In addition, the

requirement to stay on trails and designated sanctuary areas would greatly lessen human

disturbance. Vegetative screening (plantings) would also reduce disturbance and increase

wildlife viewing opportunities. Refuge outreach programs would emphasize responsible

behavior of Refuge visitors and thus lessen wildlife disturbance (DeLong and Schmidt 1998;

Larson 1995).

Under all alternatives, the restriction of fruit harvesting would benefit many passerines and

nonpasserines that use these resources for forage, as well as reduce the potential for visitors to

wander off trails for fruit picking. The primitive trail in the surge plain (common to all

alternatives) could have negative effects on passerines and nonpasserines that occur in this

habitat, especially if visitors wander off trail into the habitat. For many passerine species,

primary song occurrence and consistency can be affected by a single visitor (Gutzwiller et al.

1994). This could potentially limit the number of breeding pairs of certain passerine species,

thus limiting production (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). However, measures described above

would lessen disturbance.

The environmental education program under Alternative A would be limited, serving up to 5,000

students each year. Since activities associated with this program would be focused on trails or

within the Environmental Education Center, no significant effects to avian species are expected. 

Design of existing and new trails and facilities would provide adequate sanctuary for avian

populations. A reservation system would be used to enforce a daily limit (100 students) for

educational groups. A reduction in human disturbance along the west shoreline of McAllister

Creek would benefit bald eagles and osprey, which frequent the area for foraging. Improved

protection measures there would occur under all alternatives and would positively affect raptors. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-40 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Under this alternative, hunting would occur as it does currently on WDFW lands and much of

the Refuge tideflats. The continued presence and associated activity of hunters across a wide

area could have negative consequences to waterfowl, which are sensitive to disturbance. The

amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected to have a measurable effect on Refuge populations,

especially since waterfowl hunting activity is not extremely high in the delta. For example, the

average hunter visits per day was 8.4 during the 1998/99 season (USFWS unpublished data). 

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). 

Hunting can alter behavior (foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of

wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987,

Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). In Denmark, hunting was documented to affect the

diversity and number of birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Avian diversity changed from

predominantly mute swan and mallard to a more even distribution of a greater number of species

when a sanctuary was established. Hence, species diversity increased with the elimination of

hunting. 

There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and

hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in

areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on

Sacramento NWR non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high

until the season was over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close

of hunting season, ducks generally increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower

than before the hunting season began.

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other wildlife using the open waters and marshes on

the Nisqually delta would occur as a result of hunting activity. Migratory and wintering

waterfowl generally attempt to minimize time spent in flight and maximize foraging time

because flight requires considerably more energy than any other activity, other than egg laying. 

Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as

those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially

when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at

night, lose weight, or desert the feeding area (Belanger and Bedard 1995, Madsen 1995, Wolder

1993). Disturbance levels from hunting activity outside Chincoteague NWR were found to be

high enough to force wintering black ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within

surrounding salt marsh and diurnal resting within refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a,

1989b). Unhunted populations have been documented to behave differently from hunted ones

(Wood 1993). 

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does

not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have

been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting

(Havera et. al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of

waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995, Paulus 1984). In

Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries

(Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important

staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-41

within the sanctuary, and these species prolonged their staging periods up to several months

compared to baseline periods (Madsen 1995). Thus, sanctuary areas are very important to

minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the Nisqually

delta.

Boating activity associated with hunting during the fall and winter can alter distribution, reduce

use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and

nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). In the

upper Midwest, motor boating and hunting have been found to be the two main activities that

disturb waterfowl (Korschgen et al. 1985). In Connecticut, selection of feeding sites by lesser

scaup was influenced by disturbances such as hunters, anglers, and pleasure boaters (Cronan

1957). 

Recreational boating, estimated at 6,700 boats per year on the Refuge, can directly affect

distribution and habitat use by migratory birds. More sensitive species may find it difficult to

secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and

recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized

boats are likely to have more impact on wildlife than non-motorized boats because motorboats

produce a combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983; Knight and Cole 1995). For

example, a significant decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was observed

when motorized boating activity occurred within 200 meters of that area in the preceding 30

minutes (Skagen 1980). Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time,

in comparison to non-motorized boats. Boating pressure on wintering waterfowl in Germany

had reached such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger sanctuaries and implement

a seasonal closure on water sports and angling (Bauer et al. 1992). 

Even canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to

penetrate into shallower areas of the marsh (Speight 1973; Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark

National Scenic Riverway, green-backed heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes

and boat use increased on the main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slowmoving boats have also been observed to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). 

Huffman (1999) found that non-motorized boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San

Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush between the craft and shore. However,

compared to motorboats, canoes and kayaks appear to have less disturbance effects on most

wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964; Huffman 1999; DeLong 2002).

The presence of fast-moving boats also caused the most significant modifications to the amount

of time animals spent feeding and resting. In England, an increased rate of disturbance from

boats partly caused a decline in roosting numbers of shorebird species (Burton et al. 1996). In

addition, boaters have been observed to cause massive flights of diving ducks on the Mississippi

River (Thornburg 1973). Motorized boats within 100 meters of shore caused all wintering

waterfowl and shorebirds to flush between the craft and shore in south San Diego Bay,

regardless of speed (Huffman 1999). However, disturbance to birds in general was reduced

when boats traveled at 5 mph speed limits.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-42 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover

extensive areas in a short amount of time. The total number of boats and people can be an

inappropriate measure of recreational intensity because the presence of a single boat might be

just as disturbing as that of many (Tuite et al. 1983; Knight and Knight 1984). This is especially

the case in the RNA and McAllister Creek, both areas with high waterfowl use. Service survey

data show that the RNA provides important resting and feeding habitat for large numbers of

wintering waterfowl, including many wigeon, the predominant waterfowl species on the Refuge.

Typically, the largest waterfowl concentrations are found in the RNA during the winter months. 

The habitat along McAllister Creek is a relatively narrow tidal system that receives high use by a

variety of waterfowl, waterbirds, wading birds, and raptors. Because boats in confined areas are

generally closer to shorelines, waterbirds in tidal creeks and rivers may be exposed to more

human activity than birds at other shoreline habitats (Bratton 1990). Even low levels of boating

activity affect the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this narrow system. 

Boating activity also disturbs nesting birds. In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to

have the greatest impact on red-breasted merganser broods (Kahlert 1994). An active bald eagle

nest is located along McAllister Creek. The nesting period identified in the Bald Eagle

Recovery Plan identifies January 1 as the beginning of the nesting season when special

protective measures should begin (USFWS 1986). A great blue heron nesting colony, located

along McAllister Creek since the 1970s, has been declining for several years. Nesting great blue

herons are sensitive to a variety of human disturbances. Great blue herons were one of the more

sensitive of 23 waterbird species, when measuring flush distances from motorized boats and

PWC (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Washington State requires a minimum 300-meter buffer

zone to protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). However, boating activity in

McAllister Creek falls within this buffer zone. It is possible that boating activities may be one of

the contributing factors affecting these nesting birds. 

PWC have more impact on wildlife than other motorized or non-motorized boats because they

operate at high speeds and can maneuver into shallow areas (6 inches deep), penetrating areas

not available to conventional boats (Izaak Walton League of America 1999). PWC have the

capability to operate on top of salt marshes or mudflats with little or no standing water, causing

direct damage to soils and habitat. The rapid overwater movement and loud noise created by

PWC have been found to be the most disturbing type of boating activities for wildlife (Dalgren

and Korschgen 1992). PWC produce noise levels in the range of 85 to 105 decibels (dB) per

unit according to data produced by the National Park and Conservation Association (1997). The

continual change in loudness and pitch during normal use make PWC more disturbing than the

constant sounds of conventional motorized boats. PWC have been observed flushing wading

birds and nesting ospreys in Florida (Snow 1989). PWC use also affected nesting success of

common terns at Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, with larger numbers flushing in response to PWC

than motorboats (Burger 1998). Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) found that great blue herons

exhibited a greater flush distance from PWC compared to motorized boats. 

Motorized boats introduce pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water, and particulates in the

air in estuarine and riverine habitats at the Refuge. Two-stroke engines may lose about 25 to

40% of the unburned fuel and oil mix directly into the water (Muratori 1968). An EPA report
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-43

indicates that two-stroke engines found on many motorized boats and typical of PWC discharge

as much as 25% of unspent oil and gas directly into the water. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil

released from two-stroke engines float on the surface and settle within shallow estuarine

habitats. Hydrocarbon pollution has been found to bioaccumulate within the complex food web,

posing a serious threat to the marine environment (Tjarnlund et al. 1993). Hydrocarbons can

also be transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds. Extremely small amounts of

petroleum hydrocarbons can be toxic to eggs and birds that may ingest it (Hoffman 1989). PWC

emit significantly more pollution than two-stroke outboards due to differences in horsepower,

payload, and operation (California Air Resources Board 1998). The EPA has adopted

regulations (40 CFR Part 91) that require marine engine manufacturers to improve the efficiency

of engines by 2006. The EPA expects a 50% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from present

levels in marine engines by 2020. 

Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave disturbed

areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995; Paulus 1984). In Denmark, disturbance effects were

experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period,

these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal waterfowl. 

Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary, and these

species prolonged their staging periods up to several months compared to baseline periods. 

Thus, protection from disturbance is very important to waterfowl to ensure their continued use of

the Nisqually delta. 

Motorized boats and PWC use also result in conflicts with individuals participating in wildlifedependent priority public uses, such as canoers, kayakers, wildlife observers, and anglers. Rapid

movement and loud noise, particularly associated with PWC, flush wildlife, taking away wildlife

observation opportunities. Loud noise and rapid, repeated movement disrupt the experience of

visitors participating in priority public uses, including viewing wildlife. Dungeness NWR and

San Juan County in northwest Washington have eliminated PWC use to reduce wildlife

disturbance and conflicts with other users, and Thurston County has recently strengthened

localized regulations.

4.4.1.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Shorebirds

Under Alternative B, 318 acres of diked habitat would be restored to a muted estuarine system,

and 140 acres would be restored to a fully functioning estuarine system. Alternative B is the

only action alternative that would create muted estuarine habitat, which affects its function and

predictability of success.

Waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species that use the estuary would most likely

benefit from restoration actions. The magnitude of benefit would depend on the extent to which

these species use the muted estuarine area. Dabbling ducks, such as American wigeon, have

been observed to use temporary muted estuary areas that resulted from past dike breaching
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-44 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

events at the Refuge (Klotz et al. 1978). However, predicted waterfowl use in muted estuarine

areas is uncertain because long-term habitat response may not be equivalent to short-term events. 

The ability of muted estuarine habitats to mimic the structure and function of full estuarine

habitat is not well known (Section 4.2.2). The extent of the benefits depends on the dynamics of

the tidal interchange that would result from the restoration. Consequently, the benefit to

waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds is uncertain. Species that primarily use estuarine

habitat, such as American wigeon, green-winged teal, and bufflehead, are expected to benefit

from the creation of the muted estuary. Herons are also likely to use the muted estuarine area

since they currently utilize all the habitats of the Refuge and are known to be generalist feeders

(see Section 3.4.2). Dunlin and other shorebird species are also expected to use the newly

established mudflats that would serve as feeding areas. In addition, roosting and feeding areas

may be available at different times due to delayed tidal flows, which could benefit shorebirds

when adjacent tidal areas are inundated. The extent of the benefits expected under this

alternative depends on the dynamics of the tidal interchange that would result from the

restoration.

There is more certainty that the fully restored estuarine area would benefit these same estuarydependent species. In addition, loons, gulls, mergansers, and other water-associated birds that

use estuarine habitat would benefit from a larger estuary area in the delta. However, use of both

muted and full estuarine areas by these species may not be immediate. The newly breached

areas would experience a short-term loss of vegetation as plants not adapted to saltwater die and

are gradually replaced by saline-tolerant species (Harris and Marshall 1963). This would then be

followed by a period of transition, when intertidal and salt marsh plants and invertebrates

colonize. This process could temporarily decrease prey for avian species. 

Alternative B addresses the estuarine restoration priority for shorebird and waterfowl

management identified in the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan (Pacific Coast Joint

Venture 1996) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (Drut and

Buchanan 2000). Alternative B would provide more estuarine habitat than Alternative A. 

However, the benefits from estuarine restoration under Alternative B would not be as great as

those under Alternatives C or D because the area provided is smaller and includes a high

proportion of muted estuarine habitat. 

Some avian species would be negatively affected by the conversion of freshwater habitat to

estuarine habitat. Species such as American bittern, sora, Virginia rail, and green heron would

lose some freshwater habitat. The conversion of the north Shannon Slough system to a full

estuarine area would temporarily negatively affect several waterfowl species that currently use

the area. Since many of these waterfowl species also use the estuary, they would not be

significantly affected by this loss. In addition, loss of freshwater habitat would also temporarily

affect some shorebird species, such as breeding snipe and killdeer. The estuarine restoration

areas are currently not the primary areas on the Refuge in which these species occur; therefore,

the effects would not be significant. In addition, the improvements in freshwater habitat

management on the remaining diked area are expected to increase habitat quality for these

freshwater-dependent species, including high tide roosting sites for shorebirds. The wood duck

is another freshwater-dependent species that would lose nesting and foraging habitat around the

ring dike area. However, the remainder of the riparian corridor along the Nisqually River is
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-45

expected to remain, and riparian restoration within the dike would enhance available habitat for

this species. 

As described in Alternative A, the persistence of the current dike system may still affect the

existing estuary due to tidal mudflat erosion, artificial sediment accretion patterns, and reduced

tidal prism (see Section 4.2.1). The limited health and function of the salt marshes and sloughs

of the delta would result in a less productive, less complex channel system that provides less

habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds.

Freshwater habitat improvements proposed in Alternative B would benefit many waterfowl,

waterbird, and shorebird species and would reduce the effects from the conversion of freshwater

habitat to estuarine habitat. Freshwater wetland habitats are limited in the Puget Sound region

(Tanner 1999), especially areas without reed canary grass. Improvements in these freshwater

habitats on the Refuge would benefit regional waterfowl populations (Hoffman and Kearns

1997). Alternative B offers the largest freshwater wetland area compared to Alternatives C and

D, although the large diked area in Alternative B would limit water management capabilities and

the control of reed canary grass, resulting in limited improvements in freshwater habitat quality

(see Section 4.2.2). However, species such as wood duck, killdeer, rails, and soras, which

primarily use the freshwater habitats, would benefit to some degree from improved freshwater

habitat. 

The maintenance and creation of dike systems and other project implementation actions may

lead to short-term increases in sedimentation in a few wetland areas. This could negatively

affect waterfowl and waterbirds that use these areas through a short-term decline in prey

availability (Waters 1995). 

Effects to Landbirds

Raptors

The creation of additional estuarine habitat under this alternative would increase winter

waterfowl numbers benefitting some raptor species, such as eagles, osprey, falcons, and northern

harriers that feed regularly in the estuary. However, since Alternative B has the least amount of

estuarine restoration compared to Alternatives C and D, it would least benefit raptor species

using the estuary. The extent of benefit to these species would also depend on the response of

prey populations in the muted estuarine area; as described above, there is uncertainty whether the

muted estuarine area would successfully mimic the structure and function of fully functional

estuarine habitat, and the effect on raptor species is more difficult to predict.

The estuarine habitat created under Alternative B would be configured with more patchiness and

edges than under Alternative C or D. This could benefit red-tailed hawks, sharp-shinned hawks,

and other raptors that forage successfully along edges. However, this edge effect can have

negative long-term effects on all raptor species as fragmented prey populations may not sustain

themselves as well as those in more continuous areas (Meffe and Carroll 1994). Larger and

more contiguous habitat would be more beneficial in terms of species viability; thus, this

alternative would have fewer benefits relative to Alternatives C and D (Morrison et al. 1992;

Noss et al. 1997).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-46 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Freshwater and grassland habitat improvements in Alternative B would benefit raptor species

that use these areas, especially those that feed more predominantly on small mammals. Owls,

red-tailed hawks, and northern harriers would all benefit, although not significantly. Benefits to

these species would be limited because of minimal freshwater and grassland management (see

Section 4.2.2). In addition, these species, especially northern harriers and great-horned owls,

forage in estuarine habitats as well.

Common to Alternatives B, C, and D are short-term vegetation die-backs associated with the

shift from fresh to saltwater systems. As described above, the expected short-term effects to

prey species would also negatively affect raptor species. Negative effects to prey species

associated with the maintenance of dike structures would also affect raptor species.

Passerines and Nonpasserines

The restoration of estuarine habitat would benefit some passerine and nonpasserine species. 

Species that regularly use this habitat include swallows, kingfishers, common yellowthroats, song

sparrows, and red-winged blackbirds. As described above, Alternative B would provide the least

benefit to passerine and nonpasserine species that use the estuary, as compared to Alternatives C

and D. European starlings may have an advantage under Alternative B due to the increase in

edges and fragmentation of the estuarine habitat. It is likely that starlings would persist on the

Refuge under all alternatives due to the proximity of the Refuge to human development and thus

would continue to compete with native birds for feeding and nesting habitat.

The conversion of freshwater to estuarine habitat would negatively affect some passerine and

nonpasserine species that primarily use freshwater and grassland habitats. These include purple

and house finches, northern flickers, western meadowlarks, hummingbirds, and savanna

sparrows. However, improvement in freshwater habitat management would increase the quality

of the remaining diked area. Currently, freshwater wetlands are degraded because of the

dominance of reed canary grass. Restoration of these areas, especially in terms of exotic species

and water level control, would increase carrying capacities of most passerines to be equal or in

excess of those areas lost. However, species predominantly found in grasslands (e.g.,

meadowlarks and savanna sparrows) would be most negatively affected as the proportion of

freshwater wetlands would be increased in proportion to grasslands. In addition, the small

amount of riparian restoration in this alternative is also expected to improve riparian habitat for

passerine and nonpasserine species. Riparian restoration is identified as a conservation

management priority in this region in the Conservation of Land Birds Plan (Pashley et al. 2000).

The increase in freshwater wetland and riparian habitat quality may reduce the effects of

conservation due to estuary restoration. However, benefits to these species would be limited by

limited management capabilities in this area (see Section 4.2.2). 

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

In addition to effects described in Alternative A, Alternative B proposes 2,407 acres of Refuge

expansion. This addition would protect additional forested lands along the East Bluff and

floodplain habitat south of I-5. Proposed expansion efforts in Alternatives B, C, and D would
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-47

incorporate new freshwater wetland areas into the Refuge. This would provide increased

freshwater wetland acreage and some grasslands that could reduce the effects from the

conversion of freshwater wetland and grasslands to estuarine habitat. However, because

expansion could occur over many years, this reduction may not occur simultaneously with

estuarine restoration.

Acquisition or management of floodplain, freshwater wetland, and grassland areas south of I-5 in

the lower Nisqually Valley would provide long-term protection of these areas, as well as

restoration opportunities. Seasonal wetland restoration projects on former agricultural lands

would be very similar to those conducted on current Refuge lands within the diked area. For

example, seasonal wetlands west of the headquarters area were enhanced in 2001 by mowing

dense reed canary grass areas, discing, sculpting new depressions and seasonal ponds, and

seeding, followed by flooding during the fall and winter months; these projects greatly enhanced

waterfowl habitat. This would benefit many species of waterfowl and shorebirds that travel

between the Refuge and seasonally flooded wetlands south of I-5. As described above, since

Refuge expansion may not occur immediately, benefits to these species may not occur in the

short-term. Improvements to freshwater areas under this alternative could benefit species such

as killdeer, common snipe, and wintering flocks of dunlin, geese, wigeon, and other dabbling

ducks. Many species of waterbirds and landbirds would also benefit from long-term protection

of riparian and freshwater wetland areas. These include species such as belted kingfisher,

yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, downy woodpecker, and Swainson’s thrush. Proposed

expansion would also have positive effects on raptors, especially northern harriers, red-tailed

hawks, owl species, and kestrels that would use the areas south of I-5 for foraging and possibly

nesting. Grassland species, including raptors, savanna sparrows, western meadowlarks, and

goldfinches, would also benefit. However, the proposed expansion area in Alternatives B and C

is not as large as in Alternative D. 

Expanding protection to the East Bluff would better protect water quality of the adjacent

estuarine habitats, as described under Section 4.2.2, and thus improve habitat quality for

waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds in the estuarine habitat. The expansion on the

East Bluff may increase protected habitat for all raptor species, especially small hawk species

that prefer forested habitat. The proposed expansion would also reduce habitat fragmentation

that currently occurs within the expansion area, improving connectivity and wildlife movement

within and between areas. Overall, reduction in habitat fragmentation would increase

undisturbed foraging, resting, and shelter areas available for wildlife. The benefit from

decreased fragmentation under this alternative would be larger than under Alternative A but

smaller than Alternative D (and the same as Alternative C).

Public Use Program

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Under all action alternatives, the Luhr Beach area would be cooperatively managed with

WDFW. Since this is a major access point for boaters, especially hunters and anglers, the

installation of a Visitor Contact Station would increase visitor awareness and thus decrease

disturbances from these recreational activities to waterfowl, shorebirds, and other species using

the delta. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-48 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Effects to various bird species from activities associated with the recreational trail system would

be similar to those described in Alternative A, especially since the trail system in Alternative B

is only slightly different than in Alternative A. Eagles nesting along the West Bluff may

experience less disruption under the Alternative B trail plan because the loop trail would be

routed away from the McAllister Creek corridor. However, under Alternative B, the newly

created full estuarine area would be encircled on three sides by a recreation trail. High public

access of this area could have negative effects on waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. In

addition, the EE program would be increased to serve up to 20,000 students, the largest proposed

program of all the action alternatives. Disturbances to wildlife using habitats adjacent to the trail

system from education groups would be the highest of all the alternatives. However, these

effects would be minimized because groups would be restricted to trails and study sites and

restricted to a 100 student/day limit. New trails and study sites would be located where minimal

effects to Refuge resources would occur; as described above, Refuge outreach programs would

emphasize responsible behavior and thus would lessen wildlife disturbance effects.

Waterfowl hunting would be limited to WDFW lands. The discontinuation of unauthorized

hunting on Refuge lands would benefit wintering waterfowl that use Refuge habitats, as well as

shorebirds and waterbirds also disturbed by the activity. However, the unconsolidated WDFW

lands would fragment hunting-free areas and affect use patterns in and adjacent to Refuge lands

by waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. Under all action alternatives, the RNA would be

posted, and a no-hunting policy would be enforced. This would be an improvement over

Alternative A, as wildlife disturbances would decrease for waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, and

shorebirds. Additionally, the closure of shellfishing and other consumptive uses in the RNA

would further protect shellfish populations, which may improve shorebird prey availability. 

Decreased disturbance to all these species in the estuary could also benefit various raptor species

such as bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and osprey. The restriction of public access into the

restored estuarine habitat under Alternatives B, C, and D would benefit all of the species

described above. 

Boating restrictions under all action alternatives are expected to have positive effects on

waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species that use the estuary, Nisqually River, and

McAllister Creek. Winter boating closures in the RNA would provide sanctuary for many

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and raptors during a critical period. The new

boating regulations (5 mph speed limit) would largely preclude the operation of PWC in Refuge

waters. Boat restrictions under all action alternatives would improve estuarine habitat and

decrease wildlife disturbance. 

4.4.1.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Shorebirds

Waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species that use the estuary would benefit from the

restoration actions under Alternative C, similar to that described under Alternative B. However,

since the restoration of full tidal conditions in the intertidal and river delta habitats would be in a

larger area, benefits to waterfowl, particularly dabbling species (such as American wigeon and
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-49

green-winged teal), waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds would be greater compared to

Alternative B. The enhanced tidal and sediment flow through the Nisqually River would likely

improve estuarine habitat quality. Alternative C (and D) would restore a continuous estuary

area, eliminating the uncertainties associated with the muted estuarine habitat provided in

Alternative B. Waterfowl populations would likely increase due to the documented higher use in

estuarine habitats on the Refuge (Shanewise 1996; USFWS data). Loons, grebes, terns, gulls,

and herons that forage in estuarine areas would also benefit from the increased acreage of

estuarine habitat. Dunlin and other shorebird species would also use the newly established

mudflats as feeding areas. Since the estuarine habitat restoration actions accomplished under

this alternative are more sustainable and would function more naturally in terms of tidal flow and

sediment accretion than under Alternative B, restoration actions would provide higher quality

estuarine habitat.

As in Alternative B, newly breached areas would experience a short-term loss of vegetation as

plants not adapted to saltwater die and are gradually replaced by saline-tolerant species (Harris

and Marshall 1963). Alternative C addresses the estuarine restoration priority for shorebird and

waterfowl management identified in the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan (Pacific

Coast Joint Venture 1996) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan

(Drut and Buchanan 2000).

Issues related to freshwater wetlands under Alternative C would be similar to those in

Alternative B. Some species, such as American bittern, sora, Virginia rail, green heron, and

wood duck, would be negatively affected from the conversion of 515 acres of freshwater habitat

to estuarine habitat. However, implementation of intensive habitat improvement measures

would be more feasible and effective because of the smaller acreage (447 acres versus 542

acres), resulting in higher quality freshwater wetlands than in Alternatives A and B. Less edge

and greater habitat connectivity could also lead to higher quality freshwater habitat than under

Alternative B. Higher habitat quality would increase the number of waterfowl, waterbirds, and

shorebirds that the Refuge could support in the remaining freshwater habitat. In addition, the

retention of the north Shannon Slough system would benefit many waterfowl (e.g., wigeon,

bufflehead, and pintail) and waterbird species (e.g., great blue heron, bittern, and Virginia rail)

that currently use the area. 

As described in Alternative B, the maintenance and creation of dike systems and other project

implementation actions may contribute to short-term sedimentation as well as affect the health

and function of the estuary (Section 4.4.1.2).

Effects to Landbirds

Raptors

The improvements in estuarine habitat under Alternative C would benefit raptor species that use

this habitat. Alternative C would have a larger estuary area (515 acres) than Alternatives A and

B and would thus improve raptor habitat more than Alternatives A and B for such species as

eagles, falcons, osprey, and northern harriers that feed regularly in the estuary. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-50 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

As described in Alternative B, the loss of open grassland areas would affect species, such as the

red-tailed hawk, that feed predominantly on small mammals and depend heavily on this habitat. 

The reduction of grasslands would likely reduce small mammal populations on parts of the

Refuge and thus would reduce foraging areas for some species. However, improved

management of grassland areas interspersed among the remaining freshwater wetland areas

would provide higher quality grasslands than the existing reed canary grass dominated areas. 

The intensified reed canary grass control under Alternative C would promote prey species

abundance, and the remaining habitat would provide higher quality foraging habitat for some

raptors. The positive effects of freshwater management under this alternative for shorebirds and

waterfowl would also increase prey potential for falcons and eagles.

Riparian zones would benefit under this alternative. The restoration of riparian habitat north of

the Twin Barns, as provided under Alternative C (and D), would provide additional foraging,

perching, and nesting sites for raptor species.

Passerines and Nonpasserines

Estuary restoration under Alternative C would be larger than in Alternative B and, thus, would

have similar but somewhat greater effects for passerine and nonpasserine species. Species that

regularly use estuarine habitat, including swallows, kingfishers, common yellowthroats, song

sparrows, and red-winged blackbirds, would benefit from an increase in estuarine habitat. 

However, the conversion of freshwater to estuarine habitat would negatively affect some

passerine and nonpasserine species that primarily use freshwater and grassland habitats. 

Freshwater wetlands that would remain under Alternative C would be smaller than under

Alternative B, but improved management in a smaller area may reduce the effects of estuarine

restoration and create slightly higher carrying capacities and diversity of bird species using the

Refuge wetlands. The removal of dikes and the loss of associated trees and shrubs on dike banks

would reduce this type of edge habitat for some passerines and nonpasserines, including song

sparrows, American robins, and northern flickers. The effects of this loss would be partially

reduced by native plantings along new external and internal dikes, where appropriate, although it

would take some time for plantings to mature. Portions of dike bank vegetation may remain

along the Nisqually River, where they are protected by wider corridors of riparian vegetation.

Riparian restoration along the Nisqually River would create high quality riparian habitat for

many passerine and nonpasserine species. This continuous 38-acre area would provide higher

quality foraging and nesting habitat than narrow riparian areas that would occur along the dike in

Alternatives A and B. Allowing the Nisqually River to flow more naturally and to move during

high flow or flood events may reduce erosion and loss of riparian habitat, which could benefit

many passerine species that depend on this habitat. In addition, riparian habitat enhancement

within the freshwater wetland units would provide more habitat for passerines and

nonpasserines. These restoration efforts would support a conservation management priority

(riparian restoration) identified in this region in the Conservation of Land Birds Plan (Pashley et

al. 2000). Species that may benefit from riparian forest restoration include the willow flycatcher,

yellow warbler, downy woodpecker, and Swainson’s thrush.

The loss of grassland areas under Alternative C is greater than under Alternative B and would

adversely affect passerines that predominantly use this habitat. However, improved management
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-51

of these areas adjacent to freshwater wetland areas and the improved control of reed canary grass

could help reduce the effects of the loss of grasslands.

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

The effects of Refuge expansion on waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, shorebirds, and landbirds

under Alternative C would be the same as those described under Alternative B. Acquisition of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands south of I-5 could provide for some of the habitat lost to

estuarine restoration, reducing the effects from the conversion of freshwater wetlands and

grasslands to estuarine habitat. Birds that depend on freshwater wetlands could greatly benefit

by expansion and restoration in the Nisqually Valley.

Public Use Program

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Effects to various bird species from activities associated with the recreational trail system would

be similar to those described in Alternatives A and B. Although the trail system would be

reduced from 51⁄2 miles to 33⁄4 miles, effects would be greater for waterfowl, waterbirds, and

shorebirds that use habitats within the proposed new loop trail around the northern half of the

freshwater wetland units. High public access of this area could have localized negative effects

on waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds that use the area to forage or rest. These effects would

be the greatest of all the alternatives because it is the only alternative that includes a loop trail

around such a small area (approximately 500 acres). However, requirements to stay on trails

would reduce disturbance. Habitat improvements and vegetative screening would be designed to

provide buffers to wildlife. The estuary boardwalk segment under this alternative could also

affect waterfowl and shorebirds using the areas adjacent to the boardwalk. Boardwalks can

affect waterfowl through hiker-induced shadows, noise, and movement (Josselyn et al. 1989). In

addition, the EE program would be increased to serve up to 15,000 students. Disturbances to

wildlife using habitats adjacent to the trail system would be higher than Alternative A but not as

great as Alternative B. However, as described in Alternative B, the program would be designed

to minimize effects and localize disturbances.

Trails in Alternative C include a 21⁄2-mile trail east of the Nisqually River. This new trail would

take the public into an area that has had a lower level of human activity. This higher presence

could disrupt waterfowl and other waterbirds that use the area, including Canada geese,

American wigeon, and bufflehead. The introduction of a trail along the East Bluff, under

Alternative C (and D), may also lead to effects in an area that currently has no trails. Many

landbird species use the forested East Bluff habitats and would be disturbed by trail activity. 

These effects would again be reduced by requirements to stay on trails. Trail design and

vegetative screening would reduce disturbance.

Alternative C would alter current hunting conditions by consolidating the hunting area in the

delta to a 1,170-acre block, opening Refuge lands to hunting, and adding Refuge management of

hunting activities and implementing a 3 day per week hunting season and a 25-shell limit. The
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-52 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

hunting area would be a single block with easily identified boundaries, focusing all hunting

activity in the tideflats and open water areas just north of the Brown Farm Dike. This would

remove all hunting activity from McAllister Creek and the RNA. The habitat along McAllister

Creek is a relatively narrow tidal system that receives high use by a variety of waterfowl,

waterbirds, and raptors. Hunting affects the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this

narrow system. Discontinuation of hunting in the Creek would reduce disturbance to waterfowl

and waterbirds, as well as to nesting bald eagles in the early part of the season (January). In

addition, the 3 day/week hunt period would allow more wildlife use in hunt areas during nonhunt days. However, the lack of a seasonal trail closure along McAllister Creek would create

localized disturbance to some waterfowl and waterbirds, but this effect would be limited to the

vicinity of the trail. Hunting also causes safety conflicts with trail or boardwalk use along

McAllister Creek. This alternative would eliminate these conflicts. As described in Alternative

B, enforcement of the RNA closures and elimination of unauthorized hunting would be an

improvement over Alternative A, as wildlife disturbances would decrease for waterfowl,

waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds. However, the modification of the western RNA boundary

reduces the RNA from 829 acres to 663 acres, decreasing RNA sanctuary area for waterfowl

using the estuarine habitats. New estuarine sanctuary areas would be established in the estuarine

restoration site.

Boating restrictions under all action alternatives would be expected to have positive effects on

waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species that use the estuary, Nisqually River, and

McAllister Creek, as described in Alternative B. 

4.4.1.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Shorebirds

Waterfowl, waterbird, seabird, and shorebird species that use the estuary would benefit from the

restoration actions under Alternative D, similar to those described under Alternative C. 

However, since the restoration of full tidal conditions in the intertidal and river delta habitats

would be over a larger area, benefits to estuarine-dependent avian species would be the greatest

of all the alternatives. The inclusion of the McAllister Creek slough system (Shannon Slough)

would improve the diversity and function of the estuarine habitat more than Alternative C. The

restoration of the McAllister Creek slough system would increase the area of dynamic river/

tideflat interaction. In general, tidal freshwater is utilized by more avian species than any other

wetland type (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Waterfowl would be expected to heavily utilize the

large, restored estuarine habitat under Alternative D due to their documented use of estuarine

habitat at the Refuge (Klotz et al. 1978). 

Since the estuarine habitat restoration relative to other alternatives would be more sustainable

and natural in terms of tidal flow and sediment accretion (see Section 4.1.4), this alternative

would provide the highest quality of estuarine habitat than any other alternative and would be

expected to produce the most complex and productive intertidal habitat. This alternative

includes the strongest management activity to support the estuarine restoration priority for
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-53

shorebird and waterfowl management identified in the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan

(Pacific Coast Joint Venture 1996) and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird

Management Plan (Drut and Buchanan 2000). Restoration activities outlined in the plans

include the “restoration of tidal regimes to diked wetlands in estuaries.” 

Species that predominantly use freshwater or grassland habitats would be most negatively

affected by Alternative D because the largest acreage (699 acres) would be converted to

estuarine habitat. Effects would be similar to those described in Alternatives B and C, although

to a greater extent. The control of reed canary grass could be done most intensively under this

alternative because of the smaller acreage, helping to compensate for the reduced total acreage of

freshwater and grassland habitat (see Section 4.2.4). Since large portions of the wetland areas

that would be converted are currently dominated by reed canary grass, their value to waterfowl is

low (Maia 1994). The improved habitat management strategies in this alternative would result in

higher quality freshwater wetlands available per acre for waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. 

Effects to Landbirds

Raptors

Effects to raptors under Alternative D would be similar, although greater, than described for

Alternative C. Alternative D proposes the largest area of estuary restoration, with the most

benefit for species that could forage in estuarine habitat, such as eagles, osprey, falcons, and

northern harriers. Common prey species of these raptors, such as waterfowl, shorebird, and

salmonid populations, are predicted to have the greatest benefit from this alternative. 

Restoration of the river/tidal dynamics between the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek would

promote a habitat type used by more avian species than other wetland habitat types (Mitsch and

Gosselink 1993), potentially increasing the carrying capacity for species that forage on avian

prey, such as eagles, small hawks, and falcons. Bald eagles would especially benefit from the

incorporation of the McAllister Creek area as they forage and nest in this area.

Open grassland area conversions due to restoration efforts would be the greatest under

Alternative D. This would have significant effects on raptors currently using these habitats, such

as the red-tailed hawk and northern harrier. However, northern harriers also feed regularly in

salt marsh areas and, thus, would be more able to shift from foraging in freshwater grasslands to

the new estuarine habitat. 

Passerines and Nonpasserines

The effects to passerine and nonpasserine birds under Alternative D would be similar to those

described for Alternative C. The conversion of freshwater to estuarine habitat in this alternative

would be the greatest with the largest effect on passerine and nonpasserine species that primarily

use freshwater and grassland habitats, including savanna sparrows, finches, and meadowlarks. 

However, the improved management of the remaining 263 acres of freshwater wetlands would

have a higher carrying capacity than under current conditions and thus would improve avian

productivity, reducing these effects for some of these species. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-54 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Alternative D would provide the largest increase in the Refuge boundary and thus would provide

the greatest potential benefit to waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds. Proposed

expansion efforts in this alternative would incorporate more freshwater wetland and riparian areas

into the Refuge as compared to Alternatives B and C, providing increased freshwater wetland and

grassland acreage, which could reduce the effects in the current Refuge boundary resulting from

estuarine restoration. However, as described in Alternative B, since Refuge expansion may not

occur immediately, benefits from protection or restoration of these lands may not simultaneously

reduce the effects from estuarine restoration occurring on the Refuge north of I-5. Benefits to

various bird species are similar to those described in Alternative B but are expected to be greater

because more habitat would be protected and managed by the Service. In particular, a larger

portion of riparian habitat would potentially receive greater protection under Alternative D,

greatly benefitting many passerines, waterfowl, and waterbirds that use the river. Effects from

the proposed expansion on the East Bluff are the same as described in Alternative B. 

Public Use Program

Effects to Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Shorebirds, and Landbirds

Effects to various bird species from activities associated with the trail system in this alternative

would be similar to those described in Alternative C. However, disturbance effects from the

main trail are expected to be the least of all the alternatives because it is the shortest and is

located along the edge of the freshwater and restored estuarine habitats. Since there would be no

loop trail in the freshwater or estuarine habitats, disturbance from trail users would not be as

great. Since the boardwalk extension along McAllister Creek would be seasonally closed to

prevent conflicts with hunters on WDFW lands, localized disturbance from trail users to

waterfowl and other waterbirds would be reduced slightly in the winter months. The effects

from the proposed trail on the eastside and East Bluff are the same as described in Alternative C,

as would the effects of environmental education.

Alternative D would open a limited amount of Refuge lands (191 acres) to waterfowl hunting, 7

days per week. Although this alternative has fewer acres of Refuge lands open to hunting,

similar to Alternative B, all three State parcels would still be open to hunting. This would not

eliminate the patchwork of State hunting lands across the delta, potentially contributing to

patchy or fragmented habitat use by waterfowl and shorebirds since hunting can shift bird

distributions away from hunting areas (Fox and Madsen 1997). However, the effects from a 7

day/week hunt would be reduced compared to current conditions (Alternative A) because of the

smaller hunt area. As described in Alternative B, enforcement of the RNA closures would be an

improvement over Alternative A, as disturbance would decrease for waterfowl, waterbirds,

seabirds, and shorebirds. However, the modification of the western RNA boundary would

reduce the RNA from 829 acres to 756 acres, resulting in a decreased RNA sanctuary area for

waterfowl and shorebirds using the tideflats and salt marsh areas at the mouth of the Nisqually

River. The increase in hunter-based human disturbance in the RNA would reduce sanctuary area

for waterfowl and shorebirds using estuarine habitats. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-55

The closure of shellfishing and other consumptive uses in the RNA under all action alternatives

would protect shellfish populations and decrease habitat disturbance in these tidal areas; such

protection would enhance waterbird and seabird prey availability. Fishing-based interruptions of

waterbirds can be detrimental to waterbird distribution, abundance, and productivity (DeLong

and Schmidt 1998). The removal of fishing along McAllister Creek would provide localized

benefits to great blue herons that forage in this area; loss of foraging habitat is considered to be

among the threats that led to the current listing of this species as a Washington State Priority

Species. Other waterbirds and seabirds that would benefit from reduced human use of the

McAllister Creek area include pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, bufflehead, and double-crested

cormorant. 

The effects of boating restrictions would be the same as described in Alternative B.

4.4.2 Effects to Mammals

4.4.2.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Land Mammals

Management of the grasslands and freshwater wetlands under status quo conditions would

benefit land mammals. However, as described above in Section 4.4.1.1, benefits would be

expected to improve marginally compared to current conditions, although it would be difficult to

retain this improved status because of the continual and increasing challenge of maintaining the

quality of the freshwater wetlands and grasslands within the diked area. The conversion of

seasonally flooded wetlands to scrub-shrub habitat would negatively affect species such as

Townsend voles and deer mice, prey species for raptors and coyotes. Grassland areas would

remain relatively unchanged from current conditions and thus would continue to support

mammals such as coyotes, deer, Townsend voles, deer mice, and shrews. 

Effects to Marine Mammals

Marine mammals occur in the saltwater areas of the Refuge and thus would not be directly

affected by habitat management actions in this alternative. However, the retention of the full

diked system under Alternative A may still affect the existing estuary due to tidal mudflat

erosion, artificial sediment accretion patterns, and impeded tidal function (see Section 4.2.1). 

The effects of the dike on the estuarine habitat could affect marine mammal forage species and

reduce food resources. 

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Under Alternative A, no expansion of the Refuge boundary would occur. Indirect benefits to

land and marine mammals would occur if efforts to strengthen watershed protection through
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-56 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary were successful. Increased watershed protection

would improve water quality and associated habitat. 

Efforts to acquire in-holdings within the existing boundary would continue under all alternatives. 

Acquisition of in-holdings in the estuarine habitat would eliminate the fragmented management

of estuarine areas within the delta, contributing to improved water and intertidal habitat quality,

potentially enhancing conditions for marine mammal foraging in the intertidal zones of the

Refuge. In addition, disturbance associated with unregulated human activities in these areas

would be reduced or controlled, benefitting all mammals that use these areas.

Public Use Program

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Under Alternative A, the recreational trail system would continue to be used for hiking and

wildlife observation. Although this activity could disturb some land mammals, especially those

using habitats adjacent to trails, it is not expected to be significant. Disturbance effects along

trails have been found to alter land mammal behavior and may decrease fitness for disturbed

animals (Bowles 1995). Research has also shown that larger bodied mammals are disturbed at

greater distances than small (Knight and Cole 1995). In addition, the primitive trail in the surge

plain (common to all alternatives) could have negative effects on land mammals, primarily deer

mice, mink, beaver, and river otter, that occur in this habitat, especially if visitors wander off

trail into the habitat. However, as described in Section 4.4.1.1, effects from trail use would be

reduced by a variety of provisions, including a 100-car maximum parking lot, requirement to

have visitors stay on trails, designated sanctuary areas, and vegetative screening (plantings). 

Refuge outreach programs would emphasize responsible behavior of Refuge visitors and thus

could lessen wildlife disturbance effects (DeLong and Schmidt 1998; Larson 1995).

Under all alternatives, the restriction of fruit harvesting would benefit some land mammals that

use these resources for forage. The EE program under Alternative A would be limited, serving

up to 5,000 students. Since activities associated with this program would focus on trails or

within the Environmental Education Center, no significant effects to land mammals would be

expected. However, as described above, some disturbance to land mammals can occur when

large educational groups are using trails. 

Under this alternative, hunting would occur as it does currently in the WDFW and Refuge

tideflats. Hunting-based disruptions can disturb terrestrial mammals that use wetlands and

estuary areas such as mink, beaver, and river otter. Boating activity associated with hunting

could disturb marine mammals. Harbor seals are susceptible to disturbance and are easily scared

from haul-out areas (Brueggeman 1992; Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Human disturbance is

one of the major causes of pup mortality and is believed to be among the reasons why the

historical harbor seal breeding area at Nisqually is currently inactive (Boulva and McLaren

1979; Klotz et al. 1978). Harbor seal haul-out areas are a WDFW priority habitat and should be

protected at Nisqually NWR. Human use of the Refuge as outlined under Alternative A could

have higher incidents of haul-out site disruption than other alternatives. In addition, since this

alternative would allow for continued access to the RNA, boating, unauthorized hunting, and

fishing activities could affect marine mammals that use this area. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-57

Human presence and disturbance associated with fishing may also limit the use of some areas by

terrestrial mammals near the McAllister Creek fishing area. PWC use would continue under

Alternative A. This activity would disturb species that use the rivers and estuarine areas such as

mink and river otters. As described above (Section 4.4.1), many studies have shown that boating

can have negative effects on wildlife through disruption of feeding and breeding activities

(DeLong and Schmidt 1998). 

4.4.2.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Land Mammals

Alternative B would create a limited amount of both muted estuarine and full estuarine habitats. 

In addition, freshwater wetlands and ponds would be increased and habitat quality improved in

all Refuge freshwater wetlands. 

The shift from freshwater to estuarine habitat would also shift species composition to favor

estuarine-associated species. Initially, however, newly restored estuarine areas may be primarily

composed of mudflats, providing minimal habitat for land mammals. Eventually, as salt marsh

habitat becomes established, mammals such as river otter are expected to use the restored areas. 

However, as described above (Section 4.4.1), the ability of muted estuarine habitat to mimic the

structure and function of a natural estuary is unknown; consequently, the benefits to these

mammals are uncertain. In addition, under this alternative, fragmentation of the restored

estuarine areas could interrupt small mammal passage through the habitat edges. The conversion

of the diked area to estuarine habitat would negatively affect mammals that primarily use the

grassland habitat, such as coyotes, deer, and shrews. Alternative B (and C) would have a

somewhat smaller effect on land mammals that exclusively occur in the grassland or freshwater

habitats because it has less area of estuarine restoration as compared Alternative D.

In the areas where freshwater wetlands would be converted to saltwater, a short-term vegetation

die-back would decrease habitat availability temporarily until the system can convert to saltwater

regimes (Harris and Marshall 1963). This would temporarily affect land mammals such as

Townsend voles, deer mice, and river otters that are expected to use the estuaries, but eliminate

habitat for those species that almost exclusively use freshwater and grassland habitats, such as

beavers and deer. The freshwater habitat improvements would benefit mammal species that use

this habitat, such as river otter, mink, and beaver. 

Effects to Marine Mammals

Estuarine restoration under Alternative B would create a mix of full and muted estuarine habitats. 

This limited estuarine restoration would improve habitats used by marine mammals, especially

harbor seal haul-out sites. It is uncertain how often seals and sea lions would use the muted

estuary area. It would be expected that they would find and use breach sites if food resources

were present inside the muted estuarine area. However, dikes would make access more difficult,

requiring marine mammals to travel greater distances. Although harbor seals have been observed

in McAllister Creek, it is uncertain how often marine mammals would utilize the restored full
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-58 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

estuary area due to its inland location. However, estuary improvements would extend into the full

estuary areas connected to Puget Sound and thus benefit sea lions and seals to some degree.

Apart from estuary restoration, habitat management actions taken under Alternative B would not

significantly affect marine mammals. Riparian and freshwater wetland improvements would

slightly improve water quality entering into the tidal systems and thus could provide some

benefit to marine mammals or their prey.

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

The expansion actions under Alternative B would include the proposed acquisition of lands along

the East Bluff and south of I-5. This would increase protected wetland and riparian habitat areas

and benefit land mammals that use riparian and freshwater habitats, including such species as

mink, Townsend vole, river otter, and beaver. Acquisition of these areas would decrease habitat

fragmentation, provide more continuous corridors, facilitating movement and access to a variety

of habitats, benefitting mammals. Acquisition and restoration in the Nisqually Valley south of I-5

would reduce the effects of the conversion of freshwater wetlands within the current Refuge,

benefitting many land mammal species. The increase in overall watershed protection under

partnership building and area expansion may improve overall intertidal zone habitat quality,

including water quality, which may have slight positive effects on marine mammals in the area.

Public Use Program

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Under all action alternatives, the Service would manage the Luhr Beach area if a cooperative

management agreement can be developed with the State. Since this is a major access point for

boaters, especially hunters and anglers, the installation of a Visitor Contact Station would

increase visitor awareness and thus decrease disturbances from these recreational activities to

marine mammals and other species using the delta. 

Effects to land mammals from activities associated with the recreational trail system would be

similar to those described under Alternative A, especially since the trail system in Alternative B

is only slightly larger than in Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, the newly created

full estuarine area would be encircled on three sides by a recreation trail. High public activity

could have negative effects on mammals that use this habitat, including seals, mink, beaver, and

river otter. However, requirements to stay on trails would localize disturbance. In addition, the

EE program would be increased to serve up to 20,000 students per year, the largest expansion of

the education program of all the action alternatives. Disturbances to wildlife using habitats

adjacent to the trail system would occur. As described above, disturbance effects along trails can

alter land mammal behavior and decrease fitness for disturbed animals (Bowles 1995). 

However, as described above, provisions and Refuge outreach programs would restrict activities,

emphasize responsible behavior, and minimize wildlife disturbance effects.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-59

Waterfowl hunting areas, as defined in Alternative B, would draw hunters away from the far

reaches of the tideflats compared to Alternatives A and C, where marine mammals are mostly

located. This would reduce disturbances to haul-out and foraging activities. The removal of

unauthorized hunting on Refuge lands would benefit marine mammals, as well as land mammals

that would otherwise be disturbed by the activity. However, the unconsolidated WDFW lands

would lead to fragmentation of hunting-free areas, which could isolate seals. Under all action

alternatives, the RNA would be posted and a no-hunting policy enforced. This would be an

improvement over Alternative A, as disturbances would decrease for seals, river otters, and

minks. The restriction of public access into the estuarine habitat under Alternative B (and C and

D) through the closure of the RNA and protection of restored areas would benefit land and

marine mammals that utilize this habitat. Species commonly observed in estuary areas include

Townsend vole, deer mice, river otter, mink, and harbor seals. The restriction of public access

into the restored estuarine habitat under Alternative B (and C and D) would also benefit all of the

species described above. 

Continued bank fishing along McAllister Creek, as allowed under Alternative B (and C), could

disturb some seals. Boating restrictions under all action alternatives are expected to have

positive effects on marine mammals, primarily harbor seals, that use the estuary, Nisqually

River, and McAllister Creek. Boating restrictions under all action alternatives would improve

estuarine habitat and decrease wildlife disturbance. 

4.4.2.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Land Mammals

Similar to Alternative B, the conversion of freshwater to estuarine habitat under Alternative C

would shift species composition to favor estuary-associated species, but to a larger degree and

with no muted estuarine areas. Land mammals, such as river otter, Townsend vole, and deer

mice, that use a variety of habitats including the salt marsh would benefit from restoration

actions. The combination of estuarine, improved freshwater, and grassland habitats would

provide more cover and habitat for prey species. River otter would significantly benefit, as they

are the most abundant in estuarine systems (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). The estuary

restoration under Alternative C would have fewer edges than under Alternative B and thus could

be more beneficial to land mammals that are easily affected by edge effects.

As described under Alternative B, the conversion of the diked area to estuarine habitat would

negatively affect mammals such as coyote, deer, beaver, and shrew. The management of the

remaining wetlands would be more intensive under Alternative C and thus could lead to a

somewhat higher quality habitat with higher carrying capacities for these mammals than

Alternative B. In addition, riparian restoration in the freshwater units and also the 38-acre area

along the Nisqually River would benefit these same species. Riparian habitat restoration along the

Nisqually River would create higher quality riparian habitat that could be used by land mammals.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-60 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Effects to Marine Mammals

Effects of estuarine restoration under Alternative C would be similar to those described for

Alternative B, but to a greater extent. The estuary restoration under Alternative C would create a

larger amount of fully functional estuarine habitat, primarily in the intertidal and riparian

interaction zones, increasing the potential for marine mammal use of the habitat. Dikes would

be removed, improving marine mammal passage.

Apart from estuary restoration, habitat management actions under Alternative B would not

significantly affect marine mammals. Riparian and freshwater wetland actions would improve

water quality entering into the tidal systems and thus provide some benefit to marine mammals

or their prey.

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Refuge expansion would be identical in Alternatives B and C, so the effects to mammals would

be the same.

Public Use Program

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Effects to mammal species from activities associated with the recreational trail system would be

similar to those described in Alternative B, except for the new loop trail within the freshwater

area. High public activity on this loop trail could have negative effects on land mammals using

this area. This effect is expected to be larger than under Alternatives A or B because the area

within the loop trail would be much smaller; thus, sanctuary areas away from human activity

would be reduced in size. The EE program would be smaller than in Alternative B; thus, effects

on mammals would be somewhat less. 

The establishment of a new trail on the east side of the Nisqually River would cause localized

disturbance to mammals using those habitats. This trail would affect wetland and upland

mammal communities, possibly affecting such species as river otter, deer, coyote, mink, longtailed weasel, and others. In addition, the introduction of a boardwalk trail near McAllister

Creek would affect species utilizing the newly restored estuary, such as river otters and harbor

seals. However, as described in Section 4.4.1.1, effects from trail use would be reduced by a

variety of provisions and Refuge outreach programs.

Human presence and disturbance associated with hunting under Alternative C would be

restricted to a rectangular block north of the diked area. These hunting areas would have the

least potential effects to marine mammals compared to all other alternatives because of the

limited area and improved ability to post and delineate boundaries. Boating restrictions under

Alternative C would be similar to those outlined under Alternative B, decreasing habitat

disturbance and benefitting marine mammals.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-61

4.4.2.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Effects to Land Mammals

Effects to land mammals under this alternative would be similar to those described in Alternative

C. However, Alternative D would convert the largest amount of diked area to estuarine habitat. 

Land mammals that largely use freshwater and grassland areas would be most negatively

affected under Alternative D, including coyotes and deer. Edge effects and habitat

fragmentation are limited under this alternative and thus would benefit mammal species. 

The remaining 263 acres of freshwater wetlands would benefit from intensive management and

thus would have a higher carrying capacity (per acre) than under current conditions. Higher

capacities would reduce effects on terrestrial mammal productivity for beaver and mink, among

other species. 

Effects to Marine Mammals 

Effects to marine mammals in Alternative D would be the most beneficial because it would

provide the largest area of estuary restoration, without dikes to act as potential barriers. The

restoration of full tidal conditions in this larger area would provide a larger and more productive

foraging area.

Habitat management actions other than estuary restoration activities would have limited effects

on marine mammals. Riparian and freshwater wetland improvements would improve water

quality entering the tidal systems and thus could provide some benefit to marine mammals or

their prey.

Refuge Expansion

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

In addition to effects described in Alternatives B and C, 3,479 acres are proposed for Refuge

expansion. This expansion would protect additional floodplain habitat and Nisqually River

riparian corridor south of I-5. This would provide the greatest benefit to land mammals that use

riparian and freshwater habitats, including species such as mink, Townsend vole, river otter, and

beaver. Acquisition of these areas would decrease habitat fragmentation and have larger

potential benefits to mammalian species. The increase in acreage under this alternative would be

especially beneficial to large-bodied terrestrial mammals such as deer and coyote as they have

larger territorial ranges. Expansion actions in Alternative D would have minor positive effects

for marine mammals. The increase in overall watershed protection under partnership building

and area expansion may improve overall intertidal zone habitat quality, including water quality,

which may have slight positive effects on marine mammals in the area. For example, the

increased protection of the Nisqually River corridor may improve conditions for large woody 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-62 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

debris recruitment and subsequent deposition on Refuge mudflats. This type of woody debris

could be utilized by marine mammals, particularly as harbor seal haul-out sites.

Public Use Program

Effects to Land and Marine Mammals

Effects to mammal species from activities associated with the recreational trail system would be

similar as described in Alternative C but to a lesser extent, because the main trail in this

alternative is the shortest and is located along the edge of the freshwater and restored estuarine

habitat. Since there is no loop trail in the freshwater or estuarine habitats, disturbance from trail

users would not be as great. The effects from the proposed trail on the eastside and East Bluff

are the same as described in Alternative C, as well as the effects of the EE program.

Alternative D proposes to open a limited amount of Refuge lands (191 acres) to waterfowl

hunting. Although this alternative has less acres of Refuge lands open to hunting, all three State

parcels would still be open to hunting, similar to Alternative B. This would not eliminate the

patchwork of State hunting lands across the delta, contributing to disturbances to marine

mammals. Like Alternative A, the tideflats would be open to hunting and would focus along the

primary marine mammal haul-out habitat. As described under Alternative B, enforcement of the

RNA closures would be an improvement over Alternative A, decreasing disturbance to marine

mammals. However, the modification of the western RNA boundary would reduce the RNA

from 829 acres to 756 acres, decreasing sanctuary area for marine mammals using the tideflats

and salt marsh areas at the mouth of the Nisqually River. 

Boating restrictions under Alternative D would be similar to those outlined under Alternative B,

decreasing habitat disturbance and benefitting marine mammals. Fishing and shellfishing effects

on mammals under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C, except that disturbance to

mammals associated with bank fishing along McAllister Creek would not occur. 

4.4.3 Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians

4.4.3.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

The retention of the freshwater and estuary wetlands under existing conditions would support

existing amphibian and reptile species. However, the continued conversion of shallow wetlands

to scrub-shrub habitat would decrease open water and seasonal wetlands, adversely affecting

many species of frogs and salamanders that rely on open freshwater for breeding habitat. Dike

repair work may increase short-term sedimentation and negatively affect amphibians, which are

very sensitive to water quality (Kauffman et al. 2001). Grassland areas would continue to

support reptiles currently using these habitats, although habitat quality would deteriorate as reed

canary grass spreads. Estuary and freshwater wetland habitats would be expected to deteriorate

under this alternative and would negatively affect amphibian and reptile species in the long term.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-63

Refuge Expansion

Under Alternative A, no expansion of the Refuge boundary would occur. Indirect benefits to

amphibians and reptiles would occur if efforts to strengthen watershed protection through

partnerships outside of the Refuge boundary were successful. Increased watershed protection

would improve water quality and associated habitat. 

Efforts to acquire in-holdings within the existing boundary would continue under all alternatives. 

These actions would benefit reptiles and amphibians through a decrease in habitat fragmentation

and edge effects caused by different land management practices. 

Public Use Program

The current trail system would remain under Alternative A. In addition, a 1⁄2-mile surge plain

trail would be developed. Activity on trails may result in minor effects to amphibians and

reptiles in several ways, including noise interruptions and disturbances to habitat on some trails. 

However, as described above, provisions and Refuge outreach programs would restrict trail users

and emphasize responsible behavior, minimizing wildlife disturbance effects (DeLong and

Schmidt 1998; Larson 1995).

Boating and PWC use under Alternative A would not be expected to affect amphibians and

reptiles as boating occurs primarily in saltwater areas, habitat not used by these species.

4.4.3.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

The shift from freshwater to estuarine habitat would decrease habitat for amphibians, which are

associated with seasonal freshwater ponds. A total of 458 acres of potential amphibian and

reptile habitat would be lost, including breeding habitat for many salamanders and frogs. 

The 542 acres of freshwater habitat improvements would benefit amphibian and reptile species. 

The extent of benefits for amphibians would depend on the flow and fluctuation regime, which

determines species richness in Puget Sound wetlands (Richter and Azous 1995). Generally,

lower flow and smaller fluctuation events increase species diversity (Richter and Azous 1995). 

If high and permanent flows are allowed under the wetland management actions of Alternative B

(or C or D), bullfrogs may have an advantage (Adams 1999). Bullfrog abundance in freshwater

wetlands may have significant adverse effects on native frogs due to predation (Leonard et al.

1993). Control of water flow and levels would be limited in Alternative B and may not provide

high quality habitat for amphibians.

In addition to flow and water regimes, the quality of vegetation in and around freshwater

wetlands managed under Alternative B (and C and D) would affect amphibians. This is because

vegetation affects water temperature, which influences the breeding success of frogs and

salamanders (Richter 1995). Specific plant species are associated with spawning activities of 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-64 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

particular amphibian species (Richter 1995). The ability to restore or mimic natural conditions

would determine the benefits for amphibian species.

Refuge Expansion

The expansion actions under Alternative B would include the proposed acquisition of lands

along the East Bluff and south of I-5. This would increase protected wetland and riparian habitat

areas and benefit amphibians that use riparian and freshwater wetland habitats, including redlegged frogs and salamanders. Acquisition and restoration of these areas would decrease habitat

fragmentation and have larger potential benefits to amphibians. Furthermore, additional

protection in areas outside of the current Refuge boundary may allow for the conservation of

smaller wetlands that would not otherwise receive protection. Small wetlands are important to

local amphibian diversity and abundance (Richter and Azous 1995). Management of these small

wetlands could include maintaining open seasonal wetland habitats similar to agricultural lands

that are currently grazed with a higher proportion of seasonal ponding. In addition, acquisition

and protection of freshwater wetland habitats would support potential re-introduction projects

associated with the western pond turtle or Oregon spotted frog.

Public Use Program

The trail system would change slightly in Alternative B. As described above, activity on trails

may affect amphibians and reptiles in several ways; however, effects are expected to be minor. 

Boating restrictions under Alternative B would not be expected to affect amphibians and reptiles

as these activities occur in saltwater areas.

4.4.3.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

Effects from restoration activities under Alternative C would be similar but greater than

described for Alternative B since a larger amount of diked area would be converted to estuarine

habitat. Remaining freshwater wetlands and riparian areas would be significantly improved over

current conditions.

The larger shift from freshwater to estuarine habitat under Alternative C would decrease habitat

acreage for amphibians. The management of the remaining wetlands would be more intensive

under Alternative C and may lead to higher carrying capacities for amphibians and reptiles using

this habitat. Better control of water flow and levels, resulting in a higher proportion of seasonal

wetlands, would provide higher quality habitat for native amphibians instead of bullfrogs. 

Riparian restoration along the Nisqually River would create higher quality riparian habitat for

species such as red-legged frogs, Pacific tree frogs, and garter snakes.

Refuge Expansion

Refuge expansion would be identical in Alternatives B and C; the effects to reptiles and

amphibians would be the same.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-65

Public Use Program

As described above, activity on trails may affect amphibians and reptiles in several ways. The

effects from trails in Alternative C would be similar but fewer than under Alternative B. 

However, the potential development of a trail on the eastside and East Bluff trail would cause

localized disturbance to species using those habitats.

4.4.3.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Restoration and management actions under Alternative D would provide the largest area of

estuarine habitat and the greatest reduction of freshwater wetlands, representing the greatest

decrease in habitat for amphibians and reptiles. A total of 699 acres of amphibian and reptile

habitat would be lost, including breeding habitat for many salamanders, frogs, and garter snakes. 

Across the region, the isolation and loss of wetlands is thought to have led to decreases in many

amphibian species (Richter and Azous 1995).

Management of the remaining freshwater wetlands would be the most intensive under

Alternative D and may lead to higher carrying capacities for amphibians and reptiles using this

habitat. Better control of water flow and levels, resulting in a higher proportion of seasonal

wetlands, would provide higher quality habitat for native amphibians instead of non-native

bullfrogs. Freshwater wetlands and riparian areas would be significantly improved over current

conditions. Similar effects would result from the riparian restoration along the Nisqually River,

as described in Alternative C.

Refuge Expansion

Alternative D proposes a 3,479-acre Refuge expansion, which would provide the greatest benefit

to reptiles and amphibians of the action alternatives. Benefits include decreased habitat

fragmentation as well as increased habitat protection, especially along the Nisqually River

corridor. Habitat connectivity within riparian corridors is especially beneficial to amphibian

species (Richter 1995). Protection and restoration of freshwater wetlands in the Nisqually

Valley would also significantly benefit native amphibians and reptiles.

Public Use Program

Effects from recreational activity associated with trails would be similar to all other alternatives

but with fewer effects because Alternative D proposes the smallest trail system. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-66 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.4.4 Effects to Invertebrates

4.4.4.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

Although invertebrate species composition is not well known, many species occur in freshwater

habitats, providing food for a variety of wildlife; these species would benefit from the continued

existence of freshwater wetlands within current the Refuge boundary. Freshwater wetlands

would likely deteriorate over time due to current and ongoing exotic species invasions and slow

gradual conversion to scrub-shrub communities. This gradual reduction in habitat diversity

would reduce habitat quality for terrestrial invertebrates.

In addition, the current dike system is not stable and would require major repairs. Repair work

may increase short-term sedimentation and thus negatively affect invertebrates that are very

sensitive to water quality (Karr et al. 1986).

Refuge Expansion

Under Alternative A, no expansion of the Refuge boundary would occur. Indirect benefits to

invertebrates would occur if efforts to strengthen watershed protection through partnerships

outside of the Refuge boundary were successful. Increased watershed protection would improve

water quality and associated habitat. 

Efforts to acquire in-holdings within the existing boundary would continue under all alternatives. 

These actions would benefit invertebrates through the decrease in habitat fragmentation and edge

effects caused by different land management practices. 

Public Use Program

The current trail system would remain under Alternative A. In addition, a 1⁄2-mile surge plain

trail would be developed. Trails and associated activity may have some minor localized effects

on invertebrates due to soil compaction, trampling, and barriers to movement. 

Boating, PWC use, hunters, and anglers moving through the Refuge could cause localized

disturbance, particularly to aquatic invertebrates in the mudflats. Negative effects on aquatic

invertebrates may also be caused by water pollution and turbidity from boats and PWC. In

addition, shellfishing directly affects marine invertebrates through collection and habitat

disturbance. This would especially affect the RNA area, which is an important area for marine

invertebrate production.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-67

4.4.4.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

Invertebrate species that use estuarine habitats would benefit from restoration actions. The

extent of this benefit would depend on the use of the muted estuarine area. Similar to other

wildlife species, there is uncertainty regarding relative abundance in muted estuarine habitat. 

Amphipods use both fresh and saltwater systems in the Pacific Northwest and would be expected

to use the muted habitat (Cordell et al. 1999). Species that may use the fully restored estuary

include ghost shrimp, bivalves, polychaetes, spionids, and nematodes. The benefits from all

estuarine restoration, both muted and full, under Alternative B would not be as great as those

under Alternatives C and D. 

The conversion of fresh to saltwater systems would shift invertebrate species composition to

those that favor estuary systems. Invertebrate species exclusively found in freshwater and

grassland habitats would be affected by the elimination of habitat. However, the freshwater

habitat improvements for areas that remain would provide a higher quality of habitat for various

invertebrate species. 

The management of current grassland habitat would benefit terrestrial invertebrates, such as

insect populations. These species currently concentrate in Refuge pastures and upland habitats

and would continue to do so under this alternative. The maintenance and creation of dike

systems and other management actions may increase sedimentation in the short term

immediately after construction activities. This could negatively affect aquatic invertebrates

through decline in water quality (Waters 1995). 

Refuge Expansion

Expansion under Alternative B would include the proposed acquisition of lands along the East

Bluff and south of I-5. This would benefit invertebrates that use riparian and freshwater habitats.

Acquisition and restoration of these areas would decrease habitat fragmentation and increase

habitat quality. Improved protection of the East Bluff forest may improve water quality (see

Section 4.2.4) and thus benefit the diversity of marine invertebrates that use estuarine habitats.

Public Use Program

Under all action alternatives, the Service would manage the Luhr Beach area if a cooperative

management agreement is developed with the State. Since this is the major access point for

boaters, including hunters, anglers, and shellfishermen, the installation of a Visitor Contact

Station here would decrease disturbances to invertebrates and their habitat through education. 

Public access restrictions in the RNA and the closure of restored areas under Alternatives B (and

C and D) would lessen disturbance to marine invertebrates and their habitat. Alternative B

would provide trail access similar to Alternative A and thus would have similar effects on

invertebrates. Boating, hunting, and fishing could cause localized disturbance to marine

invertebrates through trampling, direct collection, and soil compaction. In addition, under all the
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-68 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

action alternatives, the RNA would be posted, and a no consumptive use policy and winter boat

closures would be enforced. This would decrease disturbance to marine invertebrates. Boating

restrictions under Alternative B would benefit marine invertebrates by decreasing effects to

water quality. 

4.4.4.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

Alternative C would establish a larger (515-acre) area of estuarine habitat than Alternatives A

and B, while maintaining and enhancing 447 acres of freshwater wetlands.

The restoration of full tidal conditions in the intertidal and river delta habitats would benefit

marine invertebrates that use this area, such as bivalves and gastropods, opisthobranches, and

amphipods. This alternative would restore a continuous estuary, eliminating fragmentation

associated with the muted estuary provided in Alternative B. 

Effects to invertebrates associated with freshwater wetlands and grasslands in Alternative C

would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The decrease in edge and increase in

habitat connectivity under Alternative C may lead to higher quality habitat than under

Alternative B. Riparian restoration along the Nisqually River would create higher quality

riparian habitat that could be utilized by terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates.

Refuge Expansion

The environmental consequences for Refuge expansion under Alternative C would be the same

as those described for Alternative B.

Public Use Program

Effects of the public use program would be similar to Alternative B. Trail-based effects on

invertebrates would be less under this alternative than under Alternatives A or B, as the trail

system would be reduced from 51⁄2 miles to 33⁄4 miles. The additional boardwalk trail may have

localized effects on marine invertebrates due to shading under the boardwalk; however, the

effects are not well known.

Fishing and shellfishing effects on invertebrates under Alternative C would be similar to

Alternative B. Localized effects by hunting activity would be over a single block of lands and

not in McAllister Creek, compared to Alternative B.

4.4.4.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Alternative D would involve the largest area (699 acres) of estuarine habitat restoration and

greatest reduction of freshwater wetlands. The inclusion of the McAllister Creek area would
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-69

improve the diversity and function of estuarine habitat compared to Alternative C, leading to

greater positive effects to marine invertebrates. Estuary systems are considered some of the

most productive habitats in the world, largely due to the abundance of invertebrates. Increases in

marine invertebrates would provide more food for many fish and wildlife species.

The conversion of freshwater wetlands under Alternative D would be the largest of all

alternatives, causing the largest shift in the invertebrate community. Invertebrates exclusively

dependent on freshwater and grassland habitats would be most affected by this alternative,

thereby reducing potential food sources for wildlife that forage heavily on those invertebrate

species. The effects of riparian management under Alternative D would be similar to those

described for Alternative C.

Refuge Expansion

The proposed expansion area in Alternative D would provide the greatest benefit to invertebrate

species compared to the other alternatives, especially in areas south of I-5 in the Nisqually

Valley and along the Nisqually River. Land protection and restoration could increase

invertebrate abundance and diversity.

Public Use Program

Effects of the public use program would be similar to Alternatives B and C. Effects from trails

under Alternative D would be somewhat less in localized areas due to the reduced length of

trails. 

Human presence and disturbance associated with resource harvesting (hunting, fishing, and

shellfishing) are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except for a slightly larger hunting area

that includes the mouth of the Nisqually River. 

4.4.5 Effects to Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species

4.4.5.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

Long-term resource monitoring under all alternatives would help control exotic species by better

documenting species presence and abundance. Conservation planning requires a long-term

commitment to ecological monitoring (Noss et al. 1997). With these data in hand, the Service

could manage invasive species more effectively.

Restoration of the West Bluff parcel (under all alternatives) would improve native vegetation

diversity and habitat quality, potentially reducing the use by non-native wildlife species that tend

to use disturbed areas. 

Mitten and green crabs would continue to pose a potential threat if they eventually invade the

estuary. The limited improvements in freshwater habitats under this alternative would allow
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-70 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

bullfrogs to continue to increase, causing direct negative effects on native amphibian production. 

Large numbers of European starlings would continue to roost, feed, and nest on the Refuge,

competing with native birds for feeding and nesting habitat. 

Refuge Expansion

Completion of acquisition within the boundary and strengthened partnerships within the

watershed under all alternatives would reduce habitat fragmentation and improve connectivity

between habitats. These characteristics would otherwise make habitats more susceptible to

exotic species invasions (Meffe and Carroll 1994). However, these actions taken under

Alternative A would have small adverse and/or neutral effects on exotic species, such as

bullfrogs and European starlings resulting in less benefit to native species compared to the action

alternatives.

Public Use Program

The public use program would not be expected to significantly affect exotic wildlife species

under Alternative A, except that some low potential would exist for undesirable releases of nonnative species onto the Refuge. Boats or PWC could inadvertently introduce or speed the spread

of aquatic wildlife exotics, such as crab and other invertebrate species.

4.4.5.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

Under Alternative B, 45% of the currently diked wetlands would be converted to estuarine

habitat. The reduction in grasslands may provide less habitat for European starlings, but the

effect may not significantly change numbers. Increased estuarine habitat would provide a

greater area for potential invasion and spread of mitten and green crabs. Improved freshwater

habitat quality and a higher proportion of seasonal wetlands could reduce bullfrog habitat,

benefitting native amphibians. The extent of this benefit would depend on water flow and

fluctuation levels. For example, bullfrogs in western Washington have been documented to

benefit from the increase in protection of permanent water wetlands (Adams 1999). Thus, the

permanence of the water in the managed wetlands created under Alternative B (and C and D)

would affect the success of bullfrogs at Nisqually NWR.

Refuge Expansion

Expanded acquisition and restoration proposed in Alternative B would encourage native wildlife

species and reduce habitat for exotic wildlife species, including bullfrogs and starlings, on a

greater scale than in Alternative A. Native species would benefit. 

Public Use Program

Effects from the public use program are similar to those described under Alternative A. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-71

4.4.5.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

Estuary restoration under Alternative C would be larger than Alternative B; thus, the potential

for mitten and green crab establishment would be increased.

The reduction in grasslands under Alternative C would provide the same effects as described in

Alternative B. Improved freshwater habitat quality and a higher proportion of seasonal wetlands

could reduce bullfrog habitat, benefitting native amphibians. 

Refuge Expansion

Effects to exotic species would be the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Public Use Program

Effects to exotic wildlife species under this alternative would be similar to those described for

Alternative B. 

4.4.5.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Effects from restoration activities would be similar to Alternative C, except that the amount of

estuarine restoration would be the greatest of all the alternatives. Restoration of the estuary

under Alternative D would greatly benefit native species that use this habitat. There would be a

larger area that mitten and green crabs could invade, but the higher habitat quality in Alternative

D may slow the spread. The remaining freshwater wetlands would have the most intensive

restoration and management of all alternatives considered. The reduction in grasslands may

reduce habitat for starlings. Less permanent freshwater areas would discourage bullfrogs and

benefit native amphibians.

Refuge Expansion

The proposed expansion area in Alternative D would provide the largest potential for exotic

species reduction of all alternatives, the result of improved riparian and freshwater wetland

protection and restoration (see Section 4.2.1). This alternative would include habitat quality

improvements that would enhance conditions for native species and strengthen competitive

abilities against exotic species. Habitat expansion and improved habitat quality could improve

conditions for native cavity-nesting birds in riparian habitat along the Nisqually River, which

may lessen the effects of European starlings. Acquisition, restoration, and management of

freshwater wetlands south of I-5 would be greatest under Alternative D, which could reduce

bullfrog populations and benefit native amphibians.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-72 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Public Use Program

Effects of the public use program would be similar to Alternatives B and C. 

4.4.6 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species and Selected Birds of

Conservation Concern

See Section 4.3.5 for details on the effects to fish species.

4.4.6.1 Alternative A

Habitat Restoration

The restoration of the West Bluff parcel under all alternatives would enhance bald eagle nesting

habitat quality (see Section 4.4.1.1). As described in Section 4.2.1, the persistence of the current

dike system may still affect the existing estuary due to tidal mudflat erosion, artificial sediment

accretion patterns, and reduced tidal prism. Degradation of estuarine habitat over time and lack

of restoration would provide no new benefits to Steller sea lions, brown pelicans, or marbled

murrelets. 

Freshwater wetland improvements under this alternative are not expected to enhance current

wetland habitat quality over the long-term. Seasonal freshwater wetlands would deteriorate over

time due to exotic species invasion, resulting in a conversion to scrub-shrub communities. 

Increased conversion to reed canary grass infringement would significantly decrease seasonal

wetland habitat used by waterfowl and waterbirds. This would provide lower food resources for

eagles and not contribute to meeting Refuge goals.

Refuge Expansion

All threatened and endangered species (TES) would benefit, although not significantly, from 

more uniform land protection and conservation within the Refuge. Strengthened partnerships

would increase water and intertidal habitat quality, providing some benefits in foraging

conditions for salmon, bull trout, sea lion, pelican, and murrelet. See Section 4.4.1.1 for a

description of effects on bald eagles.

Public Use Program

Under Alternative A, the trail system would continue to be used for hiking and wildlife

observation. Although these activities could have negative effects on TES, especially those

using habitats adjacent to trails, they would not be expected to be significant. The reduction in

human disturbance along the western shoreline of McAllister Creek would benefit bald eagles. 

Since activities associated with the EE program would be focused on trails or within the

Environmental Education Center, no significant effects to TES are expected. 

Under this alternative, hunting would occur as it does currently in the WDFW and Refuge

tideflats. The presence and associated activity of hunters, anglers, and boating activity in the
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-73

estuary, including the RNA, would disturb TES species that use this habitat and are sensitive to

disturbance. TES seabirds and marine mammals concentrate in the outer reaches of the Refuge;

thus, the lack of closure of the RNA to resource harvesting and winter boating would allow these

disturbances to continue. See Sections 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.2.1 for a description of the effects to bald

eagles, seabirds, and marine mammals. 

Under Alternative A, boat and PWC use would continue. Many TES species, including Steller

sea lions and marbled murrelets, are known to be affected by boats (Boersma and Parrish 1998;

Brueggeman 1992). High speed watercraft would have the greatest effects.

4.4.6.2 Alternative B

Habitat Restoration

Estuarine restoration under Alternative B would improve the quality and increase the quantity of

estuarine habitats along the northern edge of the diked area and McAllister Creek, benefitting

Steller sea lions, marbled murrelets, bald eagles, and brown pelicans. However, short-term

adverse effects associated with reduced water quality resulting from construction activities, such

as dike breaching and bridge construction, may occur. Estuarine restoration would also benefit

shorebirds of conservation concern, such as the whimbrel, marbled godwit, red knot, and shortbilled dowitcher (USFWS 2001). See Sections 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.2, and 4.3.2 for a description of the

effects to bald eagles, seabirds, shorebirds, marine mammals, and fish. The benefits from

estuary restoration (both muted and full) under Alternative B would not be as great as under

Alternatives C and D because the restoration areas would be fragmented with edges. In addition,

it would be more difficult for marine mammals and fish to move in and out of diked restoration

sites. Improved management of the freshwater wetland and riparian areas would benefit bald

eagles, great blue herons, and Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) listed shorebirds and

landbirds (e.g., rufous hummingbird, olive-sided flycatcher).

Refuge Expansion

Effects of increased watershed protection would be the same as described under Alternative A. 

However, Alternative B expansion activities would benefit TES species more than under

Alternative A. The protection of additional habitat along the East Bluff and floodplains south of

I-5 would benefit bald eagles as well as shorebirds and landbirds on the BCC list (USFWS

2001). See Sections 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.2, and 4.3.2 for a description of effects to bald eagles,

seabirds, shorebirds, marine mammals, and fish.

Public Use Program

Under all action alternatives, the Service would manage the Luhr Beach area, if a cooperative

management agreement can be developed with the State. Since this is a primary access point for

boaters, especially hunters and anglers, the installation of a Visitor Contact Station would

increase visitor awareness and thus could decrease disturbances from these recreational activities

to TES using the delta. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-74 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Effects to various TES from activities associated with the recreational trail system would be

similar as described in Alternative A. See Sections 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.2, and 4.3.2 for a description of

effects to bald eagles, seabirds, and marine mammals. High public access of the trail adjacent to

the restored estuarine areas along McAllister Creek could have negative effects on shorebirds on

the BCC list, but disturbance would be localized to the vicinity of the trail (see Section 4.4.1.2). 

In addition, since the EE program would be increased to serve up to 20,000 students,

disturbances to wildlife using habitats adjacent to the trail system could increase. This includes

a number of birds that use riparian habitats such as rufous hummingbird and olive-sided

flycatcher, both on the BCC list (USFWS 2001). However, effects would be localized to trails

and study sites. As described above, Refuge outreach programs would emphasize responsible

behavior, which can reduce disturbance.

Waterfowl hunting would be limited to WDFW lands. The removal of unauthorized hunting on

Refuge lands would benefit estuarine-dependent TES, as well as BCC shorebird species that could

also be disturbed by the activity (see Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2). Under all action alternatives, the

RNA would be posted, and a no consumptive use policy would be enforced. This, along with

winter boat closures, would provide increased sanctuary to TES species. Additionally, the closure

of shellfishing in the RNA would benefit shellfish populations, which could contribute to shorebird

prey availability. Decreased disturbance to these species in the estuary could also benefit bald

eagles and peregrine falcons. The restriction of public access into the restored estuarine habitat

under Alternative B (and C and D) would also benefit all TES that use this habitat. 

Continued bank fishing along McAllister Creek, allowed under Alternatives B and C, could

cause disturbance to eagles, including nesting birds. Boating restrictions under all action

alternatives are expected to have positive effects on TES that use the estuary, Nisqually River,

and McAllister Creek. 

4.4.6.3 Alternative C

Habitat Restoration

The effects of restoration actions from Alternative C would be similar but greater than described

in Alternative B. The restoration of full tidal conditions in the intertidal and river delta habitats

would benefit marbled murrelets, bald eagles, brown pelicans, Steller sea lions, and shorebirds

on the BCC list to varying degrees through improvements in forage abundance and diversity. See

Sections 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.2, and 4.3.2 for a description of effects to bald eagles, seabirds, fish, and

marine mammals.

Effects from intensive management of the remaining freshwater wetland areas under this

alternative would be similar to Alternative B, improving habitat quality and benefitting shorebird

and landbird species identified on the BCC list (see Section 4.4.6.2). The additional 38 acres of

riparian restoration would also benefit BCC-listed landbird species.

Refuge Expansion

Effects from Refuge expansion under Alternative C would be the same as described under

Alternative B.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-75

Public Use Program

Effects from the public use program in Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. 

However, there would be no seasonal closure of the boardwalk extension during hunting season,

resulting in some localized disturbance in that area during the winter months. The consolidated

hunting area would reduce disturbance to bald eagles, great blue heron, and BCC-listed

shorebird species in McAllister Creek. The 3 day/week hunting restriction would reduce the

frequency of disturbance to some TES species. In contrast, the change in the western boundary

of the RNA would remove some sanctuary areas at the mouth of the river for TES and BCClisted shorebirds that frequent estuarine habitats.

4.4.6.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration

Alternative D would provide the largest area of estuarine restoration (699 acres), resulting in the

greatest benefit to TES dependent on estuarine habitat, including bald eagle and marbled

murrelets. Improved quality and quantity of estuarine habitat would also benefit the great blue

heron and BCC-listed shorebirds. The potential short-term adverse effects associated with dike

construction activities would be greater in this alternative, compared to Alternatives B and C,

because of the higher amount of dike removal. Effects from improved freshwater wetland

management and riparian restoration are similar to those described in Alternative C. See

Sections 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.2, and 4.3.2 for descriptions of effects to bald eagle, seabirds, shorebirds,

fish, and marine mammals. Alternative D is the alternative that would best allow the Refuge to

meet its goals.

Refuge Expansion

The proposed expansion area in Alternative D would provide the largest potential for increased

habitat protection, the result of improving overall Refuge habitat quantity and quality, which

would benefit TES species. Effects would be similar to those described in Alternatives B and C. 

The increase in watershed protection provided through acquisition and partnership building

would increase water and tideland habitat quality, benefitting TES dependent on estuarine

habitat. In addition, the slightly increased protection and restoration of the Nisqually River

riparian corridor would benefit eagles and BCC-listed landbird species through improved

riparian habitat and increased foraging opportunities (see Section 4.4.6.3). 

Public Use Program

Effects to TES from the public use program would be similar to those described in Alternative

C. Trail effects would be the least in this alternative because of the decreased trail length. 

Effects from activities associated with hunting would be similar to Alternative B, with the

exception of opening 73 acres of the RNA to hunting. This would reduce the amount of

sanctuary in the delta. Fishing effects on bald eagles would be reduced with the removal of bank

fishing in the McAllister Creek.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-76 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.4.7 Effects to State-Listed Species

Effects to the Washington State endangered western pond turtle and Oregon spotted frog are

discussed in more detail in Section 4.4.3, Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians. These are the

only Washington State-listed species with potential habitat in the study area. Effects to

Washington State candidates species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, common loon, merlin, pileated

woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, and purple martin) are discussed in Effects to Birds or

Mammals (Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2). 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-77

4.5 Effects to Special Uses

4.5.1 Alternative A

4.5.1.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Haying

Under this status quo alternative, no significant changes to the haying program are anticipated. 

The approximately 250 acres of Refuge grasslands would continue to be hayed under a Special

Use Permit by a local farmer each year. In lieu of cash payment, a cooperative management

agreement may be developed, and the cooperator would agree to provide services or materials to

enhance the habitat in exchange for the hay removed, directly benefitting Refuge habitat. 

Haying operations would be conducted under current conditions (see Chapter 3). 

Effects to Scientific Research

No significant changes would be expected to Refuge research opportunities. Researchers would

be required to submit study proposals; once approved, projects would be conducted under

Special Use Permits with special conditions identified to minimize effects on wildlife and

habitat.

4.5.1.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

No effects would be expected since this alternative does not include acquisition of properties

outside of the currently approved Refuge boundary.

4.5.1.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Special conditions (zoning and timing) on research projects would continue to occur, as

necessary, to avoid conflicts between public uses and research projects. No effects from the

public use program on haying are anticipated.

4.5.2 Alternative B

4.5.2.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Haying

As a result of estuarine restoration and freshwater enhancement activities, the haying program

would be reduced as the proportion of freshwater wetlands within the remaining diked area

increases. In this alternative, a small amount of currently hayed grasslands, approximately 5
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-78 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

acres, would be restored to estuarine habitat. In addition, remaining grassland areas would be

managed differently to enhance freshwater wetland habitats, reducing the total amount of

grasslands that would remain for haying. All other aspects of the haying program would be the

same as Alternative A.

Effects to Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternative A, except that there would be an increased opportunity

for researchers to study and compare muted and full estuarine restoration processes.

4.5.2.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Acquisition of property within the expansion area may contain lands that could be included in

the haying program. In addition, Refuge expansion would also increase the opportunities for

research in the Nisqually delta because of increased accessibility.

4.5.2.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternative A. Additional special conditions may be considered

when evaluating research proposals because of changes in trail configurations.

4.5.3 Alternative C

4.5.3.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Haying

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, except the acreage of currently hayed grasslands lost

to estuarine restoration would be higher under Alternative C, approximately 69 acres. In

addition, the grassland acreage within the dike would be reduced to a much larger degree,

reducing the haying program.

Effects to Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, except that the new opportunities for research would

focus on a larger amount of estuarine restoration.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-79

4.5.3.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Same as Alternative B.

4.5.3.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Same as Alternative B.

4.5.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.5.4.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Haying

As a result of estuarine restoration and freshwater enhancement activities, the haying program

would be greatly reduced. Once major restoration activities are completed, less than 100 acres

of grasslands would be managed on the Refuge, interspersed among permanent and seasonal

freshwater wetlands. Once restoration is complete, haying on this reduced acreage may not be

cost effective for a cooperator. If this is the case, the management of the remaining grasslands

would become part of routine Refuge habitat management activities.

Effects to Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, except that research opportunities would include

studying a larger estuarine restoration area (699 acres).

4.5.4.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternatives B and C, except that the proposed acquisition includes

more land; therefore, new opportunities for haying and research are greater.

4.5.4.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Haying and Scientific Research

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, except that more measures may need to be included

in research permits to avoid conflicts with public use.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-80 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.5.5 Effects to Tribal Fishing

The fishing rights of the Nisqually Indian Tribe and its members are provided for by the Medicine

Creek Treaty Act of 1854. The Nisqually Indian Tribe directly manages and enforces activities

associated with their commercial fisheries. Tribal fishing activities would continue under all

alternatives.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-81

4.6 Effects to Public Access, Education, and Recreational

Opportunities

4.6.1 Alternative A

4.6.1.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

This alternative calls for continued management efforts, including the retention of 1,000 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands within the Brown Farm Dike, limited enhancement of these

freshwater habitats, and some control of reed canary grass. Although there would be no change

in public access, these management efforts would likely have a minor positive effect on

recreational opportunities at the Nisqually NWR by improving wildlife viewing, interpretation,

and photography associated with the wildlife species that prefer this habitat. However, these

changes would deteriorate over time as reed canary grass continues to spread due to management

limitations. Major dike repairs would have a short-term negative effect on trail access and

wildlife viewing opportunities.

4.6.1.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

Other than the completion of the Refuge within the existing approved boundary, no Refuge

expansion is proposed in this alternative. Nevertheless, acquiring or protecting lands within the

existing boundary would likely have a positive indirect effect on recreational opportunities due

to the improved management and habitat conditions anticipated on some of the

acquired/protected lands, thus affording the public increased or improved wildlife-dependent

recreational opportunities. 

4.6.1.3 Public Use Program

Although most of the current features of recreation and public use at Nisqually NWR would

remain unchanged under this alternative, there are several actions proposed in this alternative

that would have an effect on public access, education, and recreational opportunities available at

Nisqually NWR. These effects are discussed below.

Effects to Environmental Education

Under Alternative A, the Service would continue to provide a limited EE program, serving up to

5,000 students per year. The program is typically completely booked in the busy spring period. 

The increased demand for outdoor environmental education and a growing population base in

the vicinity of Nisqually NWR would leave this high priority need unmet, and the program
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-82 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

quality would also not be improved as in all action alternatives. Although the program would

continue to provide benefits, it would remain inadequate for serving the needs of the region for

the type of environmental education offered at the Refuge, and Refuge goals would not be fully

met.

One action common to all alternatives would be the construction of a new Environmental

Education Center. The EE program was temporarily moved to a trailer near the maintenance

compound after the Twin Barns Education Center was severely damaged by the February 2001

Nisqually Earthquake. A new and upgraded facility would ensure a safe, quality experience for

school children participating in the Refuge’s environmental program, and would therefore

greatly benefit this program and its participating students. 

The seasonal closure of a portion of the trail during the waterfowl hunting season would

continue to affect some EE groups that would otherwise be interested in using the trail to

observe salt marsh habitats. Continued unrestricted use of PWC and associated noise and

disturbance to wildlife would continue to disturb EE groups and other trail users.

Effects to Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography

Under Alternative A, the Refuge would continue to provide 7 miles of trails (primarily using the

existing dike system), including an accessible and interpreted 1-mile loop boardwalk trail. This

long-established and extremely well-used trail system is highly valued by many Refuge visitors. 

Many commentors during scoping for this CCP/EIS and subsequent public involvement efforts

indicated their desire to keep the dike trail network in place. Therefore, retaining this length and

type of trail system would continue to benefit public access and the recreational opportunities at

Nisqually NWR. However, quality of the trail experience would not improve significantly since

habitat improvements and increased wildlife use would be limited. The existing hunting would

require that portions of the 51⁄2-mile loop trail continue to be seasonally closed during the

waterfowl hunting season to ensure visitor safety and provide wildlife sanctuary. This is the

largest conflict among users in the delta, and most of the public comments received during

scoping for this CCP/EIS stated that they preferred that the loop trail not be seasonally closed. 

Therefore, it is anticipated that the experience of many trail users would continue to be

negatively affected by continued seasonal closures of the dike trail. Trespass problems on the

trail by trail users unhappy with the closure would continue.

In addition to the continuation of the existing trail system, under Alternative A (and an action

common to all of the alternatives), an unimproved, primitive 1⁄2-mile trail would be developed in

the Nisqually River surge plain forest, connected to the existing boardwalk spur. This trail

would be minimally maintained and would not provide full access for people with disabilities. 

Provision of this additional trail would have a positive effect on public access and recreational

opportunities by providing more of an exposure to the surge plain habitat than currently exists. 

However, since this would be a primitive trail, access would be limited, especially during wetter

periods of the year.

The Visitor Center would continue to be provided, including interpretive displays focusing on

existing habitats and wildlife, thus providing a quality interpretive experience for many visitors. 

Interpretive panels would also continue to be provided along the 1-mile boardwalk loop.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-83

Two existing photoblinds along the Brown Farm Dike Trail would continue to be maintained and

upgraded as resources allow.

Effects to Waterfowl Hunting

Under Alternative A, the Refuge would continue to be closed to waterfowl hunting. However,

the current unauthorized hunting on Refuge lands would continue. Thus, the current pattern of

hunting activities would continue to result in insufficient sanctuary for waterfowl. Under

Alternative A, unsigned areas would continue to be administratively uncontrollable, and closures

in these areas would not be enforced. 

Continuation of the current hunting activities under this alternative would result in more hunting

access than any other alternative, although confusion over boundaries would continue. Many

waterfowl hunters commented on the confusion and requested that jurisdiction and boundary

problems be resolved and made consistent. Almost no comments were received supporting

retaining the current situation. There would be no increase in public outreach or education for

the hunting program by the Refuge.

Effects to Fishing and Shellfishing

Under this alternative, the Service would continue to allow fishing by boat. All State regulations

would apply. The Refuge would maintain the McAllister Creek Bank Fishing Area, and allow

fishing in this area by foot or boat. However, seasonal closures on the northern portion of this

bank fishing area would still occur during the waterfowl hunting season. Fishing opportunity is

expected to decrease in response to the closure of the McAllister Creek Hatchery (July 2002). 

Closures of the RNA to consumptive uses, including fishing and shellfishing, would not be

enforced. The allowance of fishing on the Refuge would continue to benefit public fishing

opportunities available at Nisqually NWR, especially by continuing provision of bank fishing on

McAllister Creek. There are no other public access locations via foot traffic on McAllister

Creek outside of the Refuge, although fishing opportunity is expected to decrease with the

closure of the McAllister Fish Hatchery (July 2002). Because no new fishing opportunities

would be created under this alternative, fishing activities on the Refuge would not be improved,

thus resulting in lost or fewer opportunities for quality fishing.

Under this and all other alternatives, recreational shellfishing would continue to be allowed

outside the Brown Farm Dike according to County and State regulations. However, shellfishing

would remain closed in the tideflats as currently directed by the Washington State Department of

Health. These shellfish beds may re-open for recreational harvest after fecal coliform bacteria

levels reach approved levels. Additionally, recreational and commercial geoduck harvest would

continue under State regulation in waters in or adjacent to the Refuge. The allowance of

recreational shellfishing and geoduck harvest on the Refuge would provide a continued benefit

for shellfishing opportunities available at Nisqually NWR. 

Effects to Boating and Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Under this alternative, motorized and non-motorized recreational boating would continue to be

allowed in all waters of the Refuge outside of the Brown Farm Dike. Thurston County
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-84 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

regulations would apply, requiring a speed limit for all watercraft of 5 mph within 200 feet of

any shoreline. However, because of limited staff and funding, this regulation would not be

enforced by the Service. The allowance of the various boating activities would have a continued

benefit on boating opportunities in south Puget Sound. 

PWC use on the Refuge would also continue. However, continued use of PWC within the

Refuge would result in continued conflicts (e.g., noise, wildlife disturbance, safety) between

PWC users and other Refuge visitors (e.g., canoers, kayakers, anglers, motorized boaters, trail

users, and wildlife observers) causing a negative effect on these recreationists. In addition, there

would continue to be a lack of Refuge information readily available to most boaters due to the

absence of a contact station at Luhr Beach.

Effects to Other Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreational Activities

Under this and all other alternatives, the collection of apples and blackberries for off-site

consumption would no longer be allowed. Picking would be restricted to trails only and for

consumption only while on the Refuge. Additionally, to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and

maintain established wildlife sanctuary areas closed to public entry, other plant material and

mushroom picking would continue to be prohibited. This limit on fruit collecting would benefit

those participating in wildlife observation by reducing off-trail wildlife disturbance. Prohibiting

and/or reducing fruit and plant collection would have a negative effect on those persons

participating in these activities. However, due to the availability of numerous and similar

opportunities in the vicinity of Nisqually NWR and elsewhere, this would be expected to result

in a only a minor negative effect to these recreationists. 

4.6.2 Alternative B

4.6.2.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Environmental Education, Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

Under Alternative B, 318 acres of muted and 140 acres of full estuarine habitat would be

restored, which would reduce the total amount of freshwater habitat on the Refuge. However,

improved management of freshwater habitat would improve habitat quality within the diked

area, although not as effectively as in Alternative D. Improved habitat quality for both estuarine

and freshwater habitats would improve wildlife use of these areas (see Effects to Wildlife,

Section 4.4). However, since this alternative contains the smallest degree of estuarine

restoration and freshwater management improvements, it would result in the smallest

improvement of wildlife use in both the estuarine and freshwater habitats. These limited

improvements would still enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the

opportunity to observe active habitat restoration/management activities. In addition, enhanced

waterfowl habitats may encourage more waterfowl to use the delta, improving waterfowl hunting

opportunities. A similar effect would be expected on fish populations inhabiting estuarine

habitat, with some long-term benefits for fishing opportunities in the delta, Nisqually River, and

McAllister Creek.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-85

Effects to Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography

Overall, it is anticipated that the habitat restoration activities would have a positive effect on

wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities at the Refuge by making

limited improvements to habitat quality (see above), potentially increasing the number and

diversity of associated wildlife species. The trail experience would be diversified, in that

sections of the trail would be surrounded on both sides by estuarine habitat (muted on one side),

giving visitors a chance to be within the estuarine habitat instead of just along the edge. 

Although there is some change in trail configuration because of estuarine restoration in

Alternative B, the trail would remain relatively the same as Alternative A. Therefore, this is the

only action alternative that would provide some estuarine restoration and improved freshwater

habitat quality with very little change to trail length and configuration.

4.6.2.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

This alternative would continue efforts to acquire interests in the remaining 1,011 acres of State

and privately owned lands within the existing approved boundary, including pursuit of a

cooperative management agreement with the State to allow the Service to manage the Luhr

Beach boat landing area. Effects from this action would be the same as described in Alternative

A, but would also include an expanded EE program in partnership with the Nisqually Reach

Nature Center. In addition, a new visitor contact station at Luhr Beach would improve

opportunities for wildlife interpretation and provide helpful regulatory information for boaters,

hunters, and anglers that launch at this location.

Alternative B would also provide for expansion of the Refuge boundary (2,407 acres), including

upland habitat along the East Bluff and McAllister Creek, as well as floodplain, riparian, and

wetland habitat within portions of the Nisqually Valley floodplain, creeks, and sloughs. This

expansion area would include a Service-managed fishing opportunity in the Trotter’s Woods

area. Refuge management of this site would improve the quality of fishing experience by

providing law enforcement and improved facilities. In addition, an accessible fishing site would

be explored at Luhr Beach. New opportunities for quality wildlife observation (trails), hunting,

and fishing would potentially be created if sufficient and appropriate areas are acquired that

would also provide adequate wildlife sanctuary. East Bluff trails would potentially link to other

trails in the area, providing additional recreational benefits.

4.6.2.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Environmental Education

Construction of a new Environmental Education Center with upgraded facilities would have a

beneficial effect on this educational opportunity at Nisqually NWR. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-86 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

The EE program would be improved and expanded to serve up to 20,000 students (compared to

5,000 under Alternative A). Additional materials and curricula would be developed, teacher

training and field trip support provided, staff support increased, and partnerships strengthened,

including with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center. This partnership would provide an even

stronger program to educate the public on the marine resources of the Nisqually delta and

disseminate a consistent theme and message related to environmental education on the Refuge. 

Program improvements, increased capacity, and staff support would increase the quality of the

program, providing a model for other environmental programs in the Puget Sound area. This

alternative would greatly strengthen and maximize the EE program on the Refuge, resulting in a

significant positive effect on the environmental opportunities available in south Puget Sound. 

Effects to Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography

Effects would be similar to Alternative A, since the majority of the trail would remain

unchanged. As noted under Alternative A, this trail system is highly valued by numerous

Refuge visitors, many of whom have stated their preference for leaving the dike loop trail intact. 

Therefore, since only minor modifications would be made to the configuration of the loop trail,

and the overall trail length would remain the same, this alternative would provide a continued

benefit for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities available at

Nisqually NWR. However, a portion of the trail would still need to be seasonally closed during

the waterfowl hunting season, negatively affecting trail users (see Section 4.7.1). 

Effects from facilities would also continue be the same as described in Alternative A, except for

the additional Visitor Contact Station at Luhr Beach. This new Visitor Contact Station would

improve opportunities for wildlife interpretation of Refuge resources. Effects from the new trail

in the surge plain would be the same as described under Alternative A.

Effects to Waterfowl Hunting

Under Alternative B, a waterfowl hunting program would not be implemented on the Refuge,

and the Refuge boundary would be clearly signed to delineate it from WDFW property where

hunting would continue to be allowed. WDFW would continue to have jurisdiction and

management responsibility over WDFW lands. However, the Service (through increased

staffing) would actively enforce the no hunting regulations, eliminating the previous

unauthorized hunting that has occurred in unsigned portions of the Refuge. 

Continued use of the WDFW property for waterfowl hunting would continue to provide hunting

opportunities in the Puget Sound area. Eliminating unauthorized hunting on the Refuge would

end the current situation which provides insufficient wildlife sanctuary and would meet the

majority of the (commenting) public’s desire that hunting be discontinued. However, by

enforcing the closure on the Refuge it would also mean eliminating a portion of the area

currently available to hunters resulting in a negative effect on hunting opportunities in the delta. 

This would reduce confusion for hunters and clarify legal hunting areas. Posting and restricting

hunting to State lands would also clarify boundaries for other boaters, reducing conflicts with

hunters, including kayakers who could then easily avoid hunting areas. Boat speed restrictions 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-87

would positively affect hunters by reducing waterfowl disturbance and noise in the hunting area. 

At the same time, speed restrictions would increase travel time slightly for hunters when

traveling to and from the hunting areas. 

Effects to Fishing and Shellfishing

Effects would be the same as Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the Trotter’s Woods area

south of I-5, if acquired or under a cooperative management agreement, would be managed to

provide a quality bank fishing area along the Nisqually River. Also proposed is an accessible

fishing site at Luhr Beach. These new or improved fishing areas would positively affect fishing

opportunities in the area. In contrast, the closure of the RNA to fishing, as well as other

consumptive uses, would negatively affect fishing opportunities on the Refuge. Boat speed

restrictions would positively affect anglers by reducing disturbance, noise, and wakes in the

fishing areas. However, speed restrictions would increase travel time for anglers traveling

through the area. A portion of the McAllister Creek bank fishing area would continue to be

seasonally closed due to waterfowl hunting on adjacent State lands. Fishing opportunity is

expected to decrease along McAllister Creek, in response to the closure of the McAllister Creek

Hatchery (July 2002).

Shellfishing opportunities and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under

Alternative A. A Visitor Contact Station at Luhr Beach would alert shellfishermen to current

restrictions, helping to ensure safety and a quality experience.

Effects to Boating and Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Under Alternative B, and all other action alternatives, a boat speed limit of 5 mph would be

established in all Refuge waters. Additionally, under Alternative B (and all other action

alternatives), all restored areas, as well the RNA from October 1 to March 31, would be closed to

boating to provide additional sanctuary for migratory birds and other wildlife. These actions

would have a negative effect on boating within the Refuge, particularly motorized watercraft. 

However, it is anticipated that the effects would be minor due to the continuance of boating in

the Refuge (albeit at lower speeds) and because of the availability of numerous and similar water

bodies in proximity to Nisqually NWR. In addition, 5 mph boat speed restrictions already exist

within 200 feet of any shoreline by Thurston County regulation. It would be expected that boat

speed restrictions would largely preclude PWC use in Refuge waters. However, due to the

availability of numerous and similar water bodies in proximity to Nisqually NWR, this would

not be expected to result in a significant negative effect. Speed restrictions would improve

safety and the quality of wildlife viewing for nonmotorized boaters, including kayakers and

canoeists. 

Effects to Other Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreational Activities

Other non-wildlife dependent opportunities (berry and apple picking, plant material and

mushroom harvest) and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under Alternative

A.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-88 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.6.3 Alternative C

4.6.3.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

Under Alternative C, 50% of the diked interior would be restored to estuarine habitat through

dike removal, and 38 acres of riparian habitat would be restored along the Nisqually River. The

total amount of freshwater habitat would be reduced on the Refuge, more than in Alternative B. 

However, improved habitat quality of estuarine, riparian, and freshwater habitats would improve

wildlife use of these areas (see Effects to Wildlife, Section 4.4). These improvements would

also enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the opportunity to observe and

learn about active habitat restoration/management activities and estuaries. In addition, enhanced

waterfowl and fish habitats would be expected to support more waterfowl and fish in the delta,

improving viewing opportunities for school groups. Waterfowl hunting and fishing

opportunities would also be enhanced due to increased waterfowl and fish use in the delta. 

Habitat restoration activities would have a positive effect on wildlife observation, interpretation,

and photography opportunities at the Refuge by improving habitat quality (see above),

potentially increasing numbers and diversity of associated wildlife species. However, the

current 51⁄2-mile loop trail would be reduced to a 33⁄4-mile loop trail including a boardwalk spur

into the estuary. This reduction of the 51⁄2-mile loop trail would have a negative effect on trail

use at the Refuge by eliminating the unique experience provided by a loop trail of this length in

south Puget Sound. However, quality of the experience would be improved by increased

wildlife viewing opportunities and improved access to estuarine habitats. The boardwalk spur

would allow visitors to be within the estuary, instead of along the edge.

4.6.3.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

Effects from proposed Refuge expansion under this alternative would be the same as described

for Alternative B.

4.6.3.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Environmental Education

Construction of a new Environmental Education Center with upgraded facilities would have a

beneficial effect on this educational opportunity at Nisqually NWR. 

The EE program under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B, except that the

program would serve up to 15,000 students each year (instead of 20,000). As in Alternative B, a

partnership with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center would provide a stronger program to
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-89

educate the public on marine resources of the Nisqually delta and disseminate a consistent theme

and message related to environmental education on the Refuge. 

As in Alternative B, program improvements would increase the quality of the program,

providing a model for other environmental programs in the Puget Sound area, resulting in a

significant positive effect on the environmental opportunities available in south Puget Sound. 

However, this alternative would not serve as many students as Alternative B because the

Service-managed hunting program would divert staff time that could otherwise be used for a

larger EE program. The significantly increased law enforcement, sign maintenance,

administration, and public outreach associated with the hunting program would result in an EE

program below maximum potential.

Effects to Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography

Dike removal associated with estuarine restoration would reduce the current 51⁄2-mile loop trail

to a 33⁄4-mile loop trail including a boardwalk spur along McAllister Creek. As noted under

Alternative A, the dike trail is highly valued by numerous Refuge visitors, many of whom stated

their preference for leaving the dike trail intact. Therefore, since approximately 30% of the trail

length would be lost, this alternative would negatively affect trail users by eliminating the unique

experience provided by a loop trail of this length. At the same time, the majority of comments

received stated that fish, wildlife, and habitat needs should take priority in making trail

decisions. The effect to trail length is not expected to significantly reduce wildlife observation

opportunities or access to all habitat types because improved habitat management would result in

higher habitat quality and wildlife use. Trails would be expected to provide equal, if not

improved, wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities currently available

at Nisqually NWR. Many respondents also expressed a strong desire for trail access to all

habitat types, even if trail length was reduced. The reconfigured dike trail loop and new trails

(see below) in this alternative would provide access to estuarine, riparian, freshwater, and

grassland habitats. This trail would also allow visitors that were not physically able to hike the

length of the 51⁄2-mile loop to see the estuary and Puget Sound within a shorter distance, thereby

making this experience available to a wider group of the public. The shorter trail may

potentially create a crowding problem, particularly on busy weekends in the spring and summer. 

However, this problem could be alleviated by the new trail east of the Nisqually River (see

below). The hunting program proposed in this alternative would not require seasonal closure of

the main dike trail, including the new boardwalk extension. This would be very beneficial to

trail users as this is a current conflict (see discussion in Alternatives A and B). Effects from the

new trail in the surge plain would be the same as described under Alternative A.

A new 21⁄2-mile loop trail on tribal and Refuge property east of the Nisqually River would provide

new wildlife observation opportunities and compensate for the loss of part of the main dike trail. 

This trail would take visitors through seasonally flooded pastures, the Nisqually River, Red

Salmon Creek, and associated salt marshes, providing a loop trail within the estuary. This is a

wildlife observation experience that has never been available on the Refuge. This trail would be

seasonally closed during the waterfowl hunting season until the private hunt club ceases operation. 

In the future, this trail could be opened year-round, providing good wildlife viewing when winter

migratory birds are present. If lands are acquired on the East Bluff, as proposed in this alternative,

another new trail option would be possible, linking with planned Pierce County trails. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-90 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Effects from facilities would be the same as those described under Alternative B, except for an

additional Visitor Contact Station, trail and boardwalk, signs, and parking area associated with

the proposed 21⁄2-mile loop trail on tribal and Refuge property east of the Nisqually River. 

Development of these facilities would be necessary to open this east side trail, and would

directly benefit visitors observing wildlife and students participating in environmental education. 

Effects to Waterfowl Hunting

In Alternative C, the Service would manage a quality hunting program on 1,170 acres of Refuge

and WDFW lands. Provisions for this program would include: 3 day/week hunting, 25-shell

limit, and no restriction on the number of hunters. Management of the hunting program by the

Service would increase outreach, education, and enforcement efforts, which would improve the

quality of the program for hunters. Reducing the number of hunting days per week would

reduce hunting opportunity but would increase quality. No hunting days would encourage more

birds to return to the hunting area, improving harvest opportunities on hunting days. Birds

would benefit by being able to make more use of hunted areas for feeding and resting. The 25-

shell limit would also contribute to increased hunt quality, reducing wildlife crippling and

disturbance caused by out-of-range shooting. Consolidating the hunting area into a single

rectangular block north of the Brown Farm Dike at Nisqually would reduce confusing boundary

issues and consolidate hunting activity in the delta, reducing disturbance in McAllister Creek,

making the hunting area more manageable.

This hunting program would eliminate unauthorized hunting on the Refuge. This would be

consistent with the Service’s determination that waterfowl hunting as it currently occurs does not

provide sufficient wildlife sanctuary. However, as described in Alternative B, enforcing this

closure would negatively affect waterfowl hunting opportunities in the delta, primarily by

closing McAllister Creek to hunting and eliminating unauthorized hunting. Hunting in

McAllister Creek is considered a different experience than in the tideflats because it is more

sheltered in stormy weather. The loss of 3 to 4 hunting sites in McAllister Creek would be offset

by officially opening the Refuge lands north of the dike and at the mouth of the Nisqually River. 

These new areas are heavily used by waterfowl and would provide desirable hunting locations. 

Boat speed restrictions would positively affect hunters by reducing waterfowl disturbance and

noise in the hunting area. However, travel time would be increased somewhat for hunters going

to and from the hunting area.

Effects to Fishing and Shellfishing

Fishing opportunities provided under Alternative C would be the same as described in

Alternative B, except under Alternative C an additional fishing area would be provided off a new

loop trail east of the Nisqually River north of I-5 on tribal and Refuge lands. However, this

access would be seasonally closed during the waterfowl hunting season, until the private hunt

club ceases operation. 

The continuation of and additional fishing opportunities afforded under this alternative would

have a positive effect on fishing opportunities on the Refuge by expanding the area available for

bank fishing on the Nisqually River. A positive effect, occurring in this alternative only, is the 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-91

ability to keep the entire McAllister Creek bank fishing area open during the hunting season. 

This is possible because the hunting area would be located north of the fishing area. 

Shellfishing opportunities and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under

Alternative A.

Effects to Boating and Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Boating opportunities and PWC use and the subsequent effects would be the same as described

under Alternative B.

Effects to Other Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreational Activities

Other non-wildlife dependent opportunities (berry and apple picking, plant material and

mushroom harvest) and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under Alternative

A.

4.6.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.6.4.1 Habitat Restoration

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

Under this alternative, 70% of the diked interior would be restored to estuarine habitat through

dike removal, creating 699 acres of this habitat type. This alternative also calls for new dikes to

protect 263 acres of improved freshwater and riparian habitat. As in Alternative C, 38 acres of

riparian habitat along the Nisqually River would be restored.

Estuarine restoration actions would reduce the total amount of freshwater habitat on the Refuge

more than any other alternative. However, intensified management of this area, as well as

riparian areas, would increase habitat quality and improve wildlife use (see Effects to Wildlife,

Section 4.4). This would result in positive effects on wildlife observation, interpretation, and

photography opportunities at the Refuge. Recent freshwater restoration projects in 2000 and

2001 in the headquarters area, with greatly increased and diversified bird use as a result, provide

examples of the potential benefits for wildlife viewing. These improvements would also

enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the opportunity to observe active

habitat restoration/management activities. In addition, enhanced waterfowl and fish habitats

may encourage more waterfowl and fish to use the delta, improving waterfowl hunting and

fishing opportunities. 

Habitat restoration activities would negatively affect the Refuge trail system. The current 51⁄2-

mile loop trail would be reduced to a 31⁄2-mile round-trip (no loop) trail, including a 1⁄2-mile

boardwalk into the estuary. As described in Alternative C, eliminating a loop trail of this length

would have a negative effect on trail users in south Puget Sound. However, it is anticipated that

the opportunities to view wildlife and still experience diverse habitats on the remaining trails
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-92 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

would be retained and improved due to habitat improvements and greater accessibility to

estuarine habitats (see above). In addition, new trails would be developed in expansion areas to

provide new wildlife observation opportunities (see below).

4.6.4.2 Refuge Expansion

Effects to Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Wildlife Photography,

Waterfowl Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing, and Boating

The effects from acquiring interests in lands remaining within the approved boundary and from

proposed expansion would be the same as described in Alternative B. However, proposed

expansion in this alternative would add 1,011 acres along the Nisqually River corridor and 1,952

acres in the Nisqually Valley. Effects described under Alternative B would also apply here. In

addition, this would provide the highest level of improved habitat conditions and future

protection among all the alternatives. This increased protection would be expected to result in

an indirect positive effect on recreational opportunities, such as fishing and hunting. In addition,

bank fishing opportunities would be developed along McAllister Creek south of I-5, if

appropriate sites were acquired. This would provide new bank fishing access to compensate for

the loss of McAllister Creek bank fishing north of I-5, as a result of estuarine restoration. 

However, the closure of the McAllister Creek Hatchery in July 2002 is expected to reduce

fishing opportunity along McAllister Creek.

4.6.4.3 Public Use Program

Effects to Environmental Education

Similar to all alternatives, construction of a new Environmental Education Center with upgraded

facilities would have a beneficial effect at Nisqually NWR. 

Effects to the EE program under this alternative would be similar to those described in

Alternative C. The differences in effects in Alternative D include the seasonal closure of the

boardwalk extension and the 7 day/week hunting program. As described in Alternative C, the

expansion of environmental education in this alternative is lower than in Alternative B, due to

the staffing and funding that would be directed toward the hunting program. However, since the

hunting program in this alternative would cover approximately 55 to 60 more days (7 day/week

instead of 3 day/week) than Alternative C, slightly more staff time and funds would be directed

toward hunting and away from the EE program. The EE program, however, would still strive to

serve 15,000 students. The seasonally closed boardwalk extension would limit the amount of

trail that can be used to view or study estuarine habitats.

Effects to Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Wildlife Photography

Effects from proposed new trails in the surge plain, east of the Nisqually River, and on the East

Bluff would be the same as for Alternative C. Dike removal associated with estuarine

restoration would reduce the current 51⁄2-mile loop trail to a 31⁄2-mile round trip (non-loop) trail

with a boardwalk extension along McAllister Creek. Effects from this trail change are similar to
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-93

those described in Alternative C; however, the reduction of trail length is the greatest (37%

decrease in round trip length) among all of the alternatives. This represents the largest negative

effect to trail users among all of the alternatives. In addition, the trail would no longer be a loop,

a major effect for Refuge visitors that prefer a loop experience. The new loop trail east of the

Nisqually River (as described in Alternative C) would provide new wildlife observation

opportunities and help reduce the effects of the loss of a loop configuration, as well as length, on

the main dike trail. 

Despite effects to trail length and configuration, proposed changes to the trail in this alternative

are not expected to significantly negatively affect wildlife observation. As explained in

Alternative C, improved habitat management would result in higher habitat quality and wildlife

use. In addition, the remaining trail would provide easier access to a variety of habitats for a

larger sector of the public because of the shorter distance. The shorter trail, however, may create

a crowding problem, especially on busy weekends in the spring and summer. Because the trail

would no longer be a loop, crowding would be a greater potential problem in Alternative D. 

However, this problem could be alleviated in part by the new trail east of the Nisqually River

and the potential trail on the East Bluff (see Alternative C for additional effects).

Because of hunting on WDFW lands in McAllister Creek, the boardwalk extension would be

seasonally closed during the waterfowl hunting season. As described in Alternatives A and B,

most of the public comments received stated that they preferred that the trail not be seasonally

closed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the experience of most trail users would continue to be

negatively affected by the continuation of seasonal closures of the dike trail. This negative

effect is increased by the reduction in overall trail length in Alternative D, reducing the amount

of trail area available during the hunting season as compared to other alternatives. Effects from

facilities would be the same as described in Alternative C.

Effects to Waterfowl Hunting

Under this alternative, the Refuge would officially open 191 acres to a 7 day/week waterfowl

hunting program. These lands would be adjacent to the WDFW lands north of the Brown Farm

Dike, creating a block of land and eliminating confusing boundary issues in this area. The RNA

would be reduced to allow for an area at the mouth of the Nisqually River to be opened to hunting.

The opening of Refuge lands to hunting would have a positive effect on waterfowl hunting

opportunities in south Puget Sound, similar to the effects described under Alternative C. 

Although there would be a negative effect caused by eliminating unauthorized hunting on other

parts of the Refuge, there would still be hunting available on WDFW lands in McAllister Creek,

and waterfowl hunting would continue to occur on a 7 day/week schedule. 

Effects to Fishing and Shellfishing

Fishing opportunities would be the same under this alternative as described in Alternative C,

except that the bank fishing area along McAllister Creek would no longer be available. 

However, in addition to the two proposed bank fishing locations on the Nisqually River, the

Refuge would investigate an additional accessible bank fishing area at the Nisqually River

Overlook off the Twin Barns Loop Boardwalk Trail. However, a stationary fishing platform
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-94 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

may not offer a constant opportunity if river dynamics change, as has happened in other

locations. Thus, design of this accessible site would need to ensure long-term use. The loss of

the McAllister Creek bank fishing area would be a large effect to anglers in the area because

there is no other public bank fishing access on McAllister Creek, although some limited bank

fishing does occur south of I-5 on private property. However, WDFW closed the McAllister

Creek Hatchery (July 2002). The fishing opportunities in McAllister Creek will consequently

decline and thus, loss of the bank fishing area would be limited because fishing for fall chinook

(the predominant angling opportunity) will decline dramatically. In either case, the Service

would create a new public access south of I-5 along McAllister Creek if appropriate properties

can be acquired. Overall, fishing opportunities at Nisqually NWR are not expected to decrease. 

The experience for anglers would shift from a focus on the McAllister Creek to the Nisqually

River, which would mean a loss of fishing experience in slower flowing waters. 

Shellfishing opportunities and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under

Alternative A.

Effects to Boating and Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Boating and PWC opportunities and the subsequent effects would be the same as described

under Alternative B.

Effects to Other Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreational Activities

Other non-wildlife dependent opportunities (berry and apple picking, plant material and

mushroom harvest) and the subsequent effects would be the same as described under Alternative

A.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-95

4.7 Effects to Cultural Resources

Cultural resources have the potential to be directly affected by ground-disturbing activities such

as facilities construction, dike repairs, or dike removal, as well as indirectly by activities that

increase public access to sensitive cultural areas. Watercraft wakes and erosion threaten

archaeological sites along the banks of McAllister Creek. Activities such as wildlife

observation, interpretation, photography, and environmental education, when confined to nonsensitive cultural areas, can be perceived as having a neutral effect, in that they result in minimal

to no effect on cultural resources; moreover, public programs that include interpretation of the

cultural history of the Refuge provide an indirect educational benefit. 

The management of cultural resource values of Nisqually NWR would comply with the

regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore,

determining whether a particular action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural

resources is an ongoing process that occurs within the planning stages of each project.

4.7.1 Alternative A

4.7.1.1 Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program

Under Alternative A, minor effects to cultural resources on the Refuge would be anticipated. 

The Brown Farm Dike has been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP; therefore,

extensive dike repairs needed would be considered an undertaking with the potential to

negatively affect the significant historical resource as per the NHPA. Mitigation for

modification of the dike would entail, at a minimum, Historic American Buildings

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) documentation to National Park

Service standards. Archaeological sites on the banks of McAllister Creek would continue to be

eroded by natural tidal influence and watercraft wakes. Continued boating and waterfowl

hunting throughout much of McAllister Creek may potentially expose these sites to more

vandalism or damage. Interpretive benefits would continue to be provided under all alternatives

in exhibits in the Visitor Center and panels along the 1-mile boardwalk loop that include

information about cultural resources.

4.7.2 Alternative B

4.7.2.1 Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program

The dike breaching and extensive dike repairs proposed in Alternative B would have an effect on

the dike, an NRHP-eligible historic property. The majority of the Brown Farm Dike would

remain. Mitigation for modification or removal of the dike would entail, at a minimum,

HABS/HAER documentation to National Park Service standards. 

Federal acquisition would have a positive effect on those resources that are currently located on

private land, by providing the protection afforded by the NHPA to resources located on Federal

property. Depending on the areas acquired, expansion of the Refuge boundary, especially in the
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-96 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

East Bluff area, would bring several known archaeological sites under the jurisdiction of the

Service, providing protection under the NHPA. The majority of the sites in the study area,

however, are found on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation owned by the U.S. Army. 

Transferring them to Service ownership would have a neutral effect. Inventory for cultural

resources within the expanded boundary prior to construction of public use facilities and habitat

restoration projects would prevent damage to sites.

Expanding the EE program would offer an opportunity to include more of the cultural heritage of

the Nisqually delta. The largest number of students would benefit from the EE program of all

alternatives. Incorporating information about how the land has been used and changed by people

would not only partially mitigate for modifications to cultural properties such as the dike, but

would also improve public knowledge and appreciation of the resources. Environmental study

site locations would be selected to avoid effects on sensitive sites. Boat speed restrictions would

have a positive effect by reducing wake effects on sensitive sites. Enforcement of areas closed

to waterfowl hunting, shellfishing, boating, and PWC would decrease negative effects to creek

bank archaeological sites.

4.7.3 Alternative C

4.7.3.1 Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program

Effects to cultural resources under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B except for the

greater degree of dike removal, increasing effects on the dike; however, portions of the dike

would remain. As in Alternative B, a cultural resource inventory would be conducted prior to

the development of trails on the east side of the river as well as all public use facilities and

habitat restoration projects within the expanded Refuge boundary, to identify and protect cultural

resources potentially affected. A smaller number of students would benefit from the EE

program, including cultural heritage topics, compared to Alternative B. All other effects would

be the same as described in Alternative B.

4.7.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

4.7.4.1 Habitat Restoration, Refuge Expansion, and Public Use Program

This alternative would have the same effects as Alternative C, except for increased effects on the

dike due to dike removal and the larger expansion area; however, portions of the dike would

remain. The expansion area in the Nisqually River corridor may include cultural resources. 

Inventory for cultural resources within the expanded boundary would occur as described in

Alternative B. The same number of students would benefit from the environmental education

programs, including cultural heritage topics, as in Alternative C.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-97

4.8 Effects to Socioeconomics

This section analyzes effects to the economy of the area in the general vicinity of the Nisqually

River Valley associated with each of the alternatives. Effects to six topics are described:

environmental justice, land use, Refuge management, economics on the regional economy,

recreation economics, and commercial shellfishing.

4.8.1 Effects to Environmental Justice 

This section analyzes potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of each of the CCP alternatives on minority populations and low-income

populations living in the vicinity of the Nisqually River Valley. As discussed in Chapter 3, the

population of the region does not meet HUD’s definition of low income; however, the Nisqually

Indian Tribe is one minority group that could be disproportionately affected. Specific effects to

the Nisqually Indian Tribe are discussed below.

Under all alternatives, the Nisqually Indian Tribe would continue to fish, hunt, and gather as

described in Article 3 of the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854 (10 Stat. 1132). A strengthened

partnership between the Nisqually Indian Tribe and the Service is anticipated from the

development of a Cooperative Agreement for the management of the tribe’s 325-acre Braget

parcel as part of the Refuge and due to mutual goals of protecting the watershed, river corridor,

and fish habitats. There are no anticipated adverse health or environmental effects to the

Nisqually Indian Tribe from any of the alternatives. 

4.8.1.1 Alternative A

Under this alternative, tribal fishing, hunting, and gathering opportunities are expected to remain

the same. 

4.8.1.2 Alternatives B - D

Under the action alternatives, tribal fishing opportunities are expected to improve in the longterm due to estuarine restoration, which would improve fish habitat particularly for chinook and

chum salmon and other estuarine-dependent fish species. Anticipated effects are minimum

(Alternative B), moderate (Alternative C), and maximum (Alternative D) improvements to

fisheries resources available for tribal fishing. Significant benefits would be expected,

particularly from the effects of Alternative D, because tribal members depend heavily on natural

resources, both culturally and economically (D. Troutt, pers. comm.). Refuge boundary

expansion may affect the Nisqually Indian Tribally owned lands or trust lands, but protective

methods would be restricted to cooperative agreement and lands would continue to be managed

consistent with tribal priorities of protecting the watershed and river corridor. Some indirect

benefits to the Nisqually Indian Tribe are also anticipated from Refuge visitors being better

informed about Native American culture, which is an important component of the expanded EE

program in each of these alternatives.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-98 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.8.2 Effects to Land Use 

This section analyzes potential land use effects associated with each alternative. In addition to

general land use and management, special status lands within the study area such as the Research

Natural Area, Nisqually Public Use Natural Area, Shorelines of Statewide Significance, and

National Recreation Trail are evaluated for consistency with policies and directives. 

4.8.2.1 Alternative A

General Land Use and Management

No significant effects to land use and management are anticipated under this status quo

alternative. No additional acreage would be added to the existing approved Refuge boundary,

which would remain at 3,936 acres. Refuge acquisition of the remaining 1,011 acres within the

existing boundary would continue as land and funding become available on a willing seller basis. 

Thurston and Pierce counties would continue to receive Refuge revenue payments in lieu of

property taxes for Federal Refuge lands.

Housing developments would continue to increase under existing County regulations. In Pierce

County, approximately 240 acres in single- and multi-family units would be developed along the

top of the bluff, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. Future zoning changes could

occur as a result of area growth.

Under this alternative, it is expected that recreational fishing and agricultural use would continue

along existing trends. Agricultural lands outside of the Thurston County’s Purchase of

Development Rights (PDR) program could be developed in the future as permitted under

existing County regulations. 

It is anticipated that Fort Lewis will continue to use the lower Nisqually River Valley as a buffer

between civilian land in Thurston County and high impact military uses.

Special Status Lands

There are no anticipated effects to special status land designations under the No Action

Alternative.

4.8.2.2 Alternative B

General Land Use and Management

Implementing Alternative B would result in approximately 2,407 acres in Thurston and Pierce

counties being added to the existing approved Refuge boundary. This addition could include

approximately 512 acres of bluff habitat and 1,891 acres of floodplain, riparian, and wetland

habitat.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-99

This alternative would significantly expand the boundary of the Refuge to include large areas of

land in the Nisqually Basin south of I-5. The majority of this land remains in large parcels used

for agriculture. The central portion is protected from development through Thurston County’s

PDR program. Refuge acquisition could result in the reduction of some grazing opportunities

and conversion of some agricultural lands to wetlands and riparian habitats, some of which could

provide new public access areas. Since the goals of Refuge expansion are not incompatible with

the PDR program, no significant adverse land use effects are anticipated. Nevertheless, the

Service would have to comply with the terms of the easements, such as notification to Thurston

County prior to initiation of certain permitted activities, if it acquires property within the PDR

area.

In Thurston County, approximately 1,100 acres of agricultural land could be acquired for

conservation purposes if Refuge acquisition is accomplished. Within the current agricultural

component, approximately 840 acres are within the existing PDR program. As the Service

acquires lands from willing sellers, lands would likely be converted to native habitats in support

of migratory waterfowl, waterbirds, and a variety of other migratory birds. Crop production less

favorable to wildlife and grazing would be replaced with a mosaic of freshwater wetland,

riparian, and other native habitats. The impact to the overall agricultural economy would be

minor.

In Pierce County, up to approximately 190 acres of agricultural land and approximately 100

acres on the East Bluff proposed for residential development could be acquired for conservation

purposes. This could reduce planned housing in the area by up to approximately 150 units. This

potential change would occur primarily in the area between Puget Sound and the City of DuPont,

Washington.

The City of Olympia’s McAllister Springs area contains approximately 256 acres of forested

hillside, the Springs, and the wetlands headwaters of McAllister Creek. If acquired by the

Refuge, this area would continue to be managed and protected as a water source for the City of

Olympia. 

Fort Lewis Military Reservation owns approximately 150 acres along the Nisqually River

corridor in the Trotter’s Woods area. If acquired by the Service or managed through a

cooperative management agreement, Trotter’s Woods would be managed to provide quality

recreational fishing and protect and restore riparian habitat there. Cooperative efforts could also

involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. A boat launching site in the area

would continue to be available for use by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. 

The Burlington Northern-Sante Fe right-of-way comprises approximately 110 acres of right-ofway within the East Bluff area. No change of ownership would be pursued with this landowner. 

Thurston and Pierce counties would receive revenue payments in lieu of property taxes. This

revenue sharing would be an additive process as more lands are acquired within the approved

Refuge boundary. Based on assessed land values, annual payment would be approximately

$36,000 to Pierce County and $101,600 to Thurston County if all properties in Alternative D

were acquired in fee and sufficient funds are available to cover 100% of the payments. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-100 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Incorporating additional lands within a new Refuge boundary would not affect private property

rights unless the Service acquires lands from willing sellers. Landowners within the Refuge

boundary retain all rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership including

rights to access, control trespass, sell to any party, and develop their properties. Development of

private land would continue to be subject to local regulations and land use zoning. 

Special Status Lands

This alternative would increase the acreage of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually delta through

restoration. This relatively small increase would not affect the National Natural Landmark

designation. Although limited, parts of the Brown Farm Dike Trail would be breached and

removed, the National Recreation Trail status would not change.

Enforcement of the closure of the current RNA to consumptive uses and winter boat activities

would be compatible with national RNA policies and would benefit the RNA designation by

providing stronger protection for natural processes. 

There would be no changes in the public use program that would affect the PUNA area,

shoreline designation, or National Recreation Trail.

4.8.2.3 Alternative C

General Land Use and Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B. 

Special Status Lands

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that the amount of estuarine

restoration and change in the Brown Farm Dike Trail would be greater and the RNA would be

reduced in size. Benefits would be gained to the National Natural Landmark designation

because it was based on the coastal salt marsh system in the delta, and restoration would enlarge

and improve this biologically significant habitat. The loop trail would be shortened, but it is

expected that this special designation would be retained. The National Recreation Trail would

be re-described to reflect changes in trail configuration. The RNA would be reduced by 166

acres, to 671 acres total, to accommodate waterfowl hunting. This would remove the added

protections provided by the RNA designation to portions of tideflats and open water, requiring

the RNA to be redefined. 

4.8.2.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

General Land Use and Management

Implementing Alternative D could result in approximately 3,479 acres within Thurston and

Pierce counties being added to the existing approved Refuge boundary. This addition could

include approximately 512 acres of bluff habitat and 2,963 acres of floodplain, riparian, and
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-101

wetlands. The effects of land use changes on agricultural, residential development, the City of

Olympia, and military lands would be the same as for Alternatives B and C, with additional

changes described below. 

This alternative would expand the Refuge’s boundary more extensively than any of the other

alternatives. A 2.9-mile stretch of the lower Nisqually River could potentially be added to the

Refuge. If a cooperative management agreement or other land protection measures were

developed on Fort Lewis lands, it would be designed to accommodate or complement the

Army’s mission. The remainder of this land in private ownership consists of the river’s natural

floodplain, comprised of meander loops and wetlands. Since habitat restoration would enhance

and complement existing land use, rather than displace current use, land use effects from this

alternative are expected to be positive.

Within the Nisqually Valley, the Holroyd Gravel operation, encompassing approximately 300

acres within two permit areas, could eventually be reclaimed and changed from mineral overlay

to conservation purposes. Land use effects would vary depending on whether and at what stage

acquisition were to occur. For example, if gravel resources were already removed, land use

changes would be minimal. 

Under Alternative D, Thurston and Pierce counties’ revenue sharing payments in lieu of property

taxes would be greater since the potential for acquired lands is greater. Based on assessed land

values, annual payment would be approximately $36,000 to Pierce County and $170,400 to

Thurston County if all properties in Alternative D were acquired and sufficient funds are available

to cover 100% of the payments. Private property rights would remain the same as described for

Alternatives B and C.

Special Status Lands

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that the amount of estuarine

restoration and change in the Brown Farm Dike Trail under Alternative D would be greatest

among all alternatives. In addition, the RNA would be reduced by 73 acres to accommodate

hunting, removing added protections to sensitive river mouth habitats, but areas east of the river

channel would be retained as RNA. The RNA boundary would need to be redefined. The

National Natural Landmark designation would benefit the most due to the largest increase in

restored tidal salt marsh area. A limited amount of dike trail would remain, augmented by a

boardwalk trail extension, providing access to a variety of habitats, including estuarine and Puget

Sound habitats. The National Recreation Trail would be negatively affected due to the dike

removal and reduction in trail length; however, the Service retains full latitude to control or

restrict public uses in favor of wildlife resources (Waddell 1981; Watt 1981; Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service undated). The National Recreation Trail would be

retained, but re-described to reflect the new trail configuration. No changes to other

designations are expected.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-102 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

4.8.3 Effects of Refuge Management Economics on the Regional Economy

This section discusses direct economic effects on the regional economy resulting from local

economic contributions by the Refuge. The Refuge’s annual base budget comprises most of the

Refuge’s annual funding. In typical years, approximately 85 to 90% of this budget is spent on

salaries and employee benefits. Since staff salaries comprise the most significant portion of

revenue expenditure, Refuge staffing levels are generally proportional to the annual budget. The

remainder is usually spent on routine operating expenses, equipment, supplies, contractors,

vendors, travel, and training. Other revenue sources include supplemental annual funding such

as non-game migratory bird funding and challenge cost-share grants, both of which are used to

fund special projects and wildlife investigations. Since these funding sources are competitively

awarded and fluctuate from year to year, they cannot be accurately factored into an economic

analysis. In addition, the Refuge generates a small amount of income from visitors through

entrance fees. Entrance fee revenue is spent on visitor services and facilities and would likely

continue to be proportional to visitation. 

Because most Refuge funding comes from the Federal government and other sources external to

the local economy, the Refuge’s payroll and other expenditures comprise net revenue for the

local economy. Thus, every Federally supported job at the Refuge results in local expenditures

and indirectly supports additional employment in the region. The relative number of jobs in the

local economy that are generated by each externally funded job is known as the multiplier. 

According to the Washington State Economic Model used by the State’s Department of

Revenue, the economic multiplier for Service employment is 1.9; thus, each Refuge job

generates an additional 0.9 jobs in the local economy (Bertoun, pers. comm.).

Unlike other resource areas, effects on the regional economy are not expected to differ between

alternative actions for Refuge expansion, restoration, or public use program. This is because the

principal economic driver - the Refuge’s annual budget - is mostly derived from staff salaries. 

Since staffing needs are not specifically tied to alternative actions for the separate programs

involving Refuge expansion, restoration, or public use program, there is no accurate way to

distribute the analysis by these individual topics. Instead, effects to the regional economy can

only accurately be evaluated for each alternative as a whole, as presented below.

4.8.3.1 Alternative A

Under the No Action Alternative, the Refuge’s annual base budget and staffing are expected to

remain comparable to historical funding and staffing levels. In 2000, the Refuge’s base budget

was $565,840, sufficient to support the equivalent of approximately 8 full time equivalent (FTE)

employees. Due to supplemental annual funding secured that year by the Refuge, actual staffing

was closer to 10 FTEs, but supplemental funding is variable and thus cannot be used as a base

for future projections. Under this alternative, staffing would likely remain evenly distributed

among management, administrative, biology, public use, and maintenance functions. Assuming

no change in the Refuge’s base budget, the Refuge would continue to indirectly support at least

7.2 jobs and therefore continue to have minor positive effects on the regional economy. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-103

4.8.3.2 Alternative B

This alternative would triple staffing to 24 FTEs, compared to the No Action Alternative, and

almost triple funding to $1,615,000. Each staffing category would be increased with major

increases to biology (four new employees) and public use (five new employees). This

alternative would also indirectly maintain approximately 21.6 jobs, resulting in a positive effect

on the regional economy. 

4.8.3.3 Alternative C

Funding and staffing would more than triple under Alternative C to 26 FTEs and $1,763,750,

compared to the No Action Alternative. Employment would increase in each staffing category

similar to Alternative B; however, an additional Environmental Education Specialist would be

added to the payroll. This alternative would be expected to indirectly support at least 23.4 jobs,

resulting in a positive effect on the regional economy.

4.8.3.4 Alternative D (the Preferred Alternative)

In terms of financial contribution and job creation, Alternative D would have the largest positive

effect on the regional economy of the four alternatives. The salary and operating costs would be

approximately $1,828,750, representing an increase of $1,262,910 in expenditure over the No

Action Alternative, most of which would be directed to the Refuge’s payroll and contribute

directly to the regional economy. One major staffing difference between this alternative and

Alternative C is the addition of two biology positions, for a total of 29 FTEs. This alternative

would indirectly support approximately 26.1 jobs in the regional economy.

4.8.4 Effects to Recreation Economics

The following analysis assumes no change in the Refuge’s fee structure ($3.00 per family daily

entrance fee or admission by Golden Eagle, Golden Age, Golden Access Passport, Refuge

Annual Pass, or a Federal Duck stamp). In 2000, the Refuge collected $39,781 in entrance fees. 

The sales outlet operated in the Visitor Center is run by a non-profit partner, the Nisqually

Refuge Cooperating Association, which covers a portion of its operating costs from limited sales

of literature and related products. In 2000, the sales outlet earned approximately $20,000. Prior

to construction of new visitor facilities, the Refuge averaged approximately 80,000 visitors per

year who participated in a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational and educational activities,

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

fishing. The main activities are trail use and wildlife observation. Visitation increased to

approximately 100,000 in 2000, with the increase primarily attributed to the new visitor

facilities. 

Analysis of data collected through the Service’s National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife Associated Recreation has shown that recreational visits to National Wildlife Refuges

generate substantial economic activity. In 1995, people visited refuges more than 27.7 million

times for recreation and environmental education. They spent more than $401 million in sales

which employed an estimated 10,000 people and generated an additional $162.9 million in
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-104 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

employment income (Laughland and Caudill 1997). Non-residents spend about 3 times more

than local visitors for recreational activities due to spending more on transportation, restaurants,

lodging, and other purchases. (Laughland and Caudill 1997). The Service estimates that 75% of

Nisqually NWR visitors travel less than 50 miles, 20% are Washington State residents who

travel more than 50 miles, and the remaining 5% live out of state. Per person, per day

expenditures are estimated to be low since the average visitor lives in relative proximity to the

Refuge; however, the number of visitors is substantial enough to have a positive effect on the

local economy. For example, using regional factors calculated by Laughland and Caudill (1997),

100,000 annual visitors to Nisqually NWR could have spent between $1.7 and $2.3 million at

local businesses, depending on the proportion of those traveling from out of the area. 

4.8.4.1 Alternative A

Refuge Expansion

Since no Refuge expansion would occur under this alternative, there would be no economic

effects directly related to recreation or public access. Changes to recreation and recreationderived economics at Nisqually NWR would be driven by factors other than Refuge expansion,

such as regional population growth, economic development, or changes within the existing

Refuge boundary.

Habitat Restoration

Recreation and public use could increase slightly as a consequence of enhanced freshwater

habitats under this alternative, but the effect would not be expected to be significant, particularly

since long-term, freshwater habitats would be expected to deteriorate as reed canary grass

spreads. 

Public Use Program

Alternative A is expected to generate relatively neutral effects on recreation; hence, minor

positive recreation-derived economic effects should balance negative ones. New facilities,

which were a major factor in increases in visitation in 2000 and 2001, would continue to be

provided in all alternatives, and a continued upward trend in visitation resulting in increased

economic benefits would be expected. 

4.8.4.2 Alternative B

Refuge Expansion

Moderate Refuge expansion under this alternative would be expected to provide additional areas

and new habitats open to visitor use, potentially increasing visitation and revenues for the

Refuge. No negative effects to recreation economics would be anticipated. Related positive

economic effects such as increased revenue for the Refuge and region would be expected to be

proportionate with increased visitation, and would depend on what areas were acquired. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-105

Habitat Restoration

Minor positive recreation and public use effects resulting from restoration of muted estuarine

habitat under this alternative would be expected to translate into minor positive recreation

economic effects, if visitation increases in response to habitat restoration and management

enhancements. 

Public Use Program

Economic effects derived from recreation expenditures are not expected to be significant under

this alternative, and minor positive and negative effects would likely offset one another. A small

amount of increased expenditure may result from 15,000 additional student visits (20,000 total)

each year. Elimination of unauthorized hunting throughout the Refuge and RNA closures to

consumptive uses may slightly depress visitation, but these changes would be expected to be very

small, especially since hunter visits are a very small percentage of annual visitation. Because

other large, adjacent Refuge or State areas are available, significant changes in visitation and

local expenditures as a result of these restrictions would not be expected. In addition, increased

visitation observed with the opening of new facilities would be expected to continue, and a

continued upward trend in visitation resulting in increased economic benefits would be expected. 

4.8.4.3 Alternative C

Refuge Expansion

Refuge expansion under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B, as would recreation

economic effects, such as increased revenue for the Refuge and region, proportionate with

increased visitation.

Habitat Restoration

Restoration of 50% of the diked interior to estuarine habitat under this alternative would have a

mixed effect on recreation and public use and indirectly on recreation economics. The reduction

in trail length may have a minor effect on visitation, resulting in some decrease in expenditures. 

However, the effects of the new facilities, new trails, improved habitat, and more student visits

would be expected to contribute to an increasing trend in visitation, increasing economic

benefits. Thus, long-term recreation economic effects would improve as visitation to the Refuge

increases over time. In the long run, recreation economic effects would likely be positive under

this alternative as a result of habitat restoration, new public facilities, and management changes. 

Public Use Program

New facilities would continue to be provided, which would be expected to produce a continued

increasing trend in visitation over time, increasing expenditures. Increases in visitation may be

dampened somewhat by the reduced trail length; however, new trails, particularly on the east

side of the river, would attract visitation, providing access to a new area and contributing to 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-106 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

increased expenditures. The addition of 10,000 student visits over Alternative A would also

contribute to increased economic benefits. 

4.8.4.4 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Refuge Expansion

Of all the alternatives under consideration, Alternative D would provide for the maximum

amount of Refuge expansion. Recreation economic expansion is expected to be proportionate to

increased recreation and public access resulting from this expansion. Increased revenue for the

Refuge and region would be greater under Alternative D than for the other alternatives and

would depend on what areas were acquired. 

Habitat Restoration

This alternative would be similar to Alternative C except that an additional 20% of the Refuge

would be restored to estuarine habitat, resulting in a similar mix of recreation-based economic

effects. Freshwater areas would be reduced; however, management would be most intensive,

providing greater wildlife densities, which may attract visitors. In addition, these more

substantial estuarine restoration efforts could become a draw for visitors interested in

environmental restoration, attracting visitors from other areas who would spend time and money

in the area, potentially resulting in some regional economic gains. 

Public Use Program

Recreation-related economic effects under this alternative are expected to be comparable to

Alternative C, except that the reduction in trail length would be greater and the main trail would

no longer be a loop, resulting in some decrease in visitation. However, the effects of new

facilities, new trails, improved habitat, and more student visits would be expected to increase

visitation and related economic benefits. 

4.8.5 Effects to Commercial Shellfishing

4.8.5.1 Alternative A

Under the No Action Alternative, there are no anticipated effects to commercial shellfishing. 

4.8.5.2 Alternative B-D

Since commercial shellfishing is currently closed in the Nisqually Reach, effects from habitat

restoration, Refuge expansion, and public use program activities proposed in the action

alternatives are expected to be negligible. In the event that commercial shellfishing is

reestablished in the area after implementation of Alternative B, C, or D, there could be a

temporary negative effect from siltation associated with dike removal. The anticipated longterm effects are a healthier estuary, which should improve commercial shellfishing. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-107

4.9 Summary of Effects

Table 4.9-1 summarizes potential effects for each of the four alternatives. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-108 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

EC = existing conditions; SH = slightly higher (or improved) than existing conditions; MH = moderately higher (or improved) than existing conditions; CH = considerably higher (or improved) than

existing conditions; SL = slightly lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; ML = moderately lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; CL = considerably lower (or decreased) than existing

conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-109 

Table 4.9-1. Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource Issue or Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Hydrological connection between

restored areas and Puget Sound,

Nisqually River, and McAllister Creek.

EC SH MH CH: The Nisqually River would be

allowed to move more freely, the entire

McAllister Creek system would be

restored, and less flood waters would

flow into the diked area during flood

events.

HABITATS

Estuarine EC MH: 318 acres muted

estuarine and 140 acres of full

estuarine habitat with a

connection to McAllister Creek.

MH: 515 acres with a full tidal

connection to Puget Sound, and some

of Nisqually River and McAllister

Creek.

CH: 699 acres with full tidal connection

to Puget Sound, Nisqually River, and all

of McAllister Creek.

Freshwater Wetland SH: Limited improvements. MH: 542 acres improved

management of diked area and

protection of some areas south

of I-5.

CH: 447 acres improved management

with a higher proportion of freshwater

wetlands than grasslands and

protection of some areas south of I-5. 

MH: 263 acres improved management

with a high proportion of freshwater

wetlands and some grasslands and

protection of some areas south of I-5. 

Riverine and Riparian

Restoration

Increased protection

SH

EC

SH

MH: Additional 325 acres. 

MH: Additional 38 acres.

MH: Additional 325 acres.

MH: Additional 38 acres.

MH: Additional 1,011 acres.

Upland

Upland Forests

Grasslands

EC

SL 

MH: Increased protection of

803 acres.

ML: Some loss of grasslands

within diked area, but some

increased protection in

expansion area.

MH: Increased protection of 803 acres.

CL: Loss of grasslands within diked

area, but some increased protection in

expansion area.

MH: Increased protection of 1,262

acres.

CL: Loss of grasslands within diked

area, but some increased protection in

expansion area.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 4.9-1. Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource Issue or Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

EC = existing conditions; SH = slightly higher (or improved) than existing conditions; MH = moderately higher (or improved) than existing conditions; CH = considerably higher (or improved) than

existing conditions; SL = slightly lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; ML = moderately lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; CL = considerably lower (or decreased) than existing

conditions.

 4-110 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

EXOTIC PLANTS

Reed canary grass SL: Continued dominance

and spread within diked area.

MH: Improved control within

diked area and elimination in

restored estuarine areas.

CH: Improved control within diked area

and elimination in restored estuarine

areas.

CH: Improved control within diked area

and elimination in restored estuarine

areas.

FISHERIES HABITATS AND

RESOURCES

EC SH MH CH: Greatest estuarine restoration and

riparian restoration and protection,

contributing to salmon recovery.

BIRDS

General Effects

Waterfowl

Waterbirds

Seabirds

Shorebirds

Landbirds

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

Slightly more estuary;

somewhat improved freshwater

wetlands; increased habitat

protection in expansion area;

and more sanctuary.

MH

MH

SH

SH

SL

More estuary; improved freshwater

wetlands; restored riparian; increased

habitat protection in expansion area;

and most sanctuary, including

McAllister Creek.

MH - CH

SH - MH

MH

MH - CH

SH - MH

More estuary; improved freshwater

wetlands; restored riparian; largest

increased habitat protection in

expansion area, particularly riparian;

and more sanctuary.

CH

SH - MH

CH

CH

SH - MH

MAMMALS

Marine 

Land

EC

EC

SH

SL: Slight decrease in diked

areas; increased upland forest

and freshwater wetland

protection in expansion area.

MH

ML: Some decrease in diked areas;

increased upland forest and

freshwater wetland protection in

expansion area.

MH

ML: Largest decrease in diked areas;

largest upland forest and freshwater

wetland protection in expansion area.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 4.9-1. Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource Issue or Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

EC = existing conditions; SH = slightly higher (or improved) than existing conditions; MH = moderately higher (or improved) than existing conditions; CH = considerably higher (or improved) than

existing conditions; SL = slightly lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; ML = moderately lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; CL = considerably lower (or decreased) than existing

conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-111 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS EC SL SL SL

INVERTEBRATES

Marine 

Terrestrial

EC

EC

SH

SL: Slight decrease in diked

areas; increased upland forest

and freshwater wetland

protection in expansion area.

MH

ML: Some decrease in diked areas;

increased upland forest and

freshwater wetland protection in

expansion area.

CH

ML: Largest decrease in diked areas;

largest upland forest and freshwater

wetland protection in expansion area.

ENDANGERED & THREATENED

SPECIES

EC SH MH CH

SPECIAL USES

Haying EC SL: Haying area reduced by 5

acres.

ML: Haying area reduced by 69 acres. CL: Haying area reduced by 118 acres.

EDUCATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Environmental Education EC CH MH MH

Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and

Photography

EC SH MH: Trail length is shortened but

improved quality with diversified

viewing opportunities; new eastside

trail.

MH: Trail length is shortened but

improved quality with diversified viewing

opportunities; new eastside trail.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 4.9-1. Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource Issue or Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

EC = existing conditions; SH = slightly higher (or improved) than existing conditions; MH = moderately higher (or improved) than existing conditions; CH = considerably higher (or improved) than

existing conditions; SL = slightly lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; ML = moderately lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; CL = considerably lower (or decreased) than existing

conditions.

 4-112 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Waterfowl Hunting

Acreage

Quality

Conflict with other users

Available Sanctuary

EC

EC

EC

EC

CL: Refuge land posted closed

to hunting

SH: Eliminate boundary

confusions

SL - ML

MH

CH: 713 acres of Refuge land (1,170

acres consolidated hunt area with

State lands).

CH: 3 day/wk hunt, 25-shell limit,

eliminate boundary confusions.

CL

CH: Hunting removed from McAllister

Creek.

MH: 191 acres of Refuge land (total 808

acres hunt area with State lands) 

MH: Eliminate boundary confusions, 25-

shell limit.

SL - ML

MH

Fishing and Shellfishing EC MH: Additional location at

Trotter’s Woods and disabled

access location at Luhr Beach.

CH: Additional locations at Trotter’s

Woods, eastside property, and

disabled access location at Luhr

Beach.

MH: Additional locations at Trotter’s

Woods, eastside property, and disabled

access locations at Luhr Beach and

Nisqually, but loss of McAllister Creek

site with possible replacement if lands

acquired south of I-5.

Boating EC ML: 5 mph speed limit,

seasonal closure of RNA.

ML: 5 mph speed limit, seasonal

closure of RNA.

ML: 5 mph speed limit, seasonal

closure of RNA.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

EC: Some effects to Brown

Farm Dike from needed

repairs.

MH: Some modification and

removal of Brown Farm Dike;

majority of dike remains;

improved interpretation and EE

of cultural resources; and

improved protection of sites in

expansion areas.

SH: Portions of Brown Farm Dike

removed; improved interpretation and

EE of cultural resources; improved

protection of sites in expansion areas.

SL - SH: Majority of Brown Farm Dike

removed; improved interpretation and

EE of cultural resources; largest

protection of sites in expansion areas.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Table 4.9-1. Summary of Potential Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource Issue or Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

EC = existing conditions; SH = slightly higher (or improved) than existing conditions; MH = moderately higher (or improved) than existing conditions; CH = considerably higher (or improved) than

existing conditions; SL = slightly lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; ML = moderately lower (or decreased) than existing conditions; CL = considerably lower (or decreased) than existing

conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-113 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Special Status Lands

Research Natural Area

National Recreation Trail

National Natural Landmark

EC

No change in status.

No change in status.

CH: Removal of consumptive

uses and seasonal boat

closure.

No change in status.

No change in status.

MH: Removal of consumptive uses

and seasonal boat closure, but

reduced by 166 acres.

SL: Retain status, but re-describe.

SH: Enlarged area of designated

habitat.

MH: Removal of consumptive uses and

seasonal boat closure, but reduced by

73 acres.

ML: Retain status, but re-describe.

MH: Enlarged area of designated 

habitat.

Regional Economy EC SH MH MH

Recreation Economics EC SH MH MH
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

 4-114 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-115

4.10 Cumulative Effects

This section addresses the potential cumulative effects for all of the alternatives and is intended

to consider the activities on Nisqually NWR in the context of other actions on a larger temporal

and spatial scale. 

There is a clear trend in western Washington, particularly in the Puget Sound region, of

increasing development and associated habitat loss. Additional residential and commercial

development is planned throughout much of the local area, as well as the south Puget Sound

region. Within this context of increasing development, all of the alternatives would preserve

existing habitat on the Refuge. By expanding the Refuge boundary, the action alternatives

would also increase the amount of habitat that would be protected and restored in the lower

Nisqually River watershed. Active restoration of the land acquired under the action alternatives

would increase the carrying capacity of the Nisqually delta for fish and wildlife. Any of the

action alternatives would also complement other regional habitat acquisition or protection

programs under consideration by local and State agencies, Fort Lewis, the Nisqually Indian

Tribe, the Nisqually River Council, and the Nisqually River Basin Land Trust, resulting in

positive cumulative effects to fish and wildlife. Alternative D, which would potentially almost

double the size of the Refuge by protecting an additional 3,479 acres of habitat, would also

provide an improved, continuous wildlife corridor along part of the lower Nisqually River,

including a portion of a proposed RNA on Fort Lewis (U.S. Army) property. In addition, this

alternative would offer greater watershed protection by preventing erosion and contamination

associated with development on steep slopes and in the riparian and floodplain areas. 

Perhaps the most significant effect of the action alternatives is the restoration of historic

estuarine wetlands on the Refuge. Over the last 150 years, up to 80% of estuarine habitat in

Puget Sound has been lost, contributing to the decline of many fish and wildlife that depend on

estuaries (Dean et al. 2000), including several salmon species. A number of Pacific salmonid

species are now listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In recent

years, numerous programs in the Puget Sound area have been developed to protect and improve

salmon habitat to meet the recovery requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Very few of

these programs, however, involve major estuarine restoration, and none would substantially

increase the amount of this habitat in the region. Few places exist where this can occur. 

Alternatives B, C, and D, would add 140, 515, and 699 acres of full estuarine wetland,

respectively, to the Nisqually delta. Any of these alternatives represent a substantial increase in

the amount of estuarine wetland in Puget Sound, with Alternative D providing the most

significant contribution. Implementation of this alternative would increase this type of habitat

by 46% in south Puget Sound. Combined with other ongoing programs to restore/improve

salmon habitat, the action alternatives would represent substantial positive cumulative effects to

fish and wildlife that use estuaries.

Cumulative effects involving the public use program would be an overall improvement in the

quality of environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in south

Puget Sound. Priority public use opportunities would increase or improve with the

establishment of new or enhanced public facilities and access. Human disturbance and conflicts
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-116 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

between users would be reduced, and wildlife sanctuary would be greatly improved on the

Refuge. These improvements would also help address the effects that will result as the human

population continues to increase rapidly in the region and visitation grows over time.

4.11 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

The restoration of historic estuarine habitat necessitates the removal of portions of dikes and the

conversion of some freshwater wetlands under all action alternatives. Although it would be

possible to reconstruct the dike system and reestablish freshwater wetlands, this would be

unlikely to occur once estuarine habitat is restored. In addition, the establishment of new public

facilities and trails represents an irreversible diminishment of biological productivity in those

sites. Alternatives C and D would also reduce the size of the RNA on the Refuge to provide for

a waterfowl hunting program, thus improving this public use, but reducing this area of greater

protection. Reversing this change in the RNA would be possible but difficult in the future.

4.12 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The No Action Alternative would not effectively maintain or improve long-term productivity. 

All of the action alternatives are focused on the long-term enhancement and expansion of habitat

for native species. The Preferred Alternative would be most effective at enhancing the long-term

productivity of the Refuge ecosystem to contribute toward the maintenance and recovery of

native fish and wildlife populations. There may be some short-term loss of freshwater wetlands

from conversion to estuarine habitat if additional freshwater wetlands cannot be acquired at the

same time and rate. However, the simultaneous improvement of remaining freshwater habitats

on the Refuge would increase capacity within those areas. In the longer term, expansion under

the action alternatives would result in additional opportunities for freshwater wetlands and

benefit the fish and wildlife species that use these habitats.

4.13 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The Preferred Alternative would result in unavoidable adverse effects to non-native grassland

and shrub-scrub habitats due to the decrease in overall amounts of these habitat types. Refuge

expansion and restoration would provide some of this kind of habitat; however, management in

these areas would focus on freshwater wetland enhancement. A very limited number of

relatively common wildlife species depend solely or largely on these two kinds of habitat and

would be most affected by these reductions. The restoration of historic estuarine habitat would

provide very positive overall environmental effects and would benefit many more species that

are higher priority to recover or maintain. Freshwater wetland acreage would decrease within

the diked area; however, improved management would provide wildlife benefits, and expansion

would provide additional opportunities to increase the overall amount and quality of freshwater

wetlands in the lower Nisqually River watershed.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-117

Habitat restoration and reducing wildlife disturbance necessitates changes in the public use

program that would have site-specific adverse effects, including changes in trail configuration,

the elimination of the McAllister Creek bank fishing area, and new boating restrictions. 

However, new or improved opportunities would be provided as part of the Preferred Alternative,

providing overall improvements in these programs. 

Habitat and species monitoring undertaken as part of the Preferred Alternative would assist

Refuge staff in adapting management approaches to maximize resource benefits.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

4-118 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 5 Plans and Policies 5-1

Chapter 5. Relationships to Federal, State, and

Local Policies and Plans 

This chapter contains an overview of policies and plans promulgated by public agencies with

jurisdiction in the vicinity of the Nisqually Basin. A summary is included for each relevant

policy and plan, as well as a brief discussion of its relevancy for planning at Nisqually NWR.

5.1 Federal Government

Two Federal agencies have jurisdictions over portions of the study area–the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army. The Service’s plans and policies are relevant to the Refuge

since the Service owns or manages the Refuge. Planning by the Army is relevant since Fort

Lewis, a large Army installation, occupies a small portion of the study area on the eastern bank of

the Nisqually River.

5.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Service Plans, Policies, and Programs

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

National Wildlife Refuge System within a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines

reviewed in Sections 1.4 through 1.7 of this CCP/EIS. The role of the Service is introduced in

Section 1.4, as well as the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service’s

policies on Compatibility, Planning, and Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental

Health mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977 are the

focus of Section 1.4, which also provides a general overview of regulatory context. The

Comprehensive Conservation Planning process is discussed in Section 1.7.

Other relevant plans involving the Service not addressed in Chapter 1 include the Nisqually

National Wildlife Refuge Conceptual Plan (CH2M Hill et al. 1978), and the 1996 Update of the

Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan for Washington State. The Nisqually National

Wildlife Refuge Conceptual Plan was prepared in the late 1970s to summarize existing resources

and provide a conceptual plan for future development and use of the Refuge. This document has

served as the Refuge’s principal management guidance for over two decades and will be

superceded by the CCP. 

The Washington State component of the Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan is the local

component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which addresses the

conservation and restoration of waterfowl and migratory bird habitat in southern Puget Sound. It

identified the Nisqually River delta as the largest remaining relatively undeveloped river delta in

the area. Plan recommendations for the southern Puget Sound area include: (1) acquisition or

protection of critical estuarine and freshwater wetlands, and important contiguous upland habitat;

and (2) restoration of diked former estuarine habitat, where feasible and appropriate.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

5-2 Chapter 5 Plans and Policies

The Service is also actively involved in the development and implementation of a number of

conservation plans for migratory bird species, including the Partners in Flight Conservation of

Landbirds in the United States, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Management

Plan. Regional step-down plans specific to the Nisqually area are discussed below.

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan was developed through a partnership effort by

State and Federal agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, and

individuals committed to restoring and maintaining stable shorebird populations in the U.S. and

throughout the Western Hemisphere (Brown et al. 2000). The Northern Pacific Coast Regional

Shorebird Management Plan establishes regional goals and objectives for western Oregon and

Washington. Important shorebird habitats identified under this plan include coastal estuaries,

beaches, rocky shorelines, and pelagic and freshwater systems. Regional goals under the Plan are

to: “(1) measurably increase populations, over the next 10 years, of species affected by current or

recent declines at population or flyway levels; and (2) stabilize and maintain current levels of

breeding, wintering, and migrating populations of other shorebird species within the

region/flyway.” The habitat goal for the region is to protect, restore, and enhance habitat

conditions necessary to achieve population goals. Specific habitat goals important to Nisqually

NWR management include: (1) restoration of tidal regimes to diked wetlands in estuaries; (2)

water level and moist soil management in degraded freshwater environments; (3) removal of

exotic species and planting or encouraging native vegetation in both estuarine and freshwater

areas; and (4) restoration of important roost areas.

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan is currently under development. It is a

collaborative effort by Federal and State agencies, NGOs, researchers, and other experts to

formulate a plan that provides an overarching framework for conserving and managing seabirds

and other aquatic birds throughout North America. It will facilitate continent-wide planning and

monitoring, national-state-provincial conservation action, and local habitat protection and

management that taken together will maintain healthy populations of these aquatic species. The

goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations,

habitats, and important sites of seabirds and other waterbirds are sustained or restored and

maintained throughout their ranges in North America. A regional stepdown plan for western

Oregon and Washington will focus on the key species and habitats of the coastal northwest and

develop specific goals and objectives for management, monitoring, research, and outreach. 

A national plan for the conservation of North American landbirds was developed through a

partnership effort by State and Federal agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, and private

citizens. The Conservation Plan for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and

Washington is one of 5 habitat-based plans produced by the Oregon-Washington chapter of

Partners in Flight for the two-state area, and the plan applies to Nisqually NWR. Similar to the

other bird conservation plans already mentioned, the goal of this plan is to improve the extent

and condition of habitats, with a particular focus on stabilizing or increasing populations of

declining species within a 10- or 15-year timeframe. The plan describes habitat conditions that

favor the productivity of focal species that typify specific habitats in the area, and makes
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 5 Plans and Policies 5-3

recommendations for how to improve those habitats. The Nisqually River was identified in the

plan as being a potential Bird Conservation Area for its riparian habitat value. Many species

breeding in the riparian habitat within the Nisqually River surge plain (e.g., Swainson’s thrush,

yellow warbler, and downy woodpecker) are focal species in the plan. Thus, this plan will be of

particular value when designing management or restoration plans for riparian habitats under

current or future refuge ownership. 

The Service is developing a Regional Seabird Conservation Plan for the Pacific Region. The

plan will include a review of the current Service seabird program and will present a coordinated

strategy with specific goals and objectives for management, monitoring, research, and outreach. 

Key biological parameters will be reviewed and prioritized for inclusion in the monitoring plan. 

All seabird species will be prioritized by conservation need. Threats and conflicts will be

discussed and recommendations for actions and stepdown plans will be included. This plan will

provide an overarching review and discussion and identify regional priorities and needed

stepdown documents. 

5.1.2 Fort Lewis

Fort Lewis is the home of America’s I Corps and one of America’s power projection platforms. 

Its mission is to train, mobilize, and deploy combat-ready forces worldwide. Fort Lewis has a

strategic and national security mission to support worldwide contingencies and respond to global

peacekeeping efforts and disasters with trained and ready soldiers. Fort Lewis is also the site of

the Army’s first two Initial Brigade Combat Teams for the Army’s Transformation Program, the

Army’s reorganization to meet the requirements and challenges of the 21st century (Department

of the Army [DOA] 2002).

Fort Lewis recently initiated planning for its Installation Sustainability Program to integrate

environmental and resource planning into operational procedures in support of current and future

installation missions. A workshop held in February 2002 brought together stakeholders from the

Army, surrounding communities, environmental regulatory agencies, and other agencies to form

a consensus on Fort Lewis’ 25-year environmental goals.

Major land use categories include cantonement (urbanized), 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 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.). 

A list of other Federal 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.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

5-4 Chapter 5 Plans and Policies

5.2 State of Washington

A number of State laws and regulations indirectly pertain to the Refuge, including enabling

legislation such as the Watershed Planning Act, State’s Growth Management Act, and Shoreline

Management Act, as administered by local agencies and discussed below. These regulations are

indirectly relevant to Refuge planning because they require that all planning by local jurisdictions

be consistent with the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan, and that water resource planning be

consistent with the jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program. The plans of both jurisdictions

(Pierce and Thurston counties) are discussed later in this chapter.

5.2.1 Watershed Planning Act

The 1998 legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2514, codified into The Revised Code of

Washington (RCW) 90.82 to set a framework for addressing the State’s water resource and water

quality issues, as well as establishing instream flows and addressing salmon habitat needs. RCW

90.82 states: The legislature finds that the local development of watershed plans for managing

water resources and for protecting existing water rights is vital to both state and local interests. 

The local development of these plans serves vital local interests by placing it in the hands of

people: Who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who

live and work in the watershed; and who have the greatest stake in the proper, long-term

management resources. The development of such plans serves the state’s vital interests by

ensuring that the state’s water resources are used wisely, by protecting existing water rights, by

protecting instream flows for fish, and by providing for the economic well-being of the state’s

citizenry and communities. Therefore, the legislature believes it necessary for units of local

government throughout the state to engage in orderly development of these watershed plans.

5.2.2 Growth Management Act

Planning in Washington State is regulated by the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), a

State law passed in 1990 to provide for growth and development while maintaining the state’s

quality of life. The GMA requires all cities and counties in the state to develop written

comprehensive plans, and implement the plans through regulations and innovative techniques. 

All regulations including subarea plans and land use controls must be consistent with the adopted

local comprehensive plan, which in turn must conform to 13 state goals. The most relevant of

these include: Appropriate Economic Development, Protection of Property Rights, Fair and

Timely Permit Processing, Support for Open Space and Recreation, Environmental Protection,

Participation by Citizens in the Planning Process, Provision of Adequate Public Facilities and

Services, and Preservation of Historic Resources.

5.2.3 Shoreline Management Act

The Washington Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), administered by the Washington

State Department of Ecology through Shoreline Master Programs adopted by each local

jurisdiction, regulates the development of Washington shorelines. Shoreline Master Programs
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 5 Plans and Policies 5-5

use environmental area designations [WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)] to describe land uses. The two

designations that apply to the Nisqually delta’s marine and riverine shoreline are “Natural” and

“Conservancy.” The Natural designation is intended to preserve and restore natural resource

systems, particularly those that are unique and/or valuable. The Conservancy designation is

intended to protect, conserve, and manage existing natural resources, and valuable historic and

cultural areas. Specific requirements are discussed in Sections 5.5.3 and 5.6.3.

The State of Washington has also created several specific planning mechanisms specific to the

Nisqually River, as discussed below.

5.3 Nisqually Indian Tribe

The Nisqually Indian Tribe is a Federally recognized tribe with reservation, trust lands, and tribal

land holdings within the Nisqually Valley. The Nisqually Tribe has strong historical cultural and

economic ties to the river and watershed. Planning by the tribe is particularly relevant to the

watershed for a variety of reasons: the tribe is the principal watershed planning entity; the tribe is

a major advocate for habitat recovery; the tribe is a major land owner in the watershed, and owns

approximately 325 acres within approved Refuge boundaries to be managed by the Service as

part of the Refuge under a Cooperative Agreement; and the tribe is historically, culturally,

economically, and spiritually dependent on its namesake river and watershed. 

5.3.1 Nisqually Watershed Planning - Nisqually Water Resource Inventory Area

(WRIA) 11

The Nisqually Indian Tribe is the designated lead for Watershed planning for the Nisqually

Watershed (Nisqually WRIA 11). The Nisqually Planning Unit, a coalition of interested parties,

is working on a draft watershed management plan which is anticipated to be adopted by Pierce,

Thurston, and Lewis counties upon completion of the plan in 2003 (G. Walter, pers. comm.).

5.3.2 Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan

A principal goal of this recovery plan is to restore chinook salmon habitat to the equivalent of

properly functioning conditions. Strategic priorities include restoring the estuary, protecting the

riparian corridor along the mainstem of the Nisqually River, and implementing instream

enhancement in the river. The plan identifies estuarine restoration in the Nisqually delta as the

top priority to recover chinook salmon in the Nisqually River Watershed.

5.3.3 Nisqually River Multi-Species Management Plan

The Nisqually Indian Tribe is currently completing the Nisqually River Fall Multi-Species

Management Plan which will also focus on restoration of the Nisqually River Estuary (D. Troutt,

pers. comm.).
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

5-6 Chapter 5 Plans and Policies

5.3.4 Nisqually Community Vision Plan

The Nisqually Community Vision Plan (Nisqually Indian Tribe 1995) was prepared by Nisqually

tribal members in 1995. The plan emphasizes community preservation and development based

on tribal values and goals. The document is organized around three major resource planning

areas: human, natural, and community resources. Because of the interconnectedness between the

Nisqually people and their traditional territory, which includes the entire Nisqually watershed, all

three resource areas have some relevance to the Refuge. For example, the human resources

section addresses cultural resources, and the community resource section includes relevant

economic development provisions such as fisheries. The natural resources section contains the

most directly applicable topic areas such as water resources, fisheries, and wildlife. All three

consist of 5-year goals and 3-year priorities that provide specific direction for further action. 

5.4 Resource-Specific Plans

The Nisqually River Management Plan and Nisqually River Task Force are particularly relevant

to Refuge planning since both are specific to management of Nisqually River resources.

5.4.1 Nisqually River Management Plan

The Nisqually River Management Plan (Canning 1986) was approved by the Washington

legislature in 1987 to protect the Nisqually River Basin’s economic, natural, and cultural

resources. The management plan also established the Nisqually River Council to implement the

plan and analyze policy issues in the Nisqually and associated watersheds.

The River Management Plan establishes a Core Management Zone, which includes the river and

a 200-foot corridor along the river, and a Stewardship Management Zone, which includes “a

viewshed corridor along the Nisqually River a minimum of 1⁄4 mile and a maximum of 3⁄4 mile

each side of the river.” The Nisqually Stewardship Management Zone follows the Nisqually

River and the hydraulic drainage boundary for the lower river basin. While the Refuge is

currently designated as part of the Core Management Zone, the bluffs next to the delta were not

included in the Stewardship Management Zone (Boyer 1993). This plan was never amended

even though it pre-dates the State’s Growth Management Act. It is anticipated that the plan will

be revisited in conjunction with 5-year revisions to comprehensive plans under GMA by local

counties (P. Moulton, pers. comm.).

5.4.2 Nisqually River Task Force 

In response to legislative direction to "establish advisory committees to provide technical

assistance and policy guidance" in the preparation of an "overall management plan" for the

Nisqually River, the Department of Ecology formed the Nisqually River Task Force (NRTF) in

August 1985. As mandated by SHB 323, membership of the Task Force includes individuals

"representing the interests of Federal, State, and local government entities, agriculture, forestry,

the Nisqually Indian Tribe, other property owners, and environmentalists." The Phase 1 (1985)
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 5 Plans and Policies 5-7

Task Force was made up of two advisory committees, a policy advisory committee (the Steering

Committee), and a Technical Advisory Committee composed of six technical subcommittees.

The Steering Committee was retained for a two-phase planning process to develop complete and

comprehensive management policy recommendations in response to legislative direction and

public testimony (Nisqually River Task Force 1987).

5.5 Thurston County 

The majority of the study area lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of Thurston County. This

section discusses several planning documents prepared by Thurston County to guide local growth

and protect critical resources.

5.5.1 County-Wide Planning Policies

The Thurston County County-Wide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992 following

ratification by each of the cities and towns in Thurston County to comply with GMA. The

County-Wide Planning Policies were intended to be used to frame and coordinate development

of comprehensive plans by each local jurisdiction. The County-Wide Planning policies address

urban growth areas, urban services, capital facilities siting, fiscal impact analysis, economic

development and employment, affordable housing, transportation, environmental quality, and

process. The Thurston County County-Wide planning Policies are very general and do not

directly apply to specific areas such as the Refuge, but they do set the stage for coordinated

comprehensive planning by individual jurisdictions such as Thurston County, as addressed

below.

5.5.2 Comprehensive Plan

GMA requires that all development regulations and public expenditures on facilities and services

by Thurston County be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thurston County adopted its

comprehensive plan to comply with GMA in 1995, updating the County’s original

comprehensive plan that was prepared in 1975 and overhauled in 1988. The updated plan is

primarily a policy document to guide the County’s physical and other development consistent

with the County’s vision statement. Nine of the plan’s 13 chapters address specific GMA

mandated and other elements. These include: land use, natural resource lands, housing,

transportation, capital facilities, private utilities, economic development, natural environment,

and historic resources. The comprehensive plan’s “Important Green Spaces” map identifies the

entire Nisqually River delta as “important habitats,” which receive protection through a number

of policies in the plan. In addition, one particularly relevant policy to the Refuge is the County’s

policy to coordinate with “other important green spaces stakeholders” including tribes, Federal

agencies, State departments, and others.
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

5-8 Chapter 5 Plans and Policies

5.5.3 Shoreline Master Program

The Nisqually Reach and the Nisqually River, from Alder Lake to Puget Sound, were designated

in 1976 as shorelines of statewide significance by the Thurston County Shoreline Master

Program (Giebelhaus 1998). The County Shoreline Master Program segments the shoreline into

different overlay designations to regulate development. Three Shoreline designations cover the

delta and valley. The natural designation, located outside the dike, is extremely restrictive and

prohibits the harvesting of timber within the watershed. Much of the developed valley is

designated as Rural with a density of two units per acre. Several acres of shoreline are

designated Conservancy and allow for a density of one unit per acre (Thurston County Planning

Department 1992). Shoreline regulatory criteria protect water quality, aquatic habitats and public

health, and public access that preserves or enhances shoreline characteristics that existed prior to

public access, and require preservation of aesthetic, scenic, historic, or ecological qualities

(Thurston Regional Planning Council 1990). 

5.5.4 Shellfish Protection Districts

Parts of the Nisqually Reach have been closed by the State Department of Health for commercial

shellfish harvest. The closures are due to the presence of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria,

which can come from one or many activities that take place anywhere on lands within the

watershed that drains into the waters where the pollution is detected. State law required Thurston

County to address the water quality problems within the framework of a "Shellfish Protection

District" created in early 2001 (Thurston County homepage, 06/26/2001). The shellfish

protection district is a geographic area designated by Thurston County to protect water quality

and tideland resources. The district provides a mechanism to generate local funds and publicize

information to control non-point sources of pollution (Thurston County homepage, 08/22/2001).

5.5.5 Nisqually Sub-Area Land Use and Zoning Plan

Of all the plans and policies addressed in Chapter 5 of this CCP/EIS, the Nisqually Sub-Area

Land Use and Zoning Plan (Thurston County Planning Department 1992) has the most direct

applicability to the Refuge as it regulates land use for the portions of the study area located in

Thurston County, which comprise the greatest share of the study area. Policies covering

Nisqually Agriculture lands and most of the McAllister Creek Basin are included in Thurston

County’s Nisqually Sub-Area Land Use and Zoning Plan adopted in 1992. One of the plan’s

goals for the Nisqually planning area is to “Promote and enhance the wildlife habitat throughout

the planning area and protect the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge from adjacent developments.” Some

policies related to this goal are to restrict development in some areas, create opportunities for

landowners to participate in wildlife enhancement projects, and support research into the

restoration of salt marsh ecosystem within the Brown Farm Dike. 

The plan establishes an overlay on the pre-existing zoning, permitting up to one residential

dwelling unit per 5 acres. Residential density in the Nisqually agriculture district is one unit per

40 acres for individual lots, one unit per 5 acres for a clustered lot subdivision, and one unit per 5
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 5 Plans and Policies 5-9

acres for the purchase of development rights or transfer of development rights programs

(Thurston County Planning Department 1992). 

The Refuge and adjacent lands fall into the Rural lands category established by the Sub-area

Plan. Designations were based on 1992 development densities. The Luhr Beach area west of the

McAllister Creek mouth is zoned one unit per 2 acres. The Nisqually Indian Tribal offices on the

east side of Reservation Road south of I-5, and the Meridian Heights subdivision on the east side

of Meridian Road north of I-5, are zoned at densities of up to 2 units per acre. Commercially

zoned lands include the corner of Old Nisqually and lands at Martin Way and McAllister Creek

(Thurston County Planning Department 1992; Thurston County Department of Water and Waste

Management 1993). 

The Sub-area Plan established a regulatory buffer called the Nisqually Hillside Overlay district

on the hillsides of the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. The overlay is a Thurston County

Critical Area Special Management Area (Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic

Preservation 1994). The buffer reaches from the toe to the top of the bluff along both sides of the

Valley. It is intended to reduce the risk of slope failure and maintain the visual integrity of the

wooded valley. On the west side, the buffer extends from Luhr Beach to McAllister Springs

along McAllister Creek, with a 200-foot buffer upland of the McAllister Bluffs. To the east, the

overlay extends 100 feet east of Old Pacific Highway, from the Holroyd pit entrance near Durgin

Road to McAllister Springs. 

5.6 Pierce County

The eastern-most portion of the study area lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of Pierce

County. This section discusses several planning documents prepared by Pierce County to guide

local growth while protecting specific resources. These are most relevant to the portion of the

Nisqually Valley on the east side of the river.

5.6.1 County-Wide Planning Policies

Pierce County adopted County-Wide Planning Policies in 1992 (Pierce County 1992, amended in

1996) in response to GMA goals that the comprehensive plans of adjacent jurisdictions be

consistent with one another. Issues addressed include affordable housing; agricultural lands;

economic development; education; fiscal impact; historic, archeological, and cultural

preservation; natural resources; open space; protection of environmentally sensitive lands; siting

of regional public capital facilities; transportation; and urban growth areas. The Pierce County

County-Wide Planning Policies generally reiterate GMA goals intended to guide development of

comprehensive plans prepared by each jurisdiction in the county.

5.6.2 Comprehensive Plan

Pierce County adopted its comprehensive plan under GMA in 1994, replacing the County’s 1962

Generalized Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan is a policy document to guide the
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

5-10 Chapter 5 Plans and Policies

County’s growth and future land use decision-making. The plan consists of nine specific

elements addressing land use, rural, housing, transportation, utilities, capital facilities, economic

development, environment including historic preservation, and community plans. GMA requires

that all development regulations and public expenditures on facilities and services by Pierce

County be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

5.6.3 Shoreline Master Program

All marine shorelines and the shorelines of larger streams and associated wetlands in Pierce

County are regulated by Pierce County’s Shoreline Management Regulations (Title 20). These

regulations implement the goals and policies of the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program, by

applying specific designations to each portion of the shoreline. The regulations designate all

lands on the Nisqually delta that are waterward of the existing dikes as Natural and remaining

lands comprising the surge plain as Conservancy. The Natural designation is intended to

preserve dynamic natural systems in a manner relatively free of human influence and minimize

alterations to natural characteristics that make such shorelines unique and valuable. The

Conservancy environment is intended to protect, conserve, and manage natural, historic, and

cultural resources to ensure continued public recreational benefits and sustained resource

utilization.

5.6.4 Land Use Regulations

Development in Pierce County is regulated through Title 18 of the County Code. Applicable

sections of the Code include Zoning (18A), development regulations on Critical Areas including

wetlands (18E), and natural resource lands including agricultural land (18I). The upper northeast

portion of the Nisqually delta is zoned “Rural 10" by Pierce County, which permits a variety of

uses including residential at low to moderate densities.

The Pierce County Wetlands Ordinance requires natural stream buffers between 25 and 150 feet

(Pierce County Public Works and Utilities 1997). The Nisqually River’s designated buffer width

is 150 feet. Lakes not urban in character are subject to a 35-foot buffer requirement (Pierce

County Planning and Land Services 1993).

Pierce County designated critical fish and wildlife habitats as critically important through

Ordinance 21.18. The ordinance is based on Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps produced

by WDFW (Pierce County Public Works and Utilities 1997). Endangered or threatened species

are to receive buffers of 100 feet from habitat areas or 1,000 feet from an identified species. 
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others 6-1

Chapter 6. Compliance, Consultation, and

Coordination with Others

6.1 Compliance

In undertaking the Proposed Action, the Service must comply with a number of Federal laws,

Executive Orders, regulations, or other guidance pertinent to a Federal action. These are listed

and summarized in Appendix D.

6.2 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. 

6.2.1 Public Outreach

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

Planning Update mailings, and Federal Register notices.

6.2.1.1 Public Meetings / Open Houses

Date and Location of Outreach: July 25, 1996; Scoping Meeting, Lacey, Washington.

Purpose: To inform the public on habitat management concerns, solicit comments, and

encourage participation in the planning process. 

Number of Non-Service Participants: 30

Audience: Public

Topics Discussed: 

(1) Background Information: February 1996 flood, administrative site planning, and

the Refuge System’s goals. 

(2) Key Habitat and Public Use Issues: Habitat management concerns within the

diked area, solicited comments on key management issues, identified partners. 

Date and Location of Outreach: November 18 and 19, 1997; Open Houses, Lacey and Tacoma,

Washington.

Purpose: To present an informal opportunity to all participants to learn about and comment on

the CCP process.

Number of Non-Service Participants: 151

Audience: Public
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

6-2 Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others

Topics Discussed: 

(1) Values, Vision, and the Service’s Role: Draft Refuge goals, Refuge purposes and

existing activities, role of Nisqually NWR, concerns about the future of Nisqually

NWR. 

(2) Major Issues Discussed: Changing the mix of habitat types at Nisqually NWR

(eight draft alternatives presented), trail access and configuration, waterfowl

hunting, Refuge expansion and acquisition, PWC use/disturbance and conflicts

with other users, sanctuary areas, exotic species control, river restoration,

environmental education, reforestation, special designated areas, croplands and

haying, fishing access, boating, and cultural resources.

6.2.1.2 Workshops

Date and Location of Outreach: May 13, 1998; Grassland Workshop, USFWS Nisqually NWR,

Olympia, Washington.

Purpose: To review historic and current grassland conditions and develop recommendations for

improving grassland wildlife habitat. 

Number of Participants: 8

Audience: Local and regional USFWS professionals, representatives of Ducks Unlimited and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, plus a volunteer and former biologist. 

Topics Discussed: Topics included grassland and shrubland objectives and strategies, noxious

weed control, freshwater wetlands management, and monitoring methods. Several field site

visits were conducted. 

Date and Location of Outreach: June 2, 1998; Public Use Workshop, Service Western

Washington Office, Lacey, Washington.

Purpose: To gather input for the planning of future public use, recreation, and education

programs on the Refuge.

Number of Non-Service Participants: 65

Audience: Representatives of local groups or organizations with specific interest in public use,

recreation, and education programs on the Refuge.

Topics Discussed: Workshop attendees participated in one of the following six focus groups in

which they discussed topics specific to these groups: (1) boating and kayaking; (2) hunting and

fishing; (3) hiking, photography, and birdwatching; (4) outdoor recreation providers and

planners; (5) tourism; and (6) environmental education.

Date and Location of Outreach: June 29-30, 1998 and June 3, 1999; Estuarine and Freshwater

Wetland Workshops, USFWS Nisqually NWR, Olympia, Washington.

Purpose: To review historic and current habitat conditions, wildlife use, and management

activities to develop recommendations for future restoration and management of estuarine and

freshwater wetlands. 

Number of Participants: 15-18
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others 6-3

Audience: Local and regional FWS professionals; ENSR consultants; scientists from the

Universities of Washington and Wyoming; and representatives from Ducks Unlimited, Fisheries

and Oceans Canada, Environmental Protection Agency, Montgomery Water Group, and

University of Puget Sound.

Topics Discussed: Estuarine wetlands: lack of juvenile salmonid habitat and Brown Farm Dike

influences including tidal loss, marsh erosion, and sediment loss. Freshwater wetlands: low

quality habitat conditions due to deep water with low flow, reed canary grass, and vegetation

succession. Several alternatives for habitat restoration, management, and monitoring as well as

public access issues were discussed. 

6.2.1.3 Planning Update Mailings

The Service published six Planning Updates and one Issues Workbook as part of the 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.

Planning Updates: 

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

Issues workbook :

November 1997

6.2.1.4 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 Environmental Impact Statement for the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. For this, a second Notice of Intent was published in the

Federal Register on February 9, 2000.

6.2.2 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. The first took place on May 6, 1996 in

Olympia, Washington in which approximately 45 people attended. The second took place on
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

6-4 Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others

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

it relates 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. 

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

Fort Lewis, Weyerhaeuser, 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. Fort Lewis was given the opportunity to

comment on the internal review draft of the CCP/EIS.

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

The Council includes more than 20 key partners and citizen participants. The following is a list

of meeting dates:

November 19, 1999

May 18, 2001

August 17, 2001

April 19, 2002

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. The following is a list of

meeting dates:

January 29, 1998

November 9, 2000

April 17, 2001

May 1, 2001

May 17, 2001

September 14, 2001

October 5, 2001

6.2.3 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. The following is a list of meeting dates:
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others 6-5

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
Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

6-6 Chapter 6 Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others

This page intentionally left blank.