LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Glossary of Terms

Appendix B Distribution List

Appendix C References

Appendix D Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

Appendix E Nisqually NWR Species Lists

Appendix F Plan Implementation

Appendix G Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Action

Appendix H List of Preparers

Appendix I Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Appendix J Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary

Appendix K Land Protection Plan

Appendix L Wilderness Review
 
Appendix A

Glossary of Terms
 
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AFB Air Force Base

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BOD biological oxygen demand

BRT Biological Review Team

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

cfu colony-forming units

dB decibel

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DEA Draft Environmental Assessment

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DoA Department of the Army

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT Washington State Department of Transportation

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DU Ducks Unlimited

EA Environmental Assessment

EE environmental education

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU evolutionary significant unit

FR Federal Register

FTE full-time equivalent

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Global Information System

GMA Growth Management Act

GPS Global Positioning System

HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering

Record

HB House Bill

HUD Housing and Urban Development

I-5 Interstate 5

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

MHHW mean higher high water

MHW mean high water

MLLW mean low low water

MOU Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

mph miles per hour

NA Nisqually Agriculture (zoning designation)

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NGOs non-government organizations

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGDV National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMML National Marine Mammal Laboratory

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRTF Nisqually River Task Force

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

OFM Washington Office of Financial Management

ORV off-road vehicle

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PDR Purchase of Development Rights

PGFSPDC Ad-Hoc Pacific Groundfish Fishery Strategic Plan Development

Committee

PHS Priority Habitats and Species

ppt parts per thousand

PRISM Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring

PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council

PUNA Public Use Natural Area

PWC personal watercraft

RA Research Activity Management

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCW Revised Code of Washington

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS)

SHB State House Bill

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SoC Species of Concern

SPI Superintendent of Public Instruction

SUP Special Use Permit

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

TM Thematic Mapper

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UGA Urban Growth Area

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WAC Washington Administrative Code
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area

YCC Youth Conservation Corps
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

2. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Achievement Strategy. See Strategy.

Adaptive Management. Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in

management plan. Analysis of results help managers determine whether current management

should continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions.

Alluvial. Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing water.

Alternative. 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40

CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals

and contributing to the System mission (draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Amphipod. Any of a large order of small, usually aquatic crustaceans with a laterally

compressed body (for example, beach fleas).

Anadromous. Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to fresh

water to breed.

Basin. A region drained by a river system. 

Benthic. Refers to organisms associated with the bottom of the sea, lake, or river. 

Biological Diversity. The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which

they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus is on indigenous species,

biotic communities, and ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity.

Bivalve. Common term for pelecypods, members of the Mollusca in which the hard parts are

composed of 2 sections fitting together to enclose a space that contains the soft part of the

organism. 

Brown Farm Dike. The approximately 5-mile long dike that was built in the late 1800s and

early 1900s to convert salt marsh areas into farmland by preventing saltwater inundation.

Carrying Capacity. The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat or

area.

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40

CFR 1508.4).
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Class A Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited

distribution or are unrecorded in the state and that pose a serious threat to the state.

Class B Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited

distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state and that pose a serious threat to that region.

Class C Noxious Weed. Any other noxious weed.

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the

sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603

FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future

conditions of the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and management direction for the

refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the

System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Concern. See definition of “Issue.”

Cover Type. The present vegetation of an area.

Cultural Resources. The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past.

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to

identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project

site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to

determine eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service

Manual 614 FW 1.7).

Delta. The alluvial deposit at the mouth of a river. 

Demersal. Organisms living at or near the bottom of a sea or lake but having the capacity for

active swimming. 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., fire)

or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight).

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their

associated non-living environment.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats

and basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely.

Endangered Species (Federal). A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or

extirpated in Washington within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue.

Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or

depleted to a significant degree.

Environmental Assessment (EA). A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action,

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40

CFR 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A detailed written statement required by section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Epibenthic. Pertaining to the environment and conditions of organisms living near the water

bottom.

Estuarine. Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partly enclosed

by land but have some access to the open ocean and are diluted by freshwater. 

Estuary. The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area where the tide

meets a river current. 

Euryhaline. Organisms that are tolerant of a wide range of salinity. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for

which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Forb. A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, a columbine.

Gastropod. Any of a large class of mollusks, usually with a univalve shell or no shell and a

distinct head bearing sensory organs, such as snails and slugs. 
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Gill Net. A type of fishing net utilized by commercial, tribal, and occasionally recreational

fishing operations. These nets are the center of much controversy due to the high incidence of

by-catch associated with their use.

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that

conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Type. See Vegetation Type.

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions

and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems.

Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Intergrade. An individual occurring on the boundary between adjacent subspecies and which

possesses intermediate characters or traits. 

Introgression. The spread of genes of one population into the gene pool of another by

hybridization and backcrossing. 

Inversion. A state in which the temperature of the air increases with increasing altitude and

keeps the surface air and pollutants down. 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a Service initiative,

opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses,

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition) (Draft Service Manual

602FW 1.5).

Lacustrine. Pertaining to, or living in, lakes or ponds.

Landbird. A category of birds that obtains at least part of their food from the land and nest in

mainland areas (though some can also be found on islands). Landbirds include raptors and

songbirds among others.

Management Alternative. See Alternative.

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back.

Minimal Critical Staffing. The core staffing needed at Nisqually NWR to meet minimum

resource needs, approved by the Service pre-CCP.

Mission Statement. Succinct statement of a unit’s purpose and reason for being.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over

time.

Mysids. A group of crustaceans, also known as opossum shrimps, that feed upon small

zooplankton.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies, including

the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental

information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate

NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water

within the System.

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of

the Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction;

all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife

ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Under the

Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to develop 15-year

Comprehensive Conservation Plans for all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act

also describes the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. The mission is to administer a national network of

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the

fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.

Native Species. Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem.

Nematodes. Non-segmented roundworms of the phylum Nematoda. They range widely is size

and can be free-living or parasitic. 

Neritic. Pertaining to the marine zone between low tides and the edge of the continental shelf, a

depth of roughly 200 m. A neritic environment supports marine organisms, also described as

neritic, that are capable of surviving in shallow water with moderate exposure to sunlight.

Nisqually Reach. Portion of south Puget Sound extending northwest from DuPont Wharf,

including Nisqually River delta, to the southern end of Case Inlet at Johnson Point. 

Nisqually River Dike. The portion of the Brown Farm Dike that is located along the Nisqually

River.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or

host of serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States,

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes

disease or had adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the

agriculture and commerce of the Untied States and to the public health.

Objective. An objective is a concise target statement of what will be achieved, how much will be

achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives

are derived from goals and provide the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives

should be attainable and time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to the extent possible.

If objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively (Draft Service

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Obligate Species. Species that require a specific habitat type or plant species for their existence. 

Oligohaline. Pertaining to water having low salinity, 0.5-3 ppt for brackish or 17-30 ppt for sea

water.

Opisthobranchs. Members of a subclass of gastropods containing such groups as the sea hares

and nudibranchs.

Palustrine. Freshwater wetlands that are less than 2 meters deep at low water. They do not

include areas regularly impacted by waves or part of a bedrock shoreline. They are familiarly

known as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, prairies, and small shallow ponds. 

Passerines. See songbirds. 

Pelagic. Referring to organisms that inhabit open waters of the oceans or large lakes.

Personal Watercraft. Personal watercraft (PWC) are small vessels that use inboard motors

powering water jet pumps. They are known by such trade names as Jet-ski, Waverunner, and

Sea-Doo. Personal watercraft are high performance vessels, designed for speed and

maneuverability and are often used to perform stunts. They typically have loud 50 - 100

horsepower engines and are capable of traveling more than 60 mph.

Pinniped. A suborder of carnivores that are marine mammals, have flippers, and eat mostly fish

and marine invertebrates (e.g., sea lions, seals).

Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of

all layers of vascular species in a climax community.

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental

influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and

rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant community (e.g., Sitka spruce).
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Polychaetes. Any of a class (Polychaeta) of chiefly marine annelid worms (such as clam

worms), usually with paired segmental appendages, separate sexes, and a free-swimming

trochophore larva. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best achieve

the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the

significant issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Species. Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

believe require protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. 

Priority species include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) species or

groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a specific area or

statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of

recreation, commercial, and/or tribal importance.

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the core planning

team. It includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them.

Purpose(s) of the Refuge. The purpose of a refuge is specified in or derived from the law,

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or

administrative memorandum establishing, authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or

refuge subunit.

Raptor. A category of carnivorous birds, most of which have heavy, sharp beaks, strong talons,

and take live prey (e.g., peregrine falcon, bald eagle).

Refuge Goal. See Goal.

Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service

Manual 602 EW 1.5).

Rhizomes. A rootlike stem growing horizontally below the surface. The rhizome is used for

food storage and can produce roots and shoots. 

Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems;

including streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils

which have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology,

“riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For

example, riparian vegetation includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a

stream and directly influenced by the stream.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Riverine. Freshwater wetlands and deepwater habitats within a channel containing periodically

or continuously moving water. It includes wetlands with primarily or mostly submerged

vegetation but does not include those wetlands with mostly emergent vegetation or shrubs and

trees. This habitat encompasses a river or stream, its channel, and the associated aquatic

vegetation. 

Seabird. A group of birds that obtain at least some food from the ocean by traveling some

distance over its surface. They also typically breed on islands and along coastal areas. Seabirds

include gulls, alcids, pelicans, albatrosses, storm-petrels, and cormorants, among others.

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory.

Spionids. A type of polychaete.

Step-down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to

implement management strategies identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Strategy. A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques

used to meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Study Area. The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. For

purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within the currently approved Refuge

boundary and potential Refuge expansion areas. See page 3-1 for more details.

Sublittoral. Relating to or describing an organism living immediately below low-tide level.

Subsidence. Movement to a lower level or elevation.

Surge Plain. A type of riparian forest flooded during high tides and freshwater storm events

from up-river. 

Threatened Species (Federal). Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of

their range.

Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in

Washington within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat

degradation or loss continue.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the American people.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Vegetation Type, Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type. A land classification system based upon

the concept of distinct plant associations.

Vision Statement. A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit,

based primarily upon the System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).
Appendix B

Distribution List
 
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

INDIVIDUALS

Abreau, Daisy & Joe

Adams, Bill

Adams, Keith

Ahearn, G.B. & M.

Aitken, Kevin

Alaimo, Julie

Aldrich, Glenn

Allen, Chris

Allen, Donna L

Alvestad, Carey D.

Ambrose, Jerry & Jessie

Anderson, Bruce C.

Anderson, Jon

Anderson, Kenneth A.

Anderson, Laurie

Anderson, Lee D.

Anderson, Susan

Anderson, Todd D.

Angle, Bob & Ilene

Atkins, Rodney

Atkinson, Doug

Attwood, Larry E. & Linda L.

Attwood, Sally J.

Axelson, Elisabeth & Robert R.

Baarslag, Ralph & Carrie

Babare, George M.

Babare, Robert M.

Babare, Robert S.

Bacak, Joyce E. & Walter L.

Bailey, Robert and Sally

Baird, Charles R.

Baker, Doug

Balcom, Mabel I.

Banker, Naida

Baratz - Trustees, Julius & Lois

Barber, Pat

Bartlett, Arthur

Bateson, Don

Batker, Nell & Kenneth E.

Bednar, Ray & Glenda E.

Begley, Jerry

Bell, Brooke

Bellona, Larry

Belting, Dan

Benghart, Richard

Bennet, John & Lizlie

Berg, Lucille

Bernard, Rebecca

Berry, M. K.

Bielefield, Beth

Biggerstqaff, Mike and Ruth

Bjork, Barry

Black, Jeffery S. & Connie M.

Black, Sharon

Blakely, Archie

Blanchard, Dale & Michelle

Blencoe, Lucille M.

Bock, Thais

Boden, David W.

Boesche, Chris

Bolding, Richard

Bontemps, Helen & Jeff

Borgford, Norma J.

Borley, Clarence A. Trust

Bosworth, Donna

Boudman, Rock

Boulet, Angelle

Boyer, Margot

Brady, Patricia M.

Braget Trust 

Braget, Ken

Brazel, Chuck

Bressi, Paul M.

Brewer, Larry

Bridges, Theresa Maisell

Brigham, Jim

Brigs, Dorris

Brineman, Scott

Brooks, Norma

Brough, Roger D.

Brown, Arthur E.

Brown, Bob & Peggy

Brown, Garry

Brown, James C.

Brown, Sue

Buckley, Patrick

Bruder, Russ & Teresa

Buckner-Rother, Sherry

Budack, Marietta E.

Buffo, Gary

Buis, Sharon

Bullington, Pam

Burton, Carol

Busler, Cindy

Butler, Ann T.

Cabaniss, Vicki

Cadenhead, Jimmie W.

Cahoon, Jennifer

Campbell, Lois M.

Campbell, Robert J.

Carleton, Kenneth

Carpenter, Lanny & Linda

Carr, Shelley

Carter, David E. & Ursula E.

Casner, Hubert

Chamberlain, Jessie M.

Chambers, Chuck

Char, P.

Chase, Pamela L.

Chojnowski, DAniel & Patricia

Christoffer, Jerold F.

Christy, George & Arlene

Christy, Robert

Chumbly, Edward W.

Churilla, Robert J. & Glenda F.

Cirrito, Carolyn B.

Citrak, Micheal

Clapper, John & Cecil

Cleaver, Marcie

Clement, Kendall S. & Maribeth

Clinton, Jon P.

Cole, Clara M.

Collins, James R. & Jodi K.

Coloff, June M.

Cook, Thomas A.

Cooper, Mary Jane

Cooper, Ruby M.

Coots, Dean E.

Corkum, Ellsworth E.

Cornette, Loretia

Corwin, Alan & Robin

Crabb, Bob

Cragin, Vera

Crihfield, Carol

Crouse, Carl L.

Cummings, M. A.

Curda, Verne

Curtis, Richard

Darroch, Dave

Davidson, Glen E. & Gwen

Davis, Joanne

Davis, Karin K.

Davis, Scott A.

Dawes, Janet

Dazell, Michaele

Dean, Mary Louise

Debes, Jan D.

Deckman, Jill

Derickson, Douglas

Dethoper, Paul & Melinda

Deyoe, Dick

Dibiase, Paul

Dion, Linda

Dixon, Jerry & Carrie

Do, Sang V.

Dock, Jerald & Jacqueline

Doering, Aaron M. & Amy L.

Dolkiewicz, Christina

Donally, Elfriede H.

Doolittle, George

Duncan, Rachel & Beth

Dunkin, Kristie

Dunson, Kayleen
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

DuVal, Jerry & Joyce

Earl, Lonita M.

Earles, Robert & Karen

Early, Jim

Eberling, Marshall E.

Ella Dickson & John Patterson

Ellis, Randy H.

Ellison, Dennis

Elmgren, Lloyd & Lucille

Elwess, Gene & Annie

Ely, Vincent C.

Emerson, Vicki

Emery, Nancy

Engle, Stan & Helen

Era, Brandee

Erickson, Curt

Erickson, Mark

Evans, William & Kathleen L.

Evenson, Joseph R.

Fabing, Keith

Faires, April

Farler, Thomas T. & Lovey

Farone, Steven M.

Farrow, John

Ferguson, Ann

Fisk, Janet

Fiske, Winnifred

Flynn, Margaret E.

Foote, Tom

Ford, Donald

Fortune, Bruce

Frank, Willie

Franzen, Woody

Fraser, Doug

Freelund, Ed

Freeman, Hazel

Friend, Vic D.

Fries, Mary A.

Froelicher, Julie

Frost, Helen

Fuller, Len

Gable, Adrian L.

Galitelo, Gary

Galitelo, Peter D Trust

Garrison, Eric

Gatzka, Joseph A.

Gendron, Kathy

Getz, D.

Gibbs, Carl W. & Laura L.

Gibson, Terrill

Giddings, Roxy & William

Gillmer, Jean

Gilmer, Thelma

Ginal, Tom

Glastetter, Howard & Colleen

Gleason, James T. Gleason

Glecker, Jan

Godina, Lisa M.

Goheen, Bryan C. & Sylvia

Goldstein, Larry

Goodwin, Robert B.

Gordon, Robert H. & Patricia M.

Gorgen, Diane

Gors, Merle & Diane

Gottfriedson, Henry F. & Alison K.

Grassi, Nello L.

Graves, Lynn

Green, Norma

Green, Robert Jr. & Kimberly S.

Greer, Preston

Greetham, Jim

Grettenberger, John

Griffin, Betty

Griffin, Scott & Liesa

Griffith, Tom

Gudger, David & Pam

Guy, Robert

Gwill Ging & Joanne Stellini

Gwynn, Sylvia

Haiducek, Timothy J. & Joy E.

Haigh, Rick

Halverson, B.

Hamilton, Betty

Hamilton, Janeen

Hammersmith, Ed

Hancock, Margaret

Handly, Jeff

Hang, Chanlip Man

Hardy, Wayne

Harmon, Bill

Harmon, Carolyn

Harmon, George

Harold, George F.

Hauf, Herbert & Mary Lou

Hayden, David

Hayes, Penny

Healy, Tom

Hecht, Edith

Heilman, Paul

Helligay, Thom

Hellman, Glenn

Hempleman, Christine

Hennessey, Diane

Herman, Steve

Herz, Warren

Hilburn, Maury

Hill, Dorothy H.

Hill, William K.

Hines, James

Hines-Bergstrom, Kenna

Hitchcock, Tim

Hobbs, Michael C. & Jana M.

Hocutt, Gene

Hoenig, Elizabeth

Hoffman, Jim & Allison

Hollison, Robert V Jr. & Kathleen M

Holmstrom, Carol J.

Hook, Judi

Horner, Carol

House, Chris

Huber, P. J.

Hudon, Mary

Hukari, Molly

Hull, Olive

Hunter, Rhonda

Hvidsten, David A.

Hyatt, Goldie

Ida, Jane Taylor

Ikari, Larry

Ingersoll, James W.

Inman, E. Leon

Inman, J.R.

Inman, Ronald B.

Jacobsen, Lawrence

Janny, Jay & Alice

Jarrett, Sue

Jauquet, Joseph

Jennings, Hugh

Jensen, Richard & Sylvia

Jensen, Ros

Jensen, Roy

Jewell, Sharon

Jiby, Barbara

Johnson, Brenda

Johnson, Lee E.

Johnston, Mark

Jones, Allan

Jones, Deke

Jones, Kathleen M.

Jones, Vicki

Jonietz, Carla

Joy, Charles

Jungbluth, Donna

Kaminsky, George

Kara Larsen & Greg Tolbert

Kareta, William

Kavanaugh, Rob

Kavouse, An

Kawasaki, Joy

Keith, John & Donna

Kelley, Mark

Kelley, Phil

Kelly, Janet

Kenney, Ed

Kildahl, Ken
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Killgrove, Gerald & Linda

Kimmel, Alan G.

Kinch, Karen

Kingley, Susan

Kinzner, Delores

Kirkland, Dave

Kirkland, Kirk

Kivlehan, Jim

Knudson, Gary

Knudson, James C.

Knuth, Beverly

Knutsen, Mack & Merrily

Knutsen, Robert

Koch, Joyce P.

Kohlenberg, David & Elizabeth

Kramer, Jan

Krett, Paul

Krishnamoorti, Signa R.

Kuciej, Walter

Kyle, Paul

Lantor, Judy

Larry, Kenneth M. & Martha V.

Larson, Betty

Larson, Bill

Larson, Lawrence A. Jr. & Joyce A.

Lathrop, Elizabeth L.

Law, Laurie

Leaman, Dennis H.

Lears, Mark

Lee, Heidi L.

Lees, Suny

Legwold, Rocky L.

Leigh, Joann M.

Leland, Norman C.

Lewis, Karen

Leyser, Selig

Lind, Ellis

Link, Charles

Lipscomb, Jean C.

Lisi, Mark

Lockhard, Frank

Lockwood, Cal

Loeliger, David & Elenaor

Loftin, Fred E. & Claire

Loncar, Paul

Lonergan, George A.

Long, Harold G. & Dianne L.

Longley, Jim

Losey, David L. & Sharon

Loucks, Tina

Lovik, Dena L.

Luhr, Pat

Luhr, William R.

Lund, W. R.

Lundin, Steve

Lundstrom, Steve

Lux, Mary

Lyle, E.B

Lyon, Micheal & Judy

M. Piper and C. Costello

Magee, Kathleen R.

Manos, Henry & Elaine

Marston, Sally

Martin, Dick & Dawn

Martin, John & Ann

Martin, Kathy

Martin, Mary

Martinsen, Fred

Mathews, Maureen H.

Matteson, Jon Micheal

McBride, Delbert

McBride Jr., Albert E.

McBride, Malcolm

McCall, Tom

McCartan, Clarice

McCartan, Richard

McDonald, Eiko & Mark

McFarland, Martha

McGillis, John W.

McGovern, Maryanne

McIntosh, Brian

McMahon, Virginia

McNett, Dave

McPhail, John

McQuarrie, Linda

McQueen, Bruce & Patricia

McW ha, Sandra

Mead, Frank

Meadows, David

Melby, Ward

Mellish, Wiley & Nina

Metcalf, Alan W.

Meyer, Bryant

Meyer, Herbie

Meyer, Wallace K.

Meyers, John

Miceli, Tom

Michelson, Fred

Mikkelson, Earl

Miller, David J.

Miller, Jackie

Miller, Kathleen

Miller, Leslie

Miller, Rhett

Mills, Liz & Scott

Minelga, Antanas

Mitchell, Lea

Miville, Mary E.

Moe, Gregory C.

Moore, Greg

Morello, Roberta

Moreno, Connie

Morhous, Mike

Morrison, Scott

Morton, Randy

Mostue, Brian

Mowrey, Robert

Mr. Kluh

Muller, Gretchen

Murphy, Thomas J.

Murray, Regina

Nastansky, Ray

Nastansky, Tony

Neff, Sylvia

Nell Fuller & Stephen Green

Nelson, Jim & Carolyn

Nelson, Lin

Newcomb, Tim

Newling, Charles J.

Newman, Barbara

Nickel, H. K.

Nightingale, Celia

Noonan, Michael F.

Norbeck, Jim

Nordstrom, Gail

Nowlin, Victor S.

Nunze, Cindi

Nye Jr., Timothy S.

O'Brien, Mike

O'Herin, Charles

Obert, Bill

Oestreich, Troy D.

Ogle, Barbara

Olmstead, Judy

Ortiz, Marjorie P.

Ortman, Dave

Ost, Janna

Overby, Anne

Paradise, Peggy

Patterson, Pauline M.

Pauler, Walter & Karen

Pavey, Art

Pearson, J. Norris

Pelela, Micheal E.

Pelletier, Greg

Peters, Jo

Peterson, Barb

Phillips, Douglas S.

Picha, Thomas

Pickel, Tommie H.

Pigman, Dean A.

Pittmon, JoAnn & Douglas

Potter, Irene

Potter, Jack

Powell, Don & Bobbie
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Pruske, Jim

Pudists, Marc

Puhich, Julie

Quinn, Eric

Rader, Aaron

Ragland, Isabel

Ramsey, Richard

Ramsey, Robert & Georgia

Rants, Rozanne

Ray, Emily

Raymant, Cory

Reale, Dom

Redfield, Cavour E.

Reehling, Meghan

Reese, Gary Fuller

Reese, Katie

Reintjes, Maurine

Rice, Donna H.

Rieck, Carroll

Riffero, George

Rippe, Rodney

Rivers, Richard

Roa, Linda

Rocks, Jan

Rodgers, Linda

Rodrick, Elizabeth

Rodrigues, Dennis & Irene

Rodriguez, J.F.

Rogers, Betsy

Rogers, Velma

Roller, Jon & Gail

Roper, Robert

Rotter, Carl

Runneite, Creighton

Rzesutek, Richard

Salterbach, Lucy

Salva, Angela

Samuels, Jack & Key

Sayonc, Betty L.

Sayonc, Helen F.

Schaap, Tina

Schanzenbach, Rosalie

Schaufler, Paul G.

Scheuerman, Carl & Alexis

Schilter, Fred & Patty

Schlorff, Eric

Schmauder, Allen

Schmidt, Harold

Schmidt, Kirt

Schneider, Roland V.

Schols, Herman & Jean

Schols, Mariann J.

Schooley, Tom

Schoyen, Kris

Schrempp, Gwen

Schrum, Joseph A. & Devon L.

Schulz, Carol

Schwartz, David P.

Scott, Sarah

Scully, Mike

Seldomridge, Charles B.

Sheldon, Dyanne

Shelton, C. D. & K. E.

Sheridan, Carole

Sherman, Jack E. & Carrie L.

Shiner, Clyde

Shiotani, Tessie

Shlichta, Rena

Shoal, Robin

Simmons, Brian

Simmons, Ron

Singh, Bajinder

Skjervold, Tom

Slaby, Sandia

Smit, Julie L.

Smith, Curtis W.

Smith, Joann M.

Smith, Kathy

Smith, Kay

Smith, Peggy

Smith, Robert

Smith, Stan & Dory

Snell, Lloyd E. & Rose M.

Solen, Hermine

Sparkman, Ronald E.

Sperl, Duane A.

St. Germain, Matt

Stannard, Daphne

Stedman, Gary

Stenklyft, James A.

Stevens, Bert & Sandy

Stevens, Bob

Stevens, Greg

Stevens, Naki

Stewart, Dave & Eve

Stewart, Will

Stines, Dorothea

Stoker, Gerrit

Strasser, Charles A.

Strong, James

Stuffler, Sonja

Sturdivant, Andy

Sumner, Ray & Ann

Superfisky, Joe

Sutton, Robert E. & Cristan C.

Suzuki, Nobuya

Swan, Nick

Swenson, Walter

Szymarek, Dick

Tanaka, Frances

Tate, John & Juanita D.

Tate, Larry

Taylor, Gary & Janet

Taylor, Jeanette M.

Taylor, Peter

Terry, Gwen

Theoe, Florence

Thiel, Sherry

Thom, Ronald M.

Thomas, Erick P.

Thomas, Nancy

Thompson, Jan E. & Pamela B.

Thompson, Mary

Jess J. Thomsen Trust

Thomsen, Paul & Margo

Thomsen, Torden

Threatt, Lorena E.

Tihonovich, Phil

Tobiason, Fred

Todd, Tom

Tossey, Mel

Toth, William J.

Townley, Ves

Townsend, Caroline

Trautman, Len

Traver, Bob Traver

Trivett, Joslyn

Troje, Fran

Tsiokas, Chris

Tucker, Gabriel

Tuggle, Jim

Tuig, Frances

Umphaus, Maillian

Umphres, Ralph

Unsoeld, Jolene

Usher, Ann

Vadai, Christine

Van Deman, Richard

Van Sweringen, Anne

Velikanje, Joan M.

Verhei, Bruce

Vicencio, Louise

Vikan, Victor

Vo, Tri M/Trinh, Dunk K

Vogel, Sally

Vogt, Bernard

von Tobel, Irene

Wackerle, Louise

Wahl, Barry

Walker, Lester B.

Walkling, Lee

Wallin, Beverly

Walter, Karen

Ward, Dana

Ward, Hugo F.
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Warnell, Fred

Warner, Angela

Warren, Dorothy G.

Watson, Elizabeth

Watson, Rita

Watts, Kelly L. & Susan A.

Weaver, Vita

Weaver, William

Weber, W.H.

Webster, Jeff

Wechsler, Stewart

Weeks, Bonnie & Dennis

Weidman, Monica

Weihs, Katherine

Weixler, Gigi

Weller, Ryan

Wells, Tony

Weppler, Eric H.

Wertz, Susan

Westberg, Ray

Westerfield, Jack

Westervelt, John & Marilyn

Westlin, Bertha L Estate

Whitesell, Ted

Whitson, Samuel A. & Ardith

Wick, Rolf F.

Wicklund, Rey

Wiedebush, David G.

Wilhelm, Laura

Wilkinson, Charles

Willette, Jon F. & Guila K.

William B. & Jane T., Trustees

Williams, Daphne L.

Williams Family

Williams, Marcella

Williams, S.

Willis, Debbie

Wilson, Jim

Wing, David

Winskill, Edward

Wisti-Peterson, Deborah

Wohlers, Lanette

Wolf, Mark

Wood, Barbara

Wood, Debra & Brandon

Wood, Francis C.

Woodin, Robin

Woodman, John & Carol

Wooster, P. & G.

Wunder, Laurie

Wysocki, Dori

Yankers, Madlain

Yarab, Ken

Yates, Dave & Dolly

Yi, Greg

Yochem, Gene & Karen

Young, Bob

Young, Rickey M. & Gisela

Yung, Marjorie

Zarp, Byron

Zens, Roberta

Zeutenhorst, Phillip L.

Ziemke, Jack A.

Zink, Dave
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Name Organization

LOCAL LIBRARIES

Borden, Norma William G. Reed Library - Shelton

Diaz, Carlos The Evergreen State College Library

Heriot, Angus Olympia Public Library

Johnson, Andrew University of Washington - Suzallo Library

Stroup, Liz Timberland Libraries

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

Frenkel, Robert E. Oregon State University

Friesema, Paul Northwestern University

Goodwin, Peter University of Idaho, College of Engineering

Grue, Chris University of Washington -School of Fisheries

Hacker, Sally D. Washington State University

Henkels, Mark Western Oregon University

Humann, Stan University of Washington - Packwood Exp. Forest

Karr, James R. University of Washington

Kellogg, Brieanne Western W ashington University

Kessel, C. Stadium High School

Martinson, A.D. Pacific Lutheran University

Maun, Chris Yelm School District

McGregor, Jean The Evergreen State College

Meyers, John Lydia Hawk Elementary School

Mr. Pill Sumner High School

Patterson, Margaret Tacoma Public Schools

Paulson, Dennis R. Slater Natural History Museum, University of Puget Sound

Prehmus, Cyndie University of Washington

Reynolds, Arlene Garfield Elementary School

Simenstad, Charles University of Washington

Svendsen, Claus Skagit Valley College

Wiedeman, Al The Evergreen State College

ORGANIZATIONS

All Marine Inc All Marine, Inc.

Arctic Connections Arctic Connections

Arrabito, John Washington Duck Hunters, Inc.

Austin, Will Austin PNW

Beck, Stephen Green Pages

Belt Ent Inc Belt Ent., Inc.

Bennett, Matt The Coot Company

Borde, Amy B. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory

Breithaupt, Ph.D., Stephen Foster Wheeler Environmental

Bridges, Teresa M. Puyallup International

Broadhurst, Ginny Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team

Burco, Robert A. Recreational Access

Calambokidis, John Cascadia Research Collective

Calhoun, Rory Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation

Campbell, Ken Tahoma Outdoor Pursuits

Canning, Douglas Nisqually Reach Nature Center

Casbolt, Clark Outdoor Odysseys

Chaun, Melissa M.P. Williams Consultants

Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Black Hills Chapter

Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Rainier Chapter

Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Seattle Chapter
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Tahoma Chapter

Conservation Chair Grays Harbor Audubon Society

Conservation Chair Mountaineers - Seattle Branch

Conservation Chair Mountaineers -Tacoma Branch

Conservation Chair Mountainers - Olympia Branch

Conservation Chair Sierra Club - Cascade Chapter

Corp Of Latter Day Saints Corp. of Latter Day Saints

Creveling, Jenni The Watershed Company

Dahl, Barry Black River Canoe Club

Davison, Robert P. Wildlife Management Institute

Dean, Tom People for Puget Sound

Dearborn, Amy Shannon & Wilson

Dewey, Bill Taylor Shellfish Farms

Dodge, John The Olympian

Dunwiddie, Peter The Nature Conservancy

Dwyer, Tom Ducks Unlimited

Erler, Eric Capitol Land Trust

Fields, Robert National Wildlife Refuge Association

Ford, Gloria Tuesday Trotters

Garner, John Tacoma Nature Center - Snake Lake

Greenhagen, Liz Citizen Environmentalists

Hansen, Ingrid Sierra Club - Sasquatch Chapter

Hawkins, Chris South Sound YMCA

Hedrick, Wanda Nisqually Delta Association

Hirsche, Evan National Wildlife Refuge Association

Howard, Esther Cooke Scientific Services

Howdeshell, Tom South Sound Native Plant Society

Hull, Daniel Nisqually Reach Nature Center

Industrial Forestry Industrial Forestry

Jacobs, James A. All Marine, Inc.

Jess Thomsen, Inc Jess Thomsen, Inc.

Kauffman, Kris Water Rights, Inc.

Khangaonkar, Tarang Foster Wheeler Environmental

Koch, Daniel E. Gig Harbor Sportsman's Club

Krause, Fayette The Nature Conservancy of Washington

Kuntz, John Olympic Outdoor Center

Le Beuf Ltd Partnership Le Beuf Ltd. Partnership

Levings, Colin Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Lippy, Karen Hood Canal Watershed

Liske, Steve Ducks Unlimited

Local Manager IFA Nursery IFA Nursery

Manning, Sandra Society of Wetland Sciences

McAllister Creek Homeowners Assn McAllister Creek Homeowners Association

Miller, Doug Nisqually River Basin Land Trust

Miller, Pamela K. Alaska Community Action on Toxics

Minbashian, Jasmine Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project

Montgomery, Bob Montgomery Water Group

Mortensen, Hugh The Watershed Company

Mottram, Bob Tacoma News Tribune

Moulton, Peter Nisqually River Council

Moyer, Lee Pacific Water Sports

Myers, Dick Shapiro & Associates

Myers, Doug Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Myers, James & Liz Medicine Creek Farm

Myrick, Bob PSRC Enhancement Committee

National Audubon Society Audubon Society - National

Neilsen Pacific Ltd Neilsen Pacific Ltd.

Nielsen Pacific Ltd Neilsen Pacific Ltd.

Nisqually Delta Association Nisqually Delta Association

Nisqually Plaza Rv Park Nisqually Plaza Rv Park

Nisqually Sportsmen Club Nisqually Sportsmen Club

Norman, Christi WetNet

Nourse, Steve & Barbara Affirm Able Action Association

Nye, Dick Trout Unlimited

Oliver, Simone Talasaea Consultants

Olsen, Ann Talasaea Consultants

Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society Audubon Society - Olympic Peninsula Chapter

Owner Or Manager Texaco Food Mart Texaco Food Mart

Papouchis, Chris Animal Protection Institute

Paulus, Stuart ENSR International

Property Tax Department Puget Sound Energy/Electric

Quarterman, Phil Wett Pacific, Inc.

Raines, Charlie Sierra Club - Seattle Chapter

Ranson, Timothy Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team

Resources NW Consultants Resources NW Consultants

Rink, Mary Tahoma Outdoor Pursuits

Shanewise, Steve The Coot Company

Sider, Kathy Seattle Aquarium

Skanes, Bob Pierce County Sportmen's Council

Smith, Andrea North Star Design

Smith, Colleen Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Soper, Curt The Nature Conservancy of Washington

Stensland, Gary Harding Lawson & Associates

Stephei, Merle NW Outdoor Center

Stromstad, Ronald Ducks Unlimited

Stumpf, Herb Tahoma Land Conservancy

Summers, Ron Lonestar Northwest

Torden, Thomsen Inc Torden, Thomsen Inc.

Tredennick, Cam Resources Law Group, LLP

Valentine, Brett Puget Sound Pilots

VanAssche, Terese TerraSolutions

Warner, Mike Heritage Resource Center

Wash Div Inv Corp Wash Div. Inv. Corp

Washington Ornithological Society Washington Ornithological Society

Way, Bill The Watershed Company

Wetlands Restoration Specialist Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting

Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co.

Whitaker, Dan Northwest Landing

White, Jacques People for Puget Sound

Williams, Mike SER NW

Wiltermood, Bob Wiltermood Assoc., Inc.

Wise Use Movement Wise Use Movement

Wishart, Bruce People for Puget Sound
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

CITY AGENCIES & GROUPS

Biles, Stan City of Olympia - Mayor

Clarke, Dennis City of DuPont - Planning Dept.

Crooks, Drew Lacey Museum

Cunningham, Mary City of Everett

Cuoio, Greg J. Lacey City Hall

Cushing, Richard C. City of Olympia

DeCillo, Victoria Olympia Public Works Dept

Dennis-Perez, Lisa City of Lacey Stream Team

Eadie, William Metro

Executive Director City of Lacey Chamber of Commerce

Folsom, Pam Olympia Chamber of Commerce

Haub, Andy City of Olympia

Krill, Judy City of DuPont - Mayor

Osgood, Ralph C. City of Tumwater

Planner City of Lacey Community Development

Rivas, Adam City of Yelm

Sackrison, Graeme Lacey City Council

Sheler, Jim City of Lacey Parks & Recreation

Svobda, Paul Tacoma City Light

Talley, Donna City of Seattle

Waite, Leanna Metroparks Tacoma

Wulfsberg, Carla City of Tumwater Museum

Young, Debbie Tacoma Public Utilities

COUNTY AGENCIES & GROUPS

Beale, Perry Thurston County, Noxious Weeds

Bertolotto, Chrys Pierce County Environmental Services

Bowles, Mason King County Dept. Developmental and Environmental Services

Council Members Pierce County

County of Thurston Thurston County, Building Permit Center

Dickman, Bob Pierce County Public Works/Utilities

Hartley, Jamie King County

Kearsley, Janet Island County Public Utilities District

Ladenburg, John Pierce County Executive

Meehan-Martin, Paul Snohomish County Public Works

Morrison, Steve Thurston Reg. Plan.Council

Nygaard, David Thurston Conservation District

O'Sullivan, Kevin J. Thurston County Commissioners

Oberquell, Diane Thurston County Commissioners

Pierce County Fire District #3 Pierce County Fire District #3

Ritz, Crilly Snohomish County Public Works

Rose, Katherine Pierce County Planning

Smith, Deborah Pierce County Conservation District

Stevenson, Shanna Thurston County Planning Dept.

Vanderburg, Susie Thurston County Stream Team

Watkins, Nancy Tacoma/Pierce County Conv. Vis. Bur.

Welter, Michael Thurston County Parks & Recreation

White, Gordon Thurston Community & Environmental Programming

Wolcott, Jan Pierce County Parks & Recreation Dept.

Wolfe, Cathy Thurston County Commissioners
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

STATE AGENCIES & GROUPS

Barela, Martin J. Government Information Services - Wilson Library

Bates, Ken Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Berry, Helen Washington Dept. of Natural Resources -Aquatic Resources

Blocher, Stu Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Brittell, Dave Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Wildlife Mgt. Program

Cadwell, Jim Oregon Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Carman, Randy Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Habitat Program

Caudill, David Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Christiansen, Gunnar Washington Parks & Recreation Commission

Cornu, Craig Oregon South Slough Reserve

Costello, Rich Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Craig, Steve Washington Dept. of Ecology -Southwest Regional Office

Dahmer, Paul Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Dickes, Betsy Washington Dept. of Ecology

Duffy, Bob Washington Dept. of Ecology - Southwest Regional Office

Ehinge, Stephanie Washington Dept. of Transportation

Ehlers, Paula Washington Dept. of Ecology

Freymond, Bill Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Gabel, Betsy Washington Division of Tourism

Garrett, John Skagit Wildlife Management Area

Gersib, Dick Washington Dept. of Ecology

Gibilesco, Chuck Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Hill, Margaret Washington Dept. of Ecology

Koss, Bill Washington State Parks

Kraege, Don Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Llanso, Roberto Washington Dept. of Ecology

Lorenzo, Judy Washington Dept. of Transportation

McAllister, Kelly Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Moody, Sandy Washington Dept. of Natural Resources - NHP

Nisqually River Council Washington Dept. of Ecology

Patnude, Sue Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Region 6

Pratt, Cynthia Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Rubey, Jane Washington Dept. of Ecology

Savage, Meredith Washington Dept. of Transportation, Enviromental Affairs

Schirato, Greg Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Simmons, Don Washington Parks & Recreation Commission

Skirletz, Jeffrey Washington State Dept. Fish & Game - Fish Program

Smitch, Curt Washington Executive Policy Office

Steege, Ted Washington Dept. of Social Health Services

Tillett, Gene Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Trefry, Stu Washington Conservation Commission

WA State Dept of Natural Resources Washington Dept.of Natural Resources

Wagner, Paul Washington Dept. of Transportation

Ziegler, Bob Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Zillges, Gordon Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Zink, David Washington Dept. of Ecology

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, STAFF &

Baldwin, Key Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe

Dorner, Jeanette Nisqually Indian Tribe

DuBlanica, Keith Skokomish Indian Tribe

Kautz, Georgiana Nisqually Indian Tribe
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Lear, Cathy Hoh Indian Tribe

Scott, Stephanie Nisqually Indian Tribe

Tribal Chair Nisqually Indian Tribe

Tribal Chair Puyallup Indian Tribe

Tribal Chair Squaxin Indian Tribe

Troutt, David Nisqually Indian Tribe

USA-Trust For Brown, Thomas Trust For Brown, Thomas

USA-Trust For Martin Sampson Trust For Martin Sampson

USA-Trust For Nisq Ind Tribe Trust For Nisq Ind Tribe

USA-Trust For Theresa Bridges Trust For Theresa Bridges

Walter, George Nisqually Indian Tribe

Wells, Richard Nisqually Indian Tribal Office

Wright, Terry NW Indian Fisheries Commission

FEDERAL AGENCIES & OFFICES

Ahlstrand, Gary NPS - Mount Rainier National Park

Baca, Tom USFWS Region 2 Planning Coordinator

Badgely, Anne USFWS Regional Director's Office

Berg, Ken USFWS Western W ashington Fish & W ildlife

Bohan, Carolyn USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System

Brown, Julie S. Ft.Lewis

Cameron, Forrest USFWS Refuge Supervisor

Castineira, Wendy USFWS Division of Realty, Regional Office

Chaney, Marty USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Clark, Dick US Environmental Protection Agency

Coleman, Rick USFWS External Affairs Office

Concannon, Julie USFWS Regional NEPA Coordinator

Cook-Tabor, Carrie USFWS Fisheries Assistance Branch

Crawford, Phillip Ft. Lewis

Curry, Nancy USFWS Turnbull NWR

Davis, Phyllis Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Drescher, Dave USFW S Refuge Planning-Cartography/GIS

EIS Filing Section US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities

Gibbs, Harold USFWS Region 4 Planning Coordinator

Gloman, Nancy USFWS Chief, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy

Hagedorn, Gary USFWS Mid-Columbia River NWR

Harrison, Jean USFWS Division of Visitor Services, Region Office

Houghten, Chuck USFW S Refuge Planning

Hughes, Greg USFW S Hanford Reach National Monument

Kentula, Mary E. US Environmental Protection Agency

Kilbride, Kevin USFW S Refuge Biology

Kolar, Margaret USFWS San Francisco Bay NWRC

Larson, Tom USFWS Region 3 Planning Coordinator

LaTourette, Joe Pacific Coast Joint Venture

Lehmann, Gary US Army Corps of Engineers

Lew, Leslie USFW S CA/NV Refuge Planning

Lowe, Roy USFWS Oregon Coastal NWRC

Martin, Robert US Army Corps of Engineers

Marxen, Mike USFW S Pacific NW Refuge Planning

Mauermann, Susan Dept. of Energy - Environmental Planner

McAuliffe, Chris US Army Corps of Engineers

McCorkle, Loretta USFW S CA/NV Refuge Planning

Melanson, Tom USFWS Ridgefield NWRC
APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

Name Organization

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Moore, Patty Ft. Lewis

Moore, Stephen USFWS Refuge Operations Support - Regional Office

Nunn, Mike USFWS Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR

Olson, Norm USFWS Region 5 Planning Coordinator

Osugi, Cathy USFW S Land Protection Planning

Parks, Virginia USFWS Cultural Resources Branch

Paveglio, Fred USFW S Refuge Biology

Peterson, Don USFWS NEPA Coordinator

Rauch, Paul USFW S Engineering

Rice, Ken USFWS Region 7 Planning Coordinator

Rogers, Ralph Thomas US Environmental Protection Agency

Roy, Anne USFW S National Conservation Training Center Library

Ryan, Kevin USFWS Washington Maritime NWRC

Shepard, Randy USDA - Gifford Pinchot Nat'l Forest

Sheppard, Cathy USFWS Division of Realty, Regional Office

Sherrod, Brian USGS - Geo. Science Dept.

Smith, Carey USFWS - Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs

Spratt, Michael USFWS Region 6 Planning Coordinator

Stenvall, Charlie USFWS Willapa NWRC

Storm, Linda US Environmental Protection Agency

Tanner, Curtis USFWS Watershed Protect. & Restoration

Van Hoesen, Bill Ft. Lewis

Walkinshaw, Eric NPS - Mount Rainier National Park

Webber, Ralph USFWS Tualatin River NWR

Wesley, Dave USFWS - Migratory Birds & State Programs

Worthy, Belinda USFWS - SMAO

Zimmerman, Tara USFWS - Migratory Birds & Habitat Pograms

WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE 

Locke, Gary Governor of Washington State

Reed, Sam Secretary of Washington State

Swecker, Dan Washington State Senator - District 20

Fraser, Karen Washington State Senator - District 22

Bush, Roger Washington State Representative - District 2

Alexander, Gary Washington State Representative - District 20

DeBolt, Richard Washington State Representative - District 20

Hunt, Sam Washington State Representative - District 22

Romero, Sandra Washington State Representative - District 22

U.S. CONGRESS

Cantwell, Maria United States Senator for Washington State

Murray, Patty United States Senator for Washington State

Inslee, Jay United States Representative - District 1

Baird, Brian United States Representative - District 3

Dicks, Norm United States Representative - District 6

McDermott, Jim United States Representative - District 7

Dunn, Jennifer United States Representative - District 8

Smith, Adam United States Representative - District 9
Appendix C

References
 
Appendix C: References Page C-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

APPENDIX C: References

Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in Western

Washington. J Wildl. Manage. 63(4):1162-1171.

Aitkin, J.K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats to anadromous salmonids of the Pacific Northwest: a

literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division

and Puget Sound Program, Lacey, Washington. 

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east

central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the

western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

Beacham, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the Strait of Juan de

Fuca, British Columbia. Fishery Bull. 84:77-90.

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiler, ed. 

Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

372 pp.

Berge, B., C. Burkhart, C. Joslin, K. LaGory, K. LaGory, R. Oakley, and H. Ulmschneider. 1974. Fall birds of the

Nisqually Delta: population fluctuations, habitat utilization and hunter harvest. Pp. 113-160 in The

Nisqually Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

Bishop, S. and A. Morgan. 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and

Puget Sound areas of Washington State. 

Blue Water Network. 2000. Jetski noise and pollution to continue in National Parks.

www.earthisland.org/bw/npsjetskipress.shtml. 

Boersma, P.D. and J.K. Parrish. 1998. Threats to Seabirds: Research, education and societal approaches to

conservation. In Avian Conversation (J.M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks, eds.). Island Press, California.

Bortleson, G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at

eleven major deltas in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-617.

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Boule, M.E., N. Olmsted, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetland resources and evaluation of wetland

management in Western Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. Shapiro and

Associates. 102pp.

Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in Eastern Canada. Bulletin

(Fisheries Research Board of Canada) 200. 24pp.

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pp. 109-156 in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J.

Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Bowman, K.J. and A.M. Dobos. 1976. Distribution and abundance of some small mammal species on the Nisqually

National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, Washington. In Contributions to the natural history of the

Southern Puget Sound Region, Washington. 

Boyer, M., ed. 1993. The Delta Plan. 
Appendix C: References Page C-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull.

13:110-116.

Bratton, S.P. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconii formes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 13:124-128.

Brix, R., G.J. Husby, G. Roberts, and B. Ward. 1974. 1974 report of juvenile salmonid seining in Grays Harbor and

tributary rivers and electro-fishing and river seining in the Chehalis River in the vicinity of Washington

Public Power Supply System’s Project Numbers 3 and 5. Washington Department of Fisheries, Fisheries

Management Report. Olympia, Washington.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington. 2000. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Brueggeman, J.J. 1992. Oregon and Washington marine mammal and seabird surveys. Final report prepared by

Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue Washington for U.S. Department of Interior, Mineral Management

Service, Los Angeles, California. 

Burg, M.E. 1984. Habitat changes in the Nisqually River delta and estuary since the mid-1800s. Master's thesis,

University of Washington, Seattle. 113pp.

Burg, M.E., D.R. Tripp, and E.S. Rosenberg. 1980. Plant associations and primary productivity of the Nisqually Salt

Marsh on southern Puget Sound, Washington. Northwest Science. 54(3):222-236.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Cons. 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of motor boats and personal watercraft on flight behavior over a colony of Common Terns.

Condor. 100:528-534.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge,

Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21.

Burton, N. H. K., P. R. Evans, and M. A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of

a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. Conserv. 77:193-201.

Caicco, S.L. 1989a. Public Use Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually surge plain, Nisqually national Wildlife Refuge,

Washington. In fulfillment of Order No. 13530-89-00135. The Nature Conservancy. 16pp.

Caicco, S.L. 1989b. Research Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually Delta, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,

Washington. The Nature Conservancy. 18pp..

Calambokidis, J., S.M. Speich, J. Peard, G.H. Steiger, D.M. Frye, and L.J. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget

Sound marine mammals and marine birds: population, health, and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA

Technical memorandum, NOS OMA18. 159 pp.

California Air Resources Board. 1998. Proposed regulations for gasoline spark-ignition marine engines, draft

proposal summary. Mobile Source Control Div., State of Cal. Air Resources Board. p. 2.

California Boating Accident Report of 1994. 1995. California Department of Boating and Waterways. 

Canning, D.J. ed. 1986. Nisqually River Management Plan: final environmental impact statement. Shorelands and

CZM program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 371 pp.

Cassidy, K.M., M.R. Smith, C.E. Grue, and R.E. Johnson. 1997. The role of Washington State's national wildlife

refuges in conserving the State's biodiversity. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. 

86pp.
Appendix C: References Page C-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

CH2M Hill. 2001. Interim Brigade Combat Team Transformation, Ft. Lewis, WA. Environmental Assessment, U.S.

Army Ft. Lewis, CH2M Hill. July 2001. 

CH2M Hill, EDAW Inc., BEAK Consultants Inc., Office of Public Archaeology, and Nisqually National Wildlife

Refuge staff. 1978. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge conceptual plan. Prepared for the U. S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 81pp.

Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer. 1982. Wild mammals of North America-biology, management, and economics. 

City of Lakewood. 2000. City of Lakewood Comprehensive Plan FEIS. Lakewood, Washington.

City of Olympia. 1995. Wellhead Protection Plan for McAllister Springs, Volume 2, City of Olympia Water

Comprehensive Plan. 

City of Tacoma. 2001. City of Tacoma General Land Use Plan (GLUP). Adopted 12/11/01. Tacoma, Washington.

Cole, D. N. and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State University,

Logan, Utah.

Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis, and S.R. Foley. 1982. Distribution, abundance and outmigration timing of chum and

chinook salmon fry in the Skagit salt marsh. Pp. 153-163 in Salmon and trout migratory behavior

symposium (E.L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, eds.). School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington.

Consoer, Townsend, and Associates. 1974. Engineering report, Nisqually River basin water quality management

plan. Water Resource Inventory Area No. 11, consolidated basin planning area No. 13-11-6. 145pp.

Cook-Tabor, C. 1999. Fishes of the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western

Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division, Lacey, Washington. 65pp.

Copping, A. 1990. Puget Sound update, first annual report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget

Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. ??pp.

Cordell, J.R., C. Tanner, and J.K. Aitkin. 1999. Fish assemblages and juvenile salmon diets at a breached-dike

wetland site, Spencer Island, Washington 1997-98. University of Wahington School of Fisheries, Fisheries

Research institute FRI-UW-9905, Seattle Washington. 

Cordell, J.R., H. Higgins, C. Tanner, and J.K. Aitkin. 1998. Biological status of fish and invertebrate assemblages in

a breached-dike wetland sites at Spencer Island, Washington. Fisheries Research Institute, University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington. Report Number: FRI-UW-9805. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the

United States. For: Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131pp.

Cronan, J. M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468.

Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Sashin Creek, Southeastern

Alaska. Fisheries Bull. 74:897-923.

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. Resource

Publ. 188. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C. 62pp.

Davis, S., C. Hansen, and L. Hofstad. 1997. Nisqually Reach non-point remedial action, final project report.

Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department, Olympia, Washington. 76pp.
Appendix C: References Page C-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White, and C. Tanner. 2000. Skagit Estuary Restoration Assessment-Puget Sound,

Washington. 20 pp.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts and

Mitigation Measures. 

DeLong, A.K. and J.T. Schmidt. 1998. Literature review: effects of recreation on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Draft

report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fallon, Nevada.

DoA (Department of the Army). 2002. Fort Lewis Environmental Baseline. Fort Lewis, WA. January 2002. 

Dorcey, A.H.J., T.G. Northcote, and D.V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser marshes essential to salmon? Westwater

Lectures No. 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 

Drut, M S. and J.B. Buchanan. 2000. U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird

Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Portland,

Oregon. 

EDT Workgroup. 1999. Factors affecting salmon production in the Nisqually Basin: summary of an EDT analysis

using fall chinook as an indicator, February, 1999 - draft. The Nisqually EDT Work Group. 

Emmett, K. 1995. Watershed approach to water quality management. Needs assessment for the South Puget Sound

water quality management area. Washington State Department of Ecology. 42pp.

Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and

invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: species life history summaries. NOAA/NOS Strategic

Environmental Assessments Division, ELMR Report Number 8, Rockville, Maryland. 

ENSR. 1999. Nisqually National Widlife Refuge - Habitat Management and Restoration Project. Hydrodynamic and

Sediment Transport Model Development, Final Report. ENSR Document Number 2334-001-800(2). 

Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems. 1987. Puget Sound environmental atlas, Volume I. Prepared for the U.S. EPA,

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and U.S. Army corps of Engineers. 157pp.

Forsman, L.A., D.E. Lewarch, M.J. Madsen, and L.L. Larson. 1998. McAllister Springs transmission line, Thurston

County, Washington, cultural resource assessment. 23pp.

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in

Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus

confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4):133-143.

Frenkel, R.E. and J.C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River salt marshes: retrospect and prospect. Final

Report to U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA. 142pp.

Fresh, K.L., D. Rabin, C. Simenstad, and et al. 1979. Fish ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of South

Puget Sound, Washington. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute FRI-UW-7904. 229pp.

Friedman, J.M. 1987. Proposed change in boundary for Nisqually Delta National Natural Landmark. Washington

State Dept. Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 15pp.

Gibilisco, C. and G.M. Filipek. 1998. The economic benefits of wildlife-watching activities in Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program. 15pp.

Giebelhaus. 1998. Shoreline Maser Program for the Thurston Region, Prepared by Thurston County Regional

Planning Council. May 15, 1990.
Appendix C: References Page C-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Gilbert, C.H. 1912. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the U. S. Fish

Commission. 32:57-70.

Goetz, F. 1991. Bull trout life history and habitat study. Master's Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

49pp.

Gunderson, D.R., D.A. Armstrong, Y.B. Shi, and R.A. McConnaughey. 1990. Patterns of estuarine use by juvenile

English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Estuaries. 13(1):59-71.

Guth, C. 1998. The Brown Farm, 1904-1974. The Evergreen State College. 21pp.

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, and S.H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on song

occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk. 111:28-37.

Harris, S.W. and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of water-level manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology.

44(2):331-343.

Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180. 

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and D.W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State recovery plan for the

western pond turtle. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 66pp.

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pp. 311-393 in Pacific salmon life

histories (C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds.). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British

Columbia.

Healey, M.C. 1982. Timing and relative intensity of size-selective mortality of juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)

during early sea life. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39(952-957.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in California.

Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and

Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet,

MA. 

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. No date. National Recreation Trails, Information and Application

Procedure. U.S.D.I. 

Hesselbart, W.B. 1977a. Summary narrative mini-report for Dungeness, Nisqually and San Juan Islands National

Wildlife Refuges, July 1, 1975 - December 31, 1975. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Olympia,

Washington. 5pp.

Hesselbart , W.B. 1977b. Annual narrative report, calendar year 1976. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Olympia,

Washington. 17pp.

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and Teratogenicity of Environmental Contaminants to Bird Eggs. Reviews of

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 115. Pp 41-50.

Hoffman, R. and K. Kearns. 1997. Wisconsin manual of control recommendations for ecologically invasive plants.

Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report - effects of human activity and watercraft on wintering birds

in South San Diego Bay. USFWS report.
Appendix C: References Page C-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dept.

Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212 pp.

Iwata, M. and S. Komatsu. 1984. Importance of estuarine residence for adaptation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus

keta) fry to sea water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41:744-749.

Izaak Walton League of America. 1999. Caught in the Wake: The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of

Personal Watercraft.

Josselyn, M., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public access and wetlands: Impacts of recreational use.

Technical Report #9. Romberg Tiburon Centers, San Francisco State University, California. 

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus serrator. Wildfowl

15:222-231.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. Wildl.

Manage. 48:561-567.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in

running waters: a method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey.

Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. in Wildlife-habitat

relationships in Oregon and Washington (D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil, eds.). Oregon State University

Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kennedy, W.A., C.T. Shoop, W. Griffioen, and A. Solmie. 1976. The 1975 crop of salmon reared on the Pacific

Biological Station experimental fish farm. Fisheries and Marine Service (Canada) Technical Report 665,

Nanaimo, B.C., Canada. 20pp.

Kirby, R.E., J.K. Ringelman, D.R. Anderson, and R.S. Sojda. 1992. Grazing on national wildlife refuges: do the

needs outweigh the problems? Trans. 57th N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 611-626.

Kjelson, M.A., P.F. Raquel, and F.W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall-run juvenile chinook salmon, Onchorynchus

tshawytsca, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pp. 393-411 in Estuarine comparisons (V.

S. Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York.

Klein, L.R. and J.P. Reganold. 1997. Agricultural changes and farmland protection in western Washington. J. Soil

Water Conserv. 52(1):6-12.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a

wildlife refuge. Conserv. Biol. 9(6):1454-1465.

Klotz, S.A., S.J. Madsen, P.A. Miller, and D.F. Smith. 1978. A survey of terrestrial organisms on the Nisqually river

delta, Washington. Final report, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. Reprinted by

Cascadia Research Collective. 166pp.

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and Marr. N.V. 1991. Responses of an avian scavenging guild to anglers. Biological

Conservation. 56:195-205.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp. 51-69 in Wildlife and Recreationists

(R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage.

48:999-1004.
Appendix C: References Page C-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rich, F.B. Samson, and R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the

United States. Wilson Bull. 100:272-284.

Knutsen, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational

staging area. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:290-296.

Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus

malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the North Puget Sound Region. Washington Department

of Wildlife. (Draft).

Kunze, L.M. 1994. Preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater wetland vegetation in western

Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. 120pp.

Kunze, L.M. 1984. Puget trough coastal wetlands; a summary report of biologically significant sites. Washington

Department of Natural Resources. 8pp.

Lamb, A. and P. Edgell. 1986. Coastal fishes of the Pacific Northwest. 

Lane, R.C. and W.A. Taylor. 1996. National water summary-wetland resources: Washington. United States

Geological Survey. Pp. 393-398.

Larson, R.A. 1995. Balancing wildlife viewing with wildlife impacts: a case study. Pp. 257-270 in Wildlife and

Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Laughland, A. and J. Caudill. 1997. Banking on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of National

Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of economics, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 118pp.

Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O'Toole, D.E. Penttila, and K.C. Stick. 1997. 1996 forage fish stock status report. Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington, Stock Status Report

No. 98-1. 

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and

Oregon. 

Levings, C.D. and D.J.H. Nishimura. 1997. Created and restored marshes in the lower Frasier River, British

Columbia: summary of their functioning as fish habitat. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 32:599-

618.

Levy, D.A. and T.G. Northcote. 1981. The distribution and abundance of juvenile salmon in marsh habitats of the

Fraser River Estuary. Westwater Research Centre, Technical Report Number 25, the University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Levy, D.A., T.G. Northcote, and G.J. Birch. 1979. Juvenile salmon utilization of tidal channels in the Fraser River

Estuary, British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre, Technical Report Number 23, The University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Love, R.M. 1991. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. 

Mace, P.M. 1983. Predator-prey functional responses and predation by staghorn sculpins (Leptocottus armatus) on

chum salmon fry (Oncorhynchus keta). Doctoral dissertation. British Columbia University, Vancouver,

British Columbia. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biol.

Conserv. 33 :53-63.
Appendix C: References Page C-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74.

Maia, E. 1994. Noxious weeds: a guide to invasive non-native plants. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2001. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan. Manomet Massachusetts.

Second Edition. May 2001.

Manzer, J.I. 1969. Stomach contents of juvenile Pacific salmon in Chatom Sound and adjacent waters. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 26:2219-2223.

Martin, L.C. 1999. Caught in the wake. The environmental and human health impacts of personal watercraft. Izaak

Walton League of America. 20pp.

Mason, S., E. Ratajak, J. Schuett, and P. Searles. 1974. Vegetation of the Nisqually Delta. Pp. 33-64 in The

Nisqually Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon Spotted Frog. Wash. Dept.

Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 38pp.

McConnell/Burke, D. Clarke, R. Untermann, J. J. McCament, and P. Calthorpe. 1995. Comprehensive plan, City of

Dupont. 60pp.

Meffe, G.K. and C. R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. 

Menashe, E. 1993. Vegetation management: a guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Washington

Department of Ecology Publication #93-31. 

Milius, S. 1998. "Oh, not those jet-ski things again!". Science News 154(7):107.

Miller, J.A. 1993. Juvenile chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawyscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in natural and created

estuarine habitats: foraging and daily growth. Master's Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington. 84pp.

Mitchell, D.L. 1981. Salt marsh reestablishment following dike breaching in the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 171pp.

Mitsch, William J., Gosselink, James G. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nordstrom Reinhold. New York.

Momot, J. 1993. Summary report, Contaminants investigations at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 1985 to 1988.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. 56 pp.

Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships. 

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in

winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2):401-410 .

Morton, J. M., R. L. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and movements of

American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:390-400.

.Moulton, P. ed. 1994. Nisqually River notes. Bimonthly publication of the Nisqually River Council. 7(1):6 pp.

Mullen, J.W., A. Rockhold, and C.R. Chrisman. 1992. Life histories and precocity of chinook salmon in the midColumbia River. Progressive Fish-Culturist. 54:25-28.

Muratori, A., Jr. 1968. How outboards contribute to water pollution. The Conservationist Vol. 6, No. 6.
Appendix C: References Page C-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely,

S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and

California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443pp.

Naiman, R.J. and J.R. Sibert. 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in the Nanaimo Estuary: III. Importance

of detrital carbon to the estuarine ecosystem. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:504-520.

National Association of Counties. 2000. National Association of Counties homepage. Available at:

http://www.naco.org/counties/counties/index.cfm. Date accessed 11/1/2000.

National Park and Conservation Association. 1997. Preliminary briefing materials and resources on personal

watercraft and their use in the National Park System. 

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries: 16(2) 4-21.

Nelson, L.M. 1974. Sediment transport by streams in the Deschutes and Nisqually river basins, Washington,

November 1971-June 1973. Open file report. Tacoma, Washington. 31 pp.

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2001. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan. Thurston County, WA.

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. In preparation. Draft Nisqually Multi-Species Management Plan.

Nisqually Indian Tribe. 1995. Nisqually Indian Tribe Community Vision Plan. Fall 1995.

Nisqually River Task Force. 1987. Nisqually River Management Plan. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management

Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. 19pp.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1997. Impacts of California sea lions and Pacific

harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAANWFSC Tech Memo-28. Available at: http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm28/mammal.htm. Date

accessed 1997.

North Cascades National Park. 1999. Analysis of appropriateness of personal watercraft in North Cascades

National Park service complex (determination to prohibit personal watercraft). 

Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K. Tsumura. 1979. Feeding relationships and food web structure of lower Fraser

River fishes. Westwater Research Center Technical Report 16. University of British Columbia, Vancouver,

British Columbia. 73pp.

Northwest Landing. 2001. Northwest Landing homepage. Available at: http://www.nwlanding.com. Date accessed

1/10/2001.

Noss, R.F., M.A. O'Conell, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning-habitat conservation

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Nussbaum, R.A., Jr. E.D. Brodie, and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. 

Nysewander, D.R. and J.R. Evenson. 1998. Status and trends for selected diving duck species examined by the

Marine Bird Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife . Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound W ater Quality

Action Team, Olympia, Washington. 2:847-867.

Odum, W.E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a South Florida estuary. Sea Grant Technical Bulletin No. 7,

University of Miami Sea Grant Program, Miami, Florida. 162 p. 

OFM. (Office of Financial Management). 2000, 2001. OFM homepage. Available at:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/demographics.htm. Date accessed 11/2/2000, 2/20/2001.
Appendix C: References Page C-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Olson, A.F. 1989. Some aspects of the behavior of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in estuaries. 

Masters Thesis, University of Washington. 146 p.

Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western

Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. 111pp.

O'Tool, M., D. Penttila, and K. Stick. 2000. A review of stock discreteness in Puget Sound herring. A briefing

statement. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Marine Resources

Division, Forage Fish/Shellfish Unit, LaConner, Washington. 

Owens, N. W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14.

Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 1996. 1996 Update, strategic plan, Washington State Component, North American

Waterfowl Management Plan. Focus areas 7-11. 88pp.

Page, G.W. and Jr. R.E. Gill. 1994. Shorebirds in western North America: late 1800s to late 1900s. Studies in Avian

Biol. 15:147-160.

Palsson, W.A., J.C. Hoeman, G.C. Bargmann, and D.E. Day. 1997. 1995 status of Puget Sound bottomfish stocks

(revised). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington,

Report No. MRD97-03. 

Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morison, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000.

Partners in Flight, Conservation of the Landbirds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The

Plains, VA.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:371-380.

Pearce, T.A., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmon in the Nisqually

Estuary, Washington, 1979-1980. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration

staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126.

Phillips, R.C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community profile. U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/24. 85pp.

Pierce County. 1962. Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by Pierce County, 1962.

Pierce County. 1992. County-wide Planning Policies for Pierce County, Washington. Pierce County Planning and

Land Services. June 30, 1992. (Amended 1996).

Pierce County. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County,

Washington. Pierce County Planning and Land Services. September 1993.

Pierce County. 1998. Title 20, Shoreline Management Regulations. Pierce County Planning and Land Services.

Effective 2/2/98.

Pierce County. 2001. Pierce County homepage. Available at: 

http:www.co.pierce.wa.us/abtus/ourorg/parks/cfutures.htm. Date accessed 1/12/2001.

Pierce County Planning and Land Services. 1993. Title 21, critical areas and natural resources lands. 68pp.

Pierce County Public Works and Utilities. 1997. Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Management Committee,

Watershed Characterization. Water Resources Division. 204pp.

Pringle, R.F. 1982. Soil survey of Thurston County, Washington. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service. 283pp.
Appendix C: References Page C-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 1993. Puget Sound Trends. October newsletter. 

PSRC. 2000. Puget Sound Trends, No. D2. January 2000.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1992. The 1992 Puget Sound environmental atlas update. For: the Puget

Sound Estuary Program.

Quiñonez, K. 2001. Estuarine and diked area habitats for Puget Sound waterfowl in relation to dike breach

restoration: a literature review . Draft Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office,

Watershed Protection and Restoration Division, Lacey, Washington. 

Ramsey, G. 1997. Counting birds at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (1986-1994). Unpublished manuscript. 

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of

reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of

reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J. Appl.

Ecol. 31:85-94.

Richter, K.O. 1995. Wetland restoration, enhancement and creation-suggestions based on amphibian habitat

preferences. Draft report. King County Environmental Division, Seattle Washington. 

Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound Basin.

Wetlands. 15(3):305-312.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U. S.

Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, General

Technical Report INT-302.

Riffell, S.K., K.J. Gutzmiller, and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in

avian richness and abundance? Ecol. Appl. 6(2):492-505.

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from

disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No.

1:216-224.

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species.

Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Pp. 231-309 in Pacific salmon life histories. C.

Groot and L. Margolis, eds.). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sargeant, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses; assessment and

management options. Florida Department of Environmental Protection FMRI Technical Report TR. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey,

Results and Analysis, 1966-1999. Version 98.1. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. 

Seto, N. 1998. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National

Wildlife Refuge, 1990-1997. 

Seto, N. 1999. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National

Wildlife Refuge, October 1998-January 1999. 

Shanewise, S. 1996. Nisqually Delta saltmarsh restoration, restoration plan. The Coot Company, Olympia,

Washington. 7pp.
Appendix C: References Page C-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Shepard, B., K. Pratt, and P. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westlope cutthroat and bull trout in the upper Flathead

River basin, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. 85pp.

Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M. Thom. 1990. Temporary residence by juvenile salmon in a restored

estuarine wetland. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 47:2079-2084.

Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M. Thom. 1992. Foraging by juvenile salmon in a restored estuarine wetland.

Estuaries. 15:204-213.

Sibert, J., T.J. Brown, M.C. Healey, B.A. Kask, and R.J. Naiman. 1977. Detritus-based food webs: exploitation by

juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Science. 196:649-650.

Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in

the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364 in Estuarine comparisons (V. S.

Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York.

Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, J.A. Miller, W.G. Hood, and R.M. Thom. 1992. Ecological status of a created

estuarine slough in the Chehalis River Estuary: assessment of created and natural estuarine sloughs,

January-December 1991. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute FRIUW-9206, Seattle, Washington. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River,

Washington. Seattle, WA. 231-241 pp.

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological

Applications. 1:215-225.

Smith, A.E., S.R. Craven, and P.D. Curtis. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments. 

Smith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: impacts and management. Pp. 203-219 in Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller,

K.J. (Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research, eds.). Island Press,

Washington, D.C.

Snow, S. 1989. A review of personal watercraft and their potential impact on Everglades National Park. National

Park Service, Everglades National Park, 1988. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University College,

London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35 pp.

Stalmaster, M.V. 2001. Status of the wintering and nesting Bald Eagle population during 2001 on Fort Lewis,

Washington. U.S. Army Public Works, Fort Lewis Washington. 20pp.

Stevenson, S. 1998. Draft Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge context statement, August 28. Thurston County

Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 45pp.

Stewart, H. 1977. Indian Fishing. Early methods on the northwest coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle,

Washington. 181 p.

Stout, H.A., R.G. Gustafson, W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, D.M. VanDoornik, T.L. Builder, and R.D. Methot. 2001.

Status review of Pacific Herring in Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech.

Memo NMFS-NWFSC-45. 175pp

Suckley and Cooper. 1860. Explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a

railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of War,

in 1853-5, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. Executive

Document Number 56, Volume XII, Book II. Thomas H. Ford, Printer, Washington, D. C.
Appendix C: References Page C-13 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Tacoma-Pierce County. 2001. Tacoma-Pierce County homepage. Available at: 

http://triton.co.pierce.wa.us/edb/html/pierce_employment.html. Date accessed 1/10/2001.

Tanner, C.D. 1999. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge GIS Analysis: the regional context of intertidal habitat

restoration in the Nisqually River Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western W ashington Office. 

Thom, R.M., C.A. Simenstad, R.C. Wissmar, and E.O. Salo. 1985. Nisqually River estuary study design project: an

environmental baseline and monitoring program. Prepared for the Nisqually Tribe. Fisheries Research

Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. 114pp.

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. J. Wildl. Manage. 37:382-389.

Thurston County. 1992. Thurston County County-Wide Planning and Policies, Thurston County, Washington. Board

of County Commissioners. August 16, 1993. 

Thurston County. 1995. Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted April 1995. Amended/Updated 1995, 1996,

1997, 1999, and 2000.

Thurston County. 2001. Thurston County homepage. Available at: http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/thurston/index.htm.

Date accessed 2/9/2001, 6/26/2001, 8/22/2001.

Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 1994. Thurston County critical areas ordinance,

Washington. 179pp.

Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management. 1993. McAllister/Eaton Creek comprehensive

drainage basin plan, final draft. Storm and surface water program, Olympia, Washington. 257pp.

Thurston County Economic Development Council. 2001. Development Council homepage. Available at:

http://www.thurstonedc.com. Date accessed 2/9/2001.

Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department. 1996. the comprehensive parks, recreation, preserve, and trails

plan 2015. Adopted by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners. 55pp.

Thurston County Planning Department. 1992. Nisqually sub-area land use plan and zoning. 66pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1990. Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region. 317pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1997. The profile for Thurston County and the cities of: Lacey, Olympia,

Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm. 190pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1998. The profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of : Lacey,

Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm prepared by Thurston Regional Planning Council.

October 1998.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2000. The Profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of: Lacey,

Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, and Yelm. Prepared by Thurston Regional Planning

Council. October 2000.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2000. The profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of : Lacey,

Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm. 18th edition, October 2000. 

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2-

cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interacton between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and

Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.
Appendix C: References Page C-14 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Ulmschneider, H.M. 1976. A study of the nesting and feeding behavior of five species of swallows on the Nisqually

River Delta, Washington. 

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1999. Management of conflicts associated with non-migratory

(resident) Canada geese in the Puget Sound area. Environmental assessment. April 22, 1999. 

United States Surveyor General. 1853. General land Office Survey Plat, Township 18 North, Range1 West,

Willamette Meridian. 

URS Company. 1979. Weyerhaeuser export facility at DuPont. Final environmental impact statement. 462pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1977. Acquisition of lands for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,

Environmental Impact Assessment, Olympia, Washington. 

USFWS. 1978. Adoption and implementation of management and development plans for the Nisqually National

Wildlife Refuge, Environmental Impact Assessment, Olympia, Washington. 111pp.

USFWS. 1981. Refuge manual RM 1.8, 11.1. 1981 with various updates.

USFW S. 1981b. National Wetlands Inventory map: Nisqually, WA (scale 12:58,000). U.S. Department of the

Interior, Washington DC.

USFWS. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp

USFWS. 1997. Integrating NEPA into Fish and Wildlife Service Activities, Manual. Division of Habitat

Conservation and National Conservation Training Center. 

USFWS. 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington

office, Lacey, Washington. 

USFWS. 1998. ESA Status-Washington State anadromous salmonids-March 1998 and endangered and threatened

marine mammals and sea turtles under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service that may occur

in Washington and Oregon. 2pp.

USFW S. 1998. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species, candidate species and species of concern

which may occur within the vicinity of the proposed Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive

Conservation Plan in Thurston County, Washington. Attachment A. 2pp.

USFWS. 2000. Refuge Manual. 603 FW1.

USFWS. 2001. Birds of conservation concern list (BCC). Draft. 

USFW S. In Preparation. North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral

Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

Waddell, J.E. 1981. Memo to Refuge Manager, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

Walters, G.E. 1984. Ecological aspects of larval and juvenile Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), walleye pollock

(Theragra chalcogramma), and Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) in Port Townsend, Washington.

Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 129pp.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. 1989-1990 Annual report, Air Quality Program. Publications 91-32.

135 pp.
Appendix C: References Page C-15 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Washington State Department of Health. 1997. 1997 annual inventory of commercial and recreational shellfish areas

in Puget Sound. Office of shellfish programs, Olympia, Washington. 35 pp. + 15 maps.

Washington State Game Department. 1971. August 30 News Release. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society

Monograph. 7:

Watt, J.G. 1981. Letter to Mr. R. Kahler Martinson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull

trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington. 

WDFW. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status

review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258pp.

West J.E. 1997. Protection and restoration of marine life in the inland waters of Washington state. Puget

Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series: Number 6.

Whiley, A J. and G.F. Walter. 1996. Investigation of fecal coliform sources within drainage to the Nisqually Reach.

Technical Report No. 2. Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 66pp. 

Whiley, A.J. and G.F. Walter. 1998. Analysis of fecal coliform concentrations in the Nisqually River drainage.

Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 31pp.

White, J. 1997. The loss of habitat in Puget Sound. Report. People for Puget Sound. 26pp.

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118.

Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization,

volume 1 - Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 

Wiltermood Associates, Inc. 1999. Nisqually fish hatchery off-site wetland mitigation at Red Salmon Slough. Year

three monitoring. 

Wiltermood Associates, Inc. 2000. Nisqually/Red Salmon Slough. Inventory and Preliminary Restoration Plan. 

Prepared for Nisqually Indian Tribe.

Wisseman, R.W., S.F.J. Cook, M.E. LaGory, T.A. Pearce, and P.A. Searless. 1978. A survey of the intertidal macrofauna in the vicinity of the proposed Weyerhaeuser/DuPont Deep Water Port and the adjacent Nisqually

Delta. Final Report: May 1978. The Evergreen State College. 

WNHP (Washington State Natural Heritage Program). 1998. Natural community element abstracts, Northern Puget

Trough. Department of Natural Resources. Six abstracts + maps of Nisqually delta. 13pp.

Wood, A. K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest and wildlife population management. Wild. Soc. Bull 21: 91-95.

Zulauf, A.S. 1979. Soil survey of Pierce County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service. 131 pp. + maps.
Appendix C: References Page C-16 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D

Applicable Laws and

Executive Orders
 
Ap pen dix D: App licable Law s & Exe cutive Ord ers Page D-1 Nisqua lly NW R D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Agency Coordination

Executive Order No. 12372, Intergovernmental Review

of Federal Programs. 

Requires that Federal agencies afford other agencies

review of documents associated with Federal

programs.

Human Rights Regulations

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice.

February 11, 1994

Requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of 

projects and policies on minority and lower income

population.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Provides for access to Federal facilities for the

disabled. 

Cultural Resources Regulations

Antiquities Act of 1906 This act authorizes the scientific investigation of

antiquities on Federal land. It prohibits and provides

penalties for unauthorized search for or collection of

artifacts or other objects of scientific interest. The Act

also authorizes the president to establish national

monuments and cultural areas on Federal lands.

Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

States that if the Service proposes any development

activities that may affect archaeological or historical

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

as amended.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act of 1990 (PL 101-601; 25 USC 3001 et

seq.)(NAGPRA)

Regulations for the treatment of Native American

graves, human remains, funeral objects, sacred

objects, and other objects of cultural patrimony.

Requires consultation with Native American Tribes

during Federal project planning.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL

96-95; 93 STAT 722; 16 USC 470aa-47011), as

amended (ARPA)

Protects archaeological resources on public lands.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. 24 May,

1996

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian

sacred sites on Federal lands used by Indian religious

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting

the physical integrity of such sites.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978 (PL 95-

341; 92 STAT 469; 42 USC 1996)

Provides for freedom of Native Americans to believe,

express, and exercise their traditional religion,

including access to important sites.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

(PL 93-291; 88 STAT 174; 16 USC 469)

Provides for the preservation of historical buildings,

sites, and objects of national significance.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665;

50 STAT 915; 16 USC 470 et seq.; 36 CFR 800), as

amended (NHPA)

Requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of

any actions or programs on historical properties.

Biological Resources Regulations

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et

seq.), as amended (ESA)

Provides for protection of plants, fish, and wildlife that

have a designation as threatened or endangered.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(42 USC 4321 et seq) (NEPA)

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for

environmental impacts of Federal actions. 
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Ap pen dix D: App licable Law s & Exe cutive Ord ers Page D-2 Nisqua lly NW R D raft CC P/E IS

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Jan. 10, 2001.

Instructs Federal agencies to conserve migratory birds

by several means, including the incorporation of

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in

Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North American

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans

and guidance documents. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC

661-667e), as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species,

identify species of management concern, and

implement conservation measures to preclude the

need for listing under ESA.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16

USC 668 et seq.)

Provides protection for bald and golden eagles.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA) Provides protection for bird species that migrate across

state and international boundaries.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361

et seq.), as amended (MMPA)

Provides protection to marine mammals

The Clean Water Act of 1972, Section 404 (33 USC

1344 et seq.), as amended

Provides for protection of water quality.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742a-743j) Provides Secretary of Interior with authority to protect

and manage fish and wildlife resources.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 Requires equal consideration and coordination of

wildlife conservation with other water resource

development programs. 

National Natural Landmarks Program (PL 74-292; 36

CFR 62)

Sets forth process for establishment of National

Natural Landmarks.

Hazardous Materials Regulations

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101-380; 33 USC 2701, et

seq.)

Provides oil pollution policies and protections.

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510;

42 USC 9601, et aeq.) (CERCLA)

Provides mechanism for hazardous waste clean up.

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (33 USC

1221 et seq.), as amended

Promotes pollution controls for ships.

Land and Water Use Regulations

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451-

1464)

Protects environmental quality of coastal areas.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd-668ee)

Administration, management, and planning for National

Wildlife Refuges.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 (PL 105-57)

Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966. Requires development of

CCPs for all refuges outside of Alaska.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

Recognizes compatible wildlife-dependent recreation

uses, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and

photography, and environmental education and

interpretation as priority uses of the NWFS.
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Ap pen dix D: App licable Law s & Exe cutive Ord ers Page D-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Executive Order No. 11988, Floodplain Management Provides for the support, preservation, and

enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of

floodplains. 

Executive Order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands Provides for the conservation of the natural and

beneficial values of wetlands and their associated

habitats. 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended Provides for recreation use that is compatible with the

primary purpose of a refuge.

Tribal Coordination

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal

officials in the development of Federal policies that

have tribal implications.

Medicine Creek Treaty Act of 1854 Recognizes Nisqually Indian Tribe’s fishing, hunting,

and gathering rights within their usual and accustomed

areas.
Ap pen dix D: App licable Law s & Exe cutive Ord ers Page D-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E

Nisqually NWR Species List
 
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix E: Nisqually NWR Species Lists

E.1 PLANTS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Trees

Abies grandis Pinaceae grand fir FACUAcer macrophyllum Aceraceae big-leaf maple FACU 

* Acer saccharum Aceraceae sugar maple

Alnus rubra Betulaceae red alder FAC 

Amelanchier alnifolia Rosaceae western serviceberry FACU 

Arbutus menziesii Ericaceae pacific madrone

Cornus nuttallii Cornaceae pacific dogwood

Crataegus douglasii Rosaceae Douglas’s (black) hawthorn FAC 

* Crataegus laevigata cv. Rosaceae Paul's scarlet

* Crataegus x lavallei Rosaceae hawthorn

* Crataegus monogyna Rosaceae common hawthorn

Fraxinus latifolia Oleaceae Oregon ash FACW 

* Ilex aquifolium Aquifoliaceae English holly

Malus fusca [Pyrus f.] Rosaceae Oregon crab apple FAC+ 

Picea engelmannii Pinaceae Engelmann spruce

Picea sitchensis Pinaceae Sitka spruce FAC

Pinus contorta var. c. Pinaceae shore pine FAC-

* Populus alba Salicaceae white poplar

Populus balsamifera Salicaceae black cottonwood FAC 

 ssp. trichocarpa [P. t. ] 

* Populus nigra var. italica Salicaceae Lombardy poplar

Populus tremuloides Salicaceae quaking aspen FAC+

* Prunus avium Rosaceae sweet cherry

Prunus emarginata var. mollis Rosaceae bitter cherry FACU

Prunus virginiana var. demissa Rosaceae choke cherry FACU

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. m. Pinaceae Douglas-fir

* Pyrus communis Rosaceae cultivated pear

* Pyrus malus Rosaceae cultivated apple

Rhamnus purshiana [Frangula p.] Rhamnaceae cascara FACSalix scouleriana Salicaceae Scouler’s willow FAC

* Sorbus aucuparia Rosaceae European mountain ash

Taxus brevifolia Taxaceae pacific yew FACUThuja plicata Cupressaceae western redcedar FAC

Tsuga heterophylla Pinaceae western hemlock FACU-

* Note: * indicates non-native (introduced)
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Shrubs, Brambles & Vines

Acer circinatum Aceraceae vine maple FACU+

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. u.-u. Ericaceae kinnikinnick FACUBerberis aquifolium Pursh [Mahonia a.] Berberidaceae tall Oregon-grape

Berberis nervosa Pursh [Mahonia n.] Berberidaceae dull Oregon-grape FACU

Ceanothus sanguineus Rhamnaceae redstem ceanothos NI

Chaenomeles japonica Rosaceae flowering quince

Chimaphila umbellata Ericaceae prince's-pine

Clematis vitalba Ranunculaceae travelers-joy

Cornus sericea Cornaceae red-osier dogwood FACW

ssp. s. [C. stolonifera var. o.]

Corylus cornuta var. californica Betulaceae hazelnut NI

* Cotoneaster franchetii Rosaceae cv. cotoneaster

* Cytisus scoparius var. s. Fabaceae Scot’s broom

* Euonymus fortunei Celastraceae euonymus

Gaultheria shallon Ericaceae salal FACU

* Hedera helix Araliaceae English ivy

Holodiscus discolor var. d. Rosaceae ocean-spray

* Humulus lupulus Cannabaceae hops NI

Linnaea borealis ssp. longiflora Caprifoliaceae western twinflower FACULonicera ciliosa. Caprifoliaceae orange honeysuckle

Lonicera hispidula var. h. Caprifoliaceae hairy honeysuckle

Lonicera involucrata Caprifoliaceae bearberry honeysuckle FAC

Oemleria cerasiformis Rosaceae Indian plum FACU

Oplopanax horridus Araliaceae Devils'-club FAC

Philadelphus lewisii var. gordonianus Philadelphaceae mock orange

Physocarpus capitatus Rosaceae pacific ninebark FAC+

* Prunus laurocerasus Rosaceae cherry laurel

Ribes divaricatum. var. d Grossulariaceae straggly gooseberry NI

Ribes sanguineum var. s. Grossulariaceae red-flowering current NI

Rosa gymnocarpa var. g. Rosaceae baldhip rose NI

Rosa nutkana var. n. Rosaceae Nootka rose NI

Rosa pisocarpa Rosaceae clustered wild rose FACU

* Rubus discolor Rosaceae Himalayan blackberry NI 

* Rubus laciniatus Rosaceae evergreen blackberry FACU+ 

Rubus leucodermis var. l. Rosaceae blackcap

Rubus parviflorus var. p. Rosaceae thimbleberry FACU+ 

Rubus spectabilis var. s. Rosaceae salmonberry FAC 

Rubus ursinus ssp. macropetalus Rosaceae pacific blackberry FACU

Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra [S. lasiandra] Salicaceae pacific willow FACW+

Salix sitchensis Salicaceae Sitka willow FACW 

Sambucus caerulea Caprifoliaceae blue elderberry FACSambucus racemosa Caprifoliaceae coast red elderberry FACU

ssp. pubens var. arborescens

* Solanum dulcamara Solanaceae bittersweet FAC

* Spiraea x vanhouttei Rosaceae spirea

Spiraea douglasii ssp. d. Rosaceae Douglas' spirea FACW 

Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Caprifoliaceae common snowberry FACU 
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Shrubs, Brambles & Vines (continued)

Symphoricarpos hesperius [S. mollis] Caprifoliaceae creeping snowberry

Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae poison-oak FACU

[Rhus diversiloba]

* Ulex europaeus Fabaceae gorse

Vaccinium ovatum Ericaceae evergreen huckleberry NI

Vaccinium parvifolium Ericaceae red huckleberry NI

Grasses

* Agrostis capillaris [A. tenuis] Poaceae colonial bentgrass 

Agrostis exarata var. e. Poaceae spike bentgrass FACW

* Agrostis gigantea [A. alba var. a.] Poaceae redtop FAC

Agrostis scabra Poaceae hair bentgrass FAC

* Agrostis stolonifera Poaceae creeping bentgrass FAC+

[A. alba vars. major & palustris] 

* Aira caryophyllea Poaceae silver hairgrass 

* Aira praecox Poaceae early hairgrass 

* Alopecurus geniculatus var. g. Poaceae water foxtail OBL

* Alopecurus pratensis Poaceae meadow foxtail FACW

* Anthoxanthum odoratum Poaceae sweet vernalgrass FACU

* Arrhenatherum elatius Poaceae tall oatgrass 

* Bromus hordeaceus subsp. h. [B. mollis] Poaceae soft brome 

Bromus pacificus Poaceae pacific brome 

Bromus sitchensis var. s. Poaceae Alaska brome 

* Bromus tectorum Poaceae cheatgrass 

Bromus vulgaris Poaceae Columbia brome UPL

Cinna latifolia Poaceae wood reedgrass FACW

* Cynosurus echinatus Poaceae hedgehog dogtail 

* Dactylis glomerata Poaceae orchard grass FACU

Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis Poaceae tufted hairgrass FACW

Deschampsia danthonioides Poaceae annual hairgrass FACWDistichlis spicata var. s. Poaceae seashore saltgrass FACW

* Echinochloa crusgalli Poaceae large barnyard-grass FACW

Elymus glaucus Poaceae blue wildrye FACU

Elymus mollis ssp. m.[Leymus m.] Poaceae dune wildrye FACU

Elymus trachycaulus Poaceae awned wheatgrass FACssp. t.[Agropyron trachycaulum] 

* Elytrigia repens [Agropyron r.] Poaceae quackgrass FACU

* Festuca arundinacea Poaceae tall fescue FACU

Festuca rubra Poaceae red fescue FAC

Glyceria elata Poaceae tall mannagrass FACW+

Glyceria leptostachya Poaceae slender-spiked mannagrass OBL

* Holcus lanatus Poaceae common velvet-grass FAC

* Holcus mollis Poaceae creeping velvet-grass 

Hordeum brachyantherum Poaceae meadow barley FACW

Hordeum caespitosum [H. jubatum] Poaceae foxtail barley FAC

* Hordeum murinum Poaceae wall barley 

* Hordeum vulgare Poaceae common barley 

Leersia oryzoides Poaceae rice cutgrass OBL
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Grasses (continued)

* Lolium multiflorum Poaceae Italian ryegrass 

* Lolium perenne Poaceae English ryegrass FACU

Melica subulata var. s. Poaceae Alaska oniongrass 

Panicum capillare Poaceae common witchgrass FAC

* Panicum miliaceum Poaceae broom corn millet 

* Phalaris arundinacea Poaceae reed canary grass FACW

* Phleum pratense var. p. Poaceae common Timothy FAC-

* Phragmites australis Poaceae Common reed FACW+

* Poa annua Poaceae annual bluegrass FACPoa compressa Poaceae Canada bluegrass FACU

* Poa pratensis ssp. p. Poaceae Kentucky bluegrass FAC

* Poa trivialis Poaceae rough bluegrass FACW

Puccinellia nuttalliana. Poaceae Nuttall’s alkali grass FACW+

* Setaria glauca. [S. lutescens] Poaceae yellow bristlegrass

Torreyochloa pallida Poaceae weak mannagrass OBL

var. pauciflora [Puccinella pauciflora]

Trisetum cernuum Poaceae nodding trisetum

* Vulpia bromoides [Festuca b.] Poaceae barren fescue

* Vulpia myuros var. m. [Festuca m.] Poaceae rat-tail vulpia

Sedges and Rushes

Carex athrostachya Cyperaceae slenderbeaked sedge FACW

Carex canescens Cyperaceae grey sedge FACW+

Carex deweyana. var. d. Cyperaceae Dewey's sedge FACU

Carex hendersonii Cyperaceae Henderson’s sedge FAC

Carex lyngbyei var. robusta Cyperaceae Lyngby's sedge OBL

Carex obnupta Cyperaceae slough sedge OBL 

Carex stipata Cyperaceae sawbeak sedge OBL 

Eleocharis obtusa var. ovata [E. ovata] Cyperaceae ovate spike-rush OBL

Eleocharis palustris Cyperaceae creeping spike-rush OBL 

Eleocharis parvula var. p. Cyperaceae small spike-rush OBL 

Juncus articulatus Juncaginaceae jointed rush OBL 

Juncus balticus var. b. Juncaginaceae baltic rush FACW+ 

Juncus bolanderi Juncaginaceae Bolander's rush OBL 

Juncus bufonius Juncaginaceae toad rush FACW 

Juncus effusus var. gracilis Juncaginaceae soft rush FACW

Juncus gerardii Juncaginaceae mud rush FACW+

Juncus tenuis var. t. Juncaginaceae slender rush OBL

Luzula multiflora var. m. [L. campestris] Juncaginaceae many-flowered wood-rush FACU

Luzula parviflora var. fastigiata Juncaginaceae small-flowered wood-rush FACScirpus americanus Cyperaceae three-square bulrush OBL 

Scirpus microcarpus Cyperaceae small-flowered bulrush OBL

Scirpus tabernaemontanii [S. validus] Cyperaceae soft-stemmed bulrush OBL

Forbs

Achillea millefolium var. Lanulosa Asteraceae common yarrow FACU

Achlys californica [split from A. triphylla] Berberidaceae vanillaleaf

Actaea rubra ssp. arguta. Ranunculaceae western red baneberry
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Adenocaulon bicolor Asteraceae trail-plant

* Ajuga reptans Lamiaceae common bugle

Alisma plantago-aquatica var. americanum Alismataceae American waterplantain OBL

Allophyllum divaricatum Polemoniaceae pink false gilia

Amaranthus powellii Amaranthaceae Powell's amaranth

Ambrosia Asteraceae heath burweed

Amsinckia menziesii. Boraginaceae small-flowered fiddleneck

Anaphalis margaritacea Asteraceae pearly everlasting

Angelica genuflexa Apiaceae kneeling angelica FACW

Angelica lucida Apiaceae seacoast angelica FAC

* Anthemis cotula Asteraceae mayweed FACU

* Anthriscus caucalis var. c. [A. scandicina] Apiaceae burr chervil

* Arabidopsis thaliana Brassicaeae thale cress

* Arctium minus Asteraceae common burdock

Artemisia suksdorfii Asteraceae coastal mugwort

Asarum caudatum Aristolochiaceae wild ginger FACU

Aster subspicatus Asteraceae Douglas aster FAC+

Atriplex patula Chenopodiaceae spearscale FACW

Barbarea orthoceras Brassicaeae American wintercress FACW+

Bidens cernua Asteraceae nodding beggar-ticks FACW+

Bidens frondosa Asteraceae leafy beggar-ticks FACW+

* Brassica rapa [B. campestris ] Brassicaeae field mustard rape

Callitriche heterophylla Callitrichaceae diverse-leaved water-starwort OBL

Camassia quamash ssp. breviflora Liliaceae common camas FACW

Campanula scouleri Campanulaceae Scouler's harebell

* Capsella bursa- pastoris var. b.- p. Brassicaeae shepherd's purse FACCardamine angulata Brassicaeae angled bitter-cress FACW

Cardamine breweri var. orbicularis Brassicaeae Brewer's bitter-cress FACW+

Cardamine nuttallii var. n Brassicaeae Nuttall's bitter-cress

[C. pulcherrima var. tenella]

Cardamine oligosperma var. o. Brassicaeae little western bitter-cress FACW

* Centaurium erythraea Raf. [C. umbellatum] Gentianaceae European centaury FAC-

* Cerastium fontanum var. triviale Caryophyllaceae sticky chickweed

 [C. viscosum]

* Cerastium glomeratum [C. vulgatum] Caryophyllaceae mouse-ear chickweed

Chamomilla suaveolens Asteraceae pineapple weed FACU

[Matricaria matricarioides]

* Chenopodium album var. a. Chenopodiaceae lamb’s quarters FAC

Chenopodium hybridum Chenopodiaceae sowbane

Circaea alpina ssp. pacifica Onagraceae enchanter's nightshade FACW

* Cirsium arvense var. horridum Asteraceae Canada thistle FACU+

* Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Asteraceae common thistle FACU

Claytonia perfoliata ssp. p.[Montia p.] Portulacaceae miner's-lettuce FAC

Claytonia sibirica var. s. [Montia s.] Portulacaceae Siberian miner’s-lettuce FACW

Collomia grandilora Polemoniaceae large-flowered collomia

Collomia heterophylla Polemoniaceae varied-leaf collomia

* Conium maculatum Apiaceae poison-hemlock FACW-

* Conyza canadensis [Erigeron c.] Asteraceae horseweed FACU
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

Corallorhiza maculata ssp. m. Orchidaceae spotted coral-root FACCorydalis scouleri Papaveraceae Scouler's corydalis FAC+

* Cotula coronopifolia Asteraceae brass-buttons FACW+

* Crepis capillaris Asteraceae smooth hawksbeard

Cuscuta.salina var. major Cuscutaceae salt-marsh dodder FACW

* Daucus carota Apiaceae Queen-Anne's-lace

Dicentra formosa ssp. f. Papaveraceae pacific bleeding heart

* Digitalis purpurea var. p. Scrophulariaceae foxglove

* Dipsacus fullonum [D. sylvestris] Dipsacaceae teasel NI

Disporum hookeri var. oreganum Liliaceae Hooker fairy-bell

Elodea canadensis Hydrocharitaceae waterweed OBL

Epilobium angustifolium ssp. a. Onagraceae fireweed FACU+

Epilobium brachycarpum [E. paniculatum] Onagraceae autumn willow-herb

Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii Onagraceae hairy willow-herb FACW-

[E. watsonii]

* Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae stork's-bill geranium

Erophila verna [Draba v.] Brassicaeae vernal whitlow-grass

Erythronium oregonum ssp. o. Liliaceae Oregon fawn lily

* Eschscholtzia californica ssp. c. Papaveraceae California poppy

Fragaria vesca ssp. bracteata Rosaceae woods strawberry

* Fragaria virginiana ssp. platypetula Rosaceae blueleaf strawberry

* Galanthus nivalis Liliaceae snowdrop

Galium aparine Rubiaceae cleavers FACU

Galium trifidum var. pacificum Rubiaceae small bedstraw FACW+

Galium triflorum Rubiaceae sweetscented bedstraw FACU

* Geranium dissectum Geraniaceae cut-leaved geranium

* Geranium molle Geraniaceae dovefoot geranium

* Geranium robertianum Geraniaceae Robert geranium

Geum macrophyllum var. m. Rosaceae Oregon avens FACW+

Glaux maritima ssp.obtusifolia Primulaceae saltwort FACW+

* Glecoma hederacea var. micrantha Lamiaceae ground ivy FACU+

Gnaphalium canescens Asteraceae slender cudweed

ssp. microcephalum[G. m.]

* Gnaphalium uliginosum Asteraceae marsh cudweed FAC+

Goodyera oblongifolia Orchidaceae rattlesnake-plantain FACUGrindelia integrifolia var. macrophylla Asteraceae Puget Sound gumweed FACW

Hackelia deflexa Boraginaceae nodding stickseed

Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae cow-parsnip FAC

Hieracium albiflorum Asteraceae white-flowered hieracium

Hippuris vulgaris Hippurodaceae common mare's-tail OBL

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Apiaceae marsh-pennywort OBL

Hydrophyllum tenuipes Hydrophyllaceae pacific waterleaf FAC

* Hypericum perforatum Clusiaceae common St. John's-wort

* Hypochaeris radicata Asteraceae hairy [spotted] cat's-ear

Impatiens noli-tangere Balsaminaceae touch-me-not FACW

Jaumea carnosa Asteraceae fleshy Jaumea OBL

* Lactuca serriola Asteraceae prickly lettuce FAC-

* Lamium hybridum Lamiaceae hybrid dead-nettle
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Lamium purpureum Lamiaceae red dead-nettle

* Lapsana communis Asteraceae nipplewort

* Lathyrus latifolius Fabaceae everlasting pea

Lathyrus polyphyllus Fabaceae leafy peavine

Lemna minor Lemnaceae small duckweed OBL

Lepidium virginicum var. pubescens Brassicaeae Virginia pepperweed FACU

* Leucanthemum vulgare [Chrysanthemum l.] Asteraceae oxeye-daisy

Lilium columbianum Liliaceae columbia lily FAC

Lilaeopsis occidentalis Apiaceae western lilaeopsis OBL

Listera cordata Orchidaceae evergreen orchid FACU

Lotus micranthus Benth. Fabaceae small-flowered deervetch

* Lotus uliginosus Fabaceae big trefoil

* Ludwigia palustris var. americana Onagraceae water purslane OBL

Lupinus bicolor Lindl. Fabaceae two-color lupine

Lupinus rivularis Fabaceae stream lupine FAC

* Lychnis coronaria Caryophyllaceae rose campion

Lycopus uniflorus Michx. Lamiaceae northern bugleweed OBL

Lysichiton americanum Araceae yellow skunk-cabbage OBL 

Madia madioides Asteraceae woodland tarweed

Madia sativa var. s. Asteraceae coast tarweed

Maianthemum dilatatum Liliaceae false lily-of-the-valley FACUMaianthemum racemosa ssp. amplexicaule Liliaceae western Solomon-plume FACMaianthemum stellataum Liliaceae starry Solomon-plume FAC

* Malva neglecta Malvaceae dwarf mallow

* Medicago lupulina Fabaceae black medic

* Melilotus alba Fabaceae white sweet-clover FACU

* Melilotus officinalis Fabaceae common yellow sweet-clover FACU

Mentha arvensis var. villosa Lamiaceae field mint FAC 

* Mentha piperita Lamiaceae peppermint FACW+

Mertensia paniculata var. Borealis Boraginaceae tall mertensia FAC

Mimulus guttatus Scrophulariaceae yellow monkey-flower OBL

Mimulus moschatus var. sessifolius Scrophulariaceae musk-flower FACW+

Mitella caulescens Saxifragaceae leafy mitrewort

Moehringia macrophylla [Arenaria m.] Caryophyllaceae big-leaved sandwort

Monotropa uniflora Ericaceae Indian pipe FACU

Montia dichotoma Portulacaceae dwarf montia FAC

* Muscari botryoides Liliaceae grape hyacinth

* Mycelis muralis [Lactuca m.] Asteraceae wall lettuce

* Myosotis discolor Boraginaceae yellow & blue forget-me-not FACW

Myosotis laxa Boraginaceae small-flowered forget-me-not OBL

* Myosotis scorpioides Boraginaceae common forget-me-not FACW

Myosotis verna Boraginaceae spring forget-me-not FACMyriophyllum hippuroides Haloragaceae western water-milfoil OBL

* Narcissus pseudonarcissus Amaryllidaceae daffodil

Navarretia squarrosa Polemoniaceae skunkweed

Nemophila parviflora var. p. Hydrophyllaceae small-flowered nemophila

Oenanthe sarmentosa Apiaceae pacific water-parsley OBL

Osmorhiza chilensis Apiaceae mountain sweet-cicely
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Parentucellia viscosa Scrophulariaceae yellow parentucellia FACPetasites frigidus var. palmatus[P. p.] Asteraceae sweet coltsfoot FACU

Phacelia nemoralis ssp. oregonensis Hydrophyllaceae woodland phacelia

Piperia unalascensis [Habenaria u.] Orchidaceae Unalaska rein-orchid FAC

* Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae English plantain FACU+

* Plantago major var. m. Plantaginaceae common plantain FAC+

Plantago maritima var. juncoides Plantaginaceae maritime plantain FACW+

* Polygonum aviculare var. a. Polygonaceae common knotweed FACW-

* Polygonum convolvulus var. c. Polygonaceae climbing knotweed FACU-

* Polygonum cuspidatum Polygonaceae Japanese knotweed

Polygonum hydropiperoides var. h. Polygonaceae water-pepper OBL

* Polygonum lapathifolium var. l. Polygonaceae dockleaf smartweed FACW+

* Polygonum persicaria Polygonaceae spotted ladysthumb FACW

* Potamogeton crispus Potamogetonaceae curled pondweed OBL

Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogetonaceae ribbon-leaved pondweed OBL

Potamogeton foliosus Potamogetonaceae close-leaved pondweed OBL

Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogetonaceae sago pondweed OBL

Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica [P. p.] Rosaceae pacific silverweed OBL

Potentilla gracilis var. g. Rosaceae graceful cinquefoil FAC

Prunella vulgaris var. elongata Lamiaceae self-heal FACU+

Pyrola asarifolia Ericaceae common pink wintergreen FACU

* Ranunculus acris Ranunculaceae tall buttercup FACWRanunculus occidentalis var. o. Ranunculaceae western buttercup FACW

* Ranunculus repens var. r. Ranunculaceae creeping buttercup FACW

Ranunculus sceleratus Ranunculaceae celery-leaved buttercup OBL

Ranunculus uncinatus var. u. Ranunculaceae small-flowered buttercup FAC-

* Raphanus sativas Brassicaeae wild radish

Rorippa curvisiliqua var. a. Brassicaeae western yellow cress FACW+

Rorippa palustris [R. islandica] Brassicaeae marsh yellow cress OBL

* Rumex acetosella Polygonaceae sheep sorrel FACU+

* Rumex crispus Polygonaceae curly dock FACW

Rumex maritimus var. feuginus Polygonaceae seaside dock FACW+

* Rumex obtusifolius ssp. agrestis Polygonaceae bitter dock FAC

Rumex occidentalis Polygonaceae western dock FACW+

Rupertia physodes [Psoralea p.] Fabaceae Rupert’s scurf-pea

Ruppia maritima Potamogetonaceae ditch-grass OBL

Sagittaria latifolia Alismataceae broadleaf arrowhead OBL

Salicornia virginica Chenopodiaceae American glasswort OBL

Sanicula crassicaulis var. c. Apiaceae pacific sanicle

Satureja douglasii Lamiaceae yerba buena

* Scleranthus annuus Caryophyllaceae annual knawel

Scutellaria lateriflora Lamiaceae blue skullcap FACW+

* Senecio jacobaea Asteraceae tansy ragwort

* Senecio sylvaticus Asteraceae wood groundsel

* Senecio vulgaris Asteraceae common groundsel FACU

* Silene latifolia ssp. alba [Lychnis a. ] Caryophyllaceae white campion

* Sisymbrium altissimum Brassicaceae tall tumble-mustard

* Sisymbrium officinale Brassicaeae hedge mustard
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

* Solanum sarrachoides Solanaceae hairy nightshade

Solidago canadensis var. salebrosa Asteraceae Canada goldenrod FACU

* Sonchus arvensis Asteraceae perennial sow-thistle

* Sonchus asper Asteraceae prickly sow-thistle FACSparganium emersum [S. angustifolium] Typhaceae narrow-leaved bur-reed OBL

* Spergularia arvensis Caryophyllaceae spurry

Spergularia canadensis Caryophyllaceae Canada sand-spurry FACW

Spergularia macrotheca Caryophyllaceae beach sand-spurry FAC

* Spergularia rubra Caryophyllaceae red sand-spurry FACSpiranthes romanzoffiana var. r. Orchidaceae hooded ladies'-tresses OBL

Spirodela polyrrhiza Lemnaceae great duckweed OBL

Stachys cooleyae Lamiaceae Cooley's hedge-nettle FACW

* Stellaria graminea Caryophyllaceae lesser starwort FACStellaria humifusa Caryophyllaceae spreading starwort OBL

Stellaria longipes Caryophyllaceae longstalk starwort FACW-

* Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae common chickweed

Streptopus amplexifolius Liliaceae clasping-leaved twisted-stalk FACSuaeda maritima [S. calceoliformis] Chenopodiaceae herbaceous seablite FACW+

Synthyris reniformis var. r. Scrophulariaceae spring queen

* Tanacetum vulgare Asteraceae common tansy

* Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae common dandelion FACU 

* Teesdalia nudicaulis Brassicaeae shepherd's cress 

Tellima grandiflora. Saxifragaceae fringecup 

Tiarella trifoliata var. t. Saxifragaceae trefoil foamflower FAC 

Tolmiea menziesii Saxifragaceae youth-on-age FAC 

* Tragopogon dubius Asteraceae yellow salsify

Trientalis borealis ssp. latifolia [T l.] Primulaceae western starflower FAC

* Trifolium arvense Fabaceae hare's-foot

* Trifolium dubium. Fabaceae least hop clover

* Trifolium hybridum Fabaceae alsike clover FACU+ 

* Trifolium pratense Fabaceae red clover FACU 

* Trifolium repens Fabaceae white clover FACU+ 

* Trifolium subterraneum Fabaceae subterranean clover

Trifolium wormskjoldii. Fabaceae springbank clover FACW+

Triglochin maritimum Juncaginaceae seaside arrow-grass OBL

Trillium ovatum ssp. o. Liliaceae western trillium NI

Triphysaria pusilla [Orthocarpus pusillus] Scrophulariaceae dwarf owl-clover 

Typha latifolia Typhaceae common cat-tail OBL 

Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis var. lyallii Urticaceae stinging nettle FAC+ 

* Verbascum blattaria Scrophulariaceae moth mullein 

* Verbascum thapsus Scrophulariaceae common mullein 

Veronica beccabunga ssp. americana [V. a.] Scrophulariaceae American brooklime OBL

* Veronica arvensis Scrophulariaceae wall speedwell NI

* Veronica serpyllifolia var. s. Scrophulariaceae thyme-leaved speedwell FAC 

Vicia americana ssp. a.. Fabaceae American vetch FAC+

* Vicia cracca Fabaceae bird vetch

* Vicia hirsuta Fabaceae tiny vetch

Vicia nigricans ssp. gigantea [V. g.] Fabaceae giant vetch

* Vicia sativa Fabaceae common vetch
Appendix E.1: Plant List E-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Forbs (continued)

* Vicia villosa Fabaceae hairy vetch

* Vinca major cv. Apocynaceae periwinkle

Viola sempervirens Violaceae evergreen violet

Wolffia borealis [W. punctata] Lemnaceae dotted water-meal OBL 

Zostera marina Zosteraceae eel-grass OBL

Ferns & Allies

Adiantum aleuticum [A. pedatum ] Pteridaceae maidenhair fern FAC

Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Dryopteridaceae northern lady fern FAC

Azolla mexicana Azollaceae Mexican mosquito fern OBL

Blechnum spicant Blechnaceae deer fern FAC+

Dryopteris expansa [D. austriaca] Dryopteridaceae spreading wood fern

Equisetum arvense Equisetaceae field horsetail FAC

Equisetum hyemale var. affine Equisetaceae scouring-rush FACW

Equisetum telmateia var. braunii Equisetaceae giant horsetail FACW

Polypodium glycyrrhiza Polypodiaceae licorice fern

Polystichum munitum Dryopteridaceae sword fern

Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Dennstaedtiaceae western bracken FACU

Lichens

Botrydina vulgaris [B. botryoides]. Lichenized with Omphalina ericetorum (lichen agaric), a Basidomycete fungus. 

Cladonia coniocraea Cladoniaceae cup lichen

Evernia prunastri Parmeliaceae antlered-perfume

Hypogymnia physodes Parmeliaceae hooded-bone

Letharia vulpina Parmeliaceae wolf lichen

Melanelia elegantula Parmeliaceae elegant parmelia

Melanelia exasperatula Parmeliaceae roughened parmelia

Parmelia sulcata Parmeliaceae waxpaper-lichen

Peltigera canina Peltigeraceae dog-lichen

Peltigera polydactylon Peltigeraceae frog-pelt

Physcia sp. Physciaceae lichen 

Platismatia glauca Parmeliaceae ragged lichen

Usnea subfloridana [U. comosa] Parmeliaceae beard lichen

Xanthoria candelaria Teloschistaceae orange wall lichen

Mosses & Liverworts

Atrichum sp. Polytrichaceae atrichum moss

Aulacomnium androgynum Aulacommiaceae lover's-moss

Bryum capillare Bryaceae capillary moss

Climacium dendroides Climaciaceae tree moss

Conocephalum conicum Conocephalaceae snake-liverwort

Dichodontium pellucidum Dicranaceae wet-rock moss

Dicranoweisia cirrata Dicranaceae curly-thatch moss\

Dicranum tauricum Dicranaceae tauricum moss

Dicranum sp. Dicranaceae bryoid fissidens moss

Drepanocladus uncinatus var. symmetricus Amblystegiaceae hook-leaved moss

Fissidens adianthoides Fissidentaceae adiantum moss
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Mosses & Liverworts (continued)

Fissidens bryoides Fissidentaceae bryoides fissidens moss

Fontinalis antipyretica var. a. Fontinalaceae common water moss

Funaria hygrometrica Funariaceae cord-moss

Grimmia pulvinata Grimmiaceae cushion moss

Homalothecium fulgescens Brachytheciaceae yellow moss

Hylocomium splendens Hylocomiaceae step-moss

Hypnum circinale Hypnaceae coiled-leafmoss

Hypnum subimponens Hypnaceae curly hypnum

Isothecium stoloniferum [I. spiculiferum] Brachytheciaceae cat-tail moss

Kindbergia oregana Brachytheciaceae Oregon beaked moss

[Eurhynchium oreganum]

Leucolepis acanthoneuron [L. menziesii] Mniaceae Menzies' tree moss

Marchantia polymorpha Marchantiaceae lung-liverwort

Neckera douglasii Neckeraceae Douglas' neckera

Orthotrichum consimile Orthotrichaceae bristle moss

Orthotrichum lyellii Orthotrichaceae Lyell's bristle moss

Orthotrichum sp. Orthotrichaceae little bristle moss

Plagiomnium insigne [Mnium i.] Mniaceae badge moss

Plagiomnium venustum Mniaceae magnificent moss

Plagiothecium undulatum Plagiotheciaceae wavy-leaved cotton moss

Polytrichum juniperinum Polytrichaceae juniper moss

Racomitrium canescens Grimmiaceae roadside rock moss

Rhizomnium glabrescens [Mnium g.] Mniaceae fan-moss

Rhytidiadelphus loreus Hylocomiaceae lanky-moss

Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Hylocomiaceae goose-necked moss

Riccia fluitans Ricciaceae floating liverwort

Scleropodium cespitans var c. Brachytheciaceae flat-moss

Tortula princeps Pottiaceae princely moss

E.2 WILDLIFE

This list includes wildlife species that have been observed at least once on Nisqually NWR. The birds' common and scientific

names and taxonomic order are categorized into family and subfamily groups in accordance with the 7th edition (1998) of the A.

O. U. Checklist of North American Birds. * Indicates bird species known to nest on Nisqually delta. 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata

Pacific Loon Gavia immer

Common Loon Gavia immer

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis

Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris

Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Green Heron* Butorides virescens
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds (continued)

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis

Brant Branta bernicla

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa

Gadwall* Anas strepera

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors

Cinnamon Teal* Anas cyanoptera

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail* Anas acute

Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Hooded Merganser* Lophodytes cucullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus

Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus

California Quail* Callipepla californica

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus

Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola

Sora* Porzana carolina

American Coot* Fulica americana

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularia

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Sanderling Calidris alba

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago

Wilson's Phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia

Heermann's Gull Larus heermanni

Mew Gull Larus canus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri

Slaty-backedGul lLarus schistisagus

Western Gull Larus occidentalis

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens

Glaucous-winged/Western Larus sp.

 Hybrid

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Common Murre Uria aalge

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus

Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata

Rock Dove Columba livia

Band-tailed Pigeon* Columba fasciata

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Barn Owl* Tyto alba

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-13 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds (continued)

Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Black Swift Cypseloides niger

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi

Rufous Hummingbird* Selasphoras rufus

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Red-breasted Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus ruber

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus

Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Western Wood-pewee* Contopus sordidulus

Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii

Pacific-slope Flycatcher* Empidonax difficilis

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Cassin’s Vireo* Vireo cassinii

Hutton's Vireo* Vireo huttoni

Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus

Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow* Tachycineta thalassina

Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis

 Swallow*

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica

Black-capped Chickadee* Parus atricapillus

Chestnut-backed Chickadee* Parus rufescens

Bushtit* Psaltriparus minimus

Red-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta canadensis

Brown Creeper* Certhia americana

Bewick's Wren* Thryomanes bewickii

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Winter Wren* Troglodytes troglodytes

Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris

Golden-crowned Kinglet* Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Swainson's Thrush* Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin* Turdus migratorius

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris

American Pipit Anthus rubescens

Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum

Orange-crowned Warbler* Vermivora celata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia

Yellow-rumped Warbler* Dendroica coronata

Black-throated Gray Warbler* Dendroica nigrescens

Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi

MacGillivray's Warbler* Oporornis tolmiei

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas

Wilson's Warbler* Wilsonia pusilla

Western Tanager* Piranga ludoviciana

Spotted Towhee* Pipilo maculatus

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned Sparrow* Zonotrichia leucophrys

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla

Dark-eyed Junco* Junco hyemalis

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Black-headed Grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalus

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta

Yellow-headed Blackbird* Xanthocephalus

xanthocephalus

Brewer's Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater

Bullock’s Oriole* Icterus bullockii

Purple Finch* Carpodacus purpureus

House Finch* Carpodacus mexicanus

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Pine Siskin* Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Mammals

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii

Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans

Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii

Coast Mole Scapanus orarius

Townsend’s Mole Scapanus townsendii

Masked Shrew Sorex cinerus
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-14 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Mammals (continued)

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus

Mountain Beaver Aplondontia rufa

Townsend’s Chipmunk Tamias townsendii

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Douglas’ Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

American Beaver Castor canadensis

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Columbian Mouse Peromyscus oreas

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys californicus

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus

Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni

Townsend’s Vole Microtus townsendii

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Black Rat Rattus rattus

House Mouse Mus musculus

Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens

Killer Whale Orcinus orca

Dall’s Porpoise Phocoena dallii

Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus

Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Coyote Canis latrans

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Northern Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus

California Sea Lion Zalophus californianus

Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis

Mountain Lion Felis concolor

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

 aka “Black-tailed Deer

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Reptiles

Northern Alligator Lizard Elegaria (Gerrhonotus)

 coeruleus

Rubber Boa Charina bottae

Western Terrestrial Garter Thamnophis elegans

 Snake

Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Amphibians

Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum

Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa

Western Red-backed Plethodon vehiculum

 Salamander

Pacific Treefrog Hyla regilla

Red-legged Frog Rana aurora

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Fish

River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi

Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni

Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata

Spotted Ratfish Hydrolagus colliei

Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias

American Shad Alosa sapidissima

Pacific Herring Clupea harengus

Longnose Dace Rhinichythys cataractae

Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Surf Smelt Hypomesus pretiosus

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki

Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta

Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Steelhead (Rainbow Trout) Oncorhynchus mykiss

Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma

Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus

Pacific Hake Merluccius productus

Pacific Tomcod Microgadus proximus

Walleye Pollock Theregra chalcogrammus

Plainfin Midshipman Porichthys notatus

Northern Clingfish Gobiesox meandricus

Tube-Snout Aulorhynchus flavidus

Three Spine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus

Bay Pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-15 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Fish (continued)

Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus

Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus

Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger

Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria

Kelp Greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus

Rock Greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus

White-spotted Greenling Hexagrammos stelleri

Painted Greenling Oxylebius pictus

Padded Sculpin Artedius fenestralis

Smoothhead Sculpin Artedius lateralis

Silverspotted Sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus

Roughback Sculpin Chitonotus pugetensis

Sharpnose Sculpin Clinocottus acuticeps

Calico Sculpin Clinocottus embryum

Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus

Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper

Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus

Reticulate/Riffle Sculpin Cottus perplexus/gulosus

Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus

Buffalo Sculpin Enophrys bison

Red Irish Lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus

Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus

Great Sculpin Myoxocephalus

polyacanthocephalus

Sailfin Sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus

Tidepool Sculpin Oligocottus maculosus

Tadpole Sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus

Soft Sculpin Psychrolutes sigalutes

Grunt Sculpin Rhamphocottus richardsoni

Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

Manacled Sculpin Synchirus gilli

Northern Spearnose Poacher Agonopsis vulsa

Pygmy Poacher Odontopyxis trispinosa

Tubenose Poacher Pallasina barbata

Sturgeon Poacher Agonus acipenserinus

Blacktip Poacher Xeneretmus latifrons

Ringtail Snailfish Liparis rutteri

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Shiner Perch Cymatogaster aggregata

Striped Seaperch Embiotoca lateralis

Pile Perch Rhacochilus vacca

Slender Cockscomb Anoplarchus insignis

High Cockscomb Anoplarchus purpurescens

Pacific Snake Prickleback Lumpenus sagitta

Penpoint Gunnel Apodichthys flavidus

Rockweed Gunnel Apodichthys fucorum

Crescent Gunnel Pholis laeta

Saddleback Gunnel Pholis ornata

Pacific Sand Lance Ammodytes hexapterus

Arrow Goby Clevelandia ios

Bay Goby Lepidogobius lepidus

Pacific Sanddab Citharichthys sordidus

Speckled Sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus

Rex Sole Errex zachirus

Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides elassodon

Dover Sole Microstomus pacificus

Starry Flounder Platichythys stellatus

Rock Sole Pleuronectes bilineata

Butter Sole Pleuronectes isolepsis

English Sole Pleuronectes vetulus

C-O Sole Pleuronichthys coenosus

Sand Sole Psettichthys melanostictus

White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus

Insects 

Common Name Family Name

Shield Bugs Acanthosomatidae

Treehoppers Aetalionidae

Mining Bees Andrenidae

Deathwatch Beetles Anobiidae

Anthomyiid Flies Anthomyiidae

Aphids Aphididae

Bees Apidae

Weevils Apionidae

Stilt Bugs Berytidae

March Flies Bibionidae

Braconid Wasps Braconidae

Moss Beetles Byrrhidae

Soldier Beetles Cantharidae

Ground Beetles Carabidae

Spittlebugs Cercopidae

Leaf Beetles Chrysomelidae

Green Lacewings Chrysopidae

Leafhoppers Cicadellidae

Tiger Beetles Cicindellidae

Ladybug Beetles Coccinellidae

Narrow-winged Damselflies Coenagrionidae

Snout Beetles and Weevils Curculionidae

Click Beetles Elateridae

Balloon Flies Empididae

Entomobryid Springtails Entomobryidae

Ants Formicidae

Earwigs Forficulidae

Metallic Bees Halictidae

Heleomyzid Flies Heleomyzidae

Hypogastrurid Springtails Hypogastruridae

Ichneumons (Parasitic Wasps)Ichneumonidae

Isotomid Springtails Isotomidae

Scavenger Beetles Lathridiidae

Seed Bugs Lygaeidae

Plant Bugs Miridae

House Flies Muscidae
Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-16 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Common Name Family Name Common Name Family Name

Insects (continued)

Fungus Gnats Mycetophilidae

Pine Flower Snout Beetles Nemonychidae

Onychiurid Springtails. Onychiuridae

Stink Bugs Pentatomidae

Humpbacked Flies Phoridae

Large Caddis Flies Phryganeidae

Parasitic Wasps Proctotrupidae

Barklice Psocoptera*

Psyllids Psyllidae

Scentless Plant Bugs Rhopalidae

Dung Flies Scatophagidae

Dark-winged Fungus Gnats Sciaridae

Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Scolytidae

Carrion Beetles Silphidae

Globular Springtails Sminthuridae

Rove Beetles Staphylinidae

Hover Flies Syrphidae

Tachinid Flies Tachinidae

Darkling Beetles Tenebrionidae

Sawflies Tenthredinidae

Pygmy Grasshoppers Tetrigidae

Lace Bugs Tingidae

Crane Flies Tipulidae

Xylophagid Flies Xylophagidae

*Order Name
Appendix F

Plan Implementation
 
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix F: Plan Implementation

INTRODUCTION

Following public review and comment on the Draft EIS, public notification regarding the

Service’s decision, and CCP approval, Refuge staff will begin to implement the CCP. This

chapter describes the various components required to implement the plan over the next 15 years.

The long-term health and protection of Nisqually NWR depends on an informed public and

knowledgeable stakeholders. Consistent outreach, good communication, and continued

coordination with these Refuge constituents are imperative to successful implementation of the

CCP. To maintain and strengthen this important constituency, the CCP provides goals,

objectives, and strategies which are not only aimed at protecting, restoring, and conserving

wildlife habitat, but also address expanded educational and appropriate, compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. This appendix identifies the partnership opportunities,

projects (Refuge Operating Needs System List), monitoring, staffing, and funding that are

necessary to successfully implement the CCP. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Because of the Refuge’s location within a well-known watershed with numerous partners and in

a large metropolitan area, the Refuge is uniquely situated to develop and strengthen unique and

creative partnerships in the Puget Sound region. Partnerships will continue to play a crucial role

in the protection of the Nisqually delta and the lower watershed and in achieving Refuge goals

and objectives. Partnerships will increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support,

as well as reduce costs. There are numerous opportunities to create or strengthen partnerships

with community groups, tribes, organizations, agencies, and others. The Nisqually delta, and

therefore the Refuge, provide an important focal point and demonstration area within south Puget

Sound to increase environmental awareness and community involvement.

Coordinated efforts will focus on habitat restoration, land protection, environmental education,

fish and wildlife monitoring, outreach, and quality wildlife-dependent recreation. The Refuge

will continue to strengthen partnerships with the Nisqually River Council, Nisqually Indian

Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, land trusts, and other non-profit

organizations in the areas of habitat restoration and land protection. The Refuge will strive to

exchange information and provide technical assistance to neighboring landowners to further the

protection of the lower watershed. A cooperative agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe will

greatly strengthen coordinated efforts within Refuge boundaries east of the Nisqually River,

benefitting habitat restoration and management and public use programs. This effort will

strengthen the growing partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Cooperative agreements

with Ducks Unlimited and the Washington Conservation Corps will continue to contribute

greatly to habitat restoration and management programs.

An essential partner will continue to be the volunteer services program of the Refuge. This large

program is instrumental in achieving much more in all program facets than would be possible

with staffing alone. This effort also encourages community involvement and support, as
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

numerous people can directly contribute to Refuge programs. The Nisqually Refuge Cooperating

Association will continue to grow, and this friends’ group and key partner to the Refuge will help

to further Refuge education, interpretation, and habitat programs. 

Collaboration with colleges, universities, local educators, conservation organizations, and

environmental education consortiums will enable the Refuge to carry out its plans to improve and

enlarge the environmental education, research, and monitoring programs. Cooperative efforts

with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center will continue to be strengthened, to improve

coordination and increase the amount and quality of environmental education in the delta area.

Conservation organizations and other non-profit groups will contribute significantly to Refuge

and delta protection and enhancement. For example, Tahoma Audubon is an Audubon Refuge

Keeper providing support to Nisqually NWR. Black Hills Audubon also provides community

support on conservation issues and environmental education. 

PROJECTS

The table below contains prioritized projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs

System (RONS). Brief project descriptions and their associated costs are provided. This list of

projects reflects Refuge needs and provides the basis for funding requests from the U.S.

Congress, which must be approved by the Service, DOI, and the President’s Office of

Management and Budget, before being forwarded to Congress.
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

PROJECTS: REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS (RONS) LIST

 Operating Costs (in thousands) 

High Priority Projects 

FTEs One-Time Recurring

Base

Total 

1st

Year

Expand operation of new public use facilities: Maintenance Worker

Maintenance Worker will provide 7-day a week access to the Refuge and full operation of public use

and environmental education programs for the 4 million people within 100 miles of the new Visitor

Center/Office complex.

1 65 54 119

Expand operation of new public use facilities: operating costs

Cover recurring base operating costs of providing 7-day a week access to the Refuge and full

operation of public use and environmental education programs for the 4 million people within 100

miles of the new Visitor Center/Office complex. 

100 100

Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: Biologist

The Refuge and the Nisqually Indian Tribe will cooperatively restore 270 acres to benefit migratory

birds, anadromous fish, and endangered and sensitive species. 

1 65 63 128

Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: dike removal and construction

Remove and construct dikes to restore this area to tidal action for management under a cooperative

agreement between the Service and the Tribe, including accomplishing all compliance requirements. 

Ducks Unlimited will also be a partner. 

125 125

Improve visitor services and administrative efficiency: Office Assistant

A Refuge office assistant will serve as receptionist, answer phone inquiries, and provide improved

administrative efficiency for growing Refuge programs including enhanced visitor services, new

habitat restoration projects, and new Refuge acquisitions. 

1 65 49 114

Improve habitat management, restoration, and protection: Assistant Refuge Manager

Assistant Refuge Manager will implement, manage, and monitor restoration of the Black River Unit,

accomplishing all compliance requirements, as well as provide law enforcement, resource protection,

outreach, and visitor safety services. 

1 65 74 139

Develop environmental education program: Environmental Education Specialist

An Environmental Education Specialist will develop printed curriculum, design and conduct teacher

workshops, and implement an education program to reach up to 15,000 students annually. 

1 65 74 139
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

 Operating Costs (in thousands) 

High Priority Projects (continued) 

FTEs One-Time Recurring

Base

Total 

1st

Year

Monitor habitat restoration and associated wildlife and fish use

Biologist will conduct migratory bird, amphibian, and fish surveys and habitat monitoring on 1,000

acres of freshwater and tidal wetland restoration areas to assess and improve habitat restoration and

management techniques.

1 76 63 139

Improve volunteer services program

Improve and expand volunteer services program with a volunteer coordinator as well as basic

supplies, equipment, and uniforms. Volunteers are used to staff the new Visitor Center, support the

growing environmental education program, and help accomplish a diversity of projects, including

wildlife surveys, exotic vegetation control, and special events. 

1 76 63 139

Brown Farm Marsh wetland enhancement

In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, enhance migratory waterfowl and other waterbird habitat in

the Brown Farm Marsh by restoring 2 miles of interior ditches and sloughs to enhance water flow,

constructing internal dikes to create manageable wetland units, installing water control structures and

pump to allow effective flooding and de-watering, and meeting all compliance requirements. 

298 50 348

Restore tidelands within Brown Farm Dike

In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage 699 acres of estuarine habitat by removing

portions of the Brown Farm Dike to restore tidal action. This project will support the recovery of

Nisqually chinook salmon and other declining salmonids, as well as benefit many other estuarineassociated species and meet compliance requirements. 

1 2400 74 2474

Restore 40 acres of surge plain riparian habitat

In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage approximately 40 acres of surge plain

riparian habitat along the Nisqually River to benefit migratory bird species, primarily neotropical

songbirds. Project includes dike removal and berm construction to allow the Nisqually River to flood

the site during high flows and allow tidal influence during extreme high tides. 

175 10 185

Install tideland boardwalk trail

Install boardwalk with interpretive panels and spotting scopes into estuary along old Brown Farm

Dike Trail to provide access and viewing of existing tidelands of McAllister Creek and newly

restored tidelands within former diked area.

800 10 810

Install visitor contact station at Luhr Beach public boat launch

In cooperation with WDFW, install visitor contact station to provide information and interpretation

at Luhr Beach public boat launch, which is the main entrance to public waterways on the Refuge. 

39 5 44
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

 Operating Costs (in thousands) 

Medium Priority Projects

FTEs One-Time Recurring

Base

Total 

1st

Year

Improve water management to restore freshwater wetlands 

Restore and enhance 200 acres of freshwater wetlands by improving the water management and

delivery system. 

235 10 245

Restore forested uplands for sensitive species

In cooperation with many community partners, reforest 100 acres of clear-cut along McAllister

Creek with Douglas-fir and other native trees to improve wildlife habitat and watershed protection. 

132 20 152

Install visitor contact station and parking lot on Nisqually River east side 

In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, install visitor contact station to provide Refuge

information and interpretation at Nisqually Indian Tribe east side property in association with a new

public trail and bank fishing site along the Nisqually River. 

120 15 135

Install accessible bank fishing site

Construct an accessible bank fishing platform on Nisqually River to provide new opportunities for a

broader group of anglers and meet accessibility requirements. 

120 10 130

Conduct study to enhance salmonid habitat

Conduct study to determine importance and contributions of the Nisqually Estuary to salmonids and

the effects of estuarine restoration. The information will be used to help contribute to the recovery

of the recently listed chinook salmon and monitor the restoration of the Nisqually delta ecosystem. 

141 141

Improve Environmental Education Program

Previously used office building would be remodeled to accommodate the environmental education

program on an interim basis. Utilities as well as safe, accessible ingress and egress will also need to

be set up. 

153 10 163

Install wildlife observation deck

Install wildlife observation deck with benches and interpretive panels along main trail to provide an

additional viewing location. Spotting scopes will also be installed at this site and at other trail

locations to enhance wildlife observation opportunities for visitors. 

88 7 95
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

 Operating Costs (in thousands) 

Low Priority Projects

FTEs One-Time Recurring

Base

Total 

1st

Year

Pest plant control using Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) members

Utilizing YCC crews for mechanical and hand pulling of pest plants reduces the need for chemical

control and the amount of staff time required to accomplish pest plant control goals. YCC crews

also assist in maintenance, construction, and trail improvements. 

15 47 62

House interns, volunteers, temporary staff, and researchers

A Refuge housing unit for use by interns, volunteers, temporary employees, and visiting researchers

will greatly increase the ability to accomplish important management studies, surveys, and provide

improved education and visitor services. 

120 10 30

Increase outreach and education with traveling exhibits

Design and fabricate two traveling exhibits on refuges in the complex for special events, fairs, public

meetings, and loaning to schools and cooperators in the area. 

28 5 33

Develop video to increase outreach and education

Complete, on contract, Refuge video focusing on wildlife and habitat resources of Nisqually NWR,

to enhance outreach efforts and strengthen education program. 

54 54
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

MONITORING

Monitoring is the process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and

anticipated or assumed results of a management program are being realized, or if

implementation is proceeding as planned (USDA, USDI 1994).

Adaptive Management is a flexible approach to long-term management that is directed by the

results of ongoing monitoring activities. Management techniques, objectives, and strategies

(Appendix I) are regularly evaluated over time and the new data are used to adapt both

management objectives and techniques to better achieve the Refuge's goals.

Monitoring has been an ongoing activity on Nisqually NWR. Past monitoring efforts on the

Refuge have generally focused on key species and habitats, typically those considered sensitive

(e.g., threatened or sensitive species), or those identified in the Refuge purpose (e.g., migratory

waterfowl). While these are adequate to identify trends in relative abundance or habitat use for

higher priority species, they usually fail to examine the entire Refuge landscape. Ideally, a

Refuge monitoring program would occur across several levels of biological organization

including genetic, population/species, community/ecosystem, and regional landscapes. However,

limited funding usually results in monitoring programs focused on selected components that are

representative of many other species/habitats (considered indicator species). In recent years,

most of the monitoring efforts on the Refuge have been concentrated on documenting the

location and extent of waterfowl use of the estuarine and freshwater habitats.

Monitoring has been identified as a strategy for six of the CCP objectives and will be an ongoing

and important program on Nisqually NWR for the life of the CCP. The CCP monitoring

program will focus on measuring the success of CCP implementation, particularly the

effectiveness of the various habitat restoration projects. The program is designed to provide

some flexibility in CCP implementation by allowing the Refuge to change or adapt management

practices or monitoring methods as the result of monitoring data.

The various monitoring programs that will be implemented on the Refuge under the CCP are

briefly described in the table titled CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. This conceptual

framework will serve as a starting point for preparation of a step-down monitoring plan, which

will provides detailed methods, timing, and costs. Staffing needs have been identified in the

strategies for each of the objective that includes monitoring.
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects

Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Program: Habitat Monitoring

Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound

lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon. 

Project 1: Estuarine Habitat 

Mapping

Determine the

amount and

development of

restored estuarine

habitat over time

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks.

Development of

restored estuarine

habitat ranging

from mudflats to

high salt marsh 

None

Project 2: Vegetation

Sampling 

Document

vegetation response

in restored habitats

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River

delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as

foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological

functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat

in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide

foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident

land birds and fish.

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat

along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the

Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands,

and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of

the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually

Valley.

Vegetation cover

and plant species

composition

None
Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Project 3: Water Quality Monitor water

quality in estuarine

restoration area

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks. 

Dissolved

oxygen, salinity,

water

temperature,

sediment

deposition

None

Project 4: Invasive Species

Monitoring 

Track the locations

and abundance of 

invasive species on

the Refuge,

monitor new

introductions, and 

incorporate data

into an Integrated

Pest Management

Plan

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks. 

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River

delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as

foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological

functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat

in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide

foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident

land birds and fish.

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat

along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the

Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands,

and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of

the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually

Valley.

Invasive species

(weeds and exotic

wildlife) presence

and distribution

None

Program: Wildlife Monitoring

Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound

lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon. 
Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Project 1: Waterfowl

Surveys 

Document

waterfowl use of

restored estuarine

and freshwater

habitats

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks.

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River

delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as

foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. 

Waterfowl

seasonal

abundance,

distribution, and

species

composition

The Service’s

National Pacific

Flyway databases

for the Midwinter

Waterfowl

Survey

Project 2: Shorebird

Surveys 

Document

shorebird use in

estuarine

restoration area

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks. 

Shorebird

seasonal

abundance,

distribution, and

species

composition

PRISM-Program

for Regional and

International

Shorebird

Monitoring-a

pilot monitoring

program endorsed

by the Service

and the U.S.

Shorebird

Council

Project 3: Amphibian

Sampling 

Document native

amphibian species

use of restored

freshwater

wetlands

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River

delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as

foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Red-legged frog 

abundance and

distribution

None

Project 4: Raptor Surveys Document raptor

use of restored

freshwater

wetlands and

grasslands

1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River

delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as

foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Raptor

abundance and

distribution

None
Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Project 5: Landbird

Monitoring

Document

migratory and

resident landbird

use of restored

riparian habitat 

1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological

functions of approximately 1,500 acres of riparian habitat

in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide

foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident

land birds and fish.

Landbird relative

abundance and

distribution

Monitoring Avian

Populations

Database and

Washington GAP

Analysis Program

Program: Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Monitoring 

Associated Goal: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of

the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Project 1: - Fish Monitoring Document fish

response in

restored estuarine

habitat and support

threatened and

endangered species

recovery efforts

1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the

Nisqually River delta estuary and near shore

environments.... including tidal influences, sediment

delivery, native plant communities, and distributary

channel networks.

2.1 - Protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of

estuarine, freshwater, stream, and riparian habitats to

protect declining runs of the chinook salmon and bull

trout, which are Federally listed as threatened.

Salmonid

abundance and

distribution

None

Project 2: Bald Eagle

Monitoring

Monitor bald eagle

nesting activity and

population trends

on the Refuge

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat

along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the

Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands,

and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of

the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually

Valley.

2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant

and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that

are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or

candidates for listing. 

Nesting activity,

productivity,

abundance, and

distribution

WDFW bald

eagle nest

tracking program;

Federal recovery

data
Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Project 3: Great Blue Heron

Monitoring

Monitor great blue

heron nesting

activity and

population trends

on the Refuge

1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat

along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the

Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands,

and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of

the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually

Valley.

2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant

and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that

are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or

candidates for listing. 

Nesting activity, 

productivity,

abundance, and

distribution

WDFW studies

on great blue

herons

Program: Environmental Education

Associated Goal: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and

watershed. 

Project 1: Environmental

Education Program

Monitoring

Monitor

effectiveness of

environmental

education program

3.1 - Provide a quality environmental education program

at Nisqually with specific learning objectives and diverse

opportunities that 1) meet State standards for learning; 2)

are based on Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation

and management programs; 3) support the mission of the

Service; and 4) provide stewardship opportunities. 

Teacher and

student

evaluations

None

Programs: Wildlife-dependent Recreation

Associated Goal: 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. 

Project 1: Hunt Program

Monitoring

Monitor quality of

hunt program

4.1 - Open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week

within 1-2 years after CCP approval. Refuge lands would

combine with WDFW lands to create more manageable

and enforceable hunt boundaries that would reduce

conflicts with other users, reduce confusion for hunters,

provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded conditions,

and ensure a reasonable harvest. The Refuge would also

explore new opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting

as property is acquired south of I-5. 

Visitor

evaluations;

hunter bag check;

compliance with

regulations

None
Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective

Indicator

Links to

Regional

Monitoring

Efforts

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-13 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Project 2: Fishing Program

Monitoring

Monitor quality of

fishing program

4.2 - Provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing

experiences in selected areas which are safe, consistent

with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge

resources and purposes. 

Visitor

evaluations;

compliance with

regulations

None

Project 3: Wildlife

Photography Program

Monitoring

Monitor quality of

wildlife

photography

program

4.5 - Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography

opportunities to increase visitor understanding and

appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta

resources.

Visitor

evaluations

None
Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-14 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

STAFFING AND FUNDING

Current Staffing

Base budget FY2000 = $565,840

Fee Funds for FY 2000 = $39,782

AmeriCorps members = 6 FTEs and 72 Refuge Volunteers contributed 3.8 FTE s for FY2000.

Current Staffing

Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating

Management

Project Leader PFT GS 13

Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12

Administrative

Administrative Assistant PFT GS 7

Receptionist/Clerk/Typist TFT GS 4

Biology

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11

Fish and Wildlife Biologist TFT GS 7

Public Use

Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11

Park Ranger PFT GS 7

Maintenance 

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

Future (Proposed) Staffing

Future (Proposed) Staffing

Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating

Management

*Project Leader PFT GS 13

*Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11
Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-15 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11

Refuge Manager PFT GS 11

Refuge Operations Specialist PFT GS 9/11

Administrative

*Administrative Assistant PFT GS 7

*Receptionist/Clerk/Typist PFT GS 4/5

Receptionist/Clerk/Typist PFT GS 4/5

Purchasing Agent PFT GS 6

Biology

*Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 9/11

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9/11

Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9

Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9

*Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7

Restoration Ecologist PFT GS 11

Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7

Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7

GIS/Data Management Specialist PFT GS 9

Public Use

*Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11

Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 9

*Environmental. Education Specialist

(Coordinator)

PFT GS 9/11

Environmental. Education Specialist

(Coordinator)

PFT GS 9/11

Interpretation & Education Specialist PFT GS 9

Visual Information Specialist PFT GS 7/9

Volunteer Services Coordinator PFT GS 7/9

*Park Ranger PFT GS 7

Refuge Officer PFT GS 7
Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-16 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge Officer PFT GS 7

Maintenance 

*Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

*Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6

Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6

Engineering Equip. Operator PFT 40429

* Indicates Minimum Critical Staffing, includes Black River Unit needs.
Appendix G

Compatibility Determinations

for Proposed Action

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
 
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Recreational Boating

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Recreational boating use addressed in this compatibility determination

includes motorboats and non-motorized boats, including kayaks and canoes, in all waters of the

Refuge outside the Brown Farm Dike, including the Research Natural Area (RNA). It does not

include personal watercraft (PWC) use. Motor boats include a variety of crafts powered by 2-

cycle or 4-cycle engines. Although the Refuge does not closely monitor all boat use that occurs

on Refuge waters, approximately 6,700 boats per year are estimated to use the Refuge based on

various public use data (USFWS, unpubl. data). Current Thurston County regulations require a 5

mph speed limit for all watercraft within 200 feet of any shoreline. However, this speed limit of

5 mph is currently not enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and is minimally

enforced by the State or County. Pierce County does not have a similar regulation.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) Proposed Action would continue to provide

recreational boating opportunities with an emphasis on use supporting priority public uses,

including wildlife observation/photography, interpretation, environmental education, waterfowl

hunting, and fishing. New restrictions would be aimed at minimizing impacts to wildlife and
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

habitat as well as conflicts with other users. These restrictions include a seasonal closure

(October 1-March 31) in the RNA and a 5 mph speed limit throughout Refuge waters, including

portions of the Refuge in Pierce County. This would expand the current 5 mph speed limit

within 200 feet of any shoreline (Thurston County regulations) to include all Refuge waters. The

area within the Brown Farm Dike and any estuarine restoration area (formerly diked areas) will

remain closed to boating. Commercial vendors that lead organized groups will be required to

apply for a Refuge Special Use Permit for each trip. A new visitor contact station would be

constructed at Luhr Beach if acquisition or development of a cooperative agreement is

accomplished with the State. 

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to

acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). 

Motorized and non-motorized boating currently occurs in McAllister Creek and the Nisqually

River, upstream from the current Refuge boundary, although use is limited, particularly in

McAllister Creek, which becomes extremely narrow and shallow in this area. The proposed

Refuge boating restrictions described above would be applied to any newly acquired lands or

waters.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage boating activities as described above:

One-time Recurring

 Costs Costs

Maintenance of Parking Area and Ramp 25K

 (Luhr Beach Boat Ramp)

Visitor Contact Station 15K 1K

Law Enforcement 20K

Survey and posting 15K

Signs 4K 2K

Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 5K

Administration 5K 5K 

TOTAL $39K $58K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and

interpretive materials (see summary table above). Law enforcement staffing would also be

needed. Funding would be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be

sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other law enforcement

agencies, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program

as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Nisqually NWR provides crucial foraging and resting habitat for

wintering migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and other waterbirds. 

Recreational boating affects their use in Refuge waters (also see Chapter 4 in the Draft CCP/EIS

for Nisqually NWR). Boating activity, both motorized and non-motorized, 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). 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
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized boats generally 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).

In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to have the greatest impact on red-breasted

merganser broods (Kahlert 1994). 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 or below the 5 mph speed limit.

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. USFWS 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, wading birds, other waterbirds, 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 in other shoreline habitats (Bratton 1990). Even low levels of

boating activity affect the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this narrow system. In

addition, disturbance to nesting birds is caused by boat activity. 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
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

variety of human disturbances. Great blue herons were one of the more sensitive of 23 waterbird

species, when measuring flush distances from motorized watercraft (Rodgers and Schwikert

2002). Washington State requires a minimum 300-m buffer zone to protect colonies from human

disturbances (WDFW 2001). However, boating activity in McAllister Creek falls within this

buffer zone. Boating activities may be one of the contributing factors affecting these nesting

birds. 

Motorized boats introduce noise and pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water, and

particulates in the air in estuarine and riverine habitats at the Refuge. An EPA report indicates

that two-stroke engines, found on many motorized boats, discharge as much as 25% of unspent

oil and gas directly into the water. Increased speeds of two-stroke engines can result in greater

discharge of unspent oil and gas. 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 these contaminants (Hoffman 1989). 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions

must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

(1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2)

There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3)

The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to

achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised;

(4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity;

and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

The only major waterways within the expansion area are McAllister Creek and the Nisqually

River. If property is acquired that includes McAllister Creek or the Nisqually River, boating

regulations described above would also apply to these areas. No waterways other than

McAllister Creek and Nisqually River will be open to boating. Anticipated impacts would be

similar to that described above. 

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR.

Following the public review and comment period, comments and actions taken to address

comments will be summarized here.
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: The following stipulations are required to

ensure that motorized and non-motorized boating is compatible:

1. A 5 mph speed limit for all boats will be implemented throughout Refuge waters. 

2. The RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31 to reduce disturbance

to wintering waterfowl populations.

3. The estuarine restoration area currently within the Brown Farm Dike (699 acres) will be

closed to boats year round to serve as a sanctuary area. No motorized or non-motorized

boats will be allowed into this area, and all public access will occur on trails only. 

4. Signs will be installed and maintained to mark closed areas, seasonal closures, and to

indicate 5 mph speed limit regulations on the Refuge. The RNA boundary will be posted

and signs will include seasonal closure dates.

5. Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with speed limit regulations and

area closures. Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at a new Visitor

Contact Station at Luhr Beach. Coordination with other law enforcement agencies,

including the State and County, will be strengthened. Motorboat operators are required to

be in compliance with all applicable Refuge, U.S. Coast Guard, and State of Washington

laws. Outreach and education efforts will address groups associated with boating in the

south Sound.

6. The Service remains concerned about impacts to wildlife using McAllister Creek. 

Waterfowl and waterbird use, great blue heron, bald eagle, salt marsh habitat, and boat

activity will be monitored in McAllister Creek to document impacts. This Compatibility

Determination will be re-evaluated in 3 - 5 years or sooner to assess whether other

protective measures should be implemented in McAllister Creek. 

7. If property is acquired that includes McAllister Creek or the Nisqually River, boating

regulations described above would also apply to these areas. No waterways other than

McAllister Creek and Nisqually River in the expansion area would be open to boating.

8. Monitoring of boating activities and associated effects on waterfowl, waterbirds, and

other migratory birds will be conducted. Monitoring data will be used by the Refuge

Manager in the periodic re-evaluation of this Compatibility Determination.

Justification: Boating itself is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation, but many wildlifedependent recreational activities (fishing, waterfowl hunting, environmental education,
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

interpretation, and wildlife observation/photography) are associated with boating. Providing

opportunities for wildlife-dependent priority public uses would contribute toward fulfilling

provisions under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended in 1997. 

Although boating has a potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed

measures listed in the Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. It is anticipated

that an adequate amount of estuary habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl and

other wetland birds because some high wildlife use areas will be closed to boating, and boating

regulations would be maintained and enforced. Thus, it is anticipated that birds will find

sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will

not be measurably lessened, the physiological condition and production of waterfowl and other

waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered

dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. The Refuge will also implement a

monitoring program to help assess disturbance effects on wildlife and habitat. Improved

outreach and educational information for Refuge visitors involved in activities associated with

boating would also help to reduce the impacts associated with boating activities. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

_________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date to be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all uses

other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

References

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the

western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

Bratton, S.P. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 13:124-128.

Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of a

roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. Conserv. 77:193-201.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts and

Mitigation Measures. 

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. Reviews of

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 115:41-50.

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report-effects of human activity and water craft on wintering birds

in South San Diego Bay. USFWS report.

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep.

Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus serrator. Wildfowl

15:222-231.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. Wildl.

Manage. 48: 561-567.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists R.L. Knight

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage.

48:999-1004.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration

staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126.

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from

disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No.

1:216-224.

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River,

Washington. Seattle, Washington. 231-241pp.

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological

Applications. 1:215-225.

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University college

London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35pp.

Tjarnlund U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2-

cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Inst. of Applied Research, U. of Stockholm.

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. J. Wildl. Manage. 37:382-

389.
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and

Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Portland, OR. 160 pp.

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in

northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds.
Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Recreational Fishing (bank, boat and shellfishing)

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Currently, recreational fishing occurs in McAllister Creek, in the Nisqually

River, and on the tideflats at the mouth of McAllister Creek and north of the Brown Farm Dike. 

Boat launch sites providing access to McAllister Creek and Nisqually River are primarily from

the Luhr Beach Boat Ramp, but also include other launching facilities in southern Puget Sound. 

The Refuge offers a walk-in bank fishing area along McAllister Creek. Anglers must pay the

Refuge entrance fee and hike approximately 3⁄4 mile on the Refuge trail to the designated fishing

area. Illegal access occurs frequently at the southern boundary of the Refuge, where McAllister

Creek flows under I-5. Some fishing activity also occurs at a pier located at the Luhr Beach boat

ramp. Fish caught by Refuge visitors primarily include chinook and chum salmon, but also 

some cutthroat and steelhead. Although the Refuge does not closely monitor all fishing on the

Refuge, use is estimated to be approximately 3,800 anglers per year based on various public use

data. During low spring and summer tides, shellfishers access the Refuge and State tideflats

from Luhr Beach. Although the intertidal area at the mouth of McAllister Creek has been closed

to shellfishing due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria since 2000, this closure is not

enforced and some shellfishing does still occur.
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

The CCP Proposed Action would continue to provide fishing opportunities from boats in the

Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. The Research Natural Area (RNA) would be posted

closed to fishing and the closure enforced to comply with Refuge RNA policy. However, since

estuarine restoration along McAllister Creek would remove the dike on which the current bank

fishing occurs, this fishing area will no longer be available. The Service would investigate the

feasibility of establishing a new bank fishing area along the east bank of the Nisqually River,

north of I-5, on Nisqually Indian Tribal and Refuge property. The development of this site would

need to be coordinated with the development of a trail system and visitor contact station/parking

area located in the uplands above this property. The Refuge would also investigate fishing

opportunities for disabled users at Luhr Beach and along the Nisqually River.

Shellfishing will remained closed in the tideflats as directed by the Washington State Department

of Health. The Refuge would re-evaluate this compatibility determination if recreational

shellfishing is opened in the future because of improved water quality.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/EIS for the

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). 

There are several public recreational fishing sites in the proposed expansion area. The majority

of fishing use occurs on the Nisqually River accessed from Fort Lewis property (Trotter’s

Woods) on the east side of the river or from a State owned (WDFW) bank fishing site on the

west side of the river. This WDFW site was designed to be completely accessible; however,

changes in the river have made this site less usable. The numbers of anglers using these sites are

not known, but observations indicate very heavy use when salmon runs are occurring. The

remote nature of these sites and the low level of enforcement have resulted in high amounts of

fishing litter and debris at some of these sites. Use in the Trotter’s Woods area is largely

unregulated, and evidence of habitat deterioration from vehicle use and extensive litter exists in

this riparian forest. If Trotter’s Woods is managed by the Service through acquisition or a

cooperative management agreement, the area will be managed to reduce habitat damage and

improve the fishing program. This includes development of a parking area, improved vehicle

traffic management within the forested areas, and riparian restoration. In addition, bank fishing

opportunities south of I-5 on McAllister Creek would be established, if appropriate parcels are

acquired, to replace the site (north of I-5) that will be lost due to dike removal for estuarine

restoration.

The CCP Proposed Action in the expansion area is to provide quality fishing opportunities by

maintaining selected traditional bank fishing and water access sites, improve facilities, and close

other sites to protect habitat values, for example, limiting vehicle access in sensitive riparian

habitats. Location criteria for new sites considered will be accessibility, feasibility, minimal

conflicts with other users, maintenance, compatibility, wildlife and habitat disturbance potential,

and potential to promote a quality fishing experience.
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage fishing activities as described above:

One-time Recurring

 Cost Cost

Bank fishing area 18K

(development, eastside)

Law Enforcement 35K

Posting/signing 16K 2K

Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 3K 5K

Development of Accessible Sites

(Luhr Beach, Nisqually River) 60K 3K

Development and maintenance 

of Trotter’s Woods Site 50K 15K

Maintenance of Parking Area 10K

Administration 18K 5K

TOTAL $165K $75K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and

interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would also be needed. Funding would be

sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened

partnerships, grants, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and additional Refuge

operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing as a solitary and stationary activity tends to be less

disturbing to wildlife than hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). It is well recognized

that fishing can give many people a deeper appreciation of fish and wildlife and a better

understanding of the importance of conserving habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the

Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of fishing, a major goal of

Nisqually NWR is to provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Fishing is one of

the six priority public uses on the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of key concern then, is to

manage the activity to keep adverse impacts to within acceptable limits. 

Angler activities while on Refuge are and will remain consistent with State guidelines. Harvestrelated impacts for fish stocks associated with sportfishing in the Nisqually River and McAllister

Creek are estimated annually and taken into consideration by the State in their development of

annual pre-season fishing agreements and associated regulations. Therefore, impacts to fish

populations should be minimized. 

Additional disturbance would be caused to birds and other wildlife using the open waters and

rivers/creeks where fishing would occur. Fishing activities may influence the composition of

bird communities, as well as distribution, abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Tydeman

1977, Bouffard 1982, Bell and Austin 1985, Bordignon 1985, Edwards and Bell 1985, and

Cooke 1987). Anglers often fish in shallow, sheltered bays and creeks that birds prefer,

negatively impacting distribution and abundance of waterfowl, grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). 

Increases in anglers and associated shoreline activity discouraged waterfowl from using

otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). In Britain, anglers displaced waterfowl from
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

their preferred feeding and roosting areas and caused wigeon, green-winged teal, pochard, and

mallard to depart from a reservoir prematurely (Jahn and Hunt 1964). Anglers influenced the

numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites in Washington,

when compared to non-fishing days (Knight et al. 1991). Shoreline activities, such as human

noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. In addition, trampling of vegetation

and deposition of sewage or other chemicals are expected to commonly occur (Liddle and

Scorgie 1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, bank stability, and water

quality may result from high levels of bank fishing activities.

Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or

entire areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and

cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). Impacts of motorized boating can

occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a

short amount of time. This is especially the case in the RNA and McAllister Creek, both areas

with high waterfowl use. 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. In

addition, 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 1996). A great blue heron

nesting rookery has been located along McAllister Creek for several years, with nesting activity

beginning as early as February. Washington State requires a minimum 300-meter buffer zone to

protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). Boating activity in this area would

affect the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this narrow system (see Compatibility

Determination for “Recreational Boating”). 

If recreational shellfish harvest activity is re-opened at the mouth of McAllister Creek, it will be

managed consistent with State guidelines. Harvest-related impacts to shellfish stocks are

estimated annually and taken into consideration by the State in their development of annual

seasonal harvest dates and allowances. Therefore, impacts to shellfish populations should be

reduced. However, activity associated with shellfishing may result in disturbance to the habitat

caused by foot traffic and digging activity on mudflats, aquatic plants, and nearby salt marshes. 

Additional disturbances would occur as described above associated with fishing activity. 

Anticipated Impacts from Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following

conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly

acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health

or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural

resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and

would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not

be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to

manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

Anticipated impacts from fishing in the expansion area would be the same as described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the draft CCP/Environmental Impact Statement for Nisqually NWR. 

Following the public review and comment period, comments and actions taken to address

comments will be summarized here.
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Sanctuary areas will be designated to provide

high quality habitat for feeding, resting, breeding, and thermal protection for waterfowl and other

wildlife species. The RNA, a mixture of nearshore, intertidal, and salt marsh habitat, will be

closed to fishing year round and to boating from October 1 to March 31. In addition, the restored

estuarine area will be closed to fishing and other public use activities, except for wildlife

observation from trails at the edges, to allow undisturbed research and monitoring of wildlife and

habitat response to restoration activities. Some of the freshwater units will serve as sanctuary for

waterfowl that prefer to move between the estuary and freshwater wetlands. 

Boating associated with fishing has high potential for adversely impacting wildlife in the estuary. 

Three factors that exert the most disturbance to wildlife due to boating are noise, speed, and

significantly increased access to more parts of the estuary. Thus, boating regulations to ensure

compatibility during the fishing season will include the following: (1) 5 mph speed limit for

boats in all Refuge waters; (2) the RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31

to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl populations; and (3) the estuarine restoration area

currently within the Brown Farm Dike will be closed to boats year round. No motorized or nonmotorized boats will be allowed into this area and all public access will occur on trails only. 

Signs will be installed to mark closed areas. The Refuge remains concerned about impacts to

wildlife using McAllister Creek. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that these

stipulations are sufficient to minimize disturbance to wildlife.

The Refuge will provide information on fishing and shellfishing regulations at the Luhr Beach

boat ramp, Visitor Contact Stations, and through printed brochures. Information will also

include current migratory bird and Refuge regulations, and maps of closed areas. Refuge officers

will enforce closed areas and boat speed limits. The Refuge will monitor and evaluate the fishing

program and users to determine if objectives are being met. 

Justification: Recreational fishing is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Providing a quality fishing program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge’s

goals. This program as described was determined to be compatible despite the potential impacts

that fishing and supporting activities (boating) can have on the Service’s ability to achieve Refuge

purposes. Sufficient restrictions will be placed on fishing, boating, and other public uses to ensure

that an adequate amount of high quality feeding, breeding, and resting habitat would be available

for migratory birds in relatively undisturbed areas (sanctuaries). Although boating has the greatest

potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the

Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. In addition, the majority of waterfowl

use on the Refuge occurs in the winter and spring months, with some birds arriving as early as

September and October. Since the majority of the fishing activity occurs in the summer and fall

(through mid-October), disturbance to waterfowl species is reduced.

It is anticipated that an adequate amount of estuary, open water, and riverine habitat would be

available to the majority of waterfowl, waterbirds, and other wildlife because: (1) some high
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

wildlife use areas will be set aside as sanctuary; (2) new boating regulations would be

implemented and enforced; and (3) bank fishing activity will be confined to designated areas and

enforced. Thus, it is anticipated that wildlife, primarily waterbirds, will find sufficient food

resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be

measurably lessened, fishing pressure will not cause fish stocks to decline, the physiological

condition and production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior

and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be

impaired. A program will be implemented to monitor some of these factors.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

 X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date to be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for priority

public uses)

_______ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

References

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biol.

Conserv. 33:65-80.

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas platyrhynchos. (Effects

of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88.

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. N. Am. Wildl.

Conf. 47:553-556.

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22.

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-21.

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep.

Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N. V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an Avian Scavenging Guild to Anglers. Biol.

Conserv. 56:195-205.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: a review. Biol.

Conserv. 17:183-206.

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2-

cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and

Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. J. of Environmental

Management 5 :289-296.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Portland, OR. 160 pp.

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 
Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Waterfowl Hunting

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Nisqually NWR lands are not open to waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl

hunting is allowed on 617 acres of WDFW lands within the approved Refuge boundary. Due to

the irregular shape and scattered locations of these inholdings, and difficulty in posting and

maintaining boundary signs, unauthorized hunting occurs on up to 1,189 acres of adjacent

Refuge lands. This hunting activity has been considered administratively uncontrollable, so

where signing is absent, hunting closures have not been enforced. Since the unauthorized

hunting occurs on 63% of the estuarine habitat within the Refuge, including the Research Natural

Area (RNA), current hunting activity provides insufficient sanctuary for estuarine-dependent

wildlife and allows an unauthorized use to continue on large parts of the Refuge. 

The CCP Proposed Action includes formally opening a total of approximately 191 acres of

waters and tideflats of Nisqually NWR lands to waterfowl hunting (USFWS 2002). These lands

are contiguous with the WDFW parcel north of the Brown Farm Dike. The RNA boundary will

be moved to the east to provide high quality hunting area at the mouth of the River, reducing the

RNA by 73 acres. By opening 191 acres of the Refuge to waterfowl hunting, the hunting area
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

north of the Brown Farm Dike will be configured in a single rectangular block, greatly reducing

confusing boundary issues. Areas designated as “No Hunting Areas” will be posted and

enforced, eliminating the unauthorized hunting that has occurred on the Refuge in the past. 

Waterfowl hunting will continue on all WDFW lands. A 25-shell limit will be instituted on

Refuge and WDFW lands. WDFW will continue to have jurisdiction and management

responsibility over WDFW lands, and the Service will manage the hunting program on Refuge

lands. Hunting will be allowed consistent with annual State hunting regulations and seasons, and

will be permitted by boat access only in the posted Refuge hunt area. The area within the Brown

Farm Dike, including the estuarine restoration area, will remain closed to hunting. The

waterfowl hunting season generally falls within the period from October through January. There

will be no limit on the number of hunters, hunt days, and no designated blind sites. The State

will manage their own hunt program on WDFW lands. 

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/EIS for

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). Some private hunting occurs on

property within the expansion area. The Medicine Creek Hunt Club consists of a small number

of hunters using private property south of I-5. Waterfowl hunting also takes place in Trotter’s

Woods by approximately 3-4 hunters. Should these areas be acquired by the Service, the Refuge

would consider allowing walk-in waterfowl hunting with set blinds if sufficient lands have been

acquired to allow for adequate wildlife sanctuary and minimal conflicts with other priority public

uses. This Compatibility Determination will be updated in the future to include walk-in hunting

in the expansion area.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage waterfowl hunting activities as described above:

One-time Recurring

 Cost Cost

Survey and Post 75K 10K 

Maintenance of Parking Area 10K

Law Enforcement 20K

Administration 25K 15K

Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 15K 10K

TOTAL $115K $65K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain a hunt program, visitor

facilities, and interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would be needed. Funding would

be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened

partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public

use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive

effects on waterfowl and other birds while the activity is occurring, but it is well recognized that

this activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding

of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge

System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of Nisqually NWR

is to provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation. By law, hunting is one of
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of key concern is to offer a

safe and quality program and to maintain adverse impacts within acceptable limits. 

Although hunting directly impacts individuals, 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 visit per day was 8.4 during the

1998/99 season (USFWS unpublished data). Hunting may be either compensatory or additive to

natural mortality (Anderson 1995). Compensatory mortality occurs when hunting substitutes for

other forms of mortality (disease, competition, predation, severe weather, etc.). Additive

mortality occurs when hunting compounds the total mortality. In some cases, hunting can be

used as a management tool to control populations. In concert with Canada, Mexico, and multistate Flyway councils, the Service and WDFW regulate hunting so that harvest does not reduce

populations to unsustainable levels. 

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). 

Hunting can alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of

wildlife (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 feeding areas (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
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

(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 (Madsen 1995). Thus sanctuary areas are very important to minimize

disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the Nisqually delta.

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in

between hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for

Refuges to manage hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento NWR, 3-16% of pintails

were located on hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same

units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, and northern

shovelers decreased time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas,

as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, intermittent hunting

may not always greatly reduce hunting impacts. The intermittent hunting program of three hunt

days per week at Sacramento NWR results in lower pintail densities on hunt areas during nonhunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). In Germany, several studies reported a range from

a few days to approximately three weeks for waterbird numbers to recover to pre-disturbance

levels (Fox and Madsen 1997). The proposed hunt program at Nisqually NWR will not be

intermittent in order to provide consistent management with the existing program on adjacent

WDFW lands and waters, preventing confusion among hunters on the 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 from hunters, anglers, and pleasure boaters (Cronan 1957). In

Germany, boating pressure on wintering waterfowl had reached such a high level that it was

necessary to establish larger sanctuaries, implement a seasonal closure on water sports and angling,

and impose a permanent ban on hunting (Bauer et al. 1992). 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. This is especially important in the RNA and McAllister Creek. These are both areas with

high waterfowl use. 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. In addition, 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. Washington State requires a minimum

300-meter buffer zone to protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). It is possible

that hunting and associated boating activities may be one of the contributing factors affecting these

nesting birds, as well as other wildlife using this narrow system. 

Additional impacts from hunting activity include conflicts with individuals participating in

wildlife-dependent priority public uses, such as canoers, kayakers, and other wildlife observers. 

The Refuge has received numerous comments from canoers and kayakers indicating concern for

their safety while boating during the waterfowl hunting season. 
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions

must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: 

(1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There

is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is

consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving

Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly

acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no

anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

Anticipated impacts associated with a new walk-in hunting program would be addressed in the

updated Compatibility Determination to be developed in the future.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with the CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR. Following the public review and comment period,

comments and actions taken to address comments will be summarized here.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Refuge hunt programs will be designed to

provide high quality experiences. A quality hunt experience means that: (1) hunters are safe; 

(2) hunters exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) hunters are provided with uncrowded

conditions; (4) hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; (5) hunters are clear on which

areas are open and closed to hunting; and (6) minimal conflicts occur between hunters and other

visitors, especially those engaging in wildlife-dependent priority public uses. The 7-day per

week hunt program proposed on the Refuge would include the following restrictions to reduce

impacts: (1) a limited hunting area (area will be posted and enforced); (2) a 25-shell limit; 

(3) redefining and reducing the RNA by 73 acres to allow for hunting at the mouth of the

Nisqually River; (4) a 200-yard buffer from trails; (5) sufficient feeding and resting habitat for

waterfowl in areas closed to hunting (sanctuary); and (6) periodic biological and social

monitoring and evaluation of hunting program, including feedback from users to determine if

objectives are being met.

Sanctuary areas must provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and thermal protection. 

Since the waterfowl hunt in the delta is focused in estuarine habitat, it is important that sufficient

estuarine habitat on the Refuge be set aside as sanctuary. The RNA (764 acres), a mixture of

nearshore, intertidal, and salt marsh habitat, will be closed to all consumptive uses year-round

and boating during the waterfowl hunting season (October 1 - March 31) to provide this

sanctuary. Estuarine habitat within McAllister Creek will also be closed to hunting. The newly

restored estuarine area (699 acres) will be closed to public access to ensure successful restoration

and to allow undisturbed research and monitoring to evaluate wildlife and habitat response to

restoration activities. This area thus will also serve as a sanctuary site. The majority of the

remaining diked area (263 areas) will serve as sanctuary for waterfowl that prefer to move
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

between the estuary and freshwater wetlands. Some of the freshwater units would include public

access on trails and therefore would not function as complete sanctuary. Monitoring must

demonstrate that sanctuary units are functional, including receiving significant daytime use by

waterfowl throughout the hunting season.

Boating associated with hunting has high potential for adversely impacting wildlife in the

estuary. Three factors that exert the most disturbance to wildlife due to boating are noise, speed,

and significantly increased access to more parts of the estuary. Thus, boating regulations to

ensure compatibility during the hunting season will include the following: (1) 5 mph speed limit

for boats in all Refuge waters; (2) the RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through

March 31 to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl populations; and (3) the estuarine

restoration area currently within the Brown Farm Dike will be closed to boats year round. No

motorized or non-motorized boats will be allowed into this area and all public access will occur

on trails only. Monitoring would be conducted to evaluate whether these stipulations are

sufficient to minimize disturbance to wildlife.

Hunter compliance with current migratory bird and Refuge regulations would be achieved

through a combination of printed information, signing, outreach efforts, and enforcement of

regulations by Refuge officers.

Justification: Waterfowl hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Providing a quality hunting program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge

goals. This program as described was determined to be compatible, in view of the potential

impacts that hunting and supporting activities (boating) can have on the Service’s ability to

achieve Refuge purposes and goals. The Refuge would be opened to waterfowl hunting, with

sufficient restrictions in place on hunting, boating, and other public uses to ensure that an

adequate amount of high-quality feeding and resting habitat would be available in relatively

undisturbed areas (sanctuaries) for the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds using

Nisqually NWR. Although boating has the greatest potential to impact wetland wildlife,

implementing the prescribed measures listed in the Stipulations section and in the Recreational

Boating Compatibility Determination should reduce major impacts to acceptable levels.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide high quality experiences. In general, hunting on

Refuges should be superior to that available on other private or public lands, which may require

special restrictions (Refuge Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used to ensure quality, including

limited hunt days and shell limits and using buffers for public use trails eliminating the need for

seasonal trail closures. The limited hunt program is proposed on the Refuge to accomplish the

following: (1) accommodate the existing hunt program on WDFW lands; (2) establish consistent

regulations across all lands and waters within the Nisqually delta; (3) provide a quality hunting

experience that meets Refuge guidelines and policies; and (4) provide sufficient waterfowl

sanctuary and resolve the current unauthorized hunting situation. 

It is anticipated that an adequate amount of quality, non-hunted estuarine habitat would be available

to the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds because: (1) some high wildlife use areas will

be set aside as sanctuary (764 acres in the RNA and 699 acres of restored estuarine area); (2)

boating regulations would be maintained and enforced; and (3) hunting activity will be confined to
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

designated areas because “no hunting zones” will be posted and enforced. Consolidation of the

hunting area into a single block of land provides a distinct, manageable unit that can be more easily

delineated, posted, and enforced, resulting in larger sections of estuary in the delta that are available

for waterfowl use. Thus, it is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources and resting

places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened, hunting

pressure will not cause premature departure from the area, the physiological condition and

production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal

activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. A

program will be implemented to monitor waterfowl population numbers and habitat use.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

 X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date will be provided in the Final EIS/CCP (for

priority public uses)

________ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

References

Anderson, S. H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. Pages 157-168 in R. L. Knight and K. J.

Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press,

Washington, D. C. 372pp.

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east

central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the

western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

Cole, D. N. and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State University,

Logan, Utah.

Cronan, J. M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts and

Mitigation Measures. 

Fox, A. D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in

Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in California.

Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and

Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

Jahn, L. R. and R. A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep.

Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists (R. L.

Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational

staging area. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:290-296.

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biol.

Conserv. 33 :53-63.

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74.

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in

winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2):401-410 .

Morton, J. M., R. L. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and movements of

American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:390-400.

Owens, N. W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:371-380.
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of

reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Thomas, V. G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its implication. In Fourth

Western Hemispheric Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, ed., H. Boyd. 73-81. Ottawa, Canada: 

Canadian Wildlife Service.

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2-

cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118.

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of winterning northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. 

M. S. Thesis, Humbolt State Univ., Arcata. 62pp. 

Wood, A. K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest and wildlife population management. Wild. Soc. Bull 21:

91-95.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Portland, OR. 160 pp.

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds.
Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Currently, the environmental education program at Nisqually NWR serves

5,000 students a year. The environmental education program is designed to provide effective

resources, tools, and training which facilitates the teaching of accurate scientific and

environmental information about the Nisqually River watershed, Delta, and surrounding areas.

The environmental education program works with students and educators to foster an

understanding of and appreciation for resource management, the human impacts on wildlife

habitats, and to encourage active participation in resource protection. 

With a full-time environmental education staff, up to 15,000 students a year will participate in

the Refuge environmental education program. Educators will attend a teacher orientation and

will design, schedule, and run their own field trips on the Refuge. Refuge staff will provide

teacher training, site-specific curricula, materials, and activities, and field trip assistance to

enhance learning in an outdoor setting. The temporary Education Center, or new education

facility, will be the focus area of the education program. Environmental education study sites in

the area of the Twin Barns Loop Trail will provide areas for more in-depth study. Students and
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

teachers will participate in restoration and monitoring activities through one-time activities or

more long-term monitoring studies. 

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/EIS for

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). The Refuge would acquire from

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

Beach area and Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Because of similar objectives, the education

program at the Nisqually Reach Nature Center would be incorporated into the Refuge

environmental education program through a cooperative agreement, providing an even stronger

program for educating the public on the marine resources of the Nisqually Delta. 

As property is acquired south of I-5 and on the East Bluff, each parcel will be reviewed to

determine whether it may be incorporated into the existing Refuge environmental education

program. The Refuge environmental education program will continue to focus within the

Environmental Education Center and Twin Barns Loop Trail areas. However, future

environmental education opportunities on newly acquired lands will include student and teacher

participation in habitat restoration and monitoring activities that would be incorporated into the

overall program. This compatibility determination will be re-evaluated if new activities in the

expansion area are anticipated to significantly change the level of use.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage environmental education activities as described above:

One-Time Recurring

 Cost Cost

Construct and Outfit Education Center 1,300K

Establish Study Sites 45K

Maintenance and operation of Education Center,

Maintenance of study sites 35K

Staffing (teacher training, student support, 

 curriculum development, 

 administration) 150K

Equipment, materials, and supplies 100K 15K

TOTAL $1,445K $200K

Funds are anticipated to be available through the Service budget process for construction of a

new education center, establishment of study sites, and potentially some operational costs. 

Additional funding for staffing and operational costs would be needed. Other sources will be

sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to

support a safe, quality environmental education program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The environmental education program would use existing public

facilities including parking areas, the Visitor Center, trails, observation platforms and overlooks,

and the temporary Education Center. Direct impact to wildlife would occur, as with any group

along the trail, if birds (mostly songbirds and waterfowl) near the trail are disturbed. This

disturbance is considered to be of minimal impact because: (1) the total number of students
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

permitted through the reservation system is limited to 100 per day; (2) students and teachers will

be instructed in trail etiquette and the best ways to view wildlife with minimal disturbance; 

(3) education groups will be required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise the

group; (4) trail design will provide adequate cover for wildlife; and (5) observation areas and

scopes are provided to view wildlife at a distance which reduces disturbance. 

Establishment of environmental education study sites would create some off-trail disturbance of

habitat. Again, this disturbance is considered minimal as study sites will be placed in areas

already impacted by trail users and Refuge staff, and all off-trail activity will be focused in these

small areas. Educators will be instructed on use of the study areas during teacher orientation

workshops. Collection of samples for study (i.e., mud, water, plants) will be restricted to study

areas, and samples must be used on site. Collection will be of materials needed to enhance

hands-on learning and investigation and will be designed as part of structured activities and

lessons, guided by teachers, and monitored by Refuge staff. These activities are an integral part

of the education program design and philosophy and their impacts are considered minimal. 

Education staff will coordinate with Biology staff regarding activities associated with restoration

or monitoring projects to ensure that impacts to both wildlife and habitat are minimal. As with

any restoration and monitoring activities conducted by Refuge personnel, these activities

conducted by students would be at a time and place where the least amount of disturbance would

occur.

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Similar to the

management of uses on existing lands, the following conditions must be met before allowing

existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect,

direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct,

or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with

management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. 

In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired

lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no

anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

Future environmental education opportunities in the expansion area associated with habitat

restoration and monitoring will have similar impacts as described above. 

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR. Following the public review and

comment period, comments and actions taken to address comments will be summarized here.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Participants in the Refuge’s environmental

education program will be restricted to established trails, study sites, and other facilities

including buildings, boardwalks, photo blinds, observation decks, and platforms. Existing and
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

new trails and facilities would be designed, constructed, and operated to provide adequate

sanctuary for wildlife populations. 

All groups using the Refuge for environmental education will be required to make reservations in

advance through the Refuge office. A daily limit of 100 students participating in the education

program will be maintained through this reservation system. Efforts will be made to spread out

use by large groups while reservations are made, reducing disturbance to wildlife and overcrowding of Refuge facilities during times of peak demand. 

Environmental education study sites will be located where minimal impact to Refuge resources

will occur. Boardwalks, railings, or platforms will be used as appropriate to minimize

disturbance by eliminating repeated foot traffic directly in the habitat. Periodic monitoring and

evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met and the

resource is not being degraded.

Trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife disturbance will be discussed with teachers during

orientation workshops and with students upon arrival during their welcome session. Observation

platforms and scopes will be provided to view wildlife at a distance, which will reduce

disturbance. 

Students participating in restoration and monitoring activities will work as described in the

program and as permitted in their reservation form. Students will be trained by Refuge staff 

before they start restoration and monitoring projects to ensure their safety while out in the field

and to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of

activities will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met. 

Justification: Environmental education is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. Providing a quality environmental education program is a Refuge goal. To achieve this

goal, the Refuge environmental education program would provide a diversity of environmental

education opportunities to students and teachers. These include: (1) facilities, materials, and

training; (2) access to a variety of Refuge habitats; and (3) the ability to observe wildlife and

conduct hands-on exploration. The program is intended to foster a better understanding of

Refuge ecosystems and wildlife resources, and in turn build a public that is more knowledgeable

about and involved in natural resource stewardship. Although there is some impact to Refuge

lands and wildlife in having an environmental education program, efforts will be made to ensure

that they are minimal. The benefits of an environmental education program to resource

management well into the future far outweigh the short-term impacts described above.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

 X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date, will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for priority

public uses)

 Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

References

USFW S (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation are considered

together in this Compatibility Determination because all are considered to be wildlife-dependent,

non-consumptive uses and many elements of these programs are similar. Currently, over 95,500

visitors per year participate in these Refuge programs. The Refuge will continue to provide

public facilities, including a Visitor Center with interpretive displays, focusing on Refuge

habitats and wildlife. Interpretive panels will also be located along Refuge trails. Interpretation

would focus on Refuge habitats, estuarine restoration, improved management, and fish and

wildlife. All three of these public uses are dependent upon the Refuge trail system. Below is a

description of Refuge trails:

1. An existing accessible 1-mile loop boardwalk trail will be maintained. This self-guided

trail surrounds permanent and seasonal wetlands and riparian habitat and has 5 wildlife

observation overlooks, a viewing platform, interpretive panels, and permanently mounted

scopes and binoculars.

2. There would be a 11⁄2-mile trail on a new exterior dike and boardwalk extension that

would be linked with the existing Twin Barns Loop Trail, providing a 31⁄2-mile round-trip
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

walk. This trail would take visitors out past freshwater wetland and riparian restoration

areas into the native estuarine and restoration area with a view of Puget Sound. 

3. An unimproved, primitive 1⁄2-mile trail would be established in the Nisqually River surge

plain forest, providing access farther into one of Washington’s diminishing habitats than

the current trail. 

4. A new loop trail (2.5-mile) would be developed on tribal and Refuge lands east of the

Nisqually River (Eastside). This trail will lead visitors through pastures, freshwater

wetland or riparian restoration areas, and existing and restored estuarine areas. Seasonal

closures during the waterfowl hunting season would be required because of activities

from a private hunt club. A new visitor contact station and parking area would be

constructed to support this trail.

5. Another new trail would include a trail on the East Bluff in an upland coniferous

dominated forest. This trail would be elevated and could provide some viewpoints to

overlook the delta. Development of this trail would occur after acquisition of the East

Bluff parcel has been completed.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/EIS for

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). Current levels of wildlifedependent public use are minimal. The Nisqually Reach Nature Center provides the only public

access for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography. However, this facility does not

include a trail system. The Refuge would acquire from or develop a cooperative management

agreement with WDFW to cooperatively manage the Luhr Beach Boat Ramp and Nisqually

Reach Nature Center to improve the interpretation of Refuge resources from this access point. 

As property is acquired south of I-5 and on the East Bluff, each parcel will be reviewed to

determine whether public access trails or viewing areas could be established. Criteria that will be

used for determining the development of new trails include the availability of wildlife sanctuary

in the immediate area. 

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation activities as described above:

One-Time Recurring

 Cost Cost

Maintenance and operation of Visitor 

 Center, including staff, support materials

 (brochures), and special events 350K

Construct east side visitor facilities 120K 15K

Construct east side trail with interpretive panels 125K

Maintenance of new Visitor Contact Station(s),

parking area (s), and trails 75K

Law enforcement 45K

Signs/Interpretive panels 15K

Administration ______ 30K

TOTAL $245K $530K
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and

interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would also be needed. Funding would be

sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened

partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public

use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Wildlife Observation and Interpretation: The construction and maintenance of trails and

boardwalks will impact soils, vegetation, and in some instances hydrology around the trails. This

could include an increased potential for erosion, soil compaction (Liddle 1975), reduced seed

emergence (Cole and Landres 1995), alteration of vegetative structure and composition, and

sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988). 

Human activities on trails can result in direct effects on wildlife through harassment, a form of

disturbance that can cause physiological effects, behavioral modifications, or death (Smith and

Hunt 1995). Birds can be impacted from human activities on trails when they are disturbed and

flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Flushing, especially repetitive flushing, can

strongly impact habitat use patterns of many birds species. 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). For example, flocks of geese and ducks are repeatedly flushed by

pedestrians on dike trails leading to McAllister Creek during fall and winter months. Migratory

birds are observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 1989). Herons

and shorebirds were observed to be the most easily disturbed (when compared to gulls, terns and

ducks) by human activity and flush to distant areas away from people (Burger 1981). A reduced

number of shorebirds were found near people who were walking or jogging, and about 50% of

flushed birds flew elsewhere (Burger 1981). In addition, the foraging time of sanderlings

decreased and avoidance (e.g., running, flushing) increased as the number of humans within 100

meters increased at a coastal bay refuge on the Atlantic (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). Nest

predation for songbirds (Miller et al. 1998), raptors (Glinski 1976), colonial nesting species

(Buckley and Buckley 1978), and waterfowl (Boyle and Samson 1985) tends to increase in areas

more frequently visited by people. In addition, for many passerine species, primary song

occurrence and consistency can be impacted by a single visitor (Gutzwiller et al. 1994). This

could potentially limit the number of breeding pairs of certain passerine species, thus limiting

production within refuge riparian habitats (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). 

Wildlife Photography: Of the wildlife observation techniques, wildlife photographers tend to

have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife

observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach

wildlife (Klein 1993). Even slow approach by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral

consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for

photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time, in an attempt to habituate

the wildlife subject to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency of casual photographers, with

low-power lenses, to get much closer to their subjects than other activities would require (Morton

1995), including wandering off trails. This usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife

and habitat, including trampling of plants.
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions

must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

(1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; 

(2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources;

(3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would

contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be

compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage

the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

Future wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities in the expansion area

will have similar impacts would as described above. 

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the draft CCP/Environmental Impact Statement for Nisqually NWR. 

Following the public review and comment period, comments and actions taken to address

comments will be summarized here.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Adequate areas would be designated as

wildlife sanctuary with no public use activities to provide high quality habitat for feeding,

resting, and thermal protection. Trails will be designed to provide adequate sanctuary areas with

minimal fragmentation of habitats. For example, the RNA (764 acres) provides sanctuary

because no trails would be developed in this area and seasonal closures and a prohibition on

consumptive uses will be enforced. In addition, the restored estuarine area (699 acres) will be

closed to all public uses, except for monitoring and research studies. There would be no loop

trail in the restored estuarine area because activity in the middle of the restored estuary would be

disturbing to wildlife species that use that habitat. In addition, only a short section of boardwalk

would remain near McAllister Creek, eliminating much of the current trail activity within this

narrow and sensitive area. There would also be no cross trails that would lead visitors into the

interior of freshwater habitats to minimize disturbance and maximize bird use in these smaller

areas. Where feasible, native trees and shrubs will be planted to create screening along trails to

reduce disturbance. These measures will also enhance viewing opportunities and provide quality

wildlife observation experiences. 

All of the above described uses will be restricted to designated trails and public facilities. 

Elevated boardwalks with the pin foundation system (no pilings in the ground) will be used in

sensitive habitats to reduce effects on soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Observation areas and

scopes will be provided to allow visitors to view wildlife at a distance with less or with minimal

disturbance. The design of new trails will follow the criteria described above. Any proposed

trail developments will only occur after adequate wildlife sanctuary areas have been identified. 

Visitors will not be allowed into off-trail sanctuary areas unless given permission through the
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge’s Special Use Permitting system for special circumstances. Refuge staff will enforce

Refuge regulations prohibiting unauthorized off-trail activities. 

Public use on the Refuge will be restricted to daylight hours only. The capacity of the Refuge

will be limited to the 100-car capacity parking lot. When the lot is full, the Refuge trails and

facilities will be considered to be full. Regulations and wildlife friendly behavior will be

described in brochures and posted at the Visitor Center and Visitor Contact Station(s). 

Monitoring protocol would be developed to examine impacts associated with differing levels and

types of public use. Monitoring data will be critically analyzed and used by the Refuge Manager

to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the wildlife observation,

photography, and interpretation programs.

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Providing opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and

environmental interpretation would contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of

Nisqually NWR. Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation would provide an

excellent forum for allowing public access and increasing understanding of Refuge resources. 

The educational possibilities provided by these opportunities would outweigh anticipated impacts

associated with implementation of the program. The stipulations outlined above should

minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

 X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for

priority public uses)

_______ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

References

Boyle, S. A. and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull.

13:110-116.

Buckley, P. A. and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds.

North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston, MA. 52pp.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Cons. 21:231-241.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distance and birds: tolerance and response distances of resident and

migrant species in India. Environ. Conserv. 18:158-165.

Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in R. L. Knight and

K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research Island

Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp.

Cole, D. N. and J. L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United States. Env.

Manage. 12:99-107.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon: Jan.-Feb. 

Glinski, R. L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: the need for a developing philosophy. Am. Bird 30(3):655-657.

Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on

song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37.

Klein, M. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J. N. "Ding" Darling National

Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel Florida. Masters thesis. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida. 

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.

Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol.

Conserv. 7:17-36.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. 

Ecol. Appl. 8:162-169.

Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 in W. R.

Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts (eds.). Waterfowl habitat

restoration, enhancement and management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third Ed. Environmental Manage.

Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl., Dover, DE. 1114pp.

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence

of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J. Appl.

Ecol 31: 85-94.

Smith, L. and J. D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: impacts and management. Pp. 203-219 in Knight, R. L.;

Gutzwiller, K. J. (Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research, eds.). Island

Press, Washington, D. C. 

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Nisqually NWR receives 1-4 requests per year to conduct scientific research

on the Refuge. Priority would be given to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection,

preservation, and management of native Refuge plant and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Research applicants must submit a proposal that would outline: (1) objectives of the study;

(2) justification for the study; (3) detailed methodology and schedule; (4) potential impacts on

Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), injury, or mortality. This

includes a description of measures the researcher will take to reduce disturbance or impacts; (5)

personnel required; (6) costs to Refuge, if any; and (7) progress reports and end products (i.e.,

reports, publications). Research proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as

appropriate, and Special Use Permits will be issued if approved. 

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

1) Research that will contribute to specific Refuge management issues will be given

higher priority over other requests. 
Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

2) Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or

management programs will not be granted.

3) Research projects that can be done off-Refuge are less likely to be approved. 

4) Research which causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will likely not be granted. 

Level and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed when evaluating a

request. 

5) Research evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize

disturbance through study design, including considering adjusting location,

timing, scope, number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc. 

6) If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher

activity in a sensitive area, this may be reason to deny the request, depending on

the specific circumstances.

7) The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. 

Projects will be reviewed annually.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the draft CCP/EIS for the

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). If property is acquired that

includes areas of research interest, the same Special Use Permit process and evaluation criteria 

as described above will be followed. 

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage research activities as described above:

 Recurring

Costs

Administration 12K

(Evaluation of applications,

 management of permits, and 

 oversight of research projects) ______

TOTAL $12K

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer

this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Some level of disturbance is expected with all research activities

since most researchers will be entering areas that are normally closed to the public, including

going off designated trails, and may be collecting samples or handling wildlife. However,

minimal impact to Refuge wildlife and habitats will be expected with research studies because

Special Use Permit conditions will include conditions to ensure that impact to wildlife and

habitats are kept to a minimum (see discussion above).
Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions

must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

(1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; 

(2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources;

(3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would

contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be

compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage

the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

If researchers are granted Special Use Permits to conduct research in the expansion area,

anticipated impacts would be similar to that described above. 

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas will

be provided sufficient protection from disturbance by limiting proposed research activities in

these areas. All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted by

Refuge management. 

The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the Description of Use section above,

will be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on the Refuge. If

proposed research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential impact on Refuge

resources (habitat or wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the research is necessary for Refuge

resource conservation management. Measures to minimize potential impacts would need to be

developed and included as part of the study design. In addition, these measures will be listed as

conditions on the Special Use Permit. 

Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for compliance with conditions on the Special Use

Permit. At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers to determine potential

impacts. Staff may determine that previously approved research and special use permits be

terminated due to observed impacts. The Refuge Manager will also have the ability to cancel a

Special Use Permit if the researcher is out of compliance or to ensure wildlife or habitat

protection. 

Justification: This program as described is determined to be compatible. Potential impacts of

research activities on Refuge resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions would

be included as part of the study design and researcher activities will be monitored by Refuge

staff. Research projects will contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and

management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats. 
Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all

uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

References

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

(October 2002)

Use: Agriculture - Haying

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties,

Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities

used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742a - 742j).

Refuge Purpose(s): Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16

U.S.C.-715d).

...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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1996, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: The existing haying program is conducted to provide browse for wintering

waterfowl, particularly American wigeon and Canada geese. Approximately 250 acres of Refuge

grasslands are hayed annually by a local farmer under a Special Use Permit. Haying operations

are not allowed to begin until after July 1 so that most ground nesting birds can finish nesting. 

No pesticides or herbicides are associated with this use. Fertilizers may be added annually to

some hay fields to provide nutrients for better grass production. A Cooperative Land

Management Agreement will be developed and the cooperator will be required to provide service

or materials to the Refuge that will enhance the habitat in exchange for the hay removed.

As a result of estuarine restoration and freshwater enhancement activities, the haying program

will be greatly reduced as the proportion of freshwater wetlands within the diked area increases. 

By the completion of major restoration activities (2005), less than 100 acres of grasslands will be

managed by the Service. These grasslands will be interspersed among permanent and seasonal

freshwater wetlands. Once restoration is completed, haying on this reduced acreage may not be

cost-effective for a cooperator. If there is a willing cooperator, the haying program will continue
Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

through a Cooperative Land Management Agreement, as described above. However, if no

cooperators are interested, the management of the remaining grasslands will become part of

routine Refuge habitat management activities.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft CCP/EIS for the

Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). If property is acquired that

include agricultural and grassland areas, each parcel will be reviewed to determine whether a

haying program will be established. If established, the program will operate in the same manner

as described above. 

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer

and manage haying activities, as described above:

 Recurring

Costs

Administration 5K

TOTAL $5K

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer

this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated impacts include: (1) short-term disturbance to wildlife

caused by presence and activities of equipment and vehicles in fields; (2) detrimental effects of

mowing on late ground-nesting birds (after July 1); (3) disturbance to soils or plants associated

with mowing and fertilizing; (4) adverse impacts to species associated with dense native grasses,

sedges, and rushes; (5) decline in natural biological diversity; and (6) potential introduction of

invasive plant species from cooperator equipment. While some conflicts with natural biological

diversity principles are evident, management of grasslands benefit wintering waterfowl and

would occur in limited areas only. The resulting browse, when flooded in the fall and winter

months, created by haying and mowing activities provides important food for wintering

waterfowl that is not readily available in other areas during this time. The small acreage of

grasslands will be managed as part of a mosaic of permanent and seasonal wetlands, grasslands,

and shrub/scrub habitats to provide a diversity of habitats for a variety of migratory birds. 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions

must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

(1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; 

(2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; 

(3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would

contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be

compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage

the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses. 

If a haying program is implemented in the expansion area, anticipated impacts would be similar

to that described above. 

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and comments will be solicited in conjunction

with distribution of the draft CCP/Environmental Impact Statement for Nisqually NWR. 
Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Following the public review and comment period, comments and actions taken to address

comments will be summarized here.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: A Special Use Permit (SUP) will be issued to

all cooperators associated with haying activities. All haying activities will be restricted to

designated areas, limiting activity to these annually disturbed sites. Haying activities will start

after July 1 each year, so that the majority of the ground-nesting birds have the opportunity to

complete nesting, and be completed by November 1 to provide undisturbed winter and spring

habitat for migratory waterfowl. Habitat needs in these areas will be reviewed annually to

determine whether haying continues to be the appropriate management strategy for each site. 

Refuge staff will monitor activities of permittee or cooperator to ensure that special conditions

required under the SUP or Cooperative Land Management Agreement are met.

Justification: Haying will provide feeding areas for migratory birds, primarily wintering

waterfowl, a primary purpose for the establishment of this Refuge. Managing limited grassland

areas as designated haying sites with a permittee or cooperator allows the Refuge to achieve

specific habitat management objectives for these sites with minimal Service resources. These

grasslands would be managed as part of a complex of freshwater wetlands and riparian areas,

providing a more diverse mix of habitats for various migratory bird species. In addition, a haying

program will complement Refuge reed canary grass control efforts at minimal cost to the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all

uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader 

Approval: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System: ____________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

References

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
Appendix H

List of Preparers
 
App endix H : List of P repa rers Page H-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Name Position Degree(s)

Years of

Exp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service:

Mike Marxen Region 1 - Planning Team

Leader

BLA, Landscape Architecture 22

Jean Takekawa Refuge Manager BS, Biology 24

Doug Roster Deputy Refuge Manager BS, Wildlife Biology 16

Nanette Seto Refuge Wildlife Biologist MS, Wildlife Biology

BS, Zoology

10

Sheila McCartan Outdoor Recreation Planner BS, Environmental Education 15

Curtis Tanner Estuarine Habitat Restoration MMA, Marine Affairs

BS, Aquatic Science

11

Carrie Cook-Taber Fish Biologist MS, Fisheries

BS, Fisheries

12

David Bassler Land Protection Planner BS, Forest Management 22

Cathy Osugi Land Protection Planner BA, Wildlife Conservation 31

Virginia Parks Region 1 - Archeologist

Cultural Resources

MAT, Museum Education

BA, Archaeology

12

David Dresher Region 1 - GIS and Mapping BS, Geography 15

Bill Hesselbart Retired Refuge Manager MS, Wildlife Management

BS, Biology

34

Jane Bardolf Assistant Planner MS, Natural Resources

BS, Environmental Conserv.

16

Ducks Unlimited:

Ruth Spell Remote Sensing Analyst Graduate work, Geography

MAT, Education

BA, History

11

Anne Van Sweringen Planning Biologist BS, Wildlife Biology 20

Steve Liske Professional Engineer BS, Civil Engineering 15

Andy Engilis Senior Regional Biologist BS, Avian Science 15
App endix H : List of P repa rers Page H-2 Nisqua lly NW R D raft CC P/E IS

Consultants: Position/Contributions Degree(s) Years

of Exp.

EDAW, Inc.

David Blau Principal-in-Charge/

Advisor

MLA, City Planning

BS, Landscape Architecture

27

Kevin Butterbaugh Project Manager/Principal

Planner & Document

Coordination; 

MLA, Landscape Architecture

BS, Agricultural and Resource

Economics

13

Colleen McShane Terrestrial Biologist/

Monitoring Program &

Wildlife Section Review

MBA, Project Management

MS, Plant Ecology

BS, Biology

21

Jennifer Seavey Effects to Wildlife Resources MS, Wildlife Sciences

BS, Biology

11

Mike Usen Land Use, Socioeconomics,

Environmental Justice

MUP, Urban and Regional

Planning

BA, Environmental Studies

8

Peter Carr Editor BS, Journalism 11

Liza MacKinnon Word Processor/Graphics BA, Geography 12

Mary Heim GIS and Mapping BS, Landscape Architecture 12

Rob Harris GIS and Mapping MLA, University of

Washington

BA with honors, Near Eastern

Languages & Civilizations

3

Consultants: ENSR

Tarang Khangaonkar Program Manager/

Hydrodynamic and Sediment

Transport Model Development

PhD, Marine Physics & Eng.

MS, Ocean Engineering

BS, Naval Architecture

15

Steve Breithaupt Sr. Water Resources Engineer/

Hydrodynamic and Sediment

Transport Model Development

PhD, Water Resources Eng.

MS, Environmental Science

BS, Aquatic Biology

17
Appendix I

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Overview

The following goals for Nisqually NWR provide guiding statements for Refuge development and

management efforts. Refuge goals apply to all alternatives in the Draft EIS/CCP. 

The proposed Nisqually NWR goals are broad statements of desired future condition. They

represent a step down from the Refuge vision statement, from National Wildlife Refuge System

goals, and from broader regional and national programs. 

Nisqually NWR Goals: 

I. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and

wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special

emphasis on migratory birds and salmonids. 

II. Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and

endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the Nisqually River

delta and watershed. 

III. Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish,

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

IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach

opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of

fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and

watershed. 

In contrast, Refuge objectives are concise statements of what will be achieved to meet a

particular goal. When possible, Refuge objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable,

results-oriented, and should be time-fixed within the 15-year life span of the CCP. 

Refuge strategies describe specific actions, tools, and techniques that can be used to meet

objectives. In some cases, strategies describe specific projects in enough detail to assess funding

and staffing needs. In other cases, further site-specific detail is required to implement a strategy;

this usually takes the form of a step-down management plan, restoration plan, or site plan. 

The fully written objective statement and associated strategies are based on the Preferred

Alternative D. A table comparing each alternative for each of the main objectives is provided in

this document. Specific acreage figures may change depending on the final alternative selected. 

The proposed objectives and strategies are listed below as they apply to each of the four Refuge

goals. Note: Full citations for literature cited in Appendix I are presented in Appendix C

(References).

Detailed Description of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The proposed objectives and strategies are listed below as they apply to each of the four Refuge

goals.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

GOAL I: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant

and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a

special emphasis on migratory birds and salmonids. 

Objective 1.1: Restore Estuarine Habitat 

Within 3 years of the CCP’s approval, implement restoration of 699 acres of estuarine

habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and nearshore environments. The desired

future conditions include: (1) a mosaic of estuarine habitats, including native salt marsh

communities; (2) major reduction of invasive reed canary grass; (3) enhanced use by

juvenile salmon; (4) most ponds being connected at low tides to minimize fish

entrapment; and (5) increased waterfowl, shorebird, and waterbird use. 

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 1.1:

Restore

Estuarine

Habitat

 ALT. A

none

 ALT. B

318 ac. muted

140 ac. full 

 ALT. C

515 ac. full

restoration

 ALT. D

699 ac. full

restoration

Rationale: During the last century, over 80% of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound, and

up to 33% of its eelgrass beds, have been lost to dredging, filling, diking, and industrial

development (Dean et al. 2000; White 1997; Lane and Taylor 1986). Estuarine marsh

habitats (salt marsh) are now rare in the Puget Sound region, comprising only 0.3% of the

wetland and deepwater resources found here (Tanner 1999). Estuarine areas provide

important feeding and rearing habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, including the

threatened chinook salmon. In the Nisqually delta itself, a loss of 54% of intertidal

emergent marsh (salt marsh) habitat occurred through agricultural conversion in the early

1900s. Restoration of intertidal wetlands within the Nisqually River delta could

substantially increase the amount of salt marsh in south Puget Sound. Restoring 70% of

the currently diked area in the Nisqually NWR to tidal influence would increase estuarine

habitat in the south Puget Sound area by 46% (Tanner 1999). Protection and restoration

of native estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal as

identified in the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Plan (1995), Nisqually Basin Fall

Chinook Recovery Plan (2001), and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird

Management Plan (2000). This objective would benefit estuarine-dependent fish and

wildlife species including waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, shorebirds, salmon, and

invertebrates. Estuarine restoration will also improve the health and function of existing

estuarine habitats in the delta. Restoration efforts will focus on habitat-forming processes

and functions including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and

distributary channel networks.

Strategies:

C Hire a 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, to work with

partners, including Ducks Unlimited, to develop and implement an estuarine

restoration and monitoring plan.

C Develop an estuarine restoration plan by 2004. The plan will include the design

for the physical modifications needed to restore 699 acres of estuarine habitats,

including removing dikes to grade, filling borrow ditches and excavating breach
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

sites and historic slough channel depths. Modifications should promote the

development of a gradient and mix of estuarine habitat types.

C In coordination with other CCP restoration programs, obtain permits and

implement the estuarine restoration plan within 3 years after CCP approval.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to monitor and manage

invasive/exotic species to increase the native species establishment and support an

adaptive management approach. This includes identifying all invasive/exotic

species that pose a threat to estuarine habitat and associated control methods. 

C Monitor restoration project results to determine the extent of estuarine habitat

development. Monitoring should focus on amount, distribution, and processes. 

Hire a 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to develop and update

GIS data associated with monitoring program.

C Develop and implement a monitoring program to document fish and wildlife

response in the estuarine restoration area by 2003. Implementation of this

program prior to restoration will allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting

in a better assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. Hire a 0.5

FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-9/11, to focus on this monitoring program.

Objective 1.2: Reduce Human Disturbance

Reduce human disturbance in estuarine habitat of the Nisqually River delta to protect

and enhance fish and wildlife dependent on this resource. Provide a minimum of 764

acres in the RNA and other areas within the approved Refuge boundary where wildlife

can rest, feed, and nest with minimal human disturbance.

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 1.2:

Reduce

Human

Disturbance

 ALT. A

829 ac RNA

with reduced

disturbance 

 ALT. B

829 ac RNA 

with reduced

disturbance 

 ALT. C

671 ac RNA

with reduced

disturbance 

 ALT. D

764 ac RNA

with reduced

disturbance 

Rationale: Refuge estuarine habitat provides crucial feeding and resting areas for a

variety of sensitive or declining migratory birds and species of management concern.

There are very few areas in Puget Sound that provide long-term, low disturbance areas for

fish and wildlife in estuarine habitat. Many areas receive some measure of protection

from development, but most allow public access such as boating, PWC use, hunting, or

fishing activities. Current public use management is contributing to wildlife disturbance

throughout almost all estuarine habitat on the Refuge, providing no sanctuary areas in the

estuary. Unauthorized waterfowl hunting is allowed in large portions of Refuge estuary

habitat, and required RNA closures to consumptive uses are not enforced. The only

remaining substantial eelgrass beds in the Nisqually delta are located in this RNA. 

Boating occurs year-round with few restrictions throughout Refuge estuarine habitat. 

There is a need to reduce human disturbance in the estuary, including the RNA and in

newly restored estuarine habitat, so natural processes and wildlife response can occur

without disturbance from human activities. Implementing use restrictions in the RNA is
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

also consistent with RNA management policy (Refuge Manual 8 RM 10.8). The Service

will conserve these areas for scientific research, wildlife and habitat monitoring, and

environmental education.

Low disturbance areas are extremely important for wildlife on Refuges that allow hunting

and other public uses because they provide high quality habitat for feeding, breeding,

resting, and thermal protection. Without these areas, wildlife species exposed to repeated

human disturbances may change food habits and distribution patterns, feed only at night,

lose weight, have decreased reproductive success, or abandon the feeding, nesting, and

resting areas. 

Strategies:

C Manage the existing RNA (764 acres instead of 829 acres) to reduce disturbance

to estuarine-dependent wildlife by enforcing prohibitions on consumptive uses

and establishing seasonal closures, including posting and signing RNA

boundaries. The RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31.

C Designate the restored estuarine habitats within the Brown Farm Dike (699 acres)

and Nisqually Indian Tribal land (300 acres), east of the Nisqually River, as a

sanctuary for estuarine-dependent wildlife by prohibiting public boating and

consumptive uses and restricting public access to trails along the edge of the site.

C Work with surrounding landowners to assist as volunteer observers to monitor

effects of human activities in the Nisqually delta to identify the need for additional

wildlife protection measures.

C Implement and enforce 5 mph boat speed limit on all Refuge waters to improve

wildlife and habitat protection and reduce disturbance.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer, GS-7, to conduct all enforcement patrols

associated with boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge lands

and waters.

C Monitor wildlife use distribution and abundance to evaluate effectiveness of

public use restrictions to allow for adaptive management.

C Post closure signs at Luhr Beach notifying public of closed Refuge property south

of Luhr Beach Nature Center.

C Develop cooperative agreement with WDFW to manage Luhr Beach and establish

a visitor contact station that includes information on Refuge regulations and

ethical viewing advice to reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Objective 1.3: Freshwater Wetlands and Grasslands

By 2015, the Service would protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of

freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually

River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and

resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. A mix of habitats would

generally include 5% permanent freshwater, 10-20% grassland, 15-30% riparian, and at

least 60% seasonal freshwater habitat.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 1.3:

Freshwater

Wetlands and

Grasslands

 ALT. A

1,000 ac in diked

area

 ALT. B

542 ac in diked

area

350-400 ac in

expansion 

 ALT. C

447 ac in diked

area

350-400 ac in

expansion

 ALT. D

263 ac in diked

area 

350-400 ac in

expansion

Rationale: Although the actual amount of acres lost is unknown, estimates of freshwater

wetlands lost in Washington range from 20% to as much as 50% during the past two

centuries (Lane and Taylor 1996). Roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of freshwater wetlands are

filled each year in western Washington (White 1997). Current loss and degradation of

freshwater wetlands in western Washington are due to urban expansion, forestry and

agricultural practices, industrial development, and invasive or exotic plants and animals

(Lane and Taylor 1996). Currently, freshwater wetlands comprise only 18% of wetlands

in the Puget Sound area (Tanner 1999) yet they provide habitat for many fish and wildlife

species observed in South Puget Sound. Improved management of Refuge lands within

the diked area will greatly improve the habitat quality for fish and wildlife. 

Much of the lands within the study area located south of I-5 were historically freshwater

wetland lowlands. There is excellent potential for wetland restoration on these farmed

and drained wetlands. A mixture of permanent and seasonal wetlands and scrubshrub/grassland habitats would provide a mosaic of freshwater wetlands that can be used

by a variety of fish and wildlife (waterfowl, raptors, passerines, and small mammals)

throughout the year. Freshwater habitat would also provide diverse wildlife viewing

opportunities and interpretive programs for visitors. 

Wetland Management Strategies:

C In cooperation with partners, develop and implement a restoration plan with

adaptive management strategies to restore and enhance 263 acres within the diked

area as approximately 5% permanent freshwater, 10% grassland, 25% riparian,

and 60% seasonal freshwater habitat within 5 years after CCP approval. This

would include providing seasonally flooded wetlands and grasslands to serve as

forage areas for waterfowl during the fall and winter months.

C In cooperation with partners, identify and secure funding for restoration 3-4 years

after CCP approval.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, within 1 year after CCP approval to

supervise implementation of the restoration and monitoring plan.

C The freshwater area would be subdivided into five units by new internal/external

dikes to allow intensive management, thereby improving habitat quality and

allowing effective reed canary grass control. Internal dikes would have 5 to 1

slopes while the external dikes, constructed to 12 feet in elevation, would have 3

to 1 slopes.

C Seasonal wetlands would be created and enlarged by excavating and sculpting

areas with higher elevations. Seeding and planting would be implemented to

stabilize soils and speed recovery of wetland plants. Where appropriate, small

permanent ponds would be created.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

C New water control structures or pumps would be installed between units to allow

water movement through the units, and to provide the ability to drain and flood

individual impoundments. Units and ponds would be designed to allow flooding

in selected areas to at least 3 feet deep for up to 9 months to improve reed canary

grass control. 

C Management techniques would include a rotating cycle of draining, mowing,

discing, scraping, herbicide application, seeding, and flooding to control reed

canary grass, prevent brush invasion, and halt succession in these habitats.

C The water delivery system would be periodically maintained, including the

excavation or cleaning of sloughs, ditches, and water control structures, or

replacement of water control structures as needed.

C Where appropriate, planting and seeding along the dikes would occur to provide

habitat, screening, and erosion control.

C Riparian habitat along the slough would be enhanced with appropriate native

plants.

Grassland Management Strategies:

C Grassland species diversity and palatability would be increased for waterfowl by

cutting once in July and again in September. Periodic discing, reseeding, and

fertilizing would be conducted to reduce weed species and improve forage quality

for waterfowl. Grasslands would be managed to support a variety of non-native

grasses (pasture mix) used by waterfowl. Native grass species would be

encouraged where possible. Soil tests would be conducted to determine

appropriate amounts of fertilizer.

C Surveys for ground-nesting bird species would be conducted prior to haying or

mowing before July 1.

Other Management Strategies:

C An invasive pest plant species management program for wetland and grassland

sites would be developed and implemented.

C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing

sellers in the study area on land acquisition, focusing efforts on priority areas

including protection of properties that would allow long-term wetland restoration

of at least 350 -400 acres in the Nisqually Valley lowlands. If acquisition is not

possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements are an alternative to

ensure long-term protection and enhancement of these areas. 

C As applicable, restoration and management on properties acquired south of I-5

would follow these same strategies.

C Manage future major flood events inside the diked area by designing and

implementing water control methods, which could include spillways, pumps, or

water control structures. 

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9/11, to provide assistance and technical

expertise to interested landowners in the study area with programs to enhance

habitats and wildlife populations on private land. 

C Develop and implement a long-term monitoring and evaluation protocol,

including fish and wildlife response, to measure effectiveness of and provide

recommendations for current and future management of freshwater wetlands and

grasslands. Implementation of this program prior to restoration will allow for the

collection of baseline data, resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

and management decisions. This will require hiring a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist,

GS-7/9/11, and 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to focus on this

monitoring program.

Objective 1.4: Riparian Habitat

Provide for the protection, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of the ecological

functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian mature mixed forest habitat in the

Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for

migratory and resident landbirds and fish. Desired conditions include habitat

connectivity; vegetation diversity in terms of age, native plant species composition, and

vegetation layers; vegetation vigor; abundance of snags and woody debris; unimpeded

occurrences of natural disturbances; minimization of human disturbances; and an

irregular shape and a width adequate to retain riparian habitat functions (Knutsen and

Naef 1997)

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 1.4:

Riparian

Habitat

 ALT. A

250 acres

 ALT. B

600 acres

 ALT. C

600 acres

 ALT. D

1,000 acres

Rationale: Natural riparian forests are diverse, dynamic, and complex habitats

supporting a variety of fish and wildlife. Although riparian areas constitute a small

portion of the surface landscape, they are highly productive. Approximately 85% of

Washington’s wildlife species use riparian habitat associated with rivers and streams

(Knutsen and Naef 1997). Habitat for many upland species is also directly enhanced by

the presence of adjacent riparian habitat. Riparian areas provide habitat for a variety of

bird species, including passerines, woodpeckers, waterfowl, and raptors. As much as

90% of riparian habitat has been lost or modified since the early 1800s (Knutson and

Naef 1997). Conditions of several riparian habitats in the study area are degraded

(Nisqually EDT Workgroup 1999). Improved protection and enhancement of the

Nisqually River corridor would contribute to the conservation of riparian-dependent

species and also to salmon recovery. This objective would contribute to ecoregional plan

goals, as well as goals of the Conservation Plan for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of

Western Oregon and Washington and the Nisqually Basin Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. 

As a key conservation agency in the Nisqually delta, the Service would play a larger role

in protecting and improving riparian habitat on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation and

on private lands in the study area upriver from the Refuge.

Strategies:

C Develop a riparian restoration plan to include planting a variety of native riparian

trees and shrub species and restoring natural hydrology on 38 acres of currently

diked habitat on the Refuge. This may include constructing a bench that would

mimic natural sediment deposition bars along the Nisqually River to reduce

frequency of tidal inundation and promote sediment deposition.

C Develop and implement a monitoring program to document habitat development

and bird response in the restored area. Implementation of this program prior to
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

restoration would allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better

assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. This would require

hiring a 1.0 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to conduct monitoring

projects.

C Work with Fort Lewis to acquire or manage under a cooperative agreement

riparian habitat east of the Nisqually River to protect and restore the native

riparian forest. This would require development of a site plan for fishing and

vehicle access and hiring a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer, GS -7 to implement the plan.

C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing

sellers in the study area on future possibilities of land acquisition, including

focusing on a 200-foot protection zone of riparian habitat along both sides of the

Nisqually River corridor between I-5 and the Nisqually Indian Reservation

boundary. If acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative

agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of these areas.

C Based on the restoration plan, add large woody debris where appropriate and

restore function of large woody debris recruitment in the Nisqually River.

C Develop and implement an invasive species monitoring and integrated pest

management control program using both manual and chemical treatment methods. 

This would require hiring a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to

conduct the monitoring program and guide treatment efforts.

C 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. Since these areas are not directly connected to a system with natural

hydrology, they would not function as native riparian systems.

Objective 1.5: Upland Forest

In 15 years, the Refuge would protect and restore 400-600 acres of native upland forest

habitat along McAllister Creek and in the eastern and western bluffs of the Refuge.

Protection would occur through restoration of 100 acres of upland forest on existing

Refuge lands on the West Bluff and acquisition of priority bluff parcels or through

easements or cooperative agreements. Protection and restoration actions would provide

habitat for coniferous and deciduous forest dependent species especially tree-nesting

species, such as great blue herons and bald eagles, as well as protect water quality,

continuous wildlife habitat corridors, and scenic values of the Nisqually delta.

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 1.5:

Upland Forest

 ALT. A

100 acres

 ALT. B

400-600 acres

 ALT. C

400-600 acres

 ALT. D

400-600 acres

Rationale: Forested bluff areas in southern Puget Sound are often lost to or compromised

by residential development or logging. Urbanization surrounding the Refuge is rapidly

occurring. Activities by residents and their pets can disturb nesting birds, and in some

cases compromise the stability of the slope, which can lead to erosion and siltation into

adjacent Refuge creeks and rivers. Protecting forested habitat would provide a

continuous wildlife corridor connecting adjacent habitats with the Refuge. The great blue
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-9 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

heron is a monitored and priority species in the State of Washington because of the

increasing loss of foraging and breeding habitats and increasing environmental pollutants 

associated with human expansion and development. Protection of the West Bluff parcel

will not only benefit the great blue heron population nesting along McAllister Creek, but

also a pair of bald eagles, a Federally listed threatened species, that also nests in the west

bluff area. Maintaining the integrity of the forested bluffs would also be critical in

protecting the visual character of the landscape.

Strategies:

C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing

sellers in the expansion area on land protection, focusing on bluff properties and

at least 200 feet along the top of bluff along the eastern boundary of the Refuge

and McAllister Creek to protect slope stability, water quality, and foraging and

nesting habitats of birds. If acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or

cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of

these areas.

C Work with the Department of Ecology to monitor water quality in McAllister

Creek.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to assist in monitoring the

establishment of invasive species and implementing control measures as

necessary.

C Continue to maintain closure to public use on steep bluffs to protect slope

integrity and nesting birds (West Bluff parcel).

C Monitor and prevent illegal tree cutting and trespassing on the West Bluff above

McAllister Creek.

C Implement an educational program focusing on the importance of forested bluff

areas and involve the local community and school groups with restoration efforts.

C Work with landowners and County and City government to manage and control

stormwater runoff to maintain slope stability.

C Restore and enhance approximately 100 acres of Douglas-fir dominated mature

forest on the West Bluff parcel of the Refuge to reduce fragmentation of forested

habitat and provide a habitat and wildlife corridor between Refuge habitats and

adjacent lands. 

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

and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the

Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Objective 2.1: Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout

The Service would protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of estuarine,

freshwater, stream, and riparian habitats to protect declining runs of the chinook salmon

and bull trout, which are Federally listed as threatened.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-10 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 2.1:

Chinook

Salmon and

Bull Trout

 ALT. A

2,675 acres

 ALT. B

3,600 acres

 ALT. C

3,700 acres

 ALT. D

4,400 acres

Rationale: The chinook salmon was listed as threatened in 1999 and resides in the

Nisqually River and estuary. The Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan has identified

restoration of estuarine habitat within the Nisqually River delta as a top priority

component to the recovery of this species. The bull trout has historically resided in the

Nisqually River system. Any protection to spawning, migration, and rearing habitats

would support recovery goals of these two species in the Nisqually River watershed. 

Strategies:

C Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the delta.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to monitor response of fish

populations to restoration efforts. 

C Implement sections of the Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe

that supports estuarine restoration of the eastside parcels (east of Nisqually River).

C Protect and restore approximately 1,000 acres along the Nisqually River,

McAllister Creek, and their tributaries through acquisition or other land protection

measures to protect riverine and riparian habitats essential to the recovery of

chinook salmon and bull trout. Where needed, restoration measures would

include planting native tree and shrub species, erosion control measures, control

of invasive plant species, and reducing physical damage or disturbance to soils

and riparian habitats. 

Objective 2.2: Species Recovery

The Refuge and Service would work with WDFW to support recovery efforts of the

western pond turtle and Oregon spotted frog by protecting and restoring suitable

habitats and considering future reintroduction in areas of the Refuge. 

Suitable habitat for western pond turtle includes a complex of small ponds near sea level;

abundant emergent basking sites; isolation from large bodies of water and streams;

emergent vegetation and a mud bottom; abundant invertebrate and larval amphibian as

prey; few or no non-native predators like largemouth bass and bullfrogs; and diversity of

upland habitats, including open grassy areas for nesting and dense clumps of deciduous

trees and shrubs for overwintering.

Suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog includes emergent wetlands associated with

lakes, ponds, and slow-moving streams; shallow emergent wetlands, 5-30 cm deep for

breeding; few or no non-native predators like largemouth bass, perch, and bullfrogs; and

abundant invertebrates and larval amphibians as prey.

Rationale: Both the Oregon spotted frog and the western pond turtle have highly

restricted distributions in western Washington. Spotted frog habitat is scarce, as they now

occur in only 10-22% of their historic range in Washington. Only three populations
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-11 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

remain within the State (McAllister 1997). The western pond turtle has been extirpated

from most of its range in Washington, with only two populations remaining in the

Columbia River Gorge (Hays et al. 1999). Re-establishing self-sustaining populations is

vital to the recovery of these species. Like many amphibians, the Oregon spotted frog

and western pond turtle need a permanent source of freshwater such as wetlands, ponds,

or slow-moving streams.

Strategies:

C Consult with others to identify potential reintroduction sites; if sites are not

suitable on Refuge lands, initiate efforts for acquisition within approved

acquisition boundaries or pursue other means of protection.

C Identify suitable habitat within the expansion area essential for the protection and

conservation of these two species. Assist in developing and implementing

improved management practices to enhance habitat and reduce impacts by nonnative predators such as the bullfrog.

C Work with WDFW to conduct surveys and promote research and monitoring to

better document basic life history information for the two species. Use

information for management and recovery of the species. 

Objective 2.3: Other Special Status Species

Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge,

focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates

for listing.

Rationale: The Service manages endangered and threatened species as trust species and,

wherever possible, strives to assist in the recovery of endangered and threatened species 

that occur within the Refuge System. A high priority management principle is to benefit

species proactively before they become listed to prevent further decline. Federal species

lists and recovery plans are found at http://www.r1.fws.gov/es/endsp.htm. WDFW

maintains a list of special status species through Washington Administrative Codes 232-

12-014 and 232-12-011 that can be found through their web site at

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw.

Strategies:

C Develop and implement a monitoring program with detailed protocols for

monitoring the status of special-status species, including methods to assess habitat

needs and management actions.

C Protect the active bald eagle nest from human disturbance, using Recovery Plan

guidelines (dates and distances).

C Encourage research on special-status species on the Refuge to investigate ecology

relevant to improved conservation measures. Research could be conducted by

local universities or other organizations with assistance from the Refuge in the

form of funding, supplies, volunteers, or technical assistance.

C Identify special-status species locations outside of Refuge lands and prioritize

these areas for acquisition, or work with partners to ensure long-term protection.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-12 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

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

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

Objective 3.1: Environmental Education - Program Management

Provide a quality environmental education program at Nisqually with specific learning

objectives and diverse opportunities that: (1) meet State standards for learning; (2) are

based on Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation and management programs; (3)

support the mission of the Service; and (4) provide stewardship opportunities. 

Rationale: With its variety of natural resources, facilities, and proximity to major

population centers, Nisqually NWR is in a unique position to offer local education

agencies, teachers, and students an opportunity to study natural resource management and

conservation issues in an outdoor setting. Since the establishment of the Refuge,

educators and youth professionals have been using Nisqually NWR as an outdoor

classroom to enhance course curricula. The existing program serves approximately 5,000

students per year. The demand for EE is high and expected to grow. 

Environmental education in Washington State is strongly supported by the State

Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). In 1990, the Washington State School Board

directed public schools to incorporate environmental education into all appropriate

subject areas. Nisqually NWR is in a position to assist local educators meet the Essential

Academic Learning Requirements.

To meet student needs, Refuge staff are committed to looking for ways to teach about

wildlife and habitat conservation. The field trip program enhances classroom learning

with hands-on outdoor experiences. Summer camps provide students with more in-depth

study. As habitat restoration projects are undertaken, students and teachers will be

included in hands-on restoration and monitoring activities. These types of activities

require management support and commitment of personnel and funds.

Strategies:

C Hire a permanent-full time environmental education specialist (GS-09) on the

Refuge staff to manage the environmental education program, within 2 years after

CCP approval.

C Provide for additional program assistance through trained volunteers, interns from

local colleges, AmeriCorps, or the Student Conservation Association.

C Hire a second full-time environmental education staff person (GS-09) within 4

years after CCP approval, to serve 15,000 students per year. This staffing would

be comparable to other environmental education programs of that size. 

C Provide opportunities during the summer for students to participate in an

extended, more in-depth study of the natural environment.

C As changes are made to habitats on the Refuge, opportunities would be created to

include teachers and students in these long-term restoration activities. These

could be one-time activities such as planting, or long-term involvement including

planning, design, and actual on the ground implementation for a restoration site.

C As changes are made to the habitats on the Refuge, specifically tidal restoration,

monitoring activities for students would be developed. Plots could be identified
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-13 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

and teachers recruited who would work over the course of the school year to carry

out monitoring activities with their students on vegetation, wildlife, and water

quality.

C Support the water quality testing projects conducted by the Nisqually River

education project and project GREEN. 

C Develop a butterfly/native garden in the area of the Education Center.

C Conduct regular evaluations with feedback from teachers and students to improve

and modify program as needed. 

Objective 3.2: Environmental Education - Students Served

Provide adequate information, site-specific materials, curricula, and facilities to

accommodate a year-round field trip program that serves up to 100 students per day, 5

days a week, 15,000 students per year. 

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 3.2:

Environmental

Education -

Students

Served

 ALT. A

5,000 per yr

 ALT. B

20,000 per yr

 ALT. C

15,000 per yr

 ALT. D

15,000 per yr

Rationale: Nisqually NWR serves 5,000 students and teachers annually and in 1998,

reached approximately 8,000 students and teachers on and off-site. It is estimated that the

Refuge could accommodate up to 15,000 on site each year if: (1) an education staff of up

to 3 people ran the program full-time; and (2) educators were trained and could be

recruited to utilize the Refuge during all months of the school year, not just in May and

June. With more opportunities and a more structured program where teachers are trained

to use the site and are provided with site-specific materials and tools, educators should be

eager to use the Refuge year-round. A triple-wide trailer currently serves as the

temporary indoor facility for the education program. A new 4,000 square foot EE facility,

which would be located near the Visitor Center, is envisioned as the central focus of the

EE program with 7 outdoor study sites located on the Refuge.

Strategies:

C The Refuge will have readily available information about the environmental

education program, will respond to all inquiries in a timely manner, and will

provide information to local schools.

C Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be

limited to 100 students per day and would be required to make reservations in

advance through the Refuge Office. Reservations would be taken on a first

come-first served basis.

C Group leaders must attend a workshop or orientation session before bringing

their classes to the Refuge.

C Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be

limited to the trails and designated environmental education study sites, except

by special use permit.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-14 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

C Seven environmental education study sites would be designated in the area of

the Twin Barns Loop Trail where students can participate in more in-depth

study by 2003. 

C Develop and provide site-specific materials and tools for educators’ use, both

on and off site. These materials would include an educator’s guide “Where the

River Becomes a Delta,” which would serve as a site-specific field trip guide

and a companion guide to the others that have been developed for the Nisqually

River Watershed—“The Living River,” “Where the River Begins,” and “Where

the River Meets the Sound.”

C Provide Discovery Packs for use by small groups and non-formal education

groups.

C A triple-wide trailer will be used as the temporary indoor classroom facility

until a new facility is built and would be available for environmental education

groups on a reservation basis. Once constructed, the new 4,000 square foot

facility will have small group learning areas, a large group presentation room,

bathrooms, a small kitchen, office space, parking, lunch area, and a lab to

conduct activities such as water quality testing. 

Objective 3.3: Environmental Education - Field Trip Program

Provide a Refuge field trip program where trained educators, volunteer adult leaders,

and youth professionals lead their own students in active, hands-on field investigations

focusing on the conservation of our natural resources.

Rationale: Using the “multiplier effect,” educators and youth professionals will conduct

their own field trips to the Refuge. This allows for the maximum number of students

participating in the program with less commitment of staff time. The multiplier effect

occurs when the Refuge education staff trains educators who can then use their

knowledge and skills year after year with students. Other adults involved in the program

also gain new knowledge and awareness and tell their friends and community leaders who

influence public policy. Staff are then available to train more educators and work on

program growth and development.

Strategies:

C Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide guidance to educators

interested in teaching about natural resource issues by assisting in lesson and

field trip planning on the phone or in person.

C The Refuge will provide educator workshops and courses sponsored by the

Refuge or by Refuge partners on topics related to natural resources and the

environment such as Project WET.

C Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide regularly scheduled field trip

orientation workshops for educators and youth professionals.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education Partners and Networking

Refuge staff will work with other agencies and organizations to provide assistance to

other programs by designing, conducting, or hosting at least one regionally based

environmental education field trip, workshop, seminar, or study course each year.

Rationale: Many opportunities exist for the Service to work together with partners to

both enhance the program at the Refuge but also to provide coordination and assistance to
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-15 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

other local programs. Refuge staff would be available and would seek out ways to

collaborate in environmental education efforts throughout south Puget Sound, both on

and off the Refuge. 

The education staff at Nisqually NWR are also in a position to network and provide

assistance to other agencies and individuals working in environmental education

throughout the region. As a Federal agency with a high profile program, Refuge staff

have an opportunity and responsibility to participate on a regional level in coordinating

and furthering environmental education efforts.

Strategies:

C Work with partners to strengthen education programs in the Nisqually River

watershed including the Nisqually River Council Education Committee, the

Nisqually Reach Nature Center, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe.

C Work with partners outside the Nisqually River Watershed including Project

GREEN and Sound Stewards.

C Refuge education staff would participate in regional environmental education

efforts to coordinate environmental education activities, programs, and

curricula with educators throughout the region.

C Nisqually NWR would serve, upon request of the Regional Office, as the

Washington State Coordinating office for the Federal Junior Duck Stamp

Design Contest.

C Refuge staff, materials, and facilities would be made available to other groups

wishing to gather ideas for their programs and would serve as a model for other

local, State, and Federal environmental education programs. 

Goal IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and

outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding,

and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the

Nisqually River delta and watershed. 

Objective 4.1: Waterfowl Hunting

The Refuge would open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week within 1-2 years

after CCP approval. Refuge lands would combine with WDFW lands to create more

manageable and enforceable hunt boundaries that would reduce conflicts with other

users, reduce confusion for hunters, provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded

conditions, and ensure a reasonable harvest. The Refuge would also explore new

opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting as property is acquired south of I-5.

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 4.1:

Waterfowl

Hunting

 ALT. A

Closed, but

unauthorized

hunting occurs

 ALT. B

 Closed

 ALT. C

713 acres

(1,170 total

acres with

State lands)

 ALT. D

 191 acres

(808 total acres

with State

lands)
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-16 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Rationale: Hunting is a traditional activity in the Nisqually delta and one of the priority

public uses of the Refuge System. Waterfowl hunting is open to the public on WDFW

lands (617 acres) with around 1,100 visits estimated per year. A private hunt club

operates on tribal lands east of the Nisqually River (approximately 325 acres) as part of

life tenant uses by the previous landowner. Regulations such as hunting days, maximum

number of hunters, etc. are different on these lands. Currently, much of the Refuge

tidelands and salt marsh is administratively uncontrollable because of the irregular

boundaries of the three WDFW parcels located within Refuge boundaries and the

inability to keep these boundaries posted. As a result, unauthorized hunting occurs on

large portions of Refuge lands, including the RNA. This unauthorized hunting occurs in

spite of the fact that the Refuge has never been officially opened to hunting. This existing

condition provides insufficient wildlife sanctuary and allows an unauthorized use to

continue on large parts of the Refuge. 

By opening a limited portion of Refuge lands (191 acres) to waterfowl hunting, a more

manageable block of lands could be posted and enforced, and waterfowl hunting in the

Nisqually delta would continue to be provided along with increased sanctuary. The RNA

would be reduced by 73 acres to provide additional high quality hunting lands at the

mouth of the Nisqually River. State lands would continue to be open to waterfowl

hunting with no changes. Each agency would be responsible for managing its respective

hunt program.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide high quality experiences. A quality

hunting experience means that: (1) hunters are safe; (2) hunters exhibit high standards of

ethical behavior; (3) hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) hunters have

reasonable harvest opportunities; (5) hunters are clear on which areas are open and closed

to hunting; and (6) minimal conflicts occur between hunters and other visitors, such as

kayakers, anglers, and trail users. In general, hunting on Refuges should be superior to

that available on other private or public lands, which may require special restrictions

(Refuge Manual 8.RM5.14). Measures are often used to ensure quality, including limited

hunt days and shell limits and using buffers for public use trails eliminating the need for

seasonal trail closures. A limited waterfowl hunt program is proposed on the Refuge to

accomplish the following:

< accommodate the existing hunt program on WDFW lands; 

< establish consistent regulations across all lands

< provide a quality hunting experience that meets Refuge guidelines and policies

< provide sufficient sanctuary and resolve the current unauthorized hunting

situation

Strategies:

C Write a hunting plan to be consistent with the CCP (hunting location, 7-

day/week hunt, 25-shell limit, and 200-yard buffer from trails) and complete

process to open Refuge to hunting within 1-2 years after CCP approval.

C Reach agreement with the State to implement a 25-shell limit on WDFW lands.

C Provide sufficient feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl in areas closed to

hunting as a sanctuary.

C Post and sign a manageable hunting area including redefining and reducing the

RNA by 73 acres. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-17 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

C Develop a hunting brochure which includes information on hunter ethics, safety

precautions, and restrictions.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-07) to enforce hunting program regulations;

to ensure quality and safety; and to protect natural resources.

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician (5/6/7) to conduct hunter bag checks to

monitor harvest and compliance with State waterfowl hunting program

regulations.

C Manage Luhr Beach boat landing area through cooperative agreement with

WDFW and upgrade facilities to use as a hunter contact station.

C Lands acquired through Refuge expansion, south of I-5, would be evaluated for

hunting opportunities as they come under Refuge jurisdiction.

C Periodically monitor and evaluate hunting program with feedback from users to

determine if objectives are being met.

Objective 4.2: Fishing and Shellfishing

The Refuge would provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing experiences in

selected areas which are safe, consistent with State regulations, and compatible with

Refuge resources and purposes. The Refuge fishing and shellfishing program will

promote responsible and ethical behavior and a deeper appreciation and understanding

of fishery resources of the Nisqually delta.

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 4.2:

Fishing and

Shellfishing

 ALT. A

1 Existing Site

 ALT. B

1 Existing Site

2 Expansion Sites

 ALT. C

1 Existing Site

1 New Site 

2 Expansion Sites

(1 accessible)

 ALT. D

No Existing Site

1 New Site

2 Expansion Sites

(2 accessible)

Rationale: The Nisqually delta supports a diverse fishery resource including shellfish,

bottomfish, anadromous fish, and other freshwater species. Declines in populations of

many species and area restrictions require an informed and responsible angler. Fishing is

a priority activity of the Refuge System and a traditional form of recreation in the delta. 

Compatible opportunities can be provided with reasonable restrictions, good compliance

with regulations, and if administrative oversight required is minimal. One bank fishing

site would be maintained and developed on the existing Refuge, with potential for a

second site designated as a disabled visitor access only. Additional bankfishing and

water access sites would be considered on lands south of I-5 as they are added to the

Refuge. Location criteria for new sites considered will be accessibility, feasibility,

minimal conflicts with other users, maintenance, compatibility, and potential to promote a

quality fishing experience. The Trotter’s Woods fishing site would be designated and

managed for fishing if acquired from Fort Lewis or managed under cooperative

agreement.

In 2000, recreational shellfish beds were closed in the Nisqually tideflats due to high

coliform levels and health concerns. The Service can educate visitors about these

closures. If water quality improves, these beds could be opened in the future. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-18 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

A quality fishing or shellfishing experience means that: (1) anglers/shellfishers are safe;

(2) anglers/shellfishers exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) anglers/shellfishers

are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) anglers/shellfishers are clear on which areas

are open and closed to fishing; and (5) minimal conflicts occur between

anglers/shellfishers and other visitors, such as hikers, hunters, and kayakers. 

Strategies:

• Within 3 years after CCP approval, update the fishing management plan to be

consistent with the CCP and State regulations.

• As additional lands are acquired, work with partners to select and locate fishing

access sites to provide a range of fishing opportunities in riverine and tidal

locations including Trotter’s Woods in Fort Lewis on the Nisqually River south

of I-5.

• As part of the update of the fishing management plan determine if an accessible

bank fishing site could be located at the boardwalk river overlook on the Twin

Barnes Loop Trail.

• Work with Nisqually Indian Tribe to provide parking, trail, and a bank fishing

site on the east side of the Nisqually River.

• Provide accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach, if feasible, following

development of a cooperative management agreement with WDFW.

• Provide safe fishing conditions by maintaining trails, signs, and information to

alert anglers regulations and to hazards.

• Periodically monitor and evaluate fishing program and users to determine if

objectives are being met.

• Provide specific information for shellfishing at the Luhr Beach access,

including closure information in cooperation with other agencies.

• Restrict boaters from landing and bank fishing in closed areas through policy

and regulation.

C Enforce boat speed limits in Refuge waters. 

C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-7) to conduct all enforcement patrols

associated with boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge

lands and waters.

C Take steps to close the RNA to fishing and shellfishing, including posting,

providing information on regulations at Luhr Beach and other appropriate

locations, outreach, and conduct monitoring of results. 

Objective 4.3: Wildlife Observation

Provide safe, attractive, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities in all primary

habitat types represented on the Refuge including estuarine, freshwater wetland,

grassland, riparian forest, riverine, and upland forest. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-19 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Objective 4.3:

 Wildlife

Observation

Objective Comparison by Alternative

ALT. A 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 5.5-mi loop trail; 0.5-mi primitive trail 

ALT. B 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 5.5-mi loop trail; 0.5-mi primitive trail

ALT. C 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 3.75-mi loop and boardwalk trail; 0.5-mi

primitive trail; 2.5-mi east side loop trail; East Bluff trail

ALT. D 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 3.5-mi round trip trail including boardwalk

(no loop); 0.5-mi primitive trail; 2.5-mi east side loop trail; East Bluff

trail 

Rationale: As a priority public use, wildlife observation programs receive priority

consideration in Refuge planning and management, secondary to the needs of fish and

wildlife. Wildlife viewing and nature observation are the primary visitor activities at

Nisqually NWR. The Refuge is considered by many to be one of the best birding areas in

Puget Sound. High quality wildlife viewing will continue to be provided on the Refuge

through the development and maintenance of trails, boardwalks, and observation sites

(i.e., elevated viewing platforms). Wildlife viewing opportunities will be provided for

nearly 100,000 visitors who come to Nisqually NWR each year. Estuarine restoration

would result in the loss of large portions of the existing 5.5-mile dike loop trail and would

require new trails and modifications to existing trails to provide quality wildlife viewing

opportunities, access to a variety of habitat types, and to accommodate high visitor

demand, while minimizing wildlife disturbance and providing sufficient wildlife

sanctuary.

 

Quality wildlife observation is defined by several elements including: (1) opportunities

exist to view wildlife in their habitat and in a natural setting; (2) observation

opportunities promote public understanding of Nisqually NWR resources and its role in

managing and protecting those resources; (3) observations occur in places with the least

amount of disturbance to wildlife; (4) facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to

a broad spectrum of the public; (5) viewing opportunities are tied to interpretive and

educational opportunities; and (6) observers have minimal conflict with other visitors or

Refuge operations.

Strategies:

• Within 3 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan

that covers all Refuge public use programs.

• As part of the estuarine restoration project, provide an accessible 1-mile loop

trail and additional trail length with boardwalk extensions. Pursue funding for

a 0.75-mile one-way boardwalk spur along McAllister Creek which would

provide a 3.5-mile round-trip trail, portions of which would be closed during

waterfowl hunting season. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-20 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

• If interests in Luhr Beach site are developed through cooperative management

agreement, maintain and enhance current parking and viewing facilities. 

Evaluate fee collection at this site. Provide adequate parking, restrooms, signs,

and gate. An information kiosk (Visitor Contact Station) will provide public

use regulations to visitors to increase safety and reduce the frequency of visitors

entering closed areas on the Refuge.

C Establish a 0.5-mile unimproved trail in the surge plain forest. This trail would

not be fully accessible.

C In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, design, construct, and manage a

seasonal loop trail on tribal and Refuge lands east of the Nisqually River. 

Seasonal closures of this trail would be required during waterfowl hunting

season until private hunt club ceases.

C If East Bluff property is acquired or protected, pursue the development of a new

East Bluff upland forest trail connecting to the City of DuPont/Northwest

Landing trail system.

C Maintain habitats to ensure abundance of wildlife for optimum viewing. 

C Promote wildlife viewing and interpretation by incorporating Refuge

information into Amtrak passenger train service.

• Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9, (0.5 FTE).

Objective 4.4: Wildlife Interpretation

Refuge staff will continue to provide a variety of quality interpretation programs,

facilities, and services to Refuge visitors. In addition, each year Refuge staff will identify

and serve one new or non-traditional audience to communicate important messages

about fish and wildlife conservation and provide opportunities for people to connect with

nature at Nisqually Refuge. 

Rationale: The Refuge is situated in an ever-growing urban area with decreasing open

space and places for people to connect with the natural world. Nisqually NWR, with its

visitor facilities and access to wildlife habitat, is a uniquely situated natural area in this

region because of its proximity to a major freeway and large urban population. 

More than 100,000 people visited the Refuge in 2000. The Refuge provides a variety of

programming and services to these visitors, from a state-of-the-art Visitor Center with

interpretive exhibits to special events communicating important messages about fish and

wildlife conservation and connecting people with nature. But the potential is much

greater. Continued growth of the area will mean an increasing need to provide people

with information about the Refuge, fish and wildlife conservation, and stewardship of our

natural resources. Access to wildlife habitats would continue to be a primary focus for

interpretation programs and facilities. Interpretive programs will include interpretation

on habitat restoration designed to help visitors understand the importance of this program

and its benefits to wildlife. New and non-traditional audiences must be reached. Refuge

staff will look for ways, through partnerships, special events, and off-site programs, to

reach new audiences with wildlife conservation messages. 

Strategies:

• Within 3 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan

that covers all Refuge public use programs.

• Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9 (0.5 FTE).
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-21 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

• Provide interpretation on Refuge trails through the use of interpretive panels

and self-guided trail brochures. 

• Maintain visitor center exhibits that interpret broad issues such as the

watershed, flyway, and estuary. Replace exhibits as needed to keep them

current and well maintained.

• Maintain a rotating wildlife art exhibit in the Visitor Center auditorium. 

• Support efforts of the Nisqually Refuge Cooperating Association in providing

quality educational and interpretive programs, materials, and sales items. 

• Work together with partners to produce quality special events at the Refuge

such as Summer Lecture Series, Nisqually Watershed Festival, International

Migratory Bird Day, and National Wildlife Refuge Week, which communicate

fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation messages. Special events will identify

one new or non-traditional audience to include in publicity efforts. 

• Provide weekend volunteer naturalist led interpretive programs led by on topics

such as history of Brown Farm, spring wildflowers, and bird migration.

Objective 4.5: Wildlife Photography

Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography opportunities to increase visitor

understanding and appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta resources.

Rationale: Wildlife photography is one of six priority wildlife-dependent recreational

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Photographic opportunities promote public

understanding and increase public appreciation for America’s natural resources and

incorporate a message of stewardship and conservation. The Refuge will provide a high

quality photography program where compatible with sound principles of fish and wildlife

management, other objectives, and other compatible uses. 

Strategies:

C Following habitat restoration activities and as part of a visitor services plan,

determine the need for and locations of permanent photo blinds. New photo

blinds would be constructed and placed in areas that would have the least

amount of disturbance to wildlife.

C Evaluate current use and needs of photographers on the Refuge.

C In trail development, include spur trails or widened trail or boardwalk push outs

to allow photographers space for equipment. 

C Provide a wildlife photography interpretive program. 

C Have wildlife photo exhibits as part of rotating wildlife art exhibit in Visitor

Center.

C Include information on photography and ethical behaviors in Refuge brochure.

C Conduct regular evaluations, including feedback from photographers, to

determine whether objective is being met. 

Objective 4.6: Outreach and Partnerships

The Refuge will take a leadership role in developing and strengthening partnerships,

including a volunteer services program, and will conduct a variety of outreach efforts to

more effectively achieve Refuge goals and contribution to the protection and

enhancement of the Nisqually River watershed. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-22 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Objective Comparison by Alternative

Objective 4.6

Outreach and

Partnerships

 ALT. A

70 volunteers

 ALT. B

100 volunteers 

 ALT. C

100 volunteers 

 ALT. D

100 volunteers 

Rationale: Strong partnerships will be essential for the Service to achieve its vision and

goals for the Refuge. Cooperative efforts with key partners will greatly further habitat

protection and restoration, watershed efforts, and education and interpretation. The

Refuge’s location in the Nisqually delta provides a focal point that encourages

participation by a variety partners to come together to strengthen watershed protection.

The volunteer services program is a critical part of the Refuge workforce, benefitting all

programs and goals, and strengthening community relations. Volunteers contribute the

equivalent of 3.7 FTEs annually, donated by more than 70 volunteers. Outreach efforts

will enable the Refuge to reach new audiences. 

Strategies:

• Within 2 years of CCP approval, hire a GS-7/9 volunteer coordinator to

strengthen and enlarge the volunteer services program to provide effective

training and program management of the program for a corps of 100 volunteers. 

Continue to involve volunteers in a variety of Refuge programs to strengthen

ties with the community.

• Conduct special events to reach out to new audiences and involve partners, for

example the Nisqually Watershed Festival, International Migratory Bird Day,

and Summer Lecture Series.

• Work to provide funding and other support to partners to strengthen the

outreach and education program through challenge grants and other grant

programs.

• Participate in off-site community events to further Refuge goals. 

• Continue active participation in critical partnership efforts such as the Nisqually

River Council and the Audubon Refuge Keepers.

• Strengthen coordination with the Nisqually Refuge Cooperating Association

through regular meetings, assisting in providing training, and coordination with

the volunteer program.

Objective 4.7: Cultural Resource Program

Implement a proactive cultural resource management program that focuses on meeting

the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, including consultation,

identification, inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources.

Rationale: The management and protection of cultural resources is an integral element

in fulfilling Refuge goals. The Refuge supports a variety of cultural resources and has

opportunities to provide interpretation and education to diverse audiences on these unique

aspects of the Nisqually delta area. Refuge expansion and changes to Refuge habitats and

facilities warrant a comprehensive cultural resource management program. 
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-23 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Strategies:

C Develop an interpretive program that presents accurate information about

Native American history of the Nisqually delta and lower watershed. 

C Protect and record the values of the Refuge’s historical landscape and

archaeological resources while managing habitat and wildlife.

C Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned roads,

facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. Evaluate threatened and

impacted sites for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Prepare and implement activities to mitigate impacts to sites as necessary.

C Develop a GIS layer for cultural resources that can be used with other GIS

layers for the Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive

information.

C Develop partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe for cultural resources

inventory, evaluation, and project monitoring, consistent with the regulations of

the National Historic Preservation Act.

Objective 4.8: Cultural Resources Education and Interpretation

Develop, in partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe and other preservation partners,

a program for the education and interpretation of cultural resources of the Nisqually

NWR.

Rationale: Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, interpretation of cultural

resources can instill a conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or

manage them. The goals of the cultural resource education and interpretive program are

fourfold: (1) translate the results of cultural research into media that can be understood

and appreciated by a variety of publics, (2) engender an appreciation for the Native

American culture and perspective on cultural resources, (3) relate the connection between

cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans in the environment, and

(4) instill an ethic for the conservation of our cultural heritage.

Strategies:

C Prepare interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relate the

cultural resources and Native American perspective and Euro-American

settlement history of the Refuge for visitors.

C Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for use in education center

schools concerning cultural resources, the perspective of Native Americans, the

history of the area, and conservation of natural and cultural resources.

C Develop partnerships with educational institutions for the interpretation and

protection of cultural resources at the Refuge.

C Consult with the Nisqually Indian Tribe to identify the type of cultural

resources information appropriate for public interpretation.

C Develop an outreach program and materials so that the cultural resource

messages become part of cultural events in the area, including: Washington

Archaeology Month, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and appropriate local

festivals.
Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-24 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix J

Hydrodynamic and Sediment

Transport Modeling Summary
 
Ap pen dix J: H ydro dyn am ic Mode ling Sum ma ry Page J-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary 

Introduction

A hydrodynamic and sediment transport model and technical report were developed to evaluate

tidal restoration alternatives at Nisqually NWR (ENSR 1999). This computer model was used to

simulate water, sediment, and salinity characteristics under various restoration scenarios using a

mean tide and mean annual river flow condition, and under 1996 river flood conditions. This

modeling effort was useful in evaluating critical physical components involved in restoration,

including water flow, timing, velocity, bed shear, salinity, sedimentation, and extent of tidal

inundation. The model was also used to assess extreme flood conditions and alternative dike

configurations. 

Methods 

The study area included the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, I-5, and Puget Sound/Nisqually

Reach as limits on each side. Existing data were used as much as possible on river and delta

geometry, bathymetry, currents, salinity, and sediment characteristics. In addition, new data were

gathered in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek to fill information gaps, including river

bathymetry, velocity time-series, salinity profiles, water surface elevations, suspended sediment

concentration, and creek and pond bathymetry inside the diked area. The models used were

RMA-10 for hydrodynamics and RMA-11 for sediment and salinity transport. These models can

account for the effects of temperature, salinity, and suspended sediment on flow in rivers,

estuaries, lakes, and reservoirs. The models were calibrated and verified using data collected

during spring 1998 from the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek.

Eight alternatives were examined (with a variation in breach width on one alternative), ranging

from Alternative 1, no changes in existing dike configuration (status quo), to Alternative 8, with

maximum tidal restoration (approximately 80% of the diked area). Each alternative assumed the

dikes were reduced down to grade in estuarine restoration areas, and the adjacent borrow ditch

was filled, except for two alternatives that included breaching and bridging dikes in specific

locations and retaining the dike system, with the borrow ditch left unfilled. Breaches in

Alternative 3 had widths of 45 to 55 feet, creating restricted tidal flow. Breach widths were also

modified in Alternatives 3 and 4 with breach widths sized to be slightly wider than the size of the

existing tidal sloughs, so as to try ensure that high tidal volumes could enter and exit the

restoration site. This made breaches very wide, from approximately 240 to 325 feet. These

modifications were referred to as Alternatives 3W and 4b. Alternative 6, the 70% tidal

restoration alternative, included a low berm to create a riparian restoration zone along the

Nisqually River. All alternatives were designed to protect Nisqually NWR headquarters facilities

within dikes. 

Modeling Results and Discussion

The model provides important information that is useful in assessing some of the key

components of estuarine restoration projects. Successful estuarine restoration typically depends

on recreating a fully functional tidal system, where the tidal prism or volume is sufficient for full

tidal inundation in the restored area with each tidal cycle. Natural patterns in tidal flushing and
Ap pen dix J: H ydro dyn am ic Mode ling Sum ma ry Page J-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

circulation are critical to flush soils, carry nutrients and sediments to all parts of a restored site,

and create the intricate system of tidal channels that feed a salt marsh. Conversely, tidal waters

must be able to evacuate the site, to avoid ponding and fish entrapment. Excessive ponding will

create lagoon-like or subtidal conditions, rather than a salt marsh. Isolated ponding can create

artificially high salinities in water or soils due to evaporation and lack of flushing. Successful

estuarine restoration also depends on the ability of sediments to reach the restored site, to

accumulate soils and build the elevations necessary to grow salt marsh vegetation. Areas

requiring tidal restoration are often subsided, and sedimentation is a critical component of

successful restoration. Another important factor in successful estuarine restoration includes

minimizing areas of high water velocity or bed shear to avoid creating highly erosive features. 

High bed shear could result in erosion of salt marsh, dikes, or breaches that would present

potential failure sites or constant maintenance needs. 

Dike Configuration and Water Movement: In alternatives where the dikes were removed to

grade and the borrow ditch filled, full tidal penetration occurred with each of the alternatives. In

Alternative 3, when dikes were breached with narrow openings along McAllister Creek, the peak

water surface elevation in the restored area decreased by approximately 1.7 feet, and the peak

was delayed by 40 minutes from what would be expected with unrestricted tidal conditions. 

Even wide breaches (Alternatives 3W and 4b) produced a slight delay due to the distance from

the mouth of McAllister Creek. For Alternative 4b, the 50% restoration alternative in which the

dikes were retained and very wide breaches added, the peak water surface elevation and timing of

the tide phase were not significantly decreased. However, the wide breaches apparently reduced

outflow during the receding tide, so stored water could not completely drain, leaving ponding

within the restored area and in the unfilled borrow ditches. Leaving the borrow ditches unfilled

(Alternatives 3, 3W, and 4b) also showed that tidal waters were partially diverted into the borrow

ditches on incoming tides, affecting tidal circulation in sloughs. 

Flooding: During extreme flood conditions, the Nisqually River overtops its banks upstream of

the Refuge, on the south side of the I-5 bridge. The water inundates the floodplain and flows into

the diked area, with approximately 70% of flood waters entering the southeast corner of the

Refuge through a channel and opening under I-5 and about 30% entering through an overflow

channel adjacent to McAllister Creek. All alternatives showed flooding in the diked area under

1996 flood conditions. The alternatives that restored 70% and 80% of the diked area and

eliminated cross dikes along the McAllister Creek side of the Refuge reduced flood impacts to

the Refuge. These alternatives allowed flood waters from the McAllister Creek overflow

channel to empty unimpeded into the McAllister Creek tidal system, instead of emptying inside

of diked habitat. However, diked areas in all alternatives were still flooded by flows from the

overflow channel at the southeast corner of the Refuge. 

Water Velocities and Bed Shear: Water velocities in tidal channels outside the dike under

current conditions (status quo) were lower than restored alternatives where dikes were removed. 

This illustrates one of the effects of diking, where tidal channels outside the dike have a reduced

tidal prism or volume because of the loss of tidal area. Alternatives that created new crossdikes

that blocked tidal channels created this same backwater effect, producing a reduced volume or

flow in tidal channels than would occur in a system without dikes. Alternatives with no

crossdikes along McAllister Creek (70% and 80% alternatives) alleviated this effect, producing

fuller tidal flow in the sloughs and channels along McAllister Creek. 
Ap pen dix J: H ydro dyn am ic Mode ling Sum ma ry Page J-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Water velocities and bed shear, another measure of potential erosion, were much higher in fixed

breaches, as compared to unrestricted tidal channels where dikes were removed. This illustrates

the difficulty in protecting fixed breaches from eroding or widening, especially during flood

conditions. In addition, velocities in the Nisqually River were confirmed to be much higher at

large bends in the river, particularly during flood conditions, illustrating the highly erosive

conditions that lead to dike failures, when these high velocities are forced to stay within

constricted channels. 

Salinity: Salinity patterns were only modeled for two tidal cycles. Longer simulations may

show greater salinity penetration. Alternatives where dikes were breached and retained showed

less salinity penetration in the restored area. Less salinity penetration was also observed in

McAllister Creek in a 50% alternative, due to the dike constriction along McAllister Creek,

which reduced tidal flow up McAllister. 

Sedimentation: Sediment loads are small in the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and the

Nisqually Reach during near annual flow conditions. Maximizing sediment deposition in

restored areas is important to enhance success in a sediment-poor system like the Nisqually delta. 

The major source of sediments comes down the Nisqually River during flood events, when large

amounts of sediment are carried in flood waters. An extended simulation period may be needed

to evaluate more long-term deposition patterns; however, deposition during the 1996 flood event

provides an example of potential sedimentation patterns. Dike configuration affected sediment

deposition patterns. In general, alternatives where more dike was removed along the Nisqually

River showed more sediment deposition along the river and in restored areas. Alternative 3,

which had narrow dike breaches, showed little sediment deposition. 

Conclusions

The model was very useful in evaluating various estuarine restoration scenarios, using a variety

of dike configurations. Full tidal penetration occurred when dikes were removed to grade and the

borrow ditch filled. Narrow breaches restricted tidal flow, reducing water surface elevations on

incoming tides and delaying tidal flows. Breaches greater than the width of channel openings

also allowed full tidal penetration, but stored water did not completely drain in receding tides,

resulting in ponding in marshes and borrow ditches. Borrow ditches partially diverted incoming

tidal flows when left unfilled, affecting circulation in restored tidal channels. Restoration

scenarios retaining dikes with breaches also reduced sedimentation and altered salinity patterns. 

Water velocities and bed shear in channels moving through dike breaches indicated that fixed

breaches may be difficult to protect from erosion. 

Flooding upstream of I-5 is not expected to be adversely impacted by habitat restoration. 

Alternatives resulting in 70% and 80% estuarine restoration reduced flooding in the diked area,

by allowing the McAllister overflow channel to empty directly into McAllister Creek. Salinity

tended toward marine conditions, but some brackish areas may occur near the margins of marine

water penetration. The Nisqually River is a sediment-poor system, due to dams upstream on the

Nisqually River which trap much of the sediments. However, during flood events, the Nisqually

River provides a major source of sediment. Dike configurations with more dike removed along

the River allowed a greater amount of sediment to deposit in the restored area. 
Ap pen dix J: H ydro dyn am ic Mode ling Sum ma ry Page J-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix K

Land Protection Plan
 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service

LAND PROTECTION PLAN

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

Prepared By:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

100 Brown Farm Road

Olympia, Washington 98516

May 2002

APPENDIX K
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-i Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................ K-i

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

1.2 Project Description ...................................................... K-1

1.3 Threat to or Status of the Resource .......................................... K-3

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Expansion ......................................... K-3

1.5 Land Protection Alternatives .............................................. K-5

 1.5.1 Willing Seller Policy ................................................ K-5

 1.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods .......................................... K-6

1.6 Land Protection Priorities ................................................. K-6

1.7 Coordination ........................................................... K-7

1.8 Social and Cultural Impacts ............................................... K-7

TABLES

Table 1 - Land Protection Priorities for the Expansion Area .......................... K-9

Table 2 - Land Protection Priorities for Lands Within the Approved Refuge Boundary ... K-13

MAPS

Figure 1- Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Tract Map Index ...................... K-14

Figure 2 - Area 1 Tract Map ................................................. K-15

Figure 3 - Area 2 Tract Map ................................................. K-16

Figure 4 - Area 3 Tract Map ................................................. K-17

Figure 5 - Area 4 Tract Map ................................................. K-18

Figure 6 - Area 5 Tract Map ................................................. K-19
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-1 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Land Protection Plan

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

May 2002

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Land Protection Plan identifying 

the habitat protection methods that could take place for lands within Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) described in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) and for lands within the approved boundary of the Nisqually National Wildlife

Refuge (Refuge). This plan also includes a priority listing of lands to be considered for

acquisition within the proposed boundary and within the approved boundary.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Nisqually Refuge is located in Thurston and Pierce counties along southern Puget Sound (EIS,

Figure 1.1-1). The Refuge was established in 1974 to protect the existing estuary from

development. The approved Refuge boundary is approximately 3,936 acres. The acquisition

program is ongoing and the Service has acquired approximately 2,925 acres in fee title,

conservation easements, and leases to date within the approved refuge boundary. Non-refuge

lands within the approved boundary total approximately 1,011 acres.

The proposed expansion would add approximately 3,479 acres for a total authorized boundary of

7,415 acres. The expansion would include 512 acres of upland habitat and 2,963 acres of

floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. The boundary would increase habitat protection on the

East Bluff north of I-5 to include a forested corridor. It would also extend the boundary south of

I-5 to include floodplain, bluff, wetland, and upland forested habitats along the Nisqually River

and McAllister Creek.

McAllister Creek Area: McAllister Creek originates from springs and seeps located

approximately 3 miles south of Interstate 5 (I-5). It flows northerly along the base of forested

bluffs, passing through the Refuge and emptying into Puget Sound. Medicine Creek originates

near the Nisqually River and meanders west through developments and agricultural lands until it

meets McAllister Creek. 

Early in the century, the area surrounding the southern portions of McAllister Creek was likely

covered with riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands until the majority of it was

harvested, diked, and drained for use as cropland and pasture. Today, much of the McAllister
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-2 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Creek watershed south of I-5 continues to be maintained as pasture and cropland with dikes. The

area contains freshwater wetlands in the form of potholes and upland depressions. Wetland

vegetation includes sedge stands, cattails, bulrushes, willows, salmonberry, and skunk cabbage. 

The headwater springs of McAllister Creek are surrounded by upland forest habitat consisting

primarily of second growth Douglas-fir. The agricultural lands would provide grassland habitat

and restoration opportunities for riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands.

The agricultural lands south of I-5 are currently used by migratory waterfowl for foraging and

resting during localized flooding events in the fall and winter period. Common waterfowl

species include American wigeon, mallards, pintails, green-winged teal, and Canada geese. 

As the high tides cover the estuary, shorebirds are pushed inland and can be found using the

agricultural lands along McAllister Creek. Typical shorebird species found include dunlin,

dowitchers, western and least sandpipers, common snipe, and yellowlegs. 

The creek historically contained seven species of salmon and trout, specifically chinook, coho,

chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat and bull trout, and steelhead. Remnant runs of chinook, coho,

and chum salmon, bull trout, and steelhead continue to return.

East Bluffs: The bluffs located along the eastern edge of the study area are covered with upland

forest dominated by conifers. Douglas-fir is predominant, mixed with bigleaf maple, western

hemlock, and red alder. The area drains directly into that portion of the Nisqually River located

within the Refuge. The forest habitat located in the east bluff area provides habitat for

passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors. A bald eagle nest has been reported on the bluff. The area

also serves as a migration corridor for mammal species moving from one habitat to another.

Nisqually Valley and River Corridor: The Nisqually Valley and River corridor consists of

agricultural lands, freshwater wetlands, and the riparian corridor contained within upland bluffs

on the east rising from the river valley. The riparian corridor contains relatively undisturbed

floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands. Black cottonwood, red alder,

bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar are the dominant tree species found in the

riparian corridor. The statewide significance of this area is documented in a proposal completed

by The Nature Conservancy in December of 1993 which proposed the establishment of a

Research Natural Area along a portion of the Nisqually River. The forested bluffs in the

Nisqually River portion of the area include species such as red alder and bigleaf maple, with

scattered coniferous species including Douglas-fir and western red cedar and is located on the

east side of the Nisqually River.

The large and relatively undisturbed floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands

along the corridor provide an exceptionally productive ecosystem. Examples of species that use

these types of habitats are the Pacific giant salamander, red-legged frog, tailed frog, great blue

heron, harlequin duck, wood duck, belted kingfisher, American dipper, water vole, beaver, and
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-3 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

river otter. The threatened marbled murrelet has been seen along the corridor and other

inhabitants include passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors. 

Ten species of salmonids occur in the Nisqually River system. Chum, coho, and chinook salmon

and steelhead all have distinct and healthy stocks in the river, although these runs are decreasing. 

The Nisqually River chinook is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Historical populations of bull trout, currently listed as threatened in Puget Sound, may exist in

the Nisqually River.

1.3 THREAT TO OR STATUS OF THE RESOURCE

The South Puget Sound area is experiencing rapid growth in residential, resort, and recreational

development. Many of these developments threaten the integrity of coastal ecosystems that

support existing fish and wildlife populations.

The agricultural land in the McAllister Creek drainage falls within Thurston County,

Washington. Thurston County recently purchased development rights on an estimated 840 acres

from several of the landowners in an attempt to preserve the agricultural emphasis of the area and

to prevent development of high density residential housing. The restricted development rights do

allow for the conversion of agricultural lands into plant nurseries which are becoming popular in

Washington. Currently, the agricultural lands contain some habitat values for migratory birds

and small mammals. Conversion of these lands into nurseries occupied with greenhouses would

essentially eliminate habitat values. 

Some of the area along the Nisqually River falls within the Fort Lewis Military Reservation and

is an excellent example of native bottomland riparian forest habitat. Unregulated use by the

public has resulted in the creation of dirt roads along some of the river corridor. This

unregulated use is causing habitat degradation and threatens the integrity of the native habitat. A

limited amount of military training occurs in a portion of the proposed Research Natural Area.

Thurston County, located west of the Nisqually River, requires a 200-foot setback from the bluffs

because of a concern for unstable soil conditions along the bluffs. Pierce County, located east of

the Nisqually River, allows for construction along the top of the bluff with no required setback. 

Weyerhaeuser Company currently has plans to develop approximately 400 acres along the top of

the bluffs, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. There is a concern that developments

adjacent to the top of the bluffs would cause increased siltation with corresponding degradation

of water quality in the Nisqually Delta, fragment habitat, and compromise the visual landscape of

the bluffs from the Refuge and other parts of the delta.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION

When Nisqually Refuge was established in 1974, the original boundary was designed to protect

the Delta from specific threats of development. During the ensuing 25 years, increased

development has resulted in habitat loss and degradation throughout the Puget Sound area,
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-4 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

including the lower Nisqually watershed, contributing to declines of many fish and wildlife

species. Refuge expansion would help alleviate the effects of increased habitat degradation, loss,

and development pressures in adjacent parts of the lower watershed. Expanding the approved

Refuge boundary would allow the Service to negotiate with willing participants within the new

approved boundary to acquire lands or interests in land and water. Lands, or interests in lands

acquired by the Service, would be managed as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(System). The System is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife

habitat. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public

lands managed for multiple uses.

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

1) preserve, restore, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or

threatened with becoming endangered, 2) perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and

marine mammal populations, 3) preserve a natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants, 4)

preserve and restore representative ecosystems of the United States, including the natural

processes characteristic of those ecosystems, and 5) foster understanding and instill appreciation

of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, highquality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. Such uses includes hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

The Nisqually Refuge falls within the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion. The Service’s goal for the

North Pacific Coast Ecoregion is to protect, restore, and enhance the function, structure, and

species composition of ecosystems for fish and wildlife conservation and the continuing benefit

of people by implementing an ecosystem approach to management. This goal will be attained to

the degree that the Service, working through partnerships, can 1) minimize species extinction, 

2) reverse population declines, 3) maintain and enhance healthy populations of native fish and

wildlife, 4) provide people with healthy ecosystems, and 5) work with our partners and the public

at all levels.

The objectives of the Ecoregion are to 1) maintain high biological productivity, reverse

population declines, and recover federally listed species, 2) combine and coordinate Federal,

State, local, tribal, and private watershed restoration efforts on a holistic ecosystem approach

across ownership boundaries, 3) increase awareness and knowledge of fish and wildlife issues

and ecosystem management, and 4) provide state-of-the-art biological data to resource managers

and partners to restore functioning watersheds.

The expansion of the Nisqually Refuge would help achieve Ecoregion goals and objectives by 

1) protecting and restoring habitat for declining populations of anadromous fish, including the

federally listed chinook salmon and the federally listed bull trout, 2) enhancing and contributing

to existing habitat protection efforts by the Nisqually Tribe, Fort Lewis Military Reservation,

Thurston and Pierce counties, Nisqually River Council, Nisqually River Basin Land Trust, and

local conservation organizations, 3) providing a diversity of native habitats that will maintain and

enhance healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species native to the Nisqually River

delta, and 4) providing additional quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-5 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Refuge expansion would contribute to achieving Refuge goals including 1) to conserve, manage,

restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of

the Puget Sound lowlands with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon, 2) support

recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species of

concern, and their habitats, 3) provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on

fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed, and 4) provide quality

wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public

appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of

the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

The authorities for the proposed expansion include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 742(a)-754) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C.

715-715d). The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes the Service to use funds made

available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11) to

acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Federal

monies used to acquire private lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived

primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax

revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

1.5 LAND PROTECTION METHODS 

1.5.1 Willing Seller Policy 

It is the policy of the Service to acquire lands from willing landowners. Landowners within the

approved Refuge boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any other interest in their

property are under no obligation to negotiate with or sell to the Service. In all acquisitions, the

Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair market value, as determined by an appraisal

completed by a professional, certified appraiser, in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal

Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.

The Service, like other Federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain

allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands, such as easements,

for the public good. The Service rarely uses this power. The Service typically is not compelled

to buy specific land within a certain time frame. 

Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act,

landowners who sell their property to the Service may be eligible for certain payments. 

Determinations are made on a case by case basis.

1.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods 

A variety of habitat protection methods can be used to preserve fish and wildlife habitat. The

actual method selected for any individual parcel will depend upon both the needs and desires of
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-6 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

the landowner and the Refuge. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the landowner retains

full use, control, and responsibility for the property. Cooperative efforts with Fort Lewis could

involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Techniques to provide improved

protection of USA Trust lands would be restricted to cooperative agreements. 

Cooperative Agreements. The Service can enter into cooperative agreements with landowners to

improve wildlife habitat management. Cooperative agreements may specify shared

responsibilities, or a transfer of funds from the Service to another entity or vice-versa for

management purposes. Cooperative agreements can be applied to land under any type of

ownership. 

Conservation Easements. Conservation easements transfer some, but not all property rights to

the Service as specified by mutual agreement. Under a conservation easement, a landowner

could agree not to engage in activities damaging to wildlife habitat resources, and/or the Service

could manage the land for wildlife. The Service can acquire easements through purchase,

donation, or exchange. The property owner retains all responsibility for paying property taxes. 

The Service could negotiate conservation easements on land under any type of ownership.

Fee Title Acquisition. A fee title interest is normally acquired when 1) the fish and wildlife

resources on a piece of property require permanent protection that is not otherwise available, 2)

the property is needed for development associated with public use, 3) a pending land use could

otherwise harm wildlife habitats, or 4) purchase is the most practical and economical way to

assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee title acquisition transfers all property rights

held by the landowner to the Federal government. A fee title interest may be acquired by

purchase, donation, or exchange. 

1.6 LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES

Tables 1 and 2 list the lands within the preferred expansion boundary and within the approved

Refuge boundary, respectively, by tract number, inset map, total acres, priority and possible

method(s) for resource protection (ownership information is from the Pierce and Thurston

County Assessor Offices and subject to change). Priorities (1, 2, or 3) are assigned to each tract,

1 being the highest and 3 the lowest in consideration. Tracts are being considered for acquisition

because of their biological significance, existing or potential threats to wildlife habitat,

significance of the area to refuge management and administration, and/or existing commitments

to purchase or protect the land. Landowners within the proposed Refuge boundary and approved

Refuge boundary may or may not wish to participate in the Service’s habitat protection

objectives, or may not wish to divest themselves from their land management responsibilities. 

Based on this, the final configuration of the acquired lands is impossible to predict. But because

the parcels have been identified and the potential effects of converting those lands to refuge

status have been assessed in the EIS, the delineated proposed expansion boundary will provide

the Service with future habitat protection options if willing sellers and participants and available

funds present themselves in the future. 
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-7 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

1.7 COORDINATION

The Service worked with a variety of interested parties to identify issues and concerns associated

with the proposed Refuge expansion. These interested parties included members of the public,

interested private groups, landowners, elected officials, and State, Federal, Tribal, and local

government agencies. The Service’s public involvement activities included hosting public

scoping meetings, developing and mailing planning updates, requesting information, undertaking

consultations, and responding to inquiries. The Service provided information about the proposal

to the media and other interested or affected parties throughout the public scoping period (EIS,

Chapter 6).

1.8 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS

The current quality of life for communities and individuals around the proposed additions to the

Refuge is expected to be the same or better as a result of the Refuge addition. Intensified

management would increase habitat quality and improve wildlife use which would result in

positive effects for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities at the

Refuge. Improvements will also enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the

opportunity to observe active habitat restoration/management activities. In addition, enhanced

waterfowl and fish habitats may encourage more waterfowl and fish to use the delta, improving

waterfowl hunting and fishing opportunities (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.6.4.1).

The Refuge environmental education program would be expanded to accommodate up to 15,000

students per year. The trail length would be shortened from the current 51⁄2- mile loop trail to a

31⁄2- mile round trip (non-loop) trail but of improved quality with diversified viewing

opportunities. A new eastside trail would also be constructed. A trail would be established on

the East Bluff if appropriate lands were acquired. Approximately 191 acres of the Refuge would

be open to a quality waterfowl hunting program. Walk-in hunting opportunities would be

considered south of I-5 if sufficient lands were acquired to allow for adequate wildlife sanctuary

and minimal conflicts with other priority public uses. Bank fishing opportunities would be

investigated along McAllister Creek south of I-5, if appropriate sites were acquired. This would

provide new bank fishing access to help compensate for the loss of McAllister Creek bank

fishing north of I-5 as a result of estuarine restoration, although the scheduled closure of the

McAllister Creek Hatchery (July 2002) would reduce fishing opportunity, thereby lessening the

effects of this loss. New fishing access at Luhr Beach and Nisqually River would be provided. 

Overall, the fishing opportunity at Nisqually Refuge is not expected to decrease (EIS, Chapter 4,

section 4.6.4.3).

The Nisqually Indian Tribe would continue to hunt, fish, and gather. There are no anticipated

adverse health or environmental effects to the Nisqually Indian Tribe from refuge expansion

(EIS, Chapter 4. section 4.8.1).
Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-8 Nisqua lly NWR D raft CC P/E IS

Recreation economic expansion is expected to be proportionate to increased recreation and

public access resulting from Refuge expansion. Increased revenue for the Refuge and region

would depend on what lands were acquired. The effects of new facilities, new trails, improved

habitat, and more student visits would be expected to contribute to an increasing trend in

visitation, producing increased economic benefits (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.4.4).

Approximately 1,100 acres of agricultural land in Thurston County and 190 acres in Pierce

County could be acquired for conservation uses. Within Thurston County, approximately 840

acres are within the existing Purchase of Development Rights program. Expansion of the

Refuge could result in the reduction of grazing opportunities and the conversion of some

agricultural lands to wetlands and riparian habitats, but the impact to the overall agricultural

economies of these counties would be minor.

The salary and operating costs for the Refuge with a fully implemented Comprehensive

Conservation Plan would be approximately $1.8 million dollars, $1.2 million above current

expenditure, which would be directed towards the Refuge payroll and operational costs and

contribute directly to the regional economy. There would be an indirect support of

approximately 55 jobs in the regional economy (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.3.4). In the context

of the robust economies of Thurston and Pierce counties, these increases would be minor.
Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS

1,a,b USA-ARMY 3,4,5 3 1083.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

2f,g WASH STATE-DEPT OF GAME 2,6 3 3.72 Coop Agree, Fee

2h WASH-FISHERIES DEPT 4 3 8.09 Coop Agree

2i WASH STATE-FISH HATCHERY 5 3 8.09 Coop Agree

3 THURSTON, COUNTY OF 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

3a THURSTON, COUNTY OF 4 3 6.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

4 LACEY, CITY OF 4 3 0.18 Coop Agree

5 OLYMPIA, CITY OF 5 3 176.33 Coop Agree

6 FIRE DISTRICT #3 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

12c,d WEYERHAEUSER 2 1 175.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

19c,d,g,h NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 2,5 3 419.72 Easement

51 HOLLISON, ROBERT AND KATHLEEN 2 1 18.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

52 BENNAR, RAY AND GLENDA 2 2 1.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

53 LEIGH, JOANN 2 2 1.15 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

54 MEGEE, KATHLEEN 2 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

55 MCBRIDE, ALBERT E. JR 2 2 12.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

56 NISQUALLY RIVER LAND TRUST 2 1 12.99 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

57 Unknown 2 1 unk Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

58,a BRIDGES, TERESA M 3 2 99.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

59 WALKER, LESTER B 3 3 0.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

60 SCOTT, CINDY 3 3 0.88 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

61 ALVESTAD, CAREY D ETAL 3 3 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

62 GOTTFRIEDSON, HENRY F/ALISON K 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

63 MATHEWS, MAUREEN H 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

64 DERICKSON, DOUGLAS 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

65 TAYLOR, GARY/JANET 3 3 0.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

66 FRANK, WILLIE 3 3 6.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

67 BLACK, JEFFREY S/CONNIE M 3 3 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

68 CLEMENT, KENDALL S & MARIBETH 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

69 BRUDER, TERESA/RUSS 3 3 1.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

70 ROESSNER, DEBRA D 3 3 0.92 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

71 LOVIK, DENA L 3 3 0.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

72 BOHREN, PATTI 3 3 1.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

73 COLE, CLARA M 3 2 3.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

74 MILLER, RHETT 3 2 0.83 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

75 CAMPBELL, LOIS M 3 2 3.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

76 MC GILLIS, JOHN W 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

77 LOSEY, DAVID L/SHARON 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

78 GRASSI, NELLO L 3 2 4.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

79 TATE, JOHN & JUANITA D 3 2 13.79 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

80 LYON, MICHAEL/JUDY 3 3 0.49 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

81 BREDESEN, CHRISTOPHER L. 3 2 11.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

82 DOERING, AARON M/AMY L 3 2 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

83 PIETRZAK, PAUL R 3 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

84,a SAYONC, BETTY L 3 2 11.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

85 LEAMAN, H DENNIS 3 2 2.11 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

86 COOTS, DEAN E 3 2 2.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

87 SNELL, LLOYD E & ROSE M 3 1 5.56 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

88 NYE, TIMOTHY S JR 3 1 1.01 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

89 SCHMAUDER, ALLEN 3 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

90 COLLINS, JAMES R/JODI K 3 1 0.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-9 Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS
Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area

TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS

91 ATTWOOD, SALLY J 3 1 1.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

92 ATTWOOD, LARRY E 3 1 1.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

93 KRISHNAMOORTI, SIGNA R 3 1 7.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

94 WARREN, DOROTHY G 3 2 7.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

95 SCOTT, CHAE AN 3 2 7.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

96 HONG, CHANLIP MAN 3 2 10.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

97 SAYONC, HELEN F 3 2 3.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

98 HILL, DOROTHY R 3 2 2.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

99 CHOJNOWSKI, DANIEL/PATRICIA 3 2 1.71 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

100 BROWN, JAMES C 3 2 7.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

101 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E 3 2 12.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

102 MC QUEEN, BRUCE & PATRICIA 3 3 0.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

103,a DAVIS, SCOTT A 3,4 3 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

104 DAVIS, KARIN K 3 3 2.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

105 GLASTETTER, HOWARD/COLLEEN 3 3 1.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

106 ALLEN, DONNA L 3 3 0.21 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

107 FLYNN, MARGARET E 3 3 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

108 BELT ENT INC 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

109 BREWER, LARRY 3 3 0.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

110 CHURILLA, ROBERT J/GLENDA F 3 3 0.31 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

111 BALCOM, MABEL I 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

112 GEORGE, HAROLD F 3 3 1.62 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

113 WICK, ROLF F 3 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

114 SHERMAN, JACK E/CARRIE L 3 3 0.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

115 CLINTON, JON P 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

116 SHEAK, MARGARET 3 3 0.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

117 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E ETUX 3 3 0.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

118 RODRIGUES, DENNIS/IRENE 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

119 CHRISTOFFER, JEROLD F ETUX 4 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

120 GOHEEN, BRYAN C/SYLVIA 4 3 0.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

121 BODEN, DAVID W 4 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

122 YOUNG, RICKEY M/GISELA 4 3 0.45 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

123 CHAMBERLAIN, JESSIE M ET AL 4 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

124 DEAN, MARY LOUISE 4 3 0.30 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

125 LIPSCOMB, C JEAN 4 3 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

126 COOPER, RUBY M 4 3 0.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

127 WATSON, ELIZABETH 4 3 1.20 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

128 SMITH, JOANN M 4 3 0.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

129 LEGWOLD, ROCKY L 4 1 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

130 ANDERSON, KENNETH A 4 3 0.37 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

131 ANDERSON, LEE D ETAL 4 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

132 SCHRUM, JOSEPH A/DEVON L 4 3 0.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

133 WATTS, KELLY L/SUSAN A 4 3 0.32 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

134 MELBY, WARD R ETAL 4 1 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

135 PHILLIPS, DOUGLAS S 4 1 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

136 STENKLYFT, JAMES A 4 1 0.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

137 NISQUALLY SPORTSMEN CLUB 3,5 1 68.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

138 ANDERSON, LAURIE 5 1 15.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

139 EBERLING, MARSHALL E 5 2 0.97 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

140 LONERGAN, GEORGE A 5 1 5.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-10 Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS
Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area

TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS

141 WESTBERG, RAY 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

142 CORP OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 5 1 38.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

143 BLENCOE, LUCILLE M 5 1 37.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

144,a REESE, GARY FULLER 3,5 1 89.04 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

145 BABARE, GEORGE M 5 1 107.48 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

146 WASH DIV INV CORP 3,4 1 0.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

149,a STOKER, GERRIT 3 1 74.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

150 NISQUALLY PLAZA RV PARK 3 3 1.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

151,a,b ELWESS, GENE/ANNIE 3 3 5.96 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

152 SINGH, BAJINDER ETAL 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

153,a JACOBS, JAMES A 3 3 1.09 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

154 THREATT, LORENA E 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

155 ALL MARINE INC 3 3 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

156 BRESSI, PAUL M 3 3 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

157 SCHILTER, JEFF AND STEPHANIE 3 2 5.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

158,a,b SCHILTER, GOTTFRIED J 3 1 73.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

159 INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY 3 1 9.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

160 HAIDUCEK, TIMOTHY J/JOY E 3 2 2.75 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

161 Unknown 3 2 0.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

162 Unknown 3 2 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

163 GABLE, ADRIAN L 3 2 0.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

164 WESTLIN, BERTHA L ESTATE 3 2 1.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

165,a-d THOMSEN JESS INC 3,5 1 740.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

166 TORDEN, THOMSEN, INC 3,5 1 68.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

167 ROLLER, JON/GAIL 5 1 6.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

168 HILL, JAMES J 3,5 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

169 HILL, PAUL 3,5 1 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

170,a,b SCHOLS, HERMAN 3,5 1 124.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

171 BROUGH, ROGER D 5 2 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

172 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 1 1.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

173 LONCAR, PAUL 5 1 5.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

174 VO, TRI M/TRINH, DUNG K 5 1 43.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

175,a NIELSEN PACIFIC LTD 5 2 290.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

176 WARD, HUGO F 5 1 40.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

177 MYERS, JAMES H 5 1 40.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

178 PIGMAN, DEAN A 5 1 9.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

179 WILLETTE, JON F/GUILA K 5 1 7.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

180 LOFTIN, FRED E 5 3 4.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

181 LOFTIN, CLAIRE 5 2 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

182,a SMIT, JULIE L 5 3 3.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

183,a BARATZ, JULIUS/LOIS TSTEES 5 3 6.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

184 BERG, JERI L 5 2 97.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

185 GATZKA, JOSEPH A. 5 2 0.73 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

186,a,b MCALLISTER CREEK ASSN 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

187 SUTTON, ROBERT JR./CRISTAN 5 2 0.90 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

188 SELDOMRIDGE, CHARLES B. 5 2 1.17 ++ Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

189 OSTREICH, TROY D. 5 2 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

190 DONALLY, ELFRIEDE H. 5 2 0.77 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

191 MATTESON, JON MICHAEL 5 2 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

192 EVANS, WILLIAM/KATHLEEN 5 2 0.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

193,a BRAGET TRUSTEE, AGNES 5 2 1.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-11 Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS
Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area

TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS

194 BOEHM, FREDERICK/MICHELLE 5 2 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

195 ZEUTENHORST, PHILLIP 5 2 0.44 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

196 CIRRITO, CAROLYN B. 5 2 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

197 PITTMON, JOANN/DOUGLAS 5 2 0.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

198 MACY, MARSHALL/DEBORAH 5 2 0.82 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

199 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

200 SCHOLS, MARIANN J. 5 2 0.60 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Table 2. Land Protection Priorities for Inholdings

TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure #PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS

19,a,b NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 6 1 330 Coop Agree

2, a-c WASH-GAME DEPT 6 1 625 Coop Agree

13 CROUSE, CARL N/GLORIA 6 1 1 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

16b,c BABARE, ROBERT 6 1 34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

17 MOE, GREGORY 6 1 1 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

22 EAGLE CLIFFS SUBDIVISION 6 3 30

25 BORLEY, CLARENCE 6 1 3 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

27 MARTIN, JAMES A/MARY D 6 1 4 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-12 Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS






Appendix L

Wilderness Review
 
Appendix L: Wilderness Review Page L-1 Nisqua lly NW R D raft CC P/E IS

Appendix L: Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine whether or not to

recommend lands or waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for designation

as wilderness. The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of

the CCP process. Land or waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in

a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for inclusion in

the Wilderness System. 

According to Section 13 of the Service’s Director’s Order No. 125 (12 July 2000), in order for a

refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all or part of the refuge must: 

! Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint substantially

unnoticeable;

! Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of

recreation;

! Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres (2000 ha) or be sufficient in size to make practical

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to

wilderness character through appropriate management, at the time of review; and 

! Be a roadless island. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is not recommended for inclusion in the Wilderness

System because it does not meet the above criteria. The Refuge comprises only 3,936 acres; has

considerable evidence of past human use; does not have outstanding opportunities for solitude;

and is not roadless. 

 
Appendix L: Wilderness Review Page L-2 Nisqua lly NW R D raft CC P/E IS

This page intentionally left blank.