Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

and the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Visitors along the Sandpiper Trail boardwalk. ©Ceridwen

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR

The waters of the Black River flow almost imperceptibly 

from Black Lake south to the Chehalis River. Meandering 

through a complex mosaic of wetlands, riparian forest, 

shrub swamp, and bogs, this area is considered the most 

intact low-lying river system remaining in western 

Washington. The Unit protects some of the most expansive 

and remote wetlands, sustaining a truly wild place.

The Unit provides a diverse community of fish and wildlife, 

large populations of once rare species such as the Oregon 

spotted frog, salmon, and unique bog, plants, and animals 

now flourish in the healthy wetland habitats.

Unit visitors will explore the quiet waterway, paddling 

canoes through the narrow river channel to fish and 

observe wildlife. Exploration of the native habitats offers 

opportunities to catch a glimpse of secretive wading birds, 

river otter, beaver, Roosevelt elk, and other wildlife, 

providing visitors with a sense of stewardship for the Unit.

Together, community members and partners, in concert 

with the Unit, protect and enhance the Black River, 

promoting biodiversity and natural ecological functions 

to benefit native fish, wildlife, and plant communities in 

wetland and upland habitats.

The Unit continues to build strong partnerships to 

protect and maintain the solitude, wild character, and 

health of the Black River so future generations can 

experience being a part of this very special place. 

A Vision of Conservation

Grays Harbor NWR

The Refuge is recognized internationally for its 

significance to shorebirds as part of the Grays Harbor 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Each 

year, shorebirds make a seemingly impossible journey along 

the Pacific coast, traveling thousands of miles southward in 

the fall to reach their wintering areas as distant as South 

America. The following spring they return to their nesting 

grounds in Alaska and Canada.

To achieve this feat, thousands of shorebirds require key 

rest areas. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge plays an 

important role in this respect: twice a day the tides recede, 

providing a vast expanse of mudflat habitat where migrating 

birds forage and rest during their long journey. This 

spectacular natural phenomenon provides visitors and 

students alike an opportunity to observe, photograph, and 

learn about these shorebirds and other local wildlife in their 

native habitats.

The Refuge works in partnership with others to protect 

and enhance the biological integrity and natural functions 

of the estuary for migratory birds and other native fish and 

wildlife, using adaptive management to respond to changing 

environmental and climatic conditions. Located in a gateway 

community of the Olympic Peninsula, the Refuge provides 

opportunities for adults and children to enjoy the outdoors, 

observe wildlife, and foster a lifelong connection with nature.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr.

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

Prepared by:

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex

100 Brown Farm Road 

Olympia, Washington 98516 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pacific Region Planning Team

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents

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

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

1.2 Significance of the Refuges ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 1-1

1.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................. 1-2

1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance ....................................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ......................................................................................... 1-7

Purposes for Establishing Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge in 1990: .................. 1-7

Purposes for Establishing the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1998: ................................................................................................. 1-8

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ................................................................................... 1-11

1.8 Special Designation Lands ...................................................................................................... 1-19

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification .............................................................................. 1-20

1.10 Refuge Visions and Goals ..................................................................................................... 1-22

1.10.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Vision ..................................................... 1-22

1.10.2 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Goals ....................................................... 1-22

1.10.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Vision ... 1-23

1.10.4 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Goals .... 1-23

1.11 References ............................................................................................................................. 1-25

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Alternatives Development ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................. 2-2

2.3 Alternative Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-4

2.3.2 Features Common to All Alternatives at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge .... 2-9

Features Common to All Alternatives at the ..................................................................... 2-11

2.3.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ................ 2-11

2.3.4 Summary of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2-12

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................... 2-17
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

ii Table of Contents

2.4.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................... 2-18

Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays 

Harbor ecosystem for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. ............................................................................... 2-18

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem 

for the benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. ............................................ 2-23

Goal 3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge 

and greater Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. ......................................................... 2-24 

Goal 4. Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions.. ...................................................................... 2-26 

Goal 5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of 

wildlife and habitats to enhance visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural resources and to foster a connection with nature. .............................................. 2-34 

Goal 6. Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and 

foster a connection with nature and the Refuge for students bon on and off the Refuge .. 2-

39 

Goal 7. Support and strengthen an active volunteer work force and Friends Groups to 

assist in providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. .............................. 2-43

2.4.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ................ 2-47

Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black 

River Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough 

Lowlands for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse 

assemblage of other native species. ............................................................................... 2-47

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

watershed. ...................................................................................................................... 2-60

Goal 3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater 

Black River watershed and ecosystem. .......................................................................... 2-64

Goal 4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) to support 

adaptive management decisions. .................................................................................... 2-66

Goal 5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to experience a diversity of wildlife and 

habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Black River Unit’s natural 

resources and foster a connection with nature. .............................................................. 2-74

Goal 6. Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. ............................................ 2-76

2.5 References ............................................................................................................................... 2-79

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

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

3.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................. 3-1
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Table of Contents iii

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

3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 3-17

3.4 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 3-21

3.5 Geology ................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.6 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 3-22

3.7 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 3-24

3.8 Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 3-24

3.9 Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................ 3-28

3.10 References ............................................................................................................................. 3-30 

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

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ...................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Historical Land Use and Conditions ........................................................................... 4-2

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................................... 4-2

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ....................... 4-2

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern .............................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Habitat Types ......................................................................................................................... 4-11

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 4-11

4.3.1 Tidal Open Water ...................................................................................................... 4-11

4.3.2 Intertidal Mudflat ...................................................................................................... 4-12

4.3.3 Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh .................................................................................. 4-14

4.3.4 Forest......................................................................................................................... 4-15

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ......................... 4-16

4.3.5 Channel Habitat ........................................................................................................ 4-16

4.3.6 Tributary Channel Habitat ........................................................................................ 4-19

4.3.7 Bog ............................................................................................................................ 4-20

4.3.8 Shrub Swamp ............................................................................................................ 4-21

4.3.9 Riparian Forest ......................................................................................................... 4-23

4.3.10 Emergent Marsh ...................................................................................................... 4-25

4.3.11 Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative Grasslands Overview ........................................... 4-27

4.3.12 Dry, Nonnative Grasslands ..................................................................................... 4-28

4.3.13 Mixed Forest ........................................................................................................... 4-29

4.4 Major Species Groups ............................................................................................................. 4-30

4.4.1 Fish ............................................................................................................................ 4-30

4.4.2 Waterfowl ................................................................................................................. 4-34

4.4.3 Water Birds ............................................................................................................... 4-34
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA 

iv Table of Contents 

4.4.4 Shorebirds ................................................................................................................. 4-35

4.4.5 Raptors ...................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.4.6 Landbirds and Passerines .......................................................................................... 4-37

4.4.7 Mammals................................................................................................................... 4-39

4.4.8 Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................................... 4-40

4.4.9 Invertebrates .............................................................................................................. 4-41

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ..................................................................... 4-42

4.5.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................... 4-42

4.5.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ................ 4-44

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species ............................................................................................... 4-47

4.6.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................... 4-49

4.6.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ................ 4-53

4.7 Biotic Responses to Climate Change ...................................................................................... 4-58

4.7.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................... 4-58

4.7.2 Black River Unit ....................................................................................................... 4-60

4.8 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ................................................... 4-62

4.8.1 Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts ............................................ 4-62

4.9 References ............................................................................................................................... 4-71

Chapter 5. Human Environment ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Cultural and Historical Resources ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Infrastructure and Facilities ...................................................................................................... 5-9

5.3 Recreation Overview .............................................................................................................. 5-10

5.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................................................. 5-12

5.5 Interpretation and Outreach .................................................................................................... 5-12

5.6 Environmental Education ....................................................................................................... 5-13

5.7 Volunteers ............................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.8 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.9 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities .............................................................................. 5-16

5.10 Recreation Trends ................................................................................................................. 5-18

5.11 Special Designations ............................................................................................................. 5-19

5.12 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................................ 5-20

5.13 References ............................................................................................................................. 5-25

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Effect Ratings Description .......................................................................................... 6-1
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Table of Contents v 

6.1.2 Summary of Effects .................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ...... 6-5

6.2.2 Effects to the Physical Environment at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ...... 6-8

6.2.3 Effects Common to All Habitats and Wildlife at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge ................................................................................................................................ 6-10

6.2.4 Effects to Estuarine Habitats and Associated Species at Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................................. 6-12

6.2.5 Effects to Forest Habitat and Associated Species at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge ................................................................................................................................ 6-14

6.2.6 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge ................................................................................................................................ 6-15

6.2.7 Effects to Visitor Services at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge .................... 6-16

6.2.8 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education Experiences at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge ................................................................................................................................ 6-17

6.2.9 Effects to Cultural Resources at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ............... 6-18

6.2.10 Effects to the Economy at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ...................... 6-18

6.2.11 Cumulative Effects at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 6-27

6.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .............................. 6-28

6.3.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 6-28

6.3.2 Effects to the Physical Environment at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 6-32

6.3.3 Effects Common to All Habitats and Wildlife at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 6-35

6.3.4 Effects to River and Tributary Channels and Associated Species at Black River Unit 

of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................... 6-36

6.3.5 Effects to Bog Habitats and Associated Species at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 6-38

6.3.6 Effects to Shrub Swamp and Associated Species at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 6-39

6.3.7 Effects to Riparian Habitat and Associated Species at Black River Unit of Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................. 6-40

6.3.8 Effects to Emergent Marsh Habitat and Associated Species at Black River Unit of 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................... 6-41

6.3.9 Effects to Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative Grassland and Associated Species at Black 

River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 6-43
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

vi Table of Contents

6.3.10 Effects to Dry, Nonnative Grassland Habitat and Associated Species at Black River 

Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 6-44

6.3.11 Effects to Mixed Forest Habitat and Associated Species at Black River Unit of Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................... 6-46

6.3.12 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 6-47

6.3.13 Effects to Social Environment at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 6-48

6.3.14 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography at Black 

River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 6-48

6.3.15 Effects to Cultural Resources at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 6-49

6.3.16 Effects to Economy at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................................. 6-50

6.3.17 Cumulative Effects at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................................. 6-54

6.4 References ............................................................................................................................... 6-56

Appendices

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings ............................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C. Implementation ............................................................................................................. C-1

Appendix D. Wilderness .................................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern ................................................................................. E-1

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance .............................................................................................. F-1

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management ........................................................................................ G-1

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary ......................................................................................... H-1

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors ........................................................................... I-1

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species ............................................................................. K-1

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species .................................................................................. L-1

Appendix M. Grays Harbor Nature Center Plans ............................................................................. M-1

Appendix N. Maps ............................................................................................................................. N-1

Tables

Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status ...................................................................................................... 1-9

Table 1-2. Grays Harbor NWR - Land Acquisition/Funding Authorities .......................................... 1-9

Table 1-3. Black River Unit - Land Acquisition/Funding Authorities ............................................. 1-10

Table 2-1. Grays Harbor NWR Summary of Alternatives by Issue. ................................................ 2-13
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Table of Contents vii

Table 2-2. Black River Unit Summary of Alternatives by Issue. .................................................... 2-15

Table 3-1. Hoquiam/Bowerman: Air Temperature and Precipitation Summaries, 1953–2012 (WRCC 

2015a, 2015b). .................................................................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2. Olympia Area: Air Temperature and Precipitation Summaries, 1948–2012 (WRCC 2015c, 

2015f). ................................................................................................................................................. 3-4

Table 4-1a. Priority Resources of Concern with Focal Resources and Other Benefitting Species—

Grays Harbor Refuge .......................................................................................................................... 4-6

Table 4-1b. Priority Resources of Concern with Focal Species and Other Benefitting Species—Black 

River Unit ............................................................................................................................................ 4-8

Table 4-2a. Grays Harbor Research, Inventory, and Monitoring Projects (past and current) .......... 4-62

Table 4-2b. Black River Unit Research, Inventory, and Monitoring Projects (past and current) ..... 4-67

Table 5-1. Summary of Landscape Descriptions on GLO survey maps in the vicinity of Black River.

............................................................................................................................................................. 5-6

Table 5-2. Ranking of Major Activity Areas of Washington State Residents (RCO 2013). ............ 5-18

Table 5-3. Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities.. 5-19

Table 5-4. Grays Harbor NWR: Summary of Area Economy, 2011 (Population & Employment in 

thousands; Per Capita Income in 2011 dollars) ................................................................................ 5-20

Table 5-5. Industry Summary for Grays Harbor County (Dollars in thousands) .............................. 5-22

Table 5-6. Black River Unit: Summary of Area Economy, 2011 (Population & Employment in 

thousands; Per Capita Income in 2011 dollars) ................................................................................ 5-23

Table 5-7. Employment Summary for Thurston County, 2011 ........................................................ 5-23

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives for Grays Harbor NWR. ............................ 6-3

Table 6-2. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives for the Black River Unit. ........................... 6-4

Table 6-3. Grays Harbor NWR FY2011 Visitation .......................................................................... 6-21

Table 6-4. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in 

thousands) ......................................................................................................................................... 6-22

Table 6-5. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation 

Visits (2011 dollars in thousands) ..................................................................................................... 6-22

Table 6-6. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Projected Annual Refuge Visitation ........................ 6-23

Table 6-7. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in 

thousands) ......................................................................................................................................... 6-24

Table 6-8. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation 

Visits (2011 dollars in thousands) ..................................................................................................... 6-24

Table 6-9. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in thousands) 

........................................................................................................................................................... 6-24

Table 6-11. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Refuge Budget (2011 

dollars in thousands) ......................................................................................................................... 6-25

Table 6-12. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2011 dollars in thousands)6-26

Table 6-13. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (2011 dollars in thousands)6-27
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

viii Table of Contents

Table 6-14. Alternatives 2: Projected Annual Unit Visitation .......................................................... 6-50

Table 6-15. Alternatives 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in thousands) .............. 6-51

Table 6-16. Alternatives 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 dollars 

in thousands) ..................................................................................................................................... 6-51

Table 6-17. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in thousands)

........................................................................................................................................................... 6-52

Table 6-18. Average Annual Expenditures (2011 dollars in thousands) .......................................... 6-52

Table 6-19. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Unit Budget (2011 

dollars in thousands) ......................................................................................................................... 6-52

Table 6-20. Change in Annual Expenditures Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 1) (2011 dollars 

in thousands) ..................................................................................................................................... 6-53

Table 6-21. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2011 dollars in thousands)6-54

Figures

Figure 3-1. Global annual average temperature and CO2 concentrations, 1880–2008. Source: 

USGCRP (2009). ................................................................................................................................ 3-6 

Figure 3-2. Average annual temperature trends (1920–2000) in the Pacific Northwest. Increases 

(decreases) are indicated with red (blue) dots. The size of the dot corresponds to the magnitude of 

change (CIG 2012c). .......................................................................................................................... 3-7 

Figure 3-3. Average annual precipitation trends (1920–2000) in the Pacific Northwest. Increases 

(decreases) are indicated with blue (red) dots. The size of the dot corresponds to the magnitude of 

change (CIG 2012c) ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 

Figure 3-4. Changes in Pacific Northwest snowpack and streamflow runoff timing . (Left) Relative 

trend in April 1st snowpack (snow water equivalent) during 1950–2000 (CIG 2012c). (Right) 

Observed changes in timing of snowmelt runoff (center of mass flow) during 1948–2000 (Stewart et 

al. [2005:Figure 2]). ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 

Figure 3-5. Annual mean, minimum, and maximum air temperatures for Grays Harbor NWR during 

1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression lines and text). Annual temperatures are the means of the 

12 monthly values (January through December). Source of monthly data: PRISM Climate Group 

(2012). ................................................................................................................................................. 3-9 

Figure 3-6. Annual precipitation (January through December) totals for Grays Harbor NWR during 

1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression line and text). Source of monthly data: PRISM Climate 

Group (2012). ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9 

Figure 3-7. Annual mean, minimum, and maximum air temperatures for the Black River Unit, Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR, during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression lines and text). Annual 

temperatures are the means of the 12 monthly values (January through December). Source of 

monthly data: PRISM Climate Group (2012). .................................................................................. 3-10 

Figure 3-8. Annual precipitation (January through December) totals for the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually NWR, during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression line and text). Source of monthly 

data: PRISM Climate Group (2012). ................................................................................................ 3-10 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Table of Contents ix

Figure 3-9. Seasonal temperatures (left) and precipitation (right) for the Grays Harbor and Lower 

Chehalis River HUC4 basins. Projections were for the A1B SRES Scenario. Bars and error bars 

represent the average and range of 10 climate models (CIG 2012b). .............................................. 3-12 

Figure 3-10. Seasonal temperatures (A) and precipitation (B) for the Upper Chehalis River HUC4 

basin. Projections were for the A1B SRES Scenario. Bars and error bars represent the average and 

range of 10 climate models (CIG 2012b).......................................................................................... 3-13 

Figure 3-11. Combined average daily flows (baseflow + runoff) for the Upper Chehalis River HUC4 

basin. Projections were for the A1B SRES scenario. Bars and error bars represent the average and 

range of 10 climate models. Runoff represents mean flow across the watershed (not routed through 

stream channels; Elsner and Hamlet 2010) (CIG 2012b). ................................................................ 3-13 

Figure 3-12. Projected sea level rise for the U.S. Pacific coast for 2030, 2050, and 2100. Red dashed 

line added to show approximate latitude for Grays Harbor, WA . Source: NRC (2012) ................. 3-15 

Figure 3-13. Average tidal range recorded at the mouth of Grays Harbor estuary 2006–2012. ....... 3-19 

Figure 5-1. Grays Harbor County’s population and employment over the last 10 years. In 2007, 

employment peaked at 33,792 and has since decreased to 30,382 in 2011, which is a 10 percent 

decrease. Employment changes were primarily in the construction and manufacturing sectors that 

experienced an increase in the first half of the decade and a subsequent decline in the latter half of the 

decade. .............................................................................................................................................. 5-21 

Maps

Map 1. Chehalis Basin Overview. ..................................................................................................... N-1 

Map 2. Grays Harbor NWR Habitats. ................................................................................................ N-1 

Map 3. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1. ........................................................................................ N-1 

Map 4. Black River Unit Alternative 1. ............................................................................................. N-1 

Map 5. Black River Unit Habitats. ..................................................................................................... N-1 

Map 6. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2. ........................................................................................ N-1 

Map 7. Black River Unit Alternative 2. ............................................................................................. N-1 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

x Table of Contents
Chapter 1

Introduction

and Background

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices

USFWS

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, NWR) and the Black River Unit (Unit) of Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge were established in the Chehalis River watershed in 

Washington State to protect fragile and unique natural habitats and their wildlife resources. Grays 

Harbor Refuge lies at the end of the Chehalis River watershed within the Grays Harbor estuary and 

was set aside to protect globally important shorebird habitat and conserve fish and wildlife 

populations at the estuary. The Black River Unit was set aside to protect, conserve, and manage fish 

and wildlife resources. Grays Harbor Refuge and the Black River Unit are part of Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) in Olympia, Washington (see Map 1). 

This document is a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), a management plan for the next 15 

years or until it is revised; it will guide management and project development for the Refuge and the 

Unit as funding is made available. The planning team has carefully considered the critical resources, 

public use issues, and public input to design a plan that can best meet the resource conservation and 

visitor services challenges of the coming years. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge was redesignated as Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge (Refuge) in December 2015. A CCP for the then-named Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

was completed in 2005; this CCP addresses management of the Black River Unit but not Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

1.2 Significance of the Refuges

1.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The freshwater of the Chehalis, Humptulips, Hoquiam, Elk, and Johns Rivers combine with the 

saltwater of the Pacific Ocean to create the Grays Harbor estuary. The estuary’s 94 square miles of 

open water, saltmarshes, and mudflats provide crucial habitat for a variety of wildlife and aquatic 

species, including hundreds of thousands of shorebirds during spring migrations. The Refuge

encompasses a small area of the estuary, located on the northeastern edge of Grays Harbor. Overall, 

the Refuge occupies only 2 percent of the estuary land base, yet has hosted up to 50 percent of the 

migrating shorebirds. 

Grays Harbor estuary is one of four major staging areas for migrating shorebirds in North America 

and hosts one of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the Pacific coast. In 1996, it was 

designated as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site of Hemispheric Significance 

and a Washington Important Bird Area (see Section 1.8). Within the greater Grays Harbor estuary, 

the mudflats of the Refuge are some of the last to flood at high tide, drawing high densities of 

foraging and resting shorebirds. 

Shorebird species using the Refuge include large numbers of western sandpiper, dunlin, semipalmated plover, black-bellied plover, least sandpiper, short- and long-billed dowitchers, and red 

knot. Common raptors include osprey, bald eagle, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

and merlin. In winter, a few thousand dunlin, some black-bellied plovers, and large concentrations of 

wintering waterfowl and waterbirds use the greater Grays Harbor estuary and Refuge. Neotropical 

songbirds use these areas on their north and south migrations while some are residents throughout the 

year. Estuarine conditions support dense populations of benthic invertebrates, macroinvertebrates, 

and many species of fish, including salmonids and federally threatened bull trout, green sturgeon, and 

eulachon (smelt). 

Refuge habitats include tidal open water, intertidal mudflats, tidal salt and brackish marshes, and 

forest (see Map 2). The approved Refuge boundary encompasses 1,851 acres of estuary and uplands 

in Grays Harbor County, Washington; the Service owns approximately 1,408 acres and leases 64 

acres from the Port of Grays Harbor (see Map 3). 

1.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Unit is southwest of Olympia, Washington (see Map 4). The Black River is an important 

tributary of the Chehalis River, the second largest watershed in Washington State. The Unit boundary 

encompasses the northern portion of the Black River, the most intact lowland river system left in 

western Washington. 

The Unit consists of a large, complex mosaic of wetland, riparian, and some upland habitats 

surrounding the low-lying river. The Unit’s diverse habitats include river and tributary channels, bog, 

shrub swamp, riparian forest, emergent marsh, seasonally flooded nonnative grassland, dry nonnative 

grassland, and mixed forest (see Map 5). Bog habitat is considered locally rare. 

Both the upper Black River and associated wetlands are some of the last remaining lowland wide 

floodplain systems in the Puget Sound Trough/Willamette Valley Ecoregion. The Unit contains 

spawning and rearing habitat and migration corridors for steelhead and cutthroat trout and Coho and 

Chinook salmon. At least 150 species of migratory birds, including waterfowl and neotropical 

songbirds, use the wetland and riparian habitats.

The Olympic mud minnow, a State-endemic and State species of concern, is found in the Unit. The 

Unit is one of only three sub-basins in Washington to support the federally threatened and Statelisted as endangered Oregon spotted frog. The complex system of wetlands within the Unit supports 

two major areas of frog activity, and drainages into the river support other frog activity areas. 

Management programs on the Unit are focused on protecting and enhancing the unique habitats for 

fish and wildlife, including rare or declining species, migratory birds, anadromous salmonids, 

amphibians, and other wildlife. Land areas within the Unit are closed to public access. The river bed 

is State-owned aquatic land managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR). The river itself is open to the public by boat only, with boat access at one location on 

county land. 

1.3 Proposed Action

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage national wildlife refuges as part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). We propose to adopt and implement a CCP for 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge. This document is the draft CCP. A CCP sets forth management guidance 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3 

for a refuge for a period of 15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 688dd–688ee, et seq.) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by 

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

Administration Act requires CCPs to identify and describe: 

• the purposes of the refuge(s); 

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

values found on the refuge; 

• significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to 

correct or mitigate those problems; 

• areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities and opportunities for fish and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

 

Refuge System planning policy (Service Manual Part 602, 602 FW3, June 21, 2000) states that the 

purpose of CCPs is to “describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range 

guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System 

mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

Refuge System; . . . and meet other mandates.” 

The proposed action in the draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) is to implement 

Alternative 2, which is the Service’s preferred alternative for the Refuge and the Unit. The Service 

has developed and examined two alternatives for the Refuge and two alternatives for the Unit. 

Chapter 6 describes anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). 

The preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final documents depending upon 

comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. The Service’s Regional 

Director for the Pacific Region will decide which alternative will be implemented. For details on the 

specific components and actions comprising the range of alternatives, see Chapter 2. 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of developing the CCP is to provide the Refuge manager and the Unit manager with a 

15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related 

habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The 

CCP, when fully implemented, should achieve Refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System 

mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of the Refuge, the Unit, and 

the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet 

other mandates. The CCP must be specific to the planning unit and identify the overarching wildlife, 

public use, or management needs for the Refuge and the Unit. The need for the CCP is derived from 

the overall Refuge System mission, goals, and policies, as described in or promulgated by the Refuge 

Administration Act (602 FW 3.4C1d). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

All national wildlife refuges are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the 

Department of the Interior (DOI). The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

The mission of the Service is “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural 

resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds, 

endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. 

The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international 

treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps 

other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is governed by a 

framework of legal and policy guidelines. The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of 

public lands and waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. 

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

treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of 

the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other documents 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 688dd–688ee) (Refuge Administration Act), the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW). The Refuge 

Administration Act is implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in 

Title 50, subchapter C, of the CFR. These regulations govern general administration of units of the 

Refuge System.

1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals

The mission of the Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

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

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

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended)(16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

The goals of the Refuge System, as articulated in the mission goals and purposes policy (601 FW 1) 

are:

• conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; 

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

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

• conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts; 

• provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

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

interpretation); 

• foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and inter-connectedness of fish, 

wildlife, plants and their habitats. 

1.5.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Refuge Administration Act 

exerts the greatest influence. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement 

Act) amended the Refuge System Administration Act in 1997 (USFWS 1997) by including a 

unifying mission for all national wildlife refuges as a system, a new process for determining 

compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a comprehensive 

conservation plan, developed in an open, public process. 

The Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the 

conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the Refuge System are 

maintained. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘... the fundamental 

mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ 

BIDEH are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later made clear in the Biological 

Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) “the highest measure of biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats 

and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.” 

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission as well as the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge 

Administration Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants 

in each refuge. 

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

uses for the Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

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

to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning for, 

management of, and establishment and expansion of units of the Refuge System. The overarching 

goal of wildlife-dependent public use programs is to enhance opportunities and access to quality 

wildlife-dependent visitor experiences on refuges while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

assume priority status among all uses of the refuge. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate 

priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or 

occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or 

continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is 

one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that in the sound 

professional judgment of the refuge manager will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. Updated appropriate 

use and compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for the Refuge and the Unit can 

be found in Appendices A and B. 

The Refuge Administration Act also requires that in addition to formally established guidance, the 

CCP must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns identified by the 

public help prepare alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and together with the 

formal guidance, form the basis for selection of the preferred alternative. It is Service policy that 

CCPs are developed in an open, public process, and we are committed to securing public input 

throughout the CCP process. Public involvement details can be found in Appendix J. 

1.5.5 Other Laws and Mandates

Many other Federal laws, Executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties govern the 

Service and Refuge System lands. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

(MBTA), Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). For additional information on laws and other mandates, 

a list and brief description of Federal laws pertinent to the Service can be found in the laws digest at 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html. 

In addition, we have developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s orders to reflect the 

mandates and intent of the Refuge Administration Act. Some of these key policies include the 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3); the Compatibility 

Policy (603 FW 2); the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Policy (602 FW 3); Mission, Goals, 

and Purposes (601 FW 1); Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses 

(605 FW 1); wilderness-related policies (610 FW 1–5) and the Director’s Order for Coordination and 

Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. These policies and others in draft or under development can be 

found at http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

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

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

refuge purpose(s). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose

The purpose(s) for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge 

planning. Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. The refuge purposes are the 

driving force in the development of the refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in a 

CCP and are critical to determining the compatibility of existing and proposed refuge uses. 

The purpose(s) of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, 

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

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the 

conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitats on which they 

depend take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit.

Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more 

specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. 

When an additional unit is acquired under an authority different from the authority used to establish 

the original unit, the addition takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does 

not take on the purpose(s) of the newer addition. When a conflict exists between the Refuge System 

mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the Refuge 

System mission. 

1.6.2 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Purposes and History

Purposes for Establishing Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge in 1990: 

• conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including those of western 

sandpiper, dunlin, red knot, long-billed dowitcher, short-billed dowitcher, other shorebirds, 

and other migratory birds, including birds of prey; 

• fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and 

their habitats; 

• conserve those species known to be threatened with extinction; 

• provide an opportunity, consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 

for wildlife-oriented recreation, education, and research. 102 Stat. 1041 (Act to establish the 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge); 

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

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

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

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

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

1956). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Supporting Documentation for Establishing Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge: 

The first evidence of interest in protecting the mudflat habitat in Bowerman Basin came in 1985 at 

the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Conference. There was a proposal to 

establish a Western Hemisphere Sister Reserve System to Protect Shorebird Populations. The 

concept was developed to identify essential migratory shorebird habitats in the western hemisphere 

supporting 48 species with an estimated population of 10 to 20 million birds. Bowerman Basin at 

Grays Harbor, Washington, was among the sites proposed for inclusion in the Sister Reserve System. 

At that time, Bowerman Basin was administered by the Port of Grays Harbor, which was developing 

a Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan that included measures to protect wildlife habitat. In a 

consolidated grassroots effort, private citizens working together developed and pursued the vision to 

create the Refuge. With strong congressional support, Bill S.1979 was introduced to the Senate in 

December 1987. After passing both houses, it was presented to the President for signature. On 

August 19, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 100-406: the Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge Act, which authorized the establishment of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Act provides clear management priorities and guidance for the Refuge. The Refuge was 

established with the first parcel included in the Refuge in 1990 (see Table 1-2).

1.6.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Purposes and History

Purposes for Establishing the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1998: 

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

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

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

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956); 

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

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

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

1956). 

Supporting Documentation for Establishing the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge: 

In 1980 a Service wetland inventory program identified the Black River wetland system as an 

important habitat in Washington State (USFWS 1980). Though little was known at the time, this 

intact low-lying river system retained unique wetland bogs in a mosaic of natural wetland habitats.

Thurston County identified and designated this area as “natural” in the Shoreline Management Plan. 

Identified in the Service’s Black River Swamp Preserve Design (Caicco 1992), a clear description of 

the habitats describes the unique, relatively wild character and natural features of the wetlands south 

of the Black Lake. The document begins the discussion of habitat protection and management 

opportunities for the area. In an early land acquisition effort to protect the river corridor and 

surrounding floodplain wetlands, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) acquired 320 acres in 1993 to 

manage the land as a nature preserve. The following year, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

now known as the Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture) identified portions of the Black River in need 

of protection in their annual Strategic Plan. Members of the public and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), such as TNC and PCJV, advocated for the establishment of a refuge. A 

preliminary project proposal (USFWS 1993) was developed by the Service outlining habitat 

protection options and proposing an acquisition boundary. The Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in 1996 (USFWS 1996) and the Unit was 

established with the purchase of the first parcel of land in 1998 (see Table 1-3). Community outreach 

efforts with landowners and willing sellers in the area continue today. 

1.6.4 Refuge and Unit Ownership and Land Status

Tables 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and Maps 3 and 4 show the lands associated with the Refuge and the Unit. The 

acreage figures for fee title properties are based on realty deeds. The approved Refuge and Unit 

boundaries indicate boundaries approved by the national or regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Director for potential acquisition of lands by the Service. 

Geographic information system (GIS) acres can vary by a certain amount from realty acres, which 

are based on survey or deed records. Realty acres should be viewed as the most accurate source. 

However, a variety of analyses (habitat acres, river miles) were conducted utilizing GIS mapping 

during the CCP process. 

Quantitative analysis in the CCP is based on GIS estimates, which may slightly over- or 

underestimate actual acres or lengths. 

Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status

Approved Refuge 

Boundary Acres(1)

Acres Owned in Fee(2) Acres in Easements, 

Agreement, or Lease(2)

Grays Harbor NWR 1,851 acres 1,408 64 

Black River Unit 3,873 acres 1,566 11

(1) Acres generated from GIS, rounded to the nearest acre. 

(2) Acres from realty data, rounded to the nearest acre (USFWS 2015) 

Land acquisition using funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is under the 

acquisition authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a–742j). 

Acquisitions using funding from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) are under the 

acquisition authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Table 1-2. Grays Harbor NWR - Land Acquisition/Funding Authorities

Date Legal Document Direction

08/19/1988 

Public Law

100-406

August 19,1988

100th Congress of the United States and signed by the President 

under the Authority: An Act, To establish the Grays Harbor 

National Wildlife Refuge Public Law 100-406, August 19, 1988
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Date Legal Document Direction

08/29/1990 Lease Tract 4LS-1, leased with LWCF funds

08/29/1990 Deed Tracts 4a (5.80 acres) and 4 (63 acres) purchased with LWCF 

funds

09/17/1990 Lease Tract 4LS-2, leased with LWCF funds (Note Deed signed 

9/17/1990 improvement costs: expires 12/31/2043)

08/31/1994 Lease Tract 5LS, (63.61 acres) purchased with LWCF funds

02/27/1995 Deed Tract 5, (1,338.97 acres) purchased with LWCF funds

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Unit authority and management extends across all lands owned by the Unit, except that the aquatic 

bed of the river within that ownership (approximated by the area that is within “bank to bank” of the 

river) is under the jurisdiction of WDNR (see also Chapter 2.3.1 Features Common to All 

Alternatives).

Table 1-3. Black River Unit - Land Acquisition/Funding Authorities 

Date Legal Document Direction

02/13/1998 Deed Tracts 569, 569a, (31.6 acres) purchased with LWCF funds

09/02/1999 Easement Tract 525R, donation of easement (.26 acres)

09/02/1999 Deed Tract 525e, donation (25.46 acres)

12/15/1999 Easement Tract 545R, purchased (wetlands) easement (.25 acres) with LWCF

funds

12/15/1999 Deed Tract 545, purchased (9.59 acres) with LWCF funds

03/20/2000 Deed Tracts 525a, 525b, 525c, 525d, purchased (149.44 acres) with 

LWCF funds

03/20/2000 Easement Tract 525R-1, donation of easement (3.21 acres)

06/06/2000 Deed Tract 552, 552a, donation (73 acres)

08/31/2000 Deed Tracts 547, 547a, 547b, purchased (41.91 acres) with LWCF funds

09/28/2000 Deed Tracts 574, 574a, purchased (64.6 acres) with LWCF funds

11/09/2000 Deed Tracts 575, 575a, 575b, purchased (29.1 acres) with LWCF funds

11/09/2000 Easement Tract 575R-1, donation of easement (1.12 acres)

05/24/2001 Deed Tract 553, purchased (23.73 acres) with LWCF funds

09/14/2001 Deed Tract 525p, purchased (160 acres) with MBCF funds

09/24/2001 Deed Tracts 525f, 525g, 525h, 525i, 525j, purchased (109.75 acres) with 

LWCF funds

10/05/2001 Deed Tract 573, purchased (9.47 acres) with LWCF funds
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11

Date Legal Document Direction

06/11/2002 Deed Tract 546, 546a, donation (19.5 acres)

06/11/2002 Easement Tract 546R, donation of (.30 acre) easement

09/03/2002 Deed Tract 526c, purchased (89 acres) with LWCF funds

09/05/2002 Deed Tract 525k, purchased (20 acres) with MBCF funds

09/30/2002 Deed Tract 551, purchased (6.22 acres) with LWCF funds

12/19/2002 Deed Tracts 584, 584a, purchased (5.07 acres) with LWCF funds

12/19/2002 Easement Tracts 584R, 584M, donation (4 acres)

05/16/2003 Deed Tract 525m, purchased (13.3 acres) with MBCF funds

08/15/2003 Deed Tract 526a, purchased (21.09 acres) with LWCF funds

09/04/2003 Deed Tract 548, purchased (80 acres) with LWCF funds

10/22/2004 Deed Tract 514, purchased (10 acres) with LWCF funds

10/22/2004 Easement Tract 514R, purchased easement (.16 acres) with LWCF funds

04/13/2005 Deed Tract 525n, 525q, purchased (328 acres) with LWCF funds

10/04/2007 Deed Tract 513c, purchased (34.50 acres) with LWCF funds

09/23/2009 Deed Tract 541, purchased (19.77 acres) with LWCF funds

08/27/2010 Deed/Easement Tract 571, 571R purchased (14.46 acres) with LWCF funds

08/18/2011 Deed Tracts 567, 567a, 567b, 568, purchased (37.08 acres) with LWCF 

funds 

08/18/2011 Easement Tracts 567R, 568R, purchased easement (2.06 acres) with LWCF 

funds 

11/03/2011 Deed Tracts 544, 544a, purchased (19.65 acres) with LWCF funds

01/05/2012 Deed/Easement Tracts 525r, 525R-2, purchased (65.83 acres) with LWCF funds

05/24/2012 Deed Tract 523, purchased (38.68 acres) with LWCF funds

05/08/2015 Deed Tracts 538c, 538d, purchased (16 acres) with LWCF funds

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts

When developing a CCP, we consider the goals and objectives of existing national, regional, state, 

and ecosystem plans and/or assessments. The CCP is expected to be consistent, as much as possible, 

with existing plans and to assist in meeting their conservation goals and objectives (602 FW 3). This 

section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by members of the core team while developing 

the CCP. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.7.1 Previous Refuge Plans

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

• Grays Harbor NWR Management and Development Plan (USFWS 1990) 

• Wildland Fire Management Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (USFWS 2003) 

• Flight Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (USFWS 2016a) 

• Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (Comprehensive) (USFWS 2012a) 

• Draft Nisqually NWR Complex H5N1 Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan (USFWS 

2007) 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

• Wildland Fire Management Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (USFWS 2003) 

• Flight Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (USFWS 2016a) 

• Float Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (USFWS 2016b) 

• Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (Comprehensive) (USFWS 2012a) 

• Draft Nisqually NWR Complex H5N1 Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan (USFWS 

2007) 

1.7.2 Future Planning

The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that 

changes are needed to achieve the refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides 

guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge program areas but may lack some 

of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore be 

developed for individual program areas as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down 

plans may require additional NEPA compliance. 

1.7.3 Migratory Bird Conservation and Plans

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) 

BMC is a subset of all species protected by the MBTA (50 CFR 10.13) and includes those which 

pose special management challenges due to a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts 

with human interests, or societal demands) (USFWS 2012b). BMC comprises both game birds below 

their desired condition and nongame birds. 

BMC species, subspecies, or populations are divided into four categories: 

(a) birds listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (USFWS 1973); 

(b) nongame MBTA-protected birds that have been determined to be of conservation concern 

(as published in Birds of Conservation Concern 2008; 247 including all National, regional, 

and Bird Conservation Region species); 

(c) birds that are considered overabundant in part or all of their range and thus potentially 

damaging to natural ecosystems or human interests; 

(d) high-priority migratory game birds, as determined by factors such as their population 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13

status, their socio-economic value, and our ability to manage them based on sound 

information. 

BMCs are also: 

(a) protected by the MBTA (USFWS 1918); 

(b) regularly found in the continental U.S., Hawaiian and U.S. Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, 

or the U.S. Virgin Islands; 

(c) regular breeders or winter residents in one of the above geographical areas; 

(d) hunted species that are not currently hunted for sport under provisions established by the 

MBTA. 

The Refuge and the Unit provide breeding, wintering, and stopover habitat for some birds identified 

as BMCs with primary importance in the region and includes those species that can usually be 

observed using Refuge and Unit habitats. Some of these species are greater white-fronted goose 

(Pacific population), cackling and Pacific populations of Canada goose, gadwall, American wigeon, 

mallard (western population), northern shoveler, northern pintail, American green-winged teal, 

greater and lesser scaup, surf scoter, double-crested cormorant, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Virginia 

rail, red knot (roselaari), dunlin, short-billed dowitcher, Caspian tern, and rufous hummingbird. 

Uncommon or occasionally observed birds are dusky goose, Pacific black brant, common goldeneye, 

horned grebe, western grebe, pelagic cormorant, whimbrel, and marbled godwit (see Appendix E). 

Focal Species of Birds 

To better measure its success in achieving its bird conservation priorities and mandates, the Service’s 

Migratory Bird Program initiated a focal species strategy for migratory birds (USFWS 2011, 2012c). 

The focal species strategy involves campaigns for selected species to provide explicit, strategic, and 

adaptive sets of conservation actions required to return the species to healthy and sustainable levels. 

The goal of the focal species strategy is to measure the success in achieving bird conservation and to 

increase accountability. The Service remains committed to landscape-scale, integrated bird 

conservation for the full array of species of management concern. The focal species approach is just 

one component of the Migratory Bird Program and complements other work on migratory birds and 

their habitats.

To select focal species, the Service’s Migratory Bird Program identifies species from the BMC that 

need investment because they (1) have high conservation need, (2) are representative of a broader 

group of species sharing the same or similar conservation needs, (3) act as a potential unifier for 

partnerships, or (4) have a high likelihood that factors affecting status can be realistically addressed. 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)

The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the Service to “identify 

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

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

of 1973.” The publication Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC) is the most recent effort to 

carry out this mandate (USFWS 2008). BCC identifies the migratory and nonmigratory bird species, 

beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered, that represent the Service’s 

highest conservation priorities. BCC species are a select group of birds appearing on the BMC list. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Grays Harbor Refuge 

Eleven BCC species regularly occur at Grays Harbor Refuge: western grebe, bald eagle, northern 

harrier, peregrine falcon, whimbrel, red knot, dunlin, short-billed dowitcher, Caspian tern, rufous 

hummingbird, and willow flycatcher. Birds that occasionally are observed include dusky Canada 

goose, pelagic cormorant, lesser yellowlegs, long-billed curlew, and marbled godwit (see 

Appendix E).

Black River Unit

Four BCC species regularly occur on the Unit: mourning dove, rufous hummingbird, willow 

flycatcher, and purple finch. Birds that occasionally are seen or are thought to use Unit habitats 

include bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and solitary sandpiper. 

Partners in Flight (PIF)

PIF is an international coalition of government agencies, conservation groups, academic institutions, 

private organizations, and citizens dedicated to the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of 

native landbirds. The goal of PIF’s landbird conservation plans is to focus resources on improving 

inventory and monitoring, research, management, and education programs involving birds and their 

habitats. PIF’s strategy is to stimulate cooperative public- and private-sector efforts in North America 

and the neotropics to meet these goals. 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

While most of the focus of the Refuge is on shorebirds and other water-associated birds, over 25 

species of PIF-identified birds, including perching or landbirds, use Refuge habitats. These species 

generally use forest and salt or brackish marsh habitats.

Black River Unit

The Unit is important to perching birds and landbirds. The regional PIF plans applicable to the Unit 

include The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and 

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

Western Oregon and Washington (Altman and Alexander 2012). The lowlands and valleys plan 

identifies over 46 bird species and 2 priority habitats. Many forest conditions (seedlings to mature 

trees) identified in the coniferous forest plan are found within the Unit boundary. The 11 focal 

species of this plan include 4 species of warbler (orange-crowned, black-throated gray, Wilson’s, and 

Townsend’s), 3 species of flycatcher (olive-sided, Hammond’s, and Pacific-slope), winter wren, 

varied thrush, brown creeper, and pileated woodpecker. 

Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (NPCRSMP)

This regional plan is part of the national U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, which is intended to 

provide an overview of the current status of shorebirds, the conservation challenges facing them, 

current opportunities for integrated conservation, broad goals for the conservation of shorebird 

species and subspecies, and specific programs necessary to meet the overall vision of restoring stable 

and self-sustaining populations of all shorebirds. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15

Grays Harbor Refuge 

The NPCRSMP identifies the importance of Grays Harbor and the Refuge as a wintering area for 

shorebirds that breed in the arctic and temperate zones; it is also important during migration, 

particularly for arctic breeding species. There are also important breeding locations and breeding 

shorebird populations in the region. The plan includes several conservation priorities that are relevant 

to the Refuge because it provides approximately 497 acres of tidal mudflat habitat and 156 acres of 

estuarine salt marsh habitat in southwestern Washington. The plan’s goals include restoring tidal flats 

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

removal and maintenance of introduced cordgrass, managing a sufficient amount of shallow open 

water habitat to support shorebird populations, and limiting human disturbance to shorebirds in all 

seasons. The Refuge-specific recommendation is to reduce potentially deleterious silt that 

accumulates in marsh and mud flats. 

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

are especially important, 10 species, including black-bellied plover, killdeer, greater yellowlegs, 

whimbrel, marbled godwit, red knot, sanderling, dunlin, short-billed dowitchers, and western 

sandpiper, are supported on this Refuge. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) 

An independent partnership of individuals and organizations with a shared concern for waterbird 

conservation developed a plan to sustain or restore the distribution, diversity, and abundance of 

breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds of North and Central America and the Caribbean 

regions (Kushlan et al. 2002). The primary goal of the partnership was to develop and facilitate 

implementation of the NAWCP. Completed in 2002, the NAWCP outlines a continental-scale

strategy for conserving and managing over 200 aquatic bird species. The NAWCP identifies

vulnerabilities and threats to species and their habitats. Habitat and site-based conservation actions

throughout the Americas and the North Pacific are promoted by the NAWCP. Conservation 

priorities, information needs, resources, and infrastructure are identified at regional and local levels

in a step-down process through regional working groups. 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

Waterbirds are those birds that depend on wetland conditions but do not include shorebirds or 

waterfowl. The Refuge provides habitat for over 15 of these species, including loon, grebe, pelican, 

heron; secretive birds such as sora, bittern, and rail; and gulls, terns, coots, and cranes. 

Black River Unit

The Black River Unit is an important location for waterbirds; its extensive mosaic of wetlands 

provides habitats for approximately eight waterbird species, including pied-billed grebe, American 

coot, great blue and green heron, and secretive birds such as sora, bittern, and rail. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 

This plan, first formulated in 1986, provides a strategy to protect North America’s remaining 

wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat. 

The plan was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on strengthening the biological foundation, using a 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

landscape approach, and expanding partnerships (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

Committee 2004). 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

The goals of the plan are to provide habitat for breeding and wintering waterfowl. The late fall 

season brings a large flush of waterfowl (ducks and geese) to the estuary, including the Refuge, as 

they begin to migrate from northern latitudes. Large numbers of many duck species stop, forage, and 

wait in the estuary for the seasonal rains to refill local land depressions with surface water. As more 

freshwater habitat becomes available with lowland flooding, many of the birds move out of the 

estuary to more wind-protected locations. Over 25 species of waterfowl are known to visit the 

Refuge. 

Black River Unit

A small number of individual ducks or geese from approximately 11 species identified in the 

NAWMP have been observed using Black River habitat. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan (PFMP) 

The Pacific Flyway Council is an administrative body that forges cooperation among public wildlife 

agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory game birds in western North 

America. The council is generally composed of one member from the public wildlife agency in each

state and province in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Biologists from state, Federal, 

and provincial wildlife and land-management agencies, university students and faculty, and others 

develop management plans for the cooperative management of migratory game bird populations in 

the Pacific Flyway. Biologists from the Central Flyway, Canada, Mexico, and Russia contribute to 

these plans. 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

The PFMP addresses specific plans for many species of birds. Management plans for birds that 

regularly use Grays Harbor Refuge are for many subspecies of Canada geese, including cackling, 

dusky, Aleutian, lesser, Taverner’s, and western geese, and double-crested cormorants. Management 

plans for birds that occasionally use the Refuge include greater white-fronted geese, black brant, and 

lesser snow geese. 

Black River Unit

Management plans for birds that may use the Black River Unit include cackling geese and some 

subspecies of Canada geese, such as lesser, Taverner’s, and western geese, as well as Pacific coast 

band-tailed pigeons and the western management unit population of mourning doves. 

Seabird Conservation Plan (SCP) 

The Pacific Coast supports some of the most diverse seabird populations in the United Sates, 

including 60 species that use the coastal waters around Grays Harbor. The Refuge’s estuarine habitat 

supports the growth of potential food sources for these birds. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17

The purpose of the SCP is to identify priorities for managing seabirds, monitoring research, outreach, 

planning, and coordination with partners (USFWS 2005). The SCP provides guidance and 

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

scale. 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

Specific information on ecology, population, status, distribution, threats, and conservation needs is 

provided for species that may be found near Grays Harbor Refuge. The SCP addresses over seven 

species found on the Refuge, among them cormorants, gulls, and Caspian terns. 

Although the Refuge does not manage seabird breeding habitats, many species of marine birds occur 

in the surrounding coastal waters. 

1.7.4 State Plans 

Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)/Washington Wildlife 

Action Plan (WAP)

In response to two Federal programs—the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the 

State Wildlife Grant Program—the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prepared 

a number of important documents to help guide State resource management. 

The driving force behind CWCS is the Washington Species of Greatest Conservation Need list. The 

list builds on current efforts to protect fish and wildlife species, including those listed on State and 

Federal endangered, threatened, and sensitive species lists, as well as species not yet listed but for 

which conservation actions or additional information is needed. 

WAP is part of the CWCS (WDFW 2015). WAP includes information on the distribution and 

abundance of State priority wildlife and habitats, provides strategies for conserving and monitoring 

wildlife and habitat, and provides for coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, and 

the public. WAP emphasizes proactive measures to conserve declining species and habitats and to 

maintain the status of common species, and is helpful to Refuge staff in making biological and 

management decisions. 

Washington Natural Heritage Plan (WNHP)

WNHP (WDNR 2011) is a product of the Washington Natural Heritage Program (in the Department 

of Natural Resources), whose mission is to conserve the full range of Washington’s native plants, 

animals, and ecosystems through voluntary and cooperative actions. The program uses science to 

identify high-quality and representative examples of native Washington habitats and species and 

works to protect these natural treasures through voluntary and cooperative habitat conservation 

agreements.

Areas of critical environmental concern, wilderness areas, national monuments, and other public 

lands with management plans that adequately protect Washington’s natural heritage include research 

natural areas (RNAs) as providing complete or partial protection for some ecosystems and species. 

For Refuges, the WNHP plan recommends that RNAs be established to protect natural areas of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

exceptional value, particularly those areas that are unique and have no similar examples protected 

elsewhere. 

Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)

WDFW has identified those fish and wildlife resources that are a priority for managing and 

conserving. Priority habitats are those habitat types with unique or significant value to many fish or 

wildlife species. Priority species are those fish and wildlife species requiring special efforts to ensure 

their perpetuation because of their low numbers, sensitivity to altered habitat, tendency to form 

vulnerable aggregations, or because they are of commercial, recreational, or tribal importance. 

Descriptions of those habitats and species designated as priority were published as individual 

documents on habitats, birds (WDFW 2004), fish, invertebrates (WDFW 1995), amphibians and 

reptiles (WDFW 1997), and mammals (draft), and as a summary report (WDFW 2008), and the 

online Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Lists (continually updated). 

1.7.5 Other Natural Resource Plans or Guidance Documents

Chehalis River Basin Action Plan (CRBAP)

The purpose and mission of the action plan is to, “Develop a dynamic plan that will improve surface 

water and ground water quality in the Chehalis River Basin, including the Chehalis River, Grays 

Harbor, and their tributaries, by reducing nonpoint source pollution in accordance with Federal, State 

and local guidelines. The CRBAP will foster opportunities for organizations and individuals to work 

together to prevent future pollution of the waters of the Chehalis River Basin. While achieving water 

quality goals, we recognize the need to maintain the viability of existing industries. All goals are of 

equal importance.” This action plan also includes information on Chehalis tributaries, including the 

Black River (Chehalis River Council 1992). 

Chehalis Basin Watershed Management Plan (CBWMP) 

The plan is adapted from the CRBAP (Chehalis River Council 1992) with additional information 

incorporated from the Chehalis Basin Level 1 Assessment. It outlines the status and needs to restore 

and conserve the waters of the Chehalis Basin, which Grays Harbor and Grays Harbor Refuge 

depend upon (Chehalis Basin Partnership 2004). 

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (GHEMP) 

The GHEMP is a long-range, coordinated, comprehensive plan to guide land and water use activities 

in the greater Grays Harbor estuary. It is an older, comprehensive guiding document that was and is 

being implemented through individual local shoreline master programs, ordinances, State and Federal 

regulations, and permits (Grays Harbor Estuary Management Task Force 1989). 

Washington State Coastal Zone Management Section 309 Assessment and Strategy, 2011–

2015 

The Washington State Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP), approved in 1976, applies to 15 

coastal counties, including Grays Harbor (NOAA 1987). The CZMP is authorized to fund specific 

improvements along the coast (WDOE 2010). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19

Grays Harbor Geographic Response Plan (GRP) 

This Department of Ecology (WDOE 2013) plan was written as guidance to prioritize resources to be 

protected in the event of an emergency contaminant spill and allows for immediate and proper action 

by early responders and coordinators. 

The Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment 

This report (Vanderschaaf 2006) addresses the most important places for conserving native species 

and ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Using this assessment, TNC selected target species and 

communities that represented various habitat types. This assessment is a guide for providing the most 

conservation benefit for the lowest cost. 

Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1 and Volume 2 

Volume 1 is a synthesis of science, reviewing the components of freshwater wetlands and the effects 

of changes on the wetlands. Volume 2 provides guidance on managing and protecting wetlands. Both 

volumes are from Department of Ecology and they provide guidance in understanding the wetland 

ecology of the Black River Unit and Grays Harbor Refuge (Granger et al. 2005, Sheldon et al. 2005). 

Black River Conservation Area Plan 

This TNC plan pulls together information regarding the Black River Watershed, its history, uses, 

special habitats, threats, and needs from the headwaters to the confluence with the Chehalis River. 

The purpose of the Black River Conservation Area Plan (TNC 2005) is to highlight the uniqueness of 

the Black River in the Puget Trough, to identify the species and communities within the watershed 

that are representative of the ecological region, and to emphasize the need to protect, restore, and link 

the diverse habitats found in the Black River watershed— habitats upon which the biodiversity and 

ecological functioning of this Puget Trough landscape are dependent. 

1.8 Special Designation Lands

1.8.1 Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site of Hemispheric 

Significance

In 1996, the greater Grays Harbor estuary (including Grays Harbor Refuge) was designated as a 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) Site of Hemispheric Significance in the 

Pacific Flyway. The relatively undisturbed estuary habitats were identified as subtidal (open water), 

intertidal (mudflat), rocky shore (harbor mouth) intertidal emergent (salt marsh), intertidal emergent 

(scrub/shrub), palustrine forested (forested wetland/willow), palustrine emergent, and palustrine 

emergent spoil (fill). To receive WHSRN designation, the site must support over 500,000 shorebirds 

during a year (WHSRN 2009). Counts from various sources report that an estimated 300,000+ 

shorebirds were observed during an aerial survey of Grays Harbor in April 1993; during that same 

time, ground counts on Bowerman Basin (which became Grays Harbor Refuge) on April 26 and 27, 

1993, indicated about 150,000 and 125,000 shorebirds, respectively. The greater estuary and the 

Refuge provide spring and fall stopover habitat where shorebirds can forage on abundant 

invertebrates and rest during migration. The site also provides habitat and food for wintering 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

shorebirds. Most of the shorebirds identified in the NPCRSMP as having primary importance within 

the region use the greater Grays Harbor estuary as well as the Refuge. 

1.8.2 Important Bird Areas (IBA)

There are two Important Bird Area (IBA) programs. The American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) IBA 

program concentrates on a global effort to identify the most important areas for maintaining bird 

populations and focus conservation efforts on protecting those sites. The National Audubon Society’s 

(NAS) IBA program focuses on working within each state to identify a network of sites that provide 

critical habitat for birds. Both programs recognize that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most 

serious threats to birds across North America and around the world and they have become 

components of many bird conservation efforts. 

Grays Harbor Refuge was designated by an IBA by Washington Audubon, the state office of the 

NAS (Cullinan 2001). Recently 10 coastal IBAs, including Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, were 

combined into one regional IBA called Washington Coastal Estuaries IBA (Bayard, T. 2013, pers. 

comm.). 

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification

1.9.1 Planning Process

The CCP planning process for Grays Harbor Refuge and the Black River Unit began in 2010. A core 

team and an expanded team were formed to develop the CCP. The core planning team consists of the 

project leader, deputy project leader, visitor services manager, wildlife biologist, and conservation 

planner. The extended team consists of biologists from the Service, WDFW, and WDNR. The 

extended team assisted in the development of this draft CCP, particularly in providing comments and 

information at milestones in the planning process. A full list of the plan contributors and their roles is 

provided in Appendix I. 

Early in the planning process, we developed a list of preliminary issues, concerns, and opportunities 

for the CCP. These planning issues were initially presented to the public in Planning Update 1 in 

May 2011 and at two local public scoping meetings on May 18 and 19, 2011. A Notice of Intent to 

prepare a CCP and associated NEPA document was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 

2011 (76 FR 33339). 

Public outreach continued with the distribution of three planning updates to our mailing list and 

meetings with stakeholder groups. The comments and suggestions made through this process helped 

further develop and refine the issues and management alternatives for the CCP, including the 

preferred alternative. This draft CCP will result in additional comments, which will be evaluated by 

the planning team. Additional detailed information on public involvement can be found in 

Appendix J. 

1.9.2 Key Issues Addressed in the CCP

The CCP planning team evaluated the issues and concerns raised both by staff and the public during 

public scoping, as well as throughout the multi-year planning process. Issues are defined as matters 

of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities, the environment, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21

land uses, or public use activities. Issues are important to the planning process because they identify 

topics to address in the CCP, pinpoint the types of information to gather, and help define alternatives 

for the CCP. Although CCPs are comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. It is the 

Service’s responsibility to focus planning and the analysis on the major issues. Major issues typically 

suggest different actions or alternative solutions, are within the Refuge’s jurisdiction, and have a 

positive or negative effect on the resource. Major issues influence the alternatives proposed in the 

draft CCP. Key issues, concerns, and opportunities analyzed in the draft CCP are presented below 

(also see Appendix J). 

Grays Harbor Refuge 

• Habitat Management and Restoration. What actions are needed to sustain and restore priority 

species and habitats over the next 15 years? How is sedimentation impacting shorebird 

habitat quality? What will the effects of climate change and sea level rise have on Refuge 

habitats and species?

• Invasive Species Control. Invasive plant species degrade habitat quality for shorebirds, 

migratory birds, fish, and wildlife. Invasive animals may compete with native fish and 

wildlife for limited resources. How can we reduce the incidence and spread of invasive 

species?

• Visitor Services and Education Opportunities. Wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education are provided at Grays Harbor Refuge. How can 

we improve these services and programs? What visitor services facilities are needed or 

planned? What volunteer programs and partnerships can be developed or strengthened to 

improve outreach and education? What can be done to reduce trespassing, vandalism, and 

other illegal activities and improve wildlife and habitat protection? Are there opportunities to 

provide hunting and/or fishing at Grays Harbor Refuge? 

• Contaminants. What can be done to address potential sources and impacts of contaminants on 

and around the Refuge? 

Black River Unit

• Land and Water Protection. What actions are needed to sustain and restore priority species 

and habitats over the next 15 years? How can we improve habitat protection and connectivity 

and reduce habitat fragmentation? How can we improve water quality and quantity in the 

Black River system for fish and wildlife? 

• Habitat Management and Restoration. Most habitats have been altered by human actions and 

are in need of management and restoration to increase value as fish and wildlife habitat. What 

actions will help provide important information on key species, habitat composition, and the 

management prescription needed for the Black River Unit? What will the effects of climate 

change and sea level rise have on Unit habitats and species? How can we enhance Oregon 

spotted frog recovery? 

• Invasive Species Control. Invasive plant species degrade habitat quality for migratory birds, 

fish, amphibians, and many other forms of fish and wildlife. Nonnative animals may compete 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

with native fish and wildlife for limited resources. How can we reduce the incidence and 

spread of invasive species? 

• Visitor Services and Education Opportunities. The Black River Unit has remained largely 

closed because of the fragmented nature of current land ownership. How can we reduce 

trespassing, vandalism, and other illegal activities and improve wildlife habitat and 

protection? What wildlife-dependent priority public uses should be considered at the Black 

River Unit, where should they be allowed, and how should they be conducted? What 

opportunities are there for improving access to Black River, boat launching, and parking on 

the Unit? How can partnerships and volunteers be developed to support visitor service 

programs? 

• Conservation Partnership. How can the Service develop a coordinated approach with other 

groups and agencies to plan and manage for the protection, restoration, and interpretation of 

lands and waters within the Black River corridor? 

1.10 Refuge Visions and Goals

1.10.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Vision

The Refuge is recognized internationally for its significance to shorebirds as part of the Grays Harbor 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Each year, shorebirds make a seemingly 

impossible journey along the Pacific coast, traveling thousands of miles southward in the fall to reach 

their wintering areas as distant as South America. The following spring they return to their nesting 

grounds in Alaska and Canada. 

To achieve this feat, thousands of shorebirds require key rest areas. Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge plays an important role in this respect: twice a day the tides recede, providing a vast expanse 

of mudflat habitat where migrating birds forage and rest during their long journey. This spectacular 

natural phenomenon provides visitors and students alike an opportunity to observe, photograph, and 

learn about these shorebirds and other local wildlife in their native habitats. 

The Refuge works in partnership with others to protect and enhance the biological integrity and 

natural functions of the estuary for migratory birds and other native fish and wildlife, using adaptive 

management to respond to changing environmental and climatic conditions. Located in a gateway 

community of the Olympic Peninsula, the Refuge provides opportunities for adults and children to 

enjoy the outdoors, observe wildlife, and foster a lifelong connection with nature. 

1.10.2 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Goals

1) Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem 

for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species. 

2) Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem for the 

benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23

3) Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge and greater 

Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. 

4) Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions. 

5) Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

resources and to foster a connection with nature. 

6) Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and foster a 

connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge. 

7) Support and strengthen an active volunteer work force and Friends Groups to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

1.10.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Vision

The waters of the Black River flow almost imperceptibly from Black Lake south to the Chehalis 

River. Meandering through a complex mosaic of wetlands, riparian forest, shrub swamp, and bogs, 

this area is considered the most intact low-lying river system remaining in western Washington. The 

Unit protects some of the most expansive and remote wetlands, sustaining a truly wild place. 

The Unit provides a diverse community of fish and wildlife, large populations of once rare species 

such as the Oregon spotted frog, salmon, and unique bog, plants, and animals now flourish in the 

healthy wetland habitats.

Unit visitors will explore the quiet waterway, paddling canoes through the narrow river channel to 

fish and observe wildlife. Exploration of the native habitats offers opportunities to catch a glimpse of 

secretive wading birds, river otter, beaver, Roosevelt elk, and other wildlife, providing visitors with a 

sense of stewardship for the Unit. 

Together, community members and partners, in concert with the Unit, protect and enhance the Black 

River, promoting biodiversity and natural ecological functions to benefit native fish, wildlife, and 

plant communities in wetland and upland habitats. 

The Unit continues to build strong partnerships to protect and maintain the solitude, wild character, 

and health of the Black River so future generations can experience being a part of this very special 

place. 

1.10.4 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Goals

1) Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough Lowlands 

for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

2) Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River watershed.

3) Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater Black River 

watershed and ecosystem. 

4) Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) to support adaptive 

management decisions.

5) Provide quality opportunities for visitors to experience a diversity of wildlife and habitats to 

enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Unit’s natural resources and to foster a 

connection with nature. 

6) Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in providing 

quality visitor services programs and outreach. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25

1.11 References 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon 

and Washington. Retrieved from http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/western_lowlands.pdf. 

Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of 

Western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight 

(www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory. Retrieved from 

http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/Western_Conifer_Plan_new.pdf. 

Caicco, S.L. 1992. Black River Swamp Preserve Design. Pacific Botanical, Olympia, WA. Prepared 

for The Nature Conservancy. 18 pp. 

Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2004. Chehalis Basin Watershed Management Plan. Retrieved from 

http://www.chehalisbasinpartnership.org/watershed_plan/watershed_plan.html. 

Chehalis River Council. 1992. Chehalis River Basin Action Plan for the identification and control of 

non-point source pollution and technical supplement. Chehalis River Council, Lewis County 

Conservation District, and Washington Department of Ecology. Chehalis, WA. 

Cullinan, T. 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Audubon Washington, Olympia, WA. 170 

pp. Retrieved from http://wa.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/iba-1-50_pacific_coast.pdf. 

Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. 

Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506008.pdf.

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Task Force. 1989. Plan Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan. 

Retrieved from http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/info/pub_svcs/EstuaryPlan.htm. 

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, U.S.A. 78 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA). 1987. Washington State Coastal Zone 

Management Program Amendment No. 3: Approval and Adoption of the Grays Harbor Estuary 

Management Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Washington state Department of Ecology, 

Olympia, WA. 105 pp.+ appendices. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. Strategic Guidance: 

Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 22 pp.

Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.Stockdale. 

2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506006.pdf.

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. Black River Conservation Area Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and 

Amendments. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/MIGTREA.HTML. 

USFWS. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/esact.html. 

USFWS. 1980. Important Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Washington – An Inventory. Unpublished 

report. 85 pp. 

USFWS. 1990. Management and Development Plan Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, 

Hoquiam, WA. Prepared by Grays Harbor Refuge Planning Team, USFWS. 54 pp. + appendices. 

USFWS. 1993. Preliminary Project Proposal for Black River National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston 

County, WA. 

USFWS. 1996. Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Addition of the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually NWR, Thurston County, WA. 

USFWS. 1997. National Fish and Wildlife System Administration Act 1996 and Improvement Act 

1997. In Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 

from http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/nwrsact.html. 

USFWS. 2003. Wildland Fire Management Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex. Unpublished report. 

USFWS. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2007. Draft Nisqually NWR Complex H5N1 Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan. 

Unpublished report. 

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Retrieved 

from http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/. 

USFWS. 2011. Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Bird Program. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC%20Focal%20Species%20

November%202011.pdf. 

USFWS. 2012a. Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex (Comprehensive). Unpublished report. 

USFWS. 2012b. Birds of Management Concern. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC.html. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27

USFWS. 2012c. Focal Species Strategy for Migratory Birds. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/FocalSpecies.html. 

USFWS. 2016a. Draft Flight Safety Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex. Unpublished report. 

USFWS. 2016b. Draft Float Plan for Nisqually NWR Complex. Unpublished report.

Vander Schaaf, D., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdaña, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. 

Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast 

Ecoregion Assessment. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, 

and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 

Retrieved from 

http://oregonexplorer.info/data_files/OE_location/northcoast/documents/NorthCoastPDFs/PNW%20

Coast%20EA%20Final_Main_Report_Aug21.pdf. 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2010. Washington State Coastal Zone Management 

Section 309 Assessment and Strategy, 2011–2015. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance 

Program. Retrieved from http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/wa3092011.pdf. 

WDOE. 2013. Grays Harbor Geographic Response Plan. Retrieved from 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/preparedness/GRP/GraysHarbor/GraysHarbor.html. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Management Recommendations for 

Washington's Priority Species Volume I: Invertebrates. Larsen Eric M., Elizabeth Rodrick, and Ruth 

Milner; technical editors. Retrieved from http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00024/. 

WDFW. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume III: 

Amphibians and Reptiles. Larsen, E. M., editor. Olympia, WA.122 pp. Retrieved from 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00025/. 

WDFW. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. 

E. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/. 

WDFW. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, WA. 174 pp. Retrieved from 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf. 

WDFW. 2015. Washington’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Retrieved from 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011. Natural Heritage Plan Update. 

Retrieved from http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plan/amp_nh_plan_2011.pdf. 

Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). 2009. Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.whsrn.org/about-whsrn/frequently-askedquestions. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Chapter 2

Management

Alternatives

©Jan Wieser

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-1 

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 

2.1 Alternatives Development

During development of the alternatives for this long-term conservation plan, the Service reviewed 

and considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for 

managing both Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. As is appropriate for national wildlife refuges, resource 

considerations were fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states “...the fundamental mission of our 

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The CCP planning team reviewed scientific reports and studies to understand ecosystem trends and 

the latest scientific recommendations for species and habitats found at the Refuge and the Unit. The 

Service reached out to staff from Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, and elected officials to 

ascertain priorities and issues. Service staff met or communicated with Refuge and Unit users, 

representatives of nonprofit groups, and community organizations to ensure that their comments and 

ideas were considered during CCP development. Further details of public involvement and 

participation are found in Appendix J. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

During development of the alternatives, the planning team considered the actions described below for 

Grays Harbor Refuge and the Black River Unit. These actions were ultimately eliminated from 

further consideration for the reasons provided. 

2.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Waterfowl Hunting: During the public scoping period, the Service received comments requesting 

opportunities to hunt waterfowl on the Refuge (see Appendix J). Waterfowl hunting is a wildlifedependent, priority public use, which receives special consideration in planning (see Chapter 1.5.4). 

By law, the Service is not to allow activities that would detract from the Refuge’s purposes. After 

careful consideration, the planning team determined that due to the small size of the Refuge and 

conflicts with other uses and Refuge management focus, waterfowl hunting could not be supported as 

a priority public use. In particular, it was determined that the hunting activity would result in 

unacceptable impacts to migratory birds. These impacts would likely include disturbance and 

displacement of shorebirds and other migratory birds during the winter months when waterfowl 

hunting occurs. The Refuge is too small to allow the establishment of wildlife sanctuary areas in key 

habitats that would be separate from hunting areas. Allowing hunting on the Refuge would diminish 

the wildlife values of the mudflats and open water habitats during critical migration and wintering 

periods when birds rely upon undisturbed habitat for feeding and resting. In addition, existing highquality wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and education programs would be negatively 

affected due to the small size of the Refuge and proximity of Refuge trails. Waterfowl hunting was 

considered but not implemented for similar reasons during the development of the Management and 

Development Plan for Grays Harbor NWR (USFWS 1990). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Boating: The planning team considered boating on the Refuge and determined that boating is not an 

appropriate use due to the Refuge’s overall size and the potential for disturbance to migratory birds 

using the mudflat and open water habitats. Feasible areas for boating are already very limited on the 

Refuge due to shallow water conditions and extreme tidal fluctuations. The Refuge makes up less 

than 2 percent of the overall Grays Harbor estuary, and many boating opportunities already exist in 

areas more conducive to safe boating. Because of the small size of potential boating areas, a single 

boat could flush much of the migratory birds using open waters. In addition, boating would conflict 

with wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and education activities by disturbing wildlife in the 

limited viewing areas that are available to trail users. Therefore, the current closure to boating on the 

Refuge will be maintained. Boating was considered but not implemented for similar reasons during 

the development of the Management and Development Plan for Grays Harbor NWR (USFWS 1990). 

Fishing: The planning team considered fishing within the Refuge boundary. Habitat within the 

Refuge is marginal for fishing opportunities due to the shallow waters and extreme tidal fluctuations. 

Similar to boating, it was determined that the activity would cause too much disturbance to migratory 

birds using the limited waters of the Refuge. Fishing would also negatively affect those participating 

in wildlife observation, photography, and education activities on Refuge trails. Fishing was not 

implemented for similar reasons during the development of the Management and Development Plan 

for Grays Harbor NWR (USFWS 1990). 

2.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Waterfowl Hunting: Waterfowl hunting under state regulations occurs within the Black River 

channel. During the public scoping period, the Service received comments requesting opportunities 

to hunt waterfowl within the Black River Unit (see Appendix J). 

When considering wildlife-dependent public uses on any refuge or refuge unit, we must determine if 

we can provide high-quality experiences that are compatible with the purposes of that refuge or unit. 

The term “quality” is identified as a baseline attribute for any wildlife-dependent, priority public use 

activity being considered. Considerations for quality waterfowl hunting on the Black River Unit 

included: 1) hunter safety; 2) hunter ethical behavior; 3) uncrowded conditions; 4) reasonable harvest 

opportunities; 5) a clear understanding about which areas are open and closed to hunting; and 6) 

minimal conflict between hunters and other visitors. Distance and access to the site also would have

to be feasible in a reasonable timeframe. In addition, local landowners live along the river shoreline 

in some locations, and the need to avoid conflict and maintain a safety buffer was an important 

factor. Rare or listed species and their associated habitats were also considered regarding potential 

waterfowl hunting on Unit lands. 

The planning team carefully considered the feasibility of waterfowl hunting on Unit lands that met 

these quality parameters. Both walk-in and boat-in hunting on Unit lands along the river bank were

considered but not further developed because of the difficulty in accessing the bank due to dense 

vegetation, the difficulty in maintaining access to the bank, and the presence of the federally 

threatened Oregon spotted frog. 

North of 110th Avenue, the river channel is extremely narrow, averaging 10 to 25 feet wide 

depending on location. Most of the narrow river channel is bounded on both sides by tall, 

impenetrable vegetation lining the river banks, including dense shrub scrub. These conditions make it 

extremely difficult-to-impossible to ensure that birds would drop in the river rather than become lost 

in the dense vegetation after being shot. The vegetation is too impenetrable even for dogs in most 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-3 

places, which would result in the loss of many downed birds. A waterfowl hunting program under 

these conditions would result in the waste of natural resources (50 CFR 20.25), violate the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, and not provide a quality hunting experience on Unit lands. Other considerations 

include safety issues and the potential for user conflicts with boaters, including kayakers and 

canoeists.

Waterfowl hunting in Unit lowlands and wetlands from the southern boundary of the Unit to 110th

Avenue was considered and not further developed because the river corridor is within critical habitat 

for the federally threatened Oregon spotted frog and harbors one of the core populations within 

western Washington. Additionally, local landowners live along the river shoreline in some locations 

and this was an important consideration to avoid conflicts and maintain a safety buffer. Because of 

all of these considerations, it was determined that a safe and quality waterfowl hunting program is 

not feasible under current conditions and this activity was not selected for further analysis. 

The planning team has noted the possibility of future Unit acquisitions within the Black River area, 

where more suitable lands which could support a waterfowl hunting program could potentially be 

acquired. Unit-based waterfowl hunting would be reconsidered, and a separate planning and 

compliance effort could follow such future acquisitions.

Fishing: Fishing under state regulations occurs within the Black River channel. During the public 

scoping period, the Service received comments requesting opportunities to fish from Unit lands

within the Black River, including the river bank (see Appendix J). 

Fishing is a wildlife-dependent public use and therefore receives special consideration in planning 

(see Chapter 1.5.4). When considering fishing opportunities on any refuge or refuge unit, programs 

are designed to provide high-quality experiences that are compatible with the purposes of that refuge 

or unit. In this CCP process, fishing on Unit lands within the Black River was considered but not 

further developed because these parameters would not be met due to the difficulty in accessing the 

bank because of its dense vegetation, the difficulty in maintaining access to the bank, and the 

presence of the federally threatened Oregon spotted frog. 

Within the Unit, the bank and adjacent areas are occupied by dense stands of shrubs or are dominated 

by emergent wetlands making foot access to the river extremely difficult. Successfully casting from 

within the shrubs would be difficult. Traveling through and fishing from the shrubs or wetlands 

would increase the potential for wildlife disturbance. Additionally, boat landing on the river bank for 

fishing would involve dragging boats in and out of the water and could cause erosion and turbidity. 

Fishing for crayfish usually involves use of traps, which have the potential to also catch federally 

threatened Oregon spotted frogs or possibly Olympic mudminnows, a State-sensitive species. For 

these several reasons, fishing for shellfish, fishing from the banks or in the tributaries of Black River, 

and fishing near the boat launch site were considered but not further developed in the CCP. 

Boat Launch at 110th Avenue: Boat launch sites are an important component to providing safe, 

feasible public access on the Black River. The planning team examined the WDNR-owned boat 

launch site and the surrounding Unit lands on 110th Avenue. The planning team contacted WDNR 

and discussed various issues regarding the upgrade of the former boat launch and parking area. 

WDNR no longer maintains a boat launch at this site due to infrastructure problems with flooding, 

costs, and the difficulty in maintaining a launch site there. Issues include extreme flood events that 

regularly wash out any structures or docks; the soft substrate that requires constant gravel and fill to 

maintain a small, existing parking and access area; safety; security due to vandalism and theft; and 

feasibility and costs to maintain safe facilities and access. This site was physically limited in terms of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

road clearance, parking space, boat launch size, and safety. Parking or public access on Unit lands 

adjacent to 110th Avenue is not feasible. These areas are more distant from the river and separated 

from the river channel by heavy brush and shallow wetlands. It was determined the site at 123rd

Avenue offered the best opportunity to provide a high-quality, safe, and accessible parking and boat 

launch site in partnership with Thurston County (see Objective 5.2). 

2.3 Alternative Descriptions

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System, Grays Harbor Refuge and the Black River Unit are 

managed to conserve native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and to provide opportunities for 

compatible, wildlife-dependent public uses. All alternatives contain some common features. The 

Refuge and the Unit would continue to conduct core management programs and follow policies 

regardless of which CCP alternative is selected for implementation. To reduce the length and 

redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions, following are brief descriptions of the 

principles and programs that are common to all alternatives evaluated in this CCP. 

Implementation subject to staffing and funding availability: As funding becomes available, actions 

described in the CCP would be implemented at the Refuge and the Unit over a period of 15 years. 

Draft project priorities and projected staffing and funding needs are included in Appendix C, 

although special funding initiatives, unforeseen management issues, and other budget issues would 

likely require adjustments to the implementation schedule in the future. The Refuge and the Unit 

would continue to work with partners to implement the CCP by sharing science, providing updates 

on successes and challenges, initiating discussions, encouraging participation, and hosting working 

groups. The CCP will be reviewed at least every 5 years and updated as necessary.

Appropriateness and compatibility: Consistent with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, prior to 

allowing any public use of the Refuge or the Unit, including commercial use, each such use will first 

need to be found appropriate and determined compatible (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, 50 C.F.R. 25, 26, 

and 29; and 603 FW 1 and 2). Appropriateness and compatibility are further discussed in Appendices

A and B. 

Adaptive management: Based on 522 Departmental Manual (DM) 1 (Adaptive Management 

Implementation), Refuge and Unit staff shall utilize adaptive management for conserving, protecting, 

and, where appropriate, restoring lands and resources. Within Title 43 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 46.30, adaptive management is defined as a system of management practices 

based upon clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether management actions are 

achieving desired results (objectives). Adaptive management is based on the recognition that 

ecosystem function is inherently complex and often results in data gaps. Adaptive management 

emphasizes learning while doing based upon available scientific information and best professional 

judgment, considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on refuge lands and waters. In the 

presence of accelerated climate change, adaptive management is an increasingly important 

management decision process. The Refuge and the Unit will employ adaptive management as a 

standard operating procedure under all alternatives. Part of measuring the success of and adaptively 

managing the Refuge and the Unit includes 5-year reviews and a 15-year revision of the CCP, which 

will be initiated by the Service and involve many of the same steps and engagement with partners 

and the public as the original CCP. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-5 

Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health: The Administration Act directs the 

Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the [NWRS] 

are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . .” The policy is an 

additional directive for the Service to follow while achieving refuge purposes and the Refuge System

mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of native fish, 

wildlife, and habitat resources found on the Refuge and the Unit. When evaluating the appropriate 

management direction for the Refuge and the Unit (e.g., in compatibility determinations), the Service

will use sound professional judgment to determine the Refuge’s and the Unit’s contributions to 

BIDEH at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, 

knowledge of Refuge or Unit resources, an understanding of a Refuge’s or Unit’s role within the 

ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside 

and outside the Service. The policy states that “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife 

populations that existed during historic conditions.”

Climate change: As stated in DOI’s Secretarial Order 3226 and the Service’s Climate Change 

Strategic Plan, the Service considers and analyzes climate change in its decisions, long-range plans, 

and other activities. Refuge habitats and wildlife populations are directly and indirectly sensitive to 

changing climatic conditions, especially temperature and precipitation, and the resultant effects on 

physical environments (e.g., hydrology, sea levels, ocean chemistry). 

The combined changes can affect a refuge’s habitats and species directly (e.g., sea level rise, timing 

of migratory bird arrival, changes to plant flowering phenology, changes in species’ ranges and 

physiology), and indirectly (e.g., added vulnerability to other stressors including increasing invasive 

species and pathogens). Predicting biological response at the population level, however, requires 

complex, sophisticated data collection and modeling that must be validated with field studies over 

time. This highlights the importance of monitoring habitat and species to establish potential 

correlations and adaptation options. 

Knowledge and monitoring of regional and local climate trends on Refuge and Unit resources will be 

used to assess potential changes or enhancements to management actions and techniques and their 

timing, using the adaptive management approach described above. 

The Refuge and the Unit will participate in and contribute to climate change assessment efforts, 

including those underway at a landscape scale. Participation in the North Pacific Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (LCC) will provide Refuge and Unit staff with a means to tie-in with a 

larger-scale assessment of the impacts of climate change. LCCs are formal, integrated, sciencemanagement partnerships between the Service, Federal agencies, states, Tribes, NGOs, universities, 

and other entities to address climate change and other biological stressors. LCCs provide science 

support, biological planning, conservation design, research, and design of inventory and monitoring 

programs. As guided by future empirical or projected climate impacts, relevant management 

objectives and strategies will be adjusted to assist in enhancing the Refuge’s and Unit’s resources’ 

resiliency to climate change.

Reduce the Refuge’s and Unit’s carbon footprints: The Service has developed a strategic plan for 

responding to accelerating climate change (USFWS 2010) and an action plan that outlines specific 

actions needed to implement the strategic plan. The action plan calls for the Service to make its 

operations carbon-neutral by 2020. The Refuge and the Unit will work toward this goal by replacing 

their current vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles and by building appropriately sized, energyefficient facilities, as funding becomes available. The Refuge and the Unit will reduce the carbon 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

footprint of land management activities by using energy-efficient techniques, where feasible and in 

line with management goals. The Refuge and Unit will also explore ways of offsetting any remaining 

carbon balances, such as carbon sequestration. 

Complete land acquisition within the current approved boundaries: Based on the availability of 

funds, the Service will continue to negotiate with willing sellers to acquire lands within the existing 

approved Refuge and Unit boundaries, through fee title acquisition, easement, or other land 

conservation tools. 

Landscape-scale conservation: The Refuge System’s strategic vision document, Conserving the 

Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation, emphasized the importance of using a “scientific, 

adaptive, landscape-level approach to conserving, managing, and restoring refuge lands and waters, 

and facilitate conservation benefits beyond our boundaries” (USFWS 2011). Following from this 

vision, the Service’s strategic growth policy (602 FW 5) described a landscape planning process 

termed landscape conservation design (LCD) where a partnership, including the Service, along with

other local, State, and Federal government agencies, tribal governments, and other interested parties

would identify priority conservation species; develop measureable conservation targets; assess 

current and projected landscape patterns, processes, and stressors; depict spatially-explicit desired 

future conditions; and produce a suite of management strategies for achieving those conditions on a 

landscape scale.

In fall 2015, the North Pacific LCC launched an LCD project within the lower Columbia River basin 

and adjacent outer coasts of Oregon and Washington, including Grays Harbor Refuge. The Black 

River Unit would be included within the scope of a separate, future landscape planning process. 

Under all alternatives, the Service will participate in landscape planning processes for both the 

Refuge and the Unit. Outcomes from the landscape planning processes will identify the Service’s 

role in conservation efforts within the ecoregion and inform potential strategic growth, land 

protection, and management decisions for the Refuge and Unit. As landscape-scale planning is a nonregulatory process, additional evaluation, planning, and compliance will need to occur prior to any 

implementation of strategies identified through any landscape planning process.

State, local, and interagency coordination: Under all alternatives, the Service will continue to 

maintain regular discussions with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), among other agencies and entities. Topics for discussion 

include implementing CCP projects, threatened and endangered species, landscape-scale planning, 

land protection planning, managing wildlife, and recreational activities and access.

Tribal coordination: The Service will coordinate and consult with Tribes on a government-togovernment basis regarding issues of shared interest. The Service seeks assistance from Tribes on 

issues related to cultural resources, education and interpretation, natural resource programs, and the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

Invasive species control: Because invasive plants and animals pose threats to all Refuge and Unit 

wildlife and habitat, control of invasive species will be a high priority management activity in all 

alternatives. Species that limit the Refuge’s and the Unit’s abilities to provide high-quality habitat for 

refuge purposes and trust species will be controlled to the degree that funding and staffing permit. 

The magnitude of invasive species problems at the Refuge and the Unit is beyond the available 

capital resources to expect control or eradication during any single field season; therefore, it is 

essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. Some invasive species that are pervasive on Refuge

and Unit lands are the subject of long-term control efforts and will continue to be a high priority for 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-7 

Refuge and Unit resources. The Early Detection Rapid Response model will be used to find and 

verify the identity of new invasive species as early after entry as possible, when eradication and 

control are still feasible and less costly. The Service will embark on a systematic effort to eradicate, 

contain, or control newly discovered invasive species and isolated infestations of a previously 

established, nonnative species, while the infestation is still localized. Invasive species control will be 

initiated prior to or concurrently with any habitat restoration efforts. Regardless of whether the 

invasive species is well established or newly introduced, it will be essential that the Refuge and the 

Unit prioritize pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of the successes and failures of 

treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed methods do not achieve desired 

outcomes. The Integrated Pest Management Plan is included in this CCP (See Appendix G). 

Integrated pest management: In accordance with DOI and Service policies 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 

1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach will be used, where practicable, to eradicate, 

control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on Refuge and 

Unit lands. IPM uses methods based upon effectiveness and cost, with minimal ecological impacts to 

nontarget species and the Refuge or Unit environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, 

cultural, and biological methods, or combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing 

adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is needed on Refuge or Unit lands, the 

most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species will be used unless considerations 

of persistence or other environmental or biotic hazards would preclude it. However, pesticides with 

substantial effects to species or the environment may be used in order to protect human health and 

safety. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage will be further restricted because only 

pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance with 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in regulations, orders, or 

permits issued by EPA may be applied on lands and waters under Refuge and Unit jurisdiction.

Appendix G provides detailed documentation of the IPM program and its potential implementation 

and evaluation.

Mosquito control: Mosquito populations on Refuge and Unit lands will be allowed to fluctuate and 

function unimpeded unless they jeopardize wildlife or human health and safety. We recognize 

mosquitoes are native invertebrates inhabiting aquatic habitats, which provide a forage base for fish 

and wildlife, including migratory birds. To protect human and wildlife health and safety, mosquito 

monitoring will be allowed under a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the State or a local vector control 

agency as needed. Pesticide treatments (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) are not currently 

conducted but will be considered on Refuge or Unit lands only if local, current population 

monitoring or disease surveillance data indicate Refuge- or Unit-based mosquitoes jeopardize 

wildlife or human health and safety. Mosquito treatments will only be allowed following completion 

of a compatibility determination, disease contingency plan, and in accordance with IPM principles 

applicable to all pests (unless there is a mosquito-borne, health-related emergency). Proposed 

pesticide uses for mosquito control will utilize appropriate and practical best management practices, 

where possible, given potential effects documented in Chemical Profiles (see Appendix G). 

Regulatory compliance: This draft CCP/EA provides descriptions of the affected environments and 

resources, potential environmental consequences of certain types of activities, and general themes for 

management alternatives. Consequently, this draft CCP/EA can be incorporated by reference into 

future proposals to avoid lengthy recital and repetitive information. However, since this draft 

CCP/EA is programmatic in many areas, it may not contain the necessary detail on every future 

action outlined to adequately present and evaluate all physical, biological, and socioeconomic 

impacts. Some of these details are dependent on funding and implementation schedules. Therefore, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

prior to implementation, all activities will undergo appropriate reviews and consultations, and 

permits and clearances will be secured, as necessary, to comply with legal and policy requirements. 

This includes appropriate evaluations and documentation under NEPA, evaluation and consultation 

required by Section 7 of ESA, and review and consultation required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Approved Section 7 consultation processes will be followed for 

areas potentially affecting listed species or designated critical habitat on a site-specific basis as 

project implementation occurs. Any new ground-disturbing projects will undergo a review under 

Section 106 of NHPA.

Participation in planning and review of regional development activities: The Service will actively 

participate in planning and studies pertaining to future industrial and urban development, 

transportation, recreation, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect the Refuge’s 

or the Unit’s resources. The Service will continue to cultivate working relationships with county, 

State, and Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments. The Refuge and the 

Unit will utilize outreach and education as needed to raise awareness of their resources and 

dependence on the local environment. 

Refuge revenue sharing: Annual payments to local county governments under the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) will continue according to the established formula and are subject to 

congressional appropriations. Total payments made to local counties are listed in Chapter 5 and in 

Appendix C: Implementation. 

Volunteer opportunities: Volunteer opportunities are key components of the successful management 

of public lands, and are vital to Refuge and Unit programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of 

static or declining budgets. Currently the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which 

includes Grays Harbor Refuge and the Black River Unit, makes extensive use of volunteers in 

invasive species control, habitat restoration, education, and visitor services programs. In the future, 

successful implementation of native habitat restoration, survey and monitoring activities, and 

environmental education and interpretation programs will require the use of partnerships and 

volunteers. The volunteer program will be managed through the Refuge Complex headquarters 

volunteer program. 

Partnerships: Partnerships on the Refuge and Unit are critical components in maintaining and 

continuing efforts to enhance recreation opportunities or implement resource management 

improvements, such as restoring habitat for threatened and endangered species. These partnerships 

typically involve joining forces with Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, organizations, and 

businesses. 

Transportation coordination: Roads, bridges, parking areas, and trail systems play a vital role in 

providing access to the public for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. Under all 

alternatives, the Service will look for opportunities to collaborate with the Washington Department 

of Transportation, Department of Public Works, and the local communities to maintain and improve 

safe and appropriate transportation access between gateway cities and the Refuge and the Unit. 

Inventory and monitoring: Inventory and monitoring (I&M) policy (701 FW 2) requires refuges to 

prepare I&M plans. Refuge I&M plans have two sequential phases (parts): 

1. A prioritized list of surveys for approval by the Refuge Supervisor. 

2. Individual protocols based upon the finalized list of surveys.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-9 

An I&M step-down management plan will be developed for the Refuge and the Unit within 3 years 

of CCP completion. See also Goal 4.

Research: The Refuge and the Unit will continue to work with regional experts to share information 

and expertise on habitat management and restoration techniques. Collaboration with local 

universities, NGOs, State and local agencies, and others to conduct research that will advance the 

science of habitat management and restoration on Refuge and Unit lands will be an important part of 

the science program. SUPs will be issued to permit research that furthers the mission of the Refuge 

System under the stipulations specified in the Research Compatibility Determination (see Appendix 

B). 

Wilderness review: The Service’s CCP policy requires that a wilderness review be completed for all 

CCPs. If it is determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the process moves on 

to the wilderness study phase. As part of the process for this CCP, the planning team completed a 

wilderness review found in Appendix D. This review concluded that neither of the Refuge or the Unit 

meets the requirements for wilderness designation. 

Step-down management plans: The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and 

strategies for several Refuge and Unit program areas, but may lack some of the specifics needed for 

implementation. Regardless of the alternative selected as the final management plan for the Refuge

and the Unit, several subsequent, or step-down, plans will be developed. 

All step-down management plans require appropriate NEPA compliance, and implementation may 

require additional Federal, State, and county permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA 

compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down management plans. The following stepdown management plans have been identified for the Refuge and/or the Unit: 

• Inventory and Monitoring Plan; 

• Wildland Fire Management Plan revision; 

• Habitat Management Plan.

Refuge fire management: Fire Management Plans were finalized for the Refuge and the Unit in 

2003. Until revised, fire management actions will continue to be guided by the direction set forth in 

the plans. 

Law enforcement: The goal of law enforcement on the Refuge and the Unit is to protect natural 

resources, maintain the safety and security of the visitors and employees, and protect facilities. Law 

enforcement activities will include patrols, when staffing allows, to establish and maintain an 

effective, professional, and courteous law enforcement presence to eliminate unauthorized uses. 

Coordination and fostering partnerships with local law enforcement agencies will be an important 

part of the law enforcement program. The Service will investigate reports of violations in a timely 

fashion. Preventive law enforcement through education, signing, and regulation information will be 

used as important measures of the program. 

2.3.2 Features Common to All Alternatives at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge

Maintenance and updating of existing facilities: Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge 

buildings and facilities will be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of 

facilities is necessary for safety, accessibility, and support of staff and management needs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Maintenance information is incorporated in the Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

While new facilities are identified within this CCP, emphasis will also be placed on maintaining 

existing facilities. 

Nature center and other facilities planning: Public Law 100-406, which authorized the 

establishment of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge in 1988, directed the Service to develop a 

management plan to include: 1) the construction of a visitor center suitable for year-round use with 

special emphasis in interpretative education and research; 2) viewpoints, boardwalks, and access; and 

3) parking and other necessary facilities. With public involvement, the Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge Management Plan was completed in 1990; all of the public facilities listed above 

were included in the plan. 

The Refuge has begun work on some of the facilities described in the 1990 Management Plan, 

including a parking area with an information kiosk along Airport Way; public access to wildlife 

viewing areas; and construction of the Sandpiper Trail, a mile-long boardwalk trail which provides 

safe access and viewpoints. Although the Refuge has not constructed a building as described in the 

Management Plan, the Refuge has provided educational opportunities to both local and outside 

communities through educational programming in local schools, Refuge field trips for educational 

groups, the annual Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature Festival, and the annual Shorebird and Nature 

Festival Poster Contest. 

In 2007, the Service developed a conceptual building design for a nature center and associated 

facilities based on standard designs for Refuge facilities. The proposed building was to be located 

within a 4-acre site along the east boundary of the Refuge and the west side of Paulson Road. The 

design included a small administrative space, medium-sized visitor facilities, and an environmental 

education module (see Appendix M for more details about the site-selection process, building design, 

and a preliminary site map). However, due to a lack of funding, these plans have not been 

implemented. 

Support from partners to help fund, staff, and maintain a nature center is essential. Under all 

alternatives, the Service proposes to work with other agencies, current and new partners, the 

community, and others to review the current nature center plan and to evaluate other options, 

including alternate funding, sites, and designs, that could lead to a viable plan for the center. If 

constructed, the Refuge will work with partners to develop biological, ecological, and cultural 

education and interpretative content, as well as any associated facilities (e.g., trails, viewing 

platforms). 

The Refuge is adjacent to a highway used by one million people a year who are recreating in Grays 

Harbor County and on the Olympic Peninsula. The local area serves as a gateway community to the 

Olympic Peninsula. The potential for reaching a portion of these visitors and providing wildlife- and 

Refuge-related information is high. Additional visitor facilities could be a draw and destination, 

enhancing nature-based travel and experiences that brings new people to the Refuge and the local 

area. The additional facilities could provide a home for the Refuge’s environmental education 

program, allowing students from the local area a place to extend classroom learning and enhance the 

outdoor experience, and would also strengthen ties with the community, partners, and volunteers 

associated with the Refuge.

In the interim, other improvements proposed under Goal 5 would provide additional and enhanced 

opportunities for visitors. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-11

Salt marsh restoration (berm removal): As part of the revised Nestucca Oil Spill Restoration Plan 

completed in 2004, the Service included project planning to remove an artificial berm located at the 

northwest portion of the Refuge. The berm removal will improve the quality of salt marsh habitat for 

shorebirds, other migratory birds, and wildlife. This restoration plan was included in the Revised 

Nestucca Oil Spill Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment with a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (USFWS 2004). For more details on the restoration plans, see Objective 1.4. 

Sweetgrass harvesting: Historically, sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens, formerly Scirpus 

americanus) was traditionally gathered and used by Native Americans for weaving baskets. 

Sweetgrass is an important cultural resource for many Tribes and an integral plant component of the 

salt marsh habitat. Sweetgrass stands are limited on the Refuge and concerns remain about the longterm health of this unique resource. The Refuge will continue to support this traditional use and 

cultural need and issue SUPs to Native American Tribal members for gathering sweetgrass. Permit 

stipulations are designed to provide long-term habitat protection and to sustain a thriving population 

of sweetgrass on the Refuge. Sweetgrass stands will also be available as a seed and plant source to 

establish new stands on Tribal lands as requested on a case-by-case basis (see Appendices A and B). 

2.3.3 Features Common to All Alternatives at the Black River Unit of Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Removal of old buildings: The Black River Unit has several old, derelict buildings in need of 

removal. These include old barns, outbuildings, and houses that are in various states of disrepair and 

need to be demolished. Many have already been removed during the past 10 years. The remaining 

buildings are subject to trespass, vandalism, and other criminal activities, so these areas will remain 

closed to public access until building removal can be accomplished. These buildings will continue to 

be removed as funding becomes available. See Appendix C for further details on project priorities 

and estimated costs of removal. 

Protection of vegetation and natural processes: Woody vegetation, beaver dams, and other 

vegetation in the river channel provide cover and other important values for native fish, salmon, and 

other wildlife. Vegetation clearing for recreational purposes will not be allowed or conducted. Unit 

staff will continue to control invasive plants or conduct other habitat management practices needed to 

benefit river channel habitat as part of operating and managing the Unit. 

River channel habitat: The Service will work with WDNR to develop an interagency agreement, or 

similar instrument, that promotes cooperative management of the river channel between WDNR and 

the Service within the approved Unit boundary. Cooperative management will provide improved 

protection to fish and wildlife that use Unit and State-owned aquatic lands, provide improved habitat 

protection, allow the enforcement of Unit laws and regulations on the river channel, and define 

public access restrictions and management needed to provide improved wildlife protection from 

disturbance, while supporting high-quality, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. An 

agreement will benefit natural resources of interest to both agencies and strengthen the Service’s 

partnership with WDNR. Cooperative management of the river channel will also contribute to 

achieving the Service's mission, Unit purposes, and help meet several goals by allowing the Unit to 

protect and better manage wildlife resources as well as meet the WDNR’s objectives for the 

stewardship of State-owned aquatic lands.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

2.3.4 Summary of Alternatives

Each alternative describes a combination of management actions designed to achieve Refuge or Unit 

purposes, vision, and goals. These alternatives provide different ways to address and respond to 

management concerns, public and partner issues, and opportunities identified during the planning 

process. They also reflect the direction in the Refuge Administration Act, Service policies, and legal 

mandates outlined in Chapter 1. A short description of each alternative is presented next, followed by 

summary tables (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). The tables summarize the key differences between the current 

management activities and the preferred alternative. Habitat acreages are included in each objective. 

Detailed descriptions of the management goals, objectives, and strategies for each alternative are 

presented next. Maps are presented for the Refuge and the Unit, including each of the two 

alternatives and habitat maps at the end of the document, in Appendix N. 

Alternatives for Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative

The Refuge would continue to emphasize and promote the protection of Refuge habitats. 

Management actions include continuing with limited control of invasive species and monitoring of 

migratory bird use. Environmental education would continue to be a focus of the visitor services 

program. Existing visitor services, including wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

interpretation, would continue with the current facilities. No new facilities would be developed; 

however, planning for a new nature center would continue.

Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Habitat programs would continue as currently managed with greater emphasis and improvements on 

invasive species management and pursuing priority science inventory, monitoring, and research 

needs. The environmental education, interpretation, volunteer, and outreach programs would be 

enlarged and improved as staffing allows. In addition to continuing actions described under 

Alternative 1, the visitor services program would target facility improvements including improved 

parking, an expanded Sandpiper Trail, interpretive panels, and two viewing platforms. 

Alternatives for the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge

Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative

Habitat management would continue to focus on monitoring and habitat management for the 

federally threatened Oregon spotted frog. There would be limited invasive species management and 

habitat management. Land acquisition efforts would continue as a priority for the Unit as funding 

allows. The Unit would not be open and no visitor services would be available. 

Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Greater emphasis would be placed on enhancing and managing habitat, especially in wetland 

habitats, to benefit the Oregon spotted frog and migratory birds. Increased inventory, monitoring, and 

research would be used to guide management decisions to benefit fish and wildlife. These inventories 

would be used to evaluate whether to propose designation of a research natural area (RNA) to 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-13

improve protection and management of unique bog and wetland habitats. The Unit would be opened 

to public use, including wildlife observation, interpretation, and wildlife photography. Proposed 

facilities to support visitor services include a viewing platform with a short walking trail on the east 

side of Endicott Road and a vehicle pull-off area with interpretive signs for viewing wildlife on the 

west side of Endicott Road. The Service would establish a cooperative agreement with Thurston 

County to develop a boat launch, small parking area, and new kiosk and interpretive signs on the 

southeastern side of the 123rd Avenue bridge. Outreach and volunteer programs would be expanded 

as staffing allows.

Table 2-1. Grays Harbor NWR Summary of Alternatives by Issue.

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative 

(Current Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

Estuarine Habitats

Tidal open water Protect 723 acres of open water and 

channel habitat 

Same as Alternative 1, plus conduct 

IPM program

Intertidal mudflats Protect 497 acres of intertidal 

mudflats and maintain limited IPM 

program

Same as Alternative 1, plus increase 

IPM program 

Tidal salt and brackish 

marsh

Protect 156 acres of tidal salt and 

brackish marsh habitat and maintain 

IPM program. Remove constructed 

berm and restore tidal circulation to 

15–20 acres

Same as Alternative 1, plus increase 

IPM program 

Forest Habitat

Mixed forest Protect 95 acres of mixed forest 

habitat and maintain limited IPM 

program

Same as Alternative 1, plus increase 

IPM program and additional 

partnerships to control knotweed

Estuary and Ecosystem

Partnerships Maintain current partnerships Same as Alternative 1, plus enhance 

and develop new partnerships and 

initiatives for conservation purposes 

Inventories, Monitoring, and Research

Inventory and 

monitoring 

Develop and implement an 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan; 

continue shorebird monitoring as it 

applies to Refuge management 

decisions

Same as Alternative 1, plus initiate 

and support additional monitoring 

opportunities and projects 

Research Continue support of research 

opportunities as they apply to 

Refuge management decisions

Same as Alternative 1, plus initiate 

and support research opportunities 

where they contribute to 

understanding shorebird habitat use, 

sedimentation rates, and the effects 

of climate change on shorebird 

habitat and shorebird ecology
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

Visitor Services

Welcoming and 

orientation 

Maintain current facilities, signs, 

outreach materials

Same as Alternative 1, plus update 

signs and improve parking, 

visibility, and outreach materials 

Wildlife observation 

and photography 

Collaborate with Port of Grays 

Harbor to maintain access to the 

Sandpiper Trail and maintain 

current facilities

Same as Alternative 1, plus

coordinate with Port of Grays 

Harbor and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to install 

additional viewing platforms on 

Refuge lands adjacent to the 

blacktop road; explore extension of 

the Sandpiper Trail spur; increase 

viewing opportunities at the parking 

area; and work with partners to 

consider the feasibility of a 

bike/pedestrian trail along Paulson 

Road

Interpretation Maintain current interpretive panels

and continue to support 

interpretation and provide guided 

walks during the Shorebird and 

Nature Festival

Same as Alternative 1, plus develop 

new interpretive panels for 

Sandpiper Trail and other viewing 

areas and work with partners to 

provide guided walks and other 

interpretive programs for the public

Environmental 

education 

Contact and coordinate 

participation by teachers and 

students in Grays Harbor County in 

the Refuge’s environmental 

education program; conduct annual 

Shorebird and Nature Festival 

Poster Contest; and maintain 

educator resources and trainings

Same as Alternative 1, plus hire a 

permanent education specialist and 

coordinate curriculum and 

additional programs throughout the 

county; explore ways to secure 

stable funding for an education 

coordinator; improve and expand 

teacher training opportunities

Volunteer Program and Partnerships

Refuge volunteers Maintain current training and 

volunteer opportunities 

Same as Alternative 1, plus expand 

efforts to recruit and train 

volunteers to participate fully in 

Refuge programs 

Partnerships Maintain partnerships with existing 

groups, organizations, and agencies 

Same as Alternative 1, plus identify 

new local partnerships to support 

visitor services programs 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-15

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

Outreach

Outreach programs and 

events

Maintain current efforts with the 

Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature 

Festival

Same as Alternative 1, plus identify 

new opportunities for programs and 

events in the community and 

develop ways to reach 

nontraditional audiences

Table 2-2. Black River Unit Summary of Alternatives by Issue. 

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

Aquatic Habitats

River channel habitat Alongside WDNR, protect 7.5 miles 

of river channel habitat and 

maintain limited IPM program

Same as Alternative 1, plus 

increase IPM program; complete a 

Water Resources Inventory and 

Assessment

Tributary channel 

habitat 

Protect 6–16 miles of tributary 

channel habitat and maintain limited 

IPM program 

Same as Alternative 1, plus 

increase IPM program and habitat 

enhancement

Bog habitat Protect 56 acres of bog habitat Same as Alternative 1, plus conduct 

baseline inventories and Water 

Resources Inventory and 

Assessment; conduct IPM program; 

introduce rare plant species as 

appropriate; evaluate the 

designation of an RNA if warranted

Shrub swamp habitat Protect 512 acres of shrub swamp 

habitat and maintain limited IPM 

program 

Same as Alternative 1, plus 

increase IPM program 

Riparian forest habitat Protect 265 acres of riparian habitat 

and maintain limited IPM program 

Same as Alternative 1, plus 

increase IPM program 

Emergent marsh habitat Protect 34 acres of emergent marsh

habitat and maintain limited IPM 

program

Same as Alternative 1, plus

improve habitat for Oregon spotted 

frog; increase IPM program 

Seasonally flooded,

nonnative grassland 

habitat 

Protect 82 acres of seasonally 

flooded, nonnative grassland habitat 

and maintain limited IPM program 

Same as Alternative 1, plus

improve habitat for Oregon spotted 

frog; evaluate and enhance 

seasonally ponded areas and 

improve water management 

capabilities as needed; increase 

IPM program
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

Upland Habitats

Dry, nonnative

grassland habitat 

Protect 163 acres of nonnative

grassland habitat and maintain 

limited IPM program

Same as Alternative 1, plus plant 

big leaf maples and/or Garry oaks 

where appropriate; enhance up to 

15 acres (within the 163 acres) with 

native plants; increase IPM 

program

Mixed forest habitat Protect 394 acres of mixed forest 

habitat and maintain limited IPM 

program 

Same as Alternative 1, plus 

enhance 5–10 acres (within the 394 

acres) and increase IPM program 

Watershed and Ecosystem

Partnerships Maintain current partnerships Same as Alternative 1, plus 

enhance and develop new 

partnerships and initiatives for 

conservation purposes

Inventories, Monitoring, and Research

Inventory and 

monitoring 

Develop and implement an 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan; 

continue inventory and monitoring 

projects as they apply to Refuge 

management decisions 

Same as Alternative 1, plus initiate 

and support additional monitoring 

opportunities and projects 

Research Limited current research Initiate and support research 

opportunities where they contribute 

to understanding of Unit resources 

and management

Visitor Services

Welcome and 

orientation 

No visitor facilities or outreach 

materials

Develop print and electronic media 

outreach materials; improve Unit

visibility; install signs

Wildlife observation 

and photography and 

educational programs 

No visitor facilities or 

environmental education programs

Construct vehicle pull-off area with 

interpretive signs for viewing 

wildlife on the west side of 

Endicott Road; install small 

parking area, kiosk, viewing 

platform, short walking trail on east 

side of Endicott Road; identify 

links to Regional Trail System in 

coordination with Thurston 

County; establish a cooperative 

agreement with the county to 

develop a boat launch, small 

parking area, and new kiosk and 

interpretive signs at 123rd Avenue 

bridge; partner with local 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-17

Theme/Issue Alternative 1

No-Action Alternative (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

Preferred Alternative

organizations to incorporate Unit 

messages into their programs

Volunteer Program and Partnerships

Volunteer program No volunteer program Develop and promote a Unit

volunteer program, including 

efforts to recruit and train 

volunteers 

Partnerships program No partnership program Build community partnerships to 

support Unit programs

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge and unit management. They 

identify and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to establishing purposes, Service 

policy, and the Refuge System mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge or a unit closer to its vision. A vision 

broadly reflects the refuge or unit purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory 

requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of 

the vision, followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward 

achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. 

In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

EA evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a variety of management goals, 

objectives, and implementation strategies. 

The goals for the Refuge and the Unit to be implemented over the next 15 years under the CCP/EA 

are presented on the following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. 

All goals are for the lifetime of the CCP unless otherwise specified. Some objectives pertain to 

multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies 

pertain to multiple objectives. The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. The 

Implementation Plan articulates the current Refuge and Unit priorities (Appendix C). 

Readers, please note the following: 

1) The objective statement indicates specific items that vary in the alternatives. How those 

items vary is displayed in the short table under each objective statement, as applicable.

2) If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank box indicates that this objective is 

not addressed in that alternative. 

Finally, below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to 

accomplish the objectives.

1) Check marks alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

2) If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, 

it means that strategy would not be used in that alternative. 

2.4.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays Harbor 

ecosystem for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse assemblage 

of other native species. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 1.1: Protect and maintain tidal open water habitat 

Protect and maintain 723 acres of tidal open water habitat for the benefit of native fish, waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and other native wildlife. 

Desired attributes of open water include: 

• Marine water continually covering land regardless of tidal cycles 

• Salinities ranging from 5 to 20 parts per thousand (ppt), varies seasonally

• Presence of phytoplankton, zooplankton, algae, and invertebrates 

• Large woody debris brought in by storm events and tides 

• Presence of patchy native eelgrass beds** 

• Minimal human disturbance 

• High water quality

• ≤5% nonnative, invasive plants and animals**

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species.  

Protect and promote natural processes that dictate habitat changes, 

including water depths.  

Maintain and develop new partnerships to protect and promote the 

ecological integrity of Grays Harbor estuary (see Objective 3.1).  

Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard, other agencies, and update the 

Grays Harbor Geographic Response Plan as necessary.  

Rationale: 

The open water habitat, prior to construction of the airport peninsula and diking and filling along the 

shoreline, was historically part of the larger open estuary. However, the long-term implications of 

these permanent changes to habitat and wildlife resources are not yet fully understood. Currently, 

open water habitat accounts for nearly 50 percent of the overall Refuge area (see Map 1). 

Maintaining and protecting open water habitat is extremely important because it provides habitat for 

a variety of estuarine plants and animal species that live in the shifting waters and substrates of the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-19

estuary. The area provides a large disturbance-free expanse for thousands of migrating birds needing 

food and rest. Submerged areas in the open water habitat are channels and sloughs, which function as 

pathways and foraging areas for a variety of rare and common fish species, including salmon, 

eulachon, lamprey, sea-run cutthroat trout, and steelhead. Submerged eelgrass beds serve as shelter 

for fish, provide food for fish and waterfowl, help reduce shoreline erosion, and capture sediments. 

Considered a vital element to the ecosystem, the Refuge staff would assess the health and abundance 

of this important plant species (see Objective 4.1). 

Threats that have and could continue to further compromise the ecological integrity of this habitat 

and its inhabitants include sediment and water pollution, invasive species, and climate change. To 

identify and respond to threats of water pollution and invasive species within the estuary and adjacent 

watersheds, Refuge staff would work with partners such as the Chehalis Basin Partnership and the 

U.S. Coast Guard to assist with spill response planning, invasive and pest species control, and other 

protection efforts (see Objective 3.1). 

Staff would also actively seek opportunities to develop new collaborative partnerships to address 

issues that affect the overall health of the ecosystem. Partnerships would focus on resource protection 

measures, such as short and long-term research opportunities to protect the estuary and its resources 

(see Objective 4.3). 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 1.2: Protect and maintain intertidal mudflat habitat

Protect and maintain 497 acres of intertidal mudflat for shorebirds and native wildlife. 

Desired attributes of intertidal mudflats include: 

• 90 percent of the habitat is a large expanse of exposed mud, sand, and silt-flats at low tide 

that are approximately 80 percent free of rooted vegetation and support algae growth 

• Tidal sloughs are present (cut into the mud substrate by natural tidal forces) 

• Twice daily, tidally driven marine waters flood the mudflats between 0.0 and 9.0 feet NGVD 

(National Geodetic Vertical Datum)

• Tidal salinity ranges from 5 to 20 ppt, varies seasonally 

• Marine water carries zooplankton, phytoplankton, algae, and fish throughout the estuary** 

• Presence of epibenthic and benthic invertebrate populations** 

• Patches of native eelgrass, exposed briefly during extreme low tides** 

• Large woody debris on mudflats (naturally occurring and continually changing with tides)

• Minimal human disturbance 

• ≤ 2 percent coverage of key invasive plant species such as Spartina, Phragmites, yellow flag 

iris, and other nonnative, priority-target plants** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Participate in contaminant spill response exercises in Grays Harbor 

estuary and cooperate with spill response lead agencies as needed.  

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species. 

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Rationale: 

The greater Grays Harbor estuarine mudflats are among the most important feeding and resting areas 

for migratory birds along the west coast of the United States and in the Pacific Flyway. The 

importance of this habitat has led to the recognition of the greater Grays Harbor estuary as a Site of 

Hemispheric Importance in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN 2009) 

and as a Globally Important Bird Area (ABC 2010). The estuary supports large concentrations of 

migratory birds, including over 500,000 shorebirds a year (WHSRN 2009). 

The Refuge contains 497 acres of intertidal mudflat habitat which is valuable habitat for migratory 

birds, juvenile fish, clams, and invertebrates. The configuration of the Refuge tidal mudflats are 

unique within the estuary, as they are slightly higher in elevation and are one of the last areas to flood 

by rising tides. Because the mudflats remain exposed 1 to 2 hours longer than other areas in the 

estuary they provide extended resting and foraging opportunities for migrating shorebirds. 

Threats which have and could continue to further compromise the ecological integrity of this mudflat 

habitat include water pollution, invasive species, increased sedimentation (which encourages growth 

of vegetation on mudflats), and climate change. To identify and respond to threats, Refuge staff 

would continue to work with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies and community groups to 

expand and utilize partnerships critical to maintaining the estuary’s health (see Objective 3.1). 

Staff would continue shorebird monitoring, identification and control of priority invasive species and 

expand the development of monitoring and research opportunities. Increased research would be 

necessary to understand the implications of increased sedimentation rates and the effects of sea level 

rise resulting from climate change (see Objectives 4.1–4.3). 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 1.3: Protect and maintain tidal salt and brackish marsh 

habitat 

Protect and maintain existing 156 acres of tidal salt and brackish marsh habitat for native fish, 

shorebirds, waterfowl, waterbirds, passerines, and other wildlife. 

Desired attributes of tidal salt and brackish marsh include: 

• Salt tolerant vegetation usually occurring (between mean high water [MHW] and slightly 

above mean higher high water [MHHW]) or within tidal range of 9 to 13 feet NGVD 

• Estuarine marine water (5 to 20 ppt), varies seasonally

• Brackish marsh waters (≤5 ppt) are less saline because of freshwater inputs that usually come 

from upland drainages (freshwater streams and rivers) 

• Tidal sloughs are present at varying depths and locations 

• 25–100 percent herbaceous coverage of native salt marsh vegetation in low, mid-, and high 

salt marshes with species such as sand spurry, saltgrass, pickleweed, jaumea, lilaeopsis, 

seaside arrowgrass, silverweed, Lyngby’s sedge, sweetgrass, Baltic rush, and tufted hairgrass 

• Brackish marsh plants include cattail and bulrushes 

• Salt marsh vegetation density is based in part on tidal inundation frequency and duration 

• Minimal human disturbance 

• ≤ 2 percent coverage of invasive plant species such as Spartina, Phragmites, yellow flag iris, 

and other nonnative, priority-target plants on the Refuge** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-21

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species. 

 

Establish full-time refuge manager position to manage day-to-day 

operations of the Refuge, including managing and restoring habitat, 

coordinating with partners, and managing facilities. 

Rationale: 

The Refuge supports 156 acres of tidal salt and brackish marsh habitat. Tidal wetlands are of high 

ecological importance and are considered essential habitat for many marine and anadromous fish and 

migratory birds. Salt and brackish marshes provide food and nursery areas for numerous young fish, 

crabs, shrimp, clams, and other invertebrates. Migratory birds use these areas as breeding, feeding, 

and resting sites. In addition, the estuarine marshland supports large numbers of migratory waterfowl 

and shorebirds, which in turn provide an important prey base for raptors such as bald eagles and 

peregrine falcons. The salt and brackish marsh is functionally connected with mudflat and riverine 

habitats and acts as a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial sites. These marshes provide 

shoreline stability against wave and wind erosion, reduce flood peaks, trap nutrients, sediment, and 

pollutants. 

In the Pacific Northwest, a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, channeling, 

dredging, and filling. The state of Washington is estimated to have lost between 45 percent and 62 

percent of its pre-settlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). Within Grays Harbor, approximately 

3,840 acres of salt marsh habitat was lost to dredge material disposal (Recht 1998). 

Issues and concerns for the overall health of the habitat include sedimentation, invasive species, and 

climate change. Research is necessary to determine the impacts of changing habitats, management 

options, and the effects of climate change (see Objectives 3.1 and 4.3). Monitoring sedimentation 

rates and vegetation response within the tidal salt and brackish marsh and mudflats is important to 

the understanding of the potential resilience of these habitats to sea level rise, storm surges, and flood 

events. Another threat to the vitality and health of the habitat includes the potential spread of invasive 

species such as Spartina, Phragmites, and knotweed. Refuge staff would continue to collaborate and 

work with partners (WDFW, WSDA Grays Harbor County Noxious Weed Board, Grays Harbor 

Public Utility District (GHPUD)) to reduce invasive species within the Refuge and estuary. 

Staffing priorities would include establishing a refuge manager position to manage the day-to-day 

operations, manage restoration and habitat management projects, manage the expanded facilities 

operations, develop and expand partnership projects, and implement expanded visitor services 

programs. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 1.4: Restore salt and brackish marsh habitat 

Restore then protect and maintain up to 20 acres of salt and brackish marsh for the benefit of juvenile 

fish, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other native species. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Desired characteristics include:

• Full, unimpeded tidal function** 

• Infrequent total tidal inundation, except on highest of high tides 

• Interspersion of connected tidal sloughs 

• Vegetation usually occurring within tidal range of 9 to 13 feet NGVD dominated primarily 

by pickleweed, tufted hairgrass, seashore salt grass, seacoast angelica, gumweed, seaside 

plantain, small spikerush, seaside arrowgrass, and Lyngby’s sedge** 

• ≤ 2 percent coverage of invasive plant species such as Spartina, Phragmites, yellow flag iris, 

and other nonnative, priority-target plants on the Refuge** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or 

undesirable plant or animal species.

 

Develop partnerships to secure funding for restoring salt and brackish 

marsh. 

Restore salt and brackish marsh by removing the berm and reconnecting 

tidal channels. See also Section 2.3.1, Features Common to All Alternatives.  

Rationale: 

If unaltered or restored to a more natural hydrologic state (i.e., characterized by sinuous, deeplyincised, and complex tidal channel networks and the absence of alterations such as ditching, diking, 

tidegates, restrictive culverts, and roads), the estuarine wetlands would maintain itself with very little 

or no input from land managers. To improve the quality and complexity of 15–20 acres of salt and 

brackish marsh habitat for fish and wildlife, the Refuge would remove a berm in the northeast portion 

of the Refuge. The berm was originally constructed to retain disposed dredge spoils that were 

deposited there until the 1970s (see Map 1). This restoration project was identified, developed, and 

approved in the revised 2004 Nestucca Oil Spill Plan (USFWS 2004).

The berm has been breached, but it prevents full tidal penetration and evacuation in the salt marsh 

habitat except during the highest high tides and flood events. This inhibition of tidal flow reduces the 

quality and complexity of saltmarsh habitat, contributes to deep channeling of the slough, and may be 

creating a ponding problem when the floodwaters recede, trapping fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Berm removal would allow a natural ebb and flow and restore function to tidal waters, improving the 

habitat value for marine species, migratory birds, and terrestrial wildlife. 

Staff would continue to seek project funding and develop partnerships to implement this project. The 

project would include identifying, monitoring, and managing invasive plant species. The Service 

would coordinate with Federal, State, and county agencies on restoration design review. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-23

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem for 

the benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 2.1: Protect and maintain forest habitat 

Protect and maintain 95 acres of forest habitat for migratory passerines, landbirds, and native 

wildlife. 

Desired attributes of this habitat include: 

• 75–100 percent canopy cover of native trees such as red alder, willow species, cascara, 

Oregon ash, Pacific crabapple, and big leaf maple with thick lichen and moss coverage 

• ~30 percent cover of native deciduous shrubs such as red elderberry, osoberry, twinberry, 

thimbleberry, salmonberry, and spirea 

• >30 percent herbaceous cover consisting of native forbs and ferns such as sword and lady 

ferns, horsetail species, slough sedge, and Galium

• Natural succession to mixed forest to occur over time 

• Minimal human disturbance 

• <2 percent coverage of knotweed and other nonnative priority-target plants** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or 

undesirable plant or animal species.

 

Partner with GHPUD, Grays Harbor County, and Grays Harbor County 

Noxious Weed Board to control encroaching knotweed along State 

Highway 109 (see Objective 3.1). 



Rationale: 

The Refuge protects 95 acres of forest habitat which provides for a variety of neotropical migratory 

birds and small mammals. Management of this habitat would continue to focus on forest health, 

protection, and maintaining natural succession. 

Resource threats influencing the future health of the forest and its wildlife resources include 

undesirable invasive plant species such as knotweed, Phragmites, Scotch broom, and blackberry. The 

Service uses a variety of control methods because different invasive species require specific 

techniques for control to be effective (see Appendix G). 

Continued monitoring and treatment of invasive species would be maintained as staffing and funding 

allows. Refuge staff would build partnerships and collaborate with GHPUD, Grays Harbor County, 

and Grays Harbor County Noxious Weed Board to target removal of encroaching knotweed along 

State Highway 109. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge and 

greater Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 3.1: Develop and strengthen partnerships

The Refuge would initiate, develop, and continue to strengthen existing partnerships with interested 

groups for the benefit of the long-term environmental health of native wildlife and their habitats. 

Partnership actions include: 

• Working with and involving local communities, universities, landowners, NGOs, Tribes, 

agencies, and other interested parties

• Identifying the Service’s role in conservation efforts with the focus on partnerships that 

provide support for natural resources 

• Utilizing existing and supporting new eco-regional plans and priorities 

• Working with and assisting others in the recovery of threatened and endangered species 

• Considering habitat vulnerabilities and stressors (e.g., climate change, habitat fragmentation, 

invasive species, pollution) 

• Working with others and assisting with management objectives for protecting and 

researching shorebird habitat ** 

• Considering and participating in climate change initiatives and research**

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Through a collaborative LCD process, work with partners (State, county, 

Tribes, NGOs, and others) to identify the Service’s role in conservation 

efforts in the Grays Harbor estuary ecosystem and surrounding habitats. 

 

Maintain a strong partnership with the Port of Grays Harbor to further 

cooperation and protection of Grays Harbor estuary resources and the 

Refuge.

 

Coordinate with other natural resource agencies and interested partners to 

develop collaborative monitoring projects important for the Grays Harbor 

estuary, including the Refuge. 



Coordinate with the spill response agencies, Port of Grays Harbor, other 

Federal and State agencies, and appropriate partners to quickly mobilize a 

spill response, protect Refuge lands, and reduce impacts when possible 

following Geographic Response Plan procedures. 

 

Participate in the Chehalis Basin Partnership, Chehalis Basin Weed 

Partnership, Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture, Marine Resources 

Committee, Nearshore and Estuarine Partnership, and other existing 

partnerships to further the protection of the Grays Harbor estuary and 

native habitats.

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-25

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Work with partners to coordinate control or monitoring of invasive species 

with appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, biological, 

and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or undesirable 

plant or animal species.



Coordinate with partners and support efforts to survey, control, and 

monitor Spartina and Phragmites in the greater Grays Harbor estuary as 

well as in the Refuge.

 

Work with GHPUD, Grays Harbor County, and Grays Harbor County 

Noxious Weed Board to control knotweed along State Highway 109. 

Share training opportunities and information with partners, the public, 

agencies, groups, and landowners. 

Communicate with landowners, recreational users of the estuary, and the 

public on the threats of invasive plants and animals and methods of 

reducing and controlling infestations. 



Provide technical and other assistance to partners working to restore natural 

resource lands in the Grays Harbor estuary. 

Work with partners to assess lands within the Grays Harbor estuary to 

identify potential alternative habitats appropriate for shorebirds in relation 

to future sea level rise.



Work with partners to study environmental factors that are climate change 

related stressors (e.g., changes to hydrology and water chemistry) and their 

impacts on Refuge habitats and species. See Objectives 4.1–4.3. 



Establish a refuge operations specialist or wildlife biologist position that 

would focus on maintaining, protecting, and restoring lands, and working 

with partners. 



Rationale: 

The habitats within the Refuge represent less than 2 percent of the overall Grays Harbor estuary. The 

Service recognizes that it will not be able to achieve many of the major conservation goals for the 

long-term environmental health of the Refuge and greater Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem by 

working only within the existing Refuge boundary. Protected Refuge habitats currently provide 

substantial conservation benefits to shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, 

migratory birds, and other native wildlife, but are vulnerable to a variety of landscape-scale threats 

such as climate change, sea level rise, invasive species, and pollution.

Strong collaborative partnerships and public education would enable the Service to achieve its vision 

and goals for the Refuge and the Grays Harbor estuary. Cooperative efforts with key partners would 

greatly further protecting and restoring habitat, watershed efforts, and education. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Developing and coordinating information needs in support of the health of the estuary resources 

would include expanded inventory, monitoring, and research. Refuge staff would provide technical 

assistance to partners as appropriate with continued participation in spill response planning and 

invasive species control (Spartina, Phragmites, knotweed). Monitoring and research related to 

climate change-related stressors would help inform adaptation strategies at the Refuge, and 

potentially, a larger landscape scale.

Establishment of a refuge operations specialist position or wildlife biologist position would benefit 

the natural resources of the estuary by providing coordination with partners on a variety of projects 

including inventory, monitoring, and research activities, habitat restoration and enhancement 

projects, invasive species control, and planning. 

Goal 4. Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 4.1: Inventory 

Conduct scientific inventories to provide information regarding the status of Refuge resources and 

better inform resource management decisions. These scientific inventories and surveys would 

contribute to developing Refuge resource objectives. They would also be used to facilitate habitat 

restoration through selection of appropriate habitat management strategies based upon site-specific 

conditions. 

These inventory activities would have the following attributes:

• Inventory habitats, species, and species groups according to the Refuge’s approved I&M Plan 

and associated protocols

• Use of accepted standards, where available, for completion of inventories

• Scale and accuracy of inventories would be appropriate for developing and implementing 

Refuge habitat and wildlife management actions M

• Data collection techniques should have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and minimal 

habitat destruction 

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and quarantine methods, where 

necessary, would minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and 

disease

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 3 years of CCP completion, develop and implement an I&M Plan 

that provides the management rationale, timing, and costs for conducting 

Refuge surveys; lists the prioritized surveys; identifies the surveys 

selected for implementation; and documents the protocols that describe 

the survey objectives and methods. 

 

Seek funding and develop or strengthen partnerships to accomplish 

priority baseline inventories (primarily focused on determining presence 

or absence) and mapping species and habitats. 


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-27

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Conduct inventory to gather data regarding year-round fish presence or 

absence in Refuge tidal open water, inundated mudflats, and inundated 

saltmarsh habitats. 

Conduct inventory to gather data regarding primary shorebird prey 

species, such as macro-invertebrate bi-valves, shrimp, crabs, and worms, 

in mudflats and saltmarsh habitats. 

Conduct inventory to gather data (presence/absence, habitat use, relative 

abundance) on wildlife species such as small mammals (e.g., rodents, 

bats), amphibians, reptiles, and pollinators. 



Conduct inventory to establish baseline data on Refuge tidal waters, 

sediments, and invertebrate biota regarding possible contamination from 

organochlorines, and heavy metals in particular, as well as polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons and conduct conventional tests such as fecal coliform, 

nutrients, and turbidity based on recommendations included in the 

Contaminants Assessment Process.



Develop partnerships to survey eelgrass beds (both native and nonnative)

within the Refuge boundary, establishing a baseline inventory and map of 

eelgrass species presence (see Objective 1.1, 1.2). 



Rationale: 

An inventory is defined as a survey that estimates the presence, abundance, or distribution of species, 

habitats, ecological communities, or abiotic features at a particular time (701 FW 2). Inventories may 

also establish a beginning time-step (baseline) or reference information for subsequent monitoring. 

For example, a well-designed inventory may be repeated at a later time to assess the status and trends 

in the same location, which would then be considered monitoring. Appropriate and applicable 

inventories are necessary to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress 

toward achieving objectives whenever using adaptive management. Inventories would establish a 

benchmark for future comparisons and ensure that implementation of on-the-ground resource 

management activities achieve resource management objectives identified under Goals 1–3. 

A Refuge I&M Plan needs to be developed to document the surveys required to determine species 

status, assess habitat condition, detect and identify changes in the Refuge’s diverse fish, wildlife and 

plant communities and physical resources including water, air and soils, and ecological processes. 

The Refuge I&M Plan would include information on the specific metrics required for supporting 

management decision-making and may include presence/absence, species composition, seasonal 

habitat use, spatial distribution, and/or population estimates. Specific inventories would establish 

baseline information on many aspects of different Refuge habitats and the fish, invertebrates, and 

most wildlife groups that use them. Information regarding contaminant levels of sediments, water, 

and invertebrates (shorebird and fish prey) would establish a baseline standard for comparison as 

harbor development increases or contaminant spills occur. Invasive species, both plant and animal, 

are threats, and some have already caused damage to habitats and affected wildlife, but the extent of 

some species, such as nonnative eelgrass, is unknown. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Funds are currently prioritized to perform the most pressing projects at the Refuge Complex, leaving 

few resources and staff available to do Grays Harbor Refuge-specific baseline inventories. Partnering 

with other field biologists from natural resource agencies, NGOs, private lands, and using qualified 

volunteers would be helpful in getting some of the needed inventories underway. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 4.2: Monitoring

Conduct high-priority monitoring activities that evaluate changes in the status of fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. Information gathered facilitates adaptive management actions for resource 

management and visitor services. Monitoring projects can take place annually or periodically 

depending on the species, habitat, or management needs. 

Monitoring of wildlife and habitat contributes to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and 

management of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off Refuge lands. Information gained 

can be used to evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under Goals 1–3. 

These monitoring and survey activities would have the following attributes: 

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable 

• Data collection techniques should have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and minimal 

habitat destruction

• Minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, 

vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements would be collected for identification and 

experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and quarantine methods, where 

necessary, would minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and 

disease

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 3 years of CCP completion, develop and implement an I&M Plan 

that provides the management rationale, timing, and costs for conducting 

Refuge surveys; lists the prioritized surveys; identifies the surveys selected 

for implementation; and documents the protocols that describe the survey 

objectives and methods.

 

Seek funding with partner contributions for priority surveys. 

Coordinate, plan, and periodically conduct a comprehensive shorebird 

survey of the entire Grays Harbor estuary in cooperation with partners.  

Conduct annual ground surveys for shorebird species that use Refuge 

intertidal mudflats and marshes.  

Conduct annual ground surveys for waterfowl and other migratory 

waterbird use of Refuge habitats.  

Develop aerial spring shorebird survey methods for all of Grays Harbor 

estuary and seek funding to conduct annually. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-29

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Assist in monitoring efforts related to threats to biological integrity from 

contamination in the Grays Harbor estuary. 

Monitor the health and abundance of sweetgrass on the Refuge through 

periodically measuring basic parameters and mapping, especially in 

relationship to the threats of climate change and sea level rise. 

Install sediment gauges in appropriate Refuge locations to gather 

preliminary information on sedimentation accretion rates to use with future 

research projects on climate change and sea level rise. 

Coordinate within the greater Grays Harbor estuary area to identify the 

latest monitoring and research efforts and to determine possible data gaps 

and research needs regarding sea level rise and climate change. 



Following the salt and brackish marsh berm removal, monitor the restored 

areas to determine the status of the changing plant community and fish and 

wildlife use.



Annually work with Service Regional, Refuge, and migratory bird 

biologists and other agencies and partners to collect data of regional or 

flyway value such as the mid-winter aerial waterfowl survey. 

 

Work with Service Regional, Refuge, and migratory bird biologists and 

other partners to establish a Pacific Coast Flyway protocol for shorebird 

migration surveys and assist in executing coordinated surveys to gain 

greater understanding of shorebird populations, status, and ecology. 

 

Continue evaluating and improving control methods for nonnative plants, 

including Spartina, Phragmites, and other invaders as they are found.  

Conduct surveys for invasive animals, such as Griffins isopod, green crab, 

invasive mussels, snails, and other marine invaders. 

Periodically conduct priority, invasive, nonnative plant surveys, map 

treatment control effectiveness, and assess treatment need.  

Conduct baseline monitoring of water chemistry (especially acidity) and 

monitor changes over time. 

Hire a full-time wildlife biologist at the Refuge to ensure biological 

information is gathered and analyzed to support Refuge management, 

species recovery, and make management recommendations. 

Hire a biological technician to monitor invasive plants, control programs, 

and assist with high-priority monitoring programs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Rationale: 

Monitoring consists of repeated survey efforts intended to document changes over time (e.g., months 

to years) and space in select attributes of wildlife, plants, habitats, ecological communities, or abiotic 

resources. Two types of monitoring in the Service policy (701 FW 2) are:

(1) Baseline monitoring. Monitoring that is not tied to specific predictions of how a natural 

resource will respond to management or environmental stressors, but instead is designed to 

document change over time of a natural resource. Examples include monitoring wildlife 

population trends, disease incidence, and climate change.

(2) Monitoring to inform management. Monitoring to assess whether a natural resource is 

approaching or exceeding a known threshold, or if a resource is responding to a management 

action or system stressor in a specified manner. This type of monitoring involves defining the 

threshold values or expected response, then surveying to measure the response or a closely 

related indicator. Comparing monitoring results with these expected values may show a need 

for initiating, intensifying, or altering management actions. Results from this type of 

monitoring are used in an adaptive management context to improve management or evaluate 

progress toward achieving management objectives, as derived from the Refuge System 

mission and Refuge purposes. 

A new full-time biologist and a biological technician would make it possible to conduct needed 

surveys and monitoring of rare and sensitive species, as well as key avian, mammalian, or other 

wildlife species to provide information on their status. Species response to habitat enhancements 

would need to be understood to adapt management techniques and support sound management 

decisions. 

The Refuge would partner with natural resource entities, specifically the North Pacific LCC, to 

address climate change and other biological stressors. As needed, objectives and strategies would be 

adjusted to assist in enhancing Refuge resources’ resiliency to climate change and to potentially 

manage for new species assemblages in the future.

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 4.3: Research

Conduct high-priority scientific research projects that provide the best science for habitat and wildlife 

management on and off refuges. These research projects may identify cause and effect relationships, 

produce new knowledge, and may last 1–3 years. Scientific findings gained through these projects 

would expand knowledge regarding life-history needs of species and species groups, as well as 

identify or refine habitat and wildlife management actions. 

Research also would reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to Refuge 

management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource management 

objectives and to facilitate adaptive management. 

These research projects would have the following attributes: 

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management 

• Data collection techniques would likely have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-31

• Collect samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to 

meet statistical analysis requirements for identification and experimentation in order to 

minimize long-term or cumulative impacts

• Utilize proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and quarantine methods, 

where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and 

disease

• Often result in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications and/or 

symposiums

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Seek funding, develop research partnerships, and initiate research to benefit 

the Refuge and the Service. 

Conduct research that supports Refuge informational and management 

needs and assists regional needs for greater understanding of applied 

resource management.

 

Work with university graduate school programs, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and others to conduct research that would advance 

the science of habitat management on Refuge lands. 

 

Develop a collaborative plan and initiate research to investigate the effects 

of sedimentation upon Refuge habitats over time, accretion rates and 

distribution, sediment sources, and hydrologic effects on sediment 

distribution within the Refuge, including comparisons to predicted sea level 

rise to assess shorebird foraging and roosting implications. 



Initiate research on avian shorebird predators, how avian shorebird 

predators utilize surrounding habitats and if predator activity affects how 

shorebirds use the Refuge. 



Initiate research into shorebird food resources including biofilm and 

macro/micro-invertebrate population abundance to better understand food 

availability during spring migration and shorebird needs. 



Work with the Service’s I&M program on Refuge legacy data (e.g., 

shorebird counts) to determine long-term population trends, use of Refuge 

habitat, and reliability of the data. 



Continue to support red knot ecological research on the Refuge and in the 

greater estuary.  

Support red knot conservation with research on population trends and 

habitat needs and develop management measures as appropriate. 

Participate in regional Pacific Flyway research studies on shorebird 

ecology, population trends, and habitat needs, especially those that support 

Refuge management needs.


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Coordinate with other natural resource agencies and partners to better 

understand the ramifications of nonnative and invasive Japanese eelgrass in 

open water, mudflats, and saltmarsh habitats and how it affects native 

habitat for shorebirds, invertebrates, fish, and other wildlife. 



Seek funding for, develop, and assess shorebird habitat use in the Grays 

Harbor estuary to identify areas that may provide alternative habitat in the 

face of future sea level rise (see Objective 3.1). 



Rationale: 

Research projects on Refuge lands would address a wide range of natural and cultural resource and 

public-use management issues. Examples of research projects include habitat use and life-history 

requirements for specific species and species groups, practical methods for habitat management and 

restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate 

pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated habitat and 

wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, wilderness character,

modeling of wildlife populations, and assessing response of habitat and wildlife to disturbance from 

public uses. Projects may be species-specific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of 

the Refuge to larger landscape (ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. 

Like monitoring, results of research projects would expand the best available scientific information 

and potentially reduce uncertainties to promote transparent decision-making processes for resource 

management over time on Refuge lands. In combination with results of surveys, research would 

promote adaptive management on Refuge lands. Scientific publications resulting from research on 

Refuge lands would help increase the visibility of the Refuge System as a leader in the development 

of the best science for conserving and managing resources. 

Specific research needs on the Refuge include understanding the tidal movement, sediment 

deposition, and the rate of accretion and the effects on the mudflat habitat that is so critical to 

shorebird foraging during spring migration. Research into the relationship of avian predator activity 

and their impacts on shorebird site use would provide important information that would help 

managers determine how to manage certain habitat types. Shorebird foraging information, especially 

regarding prey and biofilm abundance and use, would be vital for managers to understand how 

adaptive management can be used. Some shorebirds are in decline and more information is needed to 

understand shifting habitat needs and use and foraging preferences. The Refuge would work with 

partners to identify higher elevation potential transition habitats that would able to support shorebirds 

as water levels rise and habitats change over time. 

The Refuge supports external research projects that explore factors affecting focal wildlife species 

and their habitats, with the intent to increase our understanding and ability to manage these resources, 

as well as to support regional needs for greater understanding of applied resource management. 

The Refuge would join the North Pacific LCC, which is a series of formal science-management 

partnerships between the Service, Federal agencies, States, Tribes, NGOs, universities, and other 

entities to address climate change and other biological stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs 

provide science support, biological planning, conservation design, research, and design of inventory 

and monitoring programs. As needed, objectives and strategies would be adjusted to assist in 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-33

enhancing the Refuge’s resources’ resiliency to climate change and to potentially manage for new 

species assemblages in the future.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of 

wildlife and habitats to enhance visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural resources and to foster a connection with nature.

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 5.1: Welcome and Orientation

Provide visitors with welcoming and orienting features, facilities, and experiences. These would be 

characterized by: 

• Directional signage on roadways 

• Refuge entrance sign 

• Information kiosk

• Orientation signs 

• Signed parking 

• Trailhead and trail signs 

• Use of electronic and print media to reach and orient visitors 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Work with WSDOT to maintain directional signs on State Highway 109.  

Work with WDFW to maintain Watchable Wildlife signs.  

Maintain Refuge entrance sign on State Highway 109 and Paulson Road.  

Maintain information kiosk at Port of Grays Harbor gate.  

Improve parking area surface and install appropriate signs. 

Provide electronic and print media with accurate information that is 

positively worded and available at the Refuge kiosk and other local venues 

such as the Chamber of Commerce. 



When possible, provide information in English and Spanish. 

When and where appropriate, provide visitor amenities such as toilets and 

garbage cans, i.e., during special events and if the new nature center is 

built.



Enhance the hardscape around the kiosk and Port of Grays Harbor gate to 

make the pedestrian passage more visible and accessible, in coordination 

with Port of Grays Harbor. 



Establish administrative assistant position to support Refuge operations, 

habitat management and restoration, visitor services program, and facilities 

management. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-35

Rationale: 

Customer service and first impressions are important for visitors to feel welcome and safe at national 

wildlife refuges. Local visitors to Grays Harbor Refuge do not necessarily know they are on a 

national wildlife refuge, and those that come from outside the area need welcome and orientation 

features that are easily found and well maintained. Visitors need accurate, timely, and appropriate 

orientation materials and information on Refuge facilities, programs, and experiences. These 

strategies would increase Refuge visibility and promote visitor compliance with Refuge regulations. 

Staffing priorities would include an administrative assistant position to assist with Refuge 

management activities, facilities operation, expanded habitat management projects, and expanded 

visitor services programs. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 5.2: Provide high-quality wildlife observation and 

nature photography opportunities

Provide compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities with the following 

characteristics:

• Safe and accessible facilities that are available to a broad spectrum of the public 

• Opportunities to view and photograph a diversity of wildlife in their habitats and in a natural 

setting

• Access provided to a diversity of habitats 

• Viewing opportunities tied to interpretive and educational opportunities 

• Observation opportunities promote public understanding of Grays Harbor Refuge resources 

and the Refuge’s role in managing and protecting those resources 

• Observations occur in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife 

• Observers have minimal conflict with other visitors or operation of the Refuge 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Collaborate with Port of Grays Harbor to maintain access to the Sandpiper 

Trail (pedestrian and maintenance vehicles).  

Maintain Sandpiper Trail and, where appropriate, keep vegetation low to 

allow shorebird viewing.  

Continue to work with partners to provide wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities during the spring shorebird migration.  

Enhance viewing opportunities along the Port of Grays Harbor road. Select 

at least one site and install a small viewing platform on Refuge lands in 

coordination with the Port of Grays Harbor and FAA. 

Explore extension of the Sandpiper Trail spur at the northwest end by up to 

250 feet for improved shorebird viewing in coordination with the Port of 

Grays Harbor and FAA. 



Increase viewing opportunities at the parking area. Build a viewing 

deck/platform associated with the information kiosk. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Rehabilitate existing Refuge building for use as a maintenance shop to 

support habitat management and trail and visitor facility maintenance 

programs. 



Work with partners to consider feasibility of constructing a bike and 

walking trail along Paulson Road. 

Hire a permanent maintenance worker to maintain trails, visitor facilities, 

and assist with habitat management. 

Hire a permanent visitor services manager to operate the nature center, if 

constructed, and plan and conduct the visitor services program for a broad 

range of visitors. 



Hire a refuge officer to protect Refuge resources and for visitors, 

employees, and facilities. 

Rationale: 

Observation and photography of wildlife and nature promote public understanding and appreciation 

for the Refuge’s natural resources. Wildlife observation is the primary visitor activity at Grays 

Harbor Refuge. Wildlife observation and photography programs are designed to provide a diversity 

of high-quality viewing opportunities for visitors while minimizing disturbance to wildlife and 

habitats. 

Grays Harbor Refuge offers excellent bird watching and wildlife observation opportunities for a wide 

variety of shorebird and waterbird species. Native habitats are easily viewed from the Sandpiper 

Trail, which is open year round. The Refuge is open to the public from sunrise to sunset; however, 

some areas are closed to protect wildlife and habitat from disturbance. Volunteers walk the trail and 

provide interpretive and other information to visitors to increase their understanding of natural 

resources. High-quality wildlife viewing would continue to be provided on the Refuge through the 

maintenance and development of trails and observation sites.

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 5.3: Provide high-quality interpretive opportunities 

Provide a variety of high-quality interpretive opportunities to Refuge visitors. Interpretive 

developments shall include information about the importance of the Refuge to native habitats and 

their associated plants, fish, and wildlife species throughout the year. 

High-quality interpretive programs should consist of the following attributes: 

• State-of-the-art technology incorporated into interpretive materials, where appropriate 

• Target all users regardless of demographics 

• Facilitate self-discovery of information using all five senses

• Incorporate the importance of the Refuge System and the purpose, goals, and objectives of 

the Refuge 

• Use a variety of interpretive materials, including signage, exhibits, brochures, and a website.

• Explore interconnections of natural and human world 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-37

• Emphasize nonguided activities but also include periodic guided programs 

• Link to wildlife observation and environmental education programs

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Maintain all existing interpretive features on the Sandpiper Trail.  

Update the Wildlife List and produce in the Service’s standard format. 

Update plant list and make available to the public upon request. 

Continue to improve the Refuge’s website to include expanded information 

on the native habitats and their associated plants, fish, and wildlife species, 

and visitor opportunities throughout the year, and link with other 

appropriate sites. 

 

Develop a series of interpretive panels for placement on the Sandpiper Trail 

and at the Refuge kiosk. 

Develop a panel that includes a map and Refuge regulations for placement 

on the Refuge kiosk. 

Develop an interpretive panel on the Refuge System for placement on the 

Refuge kiosk. 

Work with partners to provide guided walks and interpretive programs for 

the general public. 

Continue to provide guided walks during the spring shorebird migration, 

including during the Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature Festival.  

Maintain the general Refuge brochure and have available at the Refuge 

kiosk, the local Chamber of Commerce, and other local venues as 

appropriate. 

 

Continue to work with partners on the Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature 

Festival and provide high-quality interpretive experiences along the 

Sandpiper Trail with the help of volunteers. 

 

Look for unique ways to provide information about the Refuge such as a 

radio spot that drivers can tune into along State Highway 109, narrated 

podcast for smartphones or computers, and Quick Response (QR) codes on 

interpretive materials.



Incorporate current issues, such as invasive species and climate change, 

into new interpretive materials. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Rationale: 

As one of the Service’s priority public uses, environmental interpretation is an important 

management activity for the Refuge. Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional 

and intellectual connections by providing opportunities for visitors to make their own connection to 

the resources. It is at the heart of connecting people of all ages in a variety of ways to our natural 

world. Messages and stories are delivered through both formal (e.g., programs and walks) and 

informal methods (e.g., materials, panels, and exhibits). Both methods have the objective of 

facilitating self-discovery, examining systems, and exploring how the natural world and human 

activities are interconnected. Participants of all ages would engage in stimulating and enjoyable 

activities as they learn about the Refuge and issues confronting fish and wildlife resource 

management and protection. We would emphasize first-hand experiences with the environment 

through presentations, audio-visual media, and exhibits as necessary components of the Refuge 

interpretive program. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-39

Goal 6. Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and 

foster a connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 6.1: Environmental Education (onsite) 

Provide and support field trips to the Refuge, particularly during the spring shorebird migration, for 

3rd and 4th grade students in Grays Harbor County. The onsite program would include: 

• Extending and enhancing classroom learning and providing students with a first-hand 

experience with shorebirds, other wildlife, and native habitats 

• A minimum of 50 percent of field trips associated with in-classroom presentations. 

• Reaching a minimum of 500 grade school students annually 

• Supporting the Service’s “Connecting People with Nature” emphasis 

• Using a diversity of education methods and tools 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Provide an education coordinator through the AmeriCorps program or other 

avenues that become available.  

Hire a permanent education specialist to manage the day-to-day 

programming for the education program and coordinate with education 

partners throughout Grays Harbor County. 



Maintain trails that enable students to view wildlife.  

Develop additional facilities that would enhance learning while at the 

Refuge, including interpretive panels, viewing areas, and trails. 

Work with partners and the Refuge volunteer program to continue to 

support school field trips to the Refuge.  

Continue coordination with the Port of Grays Harbor to allow access to the 

Sandpiper Trail trailhead.  

Rationale: 

Environmental education is a high-priority, wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge and an 

important focus of the visitor services program. The program reaches local students that may not 

otherwise have opportunities to visit and learn about their local natural areas and the wildlife found 

there. 

The Refuge is in a special position to offer local schools, teachers, and students an opportunity to 

learn about shorebirds, waterbirds, rare or endangered species, and engage in conservation issues in 

an outdoor setting. Field trip options would allow classes to experience what they have learned in the 

classroom firsthand. Volunteers and partners would assist in providing support for groups visiting the 

Refuge. 

To meet student needs, Refuge staff is committed to working with schools and teachers to provide 

opportunities for students to experience fish, wildlife, and habitats at the Refuge and learn about 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Refuge resources, habitat conservation, and cultural resources. A full time education specialist would 

allow the program to grow and reach more students with quality education programs. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 6.2: Environmental Education (off-site)

Provide and support offsite environmental education opportunities through classroom lessons and 

activities for 3rd and 4th grade students in Grays Harbor County. 

The offsite program would include: 

• Working with teachers willing to commit to both classroom lessons and a Refuge field trip 

• Providing a series of six lessons per class from November through June that emphasize 

shorebirds, shorebird conservation, ecology, and the natural history of the area 

• Providing materials and ideas for extending lessons throughout the year 

• Providing home extension activities 

• Emphasizing hands-on, multi-disciplinary learning

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

When funding is available, provide an education coordinator through the 

AmeriCorps program or other similar venues.  

Make yearly contact with 3rd and 4th grade teachers in Grays Harbor 

County to provide information about the Refuge’s environmental education 

program and invite participation. 

 

Utilize the materials and resources provided through the Shorebird Sister 

School Program.  

Conduct the annual Shorebird and Nature Festival Poster Contest in 

coordination with partners and assist teachers with student entries.  

Maintain up-to-date and accurate information for teachers on the website.  

Evaluate and keep current materials and activities that are offered to 

teachers and students to ensure topics of importance to the local area, like

climate change, are addressed.

 

Work with partners to continue to find more long-term ways to financially 

support the education coordinator position and program.  

Work with partners to develop educational outreach tools utilizing new 

technologies (e.g., web cam, YouTube, Flickr) for virtual Refuge 

educational experiences. 

Rationale: 

Environmental education is one of six wildlife-dependent public uses that are outlined in the 1997 

Refuge Improvement Act. Environmental education is a high-priority, wildlife-dependent public use 

of the Refuge. Off-site environmental education can encourage participation from more students than 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-41

could otherwise be reached and helps to strengthen partnerships with schools, educational 

organizations, and local community members.

The Refuge is in a unique position to offer local education agencies, teachers, and students an 

opportunity to learn about shorebirds, shorebird conservation, and rare or endangered species and 

engage in natural resource management and conservation issues in their local community. To meet 

student needs, Refuge staff is committed to working with schools and teachers to provide inclassroom presentations and help with the environmental curriculum. Support could also include field 

trips, participation in off-site activities like poster contests or festivals, and strengthening of long 

term partnerships with local schools and the community.

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 6.3: Environmental Education Teacher and Volunteer 

Training 

Provide training and support for teachers, Refuge volunteers, and interns who would assist in 

conducting the environmental education programs for the Refuge. 

Attributes of the education training program would include: 

• Providing one-on-one or group assistance to educators who would use the training and 

information each year with students 

• Partnering with other groups to provide training to educators on a variety of natural history 

and conservation topics for a variety of age groups, e.g., early childhood educators 

• Conducting periodic volunteer training sessions to prepare volunteers to provide high-quality 

and accurate educational methods, techniques, and tools that are appropriate for teaching 

students and introduce new volunteers to the education program 

• Requesting feedback from teachers and partners to improve the program 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Maintain an up-to-date “Educator’s Guide to Grays Harbor NWR” and 

make available for educators.  

Notify educators at the beginning of the school year that training is 

available.  

Recruit and train Refuge volunteers who would work with the education 

program.  

Look for ways to partner with other organizations to provide teacher 

training.  

Ensure that teachers involved in the program receive one-on-one or group 

training about the Refuge, classroom activities, and Refuge field trips.  

Rationale: 

Training is an important component of environmental education. By training teachers about 

environmental issues important to the Refuge, they could use the information and resources each year 

with their students. Teachers look for ways to become more knowledgeable, enhance their skills, and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

acquire new resources; teacher training provides them with new knowledge and opens up different 

avenues for teaching. Teachers participating in Refuge trainings are more likely to use resources 

offered and are more likely to take students outside, including to the Refuge. Training of Refuge 

volunteers and interns to assist with the education program would enable the Refuge to maintain the 

level of quality programming provided to students. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-43

Goal 7. Support and strengthen an active volunteer work force and Friends Groups to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 7.1: Strengthen and promote a Refuge volunteer 

program

Improve volunteer opportunities associated with the Refuge with the following attributes: 

• Provide effective training and program management

• Support and complement the Service mission and current initiatives

• Increase visibility and foster conservation

• Support a variety of Refuge programs and activities and increase their effectiveness

• Encourage community involvement and strengthen relationships

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Publicize volunteer opportunities to attract new volunteers representing a 

broad spectrum of the community.  

Look for ways to partner with other organizations to provide volunteers.  

Maintain and provide to volunteers an up-to-date “Volunteer Training 

Manual” for Grays Harbor Refuge.  

Provide a training course for volunteers on the Service; Refuge history, 

management, and natural resources; the specifics of the Refuge volunteer 

program and volunteer opportunities; and about the specifics of the 

volunteer duties. 

 

Recruit and train volunteers who would work with the education and 

outreach programs.  

Recruit and train volunteers to work as trail rovers and weed warriors.  

Recruit and train volunteers from the Refuge Complex to help with a 

variety of Refuge activities. 

Provide volunteers with an annual recognition. 

Rationale: 

Volunteers provide an important and needed service on national wildlife refuges. Successful 

volunteer programs are recognized as a key component of the successful management of public lands 

and vital to implementation of Refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining 

budgets. 

The Refuge volunteer program began in 2001 and since then a small group of volunteers has worked 

performing a variety of jobs, including assisting with the environmental education and interpretation 

programs, special events, trail roving, wildlife surveys, invasive plant control, administration, and 

maintenance. Recruitment and training of new volunteers has occurred almost annually. A volunteer 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

training manual is kept up-to-date and provided to volunteers. Partners such as Grays Harbor 

Audubon Society have provided the bulk of volunteer services over the years and would probably 

continue to do so in the future. Recruiting volunteers has been challenging and attrition is high. 

Managing an effective volunteer program at the Refuge has proven to be difficult because the Refuge 

is not staffed, has no facilities, and is an hour’s drive from the Refuge Complex Headquarters where 

the volunteer manager is stationed.

The role volunteers have played over the years has been very important and the Refuge would 

continue to have a need for volunteers into the future. In addition to providing assistance with 

programs and helping the Refuge meets its mission, volunteers are outreach ambassadors in the 

community. They spread the word about the Refuge throughout the local community where they live. 

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 7.2: Support and encourage partnerships to support 

Visitor Services programs

Support and encourage partnerships with the following attributes: 

• Partners would support the mission of the Refuge 

• Working together with Refuge staff, partners would be advocates for the Refuge in helping 

secure resources and funding for programs and facilities 

• Partners would provide needed volunteer support to Refuge programs 

Partners may be a part of a network of Friends Groups across the county supporting and advocating 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Identify local community groups, businesses, and organizations that could 

help support the Refuge’s visitor services program and facilities 

development. 

 

Work with local partners to produce the Grays Harbor Shorebird and 

Nature Festival.  

Explore ways to work with the Chehalis Basin Partnership to provide 

education and outreach to local communities. 

Explore ways to partner with Grays Harbor College. 

Continue to work with Refuge Friends groups including Grays Harbor 

Audubon Society and Friends of Nisqually NWR in support of education, 

outreach, and habitat programs. 

 

Rationale: 

National wildlife refuges have developed extensive and sophisticated partnerships and Friends 

Groups in order to carry out the mission of the Refuge System. Partners provide support in a variety 

of ways at the local, regional, and national levels. Partnerships and Friends Groups provide a way for 

citizens to be involved in and work to enhance and improve the resources Refuges are mandated to 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-45

protect. Without a constituency of local support, Refuges today would not be able to accomplish their 

mission. 

The visitor services program at the Refuge has relied on, and would continue to rely on, partnerships 

to support the various components of the program. Production of the yearly Grays Harbor Shorebird 

and Nature Festival requires the collaboration of numerous local partners, including Grays Harbor 

Audubon Society, the City of Hoquiam, the Port of Grays Harbor, WDFW, and numerous others. 

Financial support by partners for the education program has enabled the Refuge to have an 

AmeriCorps volunteer and has supported bus transportation for Refuge field trips. These invaluable 

contributions by partners would continue to play an important role in the success and growth of the 

Refuge’s visitor services programs. 

New partners need to be identified and engaged in order to ensure the development of new facilities 

can be accomplished. Support at the local level would continue to be extremely important for the 

building of a nature center and associated trails (See Section 2.3.2 Features Common to All

Alternatives at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge for information on the nature center). 

Working with a variety of partners, such as the Chehalis Basin Partnership and Grays Harbor College 

would enable the Refuge to reach new audiences and to stay active and visible in the local 

community.

Grays Harbor Refuge Objective 7.3: Enhance outreach targeting local communities to 

promote appreciation of and generate support for the Refuge

Develop, maintain, and provide outreach programs in communities throughout Grays Harbor County 

that focus on fish, wildlife, and their habitats, with an emphasis on shorebirds and shorebird 

conservation. 

Outreach program attributes would: 

• Provide accurate information about natural resources, management, and conservation of those 

natural resources 

• Actively include partners and volunteers in development and implementation of programs 

and events 

• Reach a broad spectrum of audiences regardless of demographics 

• When possible, provide materials in Spanish 

• Use a variety of media

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Continue to support and be an active participant in the yearly annual Grays 

Harbor Shorebird and Nature Festival.  

Identify ways to reach out to nontraditional audiences, e.g., the Latino 

population in Grays Harbor County. 

Develop outreach materials in Spanish. 

Work with partners and volunteers to identify opportunities for Refuge 

involvement in outreach programs and events. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Rationale: 

Local support for national wildlife refuges is critical to achieve the mission of the Refuge. 

Conservation and enhancement of habitats and wildlife is extremely difficult without local support. 

Many people in Grays Harbor County do not know about the Refuge. The challenge is to find ways 

to inform people and get them interested in supporting Refuge programs. 

Since 1994, the Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature Festival has been the main outreach event for the 

Refuge. Working in partnership with Grays Harbor Audubon Society, the City of Hoquiam, the Port 

of Grays Harbor, and many other sponsors, the Refuge helps develop and execute an event 

celebrating the spring migration of shorebirds in Grays Harbor County. The Festival has an 

attendance average of 1,400 people. The Shorebird and Nature Festival Poster Contest, free guided 

walks at the Refuge, and free lectures have all been established to try and attract local participation; 

however, more needs to be done. 

The opportunity to participate in other local events exists; time and volunteer and staff availability is 

a challenge in attending these events. In past years, the Refuge has had a booth at the Grays Harbor 

County Fair, Hoquiam River Days, and Volunteer Day at the Mall. 

Reaching a more diverse audience would be beneficial. Grays Harbor County has a large Latino 

population and many of them are first-generation and may or may not speak English. Some children 

of these families are being reached through the education program; finding ways to reach the families 

would be a logical next step. Outreach to the Latino community via churches, events, and clubs could 

be a great way to start making contacts. Providing materials in Spanish would also be essential. 

Outreach to local businesses would also benefit the Refuge and help achieve the goals set out in this 

plan. Advocacy and financial support for new programs and facilities would be necessary for 

progress to be made. Finding common ground with the business community through personal 

contacts, events, partnerships, and volunteer help would be essential.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-47

2.4.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black 

River Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough 

Lowlands for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse assemblage 

of other native species.

Black River Unit Objective 1.1: Protect, maintain, and enhance the Black River channel

habitat 

Alongside WDNR, protect, maintain, and enhance up to 7.5 miles of channel habitat for native fish 

and wildlife, including rare and declining species such as the Oregon spotted frog and Olympic 

mudminnow. 

Desired characteristics of this channel habitat include: 

• Channel depths range from 2–15 feet deep in the main channel 

• Plentiful water supply throughout the seasons to maintain channel habitat and sustain fish and 

wildlife populations** 

• Annual high water events spread water out over the floodplain in winter and spring 

• Abundant native submersed and emergent vegetation such as American waterweed, 

pondweed species, smartweed, narrow leaf bur-reed, and water starwort** 

• 5–20 percent of channel edge is exposed mud without vegetation 

• Muddy, silty, and sometimes unconsolidated river bottom

• Water temperatures are seasonally <64°F 

• Presence of decaying, large woody debris that may support herbaceous vegetation such as 

small flowered forget-me-not, smartweed, monkey flower, and water starwort 

• Low to minimal populations of nonnative bullfrogs and warm-water fish populations that 

threaten natural food web processes** 

• < 15 percent cover of nonnative, invasive plants that threaten the native plant community 

• Reduce reed canarygrass** 

Channel habitat is defined by the location of water flows within the confines of river or tributary 

banks and includes the nearby edges of the sloped bank. The current length/measurement of channel 

habitat includes lands and waters that are under the jurisdiction of WDNR. 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Work with WDNR to develop an interagency agreement or similar 

instrument that promotes cooperative management of the river channel 

between WDNR and the Service within the approved Unit boundary. See 

also Section 2.3.3, Features Common to All Alternatives at the Black 

River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

Within 8 years of completion of the CCP, complete a detailed Water 

Resources Inventory and Assessment (WRIA). 

Coordinate and partner with appropriate agencies to sustain and enhance 

hydrological conditions needed to support channel habitat and ensure an 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

appropriate water budget and delivery, including water quantity and 

quality. 

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species.

 

Annually control nonnative, invasive, or undesirable plants such as 

yellow flag iris in the river channel habitat. 

1⁄4 mile 

treated/ 

year

Annually control all purple loosestrife along the edge of the river channel 

(see Appendix G). 

south of 

pipeline 

north and 

south of 

pipeline

Coordinate with other agencies to determine best control methods for 

reed canarygrass to use in river channel and implement control. 

Establish permanent refuge operations specialist position to coordinate 

and conduct Unit operations, habitat management, and visitor services 

programs. 



Rationale: 

The Black River is a unique lowland river and considered by some to be the most complete intact 

river system of its type remaining in western Washington. The Black River is an important tributary 

of the Chehalis River watershed, the second largest watershed in Washington State. Located within 

the approved Unit boundary, there are approximately 7.5 miles of free flowing river channel habitat 

that serves as a vital migration pathway, provides some spawning grounds, and good quality rearing 

habitat for juvenile salmonids, resident fish, and amphibians. However, multiple stressors (both on 

and off the Unit) have compromised the natural function and hydrology of the northern section of the 

river influencing water temperature, water movement, water quality, sediment transport, habitat 

complexity, and animal passage. 

A WRIA is necessary to study these stressors and to assist Unit staff by identifying various 

management options to improve habitat conditions, water quality, and hydrologic regimes in the river 

system. 

Unit staff would implement an inventory and monitoring program to understand and manage impacts 

from invasive species on the resources. Invasive plants within the river channel and along the edges, 

such as reed canarygrass, are present, and some nonnative, submerged plant species are suspected.

Reed canarygrass has severely altered the habitat in some places by impeding water flow and 

developing monotypic plant stands, thereby affecting habitat quality and wildlife use. The Unit

would work with other agencies to determine the best methods to control reed canarygrass and other 

species in the river channel. (See Obj. 3.1 and Goal 4.) Staff would increase control measures 

annually on yellow flag iris by treating or removing the plant on an additional quarter-mile of river 

channel habitat each year. In addition, purple loosestrife would be found and treated along the river 

channel, including the northernmost locations for the benefit of a variety of native wildlife, including 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-49

rare species such as Olympic mudminnow and Oregon spotted frog, and to enhance native plant 

communities.

Control and treatment for bullfrogs is needed because bullfrogs outcompete, predate upon, and 

displace Oregon spotted frogs (see also Section 4.6). Auditory bullfrog presence/absence surveys 

would take place in June. Control techniques would be used during day or night as needed using 

hand capture, gigging, and netting as appropriate. Captured bullfrogs would be anesthetized with 

20% benzocaine gel on its ventral abdomen and then frozen until dead. 

The Refuge Complex would seek to establish a permanent refuge operations specialist position to 

ensure enhanced coordination with our partners and implementation of all habitat management 

projects, completion of inventory, monitoring, and research programs and projects, invasive species 

removal, and management of the new visitor services programs.

Black River Unit Objective 1.2: Protect, maintain, and enhance Black River tributary 

channel habitat

Protect, maintain, and enhance up to 16 miles of Black River tributary channel habitat for native fish, 

amphibians, invertebrates, and wildlife. 

Desired characteristics of tributary channel habitats include: 

• Clear, running shallow streams or deeper water streams

• Cool water temperatures in riparian associated tributaries < 60°F 

• Equal or higher dissolved oxygen level than in the Black River 

• Firm channel bed with graduated-size cobble or soft, peat substrate 

• Presence of natural woody debris 

• Barrier-free passage for native fish and tadpoles 

• Low to minimal populations of nonnative bullfrogs and warm-water fish populations** 

• < 15 percent cover of nonnative, invasive plants that threaten the native plant community 

• Reduce reed canarygrass (see Rationale in Objective 1.1)** 

Tributary channel habitat is defined by the location of water flows within the confines of tributary 

banks and includes the nearby edges of the sloped bank. The length/measurement includes tributaries 

currently under ownership (fee title) of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or 

undesirable plant or animal species.

 

Annually control invasive plants on a minimum of 20 percent of tributary 

channel habitat. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 3 years of acquisition of new parcels, identify and remove or 

replace fish barriers including any culverts or other artificial structures that 

would deter fish passage. 

 

Use standard enhancement techniques (riparian plantings, IPM techniques, 

placement of large woody debris, etc.) as appropriate to improve tributary 

channel conditions. 



Coordinate and partner with agencies and other partners to sustain and 

enhance the hydrological conditions needed to maintain a healthy habitat. 

Coordinate with other agencies to determine best control methods for reed 

canarygrass to use in tributary channel and implement control. 

Rationale: 

Tributaries within the Unit boundary where Unit ownership occurs include Waddell, Dempsey, and 

several smaller unnamed creeks. Prior to entering the Unit boundary, these creeks meander through 

agricultural and residential areas presenting a variety of issues and conservation challenges for 

maintaining a healthy watershed. Unit staff would seek to expand and build relationships to work 

with various agencies and landowners in an effort to improve the quality of this habitat influenced by 

off-Unit activities. The Unit would complete a WRIA prior to identifying priority enhancement 

opportunities that are essential for improving the health of the Black River Watershed (Objectives 1.1 

and 4.3). Implementing habitat management techniques such as riparian plantings, IPM techniques, 

and placement of large woody debris, as appropriate would benefit the watershed and fish and 

wildlife. 

Unit staff would increase invasive species control measures to treat 20 percent of tributary habitat 

annually on species such as yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife to benefit stream function and a 

variety of native wildlife, including some endemic and rare species such as Olympic mudminnow 

and Oregon spotted frog. Research and monitoring are vital to assess overall water flow, channel 

function, water quality, quantity, and wildlife and fish usage. (See Obj. 4.2 and 4.3.) Reed 

canarygrass is present within tributary channels and along the immediate edges. Reed canarygrass 

has severely altered the habitat in some places by impeding water flow and developing monotypic 

plant stands, thereby affecting its wildlife inhabitants. The Unit would work with other agencies to 

determine best methods to control reed canarygrass and other species in tributary channel habitat. 

(See Objective 3.1 and Goal 4.) See Objective 1.1 and Section 4.6 for the rationale for bullfrog 

control and treatment.

Maintaining and improving the quality of the tributary channel habitat supports the ecological health 

of the Black River Watershed and the greater Chehalis Watershed, supporting numerous species of 

aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, mammals, and birds.

Black River Unit Objective 1.3: Protect, maintain, and enhance bog habitat 

Protect, maintain, and enhance a minimum of 56 acres of unique and rare bog habitat that includes 

characteristic plant species and associated wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-51

Desired characteristics of bog habitat include: 

• Peat soils dominated by sphagnum or have sphagnum species growing on the soil surface 

• Soils are generally saturated year round, in some cases are seasonally flooded, yet are 

isolated from surface water flow 

• Low pH and low nutrient availability 

• Fed primarily by precipitation and are generally restricted to areas in which precipitation 

exceeds evapotranspiration

• Bog species may include sphagnum moss, Labrador tea, native cranberry, sundew, white 

beak-rush, cottongrass, western bog laurel, and lodgepole/shore pine, and Beller’s ground 

beetle, Hatch’s click beetle, or Queen Charlotte’s copper butterfly** 

• ≤ 5 percent cover of nonnative, invasive plants that threaten the native plant community**

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 5 years, partner with bog specialists to identify locations and map 

bog types. 

Within 5 years, conduct conduct survey to inventory plant and animal 

species composition, distribution, and relative abundance within the bog 

habitat. 



Within 8 years of completion of the CCP, complete a detailed WRIA by the 

Service. 

Coordinate and partner with appropriate agencies to evaluate hydrological 

conditions necessary to support this habitat. 

Upon completion of inventories, surveys, and the WRIA, develop a good 

understanding of hydrologic processes, abiotic and biotic processes and 

threats, and how to manage them to sustain this sensitive and rare habitat. 



Initiate appropriate habitat enhancement if a rare or declining species or 

habitat is found. 

If valid, develop an RNA proposal package, including habitat description, 

map, and rationale for Regional/National approval. 

Participate and partner with National Natural Areas Network information 

sessions by sharing research information. 

Evaluate potential for translocation of rare species as appropriate, including 

marsh sandwort and water howellia, implement recovery actions if 

warranted. 



Annually control invasive plants on a minimum of 30 percent of known bog 

habitat. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-52 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Work with partners and researchers to develop protocols for inventory, 

monitoring, and research within the bog habitats (see Goal 4). 

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or 

undesirable plant or animal species.



Rationale:

Bog habitats are unique in Washington State and are increasingly rare in the Puget Trough ecoregion. 

Only a fraction of western Washington’s original bogs remain undisturbed. Knowledge regarding the 

extent and type of bog habitat found within the Unit boundary is extremely limited. A partial 

assessment of Unit lands has identified over five types/classifications of bog habitats which may 

include Federal and State-listed species and species of concern. There are a variety of unique plant 

species which have been specially adapted to live in bogs; some found on the Unit include western 

Labrador tea, sphagnum moss species, sundew, bog cranberry, bog laurel, bog orchid, and bog birch. 

Other species are found in bogs and other habitats including shore pine, thin-leaf or gray alder, and 

cottongrass. A number of Federal and State-listed insect species specifically adapted to bogs may 

also inhabit the Unit. Directed inventories of the plant and animal species within the bog habitat are

necessary to assess habitat quality and the potential for establishing an RNA to advance scientific 

research, education, and protection. Additional inventories and research would also identify rare 

plant and animal species and assist in protecting this unique habitat (see Objectives 4.1 and 4.3). 

Additional inventory and research is necessary to identify rare plant and animal species and assist in 

protecting this unique habitat (see Objectives 4.1 and 4.3). Unit staff would expand partnerships to 

help conduct inventories, surveys, and research (see Objective 3.1). Bog research would begin by 

2016 to inventory and investigate the habitat condition, health, and stability (Objectives 4.1 and 4.3). 

A WRIA (Objective 1.1) would be necessary to understand the hydrological conditions and potential 

threats to the bog and other aquatic habitats. This inventory and assessment would assist the Unit

staff by identifying management options to monitor and improve habitat conditions. 

A thorough inventory of this complex habitat type is necessary prior to implementing an invasive 

species removal program. More information is needed regarding nonnative plant species within the 

bog habitat. Known invasive species, including holly and reed canarygrass, in this area would be 

controlled on approximately 30 percent of the bog habitat annually. 

By obtaining general plant and animal inventories, the Unit would gain the knowledge necessary to 

evaluate the special characteristics and diversity found in this bog habitat and the potential for 

establishing an RNA with the following characteristics: a rich and complex matrix of mixed conifer 

forests, bogs, shrub swamps, and spring upwellings which includes the headwaters of the Black 

River; is mostly undisturbed and in a natural state; contains rare and sensitive bog habitat; and rare 

and declining plants and animals are associated with the bog habitat (see Map 2). If designated as an 

RNA, the area would become part of a national network of ecosystems found in relatively pristine 

condition, managed primarily for their natural ecological processes, and would receive additional 

attention by potential partners and researchers focusing on research and education (see Objective 

3.3). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-53

The Unit may consider translocation of an endangered plant species to its historical range within bog 

habitat or other habitats that are appropriate. Translocation of any plant species would be part of a 

formal research program requiring planning and permits (see Objective 4.3). The Service policy for 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (601 FW 3) allows for the reintroduction 

of extirpated native flora and fauna back to their historic range.

Black River Unit Objective 1.4: Protect, maintain, and enhance the shrub swamp habitat

Protect, maintain, and enhance 512 acres of shrub swamp for migratory birds including marshbirds, 

Oregon spotted frog, Olympic mudminnow, and other native wildlife. 

Desired characteristics of shrub swamp include: 

• Semi-permanently to permanently flooded with water depths from <1 to 24 inches 

• During late summer months, ground has less surface moisture but retains root zone 

saturation 

• Poorly drained, fine-textured organic or muck soils 

• Associated with beaver dam-building activity 

• 20–50 percent canopy cover of shrubby native, deciduous trees (such as willows, ash, and 

Pacific crab apple; 15–30 feet high) with lichen and moss growth** 

• 50–100 percent canopy cover of native deciduous shrubs (such as red-osier dogwood, 

ninebark, and black twinberry 5–20 feet high)** 

• 10–20 percent coverage (patchy) of native, herbaceous understory plants (such as skunk 

cabbage, veronica, marsh speedwell, bur-weed, smartweed, and sedges)** 

• 20–50 percent patches of exposed soils** 

• Low to minimal levels of nonnative bullfrog populations that threaten natural food web 

processes** 

• < 20 percent coverage of nonnative, invasive plants that threaten native plant community 

processes 

• Reduce reed canarygrass (see Rationale in Objective 1.1)** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species. 

 

Annually control invasive plants on a minimum of 5 percent of shrub 

swamp habitat. 

Develop methods to select appropriate sample sites in shrub swamp 

habitat for inventory and assessment. Conduct the inventory and 

assessment.



Rationale: 

The Unit supports 512 acres of shrub swamp habitat interspersed with other habitats, such as 

emergent marshes, bogs, and riparian forests, supporting a wide variety of neotropical migratory 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-54 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

birds, wading birds, small mammals, and invertebrates. It is an essential habitat connecting other key 

habitat types, providing a buffer to the river channel, reducing the impacts of flooding, and providing 

food and cover for a diversity of resident and migratory birds including declining species and 

populations, endemic species such as Olympic mudminnow, rare species including the federally 

threatened Oregon spotted frog, Pacific clubtail dragonfly, bristly sedge, the federally endangered 

water howellia, as well as other wildlife. 

The shrub swamp habitat dominates the northern most portion of the Unit south of Black Lake, and 

along the river channel and adjacent floodplain south to 123rd Avenue. Identifying presence/absence 

of invasive species and implementing IPM treatment methods has been found to be extremely 

challenging due to the difficulty accessing and navigating through the habitat which has been 

described as an “impenetrable shrub thicket.” Reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife, 

possibly knotweed, and other nonnative, invasive, wetland-adapted plants most likely thrive in small, 

open patches. If left unchecked, they could negatively affect water flow, habitat function, and key 

wildlife habitats.

The Unit would expand control measures for invasive plants on a minimum of 5 percent shrub 

swamp annually. Newly identified, small sized infestations would be targeted for spot treatment to 

prevent them from spreading. IPM-approved methods would be utilized to control invasive plants 

(see Appendix H). 

See Objective 1.1 and Section 4.6 for the rationale for bullfrog control and treatment. 

Although not noted as a strategy for this specific habitat, completing a detailed WRIA on the river 

system would help identify resource threats and provide details regarding management and 

protection options. 

A complete inventory of the shrub swamp plant community is needed to understand if and how 

hydrological changes over time affect the bog and shrub swamp habitats (see Objective 4.1). 

Black River Unit Objective 1.5: Protect, maintain, and enhance the riparian forest

habitat 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 265 acres of riparian forest for migratory birds, amphibians, small 

mammals, and other native wildlife. 

Desired characteristics of a riparian forest include: 

• Slightly higher elevation than shrub swamp habitat 

• Soils are saturated part of the year 

• ≥ 75–95 percent cover from native deciduous, broadleaf trees of mixed age and species 

dominated by big leaf maple, western cottonwood, red alder, and Pacific willow** 

• Over time, previously logged-out Sitka spruce and western hemlock may grow in with 

natural succession in the absence of major disturbance 

• ≥ 50 percent native shrubs such as black twinberry, red osier-dogwood, snowberry, 

salmonberry, thimbleberry, salal, red and evergreen huckleberry, rose species, osoberry, 

and devil’s club** 

• ≥ 40 percent herbaceous understory such as skunk cabbage, inside-out flower, 

twinflower, wild ginger, trillium, vanilla leaf, false lily of the valley, stinging nettle, and 

lilies**
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-55

• Diverse lichen and moss growth on trees and shrubs** 

• Trees grow to become sufficient size to provide large woody debris to the river channel 

and floodplain 

• Individual trees of >12”diameter and 20+’ long or groups of trees become snags and 

downed logs. 

• ≤ 20 percent nonnative, invasive plants that threaten the native plant community** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control 

invasive or undesirable plant or animal species. 

 

Within 5 years of acquiring lands, reestablish or enhance altered riparian 

habitats where appropriate by planting native trees and shrubs. 

Manage a minimum of 20 percent of Unit riparian forest habitat annually 

to control invasive plants. 

Establish maintenance staff position for habitat enhancement, invasive 

species control, and other management activities. 

Rationale: 

Since the late 1800s, the vast majority of riparian habitat in Washington has been lost or extensively 

modified due to agricultural clearing, logging, construction, and channel alteration activities. Intact 

riparian forests provide cover and serve as important travel corridors for many wildlife species. 

Healthy riparian forests also support native fish populations by benefitting in-stream characteristics 

such as water temperature, water quality, water chemistry, cover, structural diversity from woody 

debris, and nutrients. 

The Unit currently supports 265 acres of riparian habitat for a diverse assemblage of native wildlife 

such as resident and migratory birds, cavity-nesting waterfowl, possibly great blue heron colonies, 

and red-legged frogs. Riparian forest habitat is naturally located within floodplain areas and serves as 

a natural floodwater storage area during high water events. 

Maintenance and enhancement of this habitat would contribute to function and health by improving 

the connectivity for wildlife that is dependent on riparian forests. Management would include 

evaluating, planting, and using established forestry management techniques to enhance a mix of 

early, mid-, and late successional riparian forest habitat. This habitat is vulnerable to invasive plant 

degradation and IPM-approved control methods would be utilized to control this and other invasive 

plants (see Appendix G). 

Establishment of a maintenance staff position is essential for conducting proposed habitat 

enhancement projects, nonnative invasive plant and animal control, and other daily management 

projects and activities in the Refuge Complex. This position would support Unit partnerships, visitor 

services facilities and programs, and habitat enhancement and maintenance projects to benefit

wildlife both on and off Unit lands. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-56 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Black River Unit Objective 1.6: Protect, maintain, and enhance emergent marsh habitat 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 34 acres of emergent marsh for amphibians such as Oregon spotted 

frog, migratory and marsh birds, and other wildlife. 

Desired characteristics of this freshwater emergent marsh include:

• Semi to permanently flooded lands with standing water between <2 to 25 inches deep. 

Deep water conditions occur between October and June 

• Provides a pathway for amphibians and fish to deeper water sites

• Located along the river and tributary edges, swales, oxbows, and land depressions that 

connect to other wetlands and deeper waters 

• Topography includes a mosaic of shallow depressions 

• Poorly drained soils (peat, muck, or mineral) 

• 15–35 percent soil exposure (no vegetation) 

• <20 percent moderately high-growing (>4+ feet high) native plants such as cattail, hard 

or soft stem bulrush, or slough sedge** 

• 30–70 percent cover of low-growing, native, emergent, hydrophilic vegetation and seedbearing plants such as water plantain, bur-reed, sedges, rushes, and creeping grasses** 

• Decaying large woody debris in the marsh brought in by high-water events

• Zero to minimal invasive bullfrogs to prey on Oregon spotted frog tadpoles, juveniles, or 

adults, other amphibians, or other native species**

• < 20 percent coverage of nonnative, invasive plants that threaten the native plant 

community processes 

• Reduce or manage reed canarygrass (see Rationale in Objective 1.1)** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Develop an array of appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods, including mechanical mowing, 

haying, selective hand-cutting and thatch removal, herbicides, herbivore 

grazing, prescribed fire, water control methods, or barrier cloth placement, 

that are minimally detrimental to rare or declining species populations such 

as Oregon spotted frog or water howellia (see Appendix G). 

 

Continue partnerships with other agencies to develop and implement reed 

canarygrass management in non-diked emergent marshes and enhance 

native and nonnative grassland habitats. 

 

Annually manage a minimum of 20 percent of emergent marsh habitat to 

control invasive plants and enhance habitat, especially for Oregon spotted 

frog. 

Move stranded Oregon spotted frog eggs into nearby water as appropriate.  
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-57

Rationale: 

The Refuge supports approximately 34 acres of emergent marsh habitat found in patches along the 

edge of the river and tributary channels. This important habitat is vital for providing Oregon spotted 

frog breeding and egg-laying locations. Thurston County's Oregon spotted frog population is the 

second largest in Washington State.

Emergent marsh habitat has perhaps the most reed canarygrass. Staff would expand IPM control 

measures on an additional 20 percent of the habitat specifically to benefit the rare and declining 

Oregon spotted frog. Unit staff would continue to work with partners and seek new partnerships to 

develop and implement new techniques for controlling reed canarygrass (see Appendix H). The Unit

would work with Natural Resources Conservation Service on Workforce Recruitment Program lands 

to reduce the negative impacts reed canarygrass causes to Oregon spotted frog and to improve habitat 

for Oregon spotted frog use. 

Unit staff would continue to monitor and manage all known Oregon spotted frog use sites and 

expand inventory areas on the Unit to identify oviposition and overwintering sites (see Goal 4). 

Promoting the survival of the Oregon spotted frog, staff would continue to relocate the few stranded 

egg masses laid each year to safer habitat as necessary. Enhanced inventories and surveys would be 

necessary to identify the presence of the federally listed plant, water howellia, which is suspected to 

occur on the Unit. 

See Objective 1.1 and Section 4.6 for the rationale for bullfrog control and treatment.

Black River Unit Objective 1.7: Manage and enhance seasonally flooded, nonnative 

grassland habitat 

Manage 82 acres of seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands for amphibians such as Oregon spotted 

frog, migratory and marsh birds, and other wildlife. 

Characteristics of these wet, nonnative grasslands include: 

• Dominated by combination of pasture grasses and reed canarygrass 

• Former farm-, crop-, or pasturelands 

• 0–25 percent remnant emergent marsh or shrub swamp species 

• Located along the river and tributary edges, swales, oxbows, and land depressions that 

connect to other wetlands and deeper waters 

• Annual high surface water conditions between November and May ranging from 5 inches 

to 4 feet of standing water depth, depending upon land elevation 

• Surface water levels drop throughout the summer resulting in dry, moist, or saturated 

soils in early fall 

• A portion of this habitat may be minimally appropriate for amphibian (including Oregon 

spotted frog) breeding and egg-laying conditions in late winter or early spring** 

• Connection to deeper water sites in early summer for frog or tadpole movement 

• Water conditions that may support rearing juvenile Oregon spotted frog in late spring and 

early summer** 

• Algal growth on the monoculture reed canarygrass vegetation provides some juvenile 

amphibian foraging opportunities 

• Zero to minimal levels of nonnative bull frog populations** 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-58 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

• Managed reed canarygrass 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Develop and implement an array of effective techniques (including IPM 

strategies) to contain, control, manage, or retard reed canarygrass in 

difficult-to-access conditions. Manage this habitat using a variety of tools 

such as mechanical, physical, biological, herbicide, or chemical methods, 

which include mowing, haying, selective hand-cutting and thatch removal, 

disking or tilling, fertilizing, herbicides, herbivore grazing, prescribed fire, 

water control methods, barrier cloth placement, and/or planting more 

appropriate plant species. 

0.75 

acres

Up to 25 

acres

Continue partnerships with other agencies to develop and implement reed 

canarygrass management in non-diked emergent marshes and seasonally 

flooded habitats. 

 

Use IPM methods to manage reed canarygrass growth and create low grass, 

moist soil conditions.  

Manage reed canarygrass on all known Oregon spotted frog breeding sites 

as needed to enhance egg-laying, larval, and juvenile frog development. 

Move stranded Oregon spotted frog eggs into nearby water as appropriate.  

Evaluate and enhance seasonally ponded areas and improve water 

management capabilities as needed through installation of water control 

structures, ditch or culvert removal, and improvements to water level 

management capabilities. 



Rationale: 

Historically, this seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland habitat was likely healthy emergent marsh 

habitat. However, over time, nonnative grasses used for agricultural purposes have dominated and 

changed the former emergent marsh habitats. The Unit manages approximately 82 acres of 

seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland habitat that supports a variety of species including Oregon 

spotted frog, migratory and marsh birds, and other wildlife. 

The Unit focus would be to implement and increase Oregon spotted frog management activities by 

improving breeding sites, enhancement of egg-laying areas, and expansion of juvenile frog-rearing 

habitat. 

Seasonally ponded areas would be evaluated and water management capabilities may be improved 

through the installation of water control structures and/or ditch or culvert removal in order to achieve 

appropriate water conditions for Oregon spotted frogs. Per WDFW (2013), the hydrological needs for 

Oregon spotted frogs are summarized thusly: 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-59

Watson et al. (2000) found that different life stages of Oregon spotted frogs had different 

hydrological needs that varied by season. For development of eggs and larvae, relatively 

stable water levels were needed during the breeding season. For survival of transformed 

frogs, deeper water pools were critical during the summer dry season. Adequate water levels 

over emergent vegetation were important for survival of all age classes during the wet season 

and coldest time of the year. A topographic gradient with overall gradual relief was vital for 

providing this mix of aquatic conditions and aquatic connectivity between areas used. 

Watson et al. (2003) stressed that the most important features for microhabitat use were water 

depth, flow characteristics (still water was used over flowing water) and a high degree of 

water surface exposure (i.e., 50–75% water) or conversely, a low to moderate degree of 

emergent vegetation (i.e., 25–50%). The predominant use of shallow water habitat by Oregon 

spotted frogs was illustrated by Watson et al. (1998, 2003), who found Oregon spotted frogs 

(n = 295 radio-telemetry locations) selected water depths of 10– 30 cm (~4–11.7 in.) with 

less emergent vegetation and more submergent vegetation than adjacent habitats. 

Nonnative grasses, such as reed canarygrass and other pasture grasses, have increased the habitat 

management challenges and made restoration efforts nearly impossible in some areas. To manage 

nonnative grasses and provide the best Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat requires an intensive 

management program that includes herbivore grazing and mowing of the nonnative grasslands. 

Unit staff would seek partnerships to develop effective IPM techniques to control and manage 

nonnative grasses such as reed canarygrass where feasible. 

Staff would continue to monitor Oregon spotted frog populations and evaluate habitat improvement 

projects (see Objective 4.1–4). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-60 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

watershed.

Black River Unit Objective 2.1: Protect, maintain, and enhance dry, nonnative grassland 

habitat 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 163 acres of dry, nonnative grassland for species that depend upon 

open, short, forbacious, upland grassland conditions such as migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Characteristics of nonnative grasslands include: 

• Well-drained soils in upland areas, may have been former croplands, pasturelands, or forests 

• ≥ 30-acre patches of low-growing vegetation

• Mosaic of vegetation heights between 6 and 36 inches

• Mix of desirable, palatable grasses such as native Roemer’s fescue, red fescue, California 

oatgrass, and nonnative grasses such as velvet and timothy** 

• Mix of native and nonnative forbs to benefit pollinators such as early blue violet, large leaf 

lupine, pearly everlasting, northwest cinquefoil, yarrow, aster, blue-eyed Mary, goldenrod, 

clovers, and alfalfa** 

• Contain a single or occasional patch of large growing, cavity-producing trees such as big leaf 

maple or Garry oak 

• Native shrubs form a border around the grasslands and provide transitional habitat for nesting 

cover and roosting habitat for birds and provide dispersal habitat for small mammals

• Minimal human disturbance to wildlife populations, especially during spring nesting season 

and winter use by elk and migratory birds 

• ≤5 percent cover of nonpalatable/invasive plants such as burdock, broom, teasel, thistle, or 

blackberries** 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, 

physical, biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to 

control invasive or undesirable plant or animal species. 

 

Maintain dry, nonnative grasslands in appropriate early successional 

stage, as open savannah-like habitats to benefit open, short-grasslandadapted species. Techniques may include mechanical mowing, haying, 

fertilizing, herbicides, herbivore grazing, prescribed fire, barrier cloth 

placement, invasive plant control, seeding, and/or planting native 

plants. 

163 

maintained 

acres

148 

maintained 

acres 

Achieve greater composition of native grasses and forbs by enhancing 

15 acres. Techniques may include mechanical mowing, haying, 

fertilizing, herbicides, herbivore grazing, prescribed fire, barrier cloth 

placement, invasive plant control, seeding. 

15 acres 

enhanced

Identify potential enhancement sites for native grasses and forbs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-61

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Plant 3–5 big leaf maples and/or Garry oaks where appropriate on 

approximately 50-acre blocks to provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds 

and enhance grassland habitat diversity to benefit appropriate species. 

Protect solitary or interspersed big leaf maple or Garry oak trees within 

nonnative grasslands by placing tree collars, fencing saplings, and 

similar habitat enhancement measures.



Hire permanent maintenance worker to conduct habitat management 

and enhancement in uplands and wetlands, invasive control work, and 

maintain posting and signing needed to protect Black River Unit

habitats. 



Rationale:

Historically, this habitat may have been grasslands maintained by Native American burning practices 

or possibly late successional forest habitat before the habitat was converted for agricultural purposes 

in the late 1800s. It is not classified as prairie because it lacks the appropriate soil types normally 

associated with prairie habitats in the Black River watershed. However, because so little native 

prairie remains in Thurston County, these grasslands, with some enhancement, can help support 

species that prefer larger, open spaces of short grass, flowering herbaceous plants, and an occasional 

large cavity-producing tree that provides perches and nesting cavities. Ideally a transition area of 

shrubs would provide an area of cover for animals utilizing both grasslands and woodlands. 

The Unit supports 163 acres of dry, nonnative grassland habitat, which consists of a mixture of 

mostly nonnative grasses, nonnative forbs, and shrubs that function to support a wide variety of birds 

and animals. 

The Unit would conduct active management on 148 acres of this nonnative grassland habitat by 

mowing, haying, and controlling invasive plants to maintain an early successional stage of open, 

savannah-like habitat. Grassland-oriented species, including resident and migratory birds such as 

western meadowlark, American kestrel, and owls; foraging herbivorous waterfowl such as geese and 

American wigeon; pollinators such as butterflies, moths, and hummingbirds; and wintering ungulates 

such as black-tailed deer, would benefit from early successional stage habitat.

The Unit would identify and enhance a minimum of 15 acres with native grass and native forb 

species to benefit native pollinators, other native insects, birds, and other native animals. 

Enhancement techniques to achieve the desired plant compositions may include mechanical mowing, 

haying, fertilizing, herbicides, herbivore grazing, prescribed fire, barrier cloth placement, invasive 

plant control, seeding, and/or planting native plants. IPM techniques would be utilized to control and 

monitor undesirable and nonpalatable plant species (see Appendix G). 

Unit staff would establish and protect a few big leaf maples and/or Garry oaks on approximately 50-

acre blocks to provide habitat for passerine and raptor perching, cavity-nesting birds such as owls, 

and bat roosting to enhance both habitat and wildlife diversity. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-62 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Black River Unit Objective 2.2: Protect, maintain, and enhance upland mixed forest 

habitat 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 394 acres of mixed forest for migratory birds, mammals, and other 

native wildlife.

Desired characteristics of a good quality mixed forest include: 

• Well-drained soils that are moist much of the year and dry for approximately 3–4 months 

• As stands mature, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, and big leaf 

maple dominate the canopy as early successional red alder becomes less dominant**

• Selected individual trees or groups of trees of >12”diameter and 20’ long become snags and 

logs and enhance diversity 

• Mid-story and understory development depend upon forest maturity, moisture, and light 

availability and may include yew, salal, salmonberry, osoberry, tall Oregon grape, beaked 

hazel, vine maple, red, evergreen, and black huckleberry, trailing blackberry, twinflower, 

inside-out flower, wild ginger, sorrel, Pacific bleeding heart, starflower, trillium, columbine, 

and bunchberry** 

• < 10 percent cover of invasive plants in the mid- and understory layers 

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Monitor and use appropriate IPM techniques, such as mechanical, physical, 

biological, and chemical methods (see Appendix G), to control invasive or 

undesirable plant or animal species.

 

Annually control or manage invasive species in a minimum of 20 percent

of mixed forest habitat. 

Evaluate and manage forests through various forest management practices 

(variable density stand thinning, etc.) to convert young stands into 

structurally diverse mature forests that include diverse mid- and understory 

development. 

5–10 

acres

Rationale: 

Mixed forest habitats are abundant throughout the southwest Washington region. This upland mixed 

forest habitat type is made up of a variety of deciduous and coniferous trees found in a mosaic of 

successional stages important for wildlife diversity. Most upland areas on the Unit are young forest 

stands recovering from logging and currently include a predominance of young Douglas-fir. No oldgrowth forest is located on Unit lands, and forests over 80 years are rare in this watershed. This 

younger age-class lacks the density of snags that are found in older forests. 

The Unit would encourage upland mixed forests to mature over time into old-growth forests that 

might eventually support rare species such as the marbled murrelet and Northern spotted owl. 

Linkage between conifer forests of Capital State Forest, Unit upland mixed forests, riparian forests, 

and swamps provide habitat corridors for wildlife to move as seasons dictate or food requirements 

change. Forest enhancement and linkage would benefit many species of wildlife associated with this 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-63

habitat type including many species of landbirds, both resident and migratory, many myotis bat 

species, as well as silver-haired and hoary bats, many small rodent species, including mountain 

beaver, Douglas and flying squirrels, Townsend’s chipmunk, and larger mammals such as elk, blacktailed deer, black bear, and mountain lion. 

Forest management would include a thorough evaluation of the Unit forests and overall forest health 

with the aid of partners such as USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Forest 

management practices (variable density stand thinning, etc.) would be implemented on a minimum of 

5–10 acres to transition young stands into structurally diverse forests that include multi-species midand understory development. 

To maintain the health and diversity of the habitat, Unit staff would manage invasive species, such as 

reed canarygrass, Scotch broom, and nonnative blackberry, on a minimum of 20 percent of mixed 

forest habitat (see Appendix H). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-64 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater Black 

River watershed and ecosystem. 

Black River Unit Objective 3.1: Develop and strengthen partnerships

The Unit would initiate, develop, and continue to strengthen existing partnerships with interested 

groups for the benefit of the long-term environmental health of native wildlife and their habitats. 

Partnership actions include: 

• Working with and involving local communities, Tribes, universities, landowners, NGOs, 

agencies, and other interested parties 

• Identifying the Service’s role in conservation efforts with the focus on partnerships that 

provide support for natural resources

• Utilizing existing and supporting new eco-regional plans and priorities

• Working with and assisting others in the recovery of threatened and endangered species**

• Working with others and assisting with management objectives, resource protection, and 

research**

• Working with others to control and manage nonnative plants and enhance habitats**

• Considering and participating in climate change initiatives and research**

**Attributes identified in current and/or proposed inventory, monitoring, and research activities

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Continue to work with partners such as the Thurston County Noxious 

Weed Control Board (TCNWCB) to continue coordinated control efforts 

and monitoring of invasive plant and animal species. 

 

Continue to participate and coordinate with the Washington and Oregon 

Spotted Frog Working Group partners to plan and implement recovery 

strategies both on- and off-Refuge. (Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 4.3.) 

 

Maintain and improve partnerships with natural resource agencies, Tribes, 

NGOs, and private companies involved in land management and 

restoration at Black River. 

 

Work with State, county, Tribes, and other partners to develop a plan 

(based on a completed WRIA) to ensure an appropriate water budget and 

delivery conditions (water quality and quantity) are sustained in the Black 

River and tributaries. (see Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7 ) 



Endorse and partner (where feasible) with public and private organizations, 

Tribes, and adjacent landowners to maintain and enhance connectivity of 

native plant communities and habitat quality on lands adjacent to the 

Refuge and other protected lands in the watershed. 



Partner with the TCNWCB and others to provide education and outreach 

opportunities, including with local landowners, on invasive plant control 

and the impacts of invasive plants to the habitat and methods of reducing 

and controlling infestations. 


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-65

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Partner to educate and encourage private landowners to maintain healthy 

habitats for fish, amphibians, and native wildlife. 

Coordinate with partners to develop and/or evaluate suitability of 

techniques to control populations and reproduction of invasive frogs and 

invertebrates. 



Partner with interested agencies to determine an array of effective 

techniques (including IPM strategies) available to contain, control, or 

manage reed canarygrass in difficult wetland conditions.



Work with partners to locate, protect, and conserve land within the 

watershed, especially priority habitats such as bogs and emergent marsh 

and rare and declining species. 



Endorse and partner (where feasible) with public and private agencies and 

adjacent landowners to maintain and enhance connectivity of native 

habitats, habitat quality, and native plant communities within the 

watershed.



Rationale: 

The approved Unit boundary includes only the northern portion of the Black River, and further 

acquisition is ongoing. The limited size of current ownership limits the Unit’s ability to provide 

landscape-level benefits, such as greater watershed protection and buffers for sensitive habitats and 

species. 

Achieving landscape-level habitat protection would require partnerships beyond the Unit boundary. 

Unit staff would work to develop new partnerships to provide the necessary habitat monitoring, 

protection, resources, and educational information to help maintain the Black River ecosystem in a 

healthy, sustainable condition. Conservation projects occurring near the Unit also strengthen habitat 

and wildlife protection inside the Unit boundaries. By developing and strengthening partnerships, 

conservation of the Black River watershed would be more effective by combining efforts and 

leveraging financial and technical resources from other entities (other governmental organizations, 

NGOs, Tribes, and private landowners). Whenever possible the Unit would seek to engage private 

landowners in voluntary conservation projects to enhance the health of wildlife habitat and protect 

water quality. Through an active role in local, State, Tribal, and Federal partnerships, Unit staff 

would work to improve and protect water quality and the ecological integrity of the Black River 

Watershed. 

Partnerships include the Chehalis Tribe, Capitol Land Trust, Port Blakely, Center for Natural Land 

Management, TCNWCB, Thurston County, Thurston Conservation District, Washington Department 

of Ecology, WDFW, WDNR, and the Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Conservation 

efforts would continue to focus on protecting and enhancing habitats locally by participating in 

various groups such as the Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Working Group, Chehalis River 

Cooperative Weed Management Working Group, and others to implement working-group strategies 

and goals shared by the Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-66 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) to support 

adaptive management decisions. 

Black River Unit Objective 4.1: Inventory 

Conduct scientific inventories to provide information regarding the status of Unit resources and better 

guide resource management decisions. These scientific inventories and surveys would contribute to 

the development of Unit resource objectives. They would also facilitate habitat restoration through 

selection of appropriate habitat management strategies based upon site-specific conditions. 

These inventory activities would have the following attributes: 

• Inventory habitats, species or species groups according to the Unit’s approved I&M Plan and 

associated protocols 

• Scale, accuracy, and completeness of inventories that would be appropriate for development 

and implementation of Unit habitat and wildlife management actions 

• Data collection techniques that would reduce animal mortality, disturbance, and habitat 

destruction 

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and use of quarantine methods, where 

necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and disease 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Develop a Unit I&M Plan within 3 years of CCP completion that provides 

the management rationale, timing, and costs for conducting Refuge 

surveys; lists the prioritized surveys; identifies the surveys selected for 

implementation; and documents the protocols that describe the survey 

objectives and methods. 

 

Implement the Black River Unit I&M Plan within 5 years on currently 

owned tracts and within 2 years of acquiring any new tracts; create a plan 

for appropriate habitat enhancement. 



Characterize all known Oregon spotted frog oviposition sites, including 

habitat, elevation, and hydrology, to provide a comparison for future 

monitoring. 



Inventory new areas and identify new oviposition locations for Oregon 

spotted frog (see Objective 1.2).  

As tributary and river channel habitat is acquired, assess each for key biotic 

and abiotic characteristics and potential enhancement needs (see Objectives 

1.1 and 1.2). 



Partner with appropriate science experts to find, classify, and map all bog 

sites on the Unit. (Objectives 1.3 and 3.3) 

Conduct inventory of terrestrial and wetland plants in existing and any 

newly acquired tracts to determine nonnative plant species presence, 

relative abundance, and determine the need for nonnative species control.


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-67

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Conduct submerged plant inventory to determine presence or absence of 

invasive species growing in the river and tributary channels.  

Conduct presence or absence inventories on nonnative animal populations 

and evaluate distribution and relative abundance in key habitats. 

Within 5 years of CCP completion, begin inventories for bullfrog 

concentrations and their egg-laying locations. Survey first at known 

Oregon spotted frog oviposition habitats.



Conduct inventories to gather data (presence/absence, habitat use, relative 

abundance) on wildlife species such as small mammals (e.g., rodents, bats), 

amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and pollinators. 



Rationale: 

An inventory is defined as a survey that estimates the presence, abundance, or distribution of species, 

habitats, ecological communities, or abiotic features at a particular time (701 FW 2). Inventories may 

also establish a beginning time-step (baseline) or reference information for subsequent monitoring. 

For example, a well-designed inventory may be repeated at a later time to assess the status and trends 

in the same location, which would then be considered monitoring. Inventories would provide 

fundamental information about biotic (e.g., vegetation data) as well as abiotic processes and 

conditions (e.g., water quality, water flow) that are necessary to ensure that implementation of onthe-ground resource management achieves the resource management objectives identified under 

Goals 1–3. 

Specifically for the Black River Unit, a Unit I&M Plan needs to be developed to document the 

surveys required to determine species status, assess habitat condition, detect changes in diverse fish, 

wildlife, and plant communities and physical resources including water, air, and soils and ecological 

processes. The I&M Plan would include information on the specific metrics required for supporting 

management decision-making and may include presence/absence, species composition, seasonal 

habitat use, spatial distribution, and/or population estimates. Field work to inventory biological status 

of current and newly acquired lands would take place on each of the habitats, especially in the bog 

habitat. 

Funds are currently prioritized to perform the most pressing projects on the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, leaving few resources and staff available to conduct Black River-specific 

baseline assessments. Partnering with other field biologists from natural resource agencies, NGOs, 

private lands, and using qualified volunteers would be instrumental in accomplishing these 

inventories.

Black River Unit Objective 4.2: Monitoring

Conduct high-priority monitoring activities that evaluate changes in the status of fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. The information gathered facilitates adaptive management actions for resource 

management and public use activities. Monitoring projects can take place annually or periodically 

depending on species, habitat, or management needs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-68 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Monitoring of wildlife and habitat contributes to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and 

management of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off Unit lands. Information gained can 

be used to evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under Goals 1–3. 

These monitoring and survey activities have the following attributes: 

• Projects would adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable

• Data collection techniques should have minimal animal mortality, disturbance, habitat 

destruction 

• Minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, 

vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements would be collected for identification 

and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and use of quarantine methods, where 

necessary, would minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and 

disease

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 3 years of CCP completion, develop a Unit I&M that provides the 

management rationale, timing, and costs for conducting Refuge surveys; 

lists the prioritized surveys; identifies the surveys selected for 

implementation; and documents the protocols that describe the survey 

objectives and methods.

 

Monitor and assess condition and availability of appropriate habitats for 

rare, declining, federally or State-listed, and priority species or species 

groups. 



Annually conduct Oregon spotted frog egg surveys to assess population 

status and habitat use (see Objective 1.6).  

Annually assess Oregon spotted frog oviposition site locations for habitat 

enhancement opportunities. 

Monitor to determine if Oregon spotted frog eggs develop successfully 

when laid on reed canarygrass leaf mats in deep water. 

Annually monitor the effects of habitat enhancement project success in 

Oregon spotted frog oviposition habitat using frog-egg-mass numbers and 

location (see Objective 1.6). 



Monitor the effectiveness of any bullfrog control methods to benefit 

Oregon spotted frog, other amphibians, small fish, birds, and invertebrates. 

Partner with other agencies or groups to periodically monitor the river and 

tributary channel(s) within Unit boundaries for water quality, quantity, flow 

rate, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, connectivity, and other 

parameters to benefit all native species and nearby wetland habitats.



Within 5 years, specifically establish a long-term bog habitat monitoring 

program to look at habitat condition, threats, and changes over time.


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-69

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Include monitoring of plant and animal species composition and density,

ground pH, nutrient levels, soils, hydrology, and incorporate the I&M Plan 

(see Objective 1.3).

Periodically monitor for potential biological integrity threats that may 

develop in habitats NOT targeted for enhancement to benefit species that 

use those habitats. 



Periodically monitor actively managed or enhanced habitats to assess 

response by key avian, mammalian, and other wildlife species to support 

adaptive management. 



Annually survey at least 0.5 miles of the river or tributaries for nonnative 

submersed plants in the channels (see Objectives 1.1 and 1.2). 

Survey, GPS, and map the invasive, nonnative reed canarygrass along the 

river channel and monitor changes over time (see Objective 1.1). 

Survey, GPS, and map locations of yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife, reed 

canarygrass, and other specific nonnative or invasive plant species 

threatening Unit wetlands. If plants are found, implement IPM control 

strategies (see Appendix G). 

 

Continue to partner with agencies to monitor effectiveness of various 

management techniques used to control, contain, or manage reed 

canarygrass to learn most efficient, useful, effective, and long-term 

methods for the benefit of Oregon spotted frog and other wildlife.

 

Periodically monitor nonnative animal control effort efficacy, if 

implemented, in specific wetland habitats and monitor wildlife response 

(presence/absence) to nonnative animal removal over time. 



Annually monitor all enhanced habitats for invasive plant regrowth and 

needed treatment.



Monitor results of Landscape Conservation Cooperative and other largescale and long-term monitoring and research efforts to assess resilience of 

refuge habitats to changing climate trends. 



Work with partners to monitor environmental factors that are climate 

change-related stressors (e.g., changes to hydrology, water temperature). 

Establish a biological technician position to focus on wildlife and habitat 

surveys and monitoring of trends and changes in plant and wildlife 

populations. 


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-70 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Rationale: 

Monitoring consists of repeated survey efforts intended to document changes over time (e.g., months 

to years) and space in select attributes of wildlife, plants, habitats, ecological communities, or abiotic 

resources. Two types of monitoring in the Service policy (701 FW 2) are: 

(1) Baseline monitoring. Monitoring that is not tied to specific predictions of how a natural 

resource will respond to management or environmental stressors, but instead is designed to 

document change over time of a natural resource. Examples include monitoring wildlife 

population trends, disease incidence, and climate change. 

(2) Monitoring to inform management. Monitoring to assess whether a natural resource is 

approaching or exceeding a known threshold, or if a resource is responding to a management 

action or system stressor in a specified manner. This type of monitoring involves defining the 

threshold values or expected response, then surveying to measure the response or a closely 

related indicator. Comparing monitoring results with these expected values may show a need 

for initiating, intensifying, or altering management actions. Results from this type of 

monitoring are used in an adaptive management context to improve management or evaluate 

progress toward achieving management objectives, as derived from the Refuge System 

mission and Refuge purposes. 

Periodic monitoring for rare and sensitive species, as well as key avian, mammalian, and/or other 

wildlife species would provide information on their status and habitat quality. Species response to 

habitat enhancements would need to be understood to adapt management techniques. As noted in 

Objective 4.1 and Chapter 4 the bog habitat and potential RNA may include a complex mosaic of 

habitats and species that are very sensitive to abiotic changes and require close monitoring. 

Working with partners to monitor Oregon spotted frog on Unit lands has been ongoing and with 

increased monitoring, would provide critical information on the frog populations, habitat usage, and 

habitat quality. Additionally, long-term monitoring of bullfrog presence/absence is important for 

continued Oregon spotted frog survivorship. Monitoring habitat manipulation efforts and results, 

especially to control reed canarygrass, would assist managers in learning and adapting techniques to 

further enhance habitats. Monitoring fish and wildlife response to habitat manipulations would help 

guide managers to support sound management decisions and provide higher quality habitat. 

Most wetland habitats in the Black River Unit are difficult and time consuming to physically access, 

and walking or paddling are challenging. Extensive field work is needed to survey and monitor 

habitats, fish and wildlife, rare and sensitive species, and specific responses of animals to 

management techniques. The current, single biologist for the three refuges in the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex would not be able to conduct all of the needed Black River Unit

monitoring activities, even with partner and volunteer assistance. Because of the work load, a new 

biological technician position is needed to help conduct habitat inventory and monitoring projects in 

the field, enter data, work with partners, and assist researchers. 

The Unit would partner with natural resource entities, specifically the North Pacific LCC, to address 

climate change and other biological stressors. As needed, objectives and strategies would be adjusted 

to assist in enhancing Unit resources’ resiliency to climate change, and to potentially manage for new 

species assemblages in the future. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-71

The Unit would monitor wildlife corridor analyses, research potential shifts in species distributions 

and/or timing of migration, vulnerability assessments, and other efforts, including those underway at 

a landscape scale, such as the North Pacific LCC. LCCs are formal science-management partnerships 

between the Service, other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities to 

address climate change and other biological stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs provide science 

support, biological planning, conservation design, research, and design of inventory and monitoring 

programs. As needed, objectives and strategies would be adjusted to assist in enhancing Unit

resources’ resiliency to climate change, and to potentially manage for new assemblages of species in 

the future. 

Black River Unit Objective 4.3: Research

Conduct high-priority scientific research projects that provide the best science for habitat and wildlife 

management on- and off-Unit. These research projects may identify cause-and-effect relationships, 

produce new knowledge, and last 1–3 years. Scientific findings gained through these projects would 

expand knowledge regarding life-history needs of species and species groups as well as identify or 

refine habitat and wildlife management actions. 

Research would also reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to Unit management 

actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource management objectives and 

facilitate adaptive management. 

These research projects would have the following attributes: 

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management 

• Data collection techniques would likely have minimal animal mortality, disturbance, and 

habitat destruction 

• Collect the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements for identification 

and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts

• Utilize proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species and 

disease

• Often result in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications or symposiums 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 5 years, set up research to investigate the status and long-term 

condition of known bog habitat, including general plant and related animal 

species composition, hydrological conditions and needs, and relative health 

and stability of this rare plant community.



Continue to participate in studies to develop an array of effective methods 

to contain, control, manage, or retard rank reed canarygrass in wet and 

wetland conditions and implement as methods are developed. 

 

Investigate effective IPM control techniques specifically for reed 

canarygrass that is invading river and tributary channels and apply to 0.25 

miles annually as effective, feasible techniques are developed. 


Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-72 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Within 7 years of CCP completion, develop effective techniques to reduce 

known populations of nonnative bullfrogs using IPM methods and 

implement and monitor where needed in key locations based on survey 

results.



Develop research projects with the help of qualified researchers to explore 

factors affecting priority wildlife species and their habitats, with the intent 

to increase our understanding and ability to manage these resources. 



Seek funding and support partnerships to conduct a hydrological modeling 

study of the entire Black River system to identify impairments, 

management needs, and identify feasible measures to improve water 

quality and flows for natural resource management and improvements in 

the watershed. 



Coordinate with partners to develop and/or evaluate suitability of 

techniques to control populations and reproduction of invasive frogs and/or 

invertebrates without negatively affecting salmonids, Olympia 

mudminnow, Oregon spotted frog, or rare or declining species in the Black 

River ecosystem. 



Examine ephemeral Oregon spotted frog habitats and connectivity to 

permanent water locations during the dry seasons, and determine the value 

and/or threats of artificially connecting isolated marshes. 



Conduct research to examine survivorship of Oregon spotted frog eggs, 

larvae, tadpole and juvenile frogs, habitat use, and investigate predation 

and other threats. 



Support partnerships to investigate Oregon spotted frog ecology and 

nonbreeding habitat use and needs to provide information to support habitat 

management and land protection decisions. 



Determine the threats and challenges to Oregon spotted frog that could be 

reduced through adaptive management. 

Rationale: 

Research projects on Unit lands would address a wide range of natural and cultural resources. 

Examples of research projects include habitat use and life-history requirements for specific 

species/species groups, practical methods for habitat management and enhancement, extent and 

severity of environmental degradation, including water loss or contamination, techniques to control 

or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated 

habitat/wildlife response, or modeling of wildlife populations. Projects may be species-specific, Unitspecific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the Unit to larger landscape (ecoregion, region, 

flyway, national, international) issues and trends. Like monitoring, results of research projects would 

expand the best available scientific information and potentially reduce uncertainties to promote 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-73

transparent decision-making processes for resource management on Unit lands. In combination with 

results of surveys, research would promote adaptive management on Unit lands. 

Specific research needs in the Black River Unit include developing and implementing more effective 

yet practical methods to control reed canarygrass without having the ability to control water levels. 

Special attention and study is needed to learn cost efficient, practical methods to control or reduce 

reed canarygrass density in all wetland habitats but especially in the river and tributary channels, 

while minimizing impacts to aquatic residents. One of the challenges of developing reed canarygrass 

management techniques for use in the river is the difficulty in accessing sites. 

Ensuring that enough high-quality water flows through the river and tributaries and provides an 

adequate hydrologic regime for the mosaic of associated wetlands is of utmost importance to the Unit

purpose and function. A WRIA of the Black River system is needed to identify impairments, 

management needs, and feasible measures to improve water quality and flows for natural resource 

management and improvements in the watershed. This information is vital to effectively managing 

the Unit. 

The Unit would monitor wildlife corridor analyses, research on potential shifts in species 

distributions and/or timing of migration, vulnerability assessments, and other efforts, including those 

underway at a landscape scale, such as the North Pacific LCC. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-74 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Goal 5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to experience a diversity of wildlife and 

habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Black River Unit’s natural 

resources and foster a connection with nature. 

Black River Unit Objective: 5.1 Welcome and Orientation 

Provide visitors with welcoming and orienting features, facilities, and experiences. These would be 

characterized as follows: 

• Refuge sign 

• Information kiosk 

• Orientation signs 

• Signs directing visitors to a parking area 

• Use of electronic and print media to reach and orient visitors 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Install a Unit sign at the vehicle pull-off area on the west side of Endicott 

Road when it is developed. 

Work with WDFW to provide Watchable Wildlife signs. 

Develop a brochure for the Unit. 

Provide electronic and print media with accurate information that is 

positively worded and available at the Unit kiosk and other local venues 

such as the Chamber of Commerce. 



Rationale: 

Customer service and first impressions are important to visitors feeling welcome and safe at national 

wildlife refuges. Visitors to the Black River Unit do not necessarily know they are on a unit of a 

national wildlife refuge and need welcome and orientation features that are easily found and well 

maintained. Materials should provide accurate, timely, and appropriate information on Unit facilities, 

programs, and experiences. These strategies would increase Unit visibility and promote visitor 

compliance with Unit regulations. 

Black River Unit Objective: 5.2 Provide high-quality wildlife observation and nature 

photography, interpretation and environmental education opportunities

Provide compatible wildlife observation and photography, interpretation and environmental 

education opportunities with the following characteristics: 

• Facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to a broad spectrum of the public

• Opportunities exist to view and photograph a diversity of wildlife in their natural habitat and 

setting

• Access is provided to several habitat types, but mainly the river habitat 

• Viewing opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational opportunities 

• Observation opportunities promote public understanding of the Unit’s resources and its role 

in managing and protecting those resources 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-75

• Observation occurs in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife 

• Observers have minimal conflict with other visitors or operation of the Unit

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Design and install a vehicle pull-off area with interpretive signs on west side 

of Endicott Road for wildlife viewing. The area could accommodate several 

parked cars and a pull-through for cars and buses to stop briefly for wildlife 

and habitat viewing.



Provide interpretive and regulatory signage at the vehicle pull-off area. 

Install a small viewing deck at the vehicle pull-off area for wildlife viewing. 

Design and install a small parking area on the east side of Endicott Road. 

Install a short trail to a viewing deck with views of the Black River and 

associated habitats at the parking area on the east side of Endicott Road. 

Interpretive panels would enhance the visitors experience and knowledge of 

the area’s natural resources.



Develop an interagency agreement or similar instrument with WDNR to 

allow cooperative management of public uses of the Black River channel. 

Upon establishment of the planned Thurston County Gate-Bellmore Trail, 

which would run along the eastern edge of the Unit, explore potential spur 

trails into the Unit to provide wildlife viewing opportunities. 



Explore opportunity for a cooperative agreement with Thurston County to 

facilitate improvements on the county right of way at 123rd Avenue 

including a boat launch, small parking area, and new kiosk and interpretive 

signs on the southeastern side of bridge. 



Look for opportunities to partner with business, agencies, and organizations 

that are providing environmental education to local students. 

Rationale: 

Compatible wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental programs receive 

priority consideration in planning and management on national wildlife refuges, secondary to the 

needs of fish and wildlife. Wildlife observation is the primary visitor activity at the Black River Unit. 

Wildlife observation and photography programs are designed to provide a diversity of high-quality 

viewing opportunities for visitors while minimizing disturbance to wildlife and habitats. These 

activities increase public understanding and appreciation for America’s natural resources and 

incorporate a message of stewardship and conservation. 

The Unit allows bird watching, wildlife observation, and recreational opportunities in habitats unique 

to the local area. The native habitats at the Unit, such as the river corridor and the associated uplands 

and wetlands, are most easily experienced by boat. Currently, the only place available for public boat 

launching is an undeveloped Thurston County right-of-way at 123rd Avenue. By making 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-76 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

improvements to this county land and adding a small parking area in the Unit-owned uplands 

adjacent to the ROW, visitors would have an improved place to launch boats. 

A small vehicle pull-off area and interpretive information are proposed to bring vehicles off Endicott 

Road to view wildlife and increase visitor safety. Trail connections with Thurston County would 

enhance both the County’s trail system and provide an avenue for Unit visitors to experience the 

habitats closely associated with the river. The Unit would be open to the public from sunrise to 

sunset. Areas not specifically open would be closed to protect wildlife and habitat from disturbance. 

Goal 6. Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach.

Black River Unit Objective: 6.1 Develop and promote a Unit volunteer program 

Develop, support, and maintain a volunteer program associated with the Unit with the following 

attributes:

• Provide effective training and program management

• Support and complement the Service mission and current initiatives

• Increase visibility and foster conservation

• Support a variety of Unit programs/activities and increase their effectiveness

• Encourage community involvement and strengthen relationships

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Identify areas where volunteers could work in support of Unit programs 

and management objectives. 

Publicize volunteer opportunities to recruit new volunteers from the local 

community. 

Look for ways to partner with other organizations to provide volunteers. 

Maintain an up-to-date “Volunteer Training Manual.” 

Provide a training course for volunteers on the Service, Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge and the Black River Unit history, 

management, and natural resources; the specifics of the Unit volunteer 

program and volunteer opportunities; and the specifics of volunteer duties. 



Recruit and train volunteers who would work with a variety of Unit

programs. 



Recruit and train volunteers from the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex to help with a variety of Unit activities. 

Provide volunteers with annual recognition. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-77

Rationale: 

Volunteers provide a very important and needed service on national wildlife refuges. Successful 

volunteer programs are recognized as a key component of the successful management of public lands 

and are vital to implementation of refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of 

declining budgets. 

Unit volunteers would be recruited from the local area as well as from the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex volunteer program. New volunteers would participate in the volunteer 

training course provided at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge and be given the necessary 

information to perform the required tasks. Volunteer projects could include: 1) weed warriors who 

help to identify and control invasive plants; 2) wildlife surveys and monitoring; and 3) education and 

outreach. 

Volunteers would play an important role as the Unit continues to acquire lands, increase habitat 

enhancement and management programs, and assist with visitor services programs to the public. In 

addition to providing assistance with programs and helping the Unit meets its mission, volunteers are 

outreach ambassadors in the community. They spread the word message about the Unit throughout 

the community where they live.

Black River Unit Objective: 6.2 Support and encourage partnerships to support visitor 

services programs 

Support and encourage partnerships with the following attributes: 

• Partners support the mission of the Unit and Refuge System 

• Working together with Unit staff, partners would be advocates for the Unit in helping secure 

resources and funding for programs and facilities 

• Partners would provide needed volunteer support to Unit programs 

• Partners may be a part of a network of Friends Groups across the county supporting and 

advocating for the National Wildlife Refuge System

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: Alt 1 Alt 2

Identify local community groups, businesses, and organizations that could 

help support the Unit’s visitor services program and facilities development. 

Work with local partners to develop public programs. 

Explore ways to work with the Chehalis Basin Partnership and other 

partners to provide education and outreach to local communities. 

Rationale: 

National wildlife refuges have developed extensive and sophisticated partnerships and Friends 

Groups in order to carry out the mission of the Refuge System. Partners provide support in a variety 

of ways at the local, regional, and national levels. Partnerships and Friends Groups provide a way for 

citizens to be involved in and work to enhance and improve the resources that refuges are mandated 

to protect. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-78 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

As the Unit continues to acquire land, improve and enlarge habitat management programs, and open 

areas and activities to the public, the need for partner support of the visitor services programs would 

grow. Partners could provide financial or technical support as well as on-the-ground program 

support. These invaluable contributions by partners would play an important role in the success and 

growth of the Unit’s visitor services programs. 

Support at the local level would be important for the development of visitor facilities and programs. 

Working with a variety of partners would enable the Unit to reach new audiences and to stay active 

and visible in the local community.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives 2-79

2.5 References 

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

Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic 

Resources Division and Puget Sound Program. Lacey, WA. 

American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2010. Global IBA Selection Criteria. Retrieved from 

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/domestic/iba/selection_criteria.html. 

Recht, F. 1998. Estuarine Loss in West Coast Estuaries. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Retrieved from ftp://ftp.streamnet.org/pub/fishfacts/pdf/estalt-west.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Management and Development Plan Grays Harbor 

National Wildlife Refuge, Hoquiam, Washington, February 1990, prepared by Grays Harbor Refuge 

Planning Team, USFWS. 54 pp. + appendices. 

USFWS. 2004. Final Nestucca oil spill revised restoration plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lacey, WA. 42 pp. Retrieved from 

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/orda_docs/Assets/UploadedFiles/CaseDocuments/Restoraton_Docs/plans/

WA_barge_Nestucca_RP_10-04.pdf. 

USFWS. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 32 pp. 

USFWS. 2011. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges and the next generation. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 93 pp. 

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, D.J. Pierce and A. Alvarado. 1998. Movements, habitat selection, 

and population characteristics of a remnant population of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in 

Thurston County, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, D.J. Pierce and A. Alvarado. 2000. Ecology of a remnant population 

of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington. Unpublished final report, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 78 pp. + appendices. 

Watson, J. W., K. R. McAllister, and D. J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat 

selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292–300. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. Draft State of Washington Oregon 

spotted frog recovery plan. 93 pp. + appendices. Retrieved from 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01505/wdfw01505.pdf. 

Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). 2009. Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.whsrn.org/western-hemisphere-shorebirdreserve-network. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

2-80 Chapter 2. Management Alternatives
Chapter 3

Physical Environment

USFWS

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Introduction 

3.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Grays Harbor lies midway along the Washington coast about 60 miles west of Olympia and 45 miles 

north of the mouth of the Columbia River in Washington State (Map 1). Grays Harbor Refuge is 

located in the northeast corner of Grays Harbor estuary in Grays Harbor County. It encompasses 

Bowerman Basin and consists of 1,471 acres of estuarine open water, intertidal mudflats, salt marsh, 

and uplands. The Refuge is bordered by industrial development on the east and south, with State 

Route 109 and a steep upland slope to the north and open estuary water to the west. Approximately 

32 miles inland from the mouth of Grays Harbor, the Chehalis River empties into the estuary. Other 

major tributaries that empty into Grays Harbor include the Humptulips River in North Bay, the 

Hoquiam and Wishkah Rivers near Hoquiam and Aberdeen, and the Elk and Johns Rivers in South 

Bay. 

3.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Black River Unit is located 7 miles southwest of Olympia in Thurston County (Map 1). The Unit 

boundary begins at the south end of Black Lake at river mile 25. It extends south on either side of the 

river approximately 7.5 miles to river mile 17.5, just south of 123rd Avenue. The Unit’s acquisition 

boundary is 3,873 acres, and 1,566 acres have been acquired. Much of the Unit lies within the Black 

Lake, Dempsey Creek, and Black River sub-basin drainages of the Chehalis River. In spite of rapidly 

growing development nearby, the Unit has retained an isolated and wild character. 

3.2 Climate 

3.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Grays Harbor has a maritime climate of cool, wet winters and cool, dry summers. Weather patterns 

are primarily influenced by the Pacific Ocean. Weather parameters representative of the Refuge are 

measured daily at the Hoquiam/Bowerman Airport adjacent to the Refuge. 

The mean annual air temperature between 1953 and 2012 in areas surrounding Grays Harbor was 

50.9 °Fahrenheit (°F) (WRCC 2015a). The average temperature difference between day and night is 

14 °F during the summer months and 10 °F in the winter. Monthly average air temperatures between 

1953 and 2012 can be seen in Table 3-1. 

The average annual precipitation for the Hoquiam area from 1953 to 2012 was 69.42 inches and 

occurred mostly as rain in the winter months (WRCC 2015b). The wettest months are generally

November through February. Low temperatures generally range between 20 and 30 °F November 

through February. During the winter, rainfall is usually of light to moderate intensity and continuous 

over a long period of time rather than heavy downpours for brief periods. Gray, cloudy days are the 

norm during the rainy season. Rain can occur any month but is more likely in September and May. 

The driest months of the year are June, July, and August. Highest temperatures can range in the 90s 

and can occur from June through September. Two to four weeks may pass with only a few showers 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

during the summer months. Fog and drizzle may occur year-round, but during the summer months 

fog often moves in along Washington's coast (GHEMPTF 1987). 

Table 3-1. Hoquiam/Bowerman: Air Temperature and Precipitation Summaries, 1953–2012 

(WRCC 2015a, 2015b). 

Month 

Average

Temperature

(Fahrenheit)

Total

Precipitation 

(Inches)

January 41.9 10.37

February 43.8 7.66

March 45.5 7.56

April 48.5 4.94

May 53.1 3.18

June 57.0 2.21

July 60.1 1.18

August 60.8 1.53

September 59.2 2.97

October 52.8 6.54

November 46.1 10.71

December 42.1 10.59

Annual 50.9 69.42

Storms are unusual in summer, but thunderstorms with occasional hail can occur. Winter storms are 

common and often generate high winds with large amounts of rain. Snowfall occurs almost yearly 

with an average of 4.8 inches annually in Hoquiam area. Onshore westerly winds from the Pacific 

Ocean are predominant year round. The prevailing wind direction in summer is from the northwest; 

in winter, however, southwesterly winds move air towards the Olympic Mountains, which act as a 

barrier that affects precipitation and weather conditions. Drier easterly and southeasterly winds are 

uncommon, but occur periodically each year and are often strong. 

Severe storms often hit Washington's coast during the winter, bringing heavy rains, strong winds, and 

high waves. Storms can generate 70 to 100 inches of rain per year. Coastal storm winds regularly 

exceed 40 miles per hour (mph). The average annual peak speed of 55 mph can topple chimneys, 

utility lines, and trees (WDOE 2011). 

The larger storms are considered mid-latitude cyclones and can match a Category 3 hurricane in both 

minimum central pressures and sustained wind speeds (Read 2015). As a strong winter storm system 

from the southwest approaches the Washington coast, winds created from air pressure differences in 

the Cascade and Olympic Mountains accelerate as the storm approaches. 

A number of severe storms have hit the Pacific Northwest coast in recent years. On March 3, 1999, a 

coastal storm hit the Grays Harbor area with a storm surge of 4.6 feet and 49.7-mph winds, causing 

widespread coastal flooding, especially in nearby Ocean Shores on the western edge of Grays Harbor 

estuary. Wave heights exceeded 29.5 feet for over 5 hours, peaking at 34.8 feet (Read 2015, Sistek 

2006). Wind Storm 2006 brought sustained coastal winds of 40 mph which generated high coastal 

swells augmented by high tides and considerable inland flooding. The Great Coastal Gale of 2007 

brought hurricane force winds gusting to 81 mph and heavy rain for 24 hours to the Grays Harbor 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

area. With every major road out of Aberdeen blocked by fallen trees or mudslides, the storm caused 

extensive damage throughout the county (Kliem and Holden 2011). 

Grays Harbor County has had six declared disasters since 2005 that included severe storms. Usually 

the storms are county-wide in extent with heavy wind, snow, rain, and ice, and they nearly always 

coincide with flood events. There is a 40 percent chance that one severe winter storm event with the 

potential of causing damage will take place every 2 years (Grays Harbor County 2010). 

The causes of flooding in Grays Harbor County are a combination of climate, topography, and land 

use changes in flood-prone areas. Precipitation typically falls as rain, with virtually no snow fall. 

Rainwater quickly runs down out of the surrounding hills and floods the low-lying lands. River and 

coastal flooding are the two dominant types of flood events. These types of flooding usually happen 

simultaneously. For example, rivers in flood stage that flow out into the Grays Harbor estuary 

experience incoming tidal flooding as well. Both types of flooding can influence each other during 

natural disaster events. Smaller, more localized flood events in the county result from intense rainfall 

within a short period, saturated soils, high water tables, and heavy surface runoff. Land use changes, 

such as excessive historic logging within watersheds, likely affected natural runoff patterns into the 

estuary (Kliem and Holden 2011). Flooding in the local area has been problematic since recordkeeping began in the 1900s and has continued to increase in frequency, duration, and severity. Since 

1960 there have been 17 Federal disaster declarations related to flooding. 

3.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Oceanic influence from the Pacific Ocean to the west and Puget Sound to the north buffers 

temperature extremes in the Black River drainage, while the Cascade Mountains to the east protect 

this watershed from continental air masses. This results in a mild, modified maritime climate with 

long growing seasons. Prevailing airflow from the ocean greatly modifies the colder winter 

temperatures and the heat of summer in the area. 

Weather parameters representative of the Unit are measured daily at the Olympia Airport, 

approximately 7 air miles northeast of the Unit. The average annual air temperature between 1948 

and 2012 in areas surrounding Olympia was 49.9 °F (WRCC 2015c). Monthly average air 

temperatures between 1948 and 2012 are identified in Table 3-2. Daily maximum temperatures in 

nearby Olympia are usually between 70 and 80 °F during summer, while average daily minimum 

temperatures in winter are near freezing. The July mean high temperature is 77.14 °F and the January 

mean low temperature is 31.77 °F (WRCC 2015d, 2015e). Area temperatures over 90 °F occur only 

about 6 days a year and temperatures over 100 °F rarely occur during summer months. Freezing 

temperatures occur about 83 days/nights a year in the valleys and the average frost-free period is 150 

to 210 days. Higher points in the nearby Black Hills have moderately severe winters. 

Thurston County has well-defined seasons, and seasonal changes are gradual. The average annual 

precipitation for the Olympia area from 1953 to 2012 was 50.82 inches and occurred mostly as rain 

during the winter months (WRCC 2015f). Average annual rainfall of 110 inches along the western 

county border decreases to 38 inches in the southeastern portion of the county. Olympia averages 

52.3 inches per year, but the nearby Black Hills, which drain into Black River, receive considerably 

higher amounts (CRC 1992). Precipitation is heaviest during late fall (28 percent of yearly average) 

and winter (46 percent of yearly average) causing many lowlands, including the Black River area, to

flood. Approximately 20 percent of the rain falls in spring, and only 6 percent in summer, thus 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

summers are fairly dry, averaging only 3 inches of rain. The area can expect an average of 73 clear 

days, 72 partly cloudy days, and 220 cloudy days a year. 

Table 3-2. Olympia Area: Air Temperature and Precipitation Summaries, 1948–2012 (WRCC 

2015c, 2015f). 

Month 

Average

Temperature

(Fahrenheit)

Total

Precipitation 

(Inches)

January 38.2 8.02

February 40.7 5.63

March 43.5 5.24

April 47.7 3.33

May 53.6 2.10

June 58.7 1.57

July 63.3 0.72

August 63.3 1.12

September 58.5 2.02

October 50.1 4.70

November 43.0 8.24

December 38.7 8.12

Annual 49.9 50.82

3.2.3 Climate Cycles in the Pacific Northwest

Two climate cycles have major influences on the climate and hydrologic cycles in the Pacific 

Northwest: the shorter-term El Niño/La Niña/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, and the longerterm Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) epochs (CIG 2012a). In El Niño years, average sea surface 

temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean are warmer than average, with 

weakened easterly trade winds in the tropical Pacific. La Niña years are characterized by the 

opposite—cooler than average sea surface temperatures and stronger than average easterly trade 

winds. These changes in wind and ocean circulation have global impacts on weather events. ENSO 

influence on Pacific Northwest climate is strongest from October to March. During an El Niño event, 

the winters tend to be warmer and drier than average. La Niña winters tend to be cooler and wetter 

than average. Each ENSO phase typically lasts 6–18 months, with phases reoccurring every 2–7 

years (CIG 2012a). 

Like ENSO, PDO is characterized by changes in sea surface temperature, sea level atmospheric 

pressure, and wind patterns (CIG 2012a). PDO is described as having two phases: warm and cool. 

During a warm phase, sea surface temperatures near the equator and along the western coast of North 

America are warmer, while in the central north Pacific they are cooler. During a cool phase, the 

patterns are opposite. Within the Pacific Northwest, warm phase PDO winters tend to be warmer and 

drier than average whereas cool phase PDO winters tend to be cooler and wetter than average. A 

single warm or cool PDO phase may last 20–30 years. 

The potential for temperature and precipitation extremes increases when ENSO and PDO are in the 

same phases and thereby reinforce each other. When ENSO and PDO are in opposite phases, their 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

opposing effects on temperature and precipitation can cancel each other out, but not in all cases and 

not always in the same direction (CIG 2012a). 

3.2.4 Climate Change

As guided by DOI Secretarial Order 3226 (Secretary of the Interior 2009) and the Service’s Climate 

Change Strategic Plan (USFWS 2010), the Service considers and analyzes climate change in its 

decisions, long-range plans, and other activities. 

The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions 

(e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind) over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such 

measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a). The term “climate 

change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., 

temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 

whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a). 

Climate-related concerns are generally focused on potential anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere 

that have altered Earth’s “greenhouse effect” (NOAA 2012a). The greenhouse effect is a natural 

phenomenon that assists in regulating and warming Earth’s temperature. Greenhouse gases (GHG) in 

the atmosphere—primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide —absorb 

and emit infrared radiation from sunlight, ultimately trapping heat at the Earth’s surface. 

Concentrations of GHGs, especially CO2, are strongly correlated with global temperatures. 

Trends and projections related to climate change are discussed in this section, and potential effects to 

the Refuge and the Unit are considered in Chapter 6. 

Historical Trends in GHGs, Air Temperature, Precipitation, Snowpack, and Streamflow

Empirical evidence indicates that Earth’s global climate has been changing rapidly during the 20th

and early 21st centuries, with substantial evidence that the magnitude of climate alterations has been 

amplified by human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007, NAS 

2008, USGCRP 2009). Well-documented climate variations have occurred throughout Earth’s 

history (NOAA 2012b), but the current warming trend differs from geologically earlier climate shifts 

in two ways. First, recent climate changes appear to be driven primarily by human activities that have 

generated greater concentrations of atmospheric GHGs. Second, atmospheric CO2 (and other GHGs) 

concentrations are at their greatest levels than at any time during the last 800,000 years and are 

increasing at unprecedented rates (Lüthi et al. 2008). Prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution 

around 1750, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm). Current 

global levels are ~392 ppm and are increasing at a rate of ~2 ppm/yr (Department of Energy 2012, 

NOAA 2012c). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Figure 3-1. Global annual average 

temperature and CO2 concentrations, 

1880–2008. Source: USGCRP (2009). 

Empirical climate measurements support an 

accelerating change in global CO2 concentrations and 

temperatures since the 1950s (Figure 3-1). Increased 

frequencies in extreme regional precipitation and 

wind events also have occurred (IPCC 2007b, 

Solomon et al. 2007, USGCRP 2009). These recent 

changes “very likely” have resulted from humangenerated increases in GHGs, especially CO2

emissions from burning fossil fuels (IPCC 2007c, 

Solomon et al. 2007). Huber and Knutti (2011) 

concluded that ~75 percent of global temperature 

increases since 1950 were caused by human 

activities. 

In the Pacific Northwest, increased GHGs and 

warmer temperatures have resulted in a number of 

physical and chemical impacts. These include 

changes in snowpack, streamflow timing and 

volume, flooding, landslides, sea levels, ocean 

temperatures and acidity, and disturbance regimes 

such as wildfire, insects, and disease outbreaks 

(USGCRP 2009:135–138). Climate shifts also may 

exacerbate the frequency, magnitude, and intensity of 

extreme weather events, such as winter storms 

(Dominguez et al. 2012) and ocean wave heights 

(Ruggiero et al. 2010); both have been reported for 

the Pacific Northwest since the 1970s and are 

projected to intensify during the 21st century. 

Climate observations have indicated many changes to Pacific Northwest temperature, precipitation, 

snowpack, and streamflow during the 20th century (CIG 2012c). On average, the region warmed 

about 1.5 °F; warming was greatest west of the Cascades during winter and spring (Figure 3-2). 

Trends in precipitation suggest moderate increases west of the Cascades (Figure 3-3); the largest 

relative increases occurred in eastern Washington and southern British Columbia, mainly during 

spring. Interestingly, one of the few recording stations where minor precipitation decreases were 

measured was at Aberdeen, Washington, just east of Grays Harbor Refuge. 

Changes in air temperature, especially during winter months, have affected the quantity of mountain 

snowpack throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as the timing of spring snowmelt. For the 

Washington Cascades, Mote et al. (2008) reported that spring snowpack declined 15–35 percent from 

the mid-20th century to 2006 (also see Figure 3-4); similarly, Casola et al. (2009) reported 8–16 

percent declines during 1977–2006. The volume and timing of streamflows throughout the region 

have also changed; Stewart et al. (2005) reported that spring snowmelt timing was 5–20 days earlier 

at many Pacific Northwest sites compared with 1948 measurements (Figure 3-4). However, the 

streams within the coastal Washington region (including the Chehalis River) are primarily raindominated, and so are less influenced by snowpack and snowmelt (Mantua et al. 2010). In this area, 

changes in precipitation would have a greater effect on streamflow and flood timing (Hamlet et al. 

2007). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

Figure 3-2. Average annual temperature 

trends (1920–2000) in the Pacific 

Northwest. Increases (decreases) are 

indicated with red (blue) dots. The size 

of the dot corresponds to the magnitude 

of change (CIG 2012c).

Figure 3-3. Average annual precipitation 

trends (1920–2000) in the Pacific 

Northwest. Increases (decreases) are 

indicated with blue (red) dots. The size of 

the dot corresponds to the magnitude of 

change (CIG 2012c)

Figure 3-4. Changes in Pacific Northwest snowpack and streamflow runoff timing . (Left) 

Relative trend in April 1st snowpack (snow water equivalent) during 1950–2000 (CIG 

2012c). (Right) Observed changes in timing of snowmelt runoff (center of mass flow) during 

1948–2000 (Stewart et al. [2005:Figure 2]). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

For the local Grays Harbor area, we assessed temperature and precipitation trends during 1895–2011 

and 1981–2011 using Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM; Daly 

et al. 2002, Daly et al. 2008, PRISM Climate Group 2012) datasets generated by the PRISM Climate 

Group at Oregon State University. PRISM provides complete, monthly, 1895-to-present temperature 

and precipitation data at 4-km resolution for any point within the entire conterminous United States. 

The PRISM method interpolates between point data from thousands of weather stations using a 

digital elevation model and many other geographic data sets. The gridded estimates account for 

spatial variations in climate caused by elevation, terrain orientation, effectiveness of terrain as a 

barrier to flow, coastal proximity, moisture availability, atmospheric inversions, and topographic 

position (valley, mid-slope, ridge). Missing data from individual weather stations were estimated 

using a weighted average of values from highly correlated neighboring stations. We calculated 

annual (January–December) precipitation totals and mean temperatures (maximum, mean, and 

minimum) from the monthly PRISM data. 

Air temperatures tended to increase at Grays Harbor Refuge during 1895–2011 (Figure 3-5). Based 

on best-fitting linear regressions, overall maximum, mean, and minimum temperatures have 

increased 1.27, 1.73, and 2.07 °F, respectively, during that 110-year period; the strongest trend was 

for minimum temperatures. However, the regressions accounted for only 1–25 percent of the 

variation in temperatures, suggesting that other dynamical factors affect our ability to detect any 

long-term trends in air temperature at the Refuge. During the most-recent 30-yr period (1981–2011) 

there were minor decreasing trends in all three temperature metrics (Figure 3-5), but these linear 

trends again accounted for <12 percent of the annual temperature variations. 

Annual precipitation at Grays Harbor Refuge tended to decrease during 1895–2011 (Figure 3-6); 

regression analysis suggested that total annual precipitation declined 3.8 in (5.2 percent) during that 

110-year period. But as with air temperatures, the linear regression model for precipitation fit the 

annual data poorly (R2 = 0.01). The 1981–2011 precipitation trend was similar to the longer-term 

results (Figure 3-6). 

Air temperatures tended to increase at the Black River Unit during 1895–2011 (Figure 3-7). Based on 

best-fitting linear regressions, overall maximum, mean, and minimum temperatures have increased 

0.70, 1.28, and 1.97 °F, respectively, during that 110-year period; the strongest trend was for 

minimum temperatures. However, the regressions accounted for only 2–26 percent of the variation in 

temperatures, suggesting that other dynamical factors affect our ability to detect any long-term trends 

in air temperature at the Black River Unit. During the most recent 30-year period (1981–2011) there 

were minor, increasing trends for mean and minimum temperatures, and a minor, decreasing trend 

for maximum temperatures (Figure 3-7), although these linear trends again accounted for <25 percent

of the annual temperature variations. 

Annual precipitation at the Black River Unit tended to increase during 1895–2011 (Figure 3-8), 

although the regression analysis suggested that total annual precipitation increased only 0.93 in/yr 

(1.8 percent) during that 110-yr period. But as with air temperatures, the linear regression model fit 

the annual data poorly (R2

 = 0.00). The 1981–2011 precipitation trend suggested a minor decrease in 

annual precipitation, but the regression fit was poor (R2

 = 0.01) (Figure 3-8). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

Figure 3-5. Annual mean, minimum, and maximum air temperatures for Grays Harbor 

NWR during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression lines and text). Annual 

temperatures are the means of the 12 monthly values (January through December). 

Source of monthly data: PRISM Climate Group (2012). 

Figure 3-6. Annual precipitation (January through December) totals for Grays Harbor 

NWR during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression line and text). Source of monthly 

data: PRISM Climate Group (2012). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

 

Figure 3-7. Annual mean, minimum, and maximum air temperatures for the Black River 

Unit, Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR, during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression 

lines and text). Annual temperatures are the means of the 12 monthly values (January 

through December). Source of monthly data: PRISM Climate Group (2012). 

Figure 3-8. Annual precipitation (January through December) totals for the Black River 

Unit, Nisqually NWR, during 1895–2011 and 1981–2011 (red regression line and text). 

Source of monthly data: PRISM Climate Group (2012).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11

Future Climate Projections

Average global surface air temperature is projected to increase 3.2–7.2 °F by 2100 (~0.36 

°F/decade), depending on the emissions scenario used (IPCC 2000), i.e., depending on the ultimate 

concentrations of GHG emissions released into the atmosphere. Interim projections for the six IPCC 

“marker scenarios” (B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1FI) suggest temperature increases of 1.1–1.2 °F 

by 2030, 2.3–3.1 °F by 2065, and 3.2–5.6 °F by 2100 (IPCC 2007c, and see CIG 2012c:Table 2). 

Precipitation projections are less certain, with overall annual precipitation generally expected to 

remain within the range of natural variability (Solomon et al. 2007); exceptions are for increased 

precipitation at high latitudes and decreased precipitation in the subtropics. Projected precipitation 

changes over the next century are small compared to the interannual and decadal variability observed 

during the 20th century (Meehl et al. 2007).

Regional temperature projections are similar to the global projections. Based on a statistical 

downscaling of 20 global climate models, Mote and Salathé (2010) projected an overall 0.5 °F/ 

decade rate of temperature increase through the 2080s. This corresponds to increases of ~2 °F by the 

2020s, ~3.2 °F by the 2040s, and ~5.3 °F by the 2080s. All of these increases are greater than the 

historical 1.5 °F overall increase observed for the Pacific Northwest during the entire 20th century. 

Regional precipitation projections suggest only small increases in annual precipitation (~4 percent by 

the 2080s; Mote and Salathé 2010), although there are large differences among the various model 

projections. As with the global projections, there is a wide range of natural variability in Pacific 

Northwest precipitation amounts and timing, making the relatively small climate-change-related 

changes difficult to distinguish except over long time scales. However, a majority of regional climate 

models project decreased summer (July–August) precipitation of 6–13 percent, and increased winter 

(December–February) precipitation of 2–8 percent (Mote and Salathé 2010, Salathé et al. 2010). 

Regional snowpack is projected to decrease at accelerated rates compared to those during the 20th

century, with shifts to earlier spring snowmelt occurring for snow-dominated and transient basins. 

Elsner et al. (2010) projected 29 percent, 44 percent, and 65 percent declines in Washington State 

April 1 snow-water-equivalent by the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s, respectively (A1B SRES scenario). 

However, for the rain-dominated basins of coastal Washington, changes in the timing of spring 

runoff likely will be minimal, although the risk for lower low-flows and greater stream temperatures 

will increase (Mantua et al. 2010). 

For the Grays Harbor area, climate and hydrologic projections were generated for 8-digit Hydrologic 

Unit Code (HUC4) basins by the Climate Impacts Group’s Columbia Basin Climate Change 

Scenarios Project (Hamlet et al. 2010) and Regional Climate and Hydrologic Change efforts (Littell 

et al. 2011). We downloaded data via Climate Impacts Group (2012d). We averaged the projections 

for Grays Harbor (HUC4 17100105) and Lower Chehalis River (HUC4 17100104) basins, in order to 

include the entire Grays Harbor watershed. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Figure 3-9 presents seasonal summaries of average monthly temperature and total precipitation. 

Average projections from 10 climate models for time periods ending in the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s 

are compared with the empirically based 1915–2006 estimates. Local projections are similar in 

magnitude to the regional projections. Average temperatures are projected to increase in all seasons 

(Figure 3-7); precipitation projections indicate increases during fall and winter and decreases during 

summer (Figure 3-9). 

For the Black River area, climate and hydrologic projections were generated for 8-digit HUC4 basins 

by the Climate Impacts Group’s Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project (Hamlet et al. 

2010) and Regional Climate and Hydrologic Change efforts (Littell et al. 2011). We downloaded 

data via Climate Impacts Group (2012b). 

Figure 3-10 presents seasonal summaries of average monthly temperature and total precipitation for 

the Upper Chehalis River basin (HUC4 17100103), which includes the Black River watershed. 

Average projections from 10 climate models for time periods ending in the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s 

are compared with the empirically based 1915–2006 estimates. Local projections are similar in 

magnitude to the regional projections. Average temperatures are projected to increase in all seasons 

(Figure 3-10); precipitation projections indicate increases during fall and winter and decreases during 

summer (Figure 3-8). 

Projections for streamflow and runoff across the Upper Chehalis River basin (Figure 3-11) closely 

match those for precipitation, with increasing winter flows and decreasing summer flows through the 

2080s. 

Figure 3-9. Seasonal temperatures (left) and precipitation (right) for the Grays Harbor and 

Lower Chehalis River HUC4 basins. Projections were for the A1B SRES Scenario. Bars and 

error bars represent the average and range of 10 climate models (CIG 2012b).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13

Figure 3-10. Seasonal temperatures (A) and precipitation (B) for the Upper Chehalis River 

HUC4 basin. Projections were for the A1B SRES Scenario. Bars and error bars represent 

the average and range of 10 climate models (CIG 2012b). 

Figure 3-11. Combined average daily flows (baseflow + runoff) for the Upper Chehalis River 

HUC4 basin. Projections were for the A1B SRES scenario. Bars and error bars represent the 

average and range of 10 climate models. Runoff represents mean flow across the watershed 

(not routed through stream channels; Elsner and Hamlet 2010) (CIG 2012b). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Sea Level Rise

Factors Affecting Global and Washington Coast Sea Levels

Rising global sea levels have resulted from the melting of land-based ice within Earth’s cyrosphere 

(especially the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, but also glaciers) and thermal expansion of ocean 

waters as global temperatures increase (IPCC 2007a, McKay et al. 2011). A recent National Research 

Council (NRC) publication summarized that 68 percent of global sea level rise measured during 

1992–2008 resulted from ice mass loss, 35 percent from thermal expansion, and -3 percent from 

anthropogenic land water storage (Church et al. 2011, NRC 2012). The proportional contribution 

from ice mass loss has increased since 1993, likely resulting from greater rates of ice melt than 

during 1961–2003 (IPCC 2007a, Bromirski et al. 2011, Jacob et al. 2012). 

In addition to these global factors, sea level heights along the Washington coast are affected by longand short-term ocean-driven climate patterns (Mote et al. 2008) and vertical land movements (Komar 

et al. 2011). At longer time scales, Bromirski et al. (2011, 2012) reported that U.S. west coast sea 

levels are correlated with PDO, with warm-phase PDO epochs associated with suppressed rates of 

sea level rise. During the most recent warm-phase PDO (ca. 1980–2010), west coast sea levels were 

nearly static, whereas global sea level rose approximately 3 mm/yr (Bromirski et al. 2011, 2012). At 

much shorter time scales, ENSO events (El Niño, La Niña) can substantially affect sea levels, e.g., 

large El Niño events can raise local sea levels by 10–30 cm for several winter months (NRC 2012). 

Local, vertical land movements result from tectonic forces and other geologic processes. Tectonic 

uplift is occurring at various rates along the Pacific coast approximately north of Mendcino, 

California, as the North American and Juan de Fuca plates collide. Vertical land movements in 

northern North America also result from continuing glacial isostatic adjustment since the 

disappearance of the North American ice sheets starting circa 20,000 years ago. Overall uplift 

estimates for the southern Washington coast range from 1 to 3 mm/yr (Mote et al. 2008, NRC 2012), 

although short-term GPS-derived information from a Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array station near 

the southeastern shoreline of Grays Harbor (station P398, lat-lon = 46.926, -123.916) has measured 

uplift of 0.1 mm/yr (±0.1 mm/yr) since 2006 (Central Washington University 2012). However, 

longer-term sea level data are sparsely available for much of the southwestern Washington coast, and 

it is possible that local dynamics may create areas of both uplift and subsidence within this larger 

geographic expanse (as has been reported for the Oregon coast and Willapa Bay, Washington 

[Komar et al. 2011]). 

At the local scale, the accretion rate of sediments (here referring generically to both mineral and 

organic-matter sources) is a critical factor affecting the long-term persistence of coastal marshes. 

Marshes that receive sediment inputs sufficient to raise substrate elevations equal to or greater than 

the rate of local sea level rise will persist, whereas marshes with lesser sediment accretion eventually 

will be flooded (Morris et al. 2002, Kirwin et al. 2010). Sediment accretion rates are greater where 

vegetation is present (Baustian et al. 2012). Thom (1992) reported a mean accretion rate of 3.6 

mm/yr (95 percent CI = 2.4 – 4.8) across six Washington and Oregon salt marsh sites; the Elk River 

marsh site in Grays Harbor had an annual accretion rate of 6.6 mm/yr during 1963–1991. Sediment 

compaction, however, results in subsidence at local areas within coastal marshes, at least partially 

counteracting sediment inputs; Mazzotti et al. (2008) measured annual subsidence rates of 1–2 mm in 

the Frazier River delta lowlands, British Columbia, Canada.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15

Figure 3-12. Projected sea level rise for the U.S. Pacific 

coast for 2030, 2050, and 2100. Red dashed line added 

to show approximate latitude for Grays Harbor, WA . 

Source: NRC (2012)

Historical Rates of Sea Level Change 

Global mean sea level rose between 1.2 and 2.2 mm/yr during the 20th century (IPCC 2007a, NRC 

2012). That rate increased to 3.1 mm/yr during 1993–2003 (Bromirski et al. 2011), and is currently 

measured at 3.2 mm/yr (NASA 2015). 

There are few measuring stations with adequate recording histories to provide specific sea level 

information for the Grays Harbor area, e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) station at Westport, Washington (approx. 9.5 mi WSW from Grays Harbor Refuge; station 

ID 9441102), only has water-level data available since 2006 (NOAA 2012d). However, two linear 

trend analyses of data from the NOAA station in Willapa Bay (Toke Point, station ID 9440910, 

approximately 19 mi SSW from Grays Harbor NWR) indicated increases in relative sea level ranging 

from 1.09 mm/yr during 1959–2008 (Tebaldi et al. 2012) to 0.63 mm/yr (95 percent CI = -0.49–1.75) 

during 1973–2011 (NOAA 2012e). 

Future Projections of Sea Level 

Global sea levels are projected to rise 13.5 cm (range = 8–23) by 2030, 28.0 cm (range = 18– 8) by 

2050, and 82.7 cm (range = 50–140) by 2100 (all relative to 2000 levels; NRC 2012: their Table 5.2). 

These projected values correspond to 

average sea level rise rates of 4.5, 5.6, 

and 8.3 mm/yr during the periods up to 

2030, 2050, and 2100, respectively. 

Accounting for local dynamical 

factors, NRC (2012: their Figure S.1 

and Table 5.3) projected increased sea 

levels at the latitude of Seattle, 

Washington, of 6.6 cm (range = -3.7–

22.5) by 2030, 16.6 cm (range = -2.5–

47.8) by 2050, and 61.8 cm (range = 

10.0–143.0) by 2100 (see Figure 3-12). 

These projected values correspond to 

average sea level rise rates of 2.2, 3.3, 

and 6.2 mm/yr during the periods up to 

2030, 2050, and 2100, respectively. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Similar projections of 10-cm and 25-cm increases in sea level at Toke Point, Washington, by 2030 

and 2050, respectively, were reported by Tebaldi et al. (2012). However, because these projections 

started with the year 2008, the corresponding average sea level rise rates by 2030 and 2050 are 4.5 

and 6.0 mm/yr, respectively. These projected rates are greater than those in NRC (2012) because they 

do not incorporate the mitigating “fingerprint” effects of modern land ice melting (e.g., land uplift 

and reduced gravitational pull on near-ocean waters), which are more pronounced along the 

Washington coast. 

Sea level projections for the entire Grays Harbor estuary were modeled using SLAMM (Sea-level 

Affecting Marshes Model; Clough and Larson 2010). Those analyses later were subsetted to focus on 

the Grays Harbor Refuge vicinity (Warren Pinnacle Consulting 2011). The SLAMM model uses 

input data to assess the dominant processes involved in wetland conversion and shoreline 

modifications during long-term sea level rise: inundation, erosion, overwash, saturation, and 

sediment (or vertical land) accretion. Model projections for the year 2100 suggested substantial 

losses of tidal flats: for a 0.69-m sea level rise, tidal flats declined by 48 percent within Grays Harbor 

Refuge and 69 percent within the entire Grays Harbor estuary. However, these SLAMM results 

(especially for tidal flat habitats) should be used with caution, because the only data available for 

land elevation and habitat types were at very coarse scales, and the modeled acreage of tidal flats is 

sensitive to even very small changes in elevation. Whenever more-refined elevation, bathymetry, and 

habitat data are available, future SLAMM analyses would be valuable to project habitat changes both 

within Grays Harbor Refuge as well as the entire Grays Harbor estuary. The USGS project “Marshes 

to mudflats: climate change effects along a latitudinal gradient in the Pacific Northwest” in progress 

at Grays Harbor Refuge and several other sites, measures morphological and ecological 

characteristics (e.g., elevation, tidal range, vegetation) along transects crossing the habitat continuum 

of tidal marsh, intertidal mudflat, and subtidal shoals. The project will model vulnerability of these 

nearshore habitats and dependent avian indicator species to projected sea level rise and storm surge 

effects (John Takekawa, pers. comm., January 23, 2013, USGS Western Ecological Research 

Center). 

Ocean Chemistry

Ocean water absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2); subsequent reactions with water molecules 

ultimately produce bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen (H+

) ions (Hönisch et al. 2012). Greater 

inputs of CO2 increase concentrations of both H+

 ions (which increases water acidity [= lower pH]) 

and carbonate ions (which decreases the saturation state of calcium carbonate [CaCO3]) (Orr et al. 

2005). CaCO3 is a compound necessary for shell and skeleton development in many marine 

organisms (Hauri et al. 2009). 

Since the beginning of the industrial era, global oceans have absorbed ~560 billion metric tons of 

CO2 (Sabine et al. 2004, Doney et al. 2009), including ~50 percent of CO2 released from the burning 

of fossil fuels (NOAA 2008). The addition of CO2 derived from fossil fuels has increased H+

 ion 

concentrations ~30 percent (NOAA 2008), reducing global mean ocean surface pH by 0.1from ~8.2 

to ~8.1 since 1750 (Feely et al. 2008, 2009; Bernie et al. 2010). Along the Pacific Northwest coast, 

Wootton et al. (2008) reported a recent, short-term (2000–2007) declining trend in ocean pH at 

Tatoosh Island, although daily and season variability in pH was substantial. 

Ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations vary at different ocean depths (Feely et al. 2004); deeper 

waters (down to 250 m) have greater acidity and reduced CaCO3 saturation (Byrne et al. 2010). In the 

California Current System off the U.S. West Coast, Feely et al. (2008) reported that ocean waters 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17

with high acidity and undersaturated carbonate concentrations have risen 50–100 m (164–328 ft) 

since pre-industrial times, and are now within the density layers that are currently being upwelled 

onto coasts and into estuaries. Ocean currents that cause upwelling along the Pacific coast are 

particularly strong in the Pacific Northwest (Hickey and Banas 2003, Feely et al. 2008), and 

upwelling is a substantial factor in flushing rates within Grays Harbor (Duxbury 1979). 

Future Projections

Without strong global emissions mitigation, Bernie et al. (2010) projected that global surface pH will 

decrease to 7.67–7.81 by 2100. A pH of 7.8 by 2100, which was projected by Feely et al. (2009) 

using the A2 (nonintervention) IPCC scenario, would result in a 150 percent increase in ocean acidity 

relative to pre-industrial times.

Regional projections for the North Pacific (Feely et al. 2009) suggest that, by 2100, ocean pH will 

decrease up to 0.31 units from the 1990–1998 mean of ~8.1, depending on future atmospheric CO2

levels. Similarly, carbonate ion concentrations will decrease up to 45 percent. Gruber et al. (2012) 

projects nearshore carbonate saturation will decrease substantially at all depths of the California 

Current System upwelling areas by 2050, with seafloor habitats (>120 m deep) developing year-long 

under-saturation within 20–30 years. Within the California Current System, the intensity of 

acidification may be further enhanced during the 21st century because of large-scale changes in 

ocean currents and circulation (Feely et al. 2012). 

Other Ocean-related Factors

Climate also affects other ocean conditions, such as water temperature, waves, and upwelling 

currents. Natural variability in these characteristics is large, especially in dynamic ocean regions such 

as the eastern Pacific Ocean (Hickey and Banas 2003). In general, all of these are projected to change 

as global and regional climatic conditions change, but the magnitude of these changes is uncertain. 

Mote and Salathé (2010) projected sea-surface temperatures to increase 2.2 °F for coastal ocean 

waters between 46 °N and 49 °N by the 2040s (relative to the 1970–1999 average), but seasonal 

differences in upwelling events (especially in summer months) cause substantial uncertainty in the 

magnitude of possible temperature increase; however, little change in the seasonal timing of coastal 

upwelling is projected (Mote and Salathé 2010). Extreme wave heights, especially during strong 

winter storms, have increased since the 1970s (Menéndez et al. 2008), and are projected to increase 

further as warmer global temperatures may cause increased frequency of intense extra-tropical 

cyclones (Ruggiero et al. 2010). However, these impacts will have greatest impacts to exposed 

coastal areas; wave effects are greatly muted at estuaries within large bays (e.g., Grays Harbor). 

3.3 Hydrology

3.3.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Grays Harbor is the third largest estuary of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Region. The Refuge makes 

up less than 2 percent of the entire estuary. Estuaries are most commonly defined as semi-enclosed 

coastal bodies of water having a free connection with the open sea and within which seawater is 

diluted measurably by freshwater from land drainage. Research shows Grays Harbor is a drowned 

river type of estuary (Hickey and Banas 2003, Emmett et al. 2000, GHEMPTF 1987). It is fed by the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

2,550-square mile drainage within the Chehalis River Basin and provides nearly 34,000 acres of 

intertidal mudflats. Tributaries of the estuary include the Chehalis, Hoquiam, Wishkah, Humptulips, 

Johns, and Elk River basins. The Chehalis River is the major freshwater source, providing 

approximately 80 percent to the Harbor (GHEMPTF 1987). As a transition zone between fresh water 

and marine ecosystems, estuaries are highly productive areas that offer habitat of special importance 

to the early life stages of the many aquatic marine animals, migratory birds, and other animals. 

Tides

Tides in the estuary are a major part of the hydrologic influences on Grays Harbor Refuge and its 

habitats. The depth and width of the harbor mouth influence how much and how fast tidal water 

flows in and spreads across the estuary and to the Refuge. The tides generally move slowly: peak 

high tide at Aberdeen is 30 minutes later than the peak at the estuary mouth. The estuary is a shallow 

basin with depths averaging less than 20 feet. It has multiple tideland-connected channels and wide 

expanse of mud and sand flats. The tidal flats are important in the movement, mixing, and re-aeration 

of estuary waters during tidal ebb and flood. More than half of the surface area of this estuary lies in 

the intertidal zone with the tidal flats averaging about 1 to 2 feet above mean lower-low water 

(MLLW). Dredged shipping channels are approximately -38 feet MLLW (GHEMPTF 1987, Hickey 

and Banas 2003). 

The mean daily tidal elevation range is 10 feet in the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area. Maximum mean tidal 

velocities in the upper harbor vary about 3 feet per second (fps) during floodtide to about 4.5 fps 

during ebb tide (GHEMPTF 1987). The average tidal water levels for Grays Harbor estuary from 

2006 to 2012 are represented in Figure 3-13. 

The Refuge is sited in what was formerly an open section of the estuary with unrestricted tidal 

movement. The construction of Bowerman Airfield peninsula in the 1940s restricted tidal flow and 

changed sediment movement and deposition. Additional uplands created by fill at the east end of the 

basin may have helped to further restrict tidal action and may be serving to increase the capture of 

sediments. Currently, Refuge mudflats are some of the last to flood and are among the first to 

become exposed with the falling tide. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19

Figure 3-13. Average tidal range recorded at the mouth of Grays Harbor estuary 2006–2012. 

Salinity

Mixing of fresh water and salt water varies by season and location. Peak freshwater discharge occurs 

from streams and rivers in winter, especially during storms, while low freshwater input occurs in the 

summer months. The ocean, rather than local rivers, is the dominant source of nutrients and biomass 

along the Pacific Northwest coast and in this estuary (Hickey and Banas 2003). Hickey and Banas 

report the mid-portion of the estuary (near the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area) ranges from low salinity of 5 

parts per thousand during winter to 20 parts per thousand during the summer months. Vertical 

salinity stratification, with a salt water wedge typical of estuarine systems, occurs only in the south 

channel (Simenstad and Eggers 1981). The winter salt-water wedge or upstream limit of salt water 

intrusion stops at the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area, and the summer upstream limit is some 10–12 miles 

further up the Chehalis River at Montesano (GHEMPTF 1987). 

3.3.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Black River, a tributary of the Chehalis River, flows southwesterly through the western and 

southwestern portion of Thurston County. Originating in wetlands at the south end of Black Lake 

(river mile 25), the Black River begins as an extremely low-gradient river system. The slow descent 

for most of the river length allows an accumulation of mud, sand, and decomposing organic material 

that provides for abundant aquatic and semi-aquatic plant and animal life. Beaver dams throughout 

the northern portion of the river help to create and maintain shallow water swamps and wetlands on 

the Unit. The Black River features some of the largest natural freshwater wetlands in western 

Washington (Pickett 1994a, Foster Wheeler 2003, Caldwell et al. 2004, Napier et al. 2008, Easterly 

and Salstrom 2008, CRC 1992).

Within the Unit acquisition boundary, the river channel varies from 15 feet to 120 feet in width and 

runs approximately 7 miles in length. Dempsey Creek, Salmon Creek, and Blooms Ditch drain into 

the river within the current Unit boundary with Waddell Creek bordering the former Weiks Dairy 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Unit and entering the river just south of the Unit boundary. There are numerous named and unnamed 

creeks and streams within the Unit acquisition boundary totaling approximately 23 miles (see Map 

4). The acquisition boundary ends north of the town of Littlerock at approximately river mile 17. 

There are two major topographic regions which affect the hydrology of the Black River Unit: the 

western uplands and the eastern lowlands. The Black Hills, a low, mountainous region that includes 

the Capitol State Forest, forms most of the western watershed. The two largest tributaries of the 

western watershed are Waddell Creek (10.4 miles long) and Mima Creek (7.15 miles long). There are 

also smaller tributaries, including Mill, Stony, Baker, Noski, Darlin, and Dempsey creeks, and 

several smaller unnamed creeks. The eastern lowland region includes forested rolling hills and 

grasslands. The eastern region of the Black River drainage also includes several lakes and numerous 

wetlands. Salmon, Blooms Ditch, Beaver, and Allen’s Creeks drain from the east into the northern 

and middle aspects of the River. 

The Black River was historically the primary outlet draining Black Lake, but the hydrology of the 

system has been radically altered through the years. Anecdotal information indicates the river 

channel may have been dredged or straightened in some areas in the 1800s. Additional changes to the 

river system began in the early 1900s when water was diverted from the lake to improve drainage 

north of Black Lake, including digging the Black Lake Ditch in 1922. The ditch continues to divert a 

large amount of water flow northward to Puget Sound through Percival Creek, instead of south into 

the Black River. A pipeline was installed in 1965 across the northern portion of the Black River, 

which appears to have created a low berm across the wetlands. Hydrological studies indicate some 

impacts on the direction of water flow, although drainage through the Black Lake Ditch is the 

greatest factor influencing the direction of flow (Foster Wheeler 2003). Many changes throughout the 

years have affected the natural hydrologic regime of the river system including the issuance of water 

rights and water withdrawals. 

Flooding and Surface Water 

The Black River valley is known for its wide, flat lands that rapidly flood with winter and spring 

season rains. Most flooding along the main stem of the river is inundation flooding with low velocity 

floodwater because the wetland complex buffers the flow. The main streams draining east of the river 

are Salmon, Blooms Ditch, Allen, and Beaver Creeks. These are slow-flowing systems that tend to 

cause inundation flooding with little to no velocity. The east side of the drainage is susceptible to 

high groundwater flooding when periods of extended rain exist (Thurston County 2012). Within the 

Unit boundary only Salmon Creek and Blooms Ditch drain into the river from the eastern side. From 

the west side of the drainage, Dempsey Creek flows into the river, is flashy, rising quickly and 

spreading out, and then draining rapidly. 

The two roads that cross the Black River and associated wetlands within the approved boundary of 

the Unit act as dikes and increase water levels in wetlands directly upstream. The road dike and 

bridge situation prevents the channel from naturally changing course at these locations and alters 

flow through the restricted channel opening. The roadway approaching the 110th Avenue Bridge over 

the Black River is usually one of the first local roads to close and last to reopen due to surface 

flooding associated with typical winter rains. The 123rd Avenue roadway itself is sometimes flooded 

west of the bridge during these periods. All habitats on either side of the river are replenished with 

sediment and nutrients during periods of surface flooding. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21

3.4 Topography 

3.4.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge salt marshes lie at the base of rugged forested hills to the north of the Refuge boundary 

ascending to a maximum elevation of 2,400 feet. Stream drainages from these hills cut a series of 

valleys, which lead down to Grays Harbor with habitats transitioning from forested slopes to the 

lower elevation salt marshes and open water of the Refuge. Along the eastside and continuing to the 

south side of the Refuge boundary are constructed fill areas which are slightly higher in elevation and 

support an early successional alder forest. The tidal mudflats and salt marsh habitats are generally 

flat and become inundated with tides over 8.5 feet. 

Overall, Grays Harbor estuary and the Refuge is a shallow basin with depths averaging less than 20 

feet (including channel depths). It has multiple connected channels and a wide expanse of mud and 

sand flats. Ebbing tides and river channels have caused shallow depressions within the estuary and 

Refuge boundary. Nearly level mudflats and salt marshes border the open water habitat within the 

Refuge. 

3.4.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Unit is located within the Puget Sound Trough Ecoregion with the Coastal Range Mountains to 

the west and the Cascade Range to the east. The Coastal Range Mountains border the western portion 

of Thurston County, with rolling hills and valleys lying towards the east and south. Foothills of the 

Cascade Mountain Range and Mount Rainier begin to rise in the southeastern portion of the County. 

Surrounding elevations in the immediate Black River area range from sea level at Olympia to 2,657 

feet in the Black Hills west of the Unit. The Black River valley floor is approximately 200 feet above 

sea level. 

3.5 Geology

3.5.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Over millions of years, geologic forces such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have shaped the 

land in Washington State. After erosion, deposition, and plate tectonics worked the landscape in 

Puget Sound for approximately 60 million years, a series of glaciers advanced from what is now 

British Columbia into the lowlands between the Cascade and Olympic ranges (White 1997). After 

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

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

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

lowlands (White 1997). In lowland areas around the sound, retreating glaciers left behind a thick 

mantle of lacustrine and outwash sediments over bedrock as far south as Chehalis, Washington. 

The Chehalis River Valley formation was created by debris left by the advance of the Vashon Glacier 

southward from Puget Sound some 15,000 years ago. Glacial debris can be found east of Grays 

Harbor and along the banks of the present channel of the Chehalis River, which drained a major 

portion of Puget Sound during that glacial period. The estuary is a drowned portion of the Chehalis 

River Valley, and is continually being filled in with river-borne sediments and oceanic materials. The 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

surrounding uplands are composed of unconsolidated Pleistocene silt, sand, and gravel, which are 

sedimentary, and volcanic rocks of the Tertiary Age that form low relief hills. The predominant 

physical feature of the estuary is the vast amount of intertidal mud and sandflats (GHEMPTF 1987). 

3.5.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Black River is located within and below the maximum southern extent of Pleistocene continental 

glaciations west of the Cascade Mountains. The north end of the Black River drainage, including 

Black Lake and the upper reaches of the river, were under ice during the last glacial maxima. During 

early glacial retreat, meltwater was blocked by ice from flowing northward, and glacial meltwater 

from much of the entire lobe was channeled southward through a shifting series of outwash channels, 

including the Black River channel, to the Chehalis drainage, and then out to the Pacific Ocean. 

Routes of the outwash channels were controlled by the slowly retreating glaciers, the underlying 

outcrops of Eocene sandstone and basalt in the area, and the overlying topography of moraines and 

glacial till. Fine-textured sediment deposited during this process blanketed portions of the landscape. 

Sand was also deposited by overbank deposition during flood surges caused by hydraulic damming 

associated with the sandstone and basalt bedrock in the channel-ways (Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

The combination of huge volumes of meltwater and blockages by earth and ice caused the water to 

pond and form a series of temporary lakes, including Lake Russell (Bretz 1913, cited by Easterly and 

Salstrom 2008), which extended over the southern inlets of what became Puget Sound. Lake Russell 

had a spillway over a low divide from Budd Inlet to the head of the valley of the Black River. The 

volume of water that was carried south over the spillway was considerable and became a large 

erosional force all the way to the mouth of the Chehalis River (WCC 1933). Within flood channels, 

the flow of meltwater sorted outwash sediments, leaving gravel. The outwash events created, eroded, 

and reshaped terraces in the massive amount of sediment in the outwash channels. The resulting 

Black River occupies a channel that is oversized and has a very low gradient (average of 9 

inches/mile). Associated with this channel are a series of terraces that are likewise low-gradient, 

some including perched wetlands on outwash terraces above the Black River channel. Overbank 

deposition of sand from the outwash events is primarily perched on or above remnant terraces on the 

edges of the immediate area, as at Olympia Airport and south of Maytown (west of Tilly Road). 

Mima mounds on both sides of the river appear to be related to/associated with some “middle” 

terraces of the outwash channels. The oversized drainage basin creates a broad wetland zone along 

much of the river, especially in the upper reaches. The low-gradient side-slopes produce an overall 

relatively stable landform, and landslides are rare along the main stem of the river (Smith and 

Wenger 2001, Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

3.6 Soils

3.6.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Soil types vary widely within the estuary. Sandy soils dominate the estuary entrance from the Pacific 

Ocean, while peat-lined, clay-type soils occur near the mouth of the Chehalis River. River drainage 

areas are primarily of the clay type. 

The bed of the estuary is composed of sediments transported into Grays Harbor from the ocean and 

tributary streams. Most of the sediment in the central and lower third of the estuary is of marine 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-23

origin; this area contains less silt and a higher sand content. The North Bay, South Bay, and upper 

two-thirds of the estuary contain a mixture of marine and river sediments (GHEMPTF 1987). 

Tide flats substrates contain silt and clay composition deposited by water flow from storms, river 

runoff, and dredging. The alluvial soils are deep and poorly drained with no single profile. One 

commonly observed soil sample is dark olive gray, very fine sand on the surface with gray loamy, 

very fine sand below the 6-inch depth (GHEMPTF 1987). 

In 1987 it was estimated that the Chehalis River transported about two million cubic yards of 

sediment into the estuary per year. Most of the sediment transport takes place during the winter highflow months. A similar amount of marine sediments enter the harbor from its mouth per year. The 

upper portion of the estuary where the Refuge is located contains a mixture of marine and riverine 

sediments (GHEMPTF 1987). 

Bowerman Airfield was constructed by placing dredge spoils within the confines of a bulkhead. After 

the 1940s, additional unconfined dredged material was placed to connect the airfield to the mainland 

and to create an east-west lying peninsula. The disposal has covered what later became the Grays 

Harbor Refuge with a layer of predominately fine-grained materials dredged from the inner harbor 

channel and over time has converted what was a mix of sand and mudflats to mudflats. 

Currently the mudflats are higher in elevation than most others in the greater estuary. The elevation 

of the Refuge (formerly Bowerman Basin) has been raised because of nearby discharges of 

unconfined dredged material (GHEMPTF 1987) and tidal action movement of sediments into the 

basin. The Refuge mudflats are protected from major wave action by the peninsula, and the tides 

have carried the material back and forth, depositing them at slack tides (GHEMPTF 1987, USFWS 

1988). Storm events tend to move sediment into the closed-ended basin and push heavy woody 

debris into the higher salt marsh areas potentially trapping sediment. Additional fill sites were 

established and used until 1975. Those areas contain a combination of dredge materials and hillside 

fill of clay and rock composition (USFWS 1988). 

3.6.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Soils in the Black River drainage range from slightly to strongly acidic at the surface, but become 

more neutral with depth. Glacial deposits range from porous sands and gravel to till which consists of 

clay and silt mixed with coarser materials. These deposits are composed chiefly of granite and 

quartzite. Some soil types were derived from bedrock, valley deposits, lake sediments, and alluvial 

deposits, while others are highly or purely organic. In the lowlands of this drainage, organic soils are 

common. They consist of decaying wetland vegetation in various stages of decomposition. 

The soil types are diverse and interspersed in an irregular pattern. Using NRCS web soil surveys, 

over 31 different soil units were identified within the approved acquisition boundary, including 20 

hydric and 11 nonhydric units. The floodplain soils are nearly level, very deep, and well drained. 

They formed in alluvium derived from mixed sources. (USDA 2012, USDA 1990). 

Riggs (1958) conducted a detailed soil profile study for peat between the upper reaches of the river to 

123rd Avenue. Generally, the quantity of peat decreases from 35 feet deep in the north to 10 feet deep 

in the south, the river flows over the deepest part of the peat deposit, and fibrous and woody peat 

form the major part of the deposit. Approximately 1,465 acres of various kinds of peat, including 15 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

acres of sphagnum, were reported. Sphagnum peat was described as raw and wet, implying little 

decomposition, and its presence correlates to the presence of bog vegetation. Diatomite shows past 

diatoms and phosphate presence (Riggs 1958). The soil types, maturity, and depth directly correlate 

to plant communities found within the Unit boundaries. 

3.7 Air Quality

Air quality refers to the cleanliness of the atmosphere. Clean air is vital to human health and is a 

resource protected by Federal, State, and local regulations because it is a natural resource without 

boundaries. Pollutants in the air can negatively affect plants, animals, and humans. Air quality is 

affected by climate, topography, and meteorological conditions. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the lead responsibility for air quality in the United 

States; through the 1990 Clean Air Act, the agency sets limits on the amount of pollutants that can be 

discharged into the air. According to the EPA, more than 170 million tons of pollution are emitted 

annually into the air within the United States. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is 

responsible for protecting the air quality within the State.

3.7.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency in Aberdeen, Washington, records site-monitoring of 

ambient air pollutants, meteorological parameters, and other air-related data near the Refuge. Local 

human activities on and adjacent to the Refuge boundary that can affect air quality include stationary 

sources, industrial activities, lumber mills, and paper mills. Individuals may also affect air quality 

through the use of vehicles, motorized boats, equipment, wood stoves and fireplaces, and operation 

of gas-powered machines. Most Refuge visitors drive their automobiles to participate in wildlife 

observation and educational activities. Refuge staff may utilize vehicles, heavy equipment, and small 

gas-powered equipment for various resource management and one-time construction projects. 

3.7.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Air quality at the Unit is susceptible to gravel mining dust, woodstoves, vehicle exhaust, tractors, 

motorboats (e.g., gasoline-powered engines/equipment), and outdoor burning. Habitat and public use 

improvement projects, including monitoring activities, may include the use of heavy equipment and 

the operation of trucks, tractors, or motorboats to access portions of the Unit for management 

purposes. 

3.8 Water Quality and Quantity

3.8.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Chehalis River Basin (Basin) drains more than 2,700 square miles of land (Map 1); it is the 

largest river basin in western Washington. The Basin’s land base supports a growing population of 

more than 141,000 people (U.S. Census 2000). Forest management activities account for 

approximately 87 percent of the land uses, while only 11 percent are in agriculture, urban, or 

industrial uses (CBP 1998). Urban centers within the Basin include the cities of Chehalis, Centralia, 

Aberdeen, and Hoquiam. The Chehalis River is the primary tributary of Grays Harbor estuary and the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25

largest freshwater source, providing approximately 80 percent of the freshwater to the harbor 

(GHEMPTF 1987). Other large tributaries of the estuary include the Hoquiam, Wishkah, 

Humptulips, Johns, and Elk Rivers. 

Protecting water quality within the Basin and the ocean remains a priority for many agencies and 

communities. The cleanliness of the tributary waters discharging into the estuary ultimately affects 

the quality of the water available for Refuge wildlife resources. Anadromous fish species such as fall 

Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead and bull trout, Pacific lamprey, eulachon, and green sturgeon are 

dependent on the estuary for rearing habitat and on the Basin’s clean rivers for spawning habitat. 

Grays Harbor estuary is important to the health of many species of wildlife that need clean water to 

survive and thrive. Clean water supports prey species which in turn supports shorebirds that feed 

upon and depend upon invertebrate species during their long migrations. 

WDOE is the agency responsible for ensuring that the streams and rivers are within the standards of 

the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Over the years, many streams and rivers within the 

Basin have incurred impaired water quality status due to various levels of point source and nonpoint 

source pollution. 

According to WDOE, the greater Grays Harbor estuary was listed in 1996 under section 303(d) of the 

CWA as not meeting water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (found in human and animal 

waste) because of inadequate controls of point or nonpoint sources of pollution (WDOE 2010a). 

Fecal coliform enters the harbor from a variety of sources; contributors were traced to the Chehalis 

River due to storm water runoff, including the sewage treatment plants in the cities of Aberdeen, 

Hoquiam, Ocean Shores, and Westport. Identifying, monitoring, and addressing pollution sources 

containing fecal coliform bacteria within the Basin is a high priority for WDOE. In 1989 WDOE 

identified eight pulp mills around the harbor including one in Cosmopolis and one in Hoquiam listed 

as violating water quality standards for the priority pollutant TCDD, a dioxin (WDOE 2010b). 

Over the years, a small number of investigations have linked effects of water quality to the health of 

the estuary and wildlife on the Refuge. A contaminants investigation in 1987 conducted on 

shorebirds within Grays Harbor estuary found shorebirds contained high tissue burdens of DDE and 

PCBs. This study included spring migrant and overwintering birds collected within the Refuge 

boundary. The study noted that shorebirds along the Washington coast were accumulating toxins in 

their bodies from organochlorine contamination and that shorebirds could be a pathway for 

organochlorines to accumulate in raptors that feed on shorebirds (Schick et al. 1987). In 1990, the 

Service’s Ecological Services Program conducted an investigation of sediments on the Refuge, which 

identified high levels of toxins (dioxin and furan) in amphipods. The results of this study have raised 

concerns because amphipods are an important food source for migrating shorebirds and fish species 

including salmon (Momot and Mahaffy 2004). WDOE participates in the National Coastal Condition 

Assessment and Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The 2002 data show samples 

collected within the Refuge boundary have elevated concentrations of chromium (Partridge, V. 2011, 

pers. comm.). 

State agencies, private groups, and researchers within the Basin, Refuge, and the greater estuary have 

conducted water quality testing and monitoring. The Chehalis Basin Partnership (Partnership) was 

formed in 1998 under the State’s Watershed Management Act to provide a framework for local 

citizens, interest groups, and government organizations to work collaboratively to identify and solve 

water-related issues. Over the years, they have developed a Watershed Management Plan (2004), the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Implementation Plan (2007) and the Progress Report (2011) to address those issues. Refuge staff 

coordinates with several of the organizations active in the Partnership, participates in outreach 

efforts, and coordinates with Service staff representing the Service in Partnership issues. 

Water quality is a vital component of the local community’s health, economy, and the health of the 

Refuge’s wildlife. Refuge managers recognize the need to conduct further research within the Refuge 

boundary regarding water quality issues (see Objective 2.4.3). They also recognize the need to work 

with partners in the Chehalis River Basin and throughout Grays Harbor estuary to address issues 

affecting water quality and to provide education about what can be done to improve it (see Objective 

2.3.1 and 2.3.2). 

3.8.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Water quality and pollution is a problem in the Black River and its tributaries (Yake and Bernhardt 

1989, Pickett 1991). Nonpoint source pollution is a problem in the Black River basin. Stormwater

runoff at commercial, light industrial areas and construction sites can produce potential pollutants, 

especially in the rapidly growing upper basin. Streets, roads, and highways, including Interstate 5, 

could discharge pollutants in stormwater or potentially spill into Black River tributaries. Water 

pollution from adjacent residential septic systems, recreational uses, and agricultural runoff continues 

to be a problem to be resolved by Federal, State, and local governments. Regional growth in the 

Black River basin will likely put pressure on the groundwater resource, from both withdrawals and 

pollutant inputs (Pickett 1994a). The current trend towards increasing numbers of residential 

developments being serviced by individual septic systems overtaxes the area’s capability to naturally 

treat residential wastes, resulting in ground- and surface water pollution. 

Prior to 1989 the Black River had not been studied extensively. The Black River system was poorly 

understood but appeared to be sensitive to environmental impacts and under pressure from several 

different land uses and projected regional population growth. In 1989, a large fish-kill in the mid to 

lower portions of the river indicated poor quality water in the river, which stimulated more in-depth 

studies. Most studies took place in the 1990s and focused on the middle and lower sections of the 

river, but some of these established a few sampling points in the northern reaches of the river which 

are relevant to Unit management. 

In 1994, two studies of the Black River were undertaken: one on dissolved oxygen and phosphorus, 

and one on fecal contamination and nonpoint source pollution. The areas of the river that were 

sampled (near 110th Avenue, 123rd Avenue, and River Road bridges (upper river)) (Pickett 1994a, 

1994b) generally had acceptable temperatures, especially in winter, but late summer temperatures 

were above the standard of 64 °F (18 °C). The upper river pH levels were generally acceptable, but 

organic sediments reduce pH near the bottom of the river, while photosynthesis in the submersed 

vegetation increases pH levels near the water surface. Pickett (1994a, 1994b) suggests the low pH 

levels near the riverbed appear to be a natural condition, and not a violation of water quality 

standards. 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in Waddell Creek, measured during a significant flow period, were 

acceptable. However, none of the DO levels in the upper river were high enough to meet the standard 

of 8.0 mg/L and all samples were below standard saturation levels. Pickett cites Lee et al. (1975), 

who noted that high organic-matter content in the discharge from marshlands produces low DO 

levels and high color and that the DO level may be the result of natural processes. Two years of fecal 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-27

coliform tests showed no presence at 110th Avenue, but at the River Road site immediately north of 

Littlerock, testing showed higher concentrations. The likely sources of contamination between 110th

Avenue and River Road were thought to be storm water, onsite septic systems, agriculture, and 

wildlife (Pickett 1994a, 1994b). Since that study was completed, a large dairy farm between 110th

Avenue and River Road is no longer operational, reducing the potential for fecal contamination. 

Between September 2007 and June 2009, a water quality study had 94 test sites on the Chehalis 

Rivers and its tributaries. Standard water quality tests included pH, DO, fecal coliform, turbidity, and 

water temperature. The criteria used to evaluate water quality were based on Washington State 

standards (173-201A WAC). The rationale for these standards is that water quality meeting the 

standards provides for the habitat needs of fish and other aquatic life, provides a safe environment for 

people engaged in water recreation, and provides for the production of healthy and safe seafood 

(Green et al. 2009). 

Two sampling sites from this study are relevant to the Unit: one on the Black River at Black Lake 

and another at 110th Avenue. All the data collected from the two stations fell within the standard 

range for pH. The standard for DO is ≥8mg/L and the north-most site showed excellent DO quality 

with only 1 sample below the standard, but the 110th Avenue site had 16 of the 29 samples (61 

percent) below the standard. Again, an explanation for the sub-standard levels could be that the Black 

River is a relatively low-gradient river that flows through shrub swamp with mostly agricultural 

lands or forests in nearby uplands, and these lands and fertilizers may create high nutrient inputs into 

the river. However, this slow-moving river also accumulates organic debris, such as peat soils and 

rotting leaves that fall from vegetation along the banks. 

The river has dense underwater vegetation and algae above the 110th Avenue sample site. The upper 

reaches of the river contain shrubs rather than taller trees, resulting in full sun exposure. 

Decomposing algae, aquatic vegetation, and organic debris in water bodies reduce DO in the water

due to cellular respiration of the bacteria and fungi that act as decomposers. These natural processes 

may be contributing to lower DO in the Black River. No fecal coliform was detected in 28 samples in 

the Black River at the Black Lake site, in 27 samples at 110th Avenue, nor in 28 samples from the 

Littlerock boat launch site located south of Littlerock. This shows significant improvement from the 

1994 study. One sample of 28 and one sample of 27 showed turbidity over the 7 nephelometric 

turbidity unit standards at the north-most sample site and from the 110th Avenue location, 

respectively (Green et al. 2009). 

Another factor affecting water quality is the growth of macrophytes and periphyton in the Black 

River. Pickett noted from Hill (1986) that sediments provide much of the nutrient supply for 

macrophytes, macrophytes transfer large amounts of nutrients back to the sediments, and that 

macrophytes could release sediment-derived nutrients into the water column. Furthermore, as 

macrophytes utilize particulate matter and dissolved nutrients from the water column, nutrients are 

cycled between the living tissue and the sediment, creating a self-sustaining system. Pickett noted 

that if an effort was made to reduce nutrient levels and phytoplankton in the water column, the plants 

would have a sediment nutrient source, and macrophyte reduction would occur very slowly, if at all, 

and the cycle would continue (Pickett 1994a, Green et al. 2009). 

In the northern portion of the river, dense growth of submerged plants is currently thought to be 

primarily native species, although surveys need to be conducted to verify this. Currently submerged 

plant colonies grow very thick, providing cover and food sources for amphibians and fish. Nonnative 

reed canarygrass grows densely along the banks and then roots into submersed plants in the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-28 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

mainstem of the river. This dense plant growth can limit light penetration, causing less oxygen to be 

generated within the water column. Later, decomposition of the decaying vegetation further depletes 

oxygen levels to the point of excluding fish, mammals, and invertebrates from those areas with the 

densest growth. The river’s anaerobic bacteria can live in low- to no-oxygen water and produce 

sulfuric waste products, causing the lake and sediments to release gas and odors (SBLC 2012). Algal 

mats develop on the river during warm summer temperatures and also when water flow is greatly 

reduced. Algal growth may be enhanced by artificial nutrient sources, inputs from fertilizers, and 

leaky septic systems. The algal mats grow on the submersed plants, cover them, and form a thick 

surface scum layer. This quantity of algae may have detrimental effects on water quality. Although 

river water quality testing took place in the 1990s, recent information on water quality in the upper 

reaches of the Black River has not been collected. 

Napier et al. (2008) notes concerns in the Black River Management Unit (watershed) that poor water 

quantity exists naturally due to the river’s general character; however, the situation may be 

exacerbated by loss of water flow resulting from the pipeline crossing along with increasing water 

withdrawals. General actions to help increase water quantity include reducing water withdrawals 

from surface sources, determining if water withdrawals are followed according to current water 

rights, and conducting a study on unregulated/regulated withdrawals. Increasing sediment load in the 

river mainstem also contributes to poor water quality. Suggestions to reduce sediment loading in the 

river include reducing road densities (abandon/decommissioned) in upland forests and further 

identifying sources that are contributing to sediment loading (Napier et al. 2008). 

In 2010 and 2012, Black Lake, the headwaters for the river, was temporarily closed to swimming and 

water sports due to a blue-green algal bloom. Black Lake is infested with nonnative plant species 

including Eurasian watermilfoil and yellow flag iris. Save Black Lake Coalition is a nonprofit 

organization formed in 2010 in response to the lake closure. The goal of the coalition is to educate 

landowners about lake water quality and improve water quality by reducing invasive plants and 

reducing or eliminating algal blooms. 

3.9 Surrounding Land Use

3.9.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The land use patterns surrounding the Refuge are primarily forestland dedicated to commercial 

timber production and a mix of urban areas, including the cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. To the 

north of the Refuge boundary is Highway 109 and many rural residential properties. Highway 109 

has been designated as a State Scenic Byway. Directly to the east of the Refuge are upland 

properties, managed by the Port of Grays Harbor as industrial sites, and formerly a log-storage and 

shipping yard that has been considered for a variety of uses. In 2012 a coal transfer operation was 

planned but terminated. Currently a crude oil tank farm and transfer operation is being considered for 

development. South of the Refuge boundary, the City of Hoquiam runs their water treatment facility 

and the Port operates Bowerman Airport. The Bowerman airfield operates 24 hours a day, providing 

jet capable access, air cargo, and hangars. Lands currently not acquired within the Refuge acquisition 

boundary include approximately 309 acres of intertidal mudflat and open water habitat. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-29

3.9.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Land use in the Black River basin includes undeveloped wetlands, agriculture, and a mixture of 

residential and commercial development. The uplands are generally commercial timberlands and 

expanding low- to high-density residential developments. Land use activity in the Black River basin 

has been transitioning from agriculture to rural residential. A number of dairies in the past have been 

located in the basin, but most have closed down. Poultry operations, a silviculture nursery, and turf 

and berry farms have operated in the basin (Pickett 1994a). Timber harvest and management 

activities currently occur throughout the basin, especially in the Black Hills by WDNR on Capitol 

Forest lands. 

Lands within the Refuge acquisition boundary include approximately 2,293 acres of privately owned 

tracts, many utilized as residential properties. Two large tracts within the boundary are managed for 

commercial timber purposes. 

Residential housing developments and farms lie outside the Refuge acquisition boundary. A local 

gravel mining operation lies directly on the northeast side of the Refuge boundary, located both 

inside and outside of the approved boundary. Interstate 5 is within 5 miles of the boundary and 

provides access to neighboring cities and communities. Within Thurston County there are a number 

of recreation areas, parks, and open spaces that benefit wildlife and are open to public access. Some 

examples are Chehalis Western Trail, Woodard Bay Natural Resources Conservation Area, Capitol 

State Forest, Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve, and Glacial Heritage Preserve (see Chapter 5). 

Thurston County owns the railroad right of way east of the Refuge and is planning the Gate Belmore 

Trail on the old railroad bed. The State offers approximately 25 areas opened to fishing within the 

county. The State also offers hunting opportunities throughout the county, which include big game, 

upland game birds, and waterfowl. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-30 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

3.10 References

Baustian, J.J., I.A. Mendelssohn, and M.W. Hester. 2012. Vegetation’s importance in regulating 

surface elevation in a coastal salt marsh facing elevated rates of sea level rise. Global Change 

Biology 18:3377–3382. 

Bernie, D., J. Lowe, T. Tyrrell, and O. Legge. 2010. Influence of mitigation policy on ocean 

acidification. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L15704. 

Bretz, J.H. 1913. Glaciation of the Puget Sound Region. Washington Geological Survey. Bulletin 

No. 8. 

Bromirski, P.D., A.J. Miller, R.E. Flick, and A. Guillermo. 2011. Dynamical suppression of sea level 

rise along the Pacific coast of North America: Indications for imminent acceleration. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 116:C07005. 

Bromirski, P.D., A.J. Miller, R.E. Flick. 2012. Understanding North Pacific sea level trends. EOS 

93:249-251. 

Byrne, R.H., S. Mecking, R.A. Feely, and X. Liu. 2010. Direst observations of basin-wide 

acidification of the North Pacific Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L02601. 

Caldwell, B., J. Pacheco, H. Beecher, T. Hegy, and R. Vadas. 2004. Chehalis River Basin WRIAs 22 

and 23 Fish Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Open File 

Technical Report 04-11-006. Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Casola, J.H., L. Cuo, B. Levneh, D.P. Lettenmaier, M.T. Stoelinga, P.W. Mote, and J.M. Wallace. 

2009. Assessing the impacts of global warming on snowpack in the Washington Cascades. Journal of 

Climate 22:2758–2772. 

Central Washington University. 2012. Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array PANGA Map GUI. Central 

Washington University, Ellensburg. Retrieved from 

http://www.panga.cwu.edu/demo_vms/map_gui.html. 

Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) 1998. CBP Watershed Management Plan and Detailed 

Implementation Plan (DIP). Retrieved from 

http://www.chehalisbasinpartnership.org/watershed_plan/watershed_plan.htm. 

Chehalis River Council (CRC). 1992. Chehalis River Basin Action Plan for the identification and 

control of non-point source pollution and technical supplement, Volume 2. Chehalis River Council, 

Lewis County Conservation District, and Washington Department of Ecology. Chehalis, WA. 

Church, J.A., N.J. White, L.F. Konikow, C.M. Domingues, J.G. Cogley, E. Rignot, J.M. Gregory, 

M.R. van den Broeke, A.J. Monaghan, and I. Velicogna. 2011. Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and 

energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Research Letters 38:L18601. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-31

Climate Impacts Group (CIG). 2012a. About El Niño/La Niña. Available URL:

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/aboutenso.shtml. 

CIG. 2012b. Climate Change Projections for USFS Lands in Oregon and Washington. University of 

Washington, Seattle. Available URL: http://cses.washington.edu/data/usfs_orwa.shtml. Accessed 

July 31, 2012. 

CIG. 2012c. Climate Change. University of Washington, Seattle. Available URL: 

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/cc.shtml. Accessed July 31, 2012. 

Clough, J.S. and E.C Larson. 2010. SLAMM Analysis of Grays Harbor, WA. Final Report for Ducks 

Unlimited, Vancouver, WA. Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 

Conlon, T. 2005. Ground-Water Hydrology of the Willamette Basin. Oregon Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5168. 

Creveling, J. 1980. Inventory of Vegetative Communites and Associated Wildlife of Black River 

Drainage. Washington State Department of Game. Olympia, WA. 

Daly, C., G. Taylor, T. Kittel, D. Schimel, and A. McNab. 2002. Development of a 103-year highresolution climate data set for the conterminous United States. Comprehensive Final Report for 

9/1/97 – 5/31/02. Submitted to NOAA Climate Change Data abd Detection Program. 17pp. 

Daly, C., M. Halbleib, J.I. Smith, W.P. Gibson, M.K. Doggett, G.H. Taylor, J. Curtis, and P.P. 

Pasteris. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation 

across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology. Published online. DOI.

10.1002/joc.1688. 

Department of Energy. 2012. Recent greenhouse gas concentrations. Carbon Dioxide Information 

Analysis Center. Available URL: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html Accessed July 25, 2012. 

Dominguez, F., E. Rivera, D.P. Lettenmaier, and C.L. Castro. 2012. Changes in winter precipitation 

extremes for the western United States under a warmer climate as simulated by regional climate 

models. Geophysical Research Letters 39:L05803. 

Doney, S.C., W.M. Balch, V.J. Fabry, and R.A. Feely. 2009. Ocean acidification: a critical emerging 

problem for the ocean sciences. Oceanography 22(4):16–25. 

Duxbury, A.C. 1979. Upwelling and estuary flushing, Limnology and Oceanography 24:627–633. 

Easterly, R. and D. Salstrom. 2008. Black River Vegetation: Changes through time of a Unique 

Western Washington River. Prepared for Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of 

Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 

Elsner, M.M., and A. Hamlet. 2010. Macro-scale hydrologic model implementation. Chapter 5 in 

Hamlet, A.F., P. Carrasco, J. Deems, M.M. Elsner, T. Kamstra, C. Lee, S-Y Lee, G.S. Mauger, E.P. 

Salathé, I. Tohver, and L.W. Binder. 2010. Final Report for the Columbia Basin Climate Change 

Scenarios Project. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Available URL:

http://www.hydro.washington.edu/2860/report. Accessed August 2, 2012. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-32 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Elsner, M.M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J.S. Deems, A.F. Hamlet, J.A. Vano, K.E.B. Mickelson, S-Y Lee, 

and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of

Washington State. Climatic Change 102:225-260. 

Emmett, R., R. Llanso, J. Newton, R. Thom, M. Hornberger, C. Morgan, C. Levings, A. Copping, 

and P. Fishman. 2000. Geographic signatures of North American West Coast estuaries. Estuaries 

23:765–792. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/28643tt261684217/fulltext.pdf

Feely, R., C. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V. Fabry, and F. Millero. 2004. Impact of 

anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305:362–366. 

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, J.M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for 

upwelling of corrosive “acidified” water onto the continental shelf. Science 320:1490–1492. 

Feely, R.A., S.C. Doney, and S.R. Cooley. 2009. Ocean acidification: present conditions and future 

changes in a high-CO2 world. Oceanography 22(4):36–47. 

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, R.H. Byrne, F.J. Millero, A.G. Dickson, R. Wanninkhof, A. Murata, L.A. 

Miller, and D. Greeley. 2012. Decadal changes in the aragonite and calcite saturation state of the 

Pacific Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26:GB3001. 

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 2003. Black River Hydrologic Modeling Final Study 

Report. Bothell, WA. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Seattle WA. 

Grays Harbor County. 2010. All Hazards Mitigation Plan 2010 Update. Retrieved from 

http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/GHCoHazardsMitigation/hazards/hazards.htm.

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Planning Task Force (GHEMPTF). 1987. Grays Harbor estuary 

management plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Amendment No. 3. Washington State 

Coastal Zone Management Program. Grays Harbor, WA. 

Green, J., D. Loft, and R. Lehr. 2009. State of the River Report for the Chehalis River Basin 2006–

2009. Aberdeen, WA. 

Gruber, N., C. Hauri, Z. Lachkar, D. Loher, T. Frolicher, and G.-K.Plattner. 2012. Rapid progression 

of ocean acidification in the California Current System. Science 337:220–223. 

Hamlet, A.F., P. Carrasco, J. Deems, M.M. Elsner, T. Kamstra, C. Lee, S-Y. Lee, G.S. Mauger, E.P. 

Salathé, I. Tohver, and L. Whitely Binder. 2010. Chapter 4 in Final Project Report for the Columbia 

Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project. Available URL: 

http://www.hydro.washington.edu/2860/report. Accessed October 23, 2012. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 

20:1468–1486. 

Hauri, C., N. Gruber, G.-K. Plattner, S. Alin, R.A. Feely, B. Hales, and P.A. Wheeler. 2009. Ocean 

acidification in the California Current System. Oceanography 22(4):60–71. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-33

Hickey, B.M. and N.S Banas. 2003. Oceanography of the U.S. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ocean and 

Estuaries with Application to Coastal Ecology. Estuaries Vol. 26, No. 4B, p. 1010–1031. August 

2003. Available URL: http://coast.ocean.washington.edu/coastfiles/HickeyBanas-PNWcoast.pdf.

Hill, B.H. 1986. The role of aquatic macrophytes in nutrient flow regulation in lotic ecosystems. In: 

Rationale for Sampling and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater 

Ecosystems, ASTM STP 894 (Ed. B.G. Isom), pp. 157–167. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. 

Hönisch, B., A. Ridgwell, D.N. Schmidt, E. Thomas, S.J. Gibbs, A. Sluijs, R. Zeebe, L. Kump, R.C. 

Martindale, S.E. Greene, W. Kiessling, J. Ries, J.C. Zachos, D.L. Royer, S. Barker, T.M. Marchitto 

Jr., R. Moyer, C. Pelejero, P. Ziveri, G. Foster, and B. Williams. 2012. The geological record of 

ocean acidification. Science 335:1058–1063. 

Huber, M. and R. Knutti. 2011. Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s 

energy balance. Nature Geoscience. Published online December 4, 2011; DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1327. 

6 pp. plus supplemental material. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. 

Available URL: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/. 

Accessed July 31, 2012. 

IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing 

Team, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. 

Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 

996 pp. Available URL:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. Accessed July 27, 

2012. 

IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing 

Team, Pachauri, R.K., and A. Reisinger (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp. Available URL:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. Accessed July 25, 

2012. 

IPCC. 2007c. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor 

and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Available URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

Accessed July 27, 2012. 

Jacob, T., J. Wahr, T.W. Pfeffer, and S. Swenson. 2012. Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps 

to sea level rise. Nature 482 (23 February 2012):514-518. doi: 10.1038/nature10847. 

Kirwin, M.L., G.R. Guntenspergen, A. D’Alpaos, J.T. Morris, S.M. Mudd, and S. Temmerman. 

2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. Geophysical Research Letters 

37:L23401 doi:10.1029/2010GL045489. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-34 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Kliem, J.M. and D. A. Holden. 2011. Grays Harbor County 2011–2016 Hazard Mitigation Plan. 

Available URL: http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/GHCoHazardsMitigation/2011 percent20Grays 

percent20Harbor percent20Hazard percent20Plan percent20- percent20FINAL.pdf.

Komar, P.D., J.C. Allan, and P. Ruggiero. 2011. Sea level variations along the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest Coast: tectonic and climatic controls. Journal of Coastal Research 27:808–823. 

Littell, J.S., M.M. Elsner, and G. Mauger. 2011. Regional climate and hydrologic change in the 

northern U.S. Rockies and Pacific Northwest: internally consistent projections of future climate for 

resource management. Draft report: January 7, 2011. Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington. Available URL: http://cses.washington.edu/data/r1r6.shtml. 

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, Siegenthaler, U., Raynaud, D., Jouzel, 

J., Fischer, H., Kawamura, K. and T.F. Stocker. 2008. EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Carbon 

Dioxide Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 

2008-055. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. Accessed from the Carbon 

Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 

Available URL: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html. 

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and 

summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in 

Washington State. Climatic Change 102:187–223. 

Mazzotti, S., A. Lambert, M. Van der Kooij, and A. Mainville. 2008. Impact of anthropogenic 

subsidence on relative sea-level rise in the Fraser River delta. Geology 37:771–774. 

McKay, N.P., J.T. Overpeck, and B.L. Otto-Bliesner. 2011. The role of ocean thermal expansion in 

Last Interglacial sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 38: L14605. doi: 

10.1029/2011GL048280. 

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. 

Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao. 2007. 

Global Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. 

Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Menéndez, M., F.J. Méndez, I.J. Losada, and N.E. Graham. 2008. Variability of extreme wave 

heights in the northeast Pacific Ocean based on buoy measurements. Geophysical Research Letters 

35:L22607. 

Momot, J. and M. Mahaffy. 2004. Pilot Investigation into Dioxin and Furan Levels in Amphipods of 

Grays Harbor, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Contaminants Program. 

Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WWFWO). Lacey, WA. 

Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of 

coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83(10): 2869–2877, doi:10.1890/0012-

9658(2002)083[2869:rocwtr]2.0.co;2. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-35

Mote, P., A. Hamlet, and E. Salathé. 2008. Has spring snowpack declined in the Washington 

Cascades? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 12:193–206. 

Mote, P.W., and E.P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 

102:29–50. 

Napier L., C. Stussy, B. Demond, J. Kliem. 2008. The Chehalis Basin Salmon Restoration and 

Preservation Work Plan for WRIA 22 and 23. Montesano, Washington: Chehalis Basin Partnership, 

Habitat Work Group. Olympia, WA. Available URL: http://www.co.graysharbor.wa.us/info/pub_svcs/ChehalisBasin/Docs/WRIA20080922-23.pdf

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2008. Understanding and responding to climate change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. 2008 Edition. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and 

Climate, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. Available URL: http://delsold.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/basics.shtml. Accessed July 27, 2012. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2015. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the 

Planet: Sea Level. Available URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/. Accessed July 31, 

2015. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Temperature change and carbon 

dioxide change. Online at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperaturechange.html. 

NOAA. 2012a. Global warming: frequently asked questions. National Climatic Data Center. 

Available URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html. Accessed July 27, 2012. 

NOAA. 2012b. A paleo perspective on global warming: temperature change and carbon dioxide 

change. Available URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html. 

Accessed July 27, 2012. 

NOAA. 2012c. Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth System Research Laboratory. Available 

URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

NOAA. 2012d. Westport, WA (9441102) water levels. Available URL: 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9441102. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

NOAA. 2012e. Sea level trends. Available URL: 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2012 (pre-publication). Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, 

Oregon, and Washington: Past, present, and future. Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, 

Oregon, and Washington; Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Ocean Studies Board; Division on 

Earth and Life Studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 260 pp. Available URL: 

http://ssi.ucsd.edu/scc/images/NRC%20SL%20rise%20W%20coast%20USA%2012.pdf. 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. 

Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.K. 

Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdel, M.F. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-36 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Weirig, Y.Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first 

century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–86. 

Pickett, P. 1991. Investigation of water quality problems in the Black River between Black River 

Canoe Club and the Mouth of Mima Creek. Memorandum to Diane Harvester, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Pickett, P. 1994a. Black River dry season total maximum daily load study. Washington State 

Department of Ecology. Publication No. 94-106. Olympia, WA. 

Pickett, P. 1994b. Black River wet season, non-point source total maximum daily load 

study. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 94-104. Olympia, WA. 

PRISM Climate Group. 2012. PRISM data explorer. Oregon State University. Available URL: 

http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed July 30, 2012. 

Read, W. 2015. The Storm King: The Climatology and Meteorology of Windstorms That Affect the 

Cascadia Region of North America, Including the U.S., Pacific Northwest and Southwest British 

Columbia, Canada, updated December 16, 2015. Office of the Washington State Climatologist. 

http://www.climate.washington.edu/stormking/. 

Rigg, G.B. 1958. Peat Resources of Washington. Division of Mines and Geology. Bulletin No. 44 

pp. 215–218. 

Ruggiero, P., P.D. Komar, and J.C. Allan. 2010. Increasing wave heights and extreme value 

projections: the wave climate of the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Coastal Engineering 57:539–552. 

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C.S. Wong, 

D.W.R. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T.-H. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, and A.F. Rios. 2004. The 

oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367–371. 

Salathé, E.P., L.R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2010. Regional climate model projections for the 

State of Washington. Climatic Change 102:51-75. 

Save Black Lake Coalition (SBLC). 2010. Website http://www.saveblacklake.org/.

Schick, C.T., L.A. Brennan, J.B. Buchanan, M.A. Finger, T.M. Johnson, S.G. Herman. 1987. 

Organochlorine Contamination in Shorebirds from Washington State and their Significance for their 

Falcon Predators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 9:115–131. 

Secretary of the Interior. 2009. Climate Change and the Department of the Interior. Secretarial Order 

3226 (Amendment 1). January 16, 2009. Available URL: 

http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/0/doc/144/Page1.aspx. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

Simenstad, C.A. and Eggers, D.H. 1981. Juvenile Salmonid and Baitfish Distribution, Abundance, 

and Prey Resources in Selected Areas of Grays Harbor, Washington. University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA. For Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW 67–80–C–

0102. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-37

Sistek, S. 2006. What makes a Western Washington windstorm? Retrieved from 

http://www.komonews.com/weather/faq/4306592.html.

Smith, C.J. and M. Wenger. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin 

and Nearby Drainages WRIAs 22 and 23. Lacey, Washington: Washington State Conservation 

Commission. Olympia, WA. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, 

J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, 

U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. 

Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, and D. Wratt. 2007. Technical 

Summary. Pp. 19–91 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller 

(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. 996 pp. Available URL:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

Stewart, I.T, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western 

North America under a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62:217–232. 

Online at: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/stewart_clch.pdf. 

Tebaldi, C., B.H. Strauss, and C.E. Zervas. 2012. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges 

along US coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032. 

Thom, R. M. 1993. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Transplant Monitoring in Grays Harbor, 

Washington, After 29 Months. Seattle: US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, January 1993. 

Thurston County. 2012. Emergency Management-Rivers-Black River. Available URL: 

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/em/Rivers/BlackRiver.htm.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States 2000 Census. Available URL: 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington. 

Olympia, WA. 

USDA. 2012. Web Soil Survey. Available URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Engineering Assessment for the Proposed Grays 

Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. Division of Engineering, Region 1. 

USFWS. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge. Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available URL: 

https://inside.fws.gov/media/climatechange/CCStrategicPlan.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2012. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). Cambridge University Press. 

Available URL: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-38 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Warren Pinnacle Consulting. 2011. Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model 

(SLAMM 6) to Grays Harbor NWR. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Arlington, VA. 

Washington Canal Commission (WCC). 1933. Report on Proposed Canals Connecting Puget Sound 

to Grays Harbor; Grays Harbor to Willapa Bay; and Willapa Bay to Columbia River. Canal 

Commission of the State of Washington. (W.H. Abel, President of the Canal Commission). 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2010a. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Grays Harbor 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring to Characterize Water Quality in Urban Stormwater Drains. 

Publication No.10-10-066. 

WDOE. 2010b. Water Quality Improvement Projects: Grays Harbor Area. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/ChehalisBasin/GraysHbrTMDL.html. 

WDOE. 2011 . Washington’s Coast, Weather. Website. Accessed January 2011. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/coast/storms/weather.html.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2015a. Period of record general climate summary—

temperature, Hoquiam Bowerman AP, Washington (453807). Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?wa3807. Accessed May 20, 2015. 

WRCC. 2015b. Period of record general climate summary—precipitation, Hoquiam Bowerman AP, 

Washington (453807). Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wa3807. Accessed 

May 20, 2015. 

WRCC. 2015c. Period of record general climate summary—temperature, Olympia AP, Washington 

(456114). Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?wa611. Accessed May 20, 

2015. 

WRCC. 2015d. Monthly average of maximum daily temperature, Olympia AP, Washington 

(456114). Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/WRCCWrappers.py?sodxtrmts+456114+por+por+maxt+none+mave+5+01

+F. Accessed May 20, 2015. 

WRCC. 2015e. Monthly average of minimum daily temperature, Olympia AP, Washington 

(456114). Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/WRCCWrappers.py?sodxtrmts+456114+por+por+mint+none+mave+5+01

+F. Accessed May 20, 2015. 

WRCC. 2015f. Period of record general climate summary—precipitation, Olympia AP, Washington 

(456114). Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wa611. Accessed May 20, 

2015. 

Wootton, J. T., C.A. Pfister, and J.D. Forester. 2008. Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of 

declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science 105(48): 18848–18853. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-39

Yake, W. and J. Bernhardt. 1989. The Black River Fish Kill Report. Washington Department of 

Ecology. Publication 89-54. 30 pp. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

3-40 Chapter 3. Physical Environment
Chapter 4

Biological Environment

©Connie Ruppert

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on the Refuge and the Unit. 

However, it is not an exhaustive review of all species and habitats. The chapter begins with a 

discussion of biological integrity (historic conditions and ecosystem function), as required under the 

Refuge Administration Act. The bulk of the chapter focuses on the presentation of pertinent 

background information for habitats used by each of the priority Resources of Concern (ROCs) and 

other benefitting species identified in the CCP (see Tables 4-1a and b). 

ROCs are plant and animal species and their habitats that have been identified by a refuge through its 

refuge purpose or other conservation plan to receive special or enhanced management attention; these 

become the conservation targets for the CCP’s goals, objectives, and strategies. A priority ROC 

requires an even higher level of attention and management. Focal resources are species or species 

groups sharing the same or similar conservation needs as the priority ROC and selected by a refuge 

as representatives for the overall condition of the priority ROC. Species of concern (SOCs) are plant 

and animal species that are declining or appear to be in need of conservation. Their status is 

determined by the Service’s fish and wildlife office in a particular state, but the category is informal 

and confers no legal status under the ESA. 

The background information includes descriptions, conditions, and trends of habitats and identifies 

threats (stresses and sources of stress) to the habitats or associated ROCs. This information was used 

to develop goals and objectives for the CCP. 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. To meet this mandate, the Service developed a Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) Policy to provide implementation guidance (see 

policy 601 FW 3). 

Elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as those 

ecological processes that support them. The Refuge System policy on BIDEH provides guidance for

consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources that 

represent BIDEH on refuges and in associated ecosystems. This policy provides refuges with a 

process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of 

environmental conditions and to restore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also 

provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the BIDEH of a refuge and its ecosystems. 

The Refuge and the Unit developed BIDEH tables to examine the habitats supporting key fish and 

wildlife species (see Appendix E for the BIDEH tables). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

4.1.1 Historical Land Use and Conditions

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge manages approximately 1,500 acres within the 60,160-acre Grays Harbor estuary. Grays 

Harbor estuary is located between the mouth of the Chehalis River and the Pacific Ocean. The 

Refuge encompasses Bowerman Basin and is bounded to the north by uplands and rip-rap along State 

Highway 109, the south by Bowerman Airport, and the east by industrial lands. The primary habitat 

type is an estuarine ecosystem composed of open water, intertidal mudflats, salt and brackish marsh, 

and surrounding forest habitats (Map 2). 

The biological integrity and health of the entire estuary has been significantly influenced by human 

activities. Prior to 1941 and the construction of Bowerman Airfield, the area was a contiguous part of 

the larger estuary. In the wide-open intertidal mudflats and open water was Moon Island; Mini-moon 

Island did not exist, nor did Paulson Road or Airport Way. Salt marshes surrounded the edge of the 

mudflats. 

In order to construct Bowerman Airfield in 1941 and 1942, a long bulkhead connecting to Moon 

Island was filled with rocks, soil, and dredge spoils. Fill continued to be placed on the mudflats east 

of the bulkhead converting it to higher elevation land. The constructed bulkhead and fill created a 

peninsula and transformed open water and intertidal mudflats into a protected basin. An industrial 

area was subsequently developed (CH2M HILL 1979) to the east and southeast. Unconfined dredge 

spoil disposal continued near Paulson Road until 1972 (Cooper 1989). A berm was constructed 

extending from State Highway 109 near Bi-Pass Road toward Paulson Road and Airport Way to 

confine dredge deposits placed between 1973 and 1976 on what were then City of Hoquiam lands 

(Cooper 1989, NOAA 1987). The dredge fill and resulting airport peninsula confined water entry and 

exit to the western end of the basin (Kunze and Cornelius 1985, Cooper 1989). Long-term impacts 

from these significant changes in the landscape require further information and research. 

Historically, dioxin and fecal coliform bacteria are contaminants identified as problematic in the 

greater estuary. Eight pulp mills violated water quality standards by discharging dioxincontaminated effluent and sludge (USEPA 1992). The Refuge is located in a site where 

contamination may have occurred from dredge spoils, industrial waste, ship discharges, urban waste, 

agricultural residue, and general runoff (Chapter 3.8). 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Black River is a 25-mile long tributary of the Chehalis River, which drains a 144-square-mile 

basin. It flows from Black Lake at an elevation of 144 feet to the confluence with the Chehalis River 

at an elevation of 125 feet (Smith and Wegner 2001). The river has a very low gradient (averaging 9 

inches/mile) within an oversized channel (Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

The Unit manages over 1,300 acres within the 3,900-acre approved boundary encompassing the 

upper third of the river, extending from the southern edge of Black Lake to approximately river mile 

17.5 just south of 123rd Avenue. Habitats include approximately 7.5 miles of river channel, 6 to 16 

miles of tributary channels; bog; shrub swamp; riparian forest; emergent marsh; seasonally flooded, 

nonnative grasslands; dry, nonnative grasslands; and mixed forest (see Map 5). The surrounding 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

landscape is primarily rural and includes large areas of commercial forest and agriculture, areas of 

low- to high-density development, and some small industrial development. 

 

The lands within the approved Unit boundary appear relatively less impacted by human activities 

compared to other low-elevation river systems in the Puget Trough region. However, human 

activities since European settlement have substantially affected many of the habitats within and 

adjacent to the current boundary. 

Some historically forested habitats were modified for agricultural purposes. For example, within the 

current Unit boundary, some uplands historically dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock 

forest were modified for agricultural purposes and converted to pastures, hayfields, and crop fields. 

Several of these areas were former dairy farms at the time of Unit acquisition (Easterly and Salstrom 

2008). 

The Black River originates from Black Lake, but its historic regime has been altered. In 1922, an 

approximately 3.4-mile ditch was constructed to connect the north end of Black Lake to what is now 

Capital Lake, at the southern end of Puget Sound. This additional drainage, which has continued to 

deepen through subsequent excavations, has lowered the lake level by 2 feet and altered the flow 

such that the lake seldom drains south into Black River. This loss of water has reduced the flow in 

the river, especially from October through March, which in turn increases water temperature, 

decreases DO levels, and concentrates toxins (Smith and Wenger 2001). 

In the 1960s a gas pipeline was excavated across the Black River and its riparian zone about 1.5 

miles downstream from the lake. Excavated spoils were sidecast. The line of spoils has supported 

altered vegetation, which in turn encouraged beaver dam building activity and debris accumulation. 

The berm may have created a blockage for fish access upstream from this point, as well as 

contributed to the reversal of flow in the wetlands of the upper Black River (Smith and Wenger 

2001). Documentation of river dredging was not found, but anecdotal information described 

deepening of the river both above and below Littlerock to allow ferrying of people and products in 

the early 1900s (Westby, L. 2011, pers. comm.). Currently the river appears to be over 10 feet deep 

in areas with very steep, undercut sides that are unstable. 

Two public roads cross the northern third of the Black River and associated wetlands within the 

approved boundary: 110th Avenue SW and 123rd Avenue SW. In both cases, the roads constrict the 

river’s flow. This alters both water flow and connectivity within the wetlands. The roads may 

influence water quality by increasing sediment and pollutant delivery and can be points of 

introduction for nonnative species. The physical changes imposed on various parts of the river can be 

observed, but the effects on the biological integrity and environmental health may not be easily 

observed or understood without further research and monitoring. 

Surface and groundwater availability have also been altered in the Black River system. Various parts 

of the floodplain have been ditched, drained, cleared, and/or filled in the past primarily in connection 

with agricultural use. Blooms Ditch drains into the river on the Unit from the east. The implications 

of such ditches to the habitat are that they reduce surface flooding during the rainy season and 

effectively reduce seepage into the aquifer. Overall, they may alter the quantity and timing of surface 

flow into the river, its tributaries, and riparian systems. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Some forestry practices to the west and some agriculture practices to the east of the river may have 

increased sediment and nutrient loads. These activities have impacted native habitats and may have 

introduced populations of invasive, nonnative species. 

Land use near the Unit has been changing, with increased residential and commercial development. 

These changes likely will result in greater amounts of well drilling and groundwater removal from 

the system.

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern

In preparing this plan, the planning team reviewed other local, regional, and national plans that 

pertain to wildlife and habitats within the Chehalis River Basin and southwest Washington. The team 

also sought input from Washington State conservation agencies, NGOs, and the public (see Appendix 

J). As a result of this information-gathering and review process, certain species and habitats were 

identified and listed in Biological Resources of Concern and BIDEH tables (see Appendix E). 

Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives in Chapter 2 were designed directly around the habitat 

requirements of species designated as priority ROCs (see Tables 4-1a and b). 

ROCs are described as conservation targets in conservation planning methodologies used by other 

agencies and NGOs. In developing objectives, the team followed the process outlined in the 

Service’s Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook

(USFWS 2010a). As defined in the Service’s Policy on Habitat Management Plans (620 FW 1), 

ROCs are: 

“all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern 

on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern 

under terms of the respective endangered species acts” (620 FW 1.4G). 

“Habitats or plant communities are resources of concern when they are specifically identified 

in refuge purposes, when they support species or species groups identified in refuge 

purposes, when they support NWRS resources of concern, and/or when they are important in 

the maintenance or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health” 

(620 FW 1). 

Therefore, ROCs for a refuge may be a species or species group, or the habitat or plant community 

that supports a priority species or species group. 

In further refining the extensive ROC tables and using the BIDEH table to create the priority ROCs 

with focal resources (see Tables 4-1a and b), the planning team analyzed the ecological attributes of 

the habitats to meet the life history requirements of ROCs. Those attributes are therefore critical to 

sustaining the long-term viability of the priority ROCs and other benefitting species. These provide 

measurable indicators that strongly correlate with the ability of a habitat to support a given species. 

Tables listing the habitat types found on the Refuge incorporate “desired” conditions based on 

scientific literature review and team members’ professional judgment. These desired conditions for 

specific ecological attributes were then used to help develop habitat objectives, as presented in 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

Chapter 2. However, other factors, such as feasibility and the Refuge’s ability to reasonably influence 

or measure certain indicators, played a role in determining the ultimate parameters chosen for each 

habitat objective. Thus, ecological attributes should be viewed as a step in the planning process. The 

ultimate design of habitat objectives was subject to further discussion and consideration. 

Additionally, the planning team refined the species or species groups included in the ROC tables by 

selecting not only species mentioned in establishing documents for the Refuge and the Unit, but also 

species that captured the ecological attributes of habitats required by larger suites of species (see 

“Other Benefitting Species,” Tables 4-1a and b and in Appendix E). Priority ROCs may be species, 

species groups, or features that the Refuge and the Unit will actively manage to conserve and restore 

during the life of the CCP. Negative features of the landscape, such as invasive plants, may demand a 

large part of the Refuge’s and the Unit’s management efforts, but are not designated as ROCs. 

Limiting factors were considered in developing objectives. A limiting factor is a threat to, or an 

impairment or degradation of, the natural processes responsible for creating and maintaining plant 

and animal communities. In developing objectives and strategies, the team gave priority to mitigating 

or abating limiting factors that presented high risk to ROCs. In many cases, limiting factors occur on 

a regional or landscape scale and are beyond the control of individual refuges. Therefore, objectives 

and strategies may seek to mimic, rather than restore, natural processes. In some cases the structure 

of plant communities utilized by ROCs can be created, rather than restoring the original native 

species composition. For example, management of nonnative vegetation by mowing and/or grazing 

may be necessary to maintain a desirable vegetation structure, when restoring native grassland 

communities may be impractical. Through the consideration of BIDEH, the Refuge and the Unit will 

provide for or maintain all appropriate native habitats and species. Refuge and Unit management 

priorities may change over time, and because the CCP is designed to be a living, flexible document, 

changes will be made if needed. 

The main criteria for selecting priority ROCs included the following requirements: 

• The resource must be reflective of the Refuge’s or the Unit’s establishing purposes and the 

Refuge System mission; 

• The resource must include the main natural habitat types found at the Refuge and the Unit; 

• The resource must be recommended as a conservation priority in the Refuge Wildlife and 

Habitat Management Review; and

• The resource is federally or State-listed as threatened or endangered, is a candidate for listing, 

or is a species of concern. 

Other criteria considered in the selection of the ROCs included the following: 

• Species groups and/or Refuge or Unit features of special management concern; 

• Species contributing to the BIDEH of the ecosystem;

• Species where it is feasible to estimate population size (needed for future monitoring and 

adaptive management).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Table 4-1a. Priority Resources of Concern with Focal Resources and Other Benefitting 

Species—Grays Harbor Refuge 

Priority Resources

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

Tidal Open Water 

(723 acres) 

Bufflehead 

Concentrations of diving waterfowl such as 

scaup species, red-breasted and common 

merganser, goldeneye species, scoter species; 

some dabbling ducks such as northern pintail, 

mallard, gadwall, green-winged teal, northern 

shoveler; geese such as Canada, cackling, 

white-fronted, brant; waterbirds such as loon 

species, cormorant species, grebe species, 

brown pelican, gull species; bald eagle, osprey; 

many fish species such as juvenile and adult flat 

fish, forage fish, salmonids, green sturgeon, bull 

trout, eulachon; mammals such as harbor seal, 

marine invertebrates, zooplankton, 

phytoplankton, algae

Native eelgrass

Fish species, especially those laying eggs on 

eelgrass, juvenile salmonids; benthic and other 

marine invertebrates including Dungeness crab, 

soft-shell clams; brant

Intertidal Mudflat 

(497 acres) 

Western sandpiper 

Slightly probing shorebirds such as dunlin, least 

and semipalmated sandpiper; raptors such as 

peregrine falcon, merlin, bald eagle; benthic and 

water column invertebrates

Short-billed dowitcher 

Moderately deep-probing shorebirds such as red 

knot, whimbrel, marbled godwit, long-billed 

curlew, yellowlegs species, long-billed 

dowitcher; raptors such as peregrine falcon, 

merlin, bald eagle; benthic and water column 

invertebrates

Semipalmated plover

Visually foraging shorebirds such as blackbellied plover, golden plover species; raptors 

such as peregrine falcon, merlin, bald eagle; 

benthic and water column invertebrates

Benthic invertebrates Shorebirds; waterbirds; mink; otter; fish

Caspian tern

Gull species including glaucous-winged, 

western, mew, ring-billed; raptors such as 

peregrine falcon, merlin, bald eagle, osprey; fish 

species; benthic and water column invertebrates

American wigeon Concentrations of dabbling waterfowl such as 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

Priority Resources

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

northern pintail, mallard, gadwall, green-winged 

teal, northern shoveler; geese such as Canada, 

cackling, white-fronted; waterbirds such as 

double-crested cormorant, gulls; harbor seal; 

juvenile and possibly adult fish including 

salmon species; benthic and water column 

invertebrates

Salt and Brackish 

Marsh (156 acres) 

Marsh wren 

Long-tailed weasel, river otter; garter snake;

shorebirds such as least sandpiper, western 

sandpiper, dunlin; dabbling waterfowl such as 

American wigeon, mallard, northern pintail, 

green-wing teal; geese including Canada, 

cackling, white-fronted; marshbirds such as 

great-blue heron, sora, Virginia rail, American 

bittern; northern harrier; red-winged blackbird, 

common yellow-throat, song sparrow; terrestrial 

insects; benthic and water column invertebrates; 

possibly Newcomb’s littorine snail

Fish

Juvenile fish such as flat fish, forage fish, 

salmonids, eulachon, bull trout, green sturgeon; 

terrestrial insects; benthic and water column 

invertebrates

Sweetgrass (3-square 

bulrush) 

Native salt marsh vegetation; juvenile fish;

benthic and water column invertebrates; 

possibly Newcomb’s littorine snail 

Representatives of High, 

Mid & and Low Salt 

Marsh plant species.

High = cow parsnip 

Mid = Pacific silverweed 

or Lyngby’s sedge

Low = pickeleweed or 

sand-spurry species

All plant species of the salt marsh; benthic and 

water column invertebrates; juvenile fish; 

passerines; shorebirds; waterfowl; waterbirds 

Forest 

(95 acres) 

Yellow Warbler/Yellowrumped Warbler 

Downy woodpecker, rufous hummingbird,

willow flycatcher, Pacific-slope flycatcher, 

black-capped chickadee, tree-, barn-, and violetgreen swallows, Bewick’s wren, Wilson’s and 

orange-crowned warblers, common 

yellowthroat, American robin, cedar waxwing, 

song and fox sparrows, American goldfinch;
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Priority Resources

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk; long- and

short-tailed weasel; black-tailed deer; garter 

snake species; Pacific chorus frog; amphibians; 

invertebrates; insects

(All habitat types are GIS acres)

Table 4-1b. Priority Resources of Concern with Focal Species and Other Benefitting Species—

Black River Unit

Priority Resource 

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

River Channel and 

Tributary Channels 

with mud bottom

(7.5 miles of river and 

3 to 13 miles of 

tributaries) 

Olympic mudminnow 

Oregon spotted frog, red-legged frog, roughskinned newt, northwest and long-toed 

salamanders; pied-billed grebe; belted 

kingfisher, green heron; three-spined 

stickleback, prickly sculpin; benthic and aquatic 

invertebrates, including freshwater mussels; 

insects such as Pacific clubtail dragonfly; 

freshwater sponge species; bat species; mink, 

muskrat, otter, beaver; possibly water howellia 

Tributary Channel 

with cobble bottom

(<3 miles) 

Coho salmon 

Cutthroat and steelhead trout, Chinook salmon;

benthic and aquatic invertebrates, including 

freshwater mussel species; insects

Native crayfish

Bat species; great blue and green herons; mink, 

muskrat 

Bog 

(56 acres) 

Bog plants such as 

Labrador tea/sphagnum 

moss

Western bog laurel, bog cranberry, sundew, bog 

orchids, cotton grass, possibly water howellia 

Bog specialists including invertebrates such as 

Beller’s ground beetle, Hatch’s click beetle, 

Queen Charlotte’s copper butterfly

Shrub Swamp 

(512 acres) 

Willow/Pacific slope 

flycatcher

Downy woodpecker, marsh wren, flycatcher 

species, warblers such as McGillivray’s-, 

Wilson’s-, orange-crowned-, yellow-rumped, 

and common yellowthroat; song sparrow; belted 

kingfisher; pollinator insects

Olympic mudminnow Pacific chorus frog, rough-skinned newt, 

northwest and long-toed salamander

Muskrat 

Bat species; mink, otter, beaver, raccoon;

benthic and aquatic invertebrates; possibly water 

howellia 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

Priority Resource 

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

Riparian Forest 

(265 acres) 

Yellow warbler

McGillivray’s-, Wilson’s-, orange-crowned, 

black-throated gray, and yellow-rumped 

warblers; warbling vireo, American robin, 

spotted towhee, purple finch, song and fox 

sparrows, black-headed grosbeak, Bewick’s and 

winter wrens, cedar waxwing, red-breasted 

sapsucker; wood duck, hooded merganser; 

sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks; rufous 

hummingbird; belted kingfisher; pollinator

insects

Swainson’s thrush/ 

Downy woodpecker 

Bat species; mice, shrew, vole, mole, flying 

squirrel, mink, raccoon, long and short-tailed 

weasel, opossum; red fox, coyote, bobcat, black 

bear, cougar

Pacific chorus frog 

Rough-skinned newt, western red-backed 

salamander, northwest and long-toed 

salamanders; garter snake species; aquatic 

invertebrates; possibly water howellia 

Emergent Marsh

(34 acres) 

Oregon spotted 

frog/Northwestern 

salamander

Benthic and aquatic invertebrates; pollinator

insects; possibly water howellia; possibly 

Olympic mudminnow; bat species; mink, 

muskrat; Pacific chorus frog, red-legged frog, 

rough-skinned newt, northwest, and long-toed 

salamanders; garter snake, other snake species 

Marsh wren 

American bittern, Virginia rail, sora, Wilson’s 

snipe, great blue and green heron; pied-billed 

grebe; northern harrier; swallows, red-winged 

blackbird; dabbling waterfowl such as mallard, 

American wigeon, northern shoveler, northern 

pintail, American green-winged, blue-winged, 

cinnamon teal, coot, geese

Seasonally Flooded 

Nonnative Grasslands

(82 acres) 

Red-legged frog

Rough-skinned newt, northwest and long-toed 

salamanders; benthic and aquatic invertebrates; 

bats; mink, muskrat

Mallard

Dabbling waterfowl such as American wigeon, 

northern shoveler, northern pintail, American 

green-winged, blue-winged, and cinnamon teal, 

coot, Canada and cackling geese; purple martin, 

tree- violet-green, and rough-winged swallow; 

northern harrier; red-winged blackbird; sora, 

Virginia rail, American bittern
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Priority Resource 

of Concern Focal Resources Other Benefitting Species

Killdeer Killdeer in 

moist, short-grass areas

Wilson’s snipe, greater yellowlegs; migrating 

shorebirds; northern harrier; cackling and 

Canada geese; mice, shrew, vole, mole; bat 

species; garter snake species; freshwater and 

terrestrial invertebrates 

Dry Nonnative 

Grassland

(163 acres) 

Savannah sparrow 

Western meadowlark, lazuli bunting, western 

bluebird; killdeer; common nighthawk, redtailed hawk, American kestrel; Canada and 

cackling goose; western screech owl, barn owl, 

possibly short-eared owl, possibly northern 

shrike

American kestrel

Bat species; mice, vole, mole; weasel, spotted 

skunk; snake species, northern alligator lizard; 

pollinator insects; Roosevelt elk, black-tailed 

deer; coyote 

Mixed Forest 

(394 acres) 

Early–mid successional 

forest without understory 

Black-capped chickadee

Yellow-rumped and orange-crowned warbler, 

white-crowned and song sparrow, rufous-sided 

towhee, dark-eyed junco, Steller’s jay, crow 

species; butterfly and moth species; garter snake 

species, northern alligator lizard; western redbacked salamander; mice, shrew, vole; bat 

species; weasel, opossum, raccoon, spotted 

skunk; coyote, bobcat, black bear, cougar; 

Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer 

Mid–mature successional 

forest with understory: 

Chestnut-backed 

chickadee/

Pileated woodpecker/ 

Douglas squirrel/Varied 

thrush 

Band-tailed pigeon; bald eagle, Cooper’s and 

sharp-shinned hawk, western screech-, northern 

saw-whet-, and great horned owl; Vaux’s swift, 

winter wren, Pacific-slope flycatcher, brown 

creeper, Townsend’s warbler, hermit thrush, 

Steller’s jay; snake species; Townsend’s 

chipmunk, Douglas squirrel, flying squirrel; 

spotted skunk; bat species; weasels; mice, 

shrew, voles; opossum; coyote, bobcat, black 

bear, cougar; Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer; 

Northern possibly spotted owl

(All habitat types are GIS acres)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11

4.3 Habitat Types 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

4.3.1 Tidal Open Water 

Overview

Approximately 723 acres of tidal open water habitat is located in the western portion of the Refuge. 

This habitat is inundated continually with marine waters, regardless of tide level. Salinity ranges 

from 10 to 25 ppt depending upon the time of year. In winter during intense rain events, salinity 

levels can drop because of large freshwater inputs from rivers and tributaries as well as from direct 

precipitation. In summer during periods of little rain, salinity rises due to decreased watershed 

drainage and increased evaporation. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, algae, and invertebrates thrive

within this habitat. 

Native eelgrass beds may exist where physical substrate characteristics are appropriate. However, 

rooted aquatic plants can be scarce in the main channels because of water depth, difficulty in 

photosynthesizing in turbid conditions, and strong, erosive currents. 

Submerged tidal channels deliver oceanic nutrients and plankton to the tidal flats during high tides. 

The channels provide a route for fish to access the intertidal mudflats and cover from large predators 

during low tides (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Large woody debris (LWD), such as entire trees, 

branches, or root wads carried by tides and rivers, is distributed in the open water and may become 

waterlogged and sink to the bottom; such woody debris captures sediments and provides underwater 

cover for fish and invertebrates. 

Ideally, water quality should be high, relatively free of contamination, pollution, and turbidity. 

Nonnative or invasive animals and plants should be at a minimum. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Tidal Open Water 

Along the Pacific coastline, Grays Harbor is a 94-square-mile coastal estuary of hemispheric 

significance to migrating shorebirds and regional importance to a variety of fish and wildlife species 

(see Special Designation Lands 1.8). The tidal open water of the Refuge provides 723 acres for 

thousands of migrating birds needing food and rest. Tidal open water habitat accounts for nearly 50 

percent of the overall Refuge area. 

Water quality, invasive species, and climate change have and could compromise the ecological 

integrity of this habitat and its inhabitants. The primary threats to this habitat come from nearby 

pollution sources; heavy industries may contribute air and noise pollution, but water pollution is the 

largest threat. Ocean-going shipping vessels and barge traffic pass next to the Refuge and present a 

potential for grounding or possible fuel spills. Upstream, heavy industries, such as a pulp mill and 

storage facilities for oil and gas, may release pollutants or cause an accident that could impair the 

open water habitat. Ship hulls provide growing surfaces for plants and invertebrates from other areas 

of the world, and ballast water may include nonnative plankton, algae, and invertebrates. 

Establishment of nonnative plants and animals in Refuge open water habitat is likely and would 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

negatively impact native habitat, fish, and wildlife species. Sea level rise will increase this habitat 

coverage on the Refuge. 

Key Species Supported

The open water of the Refuge provides habitat for juvenile and adult fish, wintering and migratory 

birds, a variety of invertebrate animals, and aquatic plants. Although specific species occurrence data 

is lacking for Refuge waters, these estuarine areas likely serve as foraging areas for adult salmon, 

eulachon, lamprey, sea-run cutthroat trout, and steelhead migrating upriver to spawn, and for 

juveniles moving downstream to the ocean. Sturgeon, forage fish, and ground-feeding fish may 

forage in the deeper channels and holes. 

Oceanic nutrients, phyto- and zooplankton, and algae found in this habitat provide prey for fish. 

Specific occurrence information is lacking for Refuge waters, but likely clams, oysters, mussels, 

aquatic worms, amphipods, and other small organisms live along the bottom of the estuary and serve 

as a valuable food source for many species. Federally listed eulachon, green sturgeon, and bull trout 

(NFSC 2008, USDC 2009, Jeanes and Morello 2006, Chan, J. 2013, pers. comm.) juveniles may use 

this habitat. Many fish species that spend their adult life in the ocean spend time as juveniles in the 

estuary. The size of fish populations or stability of listed species using this habitat is unknown. 

Open water provides necessary resting and foraging habitat for hundreds of waterfowl such as 

bufflehead, greater and lesser scaup, ring-necked ducks, and merganser species; waterbirds such as 

gull species, pelagic and double-crested cormorants and grebe species; prey for raptors such as 

osprey, and bald eagle during migration, breeding, and wintering periods. State-listed species are also 

dependent on this habitat. 

4.3.2 Intertidal Mudflat 

Overview

Intertidal mudflats are those areas of exposed mud, sand, and silt affected by rising and falling tides. 

This habitat is completely inundated at mean higher high water tidal levels and completely evacuated 

at lower tides, exposing approximately 64 percent (497 acres) of the Refuge. A large area of the 

intertidal mudflat habitat is free of rooted vegetation and supports algae growth. Twice daily, tidally 

driven marine waters flood the Refuge up to 12.5 feet deep and transport nutrients and a variety of 

animal life: zooplankton, phytoplankton, algae, and fish. Patches of native eelgrass, growing in 

slough channels at lower elevations, may be exposed briefly during extreme low tides. LWD is 

distributed across intertidal mudflats with tidal changes. 

Intertidal mudflats within the Refuge boundary are at slightly higher elevation than those in the rest 

of Grays Harbor and are one of the last areas to be covered by rising tides. Because of this, the

Refuge habitat provides exposure of benthic and epibenthic invertebrate populations for shorebirds to 

prey upon for 1 to 2 hours longer than at other areas of the harbor. This area also functions as an 

important roosting and loafing site for migrating and wintering shorebirds. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Intertidal Mudflat

In the Pacific Northwest large portions of estuarine habitat have been lost to diking, channeling, 

dredging, and filling. Washington is estimated to have lost between 45 and 62 percent of its presettlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). 

Tidal marine waters carry zooplankton, phytoplankton, algae, seeds, and fish throughout the estuary 

and sustain epibenthic and benthic invertebrate populations. Organisms inhabiting intertidal flats 

must cope with the stress of currents, varied wave action, tides, and air exposure. Intertidal life is 

affected by light level, temperature change, amounts of oxygen and salinity, air exposure, wind, 

sediments, and turbidity (McConnaughey and McConnaughey 1985). Intertidal organisms may be 

negatively affected by invasive plant and animal species. 

The Refuge intertidal mudflat is trending toward higher elevations. However, the sedimentation rate 

is not well understood. As soil elevations have increased, patches of pioneer plants have established 

on slightly higher elevation mudflats, the roots then stabilize the mud and trap more sediment, 

allowing more and larger plants to colonize. The loss of important tidal mudflats and the negative 

ramifications of shorebird foraging habitat needs to be closely examined and weighed against 

potential sea level rise predictions to make management decisions (see Chapters 2 and 3). 

Another relatively new change to tidal mudflats on the Pacific coast is the establishment and spread 

of Japanese eelgrass, a nonnative, tidally dependent seagrass. It grows in greater Grays Harbor, 

including the Refuge, and is covering the intertidal mudflats where it can survive extended periods of 

air exposure (GHEMPTF 1987). Nonnative eelgrass could potentially cover large portions of the 

Refuge intertidal mudflats and likely negatively affect shorebird foraging habitat. Additional threats

to the Refuge mudflats come from potential nearby pollution sources that could contaminate air, 

water, and sediments (see 4.3.1 Tidal Open Water). Climate change may bring warmer temperatures, 

which may create large algal mats on the mudflats and toxic algal blooms in the water. Climate 

change-induced sea level rise could convert mudflat to tidal open water or sub-tidal habitat which 

would reduce foraging habitat for shorebirds.

 

Key Species Supported

As many as 24 species of migratory shorebirds have been known to use the greater Grays Harbor 

intertidal mudflats as an important stopover site to forage and rest on extended migrations to and 

from South America and Alaska (USFWS 1990). The most frequently observed shorebird species at 

the Refuge include western and least sandpiper, dunlin, semipalmated and black-bellied plover, 

short- and long-billed dowitcher, and red knot (Appendix K). Approximately five to six thousand 

shorebirds (mostly dunlin) also use this habitat during winter season. 

Shorebirds depend upon stopover sites such as the Refuge where large amounts of prey are readily 

available and where they can quickly build up fat reserves to provide energy along their northward 

migration to breeding grounds in Alaska. Generally, intertidal flats support an abundance of 

invertebrates including amphipods, polychaete and oligochaete worms, insect larvae, and nematodes 

(McConnaughey and McConnaughey 1985, Wolfe, Moore, and Cameron 1974). Specifically, 

invertebrate populations at the Refuge are composed of polychaete and oligochaete marine worms, 

bivalves, crustaceans, and insects (Buchanan et al. 1985, Warnock et al. 2004). A winter study at the 

Refuge on dunlin prey items showed 94 percent of dunlin stomach contents were tiny crustaceans 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

such as cumaceans and amphipods (Brennan et al. 1990). Algal biofilm growing on intertidal 

mudflats has recently been found to be an important food source for shorebirds (Kuwae et al 2008). 

Raptors such as peregrine falcon and merlin prey upon dense flocks of birds. Because higher 

elevation intertidal mudflats remain exposed for long periods, many thousands of shorebirds move 

into the Refuge and the dense flocks provide a greater probability of these raptors successfully 

capturing shorebird prey. 

During higher tides, forage fish, ground fish, and most likely other fish species such as sculpin, 

stickleback, shiner perch, juvenile or sub-adult salmonids, juvenile eulachon, or juvenile green 

sturgeon forage on invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae in the marsh habitats. 

Because fish use salt marsh habitats (Seliskar and Gallagher 1983), it is assumed the same species 

must travel through and forage in flooded intertidal mudflat habitat as well. 

4.3.3 Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh 

Overview

The Refuge encompasses 156 acres of tidal salt and brackish marsh habitat that support a diverse 

array of species including birds, fish, and invertebrates. This habitat provides a major source of 

nutrients and detritus supporting both aquatic and terrestrial food webs. 

Salt marshes on the Refuge are generally found within the tidal range of 9 to 11 feet NGVD where 

the ground is high enough to support emergent herbaceous plants but too low, wet, and saline to 

support shrubs or trees. Water salinity ranges from 10 to 25 ppt and varies seasonally. Less-saline 

(≤10 ppt) brackish marshes exist where freshwater drains from hillsides into the estuary. Vegetation 

density varies based on the duration and frequency of tidal inundation. 

The productivity of the marshes is critical to the health of the estuary. Salt marshes provide a major 

source of nutrients for estuarine and terrestrial wildlife and help keep the estuary functional. Plants 

filter pollutants from the water. Marsh plants provide food in the form of seeds, roots, tubers, and 

leaves for ducks and geese, and uneaten plant matter eventually breaks down and is transported by 

tidal action into the greater estuary. Larger organisms, including filter feeders like clams and oysters, 

feed upon the decaying remains of plants and smaller invertebrates consume the detritus. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh 

Salt and brackish marshes are an important component of a functional estuary. In the Pacific 

Northwest, a large portion of estuarine habitat has been lost to diking, channeling, dredging, and 

filling. The state of Washington is estimated to have lost between 45 and 62 percent of its presettlement estuarine habitat (Aitkin 1998). Within Grays Harbor, approximately 3,840 acres of salt 

marsh habitat was lost to dredge material disposal (StreamNet). 

Laws, rules, and regulations have been put into effect to protect wetlands, including estuarine 

marshes. Recent regional restoration efforts are helping to recover some of these lost habitats. Some 

have been successful in restoring a portion of this important habitat. At Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge, over 700 acres of estuary have begun to reestablish after removal of 

agricultural dikes. Similar restoration efforts are happening in northern Puget Sound, Willapa Bay on 

the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, and along the Oregon coast. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15

Over time, successional changes will involve the transition of salt marsh to shrub-scrub habitat as 

sediment aggradation occurs. Conversely, sea level rise may cause salt and brackish marshes to flood 

enough to convert into mudflats and eventually convert into open water habitats. This conversion 

would not be beneficial to the wildlife species evolved to thrive in marsh habitat, including shorebird 

species. The native sweetgrass plant community is highly susceptible to mudflat elevation changes 

and climate change-driven sea level rise and is anticipated to have limited resilience. New sweetgrass 

development will be limited on the Refuge north side because of the proximity to State Highway 109. 

Key Species Supported

Invertebrates such as true bugs and flies, mites and ticks, round and flat worms, benthic species, and 

mollusks need intertidal mudflats and salt marsh to have healthy populations. A diverse array of bird 

species including American wigeon, northern pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, 

mallards, and geese (cackling, Canada, and greater white-fronted) eat salt marsh plants and 

invertebrates. Waterbirds such as great blue herons, Virginia rails, soras and American bitterns; 

shorebirds such as least sandpipers, western sandpipers, and dunlin; and passerines such as common 

yellowthroats, marsh wrens, and song sparrows all eat invertebrates found within the salt marsh. 

Raptors such as northern harriers forage for small rodents in this vegetation. Raptors and other 

predators such as weasels are attracted to the abundance of life in these marshes. 

Refuge plants adapted to some of the most difficult conditions nearest the transition to intertidal 

mudflats include sand-spurry, pickleweed, seashore salt grass, jaumea, sea arrowgrass, and seaside 

plantain. Plants needing lower salinity or less-frequent inundation grow at slightly higher elevation 

and include tufted hairgrass, Pacific silverweed, saltmarsh bulrush, and Lyngby’s sedge. High 

saltmarsh plants include kneeling angelica, cow parsnip, sea watch, yarrow, owl-clover, and Douglas 

aster. Common plants on the Refuge that can live in brackish conditions include cattail and common 

rush. Sweetgrass (see Appendix E for other names) sedge seems to be associated with lower salinity 

levels and more dynamic conditions.

Fish are known to use salt and brackish marshes during high tides (Seliskar and Gallagher 1983). In 

Grays Harbor estuary and the Refuge it is likely that forage fish, ground fish, sculpin, stickleback, 

shiner perch, juvenile salmonids, juvenile eulachon, juvenile green sturgeon, and juvenile bull trout 

forage on invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae that are present in the marshes. Both 

the larger- and smaller-sized fish find an abundance of food and rely on the variety of plants for 

cover and protection from strong currents and predators. In addition, these areas provide resting 

cover and roosting sites for bird and other animal species. 

4.3.4 Forest

Overview

The Refuge protects approximately 95 acres of forest habitat. With the development of Bowerman 

Airstrip in the 1940s, the deposit of dredge spoils created higher-elevation lands, which supported the 

establishment of shrubs and trees in what was mudflat. The forest vegetation on Moon Island, the 

edges of the airstrip peninsula (including portions of Sandpiper Trail), and uplands near Paulson 

Road originated from bare ground (salty dredge spoils). 

This newly developed forest surrounds the existing mudflats and may provide cover for falcons, which 

are important shorebird predators, and may negatively affect shorebirds’ ability to view avian predators. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Forest Habitat 

Regionally, the forests in Grays Harbor County have been cut and replanted, are managed for timber 

production, and are of great importance in the sustainable timber industry to the regional economy. The 

small Refuge forest is in an early successional deciduous stage, but could eventually mature into 

longer-lived species such as big leaf maple and perhaps Sitka spruce. 

Knotweed has invaded the forests and salt marshes in Grays Harbor County. Along Highway 109, on 

the north side of the Refuge, it has become well established. Coordination with the county is needed 

to control this invasive species. 

If sedimentation accumulation and higher elevations develop in the adjacent saltmarsh, the forest trees 

and shrubs may expand out to cover more acreage. Conversely, in time, sea level rise and salt water 

inundation may occur, causing the trees and shrubs to decline and salt marsh to develop. Over a long 

period of sea level rise, extended tidal coverage may eventually cause a mudflat to develop. 

Key Species Supported

Tree species in the forest habitat include red alder, native willows (Hooker’s, Sitka, Pacific, and 

Scouler’s), cascara, Pacific crabapple, Oregon ash, and other small, relatively short-lived trees. 

The forest’s mid-story shrub composition includes osoberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, red elderberry, 

twinberry, and other native shrubs. A thick understory of waterleaf, coltsfoot, water parsley, skunk 

cabbage, sword fern, sedges, rushes, grasses, and horsetails completely covers the substrate in some 

areas and open, exposed soils exist in others. 

The forest also provides important habitat for landbirds such as Pacific-slope and willow flycatchers; 

yellow, orange-crowned, and yellow-rumped warblers; American goldfinch; black-capped chickadee; 

rufous hummingbird; and other birds and wildlife. This habitat provides passerines and other landbirds 

with dense cover and foraging opportunities for insects, nectar, and seeds. The forests may be important 

for early migrating landbirds. Other wildlife also benefiting from this habitat are black-tailed deer, 

weasels, snakes, and rodents. 

Falcons have been observed using the forest as cover to surprise their shorebird prey. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

4.3.5 Channel Habitat

Overview

Within the Unit acquisition boundary, approximately 7.5 miles of free-flowing river channel habitat 

serves as a vital migration pathway and provides limited spawning grounds and rearing habitat for 

salmonids, resident fish, and amphibians. The river channel flows within the confines of the 

riverbanks and includes nearby edges of the sloped bank. The Black River channel is relatively 

narrow, ranging from 10 to 25 feet wide, with water depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet deep. Annual 

high water events spread water out over the floodplain in winter and spring. Currently, the river 

channel is indiscernible starting at Black Lake and remains indistinguishable due to the shrub swamp 

habitat above the pipeline berm. South of the pipeline berm, the river flow is visible, but due to the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17

dense stands of reed canarygrass, the channel can be difficult to identify. At approximately river mile 

2 south of Dempsey Creek, the channel becomes easily visible.

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Channel Habitat 

Historically, water from Black Lake flowed down the Black River into the Chehalis River. However, 

today the start of the flow path is no longer evident. In 1922, the Black Lake ditch was dug to drain 

the wetlands north of Black Lake and stabilize water levels to allow shoreline development (Smith 

and Wenger 2001). The lake level is thought to have dropped almost 2 feet through ditch drainage 

and repeated dredging to maintain the ditch channel. In the 1960s a gas pipeline was dug by Williams 

Pipeline Company across the north end of the river approximately 1.5 miles south of Black Lake. 

Conventional belief is that pipeline construction left spoils in the stream which, along with beaver 

dam debris accumulation, resulted in vegetation growth (Washington State Conservation 

Commission in Foster Wheeler 2003). An additional pipeline was placed in the same location using 

horizontal directional drilling techniques below the riverbed. In 2002, Foster Wheeler Environmental 

Corp. conducted a study to understand issues of water flow directionality in the Black River. Due to a 

complex set of issues including topographic effects of the lake, the Black Lake ditch drainage, the 

pipeline berm, and potential groundwater upwelling in between the lake and pipeline berm, the river 

flow has been significantly altered (See Chapter 3.3). 

A tributary of the Chehalis River, originating in wetlands at the south end of Black Lake, the Black 

River begins as an extremely low-gradient river system. Its unique features include some of the 

largest natural freshwater wetlands in western Washington (Pickett 1994, Foster Wheeler 2003, 

Caldwell et al. 2004, Napier et al. 2008, Easterly and Salstrom 2008, CRC 1992). The slow descent 

for most of the river allows an accumulation of mud, sand, and decomposing organic material, 

providing for abundant aquatic and semi-aquatic plant and animal life. Beaver dams help to create 

and maintain shallow water swamps and wetlands. 

Threats to the river and channel include a significantly altered hydrologic regime. A reduction in 

water flow related to the Black Lake ditch (Foster Wheeler 2003) has most likely reduced water 

velocity. Other threats include demand for more water from increasing residential and commercial 

development, including the adjacent gravel mine, and increasing threats of water pollution and 

contamination. 

Anecdotal information indicates the river channel was dredged in some areas. It appears some 

channel areas within the boundaries were straightened or deepened. Some indications of dredging 

include removal of natural stream meandering by straightening steep, undercut, and unstable channel 

edges and in some areas a >10 foot deep channel with a thick silt or muck substrate. The deep Ushaped channel is not usually associated with a slow-moving river and is in contrast to the more 

natural river channel south of downtown Littlerock, where the channel is cobble-bottom and much 

shallower. The deep, channeled, tannin-stained, dark water limits light penetration, and in 

combination with unconsolidated Semiahoo muck, bottom-rooted plant growth in the river bottom 

can be limited in some areas. Also important to understanding the ecological conditions of the river 

channel is a comment by a Black River resident who recalled a time when the “Black River ran thick 

with silt because of logging in the Black Hills ... and that went on for years and years” (TESC 2001). 

Historical impacts of high-nutrient water runoff from agriculture fields, silt runoff from logging, and 

perhaps dredging projects are likely still affecting river conditions. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Nonnative fish and bullfrogs pose significant threats to native amphibians, small native fish, and 

natural wetland function. They also compete against native animals for prey resources (See Chapter

4.6.2). 

Nonnative and invasive plant species (see Chapter 4.6 and Appendix L) also contribute significant 

threats to the river channel system by choking water flow, reducing native plant growth, and reducing 

food resources for wildlife. Reed canarygrass has infested the channel and channel edges to the point 

of compromising river function. Reed canarygrass establishment has eliminated most exposed mud 

patches along the river, impeded sunlight penetration, and restricted animal access through the 

understory. Reed canarygrass also roots on emergent plants within the channel and can grow over the 

surface of the channel and into the bank. Small, native, understory wetland plants growing along the 

river and in shrub swamp edge are unable to compete against this thick, tall grass. 

Submersed exotic aquatic plants such as hydrilla, elodea, and parrotfeather are expected to colonize 

the Unit channel habitats at some point, as these invasive plants can be found in the watershed. These 

submersed exotic and invasive plants choke water flow, impede sunlight penetration, change the 

natural conditions of the river and tributary channels, limit animal (e.g., amphibian and fish) 

movement, and out-compete native submersed plants. 

Key Species Supported

Key species include the State-endangered and federally threatened Oregon spotted frog, which lives 

its entire life in the wetland habitats. Oregon spotted frogs depend on the permanent, slow-moving, 

and almost still channel water during summer months when water levels drop in nearby marshes. 

Additionally, specific and unique characteristics of the channel are critical to the endemic Olympic 

mudminnow, which lives its complete life cycle in densely vegetated, relatively low-oxygenated, 

tannin-stained water and mud bottom. This fish has evolved to survive warm water conditions and 

survive in habitats where many native cold-water fish cannot. 

Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, and perhaps steelhead utilize channel habitat as a 

migration pathway to upstream tributary spawning grounds. The river provides a rich rearing habitat 

for juvenile salmonids, resident small fish, and amphibians. Freshwater sponges and freshwater 

mussels are found in the channel, but species distribution in the river is not well understood. 

A variety of birds and mammals utilize tributary channel habitat for water, food, and travel corridors. 

Birds such as wood ducks, hooded mergansers, pied-billed grebes, and kingfishers are commonly 

found throughout these aquatic habitats. Beavers are a key species because they directly alter stream 

hydrology in the river channel habitat. Their dam building activities create and maintain wetlands 

that provide extensive benefits to fish and virtually all wetland-associated species and organisms 

(Grannes 2008). Other aquatic-oriented mammals such as river otter, muskrat, and mink are 

abundant. 

The low elevation gradient and slow-moving river provide a rich environment for a thick growth of 

submersed, aquatic, native plant species such as pondweed, native western milfoil, and American 

waterweed; floating plants such as mosquito fern and duckweed; and emergent plants such as water 

starwort, spatterdock, smartweeds, and water pennywort. These species are important to this habitat 

and provide shelter and food for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial animals. Woody debris near the 

surface of the channel supports plants such as small-flowered touch-me-nots and monkey flower. The 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19

vegetation and woody debris provide substrates for algae growth, an important food source to 

invertebrates and immature amphibians, as well as dense cover and foraging opportunities for 

amphibians, invertebrates, and fishes.

4.3.6 Tributary Channel Habitat

Overview

There are approximately 16 miles of tributary channel that provide habitat for a variety of aquatic 

and terrestrial plants and animals located within the Unit acquisition boundary. These waterways

historically have been impacted by various habitat alterations since the time of Euro-American 

settlement in the area. Lands adjacent to the Unit were cleared of forests and managed for various 

purposes such as agriculture (farming activities, livestock grazing), forest products (lumber), and 

urbanization (roads, houses). All of these activities have resulted in increased impacts to tributary 

habitats, including water temperatures, erosion, chemicals, trash, reduced groundwater recharge, and 

water diversions for agricultural and industrial purposes, all of which affect the quality and quantity 

of water in the watershed and at the Unit. 

Tributaries within the Unit acquisition boundary include Waddell, Dempsey, Stony, Darlin, Blooms 

Ditch, and several smaller, unnamed creeks, all of which vary considerably in size, length, depth, and 

character. Waddell Creek water runs clear, cool, has shallow areas with riffles, deep holes, a cobble 

bottom, woody debris, and in some summers it dries up or goes underground. Dempsey Creek has a 

soft peat bottom, steep sides, appears abnormally deep and channelized in former agricultural lands. 

Blooms Ditch is also deep and channelized but has a sandy substrate. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Tributary Channel Habitat

Prior to entering the Unit boundary, these creeks and streams meander through a variety of forest, 

agricultural, and residential areas presenting a variety of issues and conservation challenges for 

maintaining a healthy watershed. 

An altered hydrologic regime outside the Unit boundary may have affected the health and individual 

tributary conditions. Perched culverts may prevent salmonid movement into appropriate spawning 

grounds. Within the Unit boundary, nonnative plant species such as reed canarygrass and yellow flag 

iris can dominate the channel edges, sides, and beds, impeding stream velocity, temperatures, and 

plant and animal diversity. Adjacent agricultural lands and development may provide sources for 

contaminants, including herbicides, fertilizer, fecal coliform from livestock and septic systems, and 

increases in sediments. 

Nonnative plant and animal species (e.g., bullfrogs, nonnative warm-water fish, New Zealand mud 

snail, hydrilla, Eurasian watermilfoil, parrotfeather, fanwort) may also be problematic to the health of 

the tributaries. However, data are not yet available to determine which nonnative animals are living 

in the tributaries within the Unit. 

Bridges over tributaries can be supported by wooden structures that are periodically treated with 

insect and animal retardant. Creosote contamination may impact aquatic invertebrates, Oregon 

spotted frog, and salmonids. The Delphi Road Bridge over Dempsey Creek was recently treated with 

creosote (~2012). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Key Species Supported

Some tributaries such as Waddell Creek have cobble-channel habitat with cool, rapid-flowing water 

which provides different habitat than the river or muddy bottom tributaries. Invertebrates, freshwater 

mussels, juvenile salmon (coho), crayfish, and perhaps freshwater sponges can be found in the cobble 

tributaries—all of which may be different species than those found in the Black River. 

Dempsey Creek likely provides habitat for a variety of plants and animals similar to those found in 

the Black River because the creek has similar characteristics. The creek appears to have been 

dredged to increase agricultural field drainage; the substrate is muck and most of it is not shaded by 

trees or shrubs. Oregon spotted frogs have been known to use this creek to move through various 

habitats. 

A variety of birds and mammals utilize tributary channel habitats for water, food, and as a travel 

corridor. Many of the same plant species found in the river are also found in the creeks (see Section 

4.3.5 Channel Habitat). 

4.3.7 Bog

Overview

The Unit protects approximately 56 acres of bog habitat that extends from the northern edge of the 

Unit boundary at Black Lake to the confluence of Dempsey Creek (see Map 5). Other occurrences of 

bog habitat may be found within the Unit boundary (Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

A bog is a slightly domed, low-nutrient, low-pH system which grows on sphagnum peat and is 

dependent on low-nutrient rainfall for moisture. The organic, wetland soils retain rainwater and 

provide a natural water filtration system. Various bog types have been found within the Unit, which 

include forested bog, shrub bog that contains a dry shrub bog, an intermediate between wet and dry 

bog, and areas of wet bog (Kunze, L. 2001, pers. comm.). 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Bog Habitat 

Bogs occur within Puget Sound lowlands, around lakes, slow-moving rivers, and valleys. Only a 

fraction of western Washington bogs remain undisturbed (Bigley and Hull 2000). Bogs are Category 

I wetlands because they are sensitive to disturbance and impossible to re-create through 

compensatory mitigation (Hurby 2004). 

“Nutrient-poor wetlands, such as bogs, have higher species richness, many more rare species, and a 

greater range of plant communities than nutrient-rich wetlands” (reviewed in Adamus and Brandt 

1990). They are, therefore, more important than would be accounted for using a simple assessment of 

wetland functions (Moore et al. 1989). In addition to being sensitive to disturbance, bogs are not easy 

to re-create. Restoration may be impossible because of changes to the biotic and abiotic properties 

that preclude the reestablishment of bogs (Schouwenaars 1995, Schrautzer et al. 1996). Furthermore, 

bogs form extremely slowly, with organic soils forming at a rate of about 1 inch per 40 years in 

western Washington (Rigg 1958 from Hruby 2004, Bigley and Hull 2000). 

Bogs can be damaged by subtle nutrient and mineral inputs which change the chemical equilibrium 

of the bog system. For example, exposing bare soil near a bog can be particularly damaging as 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21

resulting soil-laden runoff alters the chemical character of the bog and can kill living sphagnum. 

Burning slash, trash, or a wildfire near a bog can also be detrimental due to the release of highnutrient ash (Bigley and Hull 2000). Typical logging and clearing practices in or around the Unit

bogs most likely have had negative effects. 

Subtle hydrologic changes cause problems for bog habitats. Diverting water into or around a bog will 

sever the habitats’ isolation, dependence on rainwater for nutrients, and may expose it to damaging 

chemicals. Removing water from bogs by dropping surface water levels with ditches or drains will 

lower the water table and will speed the decomposition of the peat, sometimes leaving trees standing 

on their roots. Loss and lowering of ground water levels may reduce spring flows around bogs. The 

WDNR Natural Heritage Wetland Program and Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance regulation 

states that changes to water, drainage, or nutrient flow cannot occur within a minimum of 250 feet of 

a bog. Onsite sewage disposal systems or drain fields may not be within 300 feet of a bog (Thurston 

County 2012). 

In addition, nonnative plants will change plant community function and dynamics. Specific invasive 

species that may cause problems include reed canarygrass, knotweed species, purple loosestrife, 

yellow flag iris, holly, and potentially New Zealand mudsnail.

Key Species Supported 

Those plants dependent upon bog habitats and found in the Unit bogs include western Labrador tea, 

sphagnum species, sundew, cottongrass, bog cranberry, bog laurel, bog orchid, thinleaf (also called 

gray alder), bog birch, shore pine, and Sitka spruce trees. 

A number of plant and animal species associated with bog habitats may be found with future research 

and study of this difficult-to-access area. The potential for three State-candidate and SOCs in this 

habitat include Beller’s ground beetle, Hatch’s click beetle, and Queen Charlotte’s copper butterfly. 

The State-candidate long-horned leaf beetle (bog idol) and the silver-bordered bog fritillary butterfly 

are also associated with Washington lowland bogs, but may or may not be found in this particular 

location (WDFW 1995). Additionally, Bradshaw's lomatium, western or red-root yampah, water 

howellia, western toad, western pond turtle, and uncommon salamanders could be found in the bog 

complex with future monitoring. WDNR biologists recorded a patch of bristly (longhair) sedges that 

are listed in Washington’s Natural Heritage Program as a sensitive species (WNHP 2008). In the bog 

areas, signs of black bear and beaver were evident as were wildlife trails. 

4.3.8 Shrub Swamp

Overview

The Unit protects 512 acres of shrub swamp habitat. This habitat occurs extensively in the lowland 

floodplains along the river channel, secondary channels, and in broad low-lying zones where soils are 

poorly drained, fine-textured organic muck, and the substrate would be semi- or permanently 

saturated. This habitat type is most extensive in the northern portions of the Unit and in narrow strips 

along the river southward to 123rd Avenue. This habitat grows interspersed with emergent marshes 

and riparian forest. It is wetter than forested swamps and slightly drier than marshes. It has been 

described as an impenetrable thicket of unstable ground and shrubs (Easterly and Salstrom 2008).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Shrub Swamp

This habitat ranges from Prince William Sound, Alaska, to the southern coast of Oregon (Crawford 

and Rocchio 2011). Historically this habitat was more prevalent, for example, small patches still exist 

in the Ohop and Green River valley (Barham, J. 2013, pers. comm.). Because this habitat is now an 

uncommon lowland wetland system, limited understanding of its requirements for healthy function 

and process exists. Future study could ensure a healthy ecosystem (Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

Evidence of past conditions shows a portion of this habitat type may have been a forested wetland 

populated with large Sitka spruce and other conifers. Large stumps indicate early logging has likely 

removed a forested overstory component of the wetland. Former logging may have contributed to 

converting a conifer-forested wetland to shrub swamp that is now dominated with Oregon ash, 

Pacific crabapple, willow, Douglas spirea, and slough sedge. 

The Black Lake drainage ditch prevents strong flood events from occurring and has most likely 

caused changes in the shrub swamp plant community composition and disturbance regime, although 

the changes are not yet fully understood. The loss of river water amounts and flow reduction from 

water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydrologic changes could cause losses of seasonally 

occurring high water conditions and has most likely affected the shrub swamp plant community. 

Over time, if water sources continue to be reduced, this habitat may transition into a drier forest, and 

invasive reed canarygrass will most likely increase in open patches or in areas of herbaceous 

groundcover. Portions of this habitat that extend farther from the river may have been converted to 

agriculture because of lower water levels. Additionally, because of hydrological changes over time, 

the shrub swamp may be shifting and moving into bog areas (Kunze, L.M. 2011, pers. comm.). An 

understanding of the hydrology will be needed throughout the life of this CCP to benefit all species 

living in the shrub swamp habitat. An examination of plant community interaction between bog and 

shrub swamp habitats is needed. 

Nonnative, invasive plant species, especially reed canarygrass, present a serious threat to the shrub 

swamp. Reed canarygrass has become densely established in open areas of the shrub swamp, 

especially along the river channel edge, and has changed the composition of the vegetative 

community. Its establishment has eliminated exposed mud patches along the river, impeded sunlight 

penetration, and impeded animal access through the understory. Small, native understory wetland 

plants growing along the river and in shrub swamp edges are unable to compete against this thick, 

tall grass. Purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris have become well established in many locations in 

the shrub swamp. 

Submersed aquatic plants such as hydrilla, elodea, and parrotfeather could also be threats when 

infested surface waters from the river or tributary channels spread under the shrubs. Because the soils 

in these shrub swamps remain wet and protected from sun throughout the year, many submersed 

plants could survive. Additional perennial or woody invasive plant threats to the shrub swamp 

include knotweed species and other new species from elsewhere in the watershed that may be 

inadvertently introduced. 

Nonnative fish presence alters natural habitats and conditions for native animals sharing the same 

locations. Most nonnative, warm-water fish such as bass, crappie, and northern pikeminnow are 

predatory on native fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. Their presence changes and likely reduces 

native fish, amphibian, and invertebrate populations. In addition, nonnative fish reduce prey resource 

availability for native fish and amphibians. These fish may be especially deleterious to endemic 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23

Olympic mudminnow and the State-listed as endangered and federally listed as threatened Oregon 

spotted frog and the prey resources they need to survive. 

Key Species Supported

The shrub swamp consists of deciduous shrubs comprising a mosaic of willows, Oregon ash, red 

osier dogwood, Pacific crabapple, ninebark, twinberry, and Douglas spirea that range from 5 to 30 

feet tall and support complex growth of lichen and mosses. The herbaceous plant understory typically 

includes skunk cabbage, veronica, marsh speedwell, burweed, smartweed, sedges, touch-me-not, 

gallium, Cooley's hedge nettle, horsetail species, and Pacific water parsley. 

North of the pipeline, plant species composition also includes gray alder and patches of bog-related 

species. South of the pipeline, Easterly and Salstrom (2008) noted thinleaf alder to be a major 

component on this habitat along the river. 

This habitat provides important cover and food resources for migrating passerines and landbirds such 

as Pacific-slope and willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, orange-crowned warbler, American 

goldfinch, and black-capped chickadee. During spring migration, high numbers of flycatchers have 

been observed using this habitat. 

Extended periods of high water that inundate the shrub swamp habitats provide excellent habitat and 

foraging conditions for aquatic animals including small fish (e.g., juvenile salmon and 

mudminnows), salamanders, and frogs, including the Oregon spotted frog and Pacific chorus frog 

(also called tree frog). 

Potential ROCs that may utilize this habitat include Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead trout, and 

cutthroat trout. Bristly sedge, a Washington State rare plant species, has been recorded where the 

shrub swamp and river channel edge intersect. Another Washington State rare species, the Pacific 

clubtail dragonfly, has been recorded in the same habitat as bristly sedge. The endemic Olympic 

mudminnow and the threatened Oregon spotted frog are likely to use this habitat as refugia during 

high-water conditions in winter and early spring and to avoid higher flow rates in the river channel. 

4.3.9 Riparian Forest 

Overview

The Unit supports approximately 265 acres of riparian forest habitat. Riparian forest habitats occur at 

slightly higher elevation than adjacent shrub swamp habitats and support plants that need slightly 

drier soil conditions. The Unit’s riparian forests consist of native deciduous trees of mixed age and 

species, dominated by big leaf maple, western cottonwood, red alder, and Pacific willow. Lichen and 

moss growth can be found on the trees. Larger trees provide LWD to the river channel and floodplain 

(Rocchio 2011a). 

Some areas show an early to mid-successional stage of maturity with tree canopy, thick midstory 

cover, and good ground cover. Very early successional stages are sparsely vegetated and dominated 

by shrubs, small saplings, and herbaceous vegetation, and in this case often-dense reed canarygrass

growth as well. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

A key function of riparian habitat is to provide a safe corridor for animals to move between areas, 

including isolated natural areas. The importance of riparian areas as travel corridors and routes for 

dispersion is amplified in developed or fragmented landscapes (Knutson and Naef 1997). Even in 

early seral stages, this habitat can provide excellent nesting, cover, and foraging conditions for 

passerines and other landbirds, amphibians, and mammals, in part because of its proximity to the 

river and its tributaries. Over time, as young riparian habitats mature, the diversity and complexity of 

the habitat can support greater wildlife numbers and increased diversity (Knutson and Naef 1997). 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Riparian Forest

At least 50 percent, and as much as 90 percent, of the riparian habitat in Washington has been lost or 

extensively modified since the 1800s (Knutson and Naef 1997). What remains of the diminished 

riparian areas are often small, disjunct patches in generally poor condition due to human impacts 

(Johnson and O’Neil 2001). Due to the density and diversity of species using riparian habitat, intact 

riparian areas are important to the conservation of Washington’s vertebrate species.

Threats to this habitat include a slow recovery of large-sized trees that were logged out earlier, loss 

of developing snags, water diversion or water removal from tributaries and the river, fragmentation, 

and a history of excessive nutrients from agriculture or development. Once again, invasive species 

are a very large threat. Reed canarygrass is the main impediment to natural regeneration and can 

dominate logged areas, while other invasive plants can also impact the habitats. An understanding of 

climate change and possible management options regarding potential impacts to this habitat type 

need to be addressed. 

Key Species Supported

Broadleaf tree species found in the riparian community are big leaf maple, black cottonwood, red 

alder, Sitka and Pacific willow, red osier dogwood, ninebark, Pacific crabapple, black hawthorn, and 

Oregon ash. Conifers tend to increase with succession in the absence of major disturbance and can 

include Sitka spruce, grand fir, and western red cedar. Native shrubs such as twinberry, red osier 

dogwood, snowberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, salal, red and evergreen huckleberry, rose species, 

stinging nettle, osoberry, and devil’s club comprise the midstory, and a rich understory of skunk 

cabbage, inside-out flower, twinflower, wild ginger, trillium, vanilla leaf, false lily of the valley, and 

lilies provide flowers for pollinators and vegetation for wildlife foraging. Diverse lichen and moss 

communities grow on trees and shrubs in this habitat. 

Approximately 85 percent of Washington’s terrestrial vertebrate species use riparian habitat for 

essential life activities (Knutson and Naef 1997). Of the 118 species of migrant landbirds occurring 

in Washington, 67 species (57 percent) use riparian habitat (Andelman and Stock 1994, Knutson and 

Naef 1997). The density of wildlife in riparian areas is comparatively high (Knutson and Naef 1997). 

Bird species that use riparian habitats include both resident and migrant species such as rufous 

hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, northern flicker, pileated woodpecker, Swainson’s thrushes, 

and warblers. In older riparian forests, accipiters (such as Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks) and 

owls can reside. 

Riparian habitats are also very important for amphibians such as Pacific chorus frog, rough-skinned 

newt, and others species. Mammals including several species of Myotis bats, rodents, and carnivores 

such as long-tailed weasel and mink use the habitat throughout most of their lives, while larger 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25

mammals such as black bear, bobcat, and cougar use riparian habitats as travel corridors within their 

home territories. 

Riparian habitat is additionally important to supporting healthy native fish populations by improving 

channel characteristics including LWD, temperature, water quality, water chemistry, cover, and 

nutrients. Riparian habitat importance to the watershed includes providing leaves, twigs, and 

branches that provide basic food and nutrients to support instream habitats and animals. Riparian 

vegetation, litter layers, and soils filter incoming sediments and pollutants assisting in the 

maintenance of high water quality (Knutson and Naef 1997). 

Potential ROCs include migrating passerines and nesting birds on watch lists or SOC lists such as 

Vaux’s swift, purple martin, pileated woodpecker, and merlin, as well as Keen’s myotis and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

4.3.10 Emergent Marsh 

Overview

Emergent marsh is generally found in western Washington valley bottoms, lowlands, along slowmoving rivers, in oxbows, saturated soil depressions, and where there is abundant rainfall (Rocchio 

2011b). The Unit supports more than 34 acres of emergent marsh habitat. On the Unit, the emergent 

marsh usually forms a mosaic with other wetlands such as shrub swamp, riparian forest, and the edge 

of the river channel. A lowland depression located around 123rd and 110th Avenues also supports 

emergent marsh. 

Herbaceous wetland plants in shallow, seasonally to semi-permanently or permanently flooded areas 

dominate freshwater emergent marshes. The habitat is characterized by undrained hydric soils (muck 

or mineral) where nutrient-laden water is at or above the surface for most of the growing season. 

Surface water depths range from <2 to 25 inches deep with deeper-water conditions closer to the 

river. Surface water depth increases with fall, winter, and early spring rains. 

In good quality habitat, there would be a moderate amount of soil exposure (no vegetation), some 

decaying LWD brought in by high-water events, and 30–70 percent cover of emergent hydrophytic 

vegetation and native seed-bearing plants. 

The river and tributaries are consistent and permanent freshwater sources for these wetlands, which 

are essential to the function of this vegetative system and provide direct access to and from deeper 

water sites for amphibians and fish. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Emergent Marsh

It is estimated that 33–50 percent of Washington's wetlands have been lost since colonization, with 

some metropolitan areas in Puget Sound losing over 90 percent of their wetlands (WDOE 1992). 

Emergent marsh is found throughout western Washington and is still found near the Unit. Beaver, a 

species which can create and maintain these types of wetlands, was almost eliminated earlier in the 

century and these wetlands have decreased along with the diminished influence of beavers on the 

landscape. Even with regulatory protection, the amount of herbaceous and emergent marshes 

continues to be altered, farmed, and converted to other uses in Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 

2001). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Reed canarygrass has aggressively invaded this habitat. Small, native sedges and low-growing 

herbaceous perennial plants are not able to compete against such an aggressive invader. This loss of 

habitat diversity negatively effects native wildlife species’ ability to use these compromised areas. 

Additional threats include the potential loss of connectivity to the river or tributaries due to roads and 

barrier construction; off-Refuge water diversion, water withdrawals and hydrologic regime alteration; 

passage barriers; water quality issues (temperature and sedimentation); conversion of former 

emergent marsh to seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands; and natural succession to shrub swamp. 

Bullfrogs are large, successful, nonnative predators of native frogs, salamanders, small fish, 

ducklings, and invertebrates (Hallock and McAllister 2009). Oregon spotted frogs did not evolve 

with bullfrogs and have no defense mechanisms (Leonard et al. 1993). Nonnative fish also negatively 

affect the native fish and amphibian populations and compete with wildlife for wetland invertebrates 

(Maxwell et al. 2010, Howell 2010). A worldwide chytrid fungus that is thought to contribute to the 

overall decline in amphibians, especially frogs (Weldon et al. 2004, Pearl et al. 2009), has been found 

in Unit emergent marsh waters where Oregon spotted frogs live part of their lives. The fungus, found 

on all tested Oregon spotted frogs, could be negatively affecting all species of amphibians in the Unit 

(Pearl et al. 2009).

Key Species Supported

Slough sedge and cattail can dominate in permanent, deeper-water areas. In shallow areas a diverse 

array of small sedges, bulrushes, rushes, spike rushes, bur-reed, beggar ticks, monkey flower, smallflowered forget-me-nots, skunk cabbage, creeping buttercup, possibly bristly sedge, and other lowgrowing, moisture-loving plants are found. 

This habitat is exceptionally important for good-quality juvenile Oregon spotted frog-rearing 

conditions. It provides relatively warm surface water, shallow to moderately deep (2 to 24+ inches) 

in late spring and summer. Low to moderate vegetation density and algal growth on vegetative stems 

and leaves provide foraging opportunities. Herbaceous or shrubby vegetative cover provides direct 

swimming access to deeper water. This plant community provides adult Oregon spotted frog habitat 

in late spring and summer that includes still, standing, or slow moving surface water; connection to 

deeper and cooler water conditions; moderately complex vegetative cover; and invertebrates and 

small fish prey. This habitat is vital to the State-endangered and federally threatened Oregon spotted 

frog. 

The presence of the federally listed water howellia plant is possible, but is unknown. Bristly sedge, a 

State-sensitive and rare plant, was recorded in a thin, long patch of emergent marsh between the river 

channel edge and shrub swamp. Another rare species, the Pacific clubtail dragonfly, has been 

recorded in this habitat. Additional key species include the Olympic mudminnow, Chinook and coho 

salmon, steelhead trout, and possibly western toad and western pond turtle. 

Secretive marshbirds such as American bittern, sora, Virginia rail, green heron, great blue heron, 

pied-billed grebe, and American coot depend upon this habitat for their life histories. During higher 

water conditions, migrating and wintering waterfowl also use this habitat type. 

Elk and black-tailed deer browse on emergent plants, while otter, mink, beaver, and muskrat forage 

and den in this habitat. Northern harriers hunt over the habitat and use it to nest. Large numbers of 

amphibians, such as northwest and long-toed salamanders, rough-skinned newts, red-legged frogs, 

and Pacific chorus frogs, lay their eggs and the juveniles mature into adults in the marsh. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27

4.3.11 Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative Grasslands Overview

The Unit supports over 82 acres of seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands. These lowlands are 

relatively flat, generally are seasonally flooded in winter and early spring, and can be covered with 

water nearly 36 inches deep. Portions of this habitat closest to the river tend to be inundated with 

water during most months except September and early October. The saturated, poorly drained 

Semiahoo muck soils generally remain wet even during extended late-summer dry conditions. Most 

sites are located along river and tributary edges, in swales, oxbows, and land depressions that connect 

to other wetlands and deeper waters. 

Historically, these areas may have previously been emergent marsh, wet prairie, open areas within 

shrub swamp or riparian forest, or part of a forested wetland. However, after Euro-American 

settlement, these areas have been converted to grasses that are adapted to the saturated soils and 

surface water coverage found in lowland river valleys. The most likely plant found in these nonnative 

grasslands is reed canarygrass. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative 

Grasslands 

Planting of reed canarygrass in the Pacific Northwest began in the late 1800s and has been widely 

used in northern states and Canada. No other forage plant is as well-adapted to wet, marshy areas as 

reed canarygrass. This aggressive, cool-season, mat-forming, nonnative grass moves out of 

pasturelands and into stream bottoms, wetlands, and canal banks and persists where it is not 

desirable. It now dominates where wetland herbaceous plants or open moist soil would have been 

found on the Unit and in other areas throughout the watershed. It grows so vigorously that it 

seriously inhibits or completely eliminates all other plant growth (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2004) 

and it is a major threat to wetland ecosystems (Kilbride and Paveglio 1999). It is estimated that over 

98 percent of what was emergent marsh, wet prairie, or wetland forest has been converted to 

seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland (reed canarygrass). 

Unlike native wetland vegetation, dense stands of reed canarygrass have little value for wildlife (Tu 

2004). In summer and early fall, reed canarygrass stems grow over 8 feet tall and are dense enough to 

impede both large and small animal movement. 

Key Species Supported

This monoculture of nonnative grass does not provide the diversity of a native marsh-plant complex, 

which is necessary for a healthy plant community and associated wildlife. However, some wildlife 

use this habitat, including waterfowl (dabbling ducks, Canada and cackling geese) during late fall, 

winter, and spring when it is flooded. Some secretive marshbirds, such as American bittern, sora, and 

Wilson’s snipe, may use shallow water edges. Elk and black-tailed deer graze on new grass shoots in 

late spring and summer. Leaf-mats are sometimes used as basking, resting, or feeding platforms by 

small aquatic mammals such as muskrats and waterfowl. 

These grasslands obstruct movement of mature amphibians and fish. Negotiating through the dense 

grass (even when flooded) may cause both amphibians and fish to expend high energy levels that 

ultimately may reduce their ability to survive and reproduce. Stems and leaves provide an abundance 

of surfaces for algal growth in late spring and early summer and may provide food for juvenile amphibian 

growth and some insects. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

4.3.12 Dry, Nonnative Grasslands

Overview

There are 163 acres of dry, nonnative grasslands on the Unit. Dry, nonnative grasslands on the Unit

border include mixed forests; seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands; riparian habitats; and 

marshes. These areas are now composed of a mixture of nonnative pasture grasses, herbaceous 

plants, and shrubs. This habitat occurs in a mosaic throughout the Unit acquisition boundary and in a 

large field approximately 100 acres near the 123rd Ave and Endicott Road area. Vegetation in this 

habitat is a mixture of nonnative pasture grasses (such as velvet grass, orchard grass, perennial rye, 

timothy), native perennial grasses (such as Roemer’s and red fescue), and some native and nonnative 

forbs (such as alfalfa). The mixture of vegetation heights ranges between 6 and 30 inches high. The 

edges of the grasslands may contain a shrubby component that transitions into mixed forests or 

riparian habitats. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Dry, Nonnative Grasslands

Generally, nonnative grasslands in western Washington are former prairie, oak woodlands, and forest 

habitats that were converted for agricultural purposes, such as horse or cattle pastures. Livestock 

grazing is necessary to keep the grasslands open and not overcome with other species. 

Extensive work by TNC, Center for Natural Lands Management, South Puget Sound Prairie 

Landscape Working Group, and the Service (Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office) has 

defined where native prairie habitats are located in the Puget Trough based on soil types. Prairie 

habitat is considered among the most imperiled habitats in western Washington, and many species 

associated with it are State candidates or SOCs. The Unit’s dry, nonnative grasslands are not 

considered true prairie because they are not native to western Washington. However, because of the 

large losses of western Washington native prairie habitat, retaining Unit nonnative grassland habitat 

may be helpful in supporting some species that rely on open uplands. 

Threats include invasion from nonnative pest plants that thrive in open areas without competition, 

such as wild chervil, Scotch broom, common burdock, common teasel, Canada and bull thistle, 

Himalayan blackberry, and poison hemlock. Forest encroachment or conversion into shrub lands will 

take place in the absence of management by prescribed fire, mowing, grazing, or haying. Conversion 

into forestlands will reduce the habitat mosaic in the Unit and reduce open habitat availability for 

reliant wildlife species. 

Key Species Supported

Although no listed species are known to rely on this habitat type, a number of grassland species that 

evolved to use open areas of relatively short grass and forbs may use dry, nonnative grasslands. 

This habitat type provides ground-nesting and foraging areas for birds such as savannah sparrow, 

western meadowlark, purple martin, mourning dove, and killdeer, as well as denning sites for small 

mammals such as mouse, mole, and vole. It provides hunting sites for raptors such as American 

kestrel, red-tailed hawk, great horned and barn owls, and northern shrike. In winter, dry, nonnative 

grassland provides thermal cover for short-eared owl, small mammals, and other wildlife. These 

areas also provide winter forage and loafing sites for ungulates such as black-tailed deer and elk. In 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29

addition, they provide migration or dispersal corridors for small and large mammals as well as 

amphibians. This habitat may contain an occasional deciduous tree such as big leaf maple or Garry 

oak. These trees can grow into large cavity-producing specimens that enhance the habitat for 

American kestrel, owl, bat, Vaux’s swift, and insects. A tapered edge of flowering shrubs provides 

nectar and attracts pollinating insects and provides a transition area for animals utilizing both 

grassland and woodlands. 

4.3.13 Mixed Forest

Overview

Mixed conifer and deciduous forest habitat is generally the most extensive forest system in the 

lowlands west of the Cascades and forms the matrix within which other plant communities occur as 

patches. Many of the local area forests managed for conifer production lack species diversity and 

forest function that benefits wildlife (Carey 2006). The Unit supports 394 acres of upland mixed 

forest habitat of varying ages. These forests have well-drained soils that are moist much of the year 

and dry for approximately 3–4 months. 

Most forests on the Unit are young mixed forest stands reestablishing after logging prior to Unit

acquisition. In naturally regenerating young forests, commonly represented species include grand fir, 

western red cedar, big leaf maple, and red alder. Reestablishing forests usually lack western white 

pine because there are few natural seed sources for this species. As stands mature, Douglas-fir, grand 

fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, and big leaf maple dominate the canopy as early 

successional and short-lived red alder dies off. Eventually big leaf maple needs more light than the 

conifers allow and it too become less common. Individual trees or groups of trees with >12” diameter 

and 20’ long become snags that provide nesting cavities, and fallen trees become nurse logs. Over 

time, this habitat can mature into old-growth forest. 

Most of the Unit forests are products of restoration efforts. Carey (2003) notes 

“...many managed forests are impoverished in species. Intentional management can reduce

the need for wide riparian buffers, produce landscapes dominated by late-seral stages that are 

hospitable to wildlife associated with old-growth forests, provide a sustained yield of forest 

products, and contribute to economic, social, and environmental sustainability.” 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Mixed Forest

The State of Washington manages 1.4 million acres of forested lands in western Washington (DNR

1997). Long-term sustainable forest practices are a management priority in the State. Both public and

private forestlands throughout the region are actively managed for a variety of purposes, including 

timber sales, recreation, and habitat conservation. Locally, Douglas-fir is the timber preferred by land 

owners and is currently the dominant species adjacent to the Unit. 

Threats to this habitat include forest management narrowly focused on timber production, limited 

species diversity, poor function for wildlife species, habitat fragmentation due to development 

pressure, and some timber harvesting practices (Carey 2003, 2006, Heiken 2007). Other threats to the 

mixed forest ecosystem include invasive species infestations such as reed canarygrass in wetter areas; 

holly, spurge laurel, English laurel, English ivy, yellow archangel, and periwinkle in shaded areas

and Scotch broom and blackberry in drier, more open locations. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Key Species Supported

Mid-story plants in older forests include vine maple, red-osier dogwood, evergreen and red 

huckleberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, salal, osoberry, and perhaps native rhododendron. 

Additionally, rose species, stinging nettle, and devil’s club can be found. The understory is populated 

with sword fern, salal, dull Oregon grape, trailing blackberry, twinflower, inside-out flower, wild 

ginger, trillium, false lily of the valley, Pacific bleeding heart, and lilies. In the more mesic sites, lady 

fern and sword fern can be more dominant. 

Wildlife associated with older, structurally complex and more diverse forests are rufous 

hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, northern flicker, pileated woodpecker, Steller’s jay, Vaux’s 

swift, purple martin, tree swallow, chestnut-backed chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, winter wren, 

Swainson’s and varied thrushes, Pacific slope flycatcher, Wilson’s, Townsend’s, and MacGillivray’s 

warblers, Keen’s myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, elk, and black-tailed deer. Black bear and 

cougar use forests when enough habitat acreage exists and habitat corridors link to other large scale 

appropriate habitats. 

4.4 Major Species Groups

4.4.1 Fish

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Estuaries are a critical link between freshwater and marine habitats, providing a transition zone 

between fresh- and saltwater for anadromous species. They also are vital nursery areas for juvenile 

and sub-adult fish prior to migrating to the ocean. The diverse habitats represented in Grays Harbor, 

along with abundant food resources, support a wide variety of species and life stages. Some species 

make use of the estuary for all stages of their life cycle, while others use it primarily for one or two 

stages. 

Much of the greater Grays Harbor estuary has been degraded by a combination of logging, 

channeling, gravel mining, water diversion, road building, diking, dredging, aquaculture, small-scale 

coal mining, mill effluent, sewage release, and pesticide use for aquaculture and cranberry farming 

(Smith et al. 1976, Hiss et al. 1982, Wood and Stark 2002, Smith and Wenger 2001 (cited by Sandell 

et al. 2011)). However, despite the long-term degradation, it provides habitat for 54 fish species

(Sandell et al. 2011). 

No fish surveys have been conducted within the Grays Harbor Refuge boundary. However, some 

large-scale fish studies conducted in the greater Grays Harbor estuary have included a sampling site 

on the south side of Moon Island, which is located just on the other side of the peninsula to Grays 

Harbor Refuge (Simenstad and Eggers 1981, Simenstad 1981, Sandell et al. 2011). This site is 

relatively close to Refuge lands, but may include deeper water than is found in the intertidal mudflat 

habitats; however, it still may be representative of the open water portions of the Refuge. 

Based on these studies, 28 species of fish use the shallow open water and intertidal area around 

Moon Island between March and October (Simenstad and Eggers 1981, Simenstad 1981). Juvenile 

chum salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead use the open water and intertidal flats. 

Juvenile chum enter the estuary in January, leave in May, and are most abundant in March and April. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31

Juvenile coho salmon arrive in April, leave in June, and are most abundant in May. Juvenile Chinook 

salmon arrive in April, leave in October or later, and are most abundant in June. Juvenile steelhead 

are generally present in the estuary between May and July. Juvenile Chinook salmon and chum 

salmon and juvenile English sole use shallow intertidal areas almost exclusively. Three individual 

bull trout were found in the southeastern portion of the estuary in 2011. 

Different species of juvenile salmonids have differing food preferences (Simenstad et al. 1981). Two 

primary food categories are epibenthic organisms (harpacticoid copepods, and cumaceans) and 

neritic zooplankton (larval fish, crangonid shrimp larvae, calanoid copepods, and cyclopoid 

copepods). Primary prey for Chinook salmon are epibenthic cumaceans, drift insects, and fish larvae. 

Coho salmon mostly feed on neritic organisms, primarily crab species. Steelhead mostly feed on 

neritic crab larvae and juvenile smelt.

Grays Harbor estuary is an important rearing area for juvenile English sole (Simenstad and Eggers 

1981). English sole spawn offshore from Grays Harbor and juveniles migrate into the estuary to rear. 

The density and abundance of epibenthic invertebrates, and specifically crustaceans, in shallow open 

water and intertidal areas is critical to rearing of English sole. Simenstad and Eggers (1981) found 

that first year juvenile fish are abundant near the Refuge throughout most of the study period and that 

they primarily feed on crustaceans. Two additional species of flounder may also occur at the Refuge.

Seven species of forage fish (or baitfish) are found near the Refuge (Simenstad and Eggers 1981). Of 

these, juvenile Pacific herring and all life stages of northern anchovies are abundant. Adult and 

juvenile surf smelt and all life stages of longfin smelt are common. Pacific herring juveniles are 

found near Moon Island from May through October and are most abundant July through September. 

Northern anchovies have three population peaks: May, July, and September. Juvenile longfin smelt 

numbers peak in March, June, July, August, and September. Juvenile and egg forms of Pacific sand 

lance were present mostly in April, and infrequently in May, July, August, and September. In 

addition, Sandell et al. (2011) found American shad and Pacific sardine present, but in small 

numbers. All forage fish were associated with sand flats and eelgrass, showing a strong preference 

for eelgrass far beyond the relative contribution of eelgrass to the overall estuary habitat complexity. 

All forage fish feed almost exclusively on zooplankton and are prey for larger predatory fish (Sandell 

et al. 2011). 

 

Adult, juvenile, and larval stages of 12 additional species of fish use shallow open water and 

intertidal habitats. Adult and juvenile peamouth, three-spined stickleback, bay pipefish, shiner perch, 

saddleback gunnel, and staghorn sculpin were found, as well as all life stages of snake prickleback. 

Juvenile Pacific tomcod, eelpouts, walleye surfperch, and greenling are present (Simenstad 1981). 

The abundance of food resources is critical to these smaller fish, which in turn provide a food base 

for larger fish and many fish-eating waterbirds. 

Few large pikeminnow or staghorn sculpin were captured, suggesting that size classes of these 

predators big enough to consume salmon smolts are not overly abundant (Sandell et al. 2011). 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Black River Unit encompasses a complex mosaic of wetlands and connecting uplands, extensive 

plant communities, and varied species of wildlife. The Creveling et al. study in 1980 is likely the 

most comprehensive natural history investigation of the upper Black River to date. It covers more 

area than the Unit acquisition boundary, so it encompasses most habitats found in the Unit and is an 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

excellent baseline source of information. The Unit species lists include those animals and plants that 

have been observed or are strongly thought to exist within Unit. 

Twenty-nine species of fish are known to occur in the Black River, 20 of which are native. Native 

anadromous fish found in the river and likely within the Unit boundary are Pacific lamprey, coho and 

Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, and steelhead. Native resident fish are cold-water species and 

include western brook lamprey, mountain whitefish, peamouth, speckled dace, redside shiner, large 

scale sucker, three-spined stickleback, Olympic mudminnow, and five species of sculpins. Nonnative 

fish are widespread in the river and, unlike the native fish, many are warm-water species: American 

shad, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, rock bass, large and smallmouth bass, black crappie, 

yellow perch, and northern pikeminnow (Kunze, L. 2011, pers. comm., Creveling et al. 1980, 

Caldwell et al. 2004). 

Spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, fall chum salmon, coho salmon, winter steelhead, and 

cutthroat trout, all of the Chehalis River Evolutionarily Significant Unit, occur in the Black River but 

mostly downstream of the Unit (Caldwell et al. 2004). No salmon of this Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit are listed with State or Federal agencies. Salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in the Black 

River drainage is primarily in tributaries because the majority of the mainstem has a mud or fine 

sediment bottom due to the extremely low gradients (Smith and Wegner 2001). Spring Chinook 

salmon spawn in the lower 9 miles of the river mainstem and likely do not spawn in the Unit. Fall 

Chinook salmon spawn up to river mile 9 and also between river miles 16 and 17.3, which is also 

downstream of the Unit. However, they also spawn in the first mile of Waddell Creek within the Unit 

(Smith and Wegner 2001). 

Chum salmon were once abundant but their numbers have greatly diminished since the 1970s, and 

now they spawn only within the first 10 river miles (Phinney and Bucknell 1975 [cited in Smith and 

Wegner 2001]). Coho salmon spawning is widely distributed in Black River tributaries, with the 

most productive spawning habitat located in Waddell, Mima, and Allen Creeks (Caldwell et al. 

2004). There is excellent rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon in the upper reaches of the river, 

but high temperatures and low DO may limit use. Nonetheless, there is some rearing of juvenile coho 

salmon in the low gradient reaches within the Unit. Winter steelhead spawn in the lower 7 miles of 

the river below the Unit and in Blooms Ditch, Dempsey, Salmon, Beaver, Waddell, and Mima 

Creeks (Caldwell et al. 2004, Smith and Wenger 2001), some of which drain into the river within the 

boundary. Juvenile steelhead rear for 2 years and likely use the Unit, but may be limited by summer 

low-flow conditions (Caldwell et al. 2004). Cutthroat trout use the Black River from October through 

April with anadromous fish spawning January through mid-March and resident cutthroat trout 

spawning February through mid-March. Although the status is unknown, the stock is believed to be 

relatively abundant and widely distributed in the system (Caldwell et al. 2004). 

Historically Chinook, coho, chum, and steelhead salmonids all migrated up the Chehalis River, 

through the Black River and into its tributaries, and into Black Lake, where they spawned in Black 

Lake’s tributaries. More recently, man-made alterations to lake water levels and the installation of a 

pipeline have impeded fish passage, contributing to the elimination of salmonid movement between 

Black River and Black Lake (Hawkins 2000, Smith and Wegner 2001, Caldwell et al. 2004). Salmon 

populations are likely much smaller than they were historically. The reduction of salmon abundance 

in the Black Lake and Black River watershed is of special concern because salmon are a keystone 

species, meaning that a wide array of organisms benefit from or depend on the trophic inputs salmon 

provide to the food web (Cederholm et al. 2000 in TNC 2005).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33

Low flows, high water temperatures, low DO levels, increased sediment loads, and concentrated 

toxins reduce survival of all salmonid life cycle stages. Pre-spawning mortality can be caused by low 

flows or reduced water quality. In 1989 there was a fish-kill in the river, south of Unit lands, which 

resulted in the death of adult Chinook salmon due to low DO, high nutrient levels, and warm water 

temperatures (Berg et al. 1995, Pickett 1994). Survival of eggs is dependent upon clean, stable gravel

substrates. Low flows and high water temperatures can force early out-migration of juvenile fish, 

reducing their survival (see Chapter 3). 

The small Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi) is State-listed as a sensitive species and is a 

priority species under WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHS), but has no Federal status. 

Only three other species of Novumbra are found in North America and one in Eastern Europe, but the 

endemic Olympic mudminnow is found only in Washington State. The current distribution of the 

Olympic mudminnow includes the southern and western lowlands of the Olympic Peninsula, the 

Chehalis and lower Deschutes River drainages, and south Puget Sound, west of the Nisqually River 

(Mongillo and Hallock 1999). It occurs in quiet waters with several centimeters of soft mud 

substrate, little to no water flow, and abundant aquatic vegetation. If any of these characteristics are 

missing, no mudminnows are found (Mongillo and Hallock 1999). Meldrim noted that marshy 

streams with brownish water and overhanging banks are also important to the mudminnow (Meldrim 

2012). 

Adults are about 2 inches long and feed on live, moving prey, mostly ostracods, isopods, 

oligochaetes, mysids, mollusks, and dipterans. Spawning occurs over an extended period from late 

November to the following June (Mongillo and Hallock 1999). Females deposit eggs on vegetation

and they hatch in approximately 10 days. Olympic mudminnows appear to be quite sensitive to 

competition or predation from exotic and native fish species (Mongillo and Hallock 1999). Because 

of this, the Olympic mudminnow's restricted range, and the continuing loss of wetlands, WDFW 

biologists believe the Olympic mudminnow is vulnerable and likely to become threatened or 

endangered in a significant portion of their range without cooperative management (Simon and 

Peoples 2006). Threats include habitat destruction, competition, and predation, particularly by exotic 

spiny-rayed fish (NatureServe 2012a). 

Nonnative and invasive fish populations in the Black River include American shad, brown bullhead, 

pumpkinseed, bluegill, rock bass, largemouth and smallmouth bass, rainbow trout, black crappie, and 

yellow perch (Creveling et al. 1980). See Appendix L for the fish species list and Chapter 4, Section 

4.7, for more information on these fish and their impacts on the habitat and native species. 

Between August 6 and 7, 1989, a fish-kill occurred in the Black River and another on August 10 and 

11 in the Chehalis River (Yake et al. 1989). Evidence suggests that a toxic substance entered the 

Black River at about river mile 9.2 on August 6 and moved downstream entering the Chehalis River. 

Estimates of the number of fish killed between river mile 9.2 and the mouth of the Black River 

include 100,000 coho salmon fingerlings, 17,000 cutthroat trout, and 118,000 forage fish (sculpins, 

dace, shiners, suckers, and lamprey). Over 300 adult Chinook salmon were killed in the Chehalis 

River. This fish-kill occurred below the Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

4.4.2 Waterfowl 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The greater Grays Harbor estuary provides important migratory and overwintering habitat for 

waterfowl. It is listed as a key wetland requiring protection in both the Concept Plan for Waterfowl 

Wintering Habitat Preservation and Important Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Washington (USFWS 

1979). As many as 45,000 birds have been recorded in the entire estuary during aerial surveys, with 

the highest counts during October and November. Grays Harbor is a large, protected estuary with a 

variety of habitats that provide foraging and cover sites, including eelgrass beds, shallow water areas, 

and marshes which produce sedge and grass seeds. Dabbling ducks are more prevalent than diving 

ducks in this shallow estuary. Surveys of the entire estuary showed American wigeon make up nearly 

60 percent of the waterfowl, mallards 16 percent, green-winged teal 10 percent, and northern pintail 

3 percent (USFWS 1990) 

The most common species using the Refuge in the fall through spring are American wigeon, northern 

pintail, northern shoveler, green-winged teal, gadwall, surf scoter, common goldeneye, bufflehead, 

red-breasted merganser, and cackling and white-fronted geese. Mallards are common year round, as 

are Canada geese. Black brant were once rarely seen at the Refuge but are now occasionally observed 

on the open water or flooded intertidal mudflat in spring. It is unknown whether brant use reflects the 

increased presence of Japanese eelgrass (Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994), an invasive nonnative plant

that is growing on the intertidal mudflats. 

In the past, some waterfowl listed as occurring at the Refuge were actually using the Hoquiam 

sewage ponds to the east. Those species include canvasback, greater scaup, lesser scaup, and hooded 

merganser. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Mallards, American wigeon, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail, hooded 

merganser, wood duck, bufflehead, ring-necked duck, and American coot use habitats within the 

Unit. Dabbling ducks are usually found in the open areas of emergent marsh, whereas diving ducks 

are usually found associated with the river’s deeper-channel waters. Typical seasonal rains create 

mild to moderate surface flooding conditions, which in turn support habitat for both dabbling and 

diving ducks and geese. Canada and cackling geese also use emergent marsh; seasonally flooded, 

nonnative grasslands; and dry, nonnative grasslands in late fall, winter, and early spring. 

Waterfowl surveys were conducted by Unit staff twice a week in 2002, from mid-February to the end 

of March, in the open wetlands just north of 123rd Avenue. At that time approximately 115 ducks and 

geese a day were observed, and species included mallard, northern shovelers, green-winged teal, and 

American wigeon. 

4.4.3 Water Birds

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Great blue herons are common year round at the Refuge feeding in the intertidal areas. Doublecrested cormorants are also common and forage in open water and flooded intertidal mudflats. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-35

Horned grebes are common fall through spring in open water areas. Western grebes were once 

common in winter and spring but are now rarely observed. Common loons are seen and sometimes 

heard in the open water habitat. 

Caspian terns historically bred on islands in Grays Harbor estuary, but the last known nesting was in 

1989 (Seto et al. 2003). Caspian terns commonly forage in shallow waters at the Refuge in spring 

through fall. Glaucous-winged, western, hybrid cross, California, mew, and ring-billed gulls are 

common fall through spring. 

Some water birds listed as occurring at the Refuge were actually observed using the nearby water 

treatment facility. These include brown pelicans and pied-billed grebes. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Black River wetlands are excellent locations for migratory and resident waterbirds, especially 

secretive marshbirds such as green heron, American bittern, Virginia rail, and sora. These birds nest 

and forage in the dense cover that can be found in the emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and along the 

edge of the river channel. Great blue herons use the same habitats but also forage in more open areas 

such as the seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland. Pied-billed grebes use the deeper waters of the 

river channel to forage and nest in the cover where the shrub swamp and emergent marsh converge. 

4.4.4 Shorebirds

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Greater Grays Harbor estuary is one of the largest staging areas for spring migratory shorebirds on 

the Pacific coast of North America and hosts one of the largest concentrations of shorebirds on the 

Pacific coast, south of Alaska. In 1996 it was designated as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network Site of Hemispheric Significance (Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 2013) and an 

Important Bird Area within the Washington Coast Estuaries IBA (Bayard 2013). In the spring of 

1981 over 1,000,000 shorebirds were observed using the entire harbor to forage and rest as they 

made their way from South and Central America to breeding grounds in and around Alaska’s arctic 

and subarctic areas (Herman and Bulger 1981). 

Grays Harbor Refuge occupies only 2 percent of the intertidal mudflat habitat of Grays Harbor 

estuary and yet hosts approximately 50 percent of the spring-migrating shorebirds (Herman and 

Bulger 1981). Of the 33 species of shorebirds that migrate annually along the west coast between the 

arctic and South or Central America, 24 have been observed at the Refuge. Currently the most 

abundant shorebirds using the Refuge are western sandpiper, dunlin, and semipalmated plover. 

Shorebirds that commonly use the Refuge in smaller numbers include black-bellied plover, greater 

yellowlegs, least sandpiper, short- and long-billed dowitchers, and red knot. 

Grays Harbor Refuge brings together three characteristics critical to shorebirds. The first is a high 

concentration of invertebrates, which fuel the birds’ migration. The second is the higher-elevation

intertidal mudflats that result in Refuge mudflats being the first in Grays Harbor to be exposed and 

the last to be inundated as the tide ebbs and flows, allowing birds to feed an additional 1 to 2 hours 

each tidal cycle. Third, the Refuge is protected from wave action, providing a sheltered environment 

for shorebirds and waterfowl (USFWS 1990). During low tides, shorebirds fan out over the intertidal 

mudflats following the receding water. As the returning tide advances, birds move shoreward and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

may roost on the exposed intertidal mudflats, salt marsh, or on LWD until the tide begins to recede 

again (Herman and Bulger 1981). Birds often leave the Refuge to roost on Mini Moon Island just 

west of the Refuge. 

The spring Refuge shorebird population is dominated early in the migration period by western 

sandpiper and dunlin, but semipalmated and black-bellied plovers, dowitchers, yellowlegs, and least 

sandpipers are also observed. Slightly later in the migration period, species diversity increases with 

red knots and occasionally whimbrels, marbled godwits, and ruddy turnstones observed foraging or 

resting at the Refuge.

The shorebirds migrate southward after breeding season ends or as dwindling food resources and 

cold weather forces them to move. The birds stop more frequently to forage on the southbound 

journey than they do in the spring. Some birds continue their flight into Central and South America, 

while some stop in Washington. These birds make a round-trip of 7,460 to 15,500 miles (Herman and 

Bulger 1981 [cited in USFWS 1990]). 

Grays Harbor Refuge is important to shorebirds throughout the winter. Service records show that up 

to 20,000 shorebirds, mostly dunlin, use the Refuge through the fall and winter months (Herman and 

Bulger 1981 [cited in USFWS 1990]). Annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for the entire Grays 

Harbor estuary and coastline routinely record large numbers of dunlin (USFWS 1990). 

Red knots are an SOC on both the east and west coasts of the United States. Individuals of the west 

coast subspecies (Calidris canutus roselaari) have declined in Grays Harbor estuary. It appears they 

are no longer using the Refuge in large numbers as they were in the past. Recent efforts to understand 

the natural history of C. c. roselaari have been helpful to understanding where these birds may be 

found within the greater Grays Harbor estuary (Buchanan 2006, 2008; Buchanan et al. 2011). It is 

possible that food resources and prey availability have declined at the Refuge, perhaps as a result of 

increased sedimentation levels (Buchanan, J. 2012, pers. comm.). 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Shorebirds such as greater yellowlegs, dunlin, Wilson’s snipe, spotted sandpiper, and killdeer forage 

in the open, shallow wetlands. Yellowlegs winter there, dunlin may winter or stop during migration, 

Wilson’s snipe most likely nest there, and killdeer move up to the drier, nonnative grasslands to nest. 

4.4.5 Raptors

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Ten species of raptors are known to use the Refuge and five are common. Peregrine falcons and 

merlins are frequent sights during spring and fall migration and through the winter, feeding on the 

dense populations of shorebirds. Northern harriers and red-tailed hawks are common year round and 

feed mostly on small mammals in the salt marsh. Bald eagles commonly use the Refuge during the 

winter and spring, feeding mostly on fish and waterfowl, although they sometimes attempt to capture 

the highly maneuverable shorebirds. Ospreys, present spring through fall, feed exclusively on fish. 

An often-seen raptor is the sharp-shinned hawk; less commonly seen is the Cooper’s hawk. Both 

hawks feed on small landbirds in forested habitat. Rough-legged hawks show up infrequently in 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-37

winter and prey on birds, small mammals, and carrion. American kestrels are observed even less 

frequently and feed mostly on insects, passerines, and small vertebrates.

Grays Harbor estuary is an important over-wintering area for peregrine falcons. During the winter of 

1981–1982, six peregrines were radio-tracked in Grays Harbor and the most widely used areas were 

the Refuge, Point New to the northwest, and around the northeastern portion of North Bay to the 

mouth of the Humptulips River. Up to three peregrines have been seen at the Refuge at one time, 

their occurrence directly related to the large numbers of shorebirds in the area. Over 65 percent of 

wintering peregrine prey is shorebirds, mostly dunlin, (Dobler and Spencer 1989, Hayes and 

Buchanan 2002). 

Merlins make use of Grays Harbor Refuge, notably during the winter (Buchanan et al. 1988) and 

spring shorebird migration. As many as 16 merlins were recorded in the greater Grays Harbor estuary 

during the 1977 Audubon Christmas Bird Count. Merlin use of the Refuge is tied to high densities of 

migrating and overwinter shorebirds. 

Most of the raptors discussed above nest near the Refuge. Bald eagles nest along the entire coast of 

Washington, and adults and juveniles are seen year round at the Refuge. They teach their young 

foraging techniques on estuary waters. Numbers increase in fall and winter, and their occurrence is 

most closely tied to salmon spawning runs, waterfowl, and shorebird migrations. Ospreys have 

nested just outside the Refuge boundary in large banks of lights located along an abandoned open 

field. After a 2007 storm felled these lights, the Port of Grays Harbor erected an osprey platform near 

the Hoquiam water treatment pool. To date, ospreys have not used this as a nesting platform, 

although it is used by other raptors as a perch site. Peregrine falcons are known to nest within the 

estuary and on cliffs along the outer coast of Washington and make use of Grays Harbor year round. 

Merlins are thought to nest somewhere nearby. Red-tailed hawks commonly nest in the surrounding 

landscape. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Some raptors reside on the Unit year round, some use it as a stopover site during migration, and some 

winter in the area. Greater species diversity and larger numbers are observed in the fall and winter 

months. Owls that are common and nest in the area include barn and great horned owl. Owls that 

may use or nest in the area, but are not verified, are western screech, northern pygmy, and northern 

saw-whet. The short-eared owl may use the open old fields as hunting grounds during the 

nonbreeding season. Hawks expected to use the Unit include northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, 

Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk. American kestrels forage over the open grassland areas and are

expected to be nesting nearby. Turkey vultures and bald eagles soar over open meadows and 

floodplains. Ospreys may also forage in the Unit. 

4.4.6 Landbirds and Passerines

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Over 54 species of landbirds have been observed at Grays Harbor Refuge, most making use of the 

forest and the tall shrubs and grasses along the margins of the Refuge (Sundstrom 2008). Most 

commonly occurring species appear to be breeding or year-round residents. A few species are either 

migratory, using the Refuge during the spring and/or fall, or overwintering. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

A 2-year study along the State Highway 109 right-of-way (ROW) (in forest and salt marsh habitats) 

along the north side of the Refuge recorded a small group of species present during each season that

included song sparrow, bald eagle, gull species, common raven, red-tailed hawk, and marsh wren 

(Sundstrom 2008). Song sparrow, American robin, black-capped chickadee, marsh wren, and 

American crow were the most frequently detected species and comprised 51 percent of all bird 

detections during the study. Thirty-three species were commonly detected in both study years, with 

fall being the season when most were detected (Sundstrom 2008). 

In the southern end of the Refuge, 12 species of landbirds are common year round: downy 

woodpecker, northern flicker, American crow, black-capped chickadee, Bewick’s wren, marsh wren, 

American robin, European starling, spotted towhee, song sparrow, house finch, and American 

goldfinch. Twenty-two species of landbirds are common during at least one season of the year, 

mostly spring through fall or summer. Seasonally common birds include rufous hummingbird, 

Pacific-slope flycatcher, willow flycatcher, violet-green swallow, tree swallow, cliff swallow, barn 

swallow, orange-crowned warbler, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, common yellowthroat, 

Wilson’s warbler, savannah sparrow, and brown-headed cowbird. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Over 74 species of migrant or resident landbirds and passerines have been recorded within the Black 

River Unit boundary, including 8 species of raptors, including owls, hawks, falcons, and eagles. 

Long-distance migrants travel between breeding grounds in temperate North America and wintering 

grounds in Central and South America. Resident species both breed and winter in the local area. 

Within the Unit, mixed forests, riparian forests, and shrub swamps provide differing growth forms, 

layers of vegetation structure, plant diversity, and food resources which support many species of 

landbirds. A mosaic of habitats and the transition zones between them provide bird species greater 

use of the areas. Many passerines rely on the cover, food availability, foraging space, undisturbed 

areas for nesting, branches to support nests, and access to water that the thickets and wetlands 

provide. 

Year-round resident woodpeckers using mixed and riparian forests include northern flicker; downy, 

hairy, and pileated woodpeckers; and red-breasted sapsucker. Rufous hummingbird is the only 

known hummingbird species on the Unit, but Anna’s hummingbirds are expanding their range

throughout western Washington and may now occur on the Unit. Belted kingfishers forage for fish in 

the river, band-tailed pigeons and cedar waxwings forage on fruit-bearing plants in the forests, and 

mourning doves use the open areas of dry, nonnative grasslands. Nesting violet-green swallow, tree

swallow, barn swallow, cliff swallow, and northern rough-winged swallow consume insects over the 

floodplain. Some habitats should be appropriate for Vaux’s swift. 

Many passerines rely on the Unit during migration to and from distant breeding grounds. Large 

numbers of warblers, vireos, flycatchers, thrushes, and swallows stop to refuel in the mixed forest, 

riparian forest, and shrub swamp habitats. Habitat in the riparian and shrub swamp is used by yellow

warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, common yellowthroat, red-eyed vireo, Cassin’s vireo, warbling 

vireo, black-headed grosbeak, evening grosbeak, western tanager, bushtit, black-capped chickadee, 

chestnut-backed chickadee, Bewick’s wren, Pacific wren, and sparrow species. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-39

The drier mixed forests support American robin, spotted towhee, Swainson’s thrush, varied thrush, 

hermit thrush, American goldfinch, Steller’s jay, American crow, raven, red-breasted nuthatch, 

Pacific wren, Bewick’s wren, Wilson’s warbler, Townsend’s warbler, black-throated gray warbler, 

brown creeper, chestnut-backed chickadee, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, and band-tailed pigeon. 

The emergent marsh supports the marsh wren, common yellowthroat, and red-winged blackbird. Dry, 

nonnative grasslands could provide habitat for western meadowlark, American kestrel, California 

quail, sparrow species, killdeer, American robin, purple martin, Vaux’s swift, and swallow species.

4.4.7 Mammals

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

No mammal surveys have been conducted at the Refuge, which has limited upland habitat and is 

isolated from adjacent lands. Black-tailed deer and breeding short-tailed weasel are observed 

annually. River otter are occasionally seen on the intertidal mudflats as well as the occasional harbor 

seal pup. It is likely that vole, shrew, raccoon, mink, and coyote use the Refuge, but surveys are 

lacking. Nonnative species including opossum, eastern gray squirrel, and eastern cottontail likely 

occur on the Refuge. A report of elk was once provided by a visitor but not verified, and a single, 

unverified observation of a dead black bear cub was made. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The most comprehensive inventory of mammal species for the Black River drainage was done by 

Creveling et al. in 1980 for the Washington Department of Game. They identified a total of 54 

species of mammals from habitats found the Black River watershed: 4 species in aquatic habitats, 13 

species in wetland habitats, 15 species in the riparian zone, 15 species in shrub habitats, and 36 in the 

forests. Today nutria, eastern gray squirrel, opossum, and eastern cottontail should be added to the 

list as nonnative mammals. Creveling et al. also found Norway rat and house mouse, but those are 

expected in more developed areas instead of natural areas. 

Native species found exclusively within the aquatic and wetland habitats include water and vagrant 

shrew, shrew mole, Townsend’s and water vole, beaver, muskrat, mink, long-tailed weasel, and river 

otter. Those species found exclusively within upland habitats include masked and Trowbridge’s 

shrews, mountain beaver, Townsend’s chipmunk, Douglas’ squirrel, northern flying squirrel, deer 

mouse, bushy-tailed woodrat, Gapper’s red-backed vole, creeping vole, porcupine, coyote, red fox, 

ermine, striped skunk, Roosevelt elk, and black-tailed deer. Species which use both the upland and 

riparian habitats include Pacific water shrew, Townsend’s mole, long-tailed vole, Pacific jumping 

mouse, snowshoe hare, black bear, western spotted skunk, mountain lion, and bobcat. At least eight 

species of bats have been identified using the area: Yuma, Keen’s, long-eared, California myotis, 

Townsend’s big-eared, silver-haired, big brown, and hoary bats (Creveling et al. 1980). Many of 

these species use abandoned structures for roosting and maternity sites. 

Beavers are an important source of disturbance in the Black River lowland floodplain ecosystem. 

Most beavers were removed from rivers and streams in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1800s as a 

result of the fur trade. Beaver populations were also reduced by eradication efforts to prevent 

flooding in lands planned for agricultural use and development and to reduce insect populations. 

Until recently, fisheries biologists encouraged natural-land managers to break up beaver dams 

because according to early studies, they thought the dams hindered passage for anadromous 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

salmonids and decreased fish habitat (Reid 1952 [cited in Pollock et al. 2008], Sanchez 2008). In 

areas where human development grew, beaver populations never rebounded to former levels. Areas 

impounded by beaver dams have been associated with biomass or diversity increases in a wide range 

of taxa, including birds, mammals, plants, and insects (Pollock et al. 2008). Beaver-impounded 

wetlands provide important off-channel rearing habitat for juvenile salmon during seasonal high 

water periods, and submerged vegetation and woody debris associated with beaver ponds provide 

excellent cover for rearing salmon. Beaver activity holds water through the dry season, providing 

needed habitat and water resources to a large number of species, animal populations, and plant 

communities. Beaver ponds also create a nutrient sink, which increases productivity of aquatic 

invertebrates, both in the ponds and in tributaries downstream of the ponds. Beaver dams provide 

storage areas of fine sediment and stabilize flows during high water events as water is stored in ponds 

and released slowly over the beaver dams (Cederholm et al. 2000, Smith and Wegner 2001). 

In the entire Black River system, the only undeveloped or unaltered floodplain remaining is the 

wetlands along the upper reaches of the river. The low-gradient floodplain provides ideal conditions 

for beaver colonization and an abundance of off-channel habitats that are preferred by juvenile 

salmon species. In the river, the beaver dams across the river channel do not create characteristic 

open ponds. Instead, water spreads widely over the flat floodplain landscape. They help create the 

shrub swamp and emergent marshes which provide important ecological benefits to a variety of 

wildlife species. By constructing dams and impounding streams, beavers considerably alter stream 

hydrology in a way that provides extensive benefits to fish as well as other organisms, resulting in a 

high species diversity supported by these systems (Rossell et al. 2005). It is most likely that cutthroat 

trout and coho salmon make extensive use of these areas for overwintering and feeding. 

4.4.8 Reptiles and Amphibians

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Surveys for reptiles and amphibians are incomplete. Pacific chorus frog is expected to occur in the 

forest habitats, and there may be other species of amphibians and snakes in residence. 

 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

A total of 13 species of amphibians have been found within the Black River basin (Creveling et al. 

1980). Most were found in the wetland zones, but many were also found in forested locations, 

including riparian habitats. Not all species found by Creveling et al. may occur within the Unit, but 

the expected species include northwestern, long-toed, and ensatina salamanders and rough-skinned 

newt. Native frogs or toads using the Unit include the Pacific chorus frog, red-legged frog, and 

Oregon spotted frog, and possibly western toad. Nonnative bullfrogs occur in localized areas. 

Detailed information on the Oregon spotted frog can be found in Section 4.5. Rare Species. 

Ten species of reptiles were found within the entire watershed that might occur within the approved 

Unit boundary; eight of these were found in forested habitats, six in riparian, and three in both the 

aquatic and wetland areas. Two species of turtles occur in the wetland and aquatic habitats: painted 

turtle (native to eastern Washington) and the nonnative red-eared slider. At one time, Pacific 

(western) pond turtles, a State endangered species, were found but they are now thought to be 

extirpated. Two species of lizards are possible in the upland habitats: northern alligator and western 

fence lizard. Six species of snakes may occur within the Unit, including two species occurring 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-41

exclusively in the uplands: gopher and northwestern garter snake. Species that could occur in both 

uplands and wetlands include rubber boa and common and western terrestrial garter snakes. 

4.4.9 Invertebrates

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Invertebrates within the water column and in the substrates of Grays Harbor estuary are a vital part of 

the food web supporting the wealth of higher species that make use of the landscape. Invertebrates 

are a critical part of the food web at the Refuge, notably providing food for migrating and 

overwintering shorebirds, ducks, water birds, juvenile salmonids, and non-salmonid fish. Their 

densities, biomass, and species diversity support large concentrations of animals (such as migrating 

shorebirds), which in turn attract larger, vertebrate predators such as peregrine falcon, merlin, and 

bald eagle. 

Benthic invertebrates (those below the sediment surface) are critical to shorebird use of the Refuge. 

Species composition and densities of benthic invertebrates vary depending on tidal level and 

substrate (Wolfe, Moore, and Cameron 1974, Wolfe and Moore 1973, Wolfe 1973, Warnock et al. 

2004). Both abundance and biomass of invertebrates are considerations in food availability for 

predator species. Substrates at the mid-tide level have greatest biomass of insects, polychaetes, and 

amphipods but only half as many individual insects as either polychaetes or amphipods (Warnock et 

al. 2004). One individual polychaete animal accounted for two-thirds of the total mass of polychaetes

in that 2004 study. Substrates at the low-tide level have very high biomass and numbers of individual 

polychaete worms, and moderately high biomass and numbers of individual bi-valves (Warnock et al. 

2004). 

Epibenthic invertebrates (those on the sediment surface) are important food resources for fish and 

some bird species, such as those that peck at the exposed surface. Forty-eight taxa of epibenthic 

invertebrates are found at the Refuge and are predominantly harpacticoid and calanoid copepods 

(Simenstad and Eggers 1981, Simenstad 1981). As many as 84,500 organisms per cubic meter were 

measured, which is near the highest density found at other locations along the Pacific coast. Species 

abundances shift with the tides. Historically the basin was a nursery area for Dungeness crab (Wolfe 

1973). 

Invertebrates in the water column, neritic zooplankton, are critical food for fish and some bird 

species. Over 100 taxa of zooplankton are found at the Refuge, of which at least 95 are invertebrates 

(Simenstad and Eggers 1981, Simenstad 1981). Seasonal species abundances shift dramatically, with 

the greatest abundance (about 1,900 organisms per cubic meter) the end of April and the beginning of 

May and the lowest abundance in July (about 51 organisms per cubic meter). A second peak in 

abundance occurs in September. By far, copepods and barnacles make up the greatest biomass. 

Little is known about invertebrate food preferences of different avian predators using the Refuge. 

Two species of crustaceans and one species of amphipod make up about 94 percent of the stomach 

contents of overwintering dunlin at the Refuge (Brennan et al. 1990), which could indicate 

preferential feeding or could reflect species abundance at the time of feeding. 

Anthropogenic impacts to sediment levels and tidal levels within the Refuge are of concern in that 

they most likely affect the density and species composition of invertebrates (Wolfe, Moore, and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Cameron 1974), which are critical to fish and migratory birds. Additionally, invasive plant species 

spreading over the intertidal mudflats may affect invertebrate species. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Studies of freshwater benthic invertebrates are incomplete, but water quality studies in the lower 

portions of the river (samples collected at 110th Avenue) noted that the invertebrate population 

generally is not diverse, is dominated by pollution-tolerant species, and has low numbers of 

pollution-sensitive species. Midge larvae, which are pollution-tolerant, are the most abundant, while 

mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies, which are pollution-intolerant, were uncommon. The populations 

recorded from six sites along the river included mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, scuds 

(amphipods), water beetles, true flies (including midges), true bugs, moths, and alderflies. The Berg 

et al. study (1995) also found freshwater clams, snails, aquatic sow bugs, crayfish, and leeches. 

More recent observations include broken freshwater mussel shells found on top of bent-over reed 

canarygrass in a flooded area next to the river. They were identified as Oregon floaters by Service 

biologist Donna Allard. Additional shells were found in Waddell Creek and were also identified as 

Oregon floaters. Crayfish have been observed in Waddell Creek, but the species has not yet been 

identified. However, a native signal crayfish was identified in emergent marsh near 123rd Avenue by 

Unit staff. Freshwater sponges (species unknown) are also thought to be living in the river within the 

Unit boundaries, and Mumford (2013, pers. comm.) has noted freshwater sponges are abundant 

between river miles 4 through 15. Nonnative bryozoan colonies have been found in the river just 

south of Littlerock and may also be within the Unit boundary. 

Rare invertebrates that may occur at the Unit include Beller’s ground beetle, Hatch’s click beetle, 

and the Pacific clubtail (Kunze, L. 2011, pers. comm.).

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

One goal of the Refuge System is “To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species 

of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.” In the 

policy clarifying the mission of the Refuge System, it is stated, “We protect and manage candidate 

and proposed species to enhance their status and help preclude the need for listing.” In accordance 

with this policy, the CCP planning team considered species with Federal or State status, and other 

special status species, in the planning process. 

4.5.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Fish

Three species of fish listed as threatened under the ESA potentially occur at Grays Harbor Refuge: 

green sturgeon, eulachon, and bull trout; however, no surveys have been conducted to date within the 

Refuge boundary. The juvenile stage of green sturgeon might make use of the open water habitat. 

Eulachon eggs and larvae might be found briefly in either the open water or intertidal mudflat 

habitats. Adult and juvenile bull trout might make use of the open water habitat. 

The Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon is a NOAA 

federally listed threatened species. Habitat use outside of natal areas includes coastal estuaries and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-43

coastal marine waters from southern California to Alaska. Grays Harbor coast and estuary are 

specifically designated as critical habitat. Most of the fish expected to occur in Grays Harbor would 

likely be immature fish that use the Harbor during summer to feed and to optimize growth (Lindley 

et al. 2008, Moser and Lindley 2007 [cited in Federal Register volume 74, page 52300]). Little is 

known about green sturgeon spawning, but it is not thought to spawn in the Chehalis River. The 

greatest threats include overfishing, modification of spawning habitats, entrapment in water project 

diversions, and pollution (Adams et al. 2002, WSDOT 2010). 

Eulachons, also known as candlefish or Pacific smelt, are a NOAA federally listed threatened 

species and a State-candidate species. Eulachon were commonly found in Grays Harbor estuary into

the 1990s. Adults pass through Grays Harbor between late December and early March on their way 

to spawning grounds in the many rivers and tributaries draining into the Harbor. On the Refuge, 

eulachon would most likely be found only as eggs or larvae because they are soon washed out to the 

Pacific Ocean. The numbers of eulachon in Grays Harbor declined after the early 1990s to the point 

where they were only occasionally observed in 2001. Threats to eulachons are many, including 

possible predation of eggs and larvae. It is theorized that climate change may pose a significant threat 

through increased ocean warming and changes to their copepod prey base during the transition from 

larvae to juveniles (NFSC 2008). 

Bull trout are a Service federally listed threatened species and State-candidate species. Most bull 

trout populations spend their entire lives in cold, clean, fresh water, but those in the Coastal-Puget 

Sound population migrate between fresh water and the marine environment (USFWS 2004). Chehalis 

River/Grays Harbor is a designated Critical Habitat Subunit of the Olympic Peninsula Critical 

Habitat Unit of the Coastal Recovery Unit for Bull Trout. This unit is considered essential for 

maintaining distribution of the anadromous life history form of bull trout which is rare across the 

species’ geographic range (USFWS 2010b). Grays Harbor estuary provides a key connection 

between the Pacific Ocean and freshwater habitats within the Chehalis River basin and Humptulips 

River drainage. Bull trout are not thought to spawn in the Chehalis River, rather are suspected to 

spawn in tributaries with headwaters north of the river (USFWS 2010b). Bull trout were found in the 

mouth of the Chehalis River in Grays Harbor estuary between 2001 and 2004, and historic data 

showed them netted near Moon Island once in 1973, three times in 1974, and three times in 1977 

(Jeanes and Morello 2006). 

The Refuge may provide important habitats such as native eelgrass beds, salt marshes, and intertidal 

mudflats at high tide. Contrary to the generally expected requirement of cold water temperatures and 

the need for complex habitat, bull trout were found to repeatedly use relatively shallow, near-shore 

waters in bays and estuaries in the lower Skagit River delta between March and August. In one study 

the majority of radio-tagged fish occupied depths < 4 meters and were found to use eelgrass, green 

algae, saltmarsh, and intertidal mudflats areas more than expected (Hayes et al. 2011). Shallow water 

habitats not only provide bull trout with opportunities for foraging, but may reduce predation by 

large predators such as seals. 

Threats to bull trout include habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, 

poor water quality, past fisheries management, and the introduction of nonnative species such as 

brown, lake, and brook trout. Effects from climate change threaten bull trout throughout their range 

in the coterminous United States. With a warming climate, cool-enough spawning and rearing areas 

are expected to shrink during warm seasons, in some cases dramatically, causing them to become 

even more isolated from one another. Climate change will likely interact with other stressors, such as 

habitat loss and fragmentation, invasions of nonnative fish, diseases, and other threats, to render 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-44 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

some current spawning, rearing, and migratory habitats marginal or wholly unsuitable (USFWS 

2010b, USFWS 2010c). 

Birds

Bald eagles are no longer federally listed as threatened in Washington, but continue to be protected 

by the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Act and are considered a State-sensitive species. Both adult 

and immature eagles forage on flocks of waterfowl and shorebirds on the Refuge. Eagles most likely 

forage for fish in open water habitat, during high tide conditions on the intertidal mudflat, and in the 

surrounding greater estuary. They do not nest on the Refuge. 

Brown pelicans are no longer federally listed as threatened in Washington; however, they are 

considered State-endangered. On the Pacific coast, brown pelicans nest in California and fly north 

along coastlines in Oregon and Washington to forage on fish-rich waters, most commonly between 

June and October. They can be observed in greater Grays Harbor estuary, including Refuge open 

waters. They have also been observed using the water treatment lagoon near Paulson Road. 

Common loons are a State-sensitive species. They forage on fish in open water habitat, during high 

tides on intertidal mudflats, and in the surrounding greater estuary, including the shipping channel 

near the Refuge. Nesting habitat is not available on the Refuge. 

Peregrine falcons are no longer federally listed in Washington, but are considered a State-sensitive

species. This species preys on birds and can be observed chasing flocks of waterfowl and shorebirds 

during winter and spring seasons. They do not nest on the Refuge. 

Western Grebes are an SOC. These birds may use the open water habitats of the Refuge to prey 

upon fish and to loaf. They do not nest on the Refuge. 

Invertebrates 

Newcomb's Littorine Snail is a State-candidate species. This snail lives on the stems of Salicornia, 

and possibly other estuarine marsh plants. It also lives on the substrate beneath vegetation, where it 

remains moist and protected from the sun and wind. It feeds on micro- and macroscopic algae and 

the vascular plants on and under which it lives (MacDonald 1969, Hinde 1954 [cited in Larsen et. al 

1995]). 

4.5.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Fish

Pacific lampreys are an SOC (NatureServe 2012b). They occur from Alaska south through 

California, are widespread, but have declining numbers. They are anadromous parasitic fish that 

spawn in June and July in Washington. Juveniles live in freshwater for 4–6 years, then 

metamorphose into adults and migrate to the Pacific Ocean. Pacific lampreys use shallow backwater 

areas or eddies along edges of streams with mud, silt, and sand bottoms. They spawn in riffles with 

rock, sand, or gravel substrates in clear streams. Juveniles are filter feeders. Adults are parasitic on 

fish, particularly salmon, staying attached for 20–40 months. Primary threats are channelized

streams, pollution, barriers to migration, and reduced food resources (salmon). Pacific lampreys have

been found in tributaries draining into Black River (WDFW 2013). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-45

Olympic mudminnows are a State-sensitive and endemic species. They require slow-moving rivers, 

ponds, or wetlands with muddy substrates and dense submerged vegetation such as in Black River. 

Mudminnows prey on an assortment of small invertebrates and depend on healthy wetland habitat for 

their survival. This species does not fare well when sharing habitat with nonnative species of fish. It 

is uncertain if this is a result of competition or predation, but some combination is likely. Because of 

this, and the Olympic mudminnows’ restricted range and the continuing loss of wetlands, they are 

thought to be vulnerable and likely to become threatened or endangered in a significant portion of 

their range without cooperative management (Mongillo and Hallock 1999). 

Plants

Water howellia is a federally threatened species and a State-threatened species. It is regionally

endemic, currently known from California, Montana, Idaho, and Washington and was historically 

known from Oregon (USFWS 1996a). In Washington, it occurs within the Columbia Basin and Puget 

Trough physiographic provinces. It occurs in wetlands, mostly in small, vernal ponds, although some 

of the ponds may retain water throughout the year. Soils are rich in organic matter and frequently 

contain partially decomposed leaves, stems, and wood. Water howellia is known to exist in the Black 

River watershed, although its presence is unknown within the Black River Unit. 

The most significant threats and management concerns are changes in wetland hydrology, an 

increase in weedy species (e.g., reed canarygrass), the threat of invasion by noxious weeds (e.g., 

purple loosestrife), livestock overgrazing, and timber harvest activities on adjacent uplands (USFWS 

1996a). 

Bristly sedge is listed as State-sensitive and WDNR recorded its presence in what is now the Black 

River Unit (Kunze L. 2011, pers. comm.). Its status on the Unit is currently unknown. 

Birds 

There are no federally listed (threatened or endangered) birds using the Black River Unit. 

Pileated woodpeckers are a State-candidate species. These woodpeckers prefer mature deciduous, 

coniferous, or mixed forests where larger trees provide appropriate habitat for nest cavities which are 

excavated new each year. They forage on insects and eats fruit and nuts (Seattle Audubon Society 

2002). 

Purple martins are a State-candidate species. Purple martins are loosely colonial and prefer natural 

cavities near water to nest. They often use holes excavated by woodpeckers in mature mixed 

deciduous and conifer forests where larger trees provide appropriate habitat for cavities. Purple 

martins build a cup nest within the cavity. They forage for aerial insects over open lands near water 

such as emergent marsh, open wetlands, or open fields (Seattle Audubon Society 2002).

Vaux’s swifts are a State-candidate species. Vaux’s swifts are loosely colonial and forage in open 

sky over woodlands, lakes, and rivers, where flying insects are abundant. Nesting habitats include

either coniferous or deciduous forests that provide large, hollow trees or snags with vertical entrances 

for nesting and roosting. The nest is a shallow half-cup attached to the inside of a tree with sticky 

saliva (Seattle Audubon Society 2002). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-46 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Mammals 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are an SOC and a State-candidate species that are known to use habitats 

in the Black River watershed and may occur within the Black River Unit boundary. Townsend’s bigeared bats can be found in British Columbia, throughout the western United States, and in Mexico. 

They commonly occur in mesic coniferous and deciduous forested regions. Townsend’s big-eared 

bats feed on flying insects, primarily moths, near trees and shrubs in the mid- to upper canopy. They 

typically use caves, mines, and buildings for both maternity colonies and hibernating. Nursery 

colonies tend to be small, up to 200 individuals. They hibernate singly or in small groups. These bats 

mate in late fall through winter, and a single young is born in mid-July. Primary threats are loss of 

habitat and disturbance of maternity roosts and hibernacula (NatureServe 2013, WDFW 2013). 

Amphibians

Oregon spotted frogs are a federally threatened and State-endangered species. They have occurred

from southwestern British Columbia to northeastern California but have been extirpated from 

California. Much-reduced populations are in British Columbia. Remaining extant populations are in 

isolated areas of eastern and western Washington and western Oregon. As of 2001, Oregon spotted 

frogs are known from eight sites in Washington State (USFWS 2011). Oregon spotted frogs are 

highly aquatic, staying in or in close proximity to open water. They prefer streams, lakes, ponds, and 

marshes that provide open, permanent, quiet waters with relatively warm temperatures and short 

vegetative cover throughout the year. Adults are opportunistic feeders on a wide range of insects, 

mollusks, crustaceans, and arachnids. Larvae and tadpoles depend upon vegetative detritus and algae. 

Optimal Oregon spotted frog breeding, egg-laying, and rearing conditions occur between January and 

June and contain open, short vegetation locations in sun-warmed, shallow water which are 

hydrologically connected to permanent waters. Herbaceous plants used by Oregon spotted frogs are 

low-growing and sparse; some preferred areas show exposed mineral soils, and an occasional shrub 

provides a source of cover from predators. Shallow water allows surface water temperatures to rise 

and speeds egg development. Stable, shallow water levels are critical to keep egg masses hydrated 

during development into the larvae stage. As spring progresses to summer, surface water must 

remain connected to nearby deeper, permanent waters to allow tadpole migration. If surface water 

evaporates and water levels drop before tadpole migration occurs, the young frogs become isolated, 

desiccate, and cannot survive (USFWS 2011). 

Major threats to Oregon spotted frogs include breeding and egg-laying habitat loss and limitations to 

natural life cycles. Densely growing reed canarygrass may cause frogs to expend large amounts of 

energy to move through it daily and seasonally. It potentially prevents frogs from reaching optimal 

breeding and egg-laying sites. Nonnative bullfrogs and nonnative fish in Unit wetlands and channels 

may prey upon both Oregon spotted frog adults and tadpoles (USFWS 2011, Cucherousset and Olden 

2011, Howell 2010). Oregon spotted frogs tested in the Black River drainage showed exposure to 

chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), which is responsible for the decline of many 

amphibian species worldwide. Dermal infections by chytrid fungus are thought to cause amphibian 

mortality by interfering with skin functions (Pearl et al. 2009, Speare and Berger 2004, in USFWS 

2011). 

The Service, WDFW, WDNR, and private landowner biologists in Thurston County coordinate with

surveying, monitoring, and research on this species throughout the drainage, including the Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-47

Annual egg surveys help gauge frog populations and habitat quality. WDFW and Service data 

suggest the Black River drainage population is declining. 

Invertebrates

Five invertebrate species of specific interest may occur on the Black River Unit. Future inventory of 

Unit habitats for these species should be conducted.

Beller’s ground beetles are a State-candidate species. They occur in sphagnum bogs in open areas 

with native cranberry, sundew, and low-growing graminoids (Xerces Society 2011). Adults breed in 

the spring. They eat seeds, vegetation, and small insects. Little is known about the larvae. Threats 

include habitat loss, changes in hydrology, trampling, and pollution. This species is distributed from 

the Queen Charlotte Islands through coastal British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, but only 

about 25 populations are currently known (Maynard 2009). Two populations are found in Thurston 

County, including one within the Black River drainage. 

Hatch’s click beetles are a State-candidate species. They occur in sphagnum bogs, possibly in drier 

areas associated with Labrador tea (Xerces Society 2011). Adults are capable of flight and have been 

found April through June. Little is known about the larvae but they may take several years to 

develop. Adults feed on honey dew, pollen, nectar, and floral structures. This species is endemic to 

the Puget Trough region and is known from King County. The primary threats to this species are loss 

of habitat and loss of connectivity between populations (Kunze, L. 2011, pers. comm.). 

Queen Charlotte’s copper butterflies are a State-candidate species (NatureServe 2011). They were

previously known as the Makah copper butterfly and occur in coastal bogs associated with native 

cranberry. Their range is from the Yukon Territory south through British Columbia and Washington. 

Bog idol leaf beetles (formerly Long-horned leaf beetle) are a State-candidate species that is 

specifically associated with lowland sphagnum bog habitats and is at risk of extinction due to their 

limited distribution and isolated populations. The beetles’ larvae feed on submerged portions of 

aquatic plants, whereas adults feed on exposed portions of aquatic plants (White 1983 [cited in 

Larsen et. al 1995]). Threats are from urban runoff waters that may contain pesticides and other 

pollutants, and from exotic, nonnative fish that could potentially prey on beetle larvae (Larsen et 

al. 1995). 

Pacific clubtail dragonflies are a State-candidate species. They occur from Washington south 

through California and east into Idaho. They are found in a variety of aquatic habitats including lakes 

and slow-moving rivers. Adults fly early June through mid-August. Adults feed on flying insects, 

whereas larvae feed on invertebrates and possibly small vertebrates. There are currently two known 

populations in Washington, one on the east side of Black Lake and the other in Skamania County. 

Larvae require fine-textured substrates for burrowing, and disturbance of appropriate substrates is a 

key threat. Additional threats include wind- or water-born insecticides, herbicides, and other 

contaminants (Kunze, L. 2011, pers. comm.).

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species

Invasive species are one of the most serious challenges that affect natural resources worldwide. 

Recent estimates of environmental and economic costs of invasive species in the United States alone 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

approach $120 billion per year (Pimentel, Zuniga, and Morrison 2005). Invasive plants are plants that 

have been introduced to the region or U.S. from a different region or country. They may have been 

introduced intentionally (as an ornamental plant, for example) or accidentally (as a contaminant in 

crop seeds, for example). Many terms, such as nuisance, noxious, alien, invasive, pest, 

nonindigenous, are used in referring to nonnative plants and animals. While many nonnative plants 

are extremely beneficial to society, like rice or potatoes, invasive, noxious, and pest plants spread 

rapidly and cause or are likely to cause harm to economic, environmental, or human health. 

President Clinton signed the Invasive Species Executive Order (EO 13112) in 1999 “to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, 

ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.” The EO further defines an 

invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health” (USFS 2015). 

The Refuge encompasses a number of diverse habitat types, all of which are threatened by exotic or 

invasive plant species. An exotic species may be defined as any species occurring in a particular 

ecosystem or habitat that is not native to that ecosystem or habitat. An invasive species may be 

defined as an exotic species whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health (USFWS Executive Order 13112). The Washington State Noxious Weed 

Board maintains an official State list of noxious weeds and each county keeps a more locally 

prioritized list. Those lists provide guidance to Refuge staff, especially about plant species that are

required to be controlled. Some species are more problematic than others on Refuge habitats and 

some nonnative species are not targeted for control. 

The Refuge strives to maintain healthy plant communities to ensure that high quality habitat is 

available for native flora and fauna, and management of invasive plants is a major strategy. The 

management strategy utilized is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (see Appendix G), an ecological 

approach that uses a number of mechanical, physical, biological, and chemical control methods, 

including herbicide application, mechanical mowing, haying, selective hand cutting and thatch 

removal, herbivore grazing, prescribed fire, water control methods, or barrier cloth placement that are 

minimally detrimental to rare or declining species populations. Preferred methods are those that have 

the least environmental impact while effectively controlling invasive species. Early detection of new 

invasions and rapid response is considered critical for cost-effective control and prevention of 

invasive species from rapidly spreading. 

Nonnative animal species are present on the Refuge and threaten native animals, especially rare, 

sensitive, or listed species, as well as potentially impacting habitats. In 2001, over 42 species of 

introduced or nonnative species of wildlife (birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles) were identified in 

Washington and Oregon, and more species have become established since then (Witmer and Lewis 

2001). Many nonnative species have adverse ecological consequences through direct or indirect 

mechanisms (e.g., resource competition, displacement, predation, hybridization, disease 

transmission). Management and control efforts are often difficult and costly, and each situation must 

be assessed on a species- and site-specific basis (Witmer and Lewis 2001). 

The establishment of any invasive species has the potential to cause significant ecological and 

economic damage to the host ecosystem. Invasive species are typically established without the 

predator they would experience in their native habitats, often allowing their populations to grow 

rapidly once introduced (Beck 1994). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-49

Some nonnative species have been targeted for greater levels of control effort than others based on 

budget levels, staffing, perceived threat, and ability to enact effective reduction or control. The 

following descriptions are for some of the species known to affect the Refuge and the Unit and fish 

and wildlife populations. 

4.6.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Plants

Spartina (cordgrass species) occurs in the greater Grays Harbor estuary and in Grays Harbor Refuge. 

Rapid infestation rates likely occur on the West Coast because invertebrate herbivores (leaf-feeders 

and stem-borers) that naturally control Spartina within its native range on the Atlantic coast are not 

found on the West Coast. Spartina clones ultimately grow together to form dense, monotypic stands 

(meadows) in the mudflats that entrap sediments (~15 cm/yr) at and above mean higher high water. 

The intertidal mudflats displaced by Spartina are important habitat for migratory birds, juvenile 

fishes, native eelgrass, Dungeness crab, and clams. It also grows in the saltmarshes, rapidly 

outcompeting native saltmarsh plants and creating monocultures that become undesirable to fish and 

wildlife (WSAG 2011). 

A cooperative agreement between the Service, WDFW, and Washington Department of Agriculture 

has been very successful in controlling Spartina in greater Grays Harbor estuary. This multi-agency 

partnership has provided funding and assistance in controlling this invasive plant. Surveys are 

conducted annually for this plant to determine presence, location, and to prioritize treatment (WSAG 

2011). 

Common reed or Phragmites is known from many areas of Grays Harbor estuary, but the 

infestation in the northern portion of the estuary, including the Refuge, has been the most damaging 

to native habitats. 

This introduced grass grows extremely densely, 10–20 feet high, and outcompetes lower growing 

native herbaceous plants and shrubs. In the Pacific Northwest, it appears to spread mostly from 

rhizomatous growth instead of seed dispersal. It is tolerant of fluctuating salinity, is found throughout 

the temperate regions of the world, and is often found in disturbed areas where inundation is erratic. 

It flourishes in dredged material disposal sites, roadside ditches, and diked flats. Phragmites is 

known to spread as fast as 6–10 feet per year; thus control of this pest at an early stage is important to 

prevent widespread infestations. 

Phragmites was first noted in 1941 as a small patch on the western tip of Moon Island (Alcorn 1941). 

A 1991 photo shows it was well established before the Refuge was created in 1990. More recent 

records show Phragmites had spread to sites along State Highway 109, and it had invaded high to 

mid-salt marsh habitat and upland transition zones adjacent to the airport and boardwalk. There was 

also a large, disjunct patch near the eastern end of the mudflats along the deep slough. A spray 

treatment in 1995, followed by manually cutting and treating each spring, took place until 2006, but 

the plant continued to spread rapidly through the marsh and into the mudflats. A concerted, longterm, cooperative effort with State partners since 2005 has been successful in reducing the 

Phragmites footprint on the marsh and allowing native plants to reestablish. Vigilant monitoring and 

re-treatment is necessary to ensure it does not again become dense enough to create habitat loss for 

fish and wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Japanese (or dwarf or Asian) eelgrass is found in estuaries along the Pacific coast in California, 

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. It is present in the greater Grays Harbor and in the 

Refuge, spreading across the intertidal mudflats. It appears to be able to grow and survive in mud, 

with extended periods of air exposure. Generally, Japanese eelgrass occurs higher in the intertidal 

zone than native eelgrass, Zostera marina (Ruesink et al. 2010), and occupies different niches in the 

intertidal zone (Shafer 2007, cited in Mach et al. 2010). Although the different intertidal ranges of 

Japanese eelgrass and native eelgrass limit direct competition, when these species do compete for 

space, in most instances both species are adversely affected.

Whether Japanese eelgrass is a threat to the Grays Harbor ecosystem is debatable. In a review of 

ecological effects of Japanese eelgrass, Mach et al. (2014) found that studies designed to 

quantitatively assess the nonnative eelgrass’s impacts are limited. However, the available studies 

suggest that Japanese eelgrass increases overall diversity in both vegetated and unvegetated habitats, 

while decreasing large infaunal species, such as Manila clam and ghost shrimp when compared to 

unvegetated habitats. While there were no significant differences to waterfowl and Chinook salmon 

when Japanese eelgrass replaced unvegetated habitats, waterfowl and fish species seemed to prefer 

native eelgrass over Japanese eelgrass.

Studies by Lamberson et al. (2011) and Frazier et al. (2014), based on the Yaquina estuary in 

Oregon, provide a preliminary evaluation of the impacts of Japanese eelgrass on bird use of intertidal 

habitats. Overall, these studies found that native eelgrass and possibly Upogebia/mudflat habitats 

supported significantly greater bird densities compared to low marsh, Neotrypaea/sandflat, and 

Japanese eelgrass. The Japanese eelgrass beds were used primarily by ducks (mostly mallards), coot, 

and geese foraging either at mid-tide levels (0.6–1.5 m) when the native eelgrass beds were flooded, 

or at high tide (1.8 m) when Japanese eelgrass was flooded but shallow. In late winter, the 

aboveground biomass of Japanese eelgrass died and plants were largely reduced to stubble, and 

shorebirds foraged both within this habitat and in the adjacent Neotrypaea/sandflat habitat without 

apparent regard to the presence of the stubble. There were no significant differences for any metric of 

bird use between Japanese eelgrass and Neotrypea/sand habitat, which nonnative eelgrass has been 

supplanting. Thus, there was no evidence that birds will be negatively impacted by the presence of 

Japanese eelgrass in Yaquina estuary (Frazier et al. 2014). Baldwin and Lovvorn (1994) have shown 

that Japanese eelgrass is readily fed on and is an important food source for Brant and a variety of 

dabbling ducks. 

Japanese eelgrass is known to cover over bivalves (such as oysters, clams, and mussels) and it may 

disrupt the bivalve natural system functions. It has been problematic for shellfish growers 

(WSNWCB 2011). This eelgrass may also trap sediment and become a factor in intertidal mudflats’ 

elevation rise. California and Oregon have been working to remove and prevent the spread of this 

plant for years. However, up until 2010, Washington had protected all eelgrass species, including 

both the native and nonnative species. Recent changes in the law allow commercial shellfish growers 

to legally control it on their lands (WSNWCB 2011). More work is needed to understand the 

ramifications of this nonnative species. 

Knotweed is a collective name for the many introduced species of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan

knotweed, giant knotweed, and the hybrid Bohemian knotweed that have invaded the Pacific

Northwest. This perennial plant dies back each winter, but spring growth reaches 20–35 feet, 

overtaking all but tall trees. This aggressive plant grows in freshwater wetlands, riparian areas, high 

saltmarsh, and brackish water conditions. It rapidly spreads with each high water or flood event 

which carries it to new locations. This plant can root from any leaf or root node on the stem even 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-51

when it is cut up into many small pieces. It appears to have been widely spread along road ways by 

ROW mowing (Prather et al. 2009). It is currently found and controlled in the high saltmarsh of 

Grays Harbor Refuge along the Sandpiper Trail boardwalk and on the western point of the peninsula. 

It is dense along State Highway 109 in the Grays Harbor Public Utility District (GHPUD) ROW and 

from there has spread into the Refuge. No control of the highway infestation has begun. 

Himalayan and evergreen blackberry species are found along forest edges, in uplands, and along 

the transition zones with wetlands. This plant invades disturbed areas, open areas where low-growing 

native vegetation exists, and near where seed sources are located. Often this plant is not controlled 

unless intense restoration is planned. In many areas, this plant is first cut low to the ground, and 

regrowth is sprayed with herbicide and native plants are installed. 

Scotch broom is generally located in upland sites, along ditches, roads, and trails, and has infested 

areas in the high salt marsh. In most cases, Scotch broom is either cut by hand, mowed, or removed 

with a weed wrench. Some indicators show that cutting it low to the ground when it is blooming can 

kill it. Scotch broom seeds can remain viable for more than 50 years in the soil. 

Canada thistle and bull thistle are located in upland sites but can be found along wetland margins. 

Deflowering methods are temporary control measures to prevent the spread of seeds. Bull thistle can 

be manually controlled by cutting the vegetated top from the root at the soil line. Canada thistle 

grows through rhizomes and is not controlled with cutting. These invasive plants are controlled with 

herbicides in areas of soil disturbance, initial clearing for restoration, maintenance of past restoration 

sites, or maintenance of areas where buildings occur or were recently removed (TCNWCA 2013b). 

Fish 

Little is known about the presence of nonnative fish in Grays Harbor Refuge waters. 

Birds

Brown-headed cowbirds forage in open areas and breed wherever small landbirds nest. Historically, 

they inhabited short-grass prairies of the mid-western U.S., but with development, agriculture, and 

forest fragmentation, they have expanded their range significantly. Females lay eggs in other birds' 

nests and leave the rearing to other species. They find nests to parasitize by looking for birds building 

nests, either by walking along the ground, perching quietly in shrubs or trees, or making noisy flights 

back and forth, possibly to flush potential hosts. Young cowbirds are at a competitive advantage as 

they mature faster than other young in the host nest. Over 220 species have been observed supporting 

brown-headed cowbird eggs in their nests, and at least 144 species have raised brown-headed 

cowbird young to the fledgling stage, often at the expense of their own young (Seattle Audubon 

Society 2002). At the Refuge cowbirds have been observed in the salt and brackish marsh and forest 

habitats. 

European starlings have expanded their range westward ever since they were introduced to the east 

coast of America. At the Refuge they are found in the salt and brackish marsh and forest habitats and 

flocks can become large. They forage in open areas usually near development. They require nearby 

nesting cavities and are creative in using crevices in building structures such as plane hangars. 

Starlings can be aggressive and will persistently harass other species to take over limited numbers of 

nesting cavities such as natural hollows, old woodpecker holes, and birdhouses (Seattle Audubon 

Society 2002). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

House sparrows were introduced to this country from Europe and are found in settled areas. These 

sparrows are opportunistic and eat whatever is available. While they are not highly territorial with 

their own species, they are aggressive toward other species and may drive native birds out of their 

nests. They typically breed in cavities or crevices in buildings, nest boxes, or other birds' nests, but if 

they are in an area with no available cavities, they will nest in trees or shrubs, often in small colonies 

(Seattle Audubon Society 2002). 

Mammals

Little information is known regarding invasive or exotic mammals on Grays Harbor Refuge. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Little information is known regarding invasive or nonnative reptiles or amphibians on Grays Harbor 

Refuge. 

Invertebrates 

European green crabs were found by WDFW between 1999 and 2003 within the Refuge and on the 

south side of the airport peninsula (WDOE 2008). The green crab spread to the U.S. west coast 

around 1989 or 1990, most likely as larvae in ballast water from ships. It is speculated that during the 

El Niño winter of 1997–1998, ocean currents transported green crab larvae north to Washington 

State, where the first crabs were found in the summer of 1998. Field observations and laboratory 

experiments have shown that the European green crab both consumes and competes with a vast array 

of organisms, including clams, oysters, mussels, snails, and other crabs. The biodiversity of local 

ecosystems could be affected, with impacts on sensitive species of concern (Holmes 2001). 

Most likely, more nonnative species exist in the marine waters and benthic communities, but data for 

the Refuge is lacking. 

Potential New Threats from Nonnative and Invasive Species

Many nonnative and invasive species are present in Washington State and poised to become 

established on the Refuge. Early detection of new invasions and a rapid response is considered 

critical for cost-effective control and prevention of invasive species from spreading. 

Virginia opossums were found only in Central America and the southeastern United States prior to 

European settlement. During the 1900s, their range expanded northward and westward and first 

arrived in Washington in the early 1900s as pets and novelties. Some of these animals, or their 

offspring, later escaped from captivity or were intentionally released. With few natural predators, the 

absence of hunting, and an abundance of food and shelter, opossums have adapted well to living 

close to people in urban and suburban environments. Except for higher elevations, opossums now 

occupy most human-occupied habitats in western Washington. These animals are most likely present 

in or near Grays Harbor Refuge. 

Eastern cottontails were introduced to several areas in Washington as a game animal beginning in 

the 1930s. They often are associated with Himalayan blackberry thickets which provide them with a 

secure hideout to foray out at dawn and dusk or other shrubby cover areas. No rabbit is native to the 

west side of the Cascades. These animals are most likely present in or near Grays Harbor Refuge. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-53

4.6.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Plants 

Reed canarygrass is the most threatening and major invasive plant problem on the Unit. It is a coolseason, sod-forming, wetland grass native to the northern temperate regions of Europe, Asia, and 

some parts of North America. Its use in the Pacific Northwest began in the late 1800s. Farming 

followed logging operations and reed canarygrass was often used to stabilize rough logging areas as 

it was extremely productive, easy to establish, and persisted very well. No other forage plant is as 

well adapted to wet, marshy areas as reed canarygrass. It can withstand flooding and can tolerate 

continuous inundation for as long as 60–70 days without permanent injury (possibly longer 

depending on temperature, current, and silt content of the water). It thrives along stream banks, wet 

meadows and pastures, wetlands, roadside ditches, river levees and dikes, drainages, and floodplains. 

Although wet areas in full sun are preferred, reed canarygrass is also very drought tolerant and able 

to withstand high degrees of variability in soil type, PH levels, fertility, temperature, and exposure

(Tu 2004, Kilbride and Paveglio 1999). 

Unfortunately, reed canarygrass has proven to be very aggressive in the Pacific Northwest. It moves 

out of pastureland and into stream bottoms, wetlands, and canal banks and persists where it is not 

desirable. Reed canarygrass can outcompete most native species, threatening natural wetlands by 

forming large, single-species stands. It has limited value to wildlife. Limited foraging occurs from 

deer and elk while it is young and tender, however, they do not continue to graze on it when it grows 

tall and coarse. It grows so densely that it inhibits movement of small mammals, waterfowl, 

amphibians, and reptiles. It causes increased siltation in slow-moving creeks and rivers. It produces 

large amounts of pollen and other grasses; pollen from reed canarygrass is easily airborne and is 

moderately allergenic to humans. Once established, reed canarygrass is very difficult to control 

because it spreads rapidly by rhizomes, seeds, and is so adaptive (Tu 1974, WDOE 2015a, 

TCNWCA 2013a). 

This difficult pest has long dominated the Puget lowlands and is a serious threat to the Black River 

channel and tributary habitats and to the animals that depend upon this habitat. It is solidly 

established along the river edge growing out from the river banks and overtaking all open, sunwarmed, muddy bank sites that are so important for animals to bask in and rest. The river edge has 

become a dense, tall, grass monoculture instead of a diverse plant community of flowering plants. It 

has rooted on the abundant woody debris in the river. In the northern portion of the Unit between the 

pipeline and 110th Avenue, it has shown an ability to root on top of submerged native plants in the 

river channel and spread across to root on the banks. In the northern segments of the river, it has 

obscured the shallow river channel, choking water flow, impeding sunlight penetration, and 

preventing canoe access. It has significantly changed the wetland vegetative community of the Black 

River area. 

Poison hemlock’s entire plant structure is toxic to humans and animals. It grows in both uplands and 

moist sites. Ongoing efforts to control this species have been successful and only a few small, 

resilient patches persist. For those sites where manual control is difficult, an appropriate herbicide 

has been used. 

Purple loosestrife is identified throughout the U.S. as an invasive wetland marsh plant and has been 

found in many locations along the Refuge. The Thurston County Noxious Weed Agency has worked 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-54 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

diligently to control it for years, and recently the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually Refuge Weed Warriors 

have taken up the challenge and continue the work to control it by hand digging. Although the 

control work has gone on for years, the seed bank allows plants to come up every year. Herbicide 

spot treatment is used judiciously on difficult-to-reach purple loosestrife plants. Bio-control beetles 

have been successful in helping to control large loosestrife populations in Oregon, but most likely 

would not be effective on the few plants that pop up each year on the Unit. 

Yellow flag iris is a nonnative, ornamental flowering bulb that has escaped cultivation into wetland 

marshes, river channel edges, and wetland shrub-scrub. It forms dense clumps and thick mats of 

bulbs in freshwater wetlands and can tolerate brackish conditions. Its large seed pods float and spread 

viable seeds downstream to produce additional plants. Fragmented roots and bulbs rip off during high 

water events or can be torn out by animals and become new plants. Control of this species along the 

river will be difficult as the river banks are unstable muck that supports floating mats of reed 

canarygrass, shrub roots, and iris bulbs. Controlling the spread of this plant is dependent on annually 

removing seed pods before they are released into the river and treating with a wetland-approved 

herbicide using a cut-stump technique.

Wild chervil used to occur in a large infestation off 118th Avenue (originally about 15 acres) but is 

nearly gone as of 2012 and is closely monitored. 

Tansy ragwort is occasionally found in dry, open areas or on margins of forest. A history of control 

has reduced the amount of ragwort to a very small level, and control efforts are ongoing annually. 

Holly is generally found in uplands. It is a popular ornamental shrub or tree that has escaped and 

birds spread seeds by eating the fruit. Small plants can be pulled or dug with good results. In the past, 

larger specimens were cut (flowers and fruits are bagged and removed), but because of the cut stem’s 

ability to successfully develop roots and survive, they are now girdled and herbicide is painted onto 

the stripped area. 

Himalayan and evergreen blackberry species are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section 

(4.6.1). On the Unit, blackberry is also found in upland mixed forests, riparian forest edges, dry 

nonnative grasslands, and open areas. 

Canada thistle and bull thistle are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1). 

White watercress is a “naturalized” submerged plant that is densely growing in the river channel, 

especially north of 110th Avenue. Its thick growth should be examined regarding its possible impact 

on the waterway. Some of the factors most likely related to the growth are increased nutrient levels, 

decreased pressure from healthy native populations, increased sedimentation or water temperatures, 

and decreased predation (Seery, M.J. 2012, pers. comm.). Unimpeded growth of nonnative, 

submerged plants chokes water flow, impedes sunlight penetration, changes the natural conditions of 

the river and stream channels, limits animal (e.g., amphibian and fish) movement, and outcompetes 

native submersed plants (WDOE 2015b). 

Fish

Nonnative fish are widespread in the Black River and, unlike the native fish, they are warm-water

species. They have been introduced most likely for sport fishing and include American shad, brown 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-55

bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, rock bass, largemouth and smallmouth bass, black crappie, yellow 

perch, northern pikeminnow, and others (Creveling et al. 1980, Kunze, L. 1996b. pers comm.). 

Nonnative fish presence alters natural habitats and conditions for native animals sharing the same 

locations. Most nonnative, warm-water fish (or spiny-ray) are predatory on native fish, amphibians, 

and invertebrates. Their presence changes (and most likely reduces) native fish, amphibian, and 

invertebrate populations. In addition, nonnative fish compete for and most likely reduce prey 

resource availability for native fish and amphibians. These fish may be especially deleterious to the 

populations of endemic Olympic mudminnow, the State-listed as endangered and federally listed as 

threatened threatened Oregon spotted frog (in every life phase), State candidate species Pacific 

clubtail dragonfly (egg, nymph, and naiad stages), and other sensitive species, and the prey resources 

they need to survive. 

Birds

Brown-headed cowbirds are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1). 

European starlings are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1).

House sparrows are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1).

Mammals 

Eastern gray squirrels were introduced in Washington in the early 1900s and have been repeatedly 

released in parks, campuses, estates, and residential areas and are adept at taking over cavities and 

bird houses. They are now the most common squirrels in urban and some rural areas, such as around 

the Unit. 

The increasing number of introduced Eastern gray squirrels is often said to be responsible for the 

decrease in Douglas squirrels in certain areas. However, given that these squirrels have different food 

and shelter preferences, it is likely that increasing housing and other development and loss of 

coniferous forests is responsible for some of the decline in Douglas squirrel populations (Link 2004). 

Nutria are semi-aquatic rodents native to southern parts of South America. In the 1930s, they were 

sold throughout North America to fur farmers and as a means of controlling unwanted aquatic 

vegetation. Various associations, magazine and newspaper articles, and demonstrations at county 

fairs promoted the sale of nutria in Washington. More than 600 nutria farms existed in Oregon and 

Washington from the 1930s to the 1950s. Flooding and storms damaged holding structures, allowing 

nutria to escape. Farmers also released their stock when nutria farming became uneconomical. By the 

1940s, nutria were present on both sides of the Cascade Mountains in Washington (Link 2004). 

Nutria generally occupy a small area throughout their lives. Daily travel distances for most nutria are 

less than 600 feet, although some individuals may travel much farther (Link 2004). Nutria are

suspected to occur on the Unit based on observations of feeding platforms and clipped vegetation 

floating in the water. Nutria skulls found on the Unit in 2012 confirmed this animals’ presence. 

Virginia opossums are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1). These opossums are 

found on the Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-56 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Eastern cottontails are described in the Grays Harbor Refuge section (4.6.1). This rabbit species is 

found on the Unit. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Red-eared sliders are native to the southern midwestern U.S. In Washington, this turtle occurs in the 

Puget lowlands (Brown et al. 1995, Dvornich et al. 2001). Red-eared sliders compete with 

indigenous species for food and basking sites (Frank and McCoy 1995, Williams 1999, Salzberg 

2000). Red-eared sliders seem to be adaptable to many climates. This, combined with their 

omnivorous diet and ability to adapt to various habitats, gives them great potential for altering native

habitats should reproducing populations become established. In Washington, they are a potential 

threat to Clemmys marmorata, the Pacific pond turtle (Williams 1999), a declining species endemic 

to the Pacific states (Brown et al. 1995). 

Bullfrogs are native to the eastern and midwestern U.S. and southeastern Canada. They have been 

introduced to most of western North America and to Washington by the early 1930s to provide 

opportunities for frog hunting, food, and stock for frog farms. The bullfrog is the largest true frog in 

North America, measuring 8 inches in length, and lives nearly 10 years. Bullfrogs can leap up to 3 

feet, cross pastures and grasslands, and may travel overland up to 1 mile. This mobility allows them 

to expand their range from the location where they were introduced. The large number of eggs 

(10,000 to 20,000) in each egg mass laid by the females allows bullfrogs to quickly establish 

themselves within a new territory. In the Pacific Northwest, tadpoles usually take 2 years to mature, 

thus they require year-round water (Corkran and Thoms 1996). 

In Washington, bullfrogs thrive in the warm waters of natural and man-made ponds, marshes, 

sloughs, reservoirs, and sluggish irrigation ditches and streams. Disturbance and development around 

wetlands often create warmer conditions. Bullfrogs tolerate polluted and muddy waters better than 

most native frogs and may be found within cities in wetlands, reservoirs, and stormwater ponds 

(Corkran and Thoms 1996, Link 2004). 

Large populations of this species are believed to have contributed both directly and indirectly to the 

drastic decline of native amphibians and reptiles. Bullfrogs are much larger than native frogs and 

have few predators in Washington. Adult bullfrogs usually are "sit and wait" predators that readily 

attack almost any live animal smaller than themselves—insects, frogs, tadpoles, fish, small snakes, 

turtle hatchlings, newts, salamanders, rodents, bats, hummingbirds, ducklings, and birds up to robin 

size (Link 2004, McKercher and Gregoire 2012). Large multi-year larvae (in Washington) can have a 

significant affect upon benthic algae, and thus perturb the aquatic community structure (McKercher 

and Gregoire 2012). 

The effects of bullfrogs on Oregon spotted frog populations have been “disastrous” for the spotted 

frog according to Leonard et al. (1993). “It is widely believed that bullfrog predation is largely 

responsible for the disappearance of the spotted frog in the Puget Sound lowlands of western 

Washington and Willamette Valley of western Oregon.” The authors strongly suggest “land 

management agencies need to look seriously at limiting further introductions and methods of 

reducing or eliminating bullfrogs from more environmentally sensitive habitats” (Leonard et al. 

1993). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-57

Invertebrates

There are no known nonnative invertebrates within the Black River Unit. 

Potential New Threats from Nonnative and Invasive Species

Several plant species from the Washington State and Thurston County noxious weed lists are likely 

to become threats to the Black River Unit. A few of them are described below. 

Knotweed (Japanese, Bohemian, Himalayan, giant knotweed, or hybrids) is likely to be found 

infesting Unit habitats in the watershed. This aggressive, perennial plant dies back each winter; 

spring growth reaches 10–20 feet high and it overtakes all but tall trees. It seems to grow almost 

anywhere there is sunlight. It grows in moist conditions along wetlands, along the edges of riparian 

and mixed forests, and is aggressive in dry grasslands, old pastures, and open areas. Knotweed 

spreads with each high water or flood event, which carries pieces of the plant to new locations where 

they can root. This plant successfully roots from any leaf or root node on the stem, even when it is 

broken or cut into many pieces. High water, flood events, mowing, and careless cutting are known to 

enhance its ability to spread (King County 2013). It has been found within the Unit acquisition 

boundary (Thurston County 2013), but is not on currently on Service-owned parcels. 

Hydrilla, Brazilian elodea, variable-leaf (Eurasian) milfoil, fanwort, parrotfeather, nonnative 

bladderwort, and other submersed aquatics are serious threats in Unit waterways, especially 

because some have been found in other parts of the watershed. Although it is not known if any of 

these species infest Unit waters, Eurasian milfoil occurs in Black Lake, which is linked to the 

headwaters of the Black River. Downstream from the Black River, in the Chehalis River, a large 

Brazilian elodea infestation that extended 6 miles was recently controlled by Thurston County. 

4.7 Biotic Responses to Climate Change

Existing and strengthening evidence shows changing climatic conditions have affected, and will 

continue to affect, many biotic communities (Parmesan 2006, Rosenzweig et al. 2008, Geyer et al. 

2011). Projections of continued and likely accelerating changes in temperature and precipitation are 

well supported, especially at global scales (see Section 3.2.4). However, at our current level of 

understanding, it is difficult to assess near-term biotic responses to changing climatic conditions at 

specific locations because of the inherent spatial and temporal complexity of ecological systems, 

coupled with short- and long-term weather pattern variability (Akçakaya et al. 2006, Parmesan et al. 

2011). Compared to present-day conditions, most climate-related effects likely will not be detectable 

during the 15-year timeframe of this CCP, at least to document changes outside the wide, “normal” 

inter-annual range of expected physical conditions in the Pacific Northwest region. However, the 

seriousness of potential, long-term, climate-change-induced impacts to Refuge ecological resources 

warrants their assessment and inclusion in relevant planning efforts (USFWS 2010d), including this 

CCP. 

4.7.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Several climate-related factors may impact the Refuge’s estuary and upland habitats. In particular, 

species (especially shorebirds) that rely on low-elevation, intertidal habitats are vulnerable to the 

substantial habitat loss projected due to sea level rise in the Pacific Northwest (Glick et al. 2007). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-58 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

The nearer-term factors of most importance to the Grays Harbor estuary include rising sea level and 

increased prevalence of invasive plants and animals. Over time, other climate-induced changes could 

substantially affect Refuge environments. Effects could include altered food availability resulting 

from physical changes in ocean and estuary waters; increasingly intense outbreaks of insects, 

diseases, and pathogens; and range shifts or phenological changes that disrupt plant and invertebrate 

community structure. 

Following are brief discussions of those climate-related impacts most relevant to the habitats and 

ecological communities at Grays Harbor Refuge. Details concerning historic and projected climate 

change effects to the physical environment are provided in Chapter 3. Additional background 

regarding general responses of biotic communities to climate change is available in Littell et al. 

(2009), Tillmann and Siemann (2011), and National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation 

Partnership (2012). 

Effects to Estuary Habitats

Sea Level Rise. Potential impacts from sea level rise to the Refuge’s estuary habitats are critical to 

assess because a primary Refuge purpose is to provide habitat for shorebirds. At Grays Harbor, the 

large expanses of intertidal mudflats provide important foraging and roosting areas for migrating and 

over-wintering shorebirds. These intertidal habitats are extremely vulnerable to even small increases 

in relative sea level.

At the Refuge, the impacts of changing sea level will depend on the relative rates of sea level rise vs. 

sediment accretion. Unfortunately, current projections of future sea level change at Grays Harbor are 

largely uncertain. Changes in absolute sea level are difficult to measure because of the complexity 

and variability of regional ocean conditions in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, in addition to yetunknown contributions from vertical land movements along the southwestern Washington coast.

Sediment accretion at the Refuge also is uncertain. There is recent evidence that tidal salt marsh is 

actually expanding (soil elevations are increasing) within the Refuge, possibly caused by altered tidal 

flows within Bowerman Basin and/or increased sediment loads associated with maintenance 

dredging of the nearby Grays Harbor shipping channel (see Chapter 3). This potential expansion of 

tidal marsh vegetation is a current management concern to the Refuge because it may be reducing the 

extent of intertidal mudflats available to shorebirds. However, this same elevation increase might 

mitigate potential future sea level rise. 

Invasive Species. Controlling the extent of nonnative invasive plants, such as Spartina and 

Phragmites, is a major, ongoing Refuge management activity to maintain the quality and functioning 

of estuary habitats. The recent establishment of other invasive species, such as Japanese eelgrass, in 

Refuge subtidal and intertidal habitats is a potential management concern (Mach et al. 2010). 

Increased air and water temperatures, altered precipitation amounts and seasonality, and other factors 

associated with climate change will exacerbate the occurrence and prevalence of invasive plant and 

animal species (Hellman et al. 2008, Rahel and Olden 2008, Willis et al. 2010). Information on the 

current occurrence and/or prevalence of invasive animals (e.g., fish, crabs, mussels, snails) at the 

Refuge is lacking, but the threats associated with these potential invasive species are large, and 

changes in their future distribution and abundance as a result of climate change could have strong 

management implications. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-59

Effects to Upland Habitats

Relative to estuary habitats, near-term climate-related impacts to Refuge upland (forest) habitat likely 

will be minimal. The Refuge’s forest species have low vulnerability to projected climate change 

(Aubry et al. 2011) because of the generally muted changes in temperature and precipitation 

projected for the Grays Harbor area (Mauger and Mantua 2011). 

Changes in temperature and precipitation likely will cause some level of physiological stress that will 

affect forest health (Vose et al. 2012). The greatest threat is the increased risk for insect and pathogen 

outbreaks potentially resulting from new range expansions, as well as greater susceptibility to 

existing insects and pathogens (Ryan and Vose 2012). However, great uncertainty exists because of 

the complex interactions of insects, pathogens, hosts, and climate (Kliejunas 2011). 

Similar to estuary habitats, climate change may exacerbate occurrence and prevalence of nonnative 

invasive plants that could alter species composition and expected forest community succession 

(Shafer et al. 2010). Also, any substantial sea level rise likely will cause greater saltwater intrusion 

into the groundwater that currently supports Refuge forest habitats (Brown and Newcomb 1963, 

Chang and Jones 2010). 

Other Potential Long-term Climate Change Effects

Over time, many additional climate-related factors could impact Refuge biota, including: 

• Ocean chemistry and sea surface temperature. Increased acidification has already affected 

oyster larvae survival in coastal Washington (Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean 

Acidification 2012). Virtually all major biological functions of marine organisms–especially

photosynthesis, respiration rate, growth rates, calcification rates, reproduction, and 

recruitment–are sensitive to increased ocean acidification (Doney et al. 2009). Projected 

increases in sea surface temperatures for the northeastern Pacific Ocean could impact biotic 

productivity (Overland and Wang 2007, Bograd et al. 2008) and also result in increased 

occurrence of harmful algal blooms (see Huppert et al. 2009). 

• Intensity of ocean waves and storms. Projected increases in intensity and frequency of storms 

and wave heights along the Pacific Northwest coast may have lesser impacts to the moreprotected inland portions of Grays Harbor. However, greater connection to ocean currents 

resulting from maintenance of a shipping channel (i.e., jetties and channel dredging) might 

exacerbate potential storm effects, potentially resulting in increased erosion of intertidal 

mudflats (Huppert et al. 2009). 

• Range shifts and altered phenology of plants and animals. Warming temperatures and 

changing ocean currents likely will alter the seasonal productivity and availability of food 

resources, potentially causing a phenological decoupling for the animal species reliant on 

primary production (see Tillmann and Siemann 2011). 

• These potential impacts to the marine environment and food web may negatively affect 

Refuge resources such as shorebirds and salmonids. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-60 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

4.7.2 Black River Unit

Several climate-related factors may impact the Refuge’s aquatic and upland habitats. In particular, 

species (especially amphibians) that rely on wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats are vulnerable to 

many climate-change-related effects in the Pacific Northwest (Lawler et al. 2008). 

The nearer-term factors of most importance to Black River Refuge include increased prevalence of 

invasive plants and animals, as well as further-altered hydrology (e.g., stream flow, water 

temperature) within the Black River watershed. Over time, many other climate-induced changes 

could affect Refuge environments—these include more-intense outbreaks of insects, diseases, and 

pathogens; and range shifts and/or phenological changes that disrupt plant and invertebrate 

community structure. 

Following are brief discussions of those climate-related impacts most relevant to the habitats and 

ecological communities at the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge. Details concerning historic and projected climate change effects to the physical environment 

are provided in Chapter 3. Additional background regarding general responses of biotic communities 

to climate change is available in Littell et al. (2009), Tillmann and Siemann (2011), and National 

Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership (2012). 

Effects to Aquatic Habitats

Invasive Species. Controlling the extent of nonnative and invasive plants, such as reed canarygrass, 

yellow flag iris, and purple loosestrife is a major, ongoing Refuge management activity to maintain 

the quality and functioning of aquatic habitats. Other invasive/introduced species, including aquatic 

plants (e.g., hydrilla, Brazilian elodea, Eurasian milfoil), algae, warm-water fish (e.g., northern 

pikeminnow, bullhead, bass, crappie), bullfrogs, and invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnails, red 

swamp crayfish), are or may be present within Unit habitats. Increased air and water temperatures, 

altered precipitation amounts and seasonality, and other factors associated with climate change likely 

will exacerbate the occurrence and prevalence of invasive plant and animal species (Hellman et al. 

2008, Rahel and Olden 2008, HDR Alaska 2009, Willis et al. 2010). This may be particularly 

important regarding future management activities for Oregon spotted frogs. Invasive plants 

(especially reed canarygrass) and bullfrogs already are substantial threats to these frogs, and any 

additional impact from climate-enhanced invasive species populations would require greater 

management effort to maintain and enhance the Refuge’s Oregon spotted frog population. 

Hydrological Changes to the Black River Watershed 

The hydrology of the upper Black River watershed has already been impacted by anthropogenic 

alterations (see Chapter 3). These changes have affected water quality and quantity, and ultimately 

the Unit’s biological resources. 

Climate change effects within the rain-dominated Black River watershed likely will be muted during 

the next few decades. However, projections for reduced summer (low) flows and increased air 

temperatures would undoubtedly impact water temperature and quality. Even these muted impacts 

likely would exacerbate algal blooms (Kundzewicz et al. 2007) and the prevalence of invasive plant 

and animal species (see above). Increased stream temperatures also could negatively affect salmonid 

use of the Black River as well as its tributaries (Mantua et al. 2010, Isaak et al. 2012). These same 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-61

climate impacts have been associated with increased infectious disease occurrence and resulting 

population declines in amphibians (Blaustein et al. 2012). 

As described above for invasive species, any further degradation of hydrologic conditions would 

pose additional threats to priority Unit resources such as Oregon spotted frogs and Olympic 

mudminnows. 

Effects to Upland Habitats

Relative to riverine habitats, near-term climate-related impacts to Unit upland habitats likely will be 

minimal. The Unit’s forest species have low vulnerability to projected climate change (Aubry et al. 

2011) because of the generally muted changes in temperature and precipitation projected for the 

Black River watershed (Mauger and Mantua 2011). The Unit’s dry, nonnative grassland habitats are 

already greatly altered, and the plant species composition there likely is resilient to near-term 

projected changes in precipitation and air temperature (IPCC 2007:11). 

Changes in temperature and precipitation likely will cause some level of physiological stress that will 

affect forest health (Vose et al. 2012). The greatest threat is the increased risk for insect and pathogen 

outbreaks, potentially resulting from both new range expansions as well as greater susceptibility to 

existing insects and pathogens (Ryan and Vose 2012). However, great uncertainty exists because of 

the complex interactions of insects, pathogens, hosts, and climate (Kliejunas 2011). 

Similar to aquatic habitats, climate change may exacerbate occurrence and prevalence of nonnative 

invasive plants that could alter species composition and expected forest community succession 

(Shafer et al. 2010). Also, drier and warmer summer weather could increase occurrence of wildland 

fires (Climate Impacts Group 2004), which could affect forest composition and regeneration as well 

as grassland forage availability.

Other Potential Long-term Climate Change Effects

Over time, many additional climate-related factors could impact Unit biota. For the Black River 

watershed, the most important might be range shifts and altered phenology of plants and animals. 

Warming temperatures and altered precipitation patterns may alter many processes, including leaf 

unfolding, flowering, insect emergence, and the arrival of migratory birds (see Tillmann and 

Siemann 2011). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-62 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

4.8 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring

4.8.1 Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Many collaborative research and monitoring projects have been conducted at Grays Harbor Refuge 

since it was established. The Refuge routinely partners with other Service programs, other Federal 

and State agencies, NGOs, and universities. 

Table 4-2a. Grays Harbor Research, Inventory, and Monitoring Projects (past and current)

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Shorebirds 

Ground Survey 

1988–present

Spring Migration 

Yes Area: Refuge and sometimes Bottle Beach 

State Park 

Timing: Spring migration 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4

Survey maintained and conducted by staff 

and volunteers. Surveys to estimate 

numbers and species of shorebirds using 

Refuge habitats during northbound 

migration. 

Christmas Bird 

Count 

Annually

December

Yes Area: Official Audubon Grays Harbor 

Count Circle (includes the Refuge) 

Timing: December

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Audubon records 

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Nationwide monitoring program run by 

Audubon, volunteer surveyors, and 

Refuge staff.

Red Knot Research 2006–present 

Spring Migration 

Yes Area: Grays Harbor estuary, Refuge, and 

Willapa Bay

Timing: Annual spring migration 

Data/Results Availability: Research, 

Publications on internet

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4, 

Biologist Joe Buchanan working on red 

knots since 2006 has investigated knot 

migration, habitat use, foraging, and 

roosting sites. Abundance estimation by 

observing flagged red knots originating 

from Mexico is also ongoing. 

Observations of knots on the Refuge are 

passed on to researcher. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-63

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Point Blue 

Conservation 

Science’s winter 

shorebird survey of 

Grays Harbor 

Greater Estuary and 

Refuge

2012–2014 Yes Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge. 

Who: Cooperate with Point Blue 

Conservation Science 

Timing: Annually November 15– 

December 15 

Data/Results Availability: on Point 

Blue/PRBO online electronic data website

and Refuge produced project reports for 

2012 and 2013. 

Emphasis: Cooperate with the Pacific 

coast monitoring effort to provide 

wintering shorebird habitat and bird use 

data.

Shorebirds Aerial 

Survey 

1999–2004

Peak Spring 

Migration

No Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and

Refuge 

Timing: Staff estimates of peak spring 

migration 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Flights provided a “snapshot” of the 

numbers of shorebirds using greater Grays 

Harbor estuary and shoreline during peak 

spring migration. Data were more 

valuable that localized Refuge surveys. 

Discontinued because of lack of funding.

Avian Ground 

Survey 

2001–2002 No Area: Refuge 

Timing: Once a month for the year 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4

An intense 1-year effort by Refuge staff 

and volunteers to survey all birds using 

upland and marsh habitats to better 

understand habitat use. 

Brown Pelican 

Aerial survey 

2010 No Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge 

Timing: One time only

Data/Results Availability: Survey, 

Willapa records 

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Willapa NWR biologist survey of Willapa 

and greater Grays Harbor. Discontinued 

with loss of funding and delisting.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-64 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Waterfowl 

Aerial survey 

1993–2003

Monthly in fall 

and winter 

No Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge 

Timing: Once a month November, 

December, January, February 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4

Monthly aerial surveys gained 

information on waterfowl and waterbird 

use of the entire Grays Harbor estuary, as 

well as the Refuge. Flight occurrence 

ranged from two to four surveys 

depending upon funding availability. The 

January flight was also the Service’s Midwinter Waterfowl Survey. Discontinued 

all but the January flight because of 

funding loss and changing emphasis. 

Waterfowl 

Ground survey 

1993–2010

Monthly to 

bimonthly 

November to 

February 

No Area: Refuge 

Timing: Once a month November, 

December, January, February 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goals 4 

Monthly ground surveys of the Refuge 

were conducted to gain understanding of 

waterfowl habitat use of the Refuge 

during the winter season. Discontinued 

due to lack of staff and changing 

emphasis. 

Habitat and Invasive Species Monitoring 

Phragmites 

Monitoring and 

Treatment

2005–present

Annually 

Yes Area: Refuge

Timing: Summer monitoring, fall 

treatment 

Data/Results Availability: 

Monitoring/Treatment, Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 

WDFW and WSAG partnerships are 

important to this control effort.

Spartina 

Monitoring and 

Treatment

2005–present 

Survey ~ 1+ times 

during the growing 

season 

Yes Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge

Timing: Three monitoring rounds of the 

estuary with treatment. Starts early spring 

and runs until fall. 

Data/Results Availability: WSAG annual 

reports, online
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-65

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4

Coordination with the Service’s WFWO, 

the Refuge, WDFW, and WSAG has 

resulted in excellent control and up-todate monitoring for invasive Spartina

species.

Knotweed

Monitoring and 

Treatment 

Annually since 

2003 

South 

side-Yes.

North 

side-No

Area: Refuge

Timing: summer monitoring, fall 

treatment 

Data/Results Availability: 

Monitoring/Treatment, Refuge records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 

The South side of the Refuge has been 

controlled as needed, treatment sites 

mapped and progress documented. 

The North side of the Refuge infestation 

comes off the GHPUD ROW. Need to 

coordinate with GHPUD to cooperatively 

control knotweed. 

Research or Formal Studies

Estuary and 

Climate Change 

2013–2014 Yes Area: Refuge

Timing: 2013–2014 

Data/Results Availability: Research, 

USGS in progress 

Emphasis: See Goals 2, 3, and 4 

Establish baseline bathymetry, vegetation, 

tidal inundation conditions of the Refuge 

salt marshes. This data will be used to 

model sea level rise conditions and 

investigate how it impacts wildlife and the 

vegetation community.

Powerline Avian 

Study

2005–2008 No Area: Refuge

Timing: Year-round study, actual field 

work was 2 yrs. 

Data/Results Availability: Study, Refuge

records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4

Study to determine if waterfowl, 

shorebird, passerines, or raptors were 

negatively impacted by newly installed, 

tall powerlines along the north side of 

Refuge and along State Highway 109. A 

limited-time study. 

Shorebirds Spring Migration No Area: Pacific Coast Flyway from Central 

American to Alaska, including the greater 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-66 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Grays Harbor estuary and Refuge

Timing: Spring Migration

Data/Results Availability: Research,

Publications on internet

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Past research on long distance migration 

of western sandpipers, dowitchers, and 

dunlin by N.Warnock, J.Takekawa, and 

M.Bishop. 

Shorebirds Varies No Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge 

Timing: Variable depending on project 

Data/Results Availability: Research, 

Publications on internet 

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Past shorebird research on diet, foraging, 

and habitat use of the estuary by J. 

Buchanan, and S. Herman, J Bulger.

Multiple Research 

Projects over time 

Varies No Area: Greater Grays Harbor estuary and 

Refuge 

Timing: Variable depending on project 

Data/Results Availability: Research, 

Publications on internet

Emphasis: See Goals 3 and 4 

Many important research projects have 

been conducted over time in both the 

greater Grays Harbor estuary and the 

Refuge. Specifically, S. B. Nightengale, 

C. Simenstad, D. Eggers, R. Thom, K. 

Radedeke, and many others. A wide range 

of projects on conditions that affect the 

greater estuary and what is now the 

Refuge. Reports and publications often 

include detailed information on natural 

history of fish, birds, invertebrates, and 

habitats.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-67

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Baseline inventory and ongoing monitoring is needed at many levels at the Black River Unit of Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Scientific research is needed to understand the changes 

and implications of mudflat sedimentation rates and the effects on shorebirds and food webs and to 

better understand predicted changes in sea level rise. (See Goals 1, 2, and 4 for detailed information). 

Table 4-2b. Black River Unit Research, Inventory, and Monitoring Projects (past and current)

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Oregon spotted 

frog egg survey

2001–present Yes Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Spring breeding season, annually 

Data/Results Availability: Monitoring, 

Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, 4 

Annual egg mass counts are conducted on 

Unit lands by Unit staff, volunteers, and 

partnering agencies to estimate Oregon 

spotted frog population size, habitat 

preference, and habitat quality.

Oregon spotted 

frog egg removal 

for new population 

establishment 

2008–2012 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Early spring, annually 

Data/Results Availability: Species 

augmentation, Unit and WDFW records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4

Specific numbers of Oregon spotted frog 

eggs were removed for offsite rearing in 

support of WDFW project to introduce 

Oregon spotted frogs into a different 

watershed. 

Waterfowl Survey 2002 No Area: Black River Unit 123rd Area

Timing: February and March 

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

Survey, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goal 1, 3, and 4 

Unit staff conducted winter surveys early 

in land acquisition stage of the Unit.

Secretive 

marshbird survey 

2003 No Area: Black River Unit, River corridor 

from 123rd north 2.5 miles 

Timing: April, May, June 

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

survey, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, 4 

Survey conducted to better understand 

secretive marshbirds and habitat use along 

the river.

Bat roost survey 2003–2004 No Area: Black River Unit 123rd Avenue 

Area
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-68 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Timing: Summer

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

observation, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4 

Two summers of bat flight/echolocation 

call surveys conducted in an old barn.

Newly acquired 

parcel surveys 

2001–2002 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: As parcels were acquired

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

observations, Unit records

Emphasis: See Goal 4

Unit staff recorded wildlife observations 

on newly acquired parcels for 1 year to 

better understand management needs. 

Seasonal wetland 

habitat 

management using 

herbivores 

2008–2010 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Year-round 

Data/Results Availability: Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, 4 

Cattle were used as management tools to 

control rank, invasive reed canarygrass

growth and enhance Oregon spotted frog 

egg-laying conditions. Private, NGO, and 

agency partners cooperated on this 

project.

Plant species list 

development 

1995 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Opportunistic 

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

survey, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Unit volunteers created species list (with 

wetland affiliation) and herbarium records 

early in Unit development. The data has 

been used to understand habitats in the 

Unit. Additional species added as 

observed. 

Research or 

Formal Studies

Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

Oregon spotted 

frog

1990–present No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Variable dependent on research 

Data/Results Availability: Available on 

internet, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, and 4 

A number of research studies have been 

conducted by partners, including WDFW 

biologists related to the Oregon spotted 

frog’s natural history, habitat usage, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-69

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

movement, and potential disease exposure 

in the floodplain of the Black River and 

its tributaries. 

Flow Direction 

Hydrology Study

2003 No Area: Black River Unit, the river, north of 

the pipeline location

Timing: Winter and spring 

Data/Results Availability: Report 

available on internet, Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, and 4 

Hydrologists conducted a limited study to 

examine Black River water origin, flow, 

direction, speed, physical barriers and 

changes, water loss to the river, and 

changes to natural conditions surrounding 

the headwaters.

Malformed frog 

contaminant study

2002–2003 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Summer

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

observation, Unit and Service’s WFWO 

records 

Emphasis: See Goal 4 

In response to a nationwide amphibian 

health concern, 2 years of surveys were 

conducted on red-legged frogs to 

determine the prevalence of physical 

deformation as a method to determine 

gross levels of potential wetland 

contaminants that looked abnormal. 

Surveys conducted in partnership with the 

Service’s WFWO.

History of habitat 

changes in Black 

River floodplain 

2008 No Area: Black River Unit - floodplain

Timing: Spring and summer 

Data/Results Availability: Formal 

publication for WDNR, Unit copy 

Emphasis: Research to understand habitat 

changes occurring in the Black River 

floodplain since early European arrival 

and establishment. Includes portions of 

the Unit

Wild chervil 

control project 

2003 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Summer and fall

Data/Results Availability: Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 2, 3, and 4 

The Unit worked with the Washington 

State Noxious Weed Board to determine 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-70 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Wildlife Surveys Year/Season(s) Active Emphasis

effective methods to control nonnative

and aggressive wild chervil. 

Monitoring 

Habitat assessment Yes Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: As new land acquired

Data/Results Availability: Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1 and 2

To understand the habitats and 

management needs of newly acquired 

properties.

Bog observation 2011 No Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: Summer

Data/Results Availability: Baseline 

observations, Unit records

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Former WDNR wetland biologist and 

Unit biologist did a one-time visit of some 

bog sites in the northern-most portion of 

the Unit to begin the process of 

understanding the habitat and its wildlife 

components, as well as potential and 

current threats and management needs. 

Targeted Invasive 

Species

Ongoing Yes Area: Black River Unit 

Timing: As needed

Data/Results Availability: Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Unit priority noxious weeds are monitored 

and treated to reduce land coverage and 

habitat impacts. The Unit works with 

Thurston County and Washington State 

Noxious Weed boards.

Seasonal wetland 

habitat 

management using 

limited numbers of 

cattle 

2008–2010 Yes Area: Black River Unit

Timing: Year-round 

Data/Results Availability: Unit records 

Emphasis: See Goals 1, 3, and 4 

Cattle are used as management tools to 

reduce the height of invasive reed 

canarygrass growth after a study showed 

habitat enhancement success and benefit 

for waterfowl, open wetland-related 

wildlife such as Oregon spotted frog, 

other amphibians, and Wilson’s snipe. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-71

4.9 References 

Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, J.E. Hightower, S.T. Lindley, and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status Review for 

North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Available at www.nwr.noaa.gov/OtherMarine-Species/upload/grn-sturgeon-status.pdf. 

Adamus, P.R., and K. Brandt 1990. Impacts on Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States: A 

Survey of Indicators, Techniques, and Applications of Community-Level Biomonitoring Data. 

EPA/600/3-90-073. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/wqual/introweb.html. 

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

Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic 

Resources Division and Puget Sound Program. Lacey, WA. 

Akçakaya, H.R., S.H.M. Butchart, G.M. Mace, S.N. Stuart, and C. Hilton-Taylor. 2006. Use and 

misuse of the IUCN Red List Criteria in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity. Global 

Change Biology 12:2037–2043. 

Alcorn, G.D. 1941. The Western Burrowing Owl in Grays Harbor County, Washington. The 

Murrelet, Vol. 22, No. 3, (Sep–Dec 1941), pp. 57–58. Published by Society for Northwestern 

Vertebrate Biology. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3534009. 

Andelman, S. J. and A. Stock. 1994. Management, research, and monitoring priorities for the 

conservation of Neotropical migratory landbirds that breed in Washington State. Oregon-Washington 

Partners in Flight; Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources. 37 pp. 

Aubry, C., W. Devine, R. Shoal, A. Bower, J. Miller, and N. Maggiulli. 2011. Climate change and 

forest diversity: A vulnerability assessment and action plan for national forests in western 

Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Baldwin, J.R. and J.R. Lovvorn. 1994. Expansion of seagrass habitat by the exotic Zostera japonica, 

and its use by dabbling ducks and brant in Boundary Bay, British Columbia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

103:119–127. 

Beck, K.G. 1994. How Do Weeds Affect Us All? From Leafy Spurge Symposium, Bozeman, 

Montana; July 26–29, 1994. 

Berg, S., R. Mead, and B. Fiorilli. 1995. Black River Water Quality Investigation 1992–1993. 

Thurston County Environmental Health Division. 119 pp. 

Bigley, R. and S. Hull. 2000. Recognizing Wetlands and Wetland Indicator Plants on Forest Lands in 

Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Scientific Support Section, 

Olympia, WA. 154p. Available at 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/lm_ess_recognizing_wetlands.pdf. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-72 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Blaustein A.R., S.S. Gervasi, P.T.J. Johnson, J.T. Hoverman, L.K. Belden, P.W. Bradley, and G.Y. 

Xie. 2012. Ecophysiology meets conservation: understanding the role of disease in amphibian 

population declines. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367:1688–1707. 

Bograd, S.J., C.G. Castro, E. Di Lorenzo, D.M. Palacios, H. Bailey, W. Gilly, and F.P. Chavez. 2008. 

Oxygen declines and the shoaling of the hypoxic boundary in the California Current. Geophysical 

Research Letters 35:L12607. 

Brennan, L.A., M.A. Finger, J.B. Buchanan, C.T. Schick, S.G. Herman. 1990. Stomach Contents of 

Dunlins Collected in Western Washington. In Northwestern Naturalist 71:99–102. 

Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of 

Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 176 pp. 

Brown, S.G., and R.C. Newcomb. 1963. Ground-water resources of the Coastal Sand-Dune area 

north of Coos Bay, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-D. Available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1619d/report.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2013. 

Buchanan, J.B. 2006. A census of spring migrant Red Knots Calidris canutus in coastal Washington, 

USA: results from 2006. Wader Study Group Bull. 111: 64–66. 

Buchanan, J.B. 2008. The spring 2008 survey of Red Knots Calidris canutus at Grays Harbor and 

Willapa Bay, Washington. Wader Study Group Bull. 115(3): 177–181. 

Buchanan, J.B., L.A. Brennan, C.T. Schick, M.A. Finger, T.M. Johnson, S.G. Herman. 1985. Dunlin 

Weight Changes in Relation to Food Habits and Available Prey. In J. Field Ornithology 56(3):265–

272. 

Buchanan, J.B., L.J. Salzer, G.J. Wiles, K. Brady, S.M. Desimone, and W. Michaelis. 2011. An 

investigation of Red Knot Calidris canutus spring migration at Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, 

Washington. Wader Study Group Bull. 118(2): 97–104. 

Buchanan, J.B., C.T. Schick, L.A. Brennan, S.G. Herman. 1988. Merlin Predation on Wintering 

Dunlins: Hunting Success and Dunlin Escape Tactics. Wilson Bull. 100(1):108–118. 

Caldwell, B., J. Pacheco, H. Beecher, T. Hegy, R. Vadas. 2004. Chehalis River Basin WRIAs 22 and 

23 Fish Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. WA Dept. Ecology and 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 04-11-006. 99 pp. 

Carey. A.B. 2003. Restoration of Landscape Function: Reserves or Active Management? Forestry, 

Vol. 76, No. 2. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Olympia, WA. 

Carey. A.B. 2006. Active and Passive Forest Management for Multiple Values. Northwestern 

Naturalist 87:18–30. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L. G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E. L. 

Greda, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C. A. 

Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife: Ecological Contexts, Relationships, 

and Implications for Management. Special Edition Technical Report. Prepared for H.H. Johnson and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-73

T.A. O’Neil (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife–Habitat Relationships–Oregon and Washington. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

CH2M HILL. 1979. Bowerman Field & Airport Master Plan. Port of Grays Harbor, Washington. 

Chang, H., and J. Jones. 2010. Climate change and freshwater resources in Oregon. Pages 69–149 in 

Oregon climate assessment report. K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote (eds). College of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Available at www.occri.net/OCAR. 

Accessed April 17, 2013. 

Chehalis River Council (CRC). 1992. Chehalis River Basin Action Plan for the identification and 

control of non-point source pollution and technical supplement, Volume 2. Chehalis River Council, 

Lewis County Conservation District, and Washington Department of Ecology. Chehalis, WA. 

Climate Impacts Group. 2004. Forest fire and climate. University of Washington. Available at 

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/cigforestfire492.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2013. 

Coastal Resources Alliance. 2007. Ranking of estuarine habitat restoration priorities in Willapa Bay, 

WA. Final report. 30 pp. 

Cooper, J.W. 1989. Wetlands Reconnaissance Report. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. Grays 

Harbor County, Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement. 

Olympia, WA. 

Corkran C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. A Field 

Identification Guide. Vancouver, BC. 

Crawford, R. and J. Rocchio. 2011. North Pacific Shrub Swamp Ecological Integrity Assessments. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. 

Creveling, J., S. Boysen, G. Burdulis, B. Damron, R. Hanger, K. O’Donnelly, R. Sherry, M. Trua, A. 

Venning, E. Wheeler. 1980. Inventory of Vegetative Communities and Associated Wildlife of Black 

River Drainage. Washington State Department of Game, Olympia, WA. 138 pp. 

Cucherousset, J. and J.D. Olden. 2011. Ecological Impacts of Nonnative Freshwater Fishes. 

Fisheries; Vol 36 No 5. 

Dobler, F.C. and R.D. Spencer. 1989. Wintering Peregrine Falcon Habitat Utilization in Grays 

Harbor, Washington. Wash. Dept. Game. 14 pp. 

Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, and R.A. Feely. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual 

Review of Marine Science 2009.1:169-192. Available at 

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834. Accessed April 22, 

2013. 

Dvornich, K., and contributors. 2001. NatureMapping wildlife observations with the Washington 

Gap Analysis Project's predicted distributions. In: The NatureMapping Program in Washington 

[online]. University of Washington, Seattle. Available at

http://www.fish.washington.edu/naturemapping/. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-74 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Easterly, R. and D. Salstrom. 2008. Black River Vegetation: Changes through time of a Unique 

Western Washington River. Salstrom & Easterly Eco-logic (SEE) Botanical Consulting. pp. 41. For 

Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 2003. Black River Hydrological Modeling Final Study Report. 

Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 

Frank, J.H., and E.D. McCoy. 1995. Introduction to insect behavioral ecology: The good, the bad, 

and the beautiful: Non-indigenous species in Florida. Invasive adventive insects and other organisms 

in Florida. Florida Entomologist 78(1):1–15. 

Frazier, M.R., Lamberson, J.O., and W.G. Nelson. 2014. Intertidal habitat utilization patterns of birds 

in a Northeast Pacific estuary. Wetlands Ecology and Management 22: 451–466. 

Geyer, J., I. Kieffer, S. Kreft, V. Chavez, N. Salafsky, F. Jeltsch, and P.L. Ibisch. 2011. Classification 

of climate-change-induced stresses on biological diversity. Conservation Biology 25:708–715. 

Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea level rise and coastal habitats in the Pacific 

Northwest: An analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. 

National Wildlife Federation. Available at

https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Water/200707_PacificNWSeaLevelRise_Report.pdf. Accessed 

April 24, 2013. 

Grannes, S.G. 2008. Beaver Dam Information Site. Available at http://www.beaverdam.info/. 

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Planning Task Force (GHEMPTF). 1987. Grays Harbor estuary 

management plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Amendment No. 3. Washington State 

Coastal Zone Management Program. Grays Harbor, WA. 

Hallock, L.A. and McAllister, K.R. 2005. Painted Turtle. Washington Herp Atlas. Available at 

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/speciesmain.html. 

Hallock, L.A. and McAllister, K.R. 2009. American Bullfrog. Washington Herp Atlas. Available at

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/. 

Hawkins, C. 2000. Black River Waters: Their Past and Future. South Sound Green Pages. http://olywa.us/GreenPages/Article.php?id=2000;09;200009a. 

Hayes, G.E., and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the Peregrine Falcon. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 77 pp. 

Hayes, M.C., S.P. Rubin, R.R. Reisenbichler, F.A. Goetz, E.Jeanes, and A.McBride. 2011. Marine 

Habitat Use by Anadromous Bull Trout from the Skagit River, Washington. Marine and Coastal 

Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 3:1, 394–410. Available at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2011.640893. 

HDR Alaska. 2009. Invasive plant species response to climate change in Alaska: Bioclimatic models 

of current and predicted future changes. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-75

Anchorage, AK. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/invasive/pdf/Report_final_5_4_09.pdf. 

Accessed April 24, 2013. 

Heiken, D. 2007. Restoration Thinning in Young Plantations West of the Cascades: Science 

Summary and Synthesis. Available at http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/Restoration 

percent20Thinning percent20in percent20Western percent20Oregon.pdf. 

Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534–543. 

Herman, S.G. and J.B. Bulger. 1981. The distribution and abundance of shorebirds during the 1981 

spring migration at Grays Harbor, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract report 

DACW67-81-M-0936. Seattle, WA.

Hinde, H.P. 1954. The vertical distribution of salt marsh phanerogams in relation to tide levels. 

Ecological Monographs 24(2):209–225. 

Hiss, J., J. Meyer, and R. Boome. 1982. Status of Chehalis River salmon and steelhead fisheries and 

problems affecting the Chehalis Tribe. p.61. 

Holmes, D. 2001. The Green Crab Invasion: A Global Perspective, with Lessons from Washington 

State. Master's Thesis (Sept. 2001), MES Dept., The Evergreen State College. Olympia, WA. 

Available at http://academic.evergreen.edu/h/holmesd/. 

Howell, B. 2010. Fish Stocking Literature Review: Effects of Non Native Fish in the Pacific 

Northwest. Northwest Partners in Amphiban and Reptile Conservation. Available at

http://www.nwparc.org/pro_fish_lit.html. 

Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Annotated 

Version. Ecology Publication #04-06-025. 

Huppert, D.D., A. Moore, and K. Dyson. 2008. Impacts of climate change on the coasts of 

Washington State. Pages 285–309 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: 

Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at 

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts651.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2013. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. 

Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

Isaak, D.J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler. 2012. Climate change effects on stream and river 

temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980–2009 and implications for salmonid fishes. 

Climatic Change 113:499–524. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-76 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Jeanes, E.D., and C.M. Morello. 2006. Native Char Utilization Lower Chehalis River and Grays 

Harbor Estuary Aberdeen, Washington. Report for US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 

73 pp. 

Johnson D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2011. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

Kilbride, K. M. and F. L. Paveglio. 1999. Integrated Pest Management to Control reed canarygrass in 

Seasonal Wetlands of Southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Summer, 

1999), pp. 292–297. Available at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7648 percent28199922

percent2927 percent3A2 percent3C292 percent3AIPMTCR percent3E2.0.CO percent3B2-1. 

King County. 2013. Noxious Weeds. Available at

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification.aspx. 

Kliejunas, J.T. 2011. A risk assessment of climate change and the impact of forest diseases on forest 

ecosystems in the Western United States and Canada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-236. 

Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s Priority 

Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp. 

Kundzewicz, Z.W., L.J. Mata, N. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat , B. Jiménez , K. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Sen, 

and I. Shiklomanov. 2007. Freshwater resources and their management. Pages 173-210 in M.L. 

Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Climate Change 

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press. Available at

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. Accessed April 23, 

2013. 

Kunze, L. 1994. Preliminary Classification of Native, Low Elevation, Freshwater Wetland 

Vegetation in Western Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Natural 

Heritage Program Resource Protection. Olympia, WA. 120pp. 

Kunze, L.M. and L.C. Cornelius. 1982. Baseline Inventory or Rare, Threatened and Endangered 

Plant Species/Communities Along Washington’s Pacific Coast. Washington Natural Heritage 

Program. Coastal Zone Management Grant No. G82-029. 

Kuwae, T., P.G. Beninger, P. Decottignies, K.J. Mathot, D.R. Lund, R.W. Elner. 2008. Biofilm 

Grazing in a Higher Vertebrate: The Western Sandpiper, Calidris mauri. Ecology 89(3):599–606. 

Lamberson, J.O., M.R. Frazier, W.G. Nelson, and P.J. Clinton. 2011. Utilization patterns of intertidal 

habitats by birds in Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 

Western Ecology Division, Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-11/118 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-77

Larsen, E.M., Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. 1995. Management Recommendations for Washington's 

Priority Species Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

WA 

Lawler J.J., M. Mathias, A.E. Yahnke, and E.H. Girvetz. 2008. Oregon’s biodiversity in a changing 

climate. Report prepared for the Climate Leadership Initiative, University of Oregon. Available at 

http://depts.washington.edu/landecol/PDFS/OR-CC-report.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. 

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

Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Trailside Series. Seattle, WA. 

Lindley, S.T., M.L. Moser, D.L. Erickson, M. Belchik, D.W. Welch, E. Rechisky, J.T. Kelly, J.C. 

Heublein, and A.P. Klimley. 2008. Marine migration of North American green sturgeon. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:182–194. 

Link, R. 2004. Living with Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/book/. 

Littell, J.S., M. McGuire Elsner, L.C. Whitely Binder, and A.K. Snover (eds). 2009. The Washington 

climate change impacts assessment: Evaluating Washington's future in a changing climate—

Executive Summary. In The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating 

Washington's Future in a Changing Climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA. Available at: www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciaexecsummary638.pdf. Accessed 

April 16, 2013. 

MacDonald, K.B. 1969. Molluscan faunas of Pacific Coast salt marshes and tidal creeks. The Veliger 

11(4):399-405. 

Mach, M. E., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and J. R. Ward. 2010. Distribution and potential effects of a nonnative seagrass in Washington State, Zostera japonica Workshop. Report for Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources and Washington Sea Grant. 

Mach, M.E., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and K.M.A. Chan. 2014. Ecological effect of a nonnative 

seagrass spreading in the Northeast Pacific: A review of Zostera japonica. Ocean and Coastal 

Management 102:375–382

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2013. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Available at http://www.whsrn.org/site-profile/grays-harbor-estuary. 

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and 

summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in 

Washington State. Climatic Change 102:187–223. 

Mauger, G.S., and N. Mantua. 2011. Climate change projections for USFS lands in Oregon and 

Washington. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Available at 

http://cses.washington.edu/picea/USFS_ORWA/pub/USFS_ImpactsReport_DRAFT_GMauger.pdf. 

Accessed April 16, 2013. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-78 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Maxwell, B.J, J. Piovia-Scott, S.P. Lawler and K.L. Pope. 2010. Indirect effects of introduced trout 

on Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae) via shared aquatic prey. Freshwater Biology, doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2427.2010.02529.x. 

Maynard, C. 2009. Rare Beetle Discovered at Springer Lake. In Capitol Land Trust News Issue 48. 

McConnaughey, B. and E. McConnaughey. 1985. Pacific Coast. National Audubon Society. 

McKercher, L. and D.R. Gregoire. 2012. Lithobates catesbeianus (Bull frog). USGS Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. Available at

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=71. 

Meldrim, J. W. 2012. Habitat suitability and preferences of the Olympic mudminnow, Novumbra 

hubbsi. A presentation at the Olympic Mudminnow Workshop: Conservation of Washington’s Only 

Endemic Fish. Lacey, WA. Available at

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/HabitatSuitabilityandPreferences_MELDRIM.pdf. 

Mongillo, P.E. and M. Hallock. 1999. Washington State Status Report for the Olympic Mudminnow. 

Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 36 pp. 

Moore, J.R.J., P.A. Keddy, C.L. Guadet, and I.C. Wisheu. 1989. Conservation of wetlands: Do 

infertile wetlands deserve higher priority? Biological Conservation 47:203–217. 

Moser M.L. and S.T. Lindley. 2007. Use of Washington estuaries by subadult and adult green 

sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:243–253. 

Napier L., C. Stussy, B. DeMond, J. Kliem. 2008. Chehalis Basin Partnership Habitat Work Group. 

The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Work Plan for WRIA 22 and 23. 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership. 2012. National fish, wildlife and 

plants climate adaptation strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on 

Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Available at 

http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/strategy.php. Accessed April 16, 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1987. Grays Harbor Estuary 

Management Plan: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Coastal Zone 

Management Program Amendment No. 3. 

NatureServe 2011. Queen Charlotte’s copper butterfly (Lycaena mariposa charlottensis). 

Conservation Status. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

NatureServe. 2012a. Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi). Conservation Status. Available at

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

NatureServe. 2012b. Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). Conservation Status. Available at

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-79

NatureServe. 2013. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Conservation Status. 

Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC). 2008. Summary of Scientific Conclusions of the 

Review of the Status of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Available at www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-MarineSpecies/upload/eulachon-review.pdf

Overland, J.E., and M. Wang. 2007. Future climate of the North Pacific Ocean. Eos 88(16):178,182. 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review 

of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669. 

Parmesan, C., C. Duarte, E. Poloczanska, A.J. Richardson, and M.C. Singer. 2011. Overstretching 

attribution. Nature Climate Change 1(April):2–4. 

Pearl, C.A., J. Bowerman, M.J. Adams, and N.D. Chelgren. 2009. Widespread Occurrence of the 

Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis on Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa). 

EcoHealth; DOI: 10.1007/s10393-009-0237-x. US Geological Survey. 

Phinney, L.A. and P. Bucknell. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, 

Volume 2: Coastal Region. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 

Pickett, P.J. 1994. Black River Dry Season Dissolved Oxygen and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily 

Load Study. Waterbody No. WA-23-1015. Publication No. 94–106. Olympia, WA. Available at

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/94106.html. 

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs 

associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52:273–88. 

Pollock, M. M., G.R. Pess, T.J. Beechie, D.R. Montgomery. 2004. The Importance of Beaver Ponds 

to Coho Salmon Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 24:749–760. 

Prather, T.S., T.W., Miller, S.S. Robins. 2009. Knotweed Shrubs: Identification, Biology, and 

Management. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication 610. University of Idaho. 

Rahel, F.J., and J.D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive 

species. Conservation Biology 22:521–533. 

Reid, K.A. 1952. The effect of beaver on trout waters. Maryland Conservationist 29(4):21–23. 

Reinhardt, C. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2004. Best Management Practices for the Invasive Phalaris 

arundinacea L. (Reed canary grass) in Wetland Restorations. Final Report. Minnesota Department of 

Transportation. 

Rigg, G. 1958. Peat Resources of Washington. Washington Department of Conservation, Division of 

Mines and Geology. Bulletin No. 44. pp. 216–219. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-80 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Rocchio, J. 2011a. North Pacific Lowland Riparian Forest and Shrubland. In the collection of 

Ecological Integrity Assessments. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Available at

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/eia.html. 

Rocchio, J. 2011b. Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh. In the collection of Ecological 

Integrity Assessments. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Available at

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/eia.html. 

Rosenzweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, P. Neofotis, Q. Wu, G. Casassa, A. Menzel, T.L. Root, N. 

Estrella, B. Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, C. Liu, S. Rawlins, and A. Imeson. 2008. Attributing physical 

and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453:353-358. 

Rossell, F., O. Bozer, P. Collen, and H. Parker. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and 

Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35:248–276. 

Ruesink, J.L., J.S. Hong, L. Wisehart, S.D. Hacker, B.R. Dumbauld, M. Hessing-Lewis, and A.C. 

Trimble. 2010. Congener comparison of native (Zostera marina) and introduced (Z. japonica) 

eelgrass at multiple scales within a Pacific Northwest estuary. Biological Invasions. 12(6): 1773–

1789. 

Ryan, M.G., and J.M. Vose. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change. Pages 7–95 in Vose, 

J.M. D.L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, eds. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest 

ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870. 

Salzberg, A. 2000. The cage papers. The Norway rat of the turtle world. Reptile & Amphibian 

Hobbyist 5(8):84. 

Sanchez, D. 2008. An Annotated Bibliography of Beaver Literature. Department of Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Oregon State University. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/beaver_bibliography.pdf

Sandell, T., J. Fletcher, T. Buehrens, A. McAninch, and M. Wait. 2011. Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish 

Use Assessment: 2011 Annual Report. Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group. Wild 

Fish Conservancy NW. 

Schouwenaars, J.M. 1995. The selection of internal and external water management options for bog 

restoration. In Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, eds. B.D. Wheeler, S.C. Shaw, W.J. Fojt, and 

R.A. Robertson, pp. 331–346. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. 

Schrautzer, J., M. Asshoff, and F. Müller. 1996. Restoration strategies for wet grasslands in Northern 

Germany. Ecological Engineering 7(4), 255–278. 

Seattle Audubon Society. 2002. Seattle Audubon's Guide to the Birds of Washington State. BirdWeb 

internet site. The Science Committee of Seattle Audubon. Available at

http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/birds. 

Seery, M.J. 2012. Discussion regarding the nonnative status of Rorippia nasturtium-aquaticum

(white watercress). Thurston County Noxious Weed Agency. Olympia, WA. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-81

Seliskar, D.M., and J.L. Gallagher. 1983. The Ecology of Tidal Marshes of the Pacific Northwest 

Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, 

Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/32. 

Seto, N.W.H., J. Dillon, W.D. Shuford, T. Zimmerman. 2003. A Review of Caspian Tern (Sterna 

caspia) Nesting Habitat: A Feasibility Assessment of Management Opportunities in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Pacific Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR.

Shafer, D. J. 2007. Physiological factors affecting the distribution of the non-indigenous seagrass 

Zostera japonica along the Pacific coast of North America. Ph.D Dissertation. University of South 

Alabama, Mobile, AL. 

Shafer, S.L., M.E. Harmon, R.P. Neilson, R. Seidl, B. St. Clair, and A. Yost. 2010. The potential 

effects of climate change on Oregon’s vegetation. Pages 173–208 in Oregon climate assessment 

report. K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote (eds). College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis. Available at www.occri.net/OCAR. Accessed April 17, 2013. 

Simenstad, C.A. 1981. Juvenile Salmonid and Baitfish Distributions, Abundance, and Prey 

Resources in Selected Areas of Grays Harbor, Washington –APPENDICES. Fisheries Research 

Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Final Report to Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. Contract No. DACW 67-80-C-0102. 162 pp. 

Simenstad, C.A., and D.M. Eggers. 1981. Juvenile Salmonid and Baitfish Distributions, Abundance, 

and Prey Resources in Selected Areas of Grays Harbor, Washington. Fisheries Research Institute, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Final Report to Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Contract No. DACW 67-80-C-0102. 205 pp.

Simenstad, C. A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1981. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal 

estuaries in the life history of Pacific Salmon—An unappreciated function. Estuaries 4: 285–286. 

Simon, B. and M. Peoples. 2006. Integrated Aquatic Plant Management Plan for the Chehalis River 

Basin. Ecology Grant #G0400331, WDFW Grant #04-1329. Available at

http://wcssp.org/WCSSP_library/wria22_23/wria22_23.htm. 

Smith, C.J. and M.Wenger. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin 

and Nearby Drainages WRIAs 22 and 23. Lacey, Washington: Washington State Conservation 

Commission. Olympia, WA. 

Smith, J.L., O. Bengstrom, J. Brown. 1976. Impact of Dredging on the Fishes in Grays Harbor. 

Appendix G in Maintenance Dredging and the Environment of Grays Harbor, Washington. Seattle 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 125 pp. 

Somma, L.A., A. Foster, and P. Fuller. 2015. Trachemys scripta elegans. USGS Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. Available at

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=1261. Revision Date: 10/28/2009. 

Speare, R. and L. Berger. 2004. Global distribution of chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Available at

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/chyglob.htm. Last Updated 14 April 2004. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-82 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

Streamnet. n.d. Estuarine Loss in West Coast Estuaries. StreamNet Fish Data for the Northwest. 

ftp://ftp.streamnet.org/pub/fishfacts/pdf/estalt-west.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2016. 

Sundstrom, C. 2008. Grays Harbor Power Line Post-Construction Study. Year 2 Report January 

2007–2008; Including Year 1 and Year 2 Combined Summaries December 2005-January 2008. 

Written for USFWS and Grays Harbor Public Utilities District. 

The Evergreen State College (TESC). 2001. Rapid Environmental Assessment of the Black River 

Wildlife Refuge. Natural Histories: Botany, Biography, Community Program. Olympia, WA. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. Black River Conservation Area Plan. 

Thurston County. 2012. Critical Areas Ordinance Update. Attachment B. Olympia, WA. Ordinance 

No. 14773. Available at http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/critical_areas/adoptedordinance/cao-attachment-b-chapter-24-30-wetlands.pdf. 

Thurston County Noxious Weed Agency (TCNWCA). 2013a. reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea). Integrated Pest Management Prescription. Available at

www.co.thurston.wa.us/tcweeds/index.htm. 

TCNWCA. 2013b. Thurston County Noxious Weed Fact Sheets and Videos. 

Tillmann, P., and D. Siemann. 2011. Climate change effects and adaptation approaches in marine and 

coastal ecosystems of the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Region: A compilation 

of scientific literature. Phase 1 Draft Final Report. National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Region, 

Seattle, WA. Available at

http://northpacificlcc.org/documents/NPLCC_Marine_Climate%20Effects_Draft%20Final.pdf. 

Accessed April 16, 2013. 

Tu, M. 1974. The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Invasive Species Team. The Nature Conservancy. 

Oregon Field Office. Revision by J.Soll & B.Lipinski. 

Tu, M. 2004. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Control and Management in the Pacific 

Northwest. The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Invasive Species Team. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Invasive Species Overview Page. 

Available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandhealth/invasivespecies/?cid=stelprdb5301377. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Final Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population 

Segment of North American Green Sturgeon; Final Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 195/Friday, 

October 9, 2009/Rules and Regulations, 50 CFR Part 226. 

U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Grays Harbor (Inner) Dioxin Total Maximum 

Daily Load: Recommendation. Publication # 92-10-202. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-83

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Concept plan for waterfowl wintering habitat 

preservation: Washington and Oregon coasts: priority categories 14 and 15. Portland, OR. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region One. 

USFWS. 1990. Management and Development Plan for Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. 130 

pp. Hoquiam, Washington. Prepared by Grays Harbor Refuge Planning Team. 

USFWS. 1996a. Water Howellia (Howelia aquatilis) Recovery Plan, Public and Agency Review 

Draft. Helena, MT. Vi. Plus 52 pp. 

USFWS. 1996b. Final Environmental Assessment. Proposed Addition of the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. Thurston County. United States Department of the Interior. 

USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of 

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume II (of II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. 

Portland, OR. 277 + xvi pp. 

USFWS. 2010a. Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

USFWS. 2010b. Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat Revision, 2010. Available at

www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/ 

USFWS. 2010c Revised Bull Trout Critical Habitat Final Rule. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/FinalCH2010.html

USFWS. 2010d. Rising to the urgent challenge. Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at 

https://inside.fws.gov/media/climatechange/CCStrategicPlan.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2013. 

USFWS. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment 

Form: Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Region 1 (Pacific Region). Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2012/r1/D02A_V01.pdf

U.S. Office of Federal Register. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final 

Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment 

of North American Green Sturgeon. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 195 (October 9, 2009): 52300- 

52351. Docket No. 080730953–91263–02] RIN 0648–AX04. 

Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, eds. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and 

change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870. 

Warnock, N, M.A. Bishop, J.Y. Takekawa, and T.D. Williams. 2004. Pacific Flyway Shorebird 

Migration Program: Spring Western Sandpiper Migration, Northern Baja California, Mexico to 

Alaska: Final report 2004. 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1992. Washington’s Wetlands. Publication #92-105. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-84 Chapter 4. Biological Environment

WDOE. 2008. Washington 2008 Water Quality Assessment. Olympia, WA. Available at

http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wqawa2008/viewer.htm. 

WDOE. 2015a. Nonnative Invasive Freshwater Plants: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) 

Technical Information. Available at

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua011.html. Accessed August 17, 2015. 

WDOE. 2015b. What are Noxious Freshwater Weeds? Available at

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/exotic.html. Accessed August 17, 2015. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Management Recommendations for 

Washington's Priority Species, Volume I: Invertebrates. Olympia, WA. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00024. 

WDFW. 2012. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/All/. 

WDFW. 2013. Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Online/Interactive Mapping. Olympia, WA. 

Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/disclaimer.html. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1997. Final Habitat Conservation 

Plan. Olympia, WA. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/HCP/WDNR%20State%20Trust%20Lands%20HCP.pdf. 

Washington State Department of Transportation. (WSDOT). 2010. NOAA Threatened and 

Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Occurring in Washington State under the Jurisdiction of the 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Available at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/bio_noaa.htm, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SpeciesLists.cfm. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2008. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in 

Washington, Thurston County. Bristly Sedge (Carex comosa). Available at 

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/pdf/caco8.pdf. 

Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. 2012. Ocean Acidification: 

From knowledge to action: Washington State’s strategic response. H. Adelsman and 

L. Whitely Binder (eds). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Publication no. 12-01-015. Available at 

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/wa_state_blue_ribbon_panel_oa_11-27-2012.pdf. Accessed April 22, 

2013. 

Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSAG). 2011. Progress of the 2010 Spartina 

Eradication Program. Available at

http://agr.wa.gov/PlantsInsects/Weeds/Spartina/docs/SpartinaReport2010.pdf. 

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WSNWCB). 2011. Written Findings of the 

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board Draft September 1, 2011. Available at 

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/siteFiles/Zostera percent20japonica percent20draft percent20written 

percent20findings_1_Sept_2011.pdf. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-85

Weldon C, L.H. du Preez, A.D. Hyatt, R. Muller, R. Speare. 2004. Origin of the amphibian chytrid 

fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/12/03-

0804.htm. 

White, R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Houghten Mifflin Co., Boston. 

Williams, T. 1999. The terrible turtle trade. Audubon 101(2):44, 46–48, 50–51. 

Willis, C.G., B.R. Ruhfel, R.B. Primack, A.J. Miller-Rushing, J.B. Losos, and C.C. Davis. 2010. 

Favorable climate change response explains nonnative species’ success in Thoreau’s Woods. PLoS 

ONE 5(1): e8878. 

Witmer, G.W. and J.C. Lewis. 2001. Introduced Wildlife of Oregon and Washington. Wildlife 

Damage Management, Internet Center for USDA National Wildlife Research Center. University of 

Nebraska. Lincoln, NE. Available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/01pubs/01-86.pdf. 

Wolfe, J.C. 1973. Grays Harbor Estuary Studies–Phase I-A Progress Report #2 – September 1973. 

Wolfe, J.C., D.T. Moore, and R. Cameron. 1974. Evaluation of the Macrobenthic Communities of an 

Unconfined Intertidal Dredge Spoil and Contrast Site in Grays Harbor. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Seattle, WA. 87 pp. 

Wolfe, J.C. and D.T. Moore. 1973. A Partial Ecological Assessment of the Grays Harbor estuary, 

WA. 66 pp. 

Wood, B. and J.D. Stark. 2002. Acute toxicity of drainage ditch water from a Washington state 

cranberry growing region to Daphnia pulex in laboratory bioassays. Ecotoxicology and 

Environmental Safety, 53(2), pp.273–280. 

Xerces Society. 2011. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available at 

http://www.xerces.org. 

Yake, W. and J. Bernhardt. 1989. The Black River Fish Kill Report. Washington Department of 

Ecology. Publication 89-54. 30 pp. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

4-86 Chapter 4. Biological Environment
Chapter 5

Human Environment

USFWS

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-1

Chapter 5. Human Environment

5.1 Cultural and Historical Resources

5.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated by law to appropriately manage the cultural 

resources under its control (Appendix F). This cultural history provides an overview of the known 

archaeological and ethnographic use of resources in the congressionally authorized boundaries of 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. 

5.1.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Resources

Paleontological and Prehistoric Sites

There is no known information about paleontological resources occurring on the Refuge. While there 

are no prehistoric archaeological sites recorded on the Refuge, there has also been no systematic 

archaeological survey or testing conducted. A large portion of the approved boundary is open water 

and tidelands, which is not a conducive environment for archaeological survey. Any potential precontact sites around the shoreline could be buried beneath accumulated sediment or introduced fill. 

The archaeological record for Washington’s southern ocean coastline is not well documented as a 

result of limited surveys and often unfavorable environments for artifact preservation. There is one 

documented prehistoric site across the North Bay area. While there is no connection between this site 

and the Refuge, this and other known sites can inform our understanding of the types of 

environmental settings and potential composition of sites that might exist in relation to the Refuge.

Native American Cultural History and Landscape 

The coastal people were mobile hunters, gatherers, and fishermen who moved around following a 

seasonal cycle dictated by the availability of resources in the region’s diverse ecosystems, with 

camps located on the coast nearer to traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering areas likely being 

occupied primarily in the spring and summer, and villages located in more protected locations being 

occupied in the winter months [(Wessen 1990:418) in Parks 2011]. 

The Grays Harbor area was and remains an important location to Native Americans for cultural 

activities, such as fishing; hunting; plant and shellfish gathering; travel; trade; and social, ceremonial,

and religious uses. The Quinault and Chehalis tribes use fisheries stocks from the harbor. Ancestors 

of many contemporary tribes used the Grays Harbor area at treaty times and in many cases, their 

descendants continue to use the area. In addition, other Indian peoples who may or may not have 

used the Grays Harbor area directly used the resources of Grays Harbor through trade, hunting, and 

fishing (James and Martino 1986). 

Ethnographically, the Refuge is within the area traditionally occupied by the Lower Chehalis— 

members of the Southwestern Coastal Salish culture group (Hajda 1990:503). The Hoquiam and 

Humptulips, sometimes described as subgroups, bands, or tribelets of Lower Chehalis, utilized the 

north shore of Grays Harbor. The Lower Chehalis people were water-oriented, focusing on fish as a 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment

staple resource. According to one report, the north shore of Bowerman Basin is a documented 

sweetgrass gathering area ([Dellert et al. 2010] in Parks 2011). 

The Quinault tribe includes the Grays Harbor area within their usual and accustomed fishing grounds 

[(Swindell 1942) in James and Martino 1986]. Many other tribes have historically been associated 

with Grays Harbor because of the great amount of natural resources, especially fish, and ease of 

access; some of the tribes include the Hoh, Makah, Queets, Quileute, Shoalwater Bay, Skokomish, 

and the Squaxin Island (James and Martino 1986). This list of tribes is neither complete nor 

exclusive. 

One specific description of historic use by local tribes in what is now the Refuge is: 

Remains of an Indian fish trap were identified south of the eastern tip of Moon Island, along the 

North Channel (Herman 1985). The south shore of Moon Island was identified as a site where 

weaving materials were picked prior to construction of the airport, when access became difficult 

(Susewind 1983) [in James and Martino 1986]. 

Euro-American Exploration and Settlement 

Government Land Office (GLO) maps provide some of the earliest documentation of what the 

landscape of the area looked like prior to large-scale settlement by Euro-Americans. The changing 

shoreline on the north side of Grays Harbor in Hoquiam appears to have started as a result of the 

filling of tideflats to expand sawmills operations at the Grays Harbor Lumber Company in the early 

years of the 20th century while it was owned by NJ Blagen. This area is located well outside of the 

Refuge to the east, but it does have some bearing on the development of the landform which bounds 

the Refuge on its south side. According to the site form for the Blagen Mill, the historic deposits 

occur under 1 to 12 feet of historic and recent fill, while the prehistoric deposits, which include split 

cedar stakes associated with fish weirs, occur below 17 to 21 feet of fill. A 2006 report regarding a 

power substation outside the east boundary of the Refuge suggests that the fill in that area dates to 

the 1950s, but the claim is not substantiated by a reference. 

The southern boundary of the Refuge includes a small amount of land on Bowerman Peninsula 

(formerly known as Moon Island). The 1866 GLO plat suggests that the strip of land known as Moon 

Island did not exist prehistorically. No maps for the period between 1866 and 1935 have been 

located. However, the 1935 Metsker map illustrates that while there appears to have been emergent 

mudflat topography, there was no permanent landform in the area of Moon Island at that time, which 

is confirmed by a February 1935 Army aerial photograph. Newspaper articles and notices of the late 

1930s and early 1940s fill in some of the gaps in the evolution of the island, more accurately a 

peninsula, as it is connected to the mainland (the filled tideflats) to the east. Because the Refuge 

encompasses a portion of this strip of land, its evolution is relevant to the history of the Refuge and is 

explored in more detail below. 

Moon Island Airport and the Works Progress Administration (WPA)

Articles and photographs provide conflicting information about the development of the Moon Island 

(later Bowerman) Airport, but the general timeline points to initial construction between 1937 and 

1940, with expansion by the Army during World War II (WWII). In the December 18, 1935, 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, a small notice on page two announced the approval of a plan for an 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3

airport on Moon Island. The obituary of former Mayor Ralph Philbrick in 1945 attributes the airport 

to the mayor’s vision: 

It was Mayor Philbrick who first saw the possibility of an airport in the Moon Island District. 

It was largely through his efforts that the plans were accepted by the works progress 

administration & became a reality (Aberdeen Daily World 27 January 1945). 

Two articles in 1937 suggest that the construction process did not go smoothly, and they also provide 

insight into the role the WPA played in the project. 

The Mt. Adams Sun included the following in its summary of regional news on its Northwest News 

Weekly page for November 15, 1940, which, in concert with the fact that WPA workers had already 

been at work as early as 1937, suggests that planning and construction were contemporaneous: 

Federal and county officials have completed plans for what will ultimately be an 800-acre airport 

on Moon Island, west of here. Cost will be $412,788 (Mt. Adams Sun 1940). 

The Port of Grays Harbor produced a timeline on the occasion of its centennial in 2011 which 

included an entry for 1940: “The Port agreed to furnish the Robert Gray Dredge to help the United 

States Government’s Works Progress Administration in the construction of Moon Island Airport” 

(Port of Grays Harbor n.d.). 

In 1942, during WWII, the airport became an Army airfield (HistoryLink.org 2010) and returned to 

civilian operation in 1946 (Port of Grays Harbor n.d.). It was renamed Bowerman Field in 1953 in 

honor of WWII fighter pilot Robert Bowerman, who founded Western Washington Airways. The 

airport was operated for several years by Grays Harbor County, with financial contributions from the 

Port of Grays Harbor, which took over sole ownership and control in 1962. 

Known Historic Sites

There are no historic sites recorded on the Refuge. An 1866 GLO map illustrates that much of the 

current ground surface associated with the Refuge has been deposited and developed within the last 

150 years. The Moon Island Airport Terminal is the closest known resource to the Refuge. 

5.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The cultural history of the Black River Unit is identified primarily from a report concerning 

differences in vegetation over time in the Black River lowlands (Easterly and Salstrom 2008) and a 

cultural resource report and overviews prepared by Service archaeologists (Parks 2011). 

5.1.2.1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Resources

Paleontological and Prehistoric Sites 

There is no known information about paleontological resources occurring on the Unit; there are no 

prehistoric archaeological sites recorded. However, there has been virtually no systematic 

archaeological survey or testing conducted. Moreover, a large portion of the approved boundary is 

not currently under Federal ownership. All ground-disturbing activities proposed for the Unit and for 

parcels that are acquired in the future will be subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Historic Preservation Act, which may include pedestrian surveys and other identification efforts as 

appropriate (Parks 2011). 

Native American Cultural History and Landscape 

The Black River Unit lies within the territory of the Southwestern Coast Salish peoples (Hajda 1990). 

In particular, the Upper Chehalis Tribe fished the waters of the Black River and harvested camas (an 

edible plant) from the surrounding prairies (south of the Unit) and used fire to maintain open fields 

for game species (elk and deer) and plants. As noted by Cooper, one of the “naturalists to the 

expedition” surveying the route of the Pacific Northern Railroad in the mid-1850s: 

A few remarks are necessary upon the origin of the dry prairies so singularly scattered through 

the forest region. Their most striking feature is the abruptness of the forests which surround 

them, giving them the appearance of stands which have been cleared and cultivated for hundreds 

of years. From various facts observed I conclude that they are the remains of much more 

extensive prairies, which, within a comparatively recent period, occupied all the lower and dryer 

parts of the valleys, and which the forests have been gradually spreading over in their downward 

progress from the mountains. The Indians, in order to preserve their open grounds for game, and 

for the production of their important root, the camas, soon found the advantage of burning, and 

when they began this it was only those trees already large enough that could withstand the fires. 

(Cooper 1859, as quoted in Storm 2004, in Parks 2011) 

Ethnographic evidence indicates that the Southwestern Coast Salish peoples were divided into small 

bands that claimed resource areas such as watersheds (Larson and Jermann 1978:10). The Upper

Chehalis-speaking Squiaitl or Kwaiailk ranged from the Black River northward to Eld Inlet (Hajda

1990). The individual groups were loosely affiliated, sharing similar dialects and resource-based 

lifestyles, but not political connections. Most villages were located at the mouths or confluences of 

creeks and rivers for easy access to fisheries. Houses were constructed with posts and cedar planks in 

a long, rectangular form that accommodated several families. Rivers were important transportation 

routes for the inland Upper Chehalis, but trails were also important in areas where streams were 

impassible or infrequent (Hajda 1990 in Parks 2011). 

Subsistence patterns were defined by seasonal availability of salmon runs, roots, and berries, 

supplemented by gathering shellfish and hunting. In the spring and summer, villages would divide 

into smaller clusters to gather berries and hunt. Stone tools, net weights, shell middens, and firecracked rocks used for cooking foods are the most obvious evidence of occupation sites (Speulda 

1997 in Parks 2011). 

Euro-American Exploration and Settlement 

Descriptions of conditions along the river near the beginning of European settlement are provided by 

official records made by early explorers in the area. Comments on the vegetation from two 

expeditions in the area thought to be within the current boundaries of the Black River. The first of 

these was in 1824, when the Hudson Bay Company sponsored the James McMillan Expedition, a 41-

man expedition to the Frasier River from the Columbia River in search of sites for trading forts. The 

McMillan Expedition noted: 

[T]he river became ... so narrow and nearly choked up with willow and trees that we found it 

necessary to make a portage.... the shores are complete thickets of willows and different kinds of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5

deciduous trees, mostly ash. The portage is a fine road through a handsome plain. Saw several 

marks of beaver by their cuttings they seem to be fonder of the ash than other trees” ([Work 

1824] in Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

The second expedition through the area was in 1841, when Charles Wilkes commanded the earliest 

U.S. Exploring Expedition to reach the Oregon Country. Wilkes sent a party of nine men in July of 

that year from the Hudson Bay Company’s Fort Nisqually to Grays Harbor by way of the Black 

River. From an area just below Black Lake, the Wilkes’ Expedition noted: 

This appeared at first almost impassable, for it was for four miles almost choked up with 

Sparganium, Nup[h]ar, &c., so that it was difficult to pass even with the small canoe. Its 

breadth was from twenty to sixty feet, and it was from three to twelve feet deep. The turns 

were sometimes so short, that the large canoe would be in contact with the thickets on the 

banks at both ends, and it required much force to drag her along, by pulling by the branches, 

and caused great labor in cutting their way. . . They were obliged to continue their course 

down the river, until nine o’clock at night, before they could find any place to encamp, on 

account of the bog and jungle ([Wilkes 1844, pp 132-133]in Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

Euro-American settlement in the Nisqually Delta occurred in the early 1800s. The Hudson’s Bay 

Company established Fort Nisqually in 1832. The small settlement of farmers developed a thriving 

livestock industry to support other Hudson’s Bay Company outposts. Overland migration beginning 

in the 1840s brought Americans into the Northwest, many of whom chose the Puget Sound Region in 

which to settle (Speulda 1997). Settlement of the Littlerock and Black River area began in the 1850s 

by the Dodge, Shotwell, and Rutledge families. In 1852, Thurston County was established and 

Olympia selected as the provisional capitol of the Washington Territory (Parks 2011). 

At each section corner GLO surveyors recorded notes about the vegetation encountered along the 

line in the previous mile segment. Records included the species encountered (generally trees and 

shrubs); presence, extent, and/or sign of fire along the GLO transect; and general composition of the 

understory (sparse/dense). Also noted were the transition points between prairies, hills, marshes (or 

bottomlands), timber and burnt timber, usually with the bearing direction of the ecotone/margin 

noted. The locations, width, and direction of rivers and streams were also recorded. Township maps 

were then drawn using GLO field notebook data. These maps showed the section line locations of 

rivers, streams, prairies, hills, and marshes, and the estimated direction or shape of the feature 

(Easterly and Salstrom 2008). 

More quantitative historic information was provided by surveys done for the GLO and Donation 

Land Claims, which were done during the 1850s in the study area. For the GLO surveys, transects 

were made first to establish Township boundaries; later surveys established the corners of each 

Section within the Township. The GLO survey maps are among the earliest 

documentation/description of the landscape prior to farming and development (Parks 2011) (Table 5-

3). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Table 5-1. Summary of Landscape Descriptions on GLO survey maps in the vicinity of Black 

River.

Township Range Date

Completed

Notes on landscape in study area

16 North 3 West 1855 Soil in the river bottom first rate; rolling gravelly prairie soil 

second rate; Land rolling soil second rate. Timber for cedar 

and maple; undergrowth hazel, fern, vine, maple, salal

17 North 2 West 1854 Unsurveyed land unfit for settlement or cultivation

17 North 3 West 1856 Alder, willow, and spruce swamp, entirely covered with 

water. Unfit for cultivation. Impassible and unsurveyed 

(Black River floodplain)

Known Historic Sites

As parcels are acquired within the approved boundary of the Unit, they often come with standing 

structures associated with the area’s agricultural history. Several farm complexes or residential 

structures have been documented and evaluated by the Service’s Cultural Resources Team as they 

were acquired. One site was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP), and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to mitigate effects of demolition was adopted 

and its stipulations were completed in 2005. Three farms were determined to be ineligible. Where 

needed, the subject buildings have been recorded and removed or are slated for removal through 

demolition and salvage. 

Historic Resources Recorded on the Black River Unit

The history of land use and development associated with the farms provides an important source of 

background information for Unit management when making decisions regarding habitat restoration 

and enhancement. The following text from Parks (2011) summarizes information about the various 

parcels within the Unit boundaries. 

Weiks-Evergreen Dairy 

The first settler to acquire land in the area encompassed by the Evergreen Dairy was Nathaniel Z. 

Thallheimer in 1866, when he filed for a Donation Land Claim for 162.26 acres in the NW 1⁄4 of the 

section (GLO Records #216). Another claimant, possibly William Morey, filed for a homestead 

claim in 1869 for the NE 1⁄4 of the section. The homesteads were not successful and there is no 

evidence remaining of the pioneer period. 

In 1879, Thomas Rutledge opened a post office, designated Littlerock, to serve the local community. 

Logging increased during the 1880s, and there were 40 logging camps operating in Thurston County 

(Costantini and Stevenson 1985:7). The town of Littlerock was platted in the 1890s. The railroad, 

constructed in about 1890, crosses through the eastern portion of section 2, connecting through the 

community of Littlerock. Land speculation followed the railroad, and by 1900 two land development 

companies, Everett’s Addition and Waddell Valley Garden Tracts, were advertising in the Black 

River Valley for small 5- to 10-acre tracts. The Waddell Valley Garden Tracts B-9, B-10, and B-11 

encompass most of the area that later became the Evergreen Dairy.

The early 1900s was a period of growth for Thurston County, with Olympia growing in population 

and expanding its government offices. The dairy industry also began to thrive because the growing 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7

population created a local market for fresh milk. By the 1920s and 30s, electricity extended to many 

farms and all-electric milking machinery and modern equipment for bottling milk added to the 

convenience and safety of fresh milk. Home delivery increased with modern delivery trucks. After 

WWII, the dairy industry consolidated as larger, regionally-based dairies began marketing their 

products at supermarkets. This trend continued, reducing the number of small, family-owned dairies. 

Carl Weiks was born in 1876 in Norway and stowed away on a vessel bound for the United 

States, drawn to Washington by the logging boom of the 1890s. By 1910, Weiks had settled 

his growing family near Littlerock and was working as a logger and later became a livestock and 

dairy farmer.

The Polk’s Directory for Thurston County lists Carl Weiks in the 1919–1920 directory, but it was not 

until 1923–1924 that he was listed as the Carl Weiks Dairy. By the early 1930s, there were 16 dairies 

listed in the vicinity. Weiks’ was one of the first, and thanks to his ability to draw on family 

members, the enterprise was able to diversify and became successful during and after the Depression. 

The Evergreen Dairy bottled milk and had the home delivery route for most of Tumwater from the 

mid-1920s to about 1940. After WWII, they branched out into poultry and livestock breeding. The 

family operation continued, evolving to adapt to the changing industry, until the mid-1980s, when the 

time of the independent, family-owned dairy was coming to a close. In 1985, Darigold, a large 

national dairy chain, began leasing the operation, but then began to close it down (Speulda 2004a). 

A 1985 countywide cultural resources survey which inventoried representative “prevalent styles of 

architecture, important social organizations, commercial governmental and agricultural development 

and important individuals who have influenced the culture, history and government of Thurston 

County” (Costantini and Stevenson 1985), included the Weiks-Evergreen Dairy among the 143 out 

of 318 properties that met the criteria of significance.

In 1997, the dairy, situated at an elevation of about 130 feet on a 100-year floodplain, was inundated 

by floodwaters, soon followed by a downturn in the market in 1999. These factors forced the Weiks 

family into foreclosure and they lost the farm in 1999. Scatter Creek Holdings purchased several 

farms at auction, then sold them to The Nature Conservancy, which in turn offered selected parcels to 

the Service, including the Weiks-Evergreen Dairy, the La France Farm, and the North Farm. The 

Service acquired the parcels in 2002 with 20 buildings still standing. 

La France Farm 

The first settler to acquire the land in the La France Farm area was Marcy C. William, who in 1869 

completed the requirements for a homestead for the 160-acre parcel. Her claim encompassed most of 

the area currently developed as the community of Littlerock. No additional information about Marcy 

William has been uncovered. The parcel was subsequently subdivided with the railroad, constructed 

in 1890 crossing through the claim northwest to southeast, and La France Road dividing east and 

west halves of the claim. By 1900, two land development companies, Everett’s Addition and Garden 

Tracts, were operating in the Black River Valley, subdividing the valley into small 5- and 10-acre 

tracts. The La France Farm area was included in the Everett’s Addition subdivision as Lot 24 

(Metsker 1900). 

In about 1914 Carl Weiks began purchasing lots within the Everett’s Addition and Garden Tracts 

subdivision, amassing several hundred acres for a dairy operation from the development companies 

that had proven unsuccessful. After WWII, the family used the La France Farm for raising pigs. The 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment

family owned the La France Farm as part of their extensive operations until 1998, when a downturn 

in the market led to foreclosure on the property. Scatter Creek Holdings purchased several farms in 

the Black River Valley during an auction following the foreclosure. Several parcels, including La 

France Farm, were subsequently purchased by The Nature Conservancy, which then offered the 

parcels to the Service. The farm did not contain a house or other elements of a farm to distinguish it, 

and the two sheds on the land at time of the Service’s purchase were determined to be ineligible to 

the NRHP (Speulda 2001a).

North Farm

When the GLO survey of this location was completed in 1856, it was listed simply as a swamp with 

no improvements. The first transfer of the property from Federal ownership occurred in 1894, when 

it was included in a railroad grant of more than 9,000 acres. In about 1911, a development grant was 

issued for Waddell Creek Valley Garden Tracts by N.J. and Lucy Redpath and C.E. and Barbetta J. 

Maynard. The garden tracts were 5- to 10-acre plots for a subdivision type of development. They had 

been logged over and were described locally as “stump farms” (Weiks, M. 2001b. pers comm.). The 

subdivision never materialized, instead the lots were combined into larger blocks for agricultural 

development. 

The North Farm is among the Waddell Creek Valley tracts that were purchased by Carl Weiks in 

about 1914. Members of the family remember living adjacent to the North Farm, but not on it. The 

family continued to own the North Farm as part of their extensive operations until 1997, when a 

change in family interests led to foreclosure on the property and an auction sale to Scatter Creek 

Holdings (along with La France Farm and the Weiks’ Evergreen Dairy Farm). 

When the farm was evaluated in 2001, there were 10 buildings. All were constructed between the 

1930s and 1980s, and were determined to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP (Speulda 2001b). All 

but two have been removed. 

Kiser Tract

The Kiser Tract is a 68.8-acre parcel of agricultural land in the Black River floodplain that was 

acquired for inclusion in the Black River Unit in 2000. A complex of buildings on 3 acres at the 

western edge of the property was evaluated for its significance in 2004 in anticipation of demolition 

for safety and management reasons. The Kiser buildings were not included among the significant 

historic properties identified in the 1985 Thurston County cultural resources survey (Costantini and 

Stevenson 1985). In 1856, when the GLO survey was completed, the area where the farm was later 

situated was identified as swamp land with no improvements. The SE 1⁄4 of section 35 was 

homesteaded by John F. Shotwell. No buildings or features on the property correlate with the original 

homestead period of the 1870s. None of the existing buildings on the parcel were determined to be 

eligible to the NRHP when purchased by the Service (Speulda 2004b). 

Although only the historic sites above have been recorded on lands owned by the Refuge, there are 

very likely additional tracts that will be acquired in the future which include infrastructure greater 

than 50 years old. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9

5.2 Infrastructure and Facilities

The infrastructure and facilities discussed in this section include buildings, roads, trails, regulatory 

and interpretive signs, and other physical structures. Refer to Chapter 2, Alternative 1, and Map 1 for 

the locations of existing facilities.

5.2.1 Boundary Fences, Markers, Buildings and Facilities

5.2.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge encompasses 1,851 acres within the approved Refuge boundary (Map 3). Most of the 

boundary is marked with signs. The perimeter of the Refuge borders State Highway 109 to the north 

and Paulson Road to the east. The western boundary extends into the open water and is marked with 

marine pilings and boundary signs. The boundary on the south is adjacent to property owned by the 

Port of Grays Harbor. In some locations the boundary may not be posted or posted slightly inside the 

actual property line due to difficult water or land conditions. Periodically, boundary signage is 

checked to identify and replace damaged and missing signs. 

The Refuge owns a large building along Airport Way. This building was a distributor business prior 

to purchase by the Refuge, and for a number of years the Grays Harbor Food Bank was issued a 

special use permit to utilize the warehouse for a distribution site. It includes 10,000 square feet of 

warehouse and an area with six small rooms and two restrooms. The Refuge maintains the rooms and 

bathrooms for use during the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival and the warehouse serves as Refuge 

storage. Through a cooperative agreement, WDFW and Washington State Department of Agriculture 

also store equipment in the warehouse. The building has a large outdoor covered area, loading docks, 

and a parking area that can accommodate about 40 cars during the Shorebird Festival. The building 

and parking area are enclosed with a chain-link fence. The building is in fair condition. The structure 

is planned to be rehabilitated and converted to a maintenance shop to support Refuge functions or 

operations (Chapter 2, Objective 5.2). 

5.2.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Unit has been closed to all public use and activities during the development and ongoing 

acquisition phase. Unit boundary signs or fences are generally installed around the perimeter of all 

newly acquired lands. As parcels are acquired, the buildings on them are often not needed. The Unit

has several derelict buildings in need of removal. These include barns, outbuildings, and houses that 

are in disrepair and need to be demolished. The remaining buildings are subject to trespass and 

vandalism. Removal of these buildings is a priority and will continue as funding becomes available. 

This need is also included in the Common to All Section of Chapter 2.2. 

5.2.2 Roads, Parking Areas, and Trails 

5.2.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Refuge does not own or maintain any roads. Adjacent roads are owned by Grays Harbor County, 

the City of Hoquiam, and the Port of Grays Harbor. The Refuge clears vegetation along the roadways 

when necessary for clearance of large vehicles. Parking is on Refuge-owned property along Airport 

Way across from Bowerman Airfield. About 40 cars can park in this area. During the Grays Harbor 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-10 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Shorebird Festival visitors also park in the FAA parking lot, along Airport Way east of the FAA 

Building, and in the Refuge facilities yard. During the spring shorebird migration, the Refuge places 

additional temporary signs along Airport Way to help designate visitor parking. 

The Sandpiper Trail starts at the end of the blacktop road at Bowerman Airfield. The Port of Grays 

Harbor allows access for 1/3 mile from the Refuge parking area to the trailhead. The Sandpiper Trail 

is a boardwalk that winds through willow thickets, an alder grove, and then makes a loop out into the 

saltmarsh where visitors have unobstructed and close-up views of the mudflats where migrating 

shorebirds are feeding and resting. The willow and alder thickets are also great places to see 

neotropical migrant songbirds that use the vegetation for cover, feeding, and nesting. Along the trail, 

there are several areas with benches and good views of the mudflats; one viewing area has four 

interpretive panels. In the area of the loop, there are viewing areas and benches and one spotting 

scope. During the shorebird migration, temporary interpretive signs are located along the boardwalk. 

No dogs, jogging, or bicycling is allowed on the Refuge, including the Sandpiper Trail. However, 

these activities are allowed on the blacktop road prior to the trailhead. Visitors often walk their dogs, 

jog, or bike along the blacktop road. The Refuge maintains No Dogs, No Jogging, and No Biking 

signs at the Sandpiper Trailhead and at the kiosk, but these signs are vandalized and these activities 

do occur on the Sandpiper Trail as observed by Refuge staff and volunteers.

5.2.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

The Black River Unit does not maintain any roads, parking areas, or trails. 

5.3 Recreation Overview

5.3.1 Entrances and Public Access Points

5.3.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Refuge is open daily during daylight hours. There is one official entrance to the Refuge on 

Airport Way. Visitors park in a marked parking area along Airport Way and walk 1/3 mile along a 

blacktop road owned by the Port of Grays Harbor to reach the Sandpiper Trail trailhead. The parking 

area has a kiosk with brochures and Refuge information. The Port of Grays Harbor maintains a 

secure gate across the road at the location of the kiosk. Through a cooperative agreement with the 

Port of Grays Harbor, Refuge visitors are allowed to walk the blacktop road to reach the trailhead. 

Discussions are ongoing with the Port regarding visitor access because of increased FAA security 

regulations. 

5.3.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

No lands have been officially opened for public access. Some Unit-owned lands are fenced, gated, 

and posted. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-11

5.3.2 Open and Closed Areas

5.3.2.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Open Areas. The Refuge is open daily from sunrise to sunset. The only areas of the Refuge that are 

open to the public are the parking area along Airport Way and the Sandpiper Trail. Refuge wildlife 

and habitats may also be viewed while walking along Paulson Road, Airport Way, and the blacktop 

road leading to the Sandpiper trail. 

Closed Areas. All areas except the Sandpiper Trail and the parking area are closed to public access. 

However, the Refuge building and parking area are open during the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival. 

Navigable waters surround the Refuge to the west, but due to the extreme tidal movement and lack of 

access points, boating is not a popular activity. Open waters of the Refuge are closed to all boating 

access due to potential disturbance to migratory and resident birds. 

5.3.2.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Closed Areas. All areas of the Unit are closed to public access. 

5.3.3 Annual Recreation Visits

5.3.3.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Although the Refuge is in a rural setting, the area is well-known in the birding community and 

visited often by birders from throughout Western Washington. Most visitation occurs during a 3-

week period in the spring when shorebirds migrate through the area. The Refuge is close to U.S. 

Highway 101’s Pacific Coast Scenic Byway and is adjacent to State Highway 109, which is the main 

highway for visitors along the Washington Coast. This route was recently designated the Hidden 

Coast Scenic Byway. 

Visitor numbers have remained constant over the years; based on estimates from staff and volunteers, 

13,000 annual visitors are reported for the Refuge Annual Performance Plan. Visitation during the 3-

day Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival is estimated at 1,250 at the Refuge. 

5.3.3.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Service ownership of the Black River Unit does not include the waters of the Black River. The river

is used as a recreational site for boating, fishing, canoeing, wildlife observation, and other activities. 

All areas of the Unit are closed to public access. 

5.3.3.3 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs 

5.3.3.4 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Refuge’s Sandpiper Trail is barrier-free and provides people of all abilities with high-quality 

wildlife viewing opportunities. The trail wanders through a willow thick and alder grove and 

provides close-up views of the mudflats where migrating shorebirds can be easily seen. The mile-
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment

long trail is flat and wide. To access the trail, visitors park in an area that is partly paved and partly

gravel and has several spaces designated for people with disabilities. From here, visitors travel 

through a gate and down a blacktop road. 

5.3.3.5 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

All areas of the Unite are closed to public access. 

5.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

5.4.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Sandpiper Trail is maintained to accommodate wildlife observation and photography. In 

addition, there are viewing and photographing opportunities available from the parking area and 

along the blacktop road leading to the Sandpiper Trail. 

Most Refuge visits are associated with wildlife observation and photography and occur along the 

Sandpiper Trail. Photography visits have increased with advances in camera phones and digital 

photography. Increasingly, the Refuge attracts professional or serious recreational photographers 

using high-powered lenses, and digital single-lens reflex camera equipment. The Sandpiper Trail 

provides photographers and wildlife observers with access to a mix of habitats, proximity to wildlife, 

and open views. 

5.4.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

All areas of the Unit are closed to public access.

5.5 Interpretation and Outreach

5.5.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

5.5.1.1 The Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival 

Grays Harbor Audubon Society started the Shorebird Festival in the early 1990s. The Refuge has 

been a partner in producing the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival since 1997. Typically held during 

the last weekend in April, the Festival is a time for celebrating the annual spring migration of 

shorebirds in Grays Harbor County. The Festival consists of field trips, lectures, vendors, exhibitors, 

a Nature Fun Fair, banquet, and auction. Proceeds from the festival help fund Refuge programs, 

including the cost-share match for the AmeriCorps/education coordinator. 

The planning of the event begins in September with many individuals and organizations involved in 

all aspects of event. The Shorebird Festival partners include Grays Harbor Audubon Society, the City 

of Hoquiam, and Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. Each partner has a member on an 

executive committee. This committee is responsible for ensuring the mission and intent of the annual 

Festival are fulfilled. The Refuge manager serves on the executive committee. Grays Harbor 

Audubon Society is the fiscal agent for the Festival. The Refuge’s visitor services manager serves on 

the planning committee and assists with all aspects of planning; major responsibilities include 

publicity (brochure and rack card development, website management, and press releases), volunteer 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-13

coordination, and Refuge liaison. The AmeriCorps/education coordinator also is on the planning 

committee with the specific duties of managing the Shorebird Festival Poster Contest and the Nature 

Fun Fair. The Fun Fair runs throughout the Festival and consists of a dozen different hands-on 

nature-related activities aimed at grade school age children. 

During the 3 days of the Festival, the Refuge maintains a presence of volunteers at the Refuge and on 

the Sandpiper Trail. Volunteers provide information to visitors and lead walks during the peak 

shorebird viewing time. The Washington Conservation Corps team works prior to the Festival 

putting up signs, cleaning the building, and doing maintenance on the trail. During the Festival, 

Corps members staff the Port of Grays Harbor gate to allow shuttle busses to get through. They also 

assist with set-up and take-down at the Festival Headquarters. Throughout the 3 weeks of spring 

shorebird migration, volunteers are also trail-roving on the Sandpiper Trail to assist visitors with bird 

identification and other information. 

5.5.1.2 Other Interpretation and Outreach 

As time permits, Refuge volunteers and AmeriCorps members participate in community events such 

as River Days, the Grays Harbor County Fair, the Volunteer Recruitment Fair, and others. Typically, 

a staffed information table and exhibit provides information about the Refuge, shorebirds, and the 

Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival. 

5.5.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

All areas of the Unite are closed to public access.

5.6 Environmental Education

5.6.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

5.6.1.1 Number of Participants 

The environmental education program at the Refuge currently provides on- and offsite programs to 

4,020 students and adults annually. 

5.6.1.2 Education Facilities 

The Refuge has no special facilities to accommodate students participating in the education program. 

The Port of Grays Harbor allows buses to drive past the closed gate to the end of the blacktop road so 

that students can more quickly access the boardwalk trail. Students walk the Sandpiper Trail to 

observe shorebirds, other wildlife and plants, and learn more about the areas habitats. 

5.6.1.3 Teacher Training

Teacher training is considered an integral part of the Refuge’s education program. Trained teachers 

are able to use knowledge and resources year after year with students. Most teacher trainings have 

been conducted in partnership with Educational Service District 113 and the Chehalis Basin 

Education Consortium. Trainings have consisted of Refuge-specific and watershed-wide themes. In 

2012 training was presented for the first time to early childhood educators using the “Growing Up 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Wild” (Council for Environmental Education 2013) program guide. In addition, the education 

coordinator works one-on-one with teachers or with teams in the same school to provide training on 

the curriculum and the Refuge. Educators participating in the program receive “An Educator’s Guide 

to Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge” (USFWS 2012). The guide was adapted from the 

Shorebird Sisters School Program to be specific to the Refuge and contains background on the 

Refuge, shorebirds, and migration, and has a number of activities and resources about shorebirds. 

5.6.1.4 Environmental Education Program Details 

The Refuge began providing educational programs to schools in Grays Harbor County in 2002. Each 

year since then, an AmeriCorps volunteer, serving for 10.5 months has worked as the Refuge’s 

environmental education coordinator. The cost-share match for this position has been provided by 

Refuge partners, Grays Harbor Audubon Society and Friends of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Currently the program serves about 4000 3rd and 4th grade students in Grays Harbor 

County. The education coordinator identifies approximately 24 teachers each year and provides a 

series of six in-classroom lessons and activities on a variety of topics related to ecology, shorebirds, 

and shorebird conservation. The classes then take a field trip to the Refuge during the spring 

shorebird migration where students are able to observe shorebirds and habitats. The cost of bus 

transportation has been covered by Grays Harbor Audubon Society (proceeds from the Grays Harbor 

Shorebird Festival), The Nature of Learning grants secured by the Educational Service District 113, 

or grant funding provided by the Service with match support from partners. The ongoing funding of 

bus transportation is challenging and may not be sustainable. 

Another aspect of the education program is the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival Poster Contest in 

which 1st through 6th graders throughout Grays Harbor County are invited to participate. The 

education coordinator organizes this effort and provides teachers in any grade with classroom 

assistance in getting started with this project. On average, 600 posters are entered in the contest each 

year. The posters are judged by grade. A 1st through 3rd place winner and two honorable mentions are 

awarded for each grade. Five community members with expertise in art and shorebirds are asked to 

judge the contest. From the 1st place winners, a best of show is chosen; this piece of art is used the 

following year for all publicity related to the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival. The poster contest 

winners are recognized during the Festival at an awards ceremony. 

 

During the summer, AmeriCorps members have assisted with a variety of locally run summer camps. 

They provide activities and lessons related to the natural history of the area and the environment. 

Participation in the camps and summer activities are dependent on what local organizations have 

scheduled for their staffing needs and the availability of AmeriCorps member. 

Partners and volunteers working with the education program, both classroom lessons and field trips, 

include Grays Harbor College (Model Watershed program), the City of Hoquiam (AmeriCorps 

volunteers), Grays Harbor Audubon Society (chapter members), Educational Service District 113 

(Chehalis Basin Education Consortium), and trained Refuge volunteers. 

5.6.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

There is currently no environmental education at the Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-15

5.7 Volunteers 

5.7.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge has a small group of about 10 trained Refuge volunteers who help with Refuge clean-up, 

invasive plant control, trail-roving, special events, community outreach, and the education program. 

The AmeriCorps volunteer has the responsibility of managing the volunteer program. They plan and 

organize work parties to clean up debris, clear invasive vegetation, maintain the trail, and recruit 

volunteers to help with the education program and outreach events. Maintaining a Refuge volunteer 

group has been challenging at the unstaffed Refuge. Volunteer recruitment and training occurs every 

couple of years because of limited time for program management by the staff. The Refuge provides a 

modest recognition event each year and gives volunteers awards and certificates.

5.7.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Unit does not maintain a volunteer program, however, if appropriate volunteers from Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually Refuge could be used.

5.8 Law Enforcement

Protecting resources and people on our refuges is the fundamental responsibility of Refuge law 

enforcement officers. The mission of the Refuge Law Enforcement Program is to support the 

administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System through the management and protection of 

natural, historic, and cultural resources; property; and people on the lands and waters of our national 

wildlife refuges.

5.8.1 Refuge Law Enforcement Objectives 

Law enforcement is an integral part of managing the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge law 

enforcement officers are responsible for upholding Federal laws and regulations that protect natural 

resources, the public, and employees. These are our objectives:

• Protect Refuge visitors and employees from disturbance or harm by others 

• Assist visitors in understanding Refuge laws, regulations, and the reasons for them 

• Enhance the management and protection of fish and wildlife resources on Refuges 

• Ensure the legally prescribed, equitable use of fish and wildlife resources on 

Refuges

• Obtain compliance with the laws and regulations necessary for the proper 

administration, management, and protection of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System

5.8.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

The Refuge receives law enforcement coverage to support major public events and peak visitation 

periods from a Service zone officer located at Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge in 

Olympia. Zone officers are assigned to multiple refuges and large geographic regions. They enforce 

special refuge regulations via periodic patrols of refuge lands to protect resources and maintain 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-16 Chapter 5. Human Environment

public safety. The most common law enforcement issues encountered on Grays Harbor Refuge are 

violations of Refuge closures (trespass into closed areas), visitor presence after hours, vandalism 

(defaced signs and destruction of trees), littering, and trash dumping (household and commercial) 

along the roads or on Federal property. 

5.8.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Law enforcement on the Black River Unit is the same as Grays Harbor Refuge. 

5.9 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities

5.9.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Grays Harbor area surrounding the Refuge has a number of local State parks overlooking the Pacific 

Ocean offering wildlife viewing, beachcombing, trails, and camping. Ocean City State Park, on the 

north side of the Harbor mouth, features interpretive activities during the summer. Westhaven, Twin 

Harbors State Parks in Westport, and Grayland Beach State Park approximately 7 miles south of 

Westport, are known for spectacular oceanfront and beachcombing opportunities. 

Within Grays Harbor estuary, Bottle Beach State Park is located approximately 14 miles west of 

Aberdeen on State Highway 105. It is a 75-acre day-use park along the shore of Grays Harbor, 

offering birdwatching opportunities, especially shorebirds, with more than 130 species of birds 

observed there. The community of Ocean Shores on the northwest coast has multiple birdwatching 

locations especially related to the harbor. 

The WDFW Johns River Wildlife Area is 1,500 acres midway between Aberdeen and Westport 

where waterfowl hunting is allowed, and trails provide good wildlife viewing opportunities during 

nonhunt seasons. 

Along the Washington coastline south of Grays Harbor is the large Willapa Bay estuary with Willapa 

National Wildlife Refuge, which offers wildlife viewing as well as extensive hunting opportunities 

for big game and waterfowl. 

5.9.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

A variety of outdoor pursuits are readily available in the local area. Locally Millersylvania State Park 

is approximately 8 miles from the Unit on the east side of I-5. The park offers camping (tent and 

RV), boating, swimming, mountain biking, hiking, fishing, day-use areas, metal detecting areas, 

amphitheater/programs, environmental learning center, and interpretation. 

The State also manages the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, which has several nearby units: 

The State-owned Black River Unit has 109 acres and is located 5.5 miles south of the 

Refuge-owned Black River Unit in Thurston County. The property provides upland and 

wetland habitats and fishing opportunities. 

Davis Creek Unit is approximately 500 acres and is located just outside the town of Oakville, 

near State Highway 12. Popular activities include hunting for waterfowl, deer, elk, and doves. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-17

The site also hosts numerous specially permitted events for dog field trials and training. 

There is Chehalis River access for fishing on the eastern boundary of the property. This is an 

excellent birding area recognized by the Puget Lowlands Riparian Bird Conservation Area as 

a priority habitat.

The 492-acre Scatter Creek Unit is located 20 miles south of Olympia. Hunting, dog training, 

dog field trials, and exercising the family pet are dominant uses, as well as horseback riding, 

botanical studies, educational field trips, bird and wildlife watching, picnicking, and fishing. 

The landscape is a mixture of uplands, with upland game bird hunting opportunities. 

Just north of the Unit boundary is Black Lake, which offers boat launch access to fish or waterski. 

Personal watercraft is allowed and annual high-speed boat races take place. 

The Black River offers anglers opportunities to fish. Several boat launch sites are found near the 

communities of Littlerock and Gate. A private canoe rental location near Rochester also allows 

access to the River. 

Fishing and waterfowl hunting by boat on the main stem of the river corridor occurs, although the 

Unit has never opened these recreational uses on Unit lands. The patchwork of land ownerships 

along the river prevents the Unit from administratively controlling these activities. 

A boat launch site is located at 123rd Avenue. A small, undesignated area on the southeast side of the 

intersection of 123rd Avenue SW and La France Street SW provides access to the river. From this 

Thurston County property, boaters may proceed north or south on the main stem of the river. There is 

only a primitive dirt/gravel launch area at this location.

Motorized and non-motorized boating occurs on the main stem of the Black River, particularly 

between 110th and 123rd Avenues. The river provides a unique, non-motorized boating experience in 

the South Sound area because of the river’s wild setting. Boaters may also go north of 110th Avenue, 

but this section, north to Black Lake, is challenging because of the dense vegetation, beaver dams, 

and the meandering nature of the river channel. 

During the winter months, an elk herd browses in the open fields off Endicott Road/123rd Avenue 

SW and has become a somewhat popular attraction in recent years. Vehicles pull off the road in this 

area to view the overwintering herd and sometimes people leave their cars to stand beside fences to 

see them more clearly. The cars and people on the road are a safety hazard. There are currently no 

viewing facilities or parking in this area of the Unit. 

Thurston County proposes constructing the Gate-Belmore hike-and-bike trail on the abandoned

Burlington Northern Railroad. The proposed trail corridor would link the urban trail system from 

Tumwater at Kenneydell County Park with the south county communities of Gate and Rochester. 

The 12.5-mile trail would offer access to the Black River and would run adjacent to the Black RiverMima Prairie Glacial Heritage Preserve and Black River Natural Area just south of Littlerock. The 

trail would run near the Refuge and access to the Refuge has been proposed (see 

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/parks/docs/preserve-plan-2013.pdf).
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment

5.10 Recreation Trends

According to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 2000), the six most 

popular individual outdoor recreational activities and percentage of the U.S. population participating 

were walking (87.1 percent), family gatherings (76.1 percent), viewing natural scenery (69.8 

percent), visiting a nature center, nature trail, or zoo (62.8 percent), driving for pleasure through 

natural scenery (60.0 percent), and picnicking (59.9 percent). These types of activities are likely 

popular because the costs to participate are relatively low, physical exertion is minimal, and special 

equipment or developed skills are not required. 

In the state of Washington, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

developed by the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO, formerly known as 

the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation [IAC]) inventories outdoor recreation sites and 

opportunities; assesses recreational participation, preferences, and trends; and considers issues such 

as recreation equity, sustainability, land supply and use, the balance between habitat protection and 

recreation opportunities, economic and funding issues, and technology. The SCORP concludes with 

recommendations to help meet the outdoor recreation needs of residents and visitors and to enhance 

future outdoor recreation planning efforts. The most recently released Washington SCORP (RCO 

2013) identified the 16 major categories of outdoor recreation. Table 5-2 lists the activities in order 

from most to least in terms of participation rates. Walking, hiking, climbing, and mountaineering 

activities, followed by recreational activities, had the highest levels of participation

Table 5-2. Ranking of Major Activity Areas of Washington State Residents (RCO 2013). 

Activity Category Percentage of Population

Walking, hiking, climbing, mountaineering 90.0

Recreational activities (team and individual sports, fitness activities, 

swimming, roller and inline skating, skateboarding)

82.7

Nature activities (including visiting nature centers, wildlife viewing, 

gathering/collecting things, and gardening)

81.4

Picnicking, barbequing, or cooking out 80.9

Water-related activities (including beach activities, boating/floating, 

surfing, water skiing, scuba/snorkeling, spray/splash parks)

75.2

Sightseeing 56.8

Camping 42.4

Bicycle riding 36.9

Fishing or shellfishing 34.1

Snow and ice activities (including snowshoeing, skiing, skating, and 

ATV riding on snow/ice)

31.3

Indoor community facilities 28.4

Hunting or shooting 21.4

Frisbee activities (including disc golf and ultimate frisbee/frisbee 

football)

16.8

Off-roading for recreation 15.3

Horseback riding 7.7

Air activities (including bungee jumping, sky diving, flying various 

aircraft, and ballooning)

3.8
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19

Trends reported in the SCORP show that between 2006 and 2012, there was an increase in 

participation in many of the activities based in nature (including activities not encompassed by the 

more narrow definition of “nature-based activities”), such as hunting, visiting a nature interpretive 

center, fishing, camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing/photographing. While the most recently 

released Washington SCORP examined past trends, it did not offer forecasts of future regional 

recreation demands. A previous survey released by the Washington IAC (IAC 2002) states that 

outdoor recreation in most activities continues to increase at high growth rates. Many outdoor 

activities generally permitted on refuges are expected to show increases of 20–40 percent over the 

next 20 years. Table 5-3 shows the percentage change expected for Washington State by activity as 

reported by IAC in 2006. 

Table 5-3. Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation 

Activities.

Activity Estimated 

Change

10 Years (2002–2012) 

Estimated Change

20 Years (2002–2022) 

Estimated Change

Hiking 10% 20%

Nature activities 23% 37%

Fishing -5% -10%

Hunting -15% -21%

Sightseeing 10% 20%

Camping 10% 20%

Canoeing/kayaking 21% 30%

Motor boating 10% No estimate

Equestrian 5% 8%

Non-pool swimming 19% 29%

5.11 Special Designations

5.11.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Grays Harbor Estuary has been given the designation of a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network Site on the hemispheric level because of its importance to migratory shorebirds (see 

Chapter 1.8.1). 

The Refuge was designated by the Washington Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of 

Washington State (Cullinan 2001)(see Chapter 1.8.2). 

5.11.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. National Wildlife Refuge 

The Unit has no special designations. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment

5.12 Socioeconomic Environment

5.12.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

5.12.1.1 Population and Area Economy 

Grays Harbor Refuge is located in Hoquiam in Grays Harbor County. Aberdeen is contiguous with 

Hoquiam and supports a larger population than Hoquiam. Table 5-4 shows the population and area 

economy. The county population increased 7 percent from 2001 to 2011, compared with a 14 percent 

increase for Washington State and a 9 percent increase for the United States. County employment 

decreased by 3 percent from 2001 to 2011, compared to an employment increase in Washington State 

(9 percent) and the United States (6 percent). Per capita income in Grays Harbor County increased by 

4 percent between 2001 and 2011, while Washington State and the United States both increased by 5 

percent. 

Table 5-4. Grays Harbor NWR: Summary of Area Economy, 2011 (Population & Employment 

in thousands; Per Capita Income in 2011 dollars)

Population Employment Per Capita Income

2011

Percent 

change

2001-2011

2011

Percent 

change

2001-2011

2011

Percent 

change

2001-2011

Grays 

Harbor 72.5 7% 30.4 -3% $30,355 4% 

Washington 6,830.0 14% 3,828.6 9% $43,878 5%

United 

States 311,591.9 9% 175,834.7 6% $41,560 5% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2012. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21

Figure 5-1. Grays Harbor County’s population and employment over the last 10 years. In 2007, 

employment peaked at 33,792 and has since decreased to 30,382 in 2011, which is a 10 percent 

decrease. Employment changes were primarily in the construction and manufacturing sectors 

that experienced an increase in the first half of the decade and a subsequent decline in the 

latter half of the decade. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012 

 28,000

 29,000

 30,000

 31,000

 32,000

 33,000

 34,000

 35,000

 65,000

 66,000

 67,000

 68,000

 69,000

 70,000

 71,000

 72,000

 73,000

 74,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Employment 

Population

Grays Harbor County

Population & Employment 2001-2011

Population Total employment
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment

The largest industry sectors for Grays Harbor County are ranked below by employment (Table 5-5). 

The largest employers are the State and local governments, followed by food services and drinking 

establishments. 

Table 5-5. Industry Summary for Grays Harbor County (Dollars in thousands)

Industry Employment Output Employment 

Income

State and local government 5,545 $291,018 $256,939

Food services and drinking 

establishments 1,891 $98,875 $31,013

Sawmills and wood preservation 1,156 $294,886 $66,812

Commercial logging 964 $231,322 $31,604

Private housekeeping and home 

care 837 $8,089 $7,058

Wholesale trade businesses 804 $117,550 $40,057

Health practitioner offices 769 $72,776 $32,763

Retail stores (food, beverage, 

general) 1,344 $91,932 $37,580

Civic, social, professional, and 

similar organizations 628 $26,699 $11,676

Construction of new nonresidential 

commercial and health care 

structures 605 $92,312 $28,561

Source: Implan 2008. 

5.12.1.2 Local Community 

The Refuge is in the City of Hoquiam and near Aberdeen. These cities suffered economic decline as 

the salmon fishing industry fell off and logging jobs decreased. The current economic downturn has 

made recovery difficult and the cities struggle with few jobs available and high unemployment. 

However the cities are well-situated for the tourism industry as the location is known as the gateway 

to the Olympic peninsula, Olympic National Park, communities along highway 101, and to miles of 

ocean beaches. Generally the demand for outdoor recreational opportunities is increasing both within 

the communities as well as from visitors. 

5.12.1.3 Refuge Impact on the Local Economy 

Visitors to the Refuge spend money on food, lodging, equipment, transportation, and other expenses, 

which creates jobs within the local economy. Additionally, Refuge budget expenditures, including 

those provided through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, result in economic impacts to the local 

community. The effects on the local economy associated with consumer expenditures on Refugerelated recreation and effects associated with Refuge budget expenditures are explored in detail in 

Chapter 6 of the CCP.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23

5.12.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

5.12.2.1 Population and Area Economy 

The Unit is located southwest of Olympia, Washington, in Thurston County. Table 5-6 shows the 

population and area economy. The county population increased 21 percent from 2001 to 2011, 

compared with a 14 percent increase for Washington State and a 9 percent increase for the United 

States. County employment increased by 16 percent from 2000 to 2010, compared to a smaller 

employment increase in Washington State (9 percent) and the United States (6 percent). Per capita 

income in Thurston County increased by 4 percent between 2000 and 2010, while Washington State 

and the United States both increased by 5 percent. 

Table 5-6. Black River Unit: Summary of Area Economy, 2011 (Population & Employment in 

thousands; Per Capita Income in 2011 dollars) 

Population Employment Per Capita Income

2011 

Percent 

change 

2001-2011

2011 

Percent 

change 

2001-2011

2011 

Percent 

change 

2001-2011 

Thurston County 256.6 21% 129.3 16% $41,251 4% 

Washington 6,830.0 14% 3,828.6 9% $43,878 5%

United States 311,591.9 9% 175,834.7 6% $41,560 5%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2013. 

The largest industry sectors for Thurston County are ranked below by employment (Table 5-7). The 

largest employers are the State and local governments followed by retail trade. Over the last 10 years, 

the largest employment increase occurred in administrative and waste management services (41 

percent) while there was a decline in construction employment (8 percent). 

Table 5-7. Employment Summary for Thurston County, 2011 

Industry Employment Percentage Change 

2001-2011

State and local government 34,763 2%

Retail trade 14,809 14%

Health care and social assistance 14,253 24%

Accommodation and food services 8,172 31%

Other services, except public administration 7,402 13%

Professional, scientific, and technical services 7,065 33%

Real estate and rental and leasing 5,625 39%
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Industry Employment Percentage Change 

2001-2011

Administrative and waste management 

services 5,617 41%

Construction 5,532 -8%

Finance and insurance 4,249 31%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2013. 

5.12.2.2 Local Community 

The northern portion of the Unit is within 5 miles of Tumwater, 10 miles of Olympia, 15 miles of 

Lacey, and the southern end of the Unit is immediately north of Littlerock, a village based on a rural 

economy. 

The cities of Tumwater, Lacey, and Olympia have grown together such that it is hard to know which 

municipality you are in. These three cities have a small-town feel to them and residents who value 

museums, theatre, and outdoor activities. The cities are well-situated for people passing through 

while traveling from Portland to Seattle or to the Olympic peninsula, Mt. Rainer National Park, or to 

the Cascade mountain range. 

5.12.2.3 Refuge Impact on the Local Economy 

Because the Unit has not been open to the public, there is little economic impact. The effects on the 

local economy associated with potential consumer expenditures (Alternative 2) on Unit-related 

recreation and effects associated with Unit budget expenditures are explored in detail in Chapter 6 of 

the CCP.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-25

5.13 References 

Cooper, J.G. 1859. The Natural History of Washington Territory, with much relating to Minnesota, 

Nebraska, Kansas, Oregon, and California, Between the Thirty-Sixth and Forty-Ninth Parallels of 

Latitude, being those parts of the final reports on the Survey of the Northern Pacific Railroad Route, 

containing the Climate and Physical Geography, with Full Catalogues and Descriptions of the Plants 

and Animals Collected from 1853 to 1857. Bailliere Brothers, New York. In Plant Life of 

Washington Territory. N.M. Buckingham and A.R. Anderson (Eds). Douglasia Occasional Papers. 

Washington Native Plant Society. 5:1994. pp.114. 

Costantini, T. and S. Stevenson. 1985. Thurston County Cultural Resources Survey. Manuscript on 

file Washington State Historic Preservation Office, WA. 

Council for Environmental Education. 2013. Growing Up Wild. Houston, TX. Retrieved from 

http://www.projectwild.org/growingupwild.htm.

Cullinan, T. 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Audubon Washington, Olympia, WA. 170 

pp. Retrieved from http://wa.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/iba-1-50_pacific_coast.pdf. 

Dellert, J., N. Perrin, and J.Butler. 2010. Cultural Resources Assessment for the North Fork Little 

Hoquiam River Dam Removal Project, City of Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington. 

Prepared for City of Hoquiam by Historical Research Associates. Seattle, WA.

Easterly, R. and D Salstrom. 2008. Black River Vegetation: Changes through time of a Unique 

Western Washington River. Prepared for the Washington Natural Heritage Program 

Department of Natural Resources. Salstrom & Easterly Eco-logic (SEE) Botanical Consulting, 

Bellingham, WA. 

Hajda, Y.P. 1990. Southwestern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles. pp. 503–

517. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

HistoryLink.org. 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=10110

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). 2002. An Assessment of Outdoor Recreation 

in Washington State. A State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning (Scorp) Document 2002–

2007. 

James, K. and V. Martino. 1986. Grays Harbor and Native Americans. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Seattle District, WA. DACW67-85-M-0093. 

Larson, L.L. and J.V. Jermann. 1978. A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Metsker, T.C. 1900. Thomas C. Metsker’s map for Thurston County. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-26 Chapter 5. Human Environment

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. IMPLAN System (2008 data and software). Stillwater, MN.

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 2000. Coastal and Ocean Resource 

Economics. NOAA. http://coastalsocioeconomics.noaa.gov/core/nsre/welcome.html

Parks, V. 2011. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and Black River Unit of Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Cultural Resource Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning. USFWS, 

RO-1. Portland, OR. 

Port of Grays Harbor n.d. A Century of Milestones. Retrieved from 

http://www.portofgraysharbor.com/downloads/PGH_Timeline_Milestones.pdf

Speulda, L. 1997. USFWS Historic Properties Identification Report of the Nisqually NWR 

Headquarters New Facilities Project. On file at USFWS Region 1 Cultural Resources Team Office, 

Sherwood, OR. 

Speulda, L. 2001a. USFWS Historic Properties Identification and Evaluation Report of the La France 

Farm. On file at USFWS Region 1 Cultural Resources Team Office, Sherwood, OR. 

Speulda, L. 2001b. USFWS Historic Properties Identification and Evaluation Report of the North 

Farm. On file at USFWS Region 1 Cultural Resources Team Office, Sherwood, OR. Black River 

Unit of Nisqually NWR Cultural Resources Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning 24. 

Speulda, L. 2004a. USFWS Historic Properties Identification and Evaluation Report of the WeiksEvergreen Dairy Disposal Project. On file at USFWS Region 1 Cultural Resources Team Office, 

Sherwood, OR. 

Speulda, L. 2004b. USFWS Historic Properties Identification and Evaluation Report of the Kiser 

Tract. On file at FWS Region 1 Cultural Resources Team Office, Sherwood, OR. 

Storm, L. 2004. Prairie Fires & Earth Mounds: The Ethnoecology of Upper Chehalis Prairies. In 

Washington Native Plant Society journal Douglasia 28(3):6-9, Summer 2004. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. The 2006-2010 American Community Survey. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_B

01003&prodType=table

U. S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. 

http://www.bea.gov/itable/

U. S. Department of Commerce. 2013. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. 

http://www.bea.gov/itable/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife Associated Recreation (CD-ROM.) Washington, DC. 

USFWS. 2012. An Educator’s Guide to Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. Grays Harbor 

educational outreach staff. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-27

Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). 2013. Outdoor recreation in 

Washington: the 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/rec_trends/2013-2018SCORP-FullRpt.pdf

Wessen, G. 1990. Prehistory of the Ocean Coast of Washington, edited by Wayne Suttles Pp. 412-

421. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Wilkes, C. 1844. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. During the Years 1838-1842. 

(Volume 5). C. Sherman, Philadelphia. 

Work, J. 1824. Journal, November and December, 1824. In: Elliot, T.C. 1912. Journal of John Work, 

November and December, 1824. The Washington Historical Quarterly III(3):198-224. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

5-28 Chapter 5. Human Environment
Chapter 6

Environmental

Consequences

Vaughn Ruppert/USFWS

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-1 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.1 Introduction

This chapter provides analyses of the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. As appropriate, the potential effects of implementing the strategies described 

under each alternative were assessed for the main environmental resources described in Chapters 3–

5, including physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic elements. The alternatives are 

compared side-by-side under each topic, and both the adverse and beneficial effects of implementing 

each alternative are described. The information used in this analysis was obtained from relevant 

scientific literature, existing databases and inventories, consultations with other professionals, and 

professional knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the provisions of NEPA, 

define the types of effects that should be evaluated in an environmental document, including direct, 

indirect, and cumulative (40 CFR § 1508.7) (CEQ 1997). Direct effects are generally caused by a 

particular action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the proposed action, but occur later in time. Direct and indirect effects 

are addressed in the resource-specific sections of this chapter (Sections 6.2.1–6.2.10 for the Refuge

and Sections 6.3.1–6.3.16 for the Unit). CEQ provides the following definition of cumulative effects:

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but cumulatively significant actions over 

time. This analysis is intended to consider the interaction of activities at the Refuge and the Unit with 

other actions occurring over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. 

The overall cumulative effect on the environment from implementing the various alternatives is 

summarized in Section 6.2.11 for the Refuge and in Section 6.3.17 for the Unit. The cumulative 

effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of the comprehensive nature that the direct 

and indirect effects associated with implementing the various alternatives have been presented in the 

other sections of this chapter and in the Appropriate Refuge Uses and the Compatibility 

Determinations appendices. The cumulative effects sections focus on effects associated with 

reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless of what entity undertakes that action. 

6.1.1 Effect Ratings Description

Although the analysis shows that none of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant 

(major) effects, some positive (beneficial) or negative effects are expected. The qualitative terms 

moderate (intermediate), minor, and negligible are used to describe the magnitude of the effect. To 

interpret these terms, moderate is of greater magnitude than minor, and minor is of greater magnitude 

than negligible. The word negligible is used to describe an effect that, when compared with the 

current situation, or the current situation forecast 15 years into the future, would not be measurable or 

would be difficult to measure. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

The terms below are used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, cultural, 

social (including recreational), and economic resources. 

• Neutral or Negligible. Resources would not be affected (neutral effect), or the effects would 

be at or near the lowest level of detection (negligible effect). Resource conditions would not 

change or would be so slight that there would not be any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to a population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor 

experience, or cultural resource. If a resource is not discussed, impacts to that resource are 

assumed to be neutral. 

• Minor. Effects would be detectable within a refuge, but would be localized, small, and of 

little consequence to a population, wildlife or plant community, other natural resources; 

social and economic values, including recreational opportunity and visitor experience; or 

cultural resources. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily 

implemented and successful based on knowledge and experience.

• Moderate or Intermediate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized within a 

refuge, but not readily detectable or measurable beyond the refuge. Effects would have 

measurable consequences to a population, wildlife or plant community, or other natural 

resources; social values, including recreational opportunity and visitor experience; or cultural 

resources. Effects to economic values would not be readily detectable beyond the local 

community. Mitigation measures would likely be needed to offset adverse effects, and could 

be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful based on 

knowledge and experience.

• Significant or Major. Region-wide effects would be obvious and would result in substantial 

consequences to a population, wildlife or plant community, or other natural resources; social 

and economic values, including recreational opportunity and visitor experience; or cultural 

resources. Extensive mitigating measures may be needed to offset adverse effects and would 

be large-scale in nature, possibly complicated to implement, and may not have a high 

probability for success. In some instances, major effects would include the irretrievable loss 

of the resource. 

As appropriate, effects are identified as short-term or long-term, local or widespread, and, where data 

and analyses are available, effects are quantified. 

Time and duration of effects have been defined as follows: 

• Short-term or Temporary. An effect that generally would last less than a year or season.

• Long-term. A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a year or 

season.

6.1.2 Summary of Effects

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 provide overviews of the effects under each alternative by indicator. The effects 

related to implementing each alternative are described in terms of the change from current conditions 

(i.e., the environmental baseline). Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative, would continue present 

management actions. However, the consequences of implementing Alternative 1 may have 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-3 

beneficial, neutral, or negative effects. For example, the continued use of IPM techniques under 

Alternative 1 to control invasive species would have a minor positive impact on native habitats and 

species.

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives for Grays Harbor NWR.

Alternative A (No Action, 

Current Management)

Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative)

EFFECTS UPON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Hydrology and Water 

Quality

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, negligible to minor, 

positive

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, negligible to minor, 

positive

Topography, Geology, 

and Soils

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, moderate, positive

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, moderate, positive

Air Quality Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, negligible

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, negligible

EFFECTS UPON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Common to All Wildlife 

and Habitats

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor, positive from 

public use and outreach 

programs; negligible to minor, 

positive from inventory, 

monitoring, and research

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor, positive from 

public use and outreach 

programs; minor to moderate, 

positive from increased 

inventory, monitoring, and 

research 

Estuarine Habitats and 

Associated Species

Short- and long-term, negligible 

to moderate, positive 

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive

Forest Habitat and 

Associated Species

Short- and long-term, negligible Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor, positive 

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive

EFFECTS UPON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

General Social Effects Long-term, minor, positive Long-term, moderate, positive

Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, 

Environmental 

Education, and 

Interpretation

Short- and long-term, negligible Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive 

Cultural Resources Negligible Negligible

Economic Negligible Negligible to minor, positive
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Table 6-2. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives for the Black River Unit. 

Alternative A (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative)

EFFECTS UPON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Hydrology and Water 

Quality

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, negligible to minor, 

positive

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor, positive 

Topography, Geology, 

and Soils

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, moderate, positive 

Air Quality Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, negligible

Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, negligible

EFFECTS UPON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Common to All Wildlife 

and Habitats

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, negligible to minor, 

positive from inventory, 

monitoring, and research

Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor, positive from 

public use and outreach 

programs; minor to moderate, 

positive from increased 

inventory, monitoring, and 

research 

River and Tributary 

Channels and Associated 

Species

Minor, negative to negligible. Minor to moderate, positive

Bog Habitats and 

Associated Species

Negligible Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, moderate, positive

Shrub Swamp and 

Associated Species

Negligible Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive

Riparian Habitat and 

Associated Species

Negligible Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

positive

Emergent Marsh 

Habitat and Associated 

Species

Negligible Short-term, negligible to minor, 

negative

Long-term, moderate, positive

Seasonally Flooded,

Nonnative Grassland 

and Associated Species

Short-term, minor to moderate, 

negative

Long-term, negligible

Short-term, minor to moderate, 

negative

Long-term, moderate, positive

Dry, Nonnative

Grassland Habitat and 

Associated Species

Negligible to minor, positive Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, minor, positive from 

wildlife and habitat management 

actions; long-term, negligible to 

minor, negative from public use
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-5 

Alternative A (Current 

Management)

Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Mixed Forest and 

Associated Species

Negligible Short-term, minor, negative

Long-term, minor, positive

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Short- and long-term, minor, 

positive

Short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, positive

EFFECTS UPON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

General Social Effects Neutral Short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, positive

Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and 

Interpretation

Neutral Short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, positive 

Cultural Resources Negligible Negligible

Economic Negligible Negligible

6.2 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

6.2.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Under both alternatives, the Refuge would continue to work with Grays Harbor Noxious Weed 

Control Agency, Grays Harbor Public Utilities District, Grays Harbor County, the Port of Grays 

Harbor, WDFW, Washington State Agriculture Department, WDNR, and others to assure the highest 

priority invasive species threatening estuary habitats are addressed. 

Mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical control methods would be evaluated for eradication, 

control, or containment of invasive species in order to achieve resource management objectives (see 

Appendix G. IPM). Pesticide chemical selection and usage will be subject to regionally reviewed 

State regulations, State and federally approved herbicides and adjuvants, Service-approved Pesticide 

Use Proposals (PUPs), and EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGPs). Pesticide chemical selection will 

also conform to the specific pesticide label requirements and be applied by licensed applicators. 

Service guidelines direct the Refuge to use the most efficacious pesticide available with the least 

potential to degrade environmental quality (soils, surface water, groundwater, and air), as well as 

minimizing potential effect to native nontarget species. Additionally, adjuvants (an additive that 

increases herbicide effectiveness such as increasing adhesion to target plants) should have the least 

potential effect to native nontarget species. 

Potential effects to the biological and physical environment are associated with the proposed site-, 

time-, and target-specific use of pesticides. PUPs on the Refuge would be evaluated using scientific 

information and analyses documented in “Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix G). These profiles 

provide quantitative assessment and screening tools and threshold values to evaluate potential effects 

to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) and environmental quality (water, soil, and air). Any 

pesticide use must be approved through a PUP. PUPs (including appropriate BMPs) would be 

approved where the Chemical Profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Refuge’s biological resources and its physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or 

localized in nature.

Based on scientific information and analyses documented in Chemical Profiles, most pesticides 

allowed for use on Refuge lands and waters would be of relatively low risk to nontarget organisms as 

a result of low toxicity or short-term persistence in the environment. Thus, potential impacts to 

Refuge resources and neighboring natural resources from pesticide applications would be expected to 

be minor, temporary, or localized in nature. 

Some risks may still occur via factors not assessed under current protocols, such as intermingling of 

unlike chemicals in the field, species-specific sensitivity that differs from surrogate species 

sensitivity, exposure through inhalation, exposure through ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil, 

and other factors (see Appendix G). 

The effects of nonpesticide IPM strategies to address pest species on the Refuge would be similar to 

those effects described elsewhere in this chapter, where they are discussed specifically as habitat 

management techniques to achieve resource management objectives on the Refuge. 

The associated fieldwork of invasive plant control can temporarily cause wildlife to move away and 

slight habitat disturbances. Invasive species may be spread by moving Refuge equipment from site to 

site. These species may also become established where soils and existing plant cover is disturbed. 

The Refuge equipment operators would be required to clean equipment before moving between sites 

to reduce the spread of seeds and plant parts. The Refuge would continue to monitor habitats for 

invasive weeds, aggressively control invasive plants, and restore sites to vegetation with high wildlife 

value. If mechanical methods are not expected to be effective or would have undesirable 

consequences, such as the destruction of desirable vegetation that is interspersed with weed species, 

then the Refuge may decide to use an herbicide. Employment of a conservative approach with 

herbicides would result in minor, localized, short-term negative effects and negligible long-term 

effects from chemical exposure. Long-term negative effects are not expected; instead, the effects 

should be positive on fish and wildlife as their respective habitats would be in better condition to 

support each species group. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding Nature Center and Other Facilities 

Planning

In 2007, the Service developed a conceptual building design for a nature center and associated 

facilities, based on standard designs for Refuge facilities, to be located within a 4-acre site along the 

east boundary of the Refuge and the west side of Paulson Road. Under all alternatives, the Service 

proposes to work with other agencies, current and new partners, the local community, and others to 

review the 2007 nature center plan and to evaluate other options, including alternate funding, sites, 

and designs, that could lead to a viable solution that meets the purpose and need. If implemented, the 

Refuge would work with partners to develop biological, ecological, and cultural education and 

interpretative content as well as any associated facilities (e.g., trails, viewing platforms). However, 

prior to implementation, more detailed planning, design, and appropriate evaluation would need to be 

undertaken, including additional effects assessment in compliance with NEPA, evaluation and 

consultation under Section 7 of ESA, and surveys and consultation under Section 106 of NHPA. 

Further discussion of impacts would depend upon site selection for and design, construction, and 

operation of the facilities. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-7 

Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding Estuary Restoration 

An estuary restoration project that includes berm removal is planned under Alternatives 1 and 2. This 

project was identified as a mitigation project for Grays Harbor Refuge in the 2004 Nestucca Oil Spill 

Plan. With project funding, approximately 15–20 acres of compromised salt and brackish marsh 

habitat would be restored to a more natural function with the removal of the artificial berm. The 

Service would coordinate with Federal, State, and county agencies on restoration design review. 

The artificial berm runs northwest to southeast through the eastern portion of the Refuge and occurs 

in two sections, separated by a slough that runs through the Refuge (Map 1). The south berm is 

approximately 900 feet long by 13 feet wide by 3 feet high. The north berm is similar in width and 

height, and approximately 500 feet long. Heavy equipment would be used to remove the berm down 

to grade. Berm materials (approximately 1,350 cubic yards) would need to be hauled offsite. Historic 

tidal channels would be reconnected and graded to encourage water flows within the upper saltmarsh 

and eliminate ponding of water. 

In the short term, construction activities requiring the use of heavy equipment to remove the artificial 

berm could lead to temporary localized increases in water turbidity, contribution of sediment to the 

estuary, and impacts to estuarine soil quality such as compaction and loss of soil organic matter. 

These activities also bring the risk of water contamination with petroleum products. However, the 

implementation of BMPs associated with all construction activities would reduce the likelihood of 

excess turbidity, sedimentation, contamination, and ground disturbance. To decrease soil compaction, 

minimize the creation of unwanted depressions, and encourage quicker growth of native vegetation 

in the area, a combination of wide-tracked equipment with low ground pressure would be used (e.g., 

excavator, bulldozer). Overall, implementation of the restoration is expected to have negligible to 

minor short-term negative effects and minor positive long-term impacts to hydrology and water 

quality. Expected effects to soils would be minor and short-term but moderately beneficial in the 

long term. 

Mosquitoes are a natural part of the Refuge’s ecosystem and are a natural occurrence in salt marsh 

habitats. It is unknown if the berm allows for a larger than normal mosquito population due to the 

ponding effects created by the reduction in tidal flows within the saltmarsh. However, removal of the 

berm and attention to channel elevations would improve tidal movement and minimize ponding of 

water, thereby reducing mosquito reproduction. This restoration would likely have a negligible effect 

on reliant species (birds) or as a nuisance to humans. 

This project would enhance habitat values and benefit migratory and resident shorebirds, waterfowl, 

seabirds, and wading birds by providing better quality cover at low tides, larger open water habitat 

during high tide, and improved foraging areas for a diversity of wildlife, plants, and fish species. 

Additional species that may benefit include the long-tailed weasel, river otter, garter snake, terrestrial 

and aquatic insects, and possibly Newcomb’s littorine snail.

If present, when tides are at a very high level which allows marsh inundation, federally listed 

juvenile green sturgeon, bull trout, and eulachon could experience negligible to minor localized 

short-term negative effects associated with potential increases in sediments in the water caused by 

restoration actions. The berm deconstruction would take place during low tides, would be a 

temporary, one-time action of short duration, and would not likely create significant negative impacts 

to listed species. The twice-daily tides would likely dissipate excess sediments from berm removal 

activities. Staff would utilize proper BMPs and meet all permit requirements such as approved in-
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

water work widows, June 15–Feb 28 (salmon) and July 16–February 15 (bull trout), for fish 

protection. Long-term effects of estuarine restoration would be minor to moderately beneficial to 

these and other species since they would gain better access to areas of salt marsh and ultimately 

better foraging areas. 

The overall beneficial effects for this action would be moderate, with long-term positive effects on 

the overall health and quality of the salt and brackish marsh habitats and wildlife. Once the artificial 

berm is removed, full tidal circulation would occur allowing the quality and complexity of saltmarsh 

habitat to improve. Without the vegetated berm, the highest high tides and storm flood events would 

spread out evenly across the salt marsh and help to reestablish functional processes of the saltmarsh. 

The deeper channels in the sloughs would no longer pond water behind the berm, thereby reducing 

the potential to trap fish. Wildlife would likely inhabit and utilize larger areas across the entire salt 

marsh. Native estuarine plants (e.g., pickleweed, tufted hairgrass, seashore salt grass, Lyngby’s 

sedge) would repopulate the restoration area as twice-daily tidal flows naturally spread available 

seeds. The establishment of additional native plant species would provide high quality detritus to 

estuary water and provide better quality habitat for native marine invertebrates and fish during high 

tide. Monitoring and adaptive management would ensure the project habitat and wildlife goals are 

achieved over time.

Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding Sweetgrass 

Sweetgrass is a component of saltmarsh vegetation and is an important tribal resource that is used for 

traditional cultural practices. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Refuge would continue to monitor and 

manage the sweetgrass stands for stand health, focusing on removing invasive plants that outcompete 

native sweetgrass. Short-term, minor negative effects to sweetgrass may be incurred while using IPM 

methods to control invasive plants. Methods to control problem plants include digging them out or 

applying a State-, Service-, and EPA-approved aquatic herbicide (see Appendix G). Long-term 

beneficial effects to sweetgrass range from minor, if little work is needed, to moderate if dense 

invasive plant development occurs. Beneficial effects are magnified as there are relatively few other 

sweetgrass stands known in the Grays Harbor estuary. 

 

Additionally, under all alternatives, the Refuge would continue to support traditional cultural use and 

issue SUPs to Native American tribal members for gathering sweetgrass. Permit stipulations are 

designed to provide long-term habitat protection and to sustain a thriving population of sweetgrass on 

the Refuge, leading to negligible to minor negative impacts. Compatibility determinations in 

Appendix B have more information on plant gathering (sweetgrass). 

6.2.2 Effects to the Physical Environment at Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge

Effects to Hydrology and Water Quality 

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the proposed saltmarsh restoration with berm removal is anticipated to 

have negligible to minor, short-term, negative effects and minor, long-term, positive impacts to 

hydrology and water quality. See Section 6.2.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding 

Estuary Restoration for more information. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-9 

Minor, short-term impacts to water quality could occur under both alternatives, stemming from the 

control of invasive plant species. In situations where mechanical and cultural invasive plant control 

methods are ineffective, the Refuge may use approved herbicides in accordance with the Refuge’s 

IPM program. Although mechanical removal has the potential to expose soils to wind and water 

erosion, this activity would be limited, largely due to the use of hand tools and would focus on 

individual plant removal, rather than the removal of large areas of vegetation. Therefore, the 

continuation of this control method is not expected to introduce substantial amounts of additional 

sediments into the estuary. The use of herbicides or pesticides to control invasive plants or animals 

also poses several environmental risks, including drift, volatilization, persistence in the environment, 

water contamination, and harmful effects to wildlife. The potential for such risks are considered 

minimal due to the types of herbicides used (nonpersistent) and the precautionary measures taken 

during application (see Appendix G.). Effects would not be considered significant under any 

alternative.

Under both alternatives, the Service is committed to working with partners in order to perform rapid 

response to oil spills or other contaminant events in Grays Harbor estuary in accordance with the 

Grays Harbor Geographic Response Plan. This strategy would provide moderate positive impacts in 

the event of contamination or water quality issues. 

Under Alternative 2, the design and construction of viewing platforms, boardwalk/trail extensions, 

and interpretive panels would be strategic to minimize short-term and long-term negative impacts to 

water quality. BMPs would be incorporated into the placement, design, and construction to address 

potential short-term and long-term effects, such as stormwater runoff and erosion control. 

Anticipated effects would be minor negative in the short term and negligible to minor negative in the 

long term. 

Overall Effects 

Under both alternatives, Refuge hydrology and water quality would experience an overall negligible

to minor, long-term, positive effect. Some localized, short-term, negative effects might occur 

associated with various invasive species removal efforts or other habitat management activities 

including the berm removal, although they would be minimized by implementing BMPs. Alternative 

2 proposes the construction of viewing platforms, boardwalk/trail extensions, and interpretive panels 

which would result in slightly increased short-term negative impacts compared to Alternative 1. 

However, overall short-term impacts under both alternatives would be negligible to minor negative.

Effects to Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Common to both alternatives, salt marsh restoration with berm removal would result in minor, shortterm, negative effects but moderate, long-term, positive effects. See Section 6.2.1 Effects Common to 

All Alternatives Regarding Estuary Restoration for more information. 

Under Alternative 2, inventory, monitoring, and research addressing questions such as sedimentation

rates may have some temporary but negligible to minor, negative effects on the mudflat soils and 

benthic invertebrates. The proposed study would be beneficial by increasing our knowledge of how 

sediments move, accrete, and contribute to habitat changes in the Refuge, which would benefit 

habitat management in the long term. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

In Alternative 2, the Refuge would likely use the pin foundation method to significantly reduce the 

amount of soil compaction and coverage while constructing the boardwalks and viewing platforms 

(Pin Foundation 2013). All equipment would move to the specific worksite on top of the existing 

boardwalks and significantly reduce the potential for soil compaction, rutting, or other damage. It is 

unlikely that heavy equipment would be used in the vicinity of estuarine saltmarsh or upland forest to 

accomplish one-time construction activities to improve public access with enhanced facilities. 

However, if heavy equipment is used it would only be during the summer dry season and if necessary 

at low tide. BMPs would be developed to ensure the least amount of disturbance possible in 

construction of new boardwalks and viewing platform facilities. Expected negative effects would be 

minor and short-term.

Overall Effects 

In either alternative the overall proposed use of heavy equipment on specific projects may produce 

temporarily disturbed soils. BMPs would be used to minimize negative effects as much as possible 

on each construction project. The salt marsh restoration with berm removal would have minor, shortterm, negative effects to the soils, but overall will have moderately beneficial effects on estuarine 

resources. Overall, under both alternatives, minor, short-term, negative effects may occur to specific, 

small locations of soil; however, in the long term, moderate, positive effects are anticipated. 

Effects to Air Quality

The activities proposed may result in a slight and temporary increase in vehicle emissions due to the 

proposed salt marsh estuarine restoration and new visitor facilities construction identified in the CCP. 

Once completed, there would be no need for further active management with equipment on these 

lands. 

A slight increase in vehicular emissions could be expected due to an increase in visitation with the 

proposed visitor services improvements under Alternative 2, including new boardwalk, trails, and 

viewing platforms. 

Overall Effects 

Overall, long-term effects to air quality should be negligible under all alternatives. None of the 

alternatives would be expected to have significant, long-term effects to air quality compared to the 

environmental baseline. Some minor, short-term impacts to local air quality may result from Refuge

management actions.

6.2.3 Effects Common to All Habitats and Wildlife at Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge

Under Alternative 1, wildlife-dependent public uses and Refuge outreach programs would continue. 

These programs play a key role in fostering public understanding, appreciation, and support for the 

Refuge’s native plants and habitats and would lead to long-term, indirect, and minor benefits to the 

conservation of these resources. Under Alternative 2, the quality and quantity of these programs 

would expand slightly and lead to similar benefits as in Alternative 1. Disturbance impacts to specific 

habitat types as a result of public use programs are discussed in the following sections. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-11

Under Alternative 1, inventory, monitoring, research, and scientific assessments regarding natural 

and cultural resources, public uses, and interactions among these elements would continue as at 

present. Relative to habitats, plant communities, and wildlife, most of these activities would involve 

observation and measurement. Occasionally, tissues or whole specimens of native or nonnative 

plants would be taken, removed, transplanted, or outplanted. Additionally, some of these activities 

would involve implementing and assessing various habitat management techniques at small scales. 

Disturbance, including trampling and potentially transporting nonnative species, would be the 

primary effect of the vast majority of these activities. The effects of some of these activities, such as 

inventories of invasive plants or evaluations of the contributions of specific habitat management 

practices to achievement of goals and objectives, would be primarily local. 

Management-related research would be evaluated on an individual basis depending on the value and 

need of the information gained and the short- and long-term impacts. Research that is beneficial and 

applicable to the Refuge’s management programs is more likely to receive approval. Many research 

projects are conducted by Refuge partners (State, Federal, nongovernment organizations) and 

universities under the guidelines of a Special Use Permit and would provide positive effects ranging 

from minor, short-term to moderate, long-term. 

Overall, these activities would generate information which would be analyzed and interpreted to help 

Refuge staff assess the efficacy of management practices and facilitate appropriate course corrections 

as part of the adaptive management process. The effects of these activities on habitats, plant 

communities, and wildlife would be negligible to minor and positive. Compatibility determinations 

included in Appendix B address the effects and conditions associated with these uses in greater 

detail.

Under Alternative 2, inventory, monitoring, research, and scientific assessments regarding natural 

and cultural resources, public uses, and interactions among these elements would increase compared 

to those occurring at present. In addition to generating the same types of effects described for 

Alternative 1, it would be expected that this would result in an increase in information about the

habitats, plant communities, and wildlife within the Refuge. This would reduce uncertainty 

associated with wildlife and plant responses to habitat management, promote achievement of 

management goals and objectives, and facilitate adaptive management. For example, this would 

include better information about the efficacy of pest management programs. 

Through application of adaptive management principles, enhanced knowledge would slowly lead to 

improved management and an increase in the health, productivity, and value of the Refuge’s wildlife 

habitats and plant communities to native vegetation and wildlife and an increase in the abundance 

and diversity of native wildlife within the Refuge. The effects of these activities on the Refuge’s 

habitats, plant communities, and wildlife would have beneficial minor to moderate effects. 

Compatibility determinations included in Appendix B address the effects of and conditions 

associated with these uses in greater detail.

Specific research projects on mudflat sedimentation and sea level rise are priority projects. Some of 

the associated fieldwork may cause minor, localized, short-term effects such as temporarily causing 

fish and wildlife to move away from the research site and minor habitat disturbances. Some 

identified contaminants research may require removing a few individual shorebirds to test for 

contaminant loads as recommended in the Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP). The collection 

would negatively affect the individuals, but would cause negligible long-term effects to the west 

coast shorebird population. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.2.4 Effects to Estuarine Habitats and Associated Species at Grays Harbor 

National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

Common to both alternatives, salt marsh restoration with berm removal would result in minor, shortterm, negative effects but moderate, long-term, positive effects. See Section 6.2.1 Effects Common to 

All Alternatives Regarding Estuary Restoration for more information. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar (see Section 6.2.1) in the proposed IPM treatments to control 

invasive plants and animals to promote and improve healthy native habitats for fish and wildlife; 

however, Alternative 2 is more encompassing. Under Alternative 1, there would be negligible to 

minor, long-term, positive effects from maintaining existing habitats utilizing the current IPM 

management priorities, partnerships, and techniques for habitat improvements. 

Alternative 2 proposes the Refuge would actively seek new partnerships and strengthen existing 

partnerships to control priority invasive species within all habitats. The Refuge staff would focus on 

newly invading problematic plant and animal species while also expanding control efforts on existing 

infestations. Invasive species control efforts would be implemented, with systematic follow-up 

control efforts, mapping, resource monitoring, and follow-up control measures as necessary. This 

sequence of activities would provide moderate positive effects to wildlife by removing the invasive 

species and improving the health of the habitat over the long term. 

Refuge staff would be watching for changes in State guidelines regarding the control of nonnative 

aquatic Japanese or Asian eelgrass and determine a course of action. The overall extent or degree of 

Japanese eelgrass infestation within the tidal open water and intertidal mudflat habitats inside the 

Refuge boundary is currently unknown. Under Alternative 2, staff would work with partners to 

identify the extent of the infestation. Partnerships would develop removal methods, map sites within 

the Refuge boundary, and implement effective aquatic plant control actions, with follow-up 

monitoring and necessary treatment. Invasive plant eradication would be localized, within the Refuge

boundary, and would likely result in long-term positive effects on the native eelgrass beds and 

wildlife with the removal of invasive Japanese or Asian eelgrass. Results of the control efforts are 

expected to be quantifiable through active routine monitoring and mapping with staff and partners. 

Refuge wildlife would benefit extensively as native eelgrass beds would expand and offer forage and 

foraging areas for a variety of shorebirds and migrating waterfowl. Expanded and healthy native 

eelgrass beds offer benthic and water column invertebrates quality habitat for laying eggs. The 

effects of control measures would likely be positive in the short and long term with minor to 

moderate effects dependent on the overall size of the infestation. 

The associated fieldwork of invasive plant control can temporarily cause fish and wildlife to move 

away and negligible habitat disturbances. Estuarine species dependent upon native habitats for 

foraging, prey, cover, and loafing benefit from invasive plant control. A conservative approach 

(using the least amount of herbicides practical to achieve results) with the application of herbicides to 

eliminate the invasive plant would result in minor to moderate short-term effects from chemical 

exposure and negligible long-term effects. Long-term negative effects are not expected, instead 

effects would likely be localized and minor with a positive effect on fish and wildlife as their 

respective habitats would be in healthier condition to support each species group. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-13

Refuge management would place a greater focus on managing invasive species on Refuge specific 

habitats while continuing partnerships throughout the estuary. The effects would be a moderate, longterm habitat enhancement over the current conditions. The effects of the above actions to remove 

invasive plants would specifically improve the intertidal mudflat habitat (native eelgrass beds), salt 

and brackish marsh habitats. A variety of species directly affected by these proposed actions all rely 

on a healthy intertidal mudflat habitat, salt and brackish marsh habitats, and forest habitats to provide 

high-quality food, cover, resting, loafing, and for some species, nesting areas. A variety of species 

utilizing the Refuge would benefit from invasive species management, including dabbling and diving 

ducks; geese; waterbirds such as loon, cormorant, brown pelicans; marshbirds such as herons and 

rails; shorebirds and other wading bird species; gulls and terns; raptors; and passerines. Invertebrate 

and fish species are expected to respond positively to invasive species management, especially when 

the habitat becomes a more diverse assemblage plant species.

Effects of Visitor Services Actions 

Currently, all public access on the Refuge is located on the boardwalk trails, the Sandpiper Trail, and 

the Red Knot Spur. These trails provide visitors with high-quality shorebird viewing and 

photography opportunities while protecting sensitive estuarine habitats. Disturbance associated with 

visitation and participation in programs such as wildlife observation, photography, and 

environmental education would have negligible long-term effects because birds and animals have 

shown habituation to human presence on and around the existing Refuge boardwalk. 

Alternative 2 proposes several new construction projects, the Red Knot Spur Trail (250-foot 

extension) and three new observation platforms to view estuarine habitats. As proposed, these 

facilities would provide additional opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife and would result 

in less congestion during peak migration periods and special events. During construction of the 

proposed facilities, minor short-term disturbance to wildlife would likely occur at the worksite. The 

pin foundation is expected to be used for the proposed structures. It was used on the original 

boardwalk and has been found to have a negligible short-term effect on the habitat. Construction 

timing would be limited to nonsensitive times such as nonshorebird migration and nonpasserine 

nesting periods. Long-term loss of habitat would be minimal because of the small footprint of the 

projects. 

Alternative 2 also identifies and increases the Refuge’s outreach and education efforts for the local 

and visiting public through a variety of projects, including directional signage, interpretive panels, 

education programs, electronic and print media, and other techniques. Combined with the additional 

visitor services facilities, these projects could have an indirect neutral to minor beneficial effect in 

the long term by increasing public awareness and helping to foster a sense of appreciation for the 

Refuge and the estuarine resources. 

Overall Effects 

Under Alternative 1, the Refuge would continue to protect the tidal open water, intertidal mudflats, 

and tidal salt and brackish marsh habitats. Staff would continue to implement IPM for protection of 

habitats. The effects from invasive species removal would be localized and short- and long-term 

effects would be minor to moderate (dependent on the level of infestation), providing improved 

habitats for wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2, increases in IPM would help improve estuarine habitat structure, plant diversity, 

and native plant composition. Temporary localized disturbance and damage would have minor shortterm effects. Fieldwork to do inventory, monitoring, and research may also cause negligible to minor 

short-term disturbances. However, enhanced habitat structure and composition would have moderate 

long-term beneficial effects for fish and wildlife, especially shorebirds. Minor, short-term negative 

effects on wildlife would occur with additional boardwalk and viewing platform construction in the 

salt marsh habitat. In the long term, negligible direct effects are expected from the new facilities. 

Overall, habitat management actions under Alternative 2 represent a minor to moderate positive 

effect to both estuarine habitat quantity and quality for associated species. This more than offsets the 

negligible to minor negative effects and short-term effects on habitats or associated wildlife resulting 

from additional visitor service actions. Visitor services programs could have indirect minor to 

moderate long-term beneficial effects as visitors learn more about habitat and wildlife conservation. 

6.2.5 Effects to Forest Habitat and Associated Species at Grays Harbor 

National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar, except in Alternative 2 additional effort would be made to create 

partnerships to control nonnative, invasive knotweed on the north side of the Refuge. The Refuge

would actively seek new partnerships and strengthen existing partnerships to control knotweed and to 

stay abreast of newly developing problematic species that may invade the forest habitat. The Refuge

would continue to work with Grays Harbor Noxious Weed Control Agency, Grays Harbor PUD, 

Grays Harbor County, State agencies, and others to assure the highest priority species are addressed. 

Minor, long-term, positive effects of habitat management are anticipated. Active and collaborative 

control of aggressive invasive plant species enables native species to outcompete for resources and 

improves the quality of the forest habitat. The vegetative transition to a native successional stage 

with equitable vertical structure provides improved forage, cover, and nesting opportunities for a 

diversity of resident and migratory bird species, including songbirds, raptors, small mammals, blacktailed deer, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

The existing boardwalk has negligible effect on the habitat and with time, the surrounding vegetation 

has formed a natural blind that minimizes human-induced disturbance to wildlife while increasing the 

quality of the wildlife observation experience to visitors. The additional observation platforms and a 

250-foot extension of the Red Knot Spur trail under Alternative 2 would have short-term effects 

during construction; however, the design, timing, and placement of this new structure would 

incorporate factors to decrease negative short- and long-term effects on wildlife and habitat. 

Overall Effects 

In summary, Alternative 1 has negligible effect and the use of the specified habitat management 

techniques of Alternative 2 would help maintain and improve forest habitat structure, plant diversity, 

and native plant composition by removing invasive plant and animal species. Minor, temporary, 

localized disturbance could occur as a result of using these habitat management techniques, but these 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-15

effects would be temporary and shortly eclipsed by enhanced habitat structure and composition. 

Overall, wildlife management actions under Alternative 2 represent a minor to moderate positive 

effect to both forest habitat and quality for associated species. 

Considering visitor services, the long-term effect of these minor human disturbances would have a 

negligible impact to migratory and resident forest wildlife and may be balanced by the long-term 

beneficial effect of using boardwalks to prevent trampling of habitats and indirect minor to moderate 

long-term beneficial effects regarding visitor education on habitat and wildlife conservation. The 

overall effect may represent a minor positive effect forest habitat and migratory and resident forest 

wildlife. 

6.2.6 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species at Grays Harbor 

National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

It is the policy of the Service to protect and preserve all native species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants and their habitats, that are designated federally threatened 

or endangered. Listed species receive special consideration in terms of Refuge management. 

Federally listed species are trust resources that require additional consultation whenever an activity 

conducted by or permitted by the Refuge may have an effect on these species or their habitats. 

Currently, federally listed anadromous green sturgeon, eulachon, and bull trout all pass through the 

greater Grays Harbor estuary twice in their lifetime (see Chapter 4). These listed fish are thought to 

seasonally use eelgrass beds, salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and open water habitats of the Refuge. 

Information regarding probable fish use of Refuge habitats has been garnered from surveys 

conducted near the Refuge (see Chapter 4. Section 4.4.1 Major Species Groups and 4.5 Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species). 

Common to both alternatives, salt marsh restoration with berm removal would result in negligible to 

minor short-term negative effects but minor to moderate long-term positive effects. See Section 6.2.1 

Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding Estuary Restoration for more information. 

Discussions regarding effects on fish and wildlife species from habitat management are assessed in 

Section 6.2.4, and impacts associated with the use of herbicides and pesticides are assessed in depth 

in Appendix G. Disturbances from invasive plant control may temporarily cause listed fish to move 

away from the worksite. A conservative approach with herbicides and BMPs would result in minor, 

long-term, positive effects to the habitats. Long-term effects to habitats would be expected to be 

beneficial to listed fish dependent upon healthy native estuarine habitats for foraging, prey, cover, 

and loafing. 

As part of both alternatives, an Inventory and Monitoring Plan would be developed to guide needed 

baseline data, ongoing monitoring, and research to enhance habitat and species management of the 

Refuge or the greater estuary. Threatened and endangered species seasonality, needs, and tolerances 

will be explored and taken into account during the planning and implementation processes. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

As explored in the Compatibility Determinations (Appendix B), wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education activities would not likely pose impacts to these 

threatened and endangered species in Alternative 2. Visitor activities and access are not conducted 

within the estuarine or marsh habitats.

Overall Effects 

Overall, under Alternative 1, minor, long-term, positive effects are expected on federally listed 

anadromous green sturgeon, eulachon, and bull trout and on their habitats as native habitats are 

restored and enhanced. Due to the increases in IPM and habitat improvements, under Alternative 2, 

minor to moderate, long-term, positive effects are expected to listed species.

6.2.7 Effects to Visitor Services at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Welcoming visitors and providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent activities such as 

wildlife observation, interpretation, wildlife photography, and environmental education are important 

parts of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Effects of General Social Environment Actions

Several general social effects apply across the visitor services program and are not tied to specific 

wildlife-dependent recreation and education opportunities. Refuge management can influence the 

number of visitors. Refuge decisions about features of visitor services management—such as how 

many facilities to build, where to build those facilities, how much staff time to devote to programs, 

and how much parking to provide—all may influence visitation for years to come. Similarly, and 

often playing a greater role, demographic shifts, cultural preferences, and economics influence 

Refuge visitation. Even small annual shifts in visitation can have a profound effect over time. 

Under Alternative 1, visitation is anticipated to remain at approximately the same level as the 2011 

baseline. Under Alternative 2, the proposed increases in visitor opportunities, expanded outreach and 

information, enhanced environmental education program, new facilities (boardwalks and viewing 

areas), new communication tools, and general rising interest in the Refuge would increase visitation 

in the next 20 years by 20–40 percent, from 15,572 (2011) to approximately 21,750 visitors per year. 

Increased contact with the public provides an opportunity for better visitor understanding and 

subsequent support of the Refuge and the Refuge System. Improvement of existing visitor facilities 

would lead to safer, more comfortable visitor experiences. On the other hand, increased visitation 

may lead to crowding at times such as weekends and during spring shorebird migration when 

visitation tends to be greatest. This could lead to a slight long-term negative effect to the quality of 

individual visitor experiences or may have a slightly beneficial effect for visitors exposed to the 

contagious excitement of seeing large numbers of shorebirds. 

The overall general social effects would be minor to moderately positive for visitors. See remaining 

sections of Chapter 6 and Appendix B for more detailed analysis of wildlife-dependent recreation 

and education activities.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-17

Effects of Facilities

Under Alternative 1, the Refuge would maintain the current 4,000-square-foot storage building 

(Map 1). Under Alternative 2, the Refuge storage facility would be converted to a Refuge

maintenance shop. The building and parking footprint would not be expected to increase in size, 

therefore conversion to a maintenance shop and use of the building on a regular routine basis would 

cause negligible, long-term effects on habitat and wildlife; however, the new maintenance shop 

would benefit habitat management and trail and visitor facility maintenance programs and could lead 

to indirect, positive social effects. 

As described within Section 6.2.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives Regarding Nature Center and 

Other Facilities Planning, further assessments of effects related to potential new visitor services 

facilities would be conducted in the future in association with more detailed planning and design, 

and, as appropriate, as part of a separate NEPA process and document. 

Overall Effects 

Overall impacts involving the visitor services program would offer a long-term positive improvement 

in the amount of onsite environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities 

available to visitors on the north side of the greater Grays Harbor estuary. Priority visitor 

opportunities would increase and improve with the establishment of new information facilities and 

access. These improvements may also help address potential adverse effects to the habitat that may 

result as the human population and Refuge visitation increases; boardwalks and kiosks would aid in 

directing visitors to areas with minimal impacts to the habitat and wildlife. 

6.2.8 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation, Photography,

Interpretation, and Environmental Education Experiences at Grays 

Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

Alternative 1 has negligible effects from existing habitat management. Alternative 2 provides an 

increase in the number of improved acres of habitat from invasive species treatment relative to 

Alternative 1. Through habitat management projects these improvements would likely result in 

enhanced opportunities to observe a variety of shorebirds, passerines, waterfowl, marshbirds, raptors, 

small mammals, insects, native wildlife, and native plants. There may be some negative short-term 

effects to the visitor experience as various habitat management actions are implemented but these are 

expected to be temporary and negligible and result in beneficial long-term effects.

Effects of Visitor Services

Currently, visitors concentrate on existing boardwalks and pull-out observation platforms. 

Alternative 2 provides a moderate increase in nonconsumptive recreational opportunities from 

increased boardwalks and viewing facilities, increased interpretation, and educational programs. 

Environmental education opportunities would be enhanced with a strong emphasis on partnerships, 

staffing, and volunteers (see Chapter 2. Goal 5). These additions would result in minor modifications 

of some habitats; these are discussed in the Effects from Facilities section in Section 6.2.7. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 provides increased efforts to reach visitors through additional signage, interpretive 

panels, electronic and print media, social networking, and other techniques that are expected to raise 

awareness of Grays Harbor NWR and what it has to offer. These proposed efforts to reach visitors 

would have negligible negative effects on fish, wildlife, or habitats and would have moderate shortand long-term beneficial effects for the public.

Overall Effects 

Overall, implementing Alternative 2 would result in a minor to moderate beneficial, long-term 

improvement in the amount of opportunities for quality wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education experiences available to the public. Priority public use 

opportunities could increase and would improve with the establishment of new public information 

and access. These improvements would also help address the adverse effects that may result as the 

human population continues to increase in the region and visitation grows over time. Long-term, 

beneficial effects would occur for visitors as increased opportunities to enjoy quality wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education would exist under 

Alternative 2. 

6.2.9 Effects to Cultural Resources at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

The Service is committed to protecting known cultural resources under both alternatives. Upland 

areas of the Refuge were former dump sites for dredge spoil, and cultural resources are not expected 

to be onsite. However, prior to implementing ground-disturbing projects, the applicable cultural 

resource compliance investigation would be undertaken. If cultural resources were found, appropriate 

procedures and protocols would be followed to protect them. Whenever possible, resources would be 

avoided or mitigated. Mitigation options, in addition to site avoidance by relocating or redesigning 

facilities, would include data recovery, using either collection techniques or in-situ site stabilization 

protection. 

Native vegetation of cultural value such as sweetgrass, used in tribal basket weaving, would be 

monitored and managed to keep plant health stable as much as possible. However, sweetgrass is most 

likely going to be negatively affected by sea level rise over time.

Overall Effects 

Compliance with cultural resource investigation protocols prior to conducting ground-disturbing 

actions, and subsequent compliance with procedures if cultural resources are found, would ensure 

that negative impacts to cultural resources from implementation of any of the alternatives are 

negligible.

6.2.10 Effects to the Economy at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge CCP planning includes a regional economic analysis as a way of estimating how current 

management (No Action – Alternative 1) and proposed management activities (Preferred Alternative 

– Alternative 2) would affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of 

information: it illustrates a refuge’s contribution to the local community, and it can help determine 

whether economic effects are a real concern in choosing between the management alternatives. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-19

From an economic perspective, both Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually NWR provide a variety of environmental and natural resource goods and services used by 

people either directly or indirectly. The use of these goods and services result in economic impacts to 

both local and state economies. The various services that refuges provide can be grouped into five 

broad categories: (1) maintenance and conservation of environmental resources, services, and 

ecological processes, (2) production and protection of natural resources such as fish and wildlife, (3) 

protection of cultural and historical sites and objects, (4) provision of educational and research 

opportunities, and (5) compatible outdoor and wildlife-dependent recreation. People who use these 

services benefit in the sense that their individual welfare or satisfaction level increases with the use 

of a particular good or service. 

One measure of the magnitude of the change in welfare or satisfaction associated with using a 

particular good or service is economic value. Economic value is the economic trade-off people would 

be willing to make in order to obtain some good or service. It is the maximum amount people would 

be willing to pay in order to obtain a particular good or service minus the actual cost of acquisition. 

In economic theory this is known as net economic value or consumer surplus. In the context of this 

chapter, estimates of the economic value of particular recreational activities are used to determine the 

aggregate value of recreational use of Grays Harbor NWR and Black River Unit. 

Use of the good or service usually entails spending money in some fashion. These expenditures, in 

turn, create a variety of economic effects collectively known as economic impacts. Economic 

impacts refer to employment, employment or labor earnings, economic output, and Federal, local, 

county, and State tax revenue that occur as the result of refuge activities. These impacts are analyzed 

using IMPLAN, a regional input-output model and software system. The following is a list of terms 

and definitions that are commonly used in economic impact analysis (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 

Inc. 2004 and Miller and Blair 1985). 

Economic output includes three types of effects: direct, indirect, and induced. Direct effects 

are the expenditures associated with a particular activity (such as refuge recreation visits and 

management activities). Indirect effects result from changes in sales for suppliers to the 

directly affected businesses (including trade and services at the retail, wholesale, and 

producer levels). Induced effects are associated with further shifts in spending on food, 

clothing, shelter and other consumer goods and services as a consequence of the change in 

workers and payroll of directly and indirectly affected businesses (Weisbrod and Weisbrod 

1997). The indirect and induced effects represent any multiplier effects. Both job income and 

tax revenue are derived from total economic output (aggregate sales). For example, labor 

costs are paid out of total sales revenue for a company, as are taxes. To add taxes and job 

income to output would double-count economic impacts. 

Jobs and job income include direct, indirect, and induced effects in a manner similar to 

economic output. Employment includes both full- and part-time jobs, with a job defined as 

one person working for at least part of the calendar year, whether one day or the entire year. 

Tax revenue is shown for business taxes, income taxes, and a variety of taxes at the local, 

state, and national level. Like output, employment, and income, tax impacts include direct, 

indirect, and induced tax effects. 

A comprehensive economic profile (baseline) of a refuge and estimates of the economic effects of 

alternative management strategies would address all applicable economic effects associated with the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

use of refuge-produced goods and services. However, for those goods and services having nebulous 

or non-existent links to the market place, economic effects are more difficult or perhaps even 

impossible to estimate. Some of the major contributions of a refuge to the natural environment, such 

as watershed protection, maintenance and stabilization of ecological processes, and the enhancement 

of biodiversity require extensive onsite knowledge of biological, ecological, and physical processes 

and interrelationships to begin to formulate economic benefit estimates. This is beyond the scope of 

this analysis. 

This section focuses on a limited subset of refuge goods and services, primarily those directly linked 

in some fashion to the marketplace, such as recreation use and refuge budget expenditures. It should 

be kept in mind that the emphasis on these particular market-oriented goods and services should not 

be interpreted to imply that these types of goods and services are somehow more important or of 

greater value (economic or otherwise) than the non-market goods and services previously discussed. 

Two types of economic impacts are addressed: (1) impacts associated with annual consumer 

expenditures on refuge-related recreation and (2) impacts associated with refuge budget 

expenditures. The economic impacts are presented as annual impacts over a 15-year time period. For 

Alternative 2, the analysis presents the impacts that would result assuming that all management 

objectives are implemented and achieved. Note that funds are not currently present to implement all 

objectives and strategies identified; however, the analysis for Alternative 2 represents the funding 

that would be manifested if implemented. 

Two types of information are needed to estimate the economic impacts of recreational visits to a 

refuge: (1) the amount of recreational use on the refuge by activity; and (2) expenditures associated 

with recreational visits to the refuge. Recreational use (i.e., visitation and the distribution of resident 

visitors and non-resident visitors) was estimated by Refuge Complex staff. Expenditure patterns were 

obtained from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

(U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2007). These expenditures include travel-related expenses, 

such as food, lodging, transportation, and other travel-related miscellaneous expenses. With this 

information, total expenditures for each activity can be estimated. These expenditures, in turn, can be 

used in conjunction with regional economic models to estimate industrial output, employment, 

employment income and tax impacts associated with these expenditures. For Grays Harbor NWR, the 

economic impact area for recreational activities is defined as Grays Harbor County, which is located 

in the southwest of the state of Washington. For Black River Unit, the economic impact area for 

recreational activities is defined as Thurston County, which is located at the southern tip of Puget 

Sound in Washington. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within these areas. 

The economic impacts from recreation expenditures estimated in this chapter are gross area-wide 

impacts. Information on where expenditures may occur locally and the magnitude and location of 

resident and non-resident expenditures (resident and non-resident relative to the geographical area of 

interest) is not currently available. Generally speaking, non-resident expenditures bring outside 

money into the area and thus generate increases in real income or wealth. Spending by residents is 

simply a transfer of expenditures on one set of goods and services to a different set within the same 

area. In order to calculate net economic impacts within a given area derived from resident 

expenditures, much more detailed information would be necessary on expenditure patterns and 

visitor characteristics. Since this information is not currently available, the gross area-wide estimates 

are the maximum impact for the net economic impacts of total resident and non-resident spending in 

Grays Harbor County (for Grays Harbor NWR) and Thurston County (for Black River Unit). The 

economic impacts of non-resident spending represent a real increase in wealth and income for the 

area (for additional information, see Loomis p. 191, 1993). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-21

Recreational Activities

The Refuge receives visitors from across the United States; however, a majority of visitors live in the 

local area. The spending by recreational visitors when visiting the Refuge influences the local 

economy by creating jobs and generating tax revenue. 

Alternative 1 (Current Management): Recreational Activities

Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to the recreational activities offered at the Refuge. 

All programs would continue to follow current management goals. Grays Harbor NWR would 

continue to offer a variety of nonconsumptive public uses, including wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education. 

Table 6-3 shows the visitation for Grays Harbor NWR. The Refuge had 11,550 recreation visits in 

2011. Pedestrian visits represented 91 percent of all visits. In addition to recreation visits, the Refuge

also had about 4,022 environmental education visits, leading to a total visitation of 15,572. 

Table 6-3. Grays Harbor NWR FY2011 Visitation 

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian 7,875 2,625 10,500

Auto Tour 0 0 0

Boat Trail/Launch Visits 0 0 0

Bicycle Visits 0 0 0

Photography 750 250 1,000

Other Recreation 0 0 0

Interpretation 0 50 50

Environmental Education 4,022 0 4,022

Hunting

Waterfowl 0 0 0

Other Migratory Birds 0 0 0

Upland Game 0 0 0

Big Game 0 0 0

Fishing

Freshwater 0 0 0

Saltwater 0 0 0

Total Visitation 12,647 2,925 15,572

Regional Economic Analysis

Visitor recreation expenditures for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 6-4. Environmental education 

opportunities for residents do not contribute to the local economic impacts because the events 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

typically do not bring visitors who are spending money toward travel-related goods and services. 

Total annual expenditures were about $83,300 with nonresidents accounting for about $46,100, or 55 

percent, of total expenditures. Under Alternative 1, these annual expenditures are expected to 

continue. 

 

Table 6-4. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total

Nonconsumptive $37.30 $46.10 $83.30

Hunting − − −

Fishing − − −

Total Expenditures $37.30 $46.10 $83.30 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the Refuge’s 

local economy. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within Grays Harbor County. 

Table 6-5 summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. Economic output 

totaled $108,600 with associated employment of one job, $32,200 in employment income, and 

$7,400 in total tax revenue. 

Table 6-5. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1: Local Economic Effects Associated with 

Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in thousands) 

Residents Nonresidents Total

Economic Output $49.80 $58.80 $108.60

Jobs 0.50 0.60 1 

Job Income $14.80 $17.40 $32.20

State & Local Tax 

Revenue $3.30 $4.20 $7.40 

Alternative 2: Recreational Activities

Table 6-6 shows the visitation that would occur if Alternative 2 were fully implemented.

Approximately 22,000 visits would be related to a variety of wildlife-dependent opportunities, 

interpretation programs, and environmental education. Pedestrian visits would continue to represent 

the majority of all visits. In addition to recreation visits, the Refuge also would support 4,400 

environmental education visits. 

Under Alternative 2, visits are projected to increase by 40 percent, compared to Alternative 1. 

Similar to Alternative 1, all visitors would participate in nonconsumptive activities. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-23

Table 6-6. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Projected Annual Refuge Visitation 

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian 11,025 4,725 15,750

Auto Tour 0 0 0

Boat Trail/Launch Visits 0 0 0

Bicycle Visits 0 0 0

Photography 1,050 450 1,500

Other Recreation 0 0 0

Interpretation 10 90 100

Environmental Education 4,400 0 4,400

Hunting

Waterfowl 0 0 0

Other Migratory Birds 0 0 0

Upland Game 0 0 0

Big Game 0 0 0

Fishing

Freshwater 0 0 0

Saltwater 0 0 0

Total Visitation 16,485 5,265 21,750

Regional Economic Analysis

Visitor recreation expenditures associated with a fully implemented Alternative 2 are shown in Table 

6-7. Total annual expenditures would be about $200,000 with nonresidents accounting for about 

$122,000, or 61 percent, of total expenditures. Expenditures associated with nonconsumptive 

activities would account for all expenditures. 

 

Table 6-7. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total

Nonconsumptive $77.30 $122 $199.20

Hunting − − −

Fishing − − −

Total Annual Expenditures $77.30 $122 $199.20 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the Refuge’s 

local economy under Alternative 2. The estimated economic impacts are expected to occur in Grays 

Harbor County. Table 6-8 summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2, economic output would total $258,800 with associated employment of three 

jobs, $76,800 in employment income, and $17,800 in total tax revenue. 

Table 6-8. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with 

Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in thousands) 

Residents Nonresidents Total

Economic Output $103.11 $155.70 $258.80

Jobs 1 2 3

Job Income $30.75 $46 $76.80

State & Local Tax 

Revenue $6.76 $11 $17.80 

Alternative 2: Summary of Recreational Visitation Impacts 

Table 6-9 provides a summary of the potential economic impacts related to recreational visitation for 

each alternative. Under Alternative 2, recreation visitation would increase after the management 

alternative is fully implemented. As a result, economic output, jobs, job income, and tax revenue 

would increase. 

Table 6-9. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Recreation Visits 11,550 17,350

Expenditures $83.30 $199.20

Economic Output $108.60 $258.80

Jobs 1 3 

Job Income $32.20 $76.80

State & Local Tax Revenue $7.40 $17.80

Refuge Budget

Annual costs reflect Refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations. Nonsalary expenditures are 

primarily operational costs including fuel, administrative costs, brochures, utilities, operation of the 

Grays Harbor Shorebird and Nature Festival, boardwalk and trail maintenance, invasive plant 

monitoring and control, and visitor services programs, including environmental education. 

Table 6-10 shows the average annual expenditures would be about $74,000 for Alternative 1 and 

$738,000 for Alternative 2. The estimated expenditures for Alternative 2 assume that the alternative 

is fully funded as described in the CCP. Increased needs identified for Alternative 2 include eight 

additional full time employees (FTEs), existing building operational and maintenance costs, a new 

building operation and maintenance costs, nature center-associated programs, an enlarged visitor 

services program, increased invasive plant monitoring and control work, and habitat management, 

among other increased programs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-25

Table 6-10. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Average Annual Expenditures (2011 

dollars in thousands)

Expenditure Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Salary $49.10 $570.60

Nonsalary $25.10 $167.70

Total $74.20 $738.30

Table 6-11 shows the economic impact of average annual (salary and nonsalary) expenditures. 

Impacts associated with annual expenditures would continue to occur throughout the 15-year 

timeline of the CCP if the alternative is fully funded. Under Alternative 1, the Refuge’s annual 

expenditures would generate approximately $53,300 in economic output, one job, $23,700 in job 

income, and $2,700 in tax revenue. Annual expenditures under Alternative 2 would generate 

economic output of about $517,900, five jobs, $207,900 in job income, and $28,500 in total tax 

revenue. 

Table 6-11. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Refuge Budget 

(2011 dollars in thousands) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Economic Output $53.30 $517.90 

Jobs 1 5 

Job Income $23.70 $207.90 

State & Local Tax 

Revenue

$2.70 $28.50 

Revenue Sharing Payments

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469), the Service would 

annually reimburse Grays Harbor County for tax revenue which is lost as a result of the Service’s 

acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall pay 

to each county in which any area acquired in fee title is situated, the greater of the following 

amounts: 

• An amount equal to the product of 75 cents multiplied by the total acreage of that portion of 

the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value, as determined by 

the Secretary, for that portion of the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to 25 percent of the net receipts collected by the Secretary in connection 

with the operation and management of such fee area during such fiscal year. If a fee area is 

located in two or more counties, however, the amount for each county shall be apportioned in 

relationship to the acreage in that county. 

The appraisal estimate value is based on the current local land values at the time of the appraisal. The 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments to Grays Harbor County have averaged $3,135 annually from 

Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-26 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Forecasting revenue sharing payments is complex. Actual payments are a function of the appraised 

value and appropriations. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires Service lands be reappraised 

every 5 years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. However, some 

payments are less than the legislated amounts due to governmental funding deficits. Congress may 

appropriate, through the budget process, supplemental funds to compensate local governments for 

any shortfall in revenue sharing payments. The final calculation for the payment to local 

governments depends on the total amount of funds available from revenue receipts collected on 

refuges nationwide and any appropriations. As a result, payments fluctuate based on the revenue 

receipts and appropriations. Due to the size of the revenue sharing payment, economic impacts would 

be negligible. 

Overall Effects

This section summarizes the economic impacts generated by Refuge management activities for each 

alternative. Table 6-12 summarizes the economic impacts in Grays Harbor County for Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 1, Refuge activities would generate an estimated $161,900 in economic output, 

two jobs, $55,900 in job income, and $10,100 in state and local tax revenue. These economic impacts 

under Alternative 1 would be negligible as they represent less than 1 percent of total income and total 

employment in the local area economy.

Table 6-12. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income State & Local Tax Revenue

Recreation Visits $108.60 1 $32.20 $7.40

Budget $53.30 1 $23.70 $2.70

Total $161.90 2 $55.90 $10.10

Table 6-13 summarizes the economic impacts for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, Refuge

activities would generate an estimated $776,700 in economic output, eight jobs, $284,700 in job 

income, and $46,300 in tax revenue. These economic impacts under Alternative 2 would also be 

negligible as they represent less than 1 percent of total income and total employment in the local area 

economy.

Table 6-13. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income State & Local Tax Revenue

Recreation Visits $258.80 3 $76.80 $17.80

Budget $517.90 5 $207.90 $28.50

Total $776.70 8 $284.70 $46.30

One-time costs related to Refuge management were not taken into account in this analysis. However, 

large capital investments, such as the potential development of new facilities, would be expected to 

provide minor to moderate short- and long-term economic benefits. For example, if the 2007 nature 

center design is implemented, costs have been estimated at $6.18 million (June 2008 dollars). These 

direct expenditures would be expected to generate indirect and induced (i.e., multiplier) effects which 

would provide minor economic benefits to the local community.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-27

6.2.11 Cumulative Effects at Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities

Alterations and loss of native habitats continue at the landscape scale, and human development and 

climate change pose complex and persistent threats. The Refuge, although relatively small, may 

become increasingly valuable for the persistence of native wildlife. Active improvement of habitats 

would increase or maintain the value of Refuge lands and waters for a diversity of native fish and 

wildlife and would improve and maintain biological diversity. Both alternatives protect and maintain 

Refuge habitats valuable to wildlife; however, there is a greater emphasis on IPM and pursuing 

priority inventory, monitoring, and research needs in Alternative 2. 

In concert with other protected lands, the Refuge has an important role to conserve resident, 

threatened, and rare species, as well as migratory wildlife species, and to provide places where the 

public can enjoy and experience nature. Additionally, the Service contributes to the regional 

availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Implementing the CCP 

would have overall beneficial effects to habitats, species, and the American public. In the context of 

all of the factors (both natural and human-caused) that negatively affect habitats and species (e.g., 

food availability, human disturbance, and contaminants) the positive contributions associated with 

CCP implementation represent a moderate, beneficial effect. 

Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from Others

Although the communities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Westport, along the shores of the Grays 

Harbor estuary, have experienced an economic downturn, there is potential for recovery and 

associated growth. Any future growth and development of businesses and industries that use the 

estuary could stress the ecosystem through both direct and indirect loss. Habitat loss would be direct; 

indirect loss would result from fragmentation and degradation of the estuary fish and wildlife habitat 

and increasing demands on water. 

Coal and oil industries are examples of business that would use the estuary. Currently there are two 

State Environmental Policy Act permit requests to increase oil storage and transfer facilities in 

Aberdeen/Hoquiam; these facilities would require deep channelization for large ships, which would 

change the sedimentation and turbidity of the estuary. Expansion of these facilities and transportation 

and storage of products would need to be evaluated for the potential impacts to the estuary and 

surrounding habitats. Incidents, both natural (severe storms, flooding, and sea level rise) and maninduced (spills) are potential impacts to the habitats on- and off-Refuge. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-28 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.3 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge 

6.3.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives at Black River Unit of Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Under both alternatives, the Unit would continue to control invasive species, but to varying degrees 

with respect to target species and acreage treated. IPM under Alternative 1 is minimal, with 

concerted efforts toward specific species (reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris) in 

patches, focusing on new establishments compared to a higher level of effort and resources that 

would be directed to invasive species under Alternative 2. 

Mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical control methods would be evaluated for eradication, 

control, or containment of invasive species in order to achieve resource management objectives 

(Appendix G. IPM). Pesticide chemical selection and usage will be subject to regionally reviewed 

State regulations, State and federally approved herbicides and adjuvants, Service-approved PUPs, 

and EPA’s PGP. Pesticide chemical selection will also conform to the specific pesticide label 

requirements and be applied by licensed applicators. Service guidelines direct the Unit to use the 

most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade environmental quality (soils, 

surface water, groundwater, and air) as well as minimizing potential effect to native nontarget 

species. Additionally, adjuvants (an additive that increases herbicide effectiveness such as increasing 

adhesion to target plants) should have the least potential effect to native nontarget species. 

Potential effects to the biological and physical environment are associated with the proposed site-, 

time-, and target-specific use of pesticides. PUPs on the Unit would be evaluated using scientific 

information and analyses documented in “Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix G). These profiles 

provide quantitative assessment/screening tools and threshold values to evaluate potential effects to 

species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) and environmental quality (water, soil, and air). Any 

pesticide use must be approved through a PUP. PUPs (including appropriate BMPs) would be 

approved where the Chemical Profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to the Unit’s 

biological resources and its physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized 

in nature. 

Based on scientific information and analyses documented in Chemical Profiles, most pesticides 

allowed for use on Unit lands and waters would be of relatively low risk to nontarget organisms as a 

result of low toxicity or short-term persistence in the environment. Thus, potential impacts to Unit

resources and neighboring natural resources from pesticide applications would be expected to be 

minor, temporary, or localized in nature. 

Some risks may still occur via factors not assessed under current protocols, such as intermingling of 

unlike chemicals in the field, species-specific sensitivity that differs from surrogate species 

sensitivity, exposure through inhalation, exposure through ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil, 

and other factors (see Appendix G). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-29

The effects of nonpesticide IPM strategies (e.g., mowing) to address pest species on the Unit would 

be similar to those effects described elsewhere in this chapter, where they are discussed specifically 

as habitat management techniques to achieve resource management objectives on the Unit. 

The associated fieldwork of invasive plant control can temporarily cause wildlife to move away and 

slight habitat disturbances. Invasive species may be spread by moving equipment from site to site. 

These species may also become established where soils and existing plant cover is disturbed. The 

refuge equipment operators would be required to clean equipment before moving between sites to 

reduce the spread of seeds and plant parts. The Unit would continue to monitor habitats for invasive 

weeds, aggressively control invasive plants, and restore sites to vegetation with high wildlife value. If 

mechanical methods are not expected to be effective or would have undesirable consequences such 

as the destruction of desirable vegetation that is interspersed with weed species, then the Unit may 

decide to use an herbicide. Employment of a conservative approach with herbicides would result in 

minor, localized, short-term negative effects and negligible long-term effects from chemical 

exposure. Long-term negative effects are not expected, instead the effects should be positive on fish 

and wildlife as their respective habitats would be in better condition to support each species group. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Prescribed Fire

Under both alternatives, prescribed fire is listed as one of the available IPM strategies (Obj. 1.6, 1.7, 

2.1). If utilized, objectives may include (1) maintenance of ecological processes, specifically by 

retarding succession in sites where woody shrub or tree invaders are present; (2) maintenance of 

vigorous stands of native grasses and forbs; (3) providing open spaces that increase landscape 

diversity; and/or (4) reducing or maintaining the density of nonnative species. 

The effects of prescribed fire are relative to ecosystem condition, season (fuel and soil moisture), and 

the characteristics of the ignited fire. In stands with invading woody shrubs or trees, restoration fires 

are often more intense so that they injure and kill invading species. In stands with substantial 

nonnative species present, single fires can have no effect or even stimulate regrowth in nonnative 

species (DiTomaso et al. 2006, Keeley 2006). With repeated prescribed fires, particularly those that 

target sensitive phenological stages (peak vegetative stage or prior to seed dispersal), many nonnative 

herbs and invading shrubs tend to decline (DiTomaso et al. 2006). 

Immediately after a prescribed fire, there is an immediate reduction in prey for ground- and aerialforaging species, especially those that prey on invertebrates. There is the potential for direct mortality 

of surface-dwelling and ground-nesting species if fire occurs during breeding season. Nesting habitat 

for ground-nesting species would be completely removed. Burrowing species would be minimally 

directly affected by surface fires. Direct mortality for large mammals is not expected to occur for 

prescribed fires in grassland habitat. These fires are relatively quick-moving, but the ample sight 

distances would allow animals to react in time to reach safety. All large mammals would incur some 

stress from flight and avoidance behaviors along with temporary displacement from home ranges. 

Studies associated with landscape-scale fires indicate that most large mammals do not appear to be 

substantially affected (Smith 2000). Effects to predators would be similar to the large mammals. 

Predators can also suffer from increased competition if they are forced to migrate to already occupied 

home ranges of other predators. There would be limited impacts to reptile and amphibian species and 

individuals with access to suitable escape habitat (wetlands, burrows, or large unburned fuels). It has 

been suggested that most reptile and amphibian species are relatively unaffected by prescribed fire 

and there is limited mortality (Russell et al. 1999). Some mortality to other species and individuals 

would be expected depending on duration and intensity of the fire. The effect of prescribed fire on 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-30 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

invertebrates depends on the life-stage of the species of concern when the fire occurs and fire 

intensity. Some mobile forms that can fly or otherwise escape a burn would be minimally affected; 

however, others may not be able to escape a fast-moving fire. Those life stages that are immobile 

(e.g., eggs, larvae, or pupae) and exposed to the fire would be expected to suffer a higher rate of 

mortality. High-intensity fires can result in soil heating to the level where invertebrates found in the 

near-surface soils are killed (Nealy et al. 1999). Temperatures rapidly decline below the surface, so 

insects found in the soil would be less affected than terrestrial species when burn intensities are 

relatively low. 

In the short term (i.e., next growing season), grasslands would be expected to rapidly regenerate in 

the spring following the burn; however, vegetative forage in wetland areas would likely continue to 

be reduced from pre-burn levels. Winter rainfall would allow the existing seedbank to germinate. In 

turn, this would provide forage for species that graze on the vegetation. Predators could improve 

hunting success because of improved visibility, but conversely could also suffer from lower small 

mammal abundance. Granivores would find limited food sources until late in the summer when 

grasses matured. Much of the burn area would be unsuitable as nesting habitat for those species that 

require dense grass cover for their nests; however, those species that prefer more open habitat may 

find somewhat improved nesting habitat. Overall, there would be a reduction in habitat for groundnesting species caused by removal of the vegetation which formerly provided cover. There would be 

a reduction in habitat for small mammals that require dense cover. Conditions would gradually 

improve as the vegetation regrew through the growing season. There may be a limited amount of 

seed-based forage until summer, but most species would benefit from increased herbaceous 

production. The increased production of forage typically increases large mammal use of burned sites. 

Depending on the season of fire, recolonization can occur almost immediately after the fire is 

extinguished (Smith 2000). Predators would be expected to follow the prey back into the area. Until 

the prey base is available to support them, recolonization by herbivores and small mammals may be 

slower and in lower numbers than were present before the fire. Because reptile and amphibian 

mortality is expected to be minimal, an extensive and slow recolonization would generally not be 

required. However, similar to small mammals, the removal of tall grass and ground litter that 

formerly provided cover would limit habitat suitability, at least in the early part of the growing 

season. Species that rely on these habitats may be slow to recolonize as this material reaccumulates 

post-burn (Russell et al. 1999). For invertebrates, recolonization is expected from adjacent unburned 

areas through natural dispersal methods as forage and egg-laying habitat regenerates during the first 

growing season. Species with life stages that occur within the soil would be affected to a lesser 

degree.

In the long term, overall there would be a beneficial effect to birds as native forage became 

reestablished, invasive species were reduced, and the vegetation was maintained as a nativedominated community and free of encroaching shrubs, trees, and invasive plant species. Because 

they rapidly regenerate, grasslands may reach pre-burn conditions in only a couple of growing 

seasons. Wetter areas would return to pre-fire conditions somewhere between 5 and 20 years, 

depending on the community and management actions, especially periods and depths of inundation. 

The increased production of native ground cover would be expected to support target native wildlife 

species. 

The following measures could reduce the negative effects of prescribed fire on wildlife and 

encourage faster recovery. These measures are conceptual and some could conflict. Measures that are 

applicable to a specific fire plan would need to be adjusted to the local conditions. Measures to 

minimize harm to these species include: 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-31

1. To minimize direct mortality, conduct prescribed fire outside the nesting and calving or 

fawning period for birds and large mammals. 

2. Conduct surveys for priority resources of concern to document locations and areas of use, 

allowing for more accurate fire planning and thereby minimizing adverse effects. 

3. To minimize direct mortality to focal species of invertebrates, conduct burns during the 

underground life-stages, or during the flight period.

4. Minimize indirect effects to amphibian breeding areas and waterways by protecting them 

with erosion control measures that restrict sediment-laden water from entering wetlands and 

ponds. 

Because of the short residence times, low fuel loads, and patchiness of fuels, few concerns exist over 

soil heating in most Pacific Northwest dry grasslands and wetlands (Walstad et al. 1990). Removal of 

larger woody material may be prescribed through cut-and-pile treatments. The effects of pile burning 

on underlying soil heating are well-studied and reviewed elsewhere (DeBano et al. 1998). In short, 

piles can generate substantial heat and combust soil organic matter, alter soil structure, and increase 

the hydrophobic nature of underlying mineral soil. Pile burning can also lead to subsequent nonnative 

species invasion in areas of localized soil disturbances. In even heavily encroached grasslands, piles 

typically cause only minor, patchy effects (piles typically cover less than 5 percent of the burned 

landscape). If pile burning is required, minimization measures could include scattering severity 

across the landscape with small piles ignited conservatively or removing slash from units prior to 

burning. Pile burning effects can also be minimized if the small piles are burned over wet soil (during 

the dormant season), where the soil moisture will resist temperature rise (DeBano et al. 1998). Pile 

burning locations may require focused follow-up to prevent nonnative species establishment. 

Impacts to air quality would occur from the actual burning activities and also from emissions 

associated with equipment used to facilitate and manage the prescribed burn for fire control purposes. 

Emissions associated with equipment for prescribed burning are assumed to be minimal in 

comparison with the emissions associated with the actual prescribed burn. Through effective 

planning and methods by which prescribed burns are controlled, emissions associated with prescribed 

burns can be limited to such a degree that ambient air quality standards are not exceeded, and 

impacts would be adverse but not significant. Additionally, properly planned and executed prescribed 

fire can reduce the frequency and intensity of wildfire, thereby reducing the massive effects wildfire 

can have on air quality. 

There are several methods by which emissions associated with prescribed burning can be limited so 

as not to exceed ambient air quality standards. The majority of such measures involve limiting the 

level of fuel consumed. Measures that can be implemented include: (1) removal of fuel within the 

prescribed burn area, (2) limiting the size of the prescribed burn area, (3) seasonal timing of 

prescribed burn, (4) meteorologically driven timing of prescribed burn, (5) increased frequency of 

burning, (6) condensed burning areas, and (7) active monitoring. Additionally, public service 

announcements would inform the local populations of potential air emissions associated with 

prescribed burning and allow people to make accommodations to limit potential secondary health 

effects (e.g., use of personal humidifiers, staying indoors, personal respiratory aids, and reduced 

activity). 

Because this analysis has been conducted at a programmatic level, site-specific evaluation will be 

necessary when planning prescribed fires. These individual evaluations should contain a higher level 

of detail than is presented in this document. The Service prepares and implements a step-down 

Wildland Fire Management Plans consistent with Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-32 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

and DOI 2009) and to achieve refuge resource objectives. Plans were last finalized for the Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR in 2003. Under all alternatives, an update would be developed using 

guidance from the Service’s Wildland Fire Management Handbook (USFWS 2015). This handbook 

defines the Service-wide goal of wildland fire management to achieve resource objectives through 

prevention of human-caused wildland fires, to minimize the negative impacts on resources from all 

wildland fires that occur, and to guide the use of prescribed fire as an integral part of the resources 

management in a manner that minimizes the risk to the lives of employees, visitors, neighbors, and 

their property. Articulation of wildland fire management goals and objectives would be integrated 

with management goals and objectives from the CCP and other sources, as appropriate. 

6.3.2 Effects to the Physical Environment at Black River Unit of Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects to Hydrology and Water Quality 

Under both alternatives, BMPs would be used to minimize the negative impacts of habitat 

management and public use actions. Habitat management activities with the potential to affect 

hydrology and/or water quality include the use of pesticides or herbicides and herbivore grazing, 

which may have negative impacts in the short term, depending upon the location and related wildlife. 

Only State and Federally approved herbicides, including wetland-related, may be used on the Unit. 

Staff that apply pesticides are required to retain a public applicator license. See Section 6.3.1 for 

more information on effects of IPM and Appendix G for more information on the IPM methods. The 

long-term effect is expected to be minor. 

Under both alternatives, grazing is included as an available tool for managing vegetation (Obj. 1.6, 

1.7, 2.1). A potential negative impact from grazing activity on the Unit is a decline in water quality, 

as measured by turbidity and fecal coliforms from manure. The potential decline in water quality can 

be partially mitigated by reducing pathways for manure to enter waterways, accomplished through 

maintenance of electric and wire fences preventing cattle access to waterways, and by managing 

timing and location of grazing to avoid cattle presence while areas are flooded or have standing 

water.

Under both alternatives, the removal or replacement of fish passage barriers on new acquisitions 

would improve overall connectivity, including improvements to water flow and velocity. This would 

result in a minor to moderate, beneficial effect to hydrology. 

Under Alternative 2, the Service would complete a detailed Water Resources Inventory and 

Assessment (WRIA) that would assist staff by identifying various management options to improve 

habitat conditions, water quality, and hydrologic regimes in the river system. The Service would 

coordinate and partner with appropriate agencies to sustain and enhance hydrological conditions 

needed to support channel habitat and ensure an appropriate water budget and delivery, including 

water quantity and quality. 

Standard enhancement techniques (riparian plantings, IPM, placement of large woody debris, etc.) 

would be used, as appropriate, to improve tributary channel and riparian habitat conditions. There 

may be minor, short-term, negative effects of these enhancement techniques including disturbance to 

the waterways, local erosion, and sediment inputs. Riparian plantings and the placement of large 

woody debris would result in the following positive effects to hydrology: 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-33

• Increasing the stability of the stream channel by absorbing the energy of flood flows, 

reducing water velocity at low and moderate flows, protecting developing thickets of riparian 

vegetation, and reducing erosion of the stream bank and stream bed 

• Affecting channel form and morphology by slowing and directing flood flows and 

temporarily storing sediment 

• Promoting diverse hydrological and physical structure, including pools, hydraulic 

complexity, and roughness. 

To address reed canarygrass in seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland habitat (Obj. 1.7), seasonally 

ponded areas would be evaluated and enhanced with improved water management capabilities as 

needed, through installation of water control structures, ditches, or culvert removal. Implementation 

of water control methods would negatively affect natural hydrology in the short and long term; 

however it may be necessary for invasive species control.

Construction of observation platforms and associated parking lots would not impact surface water 

quality as these facilities are not scheduled to be built over the river or tributaries. The enhanced boat 

launch and the small parking lot in the nearby upland would reduce sediments entering the river 

channel. 

Overall Effects 

Under Alternative 1, the overall effect to hydrology and water quality would be negligible to minor, 

negative in the short term and negligible to minor, positive in the long term. Under Alternative 2, the 

overall effect would be short-term, negligible to minor, and negative, and long-term, minor, positive 

impacts. 

Effects to Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Under both alternatives, habitat management actions may involve heavy equipment such as tractors 

or track vehicles to mow, hay, and disk, or otherwise manipulate the vegetation, especially to reduce 

the negative impacts of nonnative and invasive reed canarygrass. The use of heavy equipment could 

cause soil compaction. Repeated mowing, haying, or disking over an extended period of time 

regularly compacts soils, reduces natural soil porosity, and leads to less percolation and more runoff. 

However, negative impacts to the soils and geology of the area are anticipated to be localized and 

minor. Best management practices (e.g., not mowing over wet soils) would be followed to minimize 

impacts. 

Herbivore grazing is included within the suite of IPM techniques under both alternatives (Obj. 1.6, 

1.7, 2.1). The physical and structural impacts of grazing include removing healthy standing 

vegetation, trampling of other vegetation, and reducing populations of pioneering woody plants. If 

areas are grazed too early in spring when they are saturated or flooded, herbivores can break through 

the sod. This damages the underlying structure and creates an extremely uneven surface. This 

potential negative impact could be reduced by restricting grazing to the less wet seasons. Compaction 

can result from both grazing and the use of heavy equipment, causing undesirable increases in bulk 

density. 

Under Alternative 2, the placement of large woody debris into tributary channel habitat may locally 

displace some soil and lead to bank erosion, although this effect is expected to be minor, short-term, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-34 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

and local. Over the long term, moderate, positive effects are expected as stream bank stability 

increases and riparian vegetation grows in the stabilized, stored sediment. Soil productivity is 

expected to increase in the affected areas.

Forest management practices in the mixed forest habitat are expected to improve soil quality in the 

long term as more stable, native ground cover becomes established and organic matter increases. 

However these actions may also have short-term, adverse impacts such as erosion, compaction, and 

some loss of soil organic matter. 

Under Alternative 2, the construction of new public use facilities would result in soil disturbance. 

During the construction of these facilities, soils would be disturbed to form graded surfaces and 

adequate foundations for the proposed paved areas and observation platforms. However, equipment 

and material staging areas would be identified to minimize soil disturbance and compaction onsite. 

Erosion control measures would be incorporated into site development plans to reduce or eliminate 

loss of site soils during construction. Since the collective footprint of these facilities would be 

relatively small, the overall anticipated adverse impacts to soil would be minor. 

Overall Effects 

Under both alternatives, the use of heavy equipment and grazing animals may produce temporarily 

impacted soils. Under Alternative 2, negative effects due to habitat management activity and 

construction projects would be minimized through use of BMPs. Minor, short-term, negative effects 

to the soils may occur, but an overall moderate, beneficial effect is expected over the long term. 

Effects to Air Quality

The activities proposed may result in a slight and temporary increase in vehicle emissions due to the 

proposed use of heavy equipment in enhancing habitats for wildlife resources. Additionally, a slight 

increase in vehicular emissions could be expected due to an increase in visitation with the proposed 

viewing platforms, interpretive information, and parking areas. 

Overall Effects 

Overall, long-term effects to air quality should be negligible under all alternatives. Both alternatives 

would not be expected to have significant long-term effects to air quality compared to current 

management. Some minor, short-term impacts to local air quality may result from Unit management 

actions. 

General Pollution Control

The Service has policies regarding pollution control at all of its facilities, including national wildlife 

refuges. These policies direct all Service employees to (1) comply with all applicable environmental 

laws and regulations, (2) reduce pollution, (3) inventory and properly treat or handle any hazardous 

substances; and (4) clean up or remove hazardous materials on contaminated sites. These policies are 

discussed in the Service’s Manual in the 500 Series, which can be accessed at 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/. The Unit would comply with these policies under all 

alternatives. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-35

With the proposed actions of Alternative 2, the overall water quality, water chemistry, temperature, 

and risk of contaminant release would remain unchanged. Some localized, short-term effects might 

occur associated with various land management activities, although they would be offset by 

implementing BMPs and would be temporary and localized. 

Overall Effects 

Some minor, short term, negative impacts may occur in habitat enhancement but may be offset by the 

positive wildlife response. Long-term soils, air quality, and water quality would remain the same as 

in Alternative 1. 

6.3.3 Effects Common to All Habitats and Wildlife at Black River Unit of Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Under Alternative 1, no public uses would occur on the Unit, although public uses would continue to 

occur within the adjacent river channel. Under Alternative 2, the Unit would be opened to compatible 

wildlife-dependent public uses, including wildlife observation, interpretation, and wildlife 

photography. Disturbance impacts to specific habitat types as a result of public use programs are 

discussed in the following sections. 

Under Alternative 1, inventory, monitoring, research, and scientific assessments regarding natural 

and cultural resources, public uses, and interactions among these elements would continue as at 

present. Relative to habitats, plant communities, and wildlife, most of these activities would involve 

observation and measurement. Occasionally, tissues or whole specimens of native or nonnative 

plants would be taken, removed, transplanted, or outplanted. In rare situations, tissues or whole 

specimens of native or nonnative animals would be purposefully or accidentally taken. 

Additionally, some of these activities would involve implementing and assessing various habitat 

management techniques, at small scales. Disturbance, including trampling and potentially 

transporting nonnative species, would be the primary effect of the vast majority of these activities. 

The effects of some of these activities, such as inventories of invasive plants or evaluations of the 

contributions of specific habitat management practices to achievement of goals and objectives, would 

be primarily local. 

Overall, these activities would generate information which would be analyzed and interpreted to help 

staff assess the efficacy of management practices and facilitate appropriate course corrections as part 

of the adaptive management process. The effects of these activities on habitats, plant communities, 

and wildlife would be negligible to minor and positive. Compatibility determinations included in 

Appendix B address the effects and conditions associated with these uses in greater detail. 

Under Alternative 2, inventory, monitoring, research, and scientific assessments regarding natural 

and cultural resources, public uses, and interactions among these elements would increase compared 

to those occurring at present. In addition to generating the same types of effects described for 

Alternative 1, it would be expected that this would result in an increase in information about the

habitats, plant communities, and wildlife within the Unit. This would reduce uncertainty associated 

with wildlife and plant responses to habitat management, promote achievement of management goals 

and objectives, and facilitate adaptive management. For example, this would include better 

information about the efficacy of pest management programs. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-36 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Through application of adaptive management principles, enhanced knowledge would slowly lead to 

improved management and an increase in the health, productivity, and value of the Unit’s wildlife 

habitats and plant communities to native vegetation and wildlife and an increase in the abundance 

and diversity of native wildlife within the Unit. The effects of these activities on the Unit’s habitats, 

plant communities, and wildlife would have beneficial, minor to moderate effects. Compatibility 

determinations included in Appendix B address the effects and conditions associated with these uses 

in greater detail.

6.3.4 Effects to River and Tributary Channels and Associated Species at Black 

River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

There are approximately 7.5 miles of river within the current acquisition boundary and 16 miles of 

tributaries passing through or along the Unit boundary. Under both alternatives, the Service would 

work with WDNR to develop an interagency agreement or similar instrument that promotes 

cooperative management of the river channel between WDNR and the Service within the acquisition 

boundary. Cooperative management would help both the Service and WDNR protect fish and 

wildlife that use the river channel, allow the enforcement of Unit laws and regulations on the river 

channel, and define public access restrictions and management needed to provide improved wildlife 

protection from disturbance. The Service would also continue to maintain tributary channel habitat 

features that benefit a diversity of species (federally listed Oregon spotted frog, State endemic 

Olympic mudminnow, native fish, salmonids, and invertebrates). Efforts would be directed towards 

target invasive species (e.g., purple loosestrife) along the river and tributaries. These actions would 

result in short- and long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effects.

The proposed removal of fish barriers on newly acquired lands with tributaries under both 

alternatives would benefit salmonids and other fish and wildlife that use channel habitats. Minor 

short-term, negative effects (e.g., soil disruption, increase in suspended sediment during removal, 

trampling of river bank from foot traffic, potential use of heavy equipment) would take place during 

the actual removal; however, these effects would be mitigated by scheduling the work at an 

appropriate time to minimize or eliminate impacts and employing best management practices. 

Many of the issues associated with hydrological conditions in the river and tributaries are due to 

influences beyond the reach of the Unit alone. Alternative 1 does not include a WRIA. In Alternative 

2, the Unit would pursue the completion of a WRIA to help identify hydrologic needs and proposes 

partnerships with appropriate agencies to sustain and enhance hydrological conditions needed to 

support the Black River and associated tributaries and ensure an appropriate water budget and water 

delivery takes place. Effects of this effort are expected to result in short- and long-term benefits for 

wetland habitats, fish, and wildlife associated with the Unit. 

Under Alternative 2, the Service would actively seek new partnerships and strengthen existing 

partnerships to control priority invasive species and to stay abreast of newly developing problematic 

species. In both alternatives, the Unit would continue to work with Thurston County Noxious Weed 

Control Agency, WDFW, WDNR, and the Service’s Washington Field Office (WFO) to assure the 

highest priority species threatening the river and tributary channel habitats are addressed. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-37

Ideally, river and tributary channel habitat should have less than 15 percent cover of nonnative plant 

species (excluding reed canarygrass). To achieve this characteristic under Alternative 2, 

approximately 0.25 river miles of reed canarygrass would be treated each year. The Unit would also 

evaluate methods to control nonnative vertebrate species such as bullfrogs and nonnative fish that use 

channel habitats (see Appendix G). Control of these species would provide short- and long-term 

benefits to Oregon spotted frogs and mudminnows that occur in the same habitat. The Unit would 

partner with other agencies to determine the best course of action regarding nonnative fish. 

In Alternative 2, more time and effort would be directed to controlling nonnative plant species that 

threaten the channels themselves and negatively impact the species that use them. As described in 

detail throughout Chapter 4, reed canarygrass is a major threat that has changed the ecology of the 

channels by reducing channel size from edge growth and rooting in the channel on submerged 

vegetation; growing over the water surface and thus reducing light penetration; impeding water flow 

and most likely wildlife and fish movement; restricting human movement through the channel; 

giving more surface area for algae attachment and coverage during annual summer algal blooms; and 

other effects not yet understood. Mapping of reed canarygrass infestation sites is needed to document 

and track areas in need of control. Reducing reed canarygrass impacts in this habitat type is very 

challenging, and cooperation, coordination, and assistance from partners familiar with this problem 

would be sought to determine the best control methods to deter growth and reduce reinfestation of 

channels and channel edges. Surveys for submerged nonnative plants would determine if other 

control efforts are needed. Other priority nonnative plant species that cause habitat degradation and 

need control with herbicide spot treatments include purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. Other 

nonnative new species such as knotweed would need treatment as it invades from nearby 

uncontrolled sites. 

The field work associated with invasive plant control can temporarily cause wildlife to move away 

and result in negligible habitat disturbances. Channel species dependent upon native habitats for 

foraging, cover, and loafing benefit from invasive plant control. The Black River is known for its low 

oxygen levels, primarily due to the extremely slow current (9-inch drop per mile), lack of ripples to 

break the surface, high organic content of the channel bottom and sides, and high nutrient loads. The 

lowest levels are in late summer and early fall. To avoid exacerbating the low dissolved oxygen 

condition, care would be taken during invasive plant control to minimize decomposition of biomass. 

This would cause less impact to native fish and invertebrates. If herbicides are used, a conservative 

approach is expected to produce minor to moderate, short-term, negative effects from chemical 

exposure with minor, long-term, negative effects depending upon the area of each treatment. The 

negative effects may be minor or moderate depending upon how much treatment is applied over 

time, but reclaiming the river and channel habitats from the threat posed by the nonnative, aggressive 

invasive plants would have an overall beneficial effect on all aspects of river and channel habitat, and 

the dependent fish and wildlife. The Unit would control nonnative bullfrogs, as needed, after 

presence/absence surveys are conducted in key locations (see Chapter 2 and Appendix G). Control of 

invasive species (reed canarygrass, warm-water fish, and bullfrog) provides both short- and longterm benefits to native animals, especially the Oregon spotted frog population. The Unit would 

partner with other agencies to determine the most effective, lowest impact method to control 

nonnative fish. 

The effects of the above actions are expected to benefit an array of species including amphibians 

such as the Oregon spotted frog, red-legged frog, Pacific treefrog, rough-skinned newt, northwest and 

long-toed salamanders; waterbirds such as pied-billed grebe, belted kingfisher, great blue and green 

herons; fish such as Olympic mudminnow, three spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, cutthroat and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-38 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

steelhead trout, chinook and coho salmon; benthic and aquatic invertebrates including freshwater 

mussels; insects such as Pacific clubtail dragonfly; freshwater sponge species; and mammals such as 

bat species, mink, muskrat, otter, beaver, and black bear. 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

The existing gravel right-of-way and boat ramp alongside the 123rd Avenue bridge provides access 

into Black River. Under Alternative 2, the Service would explore a partnership with Thurston County 

to facilitate improvements to this access. If not improved (Alternative 1), bank erosion from vehicles 

and trailers would continue to deposit sediment into the river channel (continue negative impacts). 

The improved boat ramp and parking area (Alternative 2) would be expected to result in moderate, 

short-term impacts during construction but long-term benefits by reducing the amount of bank 

erosion and sediment into the channel. 

The boat ramp at this location would be a beneficial site to provide information about the Service and 

the Refuge System, as well as specific Unit rules and regulations which would minimize human 

footprints and disturbance to wildlife. The improved boat ramp and parking area would create the 

potential for additional visitors on and near the river channel habitat which could result in some 

minor additional disturbance to river-associated species and an increase in litter, especially fishing 

line. Abandoned fishing lines are known to entrap wildlife such as birds and may also entrap aquatic 

animals. The potential for greater disturbance and litter is a minor, negative effect over time. 

With greater public use of the river, greater appreciation of the habitat and Unit would be expected, 

as well as an increase in conservation awareness.

Overall Effects 

Under both alternatives, there would be positive effects from working with WDNR on cooperative 

management of the river channel and the removal of fish barriers, which would reconnect wetland 

habitats. Otherwise, Alternative 1 maintains existing resources that result in minimal effort directed 

toward active management of the river channel and larger landscape restoration and continued bank 

erosion from vehicles adjacent to the 123rd Avenue bridge. Overall, this is expected to have 

negligible to minor, negative effects. The overall effects of Alternative 2 would provide minor to 

moderate, beneficial effects. In particular, a greater effort to control nonnative, invasive plants and 

animals would reduce potential noxious seed sources and reduce weeds spreading to nearby wetland 

habitats in water flow through channels. 

6.3.5 Effects to Bog Habitats and Associated Species at Black River Unit of 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Only a partial assessment of the bog habitat characteristics within the Unit boundary has been 

achieved and this would remain under Alternative 1. In Alternative 2, more time and effort would be 

directed towards controlling nonnative plant species that threaten or compromise habitats, including 

bog areas, and negatively impact the wildlife species inhabitants. Although little of the bog habitat 

has been explored, the initial impression is that nonnative and invasive plants do not appear to be a 

large problem. However, the sensitivity of this particular habitat would require a conservative 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-39

approach to controlling nonnative plants that would result in negligible or minor, short-term effects 

(hand cutting vs. chemical treatments).

In Alternative 2, consideration would be given to possibly translocating or introducing rare species 

into the bog area. Habitat function and resident species would be evaluated and expertise would be 

consulted to provide specific habitat management actions and minimize negative impacts. Only 

species missing from this south Puget Sound lowland bog habitat would be considered and would be 

investigated to determine how their presence could change the balance of the ecosystem. Specific 

protocols would be established including rigorous monitoring and decision tree. 

Under Alternative 2, the designation of a Research Natural Area (RNA) would be evaluated, if 

warranted. If proposed and approved, the designation would provide greater conservation protection 

and awareness for this habitat. The short- and long-term effects of RNA designation would provide 

minor to moderate benefits to bog habitat by giving the area greater protection from human 

disturbance. The information gained would provide a baseline to which future changes can be 

compared (e.g., hydrology, water quality, species richness). 

In total, these habitat management actions are expected to benefit species that are reliant on the bog 

complex, such as the rare Beller’s ground beetle, Hatch’s click beetle, and Queen Charlotte’s copper 

butterfly. In addition, other species associated with bogs would benefit from an intact bog, including 

western bog laurel, bog cranberry, sundew, bog orchids, cotton grass, and if present, the federally

listed water howellia. 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

Bog habitat within the Unit would remain closed to visitors under both alternatives due to the 

sensitivity of this unique area.

Overall Effects 

In summary, the effects under Alternative 1 would remain negligible with no work or access to this 

habitat. The proposed actions of Alternative 2 are expected to have negligible to minor, short-term, 

negative effects primarily because they entail initial access into the unique bog habitat for inventory 

and habitat assessments. In the long term, the inventory and habitat assessments would be expected 

to provide moderate, beneficial, indirect effects to both the bog habitat and associated species. 

6.3.6 Effects to Shrub Swamp and Associated Species at Black River Unit of 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Little of the 512 acres of shrub swamp habitat has been assessed and the amount of nonnative plants 

and animals is unknown. Access is very difficult and conducting a baseline survey on portions away 

from the edge of river channel habitat would be among the first steps addressing action on priority 

nonnative weed species. The shrub swamp habitat that joins the river channel habitat shows 

significant reed canarygrass infestation. Additionally, a small amount of purple loosestrife and a 

moderate amount of yellow flag iris infest the edge of the shrub swamp near the river channel. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-40 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 1, control of reed canarygrass would be minimal in this habitat where the 

vegetation density is difficult to access and maintain. The level of effort would continue to be 

directed at specific invasive plants (i.e., yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife) to prevent spread and new 

establishments resulting in minor, short-term, negative impacts as wildlife disturbance may occur 

during treatments. In Alternative 2, more acreage (minimum of 5 percent or 25.6 acres) and effort 

would be put into controlling nonnative plant species that threaten or compromise Unit habitats and 

negatively impact the species that use them. A greater effort to survey the habitat is expected to have 

negligible to minor short-term negative effects. Reclaiming the transition between river channel and 

shrub swamp habitats from the threats posed by reed canarygrass would have a moderate beneficial 

effect on all aspects of channel habitat and the fish and wildlife that depend in its resources. 

Positive effects of the invasive plant control actions promoted by Alternative 2 would enhance 

habitats to a greater degree than Alternative 1. They are expected to diversify vegetation composition 

and resources and benefit an array of wildlife species, including amphibians such as Oregon spotted 

frog, red-legged frog, Pacific tree frog, rough-skinned newt, northwest and long-toed salamanders; 

waterbirds such as pied-billed grebe, belted kingfisher, great blue and green herons; migratory and 

resident passerines such as willow and Pacific slope flycatchers, downy woodpecker, marsh wren, 

flycatcher species, warblers such as McGillivray’s, Wilson’s, orange-crowned, yellow-rumped, and 

common yellowthroat; song sparrow; some fish such as Olympic mudminnow, three spine 

stickleback, prickly sculpin, and, perhaps during high water periods, cutthroat and steelhead trout, 

chinook and coho salmon would benefit; benthic and aquatic invertebrates, including freshwater 

mussels, insects such as Pacific clubtail dragonfly, and freshwater sponge species; terrestrial 

pollination insects; and mammals such as bat species, mink, muskrat, otter, beaver, and black bear. 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

Unit lands such as the shrub swamp adjacent to the river channel are not open to the public, and 

would remain closed under both alternatives. No negative or positive effects to the habitat from 

public use or visitor services actions should be incurred. 

Overall Effects 

In summary, Alternative 1 would have negligible overall effects because of limited staffing and 

access into the areas. The overall effect of the proposed habitat actions in Alternative 2 is minor to 

moderately beneficial to the habitat, long-term, especially for invasive plant control near the interface 

with the river channel. 

6.3.7 Effects to Riparian Habitat and Associated Species at Black River Unit 

of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Approximately 265 acres of riparian habitat is mapped, however, little of it has been visited to gain 

baseline biological information. Under Alternative 1, this is not expected to change due to limited 

resources (i.e., staffing); however, under Alternative 2, a concerted effort would be made to identify 

the biological and ecological integrity along the Black River and its tributaries.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-41

Enhancing the riparian habitat structure and function can be accomplished by controlling priority 

invasive plants (e.g., purple loosestrife) and preventing them from dispersing and becoming 

established in other areas. Alternative 1 would maintain the few current areas whereas Alternative 2 

would include additional areas to control invasive species and enhance habitat by planting native 

trees and shrubs. Habitat strategies (Chapter 2) suggest a minimum of 20 percent (53 acres) of 

riparian habitat be annually managed to control priority problem plants. Following established 

forestry practices would augment riparian habitat structure and function and to increase plant 

diversity (Carey 2003, 2006). 

Control of priority nonnative plants is expected to produce minor, short-term, negative effects 

primarily due to potential wildlife disturbance. There are a limited number of herbicides that are 

approved within riparian corridors for water quality concerns; therefore, negative impacts are 

expected to be minor and short-term. The long-term benefits of species native to the habitat would be 

minor to moderate as a diverse habitat would also benefit wildlife, including some amphibians such 

as the rough-skinned newt, northwest and long-toed salamanders, and Pacific tree frog; green heron, 

migratory and resident passerines such as McGillivray’s, Wilson’s, orange-crowned, black-throated 

gray, and yellow-rumped warblers, warbling vireo, willow and Pacific slope flycatchers, rufous 

hummingbird, American robin, spotted towhee, purple finch, song and fox sparrows, black-headed 

grosbeak, Bewick’s and winter wrens, cedar waxwing, red-breasted sapsucker and downy 

woodpecker; raptors such as sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks; and tree–cavity-nesting waterfowl 

such as wood duck and hooded merganser; terrestrial pollination insects; and mammals such as bat 

species, mink, muskrat, otter, coyote, black bear, bobcat, and cougar. This list is not exhaustive and 

could include other species. Benefits should have short- and long-term effects. 

Effects of Public Use Actions

Under both alternatives, the Unit’s riparian forest is not open to the public. Neither negative nor 

positive effects to the habitat from public use or visitor services actions should be incurred. 

Overall Effects

In summary, the overall effect of the proposed habitat actions in Alternative 2 would be minor to 

moderately beneficial to the habitat because a greater effort to control invasive plants would be 

made. Alternative 1 would have negligible overall effects because of limited staff and funding to 

complete management and biological projects. 

6.3.8 Effects to Emergent Marsh Habitat and Associated Species at Black 

River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Over 34 acres of emergent marsh occur on the Unit. The marsh is important to the federally 

threatened and State-listed Oregon spotted frog for breeding, egg laying, and developing tadpoles. 

However, emergent marsh habitat is perhaps the most vulnerable and degraded of all wetland habitats 

on the Unit due to the establishment of invasive reed canarygrass. Reed canarygrass tends to form 

dense monocultures and displace native herbaceous plants and grasses. Because shallow areas retain 

water into the late summer and are composed of unstable soils, it is difficult to control reed 

canarygrass in any of the emergent marsh locations and create optimal or even acceptable habitat 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-42 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

conditions for Oregon spotted frog breeding and egg laying. Under Alternative 1, the Unit would 

continue to conduct limited invasive plant management, scheduled to minimize impacts to wildlife, 

and would be expected to result in negligible impacts. 

In Alternative 2, a minimum of 20 percent of emergent marsh habitat would be managed annually to 

control nonnative plant species and enhance habitat, especially for Oregon spotted frog. A variety of 

IPM techniques would be used to manage the vegetation, particularly to control reed canarygrass. 

These techniques have potential impacts to other plant species and wildlife. For example, mechanical 

methods such as mowing can cause direct mortality to various birds, small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians. Not only are these species subject to mortality from machinery, but the dense vegetation 

cover is converted to sparse vegetation and pockets of short vegetation until wetland plants 

reestablish. The use of equipment can cause soil compaction or soils/water contamination. To 

minimize these impacts, mowing would be performed only when soils are dry enough to support 

equipment. The impacts of management could be reduced by delaying operations until after most 

wetland bird species have completed nesting. 

To minimize the risk of contamination, equipment would be regularly maintained and inspected 

before each use. Spill kits would be available onsite and all maintenance would be sited away from 

wetlands and waterbodies. Equipment operators would be trained in spill prevention and response 

and they would be provided appropriate personal protective equipment. 

The impacts of IPM methods are expected to be minor and negative in the short term. In the long 

term, if maintained, the condition of emergent marsh habitat on the Unit would improve, leading to 

minor, positive, long-term effects.

Under both alternatives, Unit staff would share information and collaborate with other agencies and 

partners to determine the most effective control methods, or alternative methods to reduce the 

negative effect of this grass on Oregon spotted frog and other wildlife species (e.g., migratory and 

resident birds). 

Under both alternatives and within policies and guidelines for the threatened Oregon spotted frog, 

egg masses may need to be moved as seasonal water recedes. This activity would allow the eggs to 

develop into tadpoles and would be expected to have negligible, negative effects in the short term, 

which are outweighed by moderate, positive effects in the long term through recruitment into the 

population. 

Habitat management activities are expected to promote a more diverse assemblage of plant species, 

and a mosaic of water and vegetation that provides foraging opportunities and cover for a diversity of 

wildlife species, including amphibians such as Oregon spotted frog, red-legged frog, Pacific tree 

frog, rough-skinned newt, northwest and long-toed salamanders; shorebirds such as green heron and 

Wilson’s snipe; migratory and resident waterfowl such as mallard, American wigeon, northern 

shoveler, northern pintail, American green-winged, blue-winged, and cinnamon teal; coot, Canada 

and cackling geese; migratory and resident passerines such as purple martin, tree-, violet-green, and 

rough-winged swallow, northern harrier, red-winged blackbird; migrating shorebirds including 

greater yellowlegs; raptors such as northern harrier; mammals including mouse, shrew, vole, mole, 

bat species, coyote, black-tailed deer, elk, black bear, bobcat, and perhaps cougar; garter snake 

species; and freshwater and terrestrial invertebrates. This list is not exhaustive, and could include 

other species. Benefits should have short and long-term effects. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-43

Effects of Visitor Use Actions

Under Alternative 1, the emergent marsh lands would remain closed to the public. However, a 

strategically located viewing platform under Alternative 2 would provide observation and 

educational (interpretive panels) opportunities. Negative effects to the emergent marsh habitat from 

visitors are not expected.

Overall Effects 

In summary, the overall effect of Alternative 1 is negligible as current conditions would persist. The 

overall effects of habitat actions under Alternative 2 are expected to be minor, short-term, and 

negative; however, the long-term effects would benefit the integrity of the emergent marsh habitat 

and the diversity of species using the areas, especially Oregon spotted frog. Additional moderate 

long-term benefits include public environmental education through observation and interpretation. 

6.3.9 Effects to Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative Grassland and Associated 

Species at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Over 82 acres of seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland habitat is composed of 95–100 percent reed 

canarygrass. This tall, densely growing grass successfully outcompetes or crowds out virtually all 

other native herbaceous plants (see Chapters 2 and 4). The Unit’s objective would be to manage these 

areas as short-grass or no-grass to promote use by Oregon spotted frog. Attempts to restore wetland 

habitats with such a high percentage of reed canarygrass have mixed success in the Pacific Northwest 

without a major investment in water management capabilities such as dikes, water level control 

structures, water pumps, and methods to mechanically or chemically disturb the grass. 

Currently, small patches of lowland depressions dry out enough to be mowed or hayed, resulting in a 

more open area that then becomes flooded with fall, winter, and spring seasonal rains. With late-fall 

mowing, waterfowl and small wetland obligate mammals use the sites in winter, and because grass 

grows slowly that time of year, the sites can become adequate Oregon spotted frog egg-laying habitat 

in early spring. This habitat can also provide temporary foraging sites for greater yellowlegs, killdeer, 

Wilson’s snipe, and Canada and cackling geese. A small pilot project was tried to determine 

herbivore impacts on reed canarygrass and whether herbivores could be used as a tool to reduce grass 

biomass and to enhance frog egg-laying conditions. Initial indications are that it may be an effective 

tool. Another site is now being similarly managed. Other sites are managed with combinations of 

techniques. These management options and others have the potential to improve wildlife habitat 

quality given the compromised conditions. 

Both alternatives promote cooperation, coordination, and creative partnerships to identify effective 

methods to create a short-grass or no-grass condition for spring Oregon spotted frog egg-laying 

season and shallow water areas from late winter to fall, if possible. Under Alternative 2, up to 25 

acres would be actively managed (as opposed to the current 0.75 acres). Additionally, seasonally 

ponded areas would be evaluated and enhanced and water management capabilities would be 

improved as needed, through installation of water control structures, ditches, or culvert removal. The 

potential negative impacts to wildlife as a result of habitat management activities are expected to be 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-44 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

short-term and minor as a result of scheduling activities when frogs are least active (seasonal) and 

employing different methods of treatment (mowing vs. hand cutting) based on habitat conditions 

(moist soil vs. dry ground) to minimize impacts. In accordance with Service policies, species-specific 

management strategies would be thoroughly documented in the Service’s biological opinion and 

section 7 consultation prior to performing activities. 

In some situations, Oregon spotted frog egg masses can be stranded or suffer desiccation from loss of 

surface water as water recedes. Moving egg masses short distances into more appropriate water 

levels is occasionally the only option for tadpole development and survivorship. In both alternatives, 

moving eggs a short distance to sites with adequate water conditions would be beneficial in allowing 

normal development from egg to tadpole stage. Given the limited amount of quality breeding sites 

and the variability in weather conditions affecting surface water levels, this activity is expected to 

result in moderately beneficial to the frog population. 

The effects of management activities in seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands is expected to also 

benefit other wildlife (salamanders, migratory and resident waterfowl species, passerines, and 

mammals) to varying degrees depending on the water and vegetation conditions. 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

Seasonally flooded, nonnative grassland habitat areas would not be open to the public under 

Alternative 1; therefore, the effects are expected to be negligible. Alternative 2 includes a short trail 

and viewing deck on higher ground for wildlife observation in one area east of Endicott Road. 

Construction of the deck is expected to incur minor, short-term, negative effects, but these would be 

mitigated by scheduling the work when wildlife use is lowest. Consideration would be made to locate 

the deck in an area that would result in minimal, if any, long-term impact to wildlife and with 

appropriate structures to keep visitors on designated paths. 

Overall Effects 

In summary, under both alternatives, the overall negative effects are expected to be minor to 

moderate in the short term. Under Alternative 2, long-term, moderate, beneficial effects for wildlife 

outweigh the negative effects. Effects are moderately beneficial for Oregon spotted frog and those 

wetland species that rely on wetlands not dominated by reed canarygrass. The viewing platform and 

associated interpretive panels are expected to have beneficial, long-term effects in promoting the 

conservation of grassland and wetland habitats and their inhabitants.

6.3.10 Effects to Dry, Nonnative Grassland Habitat and Associated Species at 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

Control of priority nonnative species using IPM methods discussed in Appendix G would occur 

under both alternatives. As described above, the nonnative grasses would be managed for short-grass 

conditions. Reed canarygrass does not thrive in well-drained upland soils, so it is not a management 

concern; however, wild chervil is a concern. Minor, short-term effects may occur, but beneficial, 

short-term effects would also occur. Beneficial, minor to moderate, long-term effects would occur 

depending upon which species use the habitat. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-45

Under Alternative 2, management would perpetuate early seral stage, upland, short-grass areas that 

support wildlife associated with the habitat type. Under Alternative 1, the dry, nonnative grasslands 

(or former pastures) are hayed. Under Alternative 2, the areas would continue to be managed 

similarly but approximately 15 acres would be enhanced to achieve greater composition of native 

grasses and forbs (native herbaceous flowering plants) by using a variety of techniques that may 

include mowing, haying, herbivore grazing, planting, seeding, prescribed burning, or regular 

maintenance work. Management techniques would not be used from spring to mid-summer or until 

passerine nesting season is completed, as many bird species nest upon the ground in this habitat type. 

Adjacent prairies support species that rely predominantly on that habitat type. Some of the generalist 

species may use both the prairie and upland short grass habitats. Grasslands on the Unit consist 

primarily of nonnative grasses as a result of previous land use practices (agriculture, grazing) and are 

not considered native prairies with specific soils. For this reason, full-scale dry prairie restoration is 

not considered under either Alternative 1 or 2. 

Some wildlife species benefiting from this management could include American kestrel, savannah 

sparrow, western meadowlark, lazuli bunting, western bluebird, killdeer, common nighthawk, 

Canada and cackling goose, northern shrike, red-tailed hawk, western screech owl, barn owl, 

possibly short-eared owl; reptile species such as snake species and northern alligator lizard; 

pollination insects; and mammals such as bat species, mouse, vole, mole, weasel, spotted skunk, 

Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, coyote, black bear, bobcat, and possibly cougar. Those species 

associated with native prairies may also benefit as the sites are discovered by those specialists. 

Management techniques would not be used from spring to mid-summer or until passerine nesting 

season is completed, as many bird species nest upon the ground in this habitat type. The effect of 

management actions may displace wildlife temporarily but the impact would be short lived. Longterm effects would be moderately beneficial for wildlife dependent upon this habitat type.

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

A portion of the upland, nonnative grasslands would be open to visitor viewing off Endicott Road. 

On the west side of the road a vehicle pull-off area that would hold between 5 and 10 vehicles and 1 

bus would be created, as would a viewing platform and interpretive signage. On the east side of 

Endicott Road another small parking lot (five vehicles) and a viewing platform with interpretive

signs would be built. These structures would remove habitat from wildlife use, however, the loss 

would be less than 3 acres. The habitat loss is not irrevocable and is minor in both the short- and 

long-term. If visitors remain on the viewing platforms and do not enter the habitats, wildlife would 

remain undisturbed. The benefit of providing public viewing sites and interpretive panels would be to 

encourage visitors to learn about the Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System, Black River Unit, 

and habitats and the wildlife that use them. 

Overall Effects 

Under Alternative 1, negligible to minor, positive impacts would occur due to the limited 

management. Under Alternative 2, minor, negative, short-term impacts are expected; however, in the 

long term, the additional habitat enhancement would provide minor positive impacts. Public use 

actions would result in negligible to minor, negative impacts. In summary, the positive effects 

outweigh the potentially negative effects regarding habitat and associated wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-46 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.3.11 Effects to Mixed Forest Habitat and Associated Species at Black River 

Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions

The Unit includes approximately 394 acres of upland mixed forest habitat. Management activities, 

including IPM techniques to control invasive or undesirable plant and animal species, would 

continue under Alternative 2 as they have under Alternative 1. In addition, approximately 20 percent 

of the habitat would be assessed annually for nonnative plant infestation, and control efforts would 

take place if necessary. Standard forestry management practices would be used to enhance former 

restoration plantings to create functional, young forests with a mid-story and understory (see Chapter 

4 and Carey 2003, 2006). Existing forests would be evaluated and enhanced as needed. Minor, 

temporary, localized disturbance and damage from habitat management could occur as a result of 

using these actions, including displacement of wildlife, ground disturbance, and potential weed 

spread. However, it is expected that these effects would be temporary and localized and shortly 

eclipsed by enhanced stand structure and composition. 

The effects of the above actions should benefit an array of species, including early to midsuccessional associated species such as black-capped chickadee, yellow-rumped and orange-crowned 

warbler, white-crowned and song sparrow, rufous-sided towhee, dark-eyed junco, Steller’s jay, crow 

species, butterfly and moth species, garter snake species, northern alligator lizard, western redbacked salamander, mouse, shrew, vole, bat species, weasel, opossum, raccoon, spotted skunk, 

coyote, bobcat, black bear, cougar, Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer. In mid- to mature successional 

forests with well-developed understories, chestnut-backed chickadee, pileated woodpecker, varied 

thrush, band-tailed pigeon, bald eagle, Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk, western screech owl, 

northern saw-whet, great horned owl, Vaux’s swift, winter wren, Pacific-slope flycatcher, brown 

creeper, Townsend’s warbler, hermit thrush, and Steller’s jay, snake species, Townsend’s chipmunk, 

Douglas squirrel, flying squirrel, spotted skunk, bat species, weasels, mouse, shrew, voles, opossum, 

coyote, bobcat, black bear, cougar, Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer. Mature to old growth forests 

may support the federally listed northern spotted owl. This list is not exhaustive, and could include 

other species. Benefits should have short- and long-term effects.

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

Under both alternatives, mixed forest habitats would not be open to the public. No negative or 

positive effects to the habitat from public use actions should be incurred. 

Overall Effects 

Overall, a minor, positive, long-term effect would occur for mixed forest habitat and associated 

species under Alternative 2 because habitat management would create a higher quality of habitat that 

has fewer invasive species and a more diverse vegetation structure. Although there are some shortterm, negative impacts that would occur from habitat management actions, they are considered minor 

relative to the overall benefit that would be realized in the long term through higher habitat quality. A 

negligible effect would occur under Alternative 1 since there is currently a limited active 

management program. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-47

6.3.12 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species at Black River Unit of 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

Listed species receive special consideration in terms of Unit management. Federally listed species 

are trust resources that require additional consultation whenever an activity conducted by or 

permitted by the Unit may have an effect on these species or their habitats. Impacts to these species 

from wildlife-dependent recreation and habitat management are assessed in this chapter. Impacts 

associated with the use of herbicides and pesticides are assessed in the IPM plan in Appendix G. 

The only federally listed species known to occur within the Black River Unit is Oregon spotted frog. 

Activities to enhance the habitats for the frog primarily target invasive species using an integrated 

approach that includes mowing, haying, disking, grazing, and application of Service-approved 

herbicide. Specialized guidelines and permits would be developed under both alternatives; however, 

the level of effort would vary from maintenance of habitat (Alternative 1) to an increased effort to 

not only maintain minimal habitat but also larger-scale habitat enhancement (Alternative 2). The Unit

would work in partnership with the Service’s WFO and WDFW to assure required evaluations, 

biological opinions, and assessments are completed and approved prior to habitat management 

activities. Overall, repeated habitat enhancements (Alternative 2) are expected to have great 

beneficial effect on the frog both in the short and long term, as has been shown in a few recent 

habitat modifications undertaken by the Service, WDFW, and private land owners. 

Water howellia status on the Unit is unknown. In Alternative 2, inventories to determine presence or 

absence would be undertaken (Chapter 2, Goals 1 and 4; Chapter 4). If it is discovered, habitat 

enhancement efforts would be started. Until found and assessed, no effects can be determined; 

however, if habitat modifications are needed to enhance the plant’s survivorship, the actions would 

be moderately beneficial for the short- and long-term existence of the population. 

 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

No effects from public use are expected to Oregon spotted frog or water howellia if present on the 

Unit, assuming the public respects the regulations and access restrictions planned in Alternative 2. 

Overall Effects 

In the case of Oregon spotted frog, repeated habitat enhancements may cause the loss of a few 

individual frogs, but would also have great beneficial short- and long-term effects on the frog’s 

habitat. As has been shown in a few recent habitat modifications undertaken by the Service, WDFW, 

and private land owners, Oregon spotted frog can respond by rapidly increasing numbers and sustain 

those numbers for a while, even as the habitat may again degrade with re-encroaching invasive 

plants. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-48 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.3.13 Effects to Social Environment at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of New Facilities

With the proposed construction of two visitor observation decks with interpretive panels, posted 

regulations, parking lots, an enhanced boat launch area, and current rising interest in the Unit, 

visitation is estimated to grow to nearly 4,000 visitors per year during the 15-year life of the CCP. 

This increased interpretive contact is expected to result in better understanding and support for the 

Unit and the Refuge System; more visitors from diverse backgrounds, particularly urban residents; 

increased environmental awareness of natural resources; better protection of natural resources; and 

more involvement by community members, volunteers, and partners. The planned new facilities 

would lead to a safer and more comfortable visitor experience. However, increased visitation may 

lead to more crowding at times such as weekends when visitation tends to be greatest. If visitors do 

not follow regulations and enter closed habitats, wildlife may be disturbed to a greater degree. This 

activity could lead to a slight, long-term, negative effect to the quality of individual visitor 

experience.

 

Effects of Visitor Services Actions

The Unit has been closed to the public during this acquisition stage; therefore, visitation numbers are 

not collected. The projected visitation for the future 15 years is nearly 4,000 visits per year. 

Overall Effects 

Under Alternative 2, the overall social effects would be beneficial because for the first time, the 

public would have visitor viewing areas and could learn more about the Black River Unit and 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

6.3.14 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and 

Photography at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Habitat Management Actions 

Enhancing habitat through nonnative plant reduction, especially along the river and in marshes, 

would provide greater opportunity for visitors to observe wildlife and wildlife interactions. There 

may be some negative, short-term effects to the visitor experience as some enhancement work 

proceeds, but the public could observe habitat enhancement efforts. 

Enhancing dry, grassland habitat would encourage observation of wildlife associated with that 

habitat. Enhancing emergent marsh and nonnative, seasonally flooded, grasslands would encourage 

greater use by appropriate wildlife species that are also popular for observation and photography. 

These beneficial management effects for wildlife also are greatly beneficial for the visitor 

experience. 

Partnering with Thurston County to improve to the county boat launch at 123rd Avenue and create a 

small parking area on Service lands away from the river would benefit river water quality and nearby 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-49

habitats in both the short- and long term. In addition, the enhanced boat ramp and parking area would 

create the potential for additional visitors on and near the river channel habitat over the course of 15 

years. Easier boat access, resulting in greater opportunities to observe wildlife, would be both a 

short- and long-term beneficial effect; however, the increased chance of litter would be a minor 

negative effect.

With greater public use of Refuge lands adjacent to the river, minor to moderate positive effects from 

greater appreciation of the habitat and Unit would be expected, as well as an increase in conservation 

awareness. Minor to moderate short- and long-term negative effects related to wildlife disturbance, 

and related threats from nonnative vegetation increased litter could occur but may be offset by posted 

regulations and interpretive panels. 

Overall Effects 

Overall the effects to opportunities for quality wildlife observation and photography from the 

described activities (above) would be minor to moderately beneficial for various groups of visitors in 

both the short and long term. The positive benefits outweigh the few negative aspects of litter and the 

risk of nonnative animal or plant introduction. 

6.3.15 Effects to Cultural Resources at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

The Service is committed to protection of known cultural resources under both alternatives. Cultural 

resources can be of significant cultural, scientific, and educational importance. It is essential that the 

Service look beyond mere compliance with cultural resource laws to ensure protection of these 

nonrenewable resources. Of critical importance is the development of close working relationships 

with organizations that express affinity with the Unit’s cultural resources such as Native Americans, 

historians, and educators. 

There are no recorded prehistoric sites and four recorded historical sites within the Black River Unit

boundaries. Other historic sites and features may exist on the Unit which have not been recorded. 

Several prehistoric and historic sites or features have been recorded within 1 mile of the Unit. Three 

of the historic sites within Unit boundaries have been evaluated and determined ineligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One site has been evaluated and 9 of its 20 structures 

were determined to be contributing elements to the eligibility of the site to the NRHP. All of the 

contributing structures were documented to meet the stipulations of a Memorandum of Agreement 

between the Service and the SHPO in 2005 to mitigate for eventual demolition of all structures on the 

property that pose a safety risk to humans or wildlife (USFWS 2011). 

Prior to implementing any ground-disturbing projects, the applicable cultural resource compliance 

investigation would be undertaken. If cultural resources are found, appropriate procedures and 

protocols would be followed to protect them. Whenever possible, resources would be avoided or 

mitigated. Mitigation options, in addition to site avoidance by relocating or redesigning facilities, 

would include data recovery, using either collection techniques or in-situ site stabilization protection. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-50 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Overall Effects 

The short- and long-term effects of planned Unit actions that may impact cultural resources would 

follow Service and SHPO requirements and would be considered minor and beneficial under 

Alternative 2. Compliance with cultural resource investigation protocol prior to conducting grounddisturbing actions, and subsequent compliance with procedures if cultural resources are found, would 

ensure that negative impacts to cultural resources from implementation of any of the alternatives are 

negligible.

6.3.16 Effects to Economy at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge

See section 6.2.10 for Grays Harbor NWR for a discussion on economic effects and how they 

are estimated.

Recreational Activities

Alternative 1 (Current Management): Recreational Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Black River Unit, including lands that adjoin the river, would continue to be 

closed to public use. There are no economic impacts generated by recreational visitation because the 

Unit is currently closed to the public. Activities that occur within the river channel are not under the 

Service’s jurisdiction and thus are not taken into account in this analysis.

 

Alternatives 2: Recreational Activities

Under Alternative 2, the Unit would open to a variety of nonconsumptive uses. Visitors would enjoy 

access for boat launching, observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities. Table 6-14 

shows the visitation that would occur if Alternative 2 is fully implemented. Approximately 3,910 

visits would be related to a variety of recreational opportunities. All recreational visitors would 

participate in nonconsumptive activities. 

Table 6-14. Alternatives 2: Projected Annual Unit Visitation 

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Nonconsumptive

Pedestrian 2,628 657 3,285

Auto Tour 0 0 0

Boat Trail/Launch Visits 195 65 260

Bicycle Visits 0 0 0

Photography 292 73 365

Other Recreation 0 0 0

Interpretation 2,628 657 3,285

Hunting

Waterfowl 0 0 0

Other Migratory Birds 0 0 0
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-51

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total 

Upland Game 0 0 0

Big Game 0 0 0 

Fishing

Freshwater 0 0 0

Saltwater 0 0 0 

Total Visitation 3,115 795 3,910 

Regional Economic Analysis

Visitor recreation expenditures associated with a fully implemented Alternative 2 are shown in Table 

6-15. Total annual expenditures would be about $52,100 with nonresidents accounting for about 

$26,800 or 51 percent of total expenditures. 

 

Table 6-15. Alternatives 2: Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2011 dollars in thousands)

Activity Residents Nonresidents Total

Nonconsumptive $26.80 $25.30 $52.10

Hunting – – –

Fishing – – –

Total Annual Expenditures $26.80 $25.30 $52.10 

Input-output models were used to determine the economic impact of expenditures on the Unit’s local 

economy under Alternative 2. The estimated economic impacts are expected to occur in Thurston 

County. Table 6-16 summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. Under 

Alternative 2 economic output would total $79,400 with associated employment of one job, $24,600 

in employment income and $11,100 in total tax revenue. 

Table 6-16. Alternatives 2: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 

dollars in thousands)

Residents Nonresidents Total

Economic Output $40.80 $38.60 $79.40

Jobs 0.4 0.4 1

Job Income $12.60 $12.00 $24.60

Tax Revenue $5.70 $5.40 $11.10

Summary of Recreational Visitation Impacts 

Table 6-17 provides a summary of the potential economic impacts related to recreational visitation 

for each alternative. Under Alternative 2, recreation visitation would increase after the management 

alternative is fully implemented. As a result, economic output, jobs, job income, and tax revenue 

would increase. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-52 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

Table 6-17. Annual Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Recreation Visits – 3,910

Expenditures – $52.10

Economic Output – $79.40

Jobs – 1 

Job Income – $24.60

Tax Revenue – $11.10

Unit Budget

Annual costs reflect spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as recurring 

costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations. Nonsalary expenditures are primarily 

fixed costs such as utilities, office supplies, vehicle gas and maintenance, habitat restoration and 

management, fencing and posting, and invasive plant monitoring and management. 

Table 6-18 shows that average annual expenditures would be about $53,000 for Alternative 1 and 

approximately $527,000 for Alternative 2. The estimated expenditures for Alternative 2 assume that 

the alternative is fully funded as described in the CCP. 

Costs estimated for Alternative 2 include a higher number of additional employees to help manage 

habitat and visitor services programs. Increased nonsalary expenditures would include habitat 

management and restoration, invasive plant monitoring and management, and visitor services 

facilities maintenance and operations, among other costs. 

Table 6-18. Average Annual Expenditures (2011 dollars in thousands)

Expenditure Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Salary $32.30 $408.10

Non Salary $20.60 $119.00

Total $52.90 $527.20

Table 6-19 shows the economic impact of average annual (salary and nonsalary) expenditures. 

Impacts associated with annual expenditures would continue to occur throughout the timeline of the 

CCP if the alternative is fully funded. Under Alternative 1, the Unit’s annual expenditures would 

generate approximately $78,700 in economic output, one job, $33,500 in job income, and $11,100 in 

tax revenue. Economic impacts for Alternative 2 would be higher due to a larger budget. Annual 

expenditures under Alternative 2 would generate approximately $763,900 in economic output, six

jobs, $288,800 in job income, and $104,800 in tax revenue. 

Table 6-19. Local Annual Economic Effects Associated with Average Annual Unit Budget (2011 

dollars in thousands)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Economic Output $78.70 $763.90 

Jobs 1 6 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-53

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Job Income $33.50 $288.80 

Tax Revenue $11.10 $104.80 

Table 6-20 shows the change in economic impacts associated with the Unit budget compared to the 

baseline (Alternative 1). Once fully funded, annual expenditures for Alternative 2 would increase by 

$474,200, respectively, compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, economic impacts associated 

with annual expenditures would increase by $685,200 in economic output, five jobs, and $255,300 in 

job income compared to Alternative 1. 

Table 6-20. Change in Annual Expenditures Compared to the Baseline (Alternative 1) (2011 

dollars in thousands)

Alternative 2

Annual Expenditures +$474.20 

Economic Output +$685.20 

Jobs +5

Job Income +$255.30 

Tax Revenue +$93.70 

Revenue Sharing Payments

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469), the Service would 

annually reimburse Thurston County for tax revenue which is lost as a result of the Service’s 

acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall pay 

to each county in which any area acquired in fee title is situated, the greater of the following 

amounts: 

• An amount equal to the product of 75 cents multiplied by the total acreage of that portion of 

the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value, as determined by 

the Secretary, for that portion of the fee area that is located within such county. 

• An amount equal to 25 percent of the net receipts collected by the Secretary in connection 

with the operation and management of such fee area during such fiscal year. If a fee area is 

located in two or more counties, however, the amount for each county shall be apportioned in 

relationship to the acreage in that county. 

The appraisal estimate value is based on the current local land values at the time of the appraisal. The 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments to Thurston County for the Black River Unit and portions of 

the main unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR within the county have averaged $15,721 annually 

from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013. 

Forecasting revenue sharing payments is complex. Actual payments are a function of the appraised 

value and appropriations. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires Service lands be reappraised 

every 5 years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. However, some 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-54 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

payments are less than the legislated amounts due to governmental funding deficits. Congress may 

appropriate, through the budget process, supplemental funds to compensate local governments for 

any shortfall in revenue sharing payments. The final calculation for the payment to local 

governments depends on the total amount of funds available from revenue receipts collected on 

refuges nationwide and any appropriations. As a result, payments fluctuate based on the revenue 

receipts and appropriations. Due to the size of the revenue sharing payment, economic impacts would 

be negligible. 

Overall Effects

This section summarizes the economic impacts generated by Unit management activities for each 

alternative. Table 6-21 summarizes the economic impacts in Thurston County for Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 1, Unit activities would generate an estimated $78,700 in economic output, one

job, $33,500 in job income, and $11,100 in state and local tax revenue. These economic impacts 

under Alternative 1 represent less than 1 percent of total income and total employment in the local 

area economy.

Table 6-21. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (2011 dollars in 

thousands)

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income Tax Revenue

Recreation Visits – – – –

Budget $78.70 1 $33.50 $11.10

Total $78.70 1 $33.50 $11.10

Table 6-22 summarizes the economic impacts for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, Unit activities 

would generate an estimated $849,000 in economic output, seven jobs, $315,200 in job income, and 

$116,700 in tax revenue. These economic impacts under Alternative 2 represent less than 1 percent 

of total income and total employment in the local area economy.

Table 6-22 Summary of Annual Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (2011 dollars in 

thousands) 

Economic 

Output Jobs Job Income Tax Revenue

Recreation Visits $79.40 1 $24.60 $11.10

Budget $763.90 6 $288.80 $104.80

Total $843.30 7 $313.40 $115.90

6.3.17 Cumulative Effects at Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Refuge

Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities

Alterations and loss of native habitats continue at the landscape scale as challenges such as human 

development and climate change pose complex and persistent threats. Within this context, regionwide biological integrity may be at risk. Over time, the Unit, although relatively small, may become 

increasingly valuable for the persistence of native wildlife. Active improvement of habitats would 

increase or maintain the value of Unit lands and waters for a wide variety of native fish and wildlife, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-55

and biological diversity. Both alternatives protect and maintain Unit habitats valuable to wildlife; 

however, there is a greater emphasis on habitat enhancement and management, IPM, and pursuing 

priority inventory, monitoring, and research in Alternative 2. 

In concert with other protected lands, the Unit has an important role to conserve resident, threatened, 

and rare species, as well as migratory wildlife species, and to provide places where visitors can enjoy 

and appreciate nature. Under Alternative 2, the Service would increase the availability and quality of 

wildlife-dependent recreation, contributing to increased regional recreational opportunities. 

Implementing the CCP would have overall beneficial effects to habitats, species, and the American 

public. In the context of all of the factors (both natural and human-caused) that negatively affect

habitats and species (e.g., food availability, human disturbance, and contaminants) the positive 

contributions associated with CCP implementation represent long-term, beneficial effects. 

Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from Others

Thurston County population increased (21 percent) from 2001 to 2011, compared with a 14 percent 

increase for Washington and a 9 percent increase for the United States as a whole. The county 

population in 2011 was 256,600. The population is expected to continue its rapid rise in the local 

area, especially with the rapid enlargement of Joint Base Lewis-McChord. The Unit’s proximity to 

this growing population will cause former rural land to become developed more rapidly than in the 

past. For example, the Unit is very close to the city complex of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater, has 

lower land values, and is an easy 5–10-mile commute. The loss of the rural, forested, agricultural, or 

“un-used” lands result in direct loss of remaining habitats, and indirect loss through fragmentation 

and degradation of the lowland’s remaining parcels of wildlife habitat. These expected losses create a 

situation where the Unit may become increasingly valuable for the persistence of native habitats and 

the wildlife that rely upon them. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-56 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences

6.4 References 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2009. Voluntary guidance for States to 

incorporate climate change into State Wildlife Action Plans and other management plans. 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Climate Change and Teaming With Wildlife 

Committees. Available at: http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/AFWA-Voluntary-GuidanceIncorporating-Climate-Change_SWAP.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. 

Carey. A.B. 2003. Restoration of Landscape Function: Reserves or Active Management? Forestry, 

Vol. 76, No. 2. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Olympia, WA. 

Carey. A.B. 2006. Active and Passive Forest Management for Multiple Values. Northwestern 

Naturalist 87:18–30. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality. 

Washington, D.C. 64 pp. + appendices. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. Wiley, NY. 

DiTomaso, J.M., M.L. Brooks, E.B. Allen, R. Minnich, P.M. Rice, and G.B. Kyser. 2006. Control of 

invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technology 20(2):535–548. 

The Heinz Center. 2008. Strategies for Managing the Effects of Climate Change on Wildlife and 

Ecosystems. Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://climate.calcommons.org/sites/default/files/Strategies%20for%20Manageing%20the%20Effects

%20of%20Climate%20Change%20on%20Wildlife%20and%20Ecosystems.pdf. Accessed May 7, 

2013. 

Jones, J.A., I.F. Creed, K.L. Hatcher, R.J. Warren, M.B. Adams, M.H. Benson, E. Boose, W.A. 

Brown, J.L. Campbell, A. Covich, D.W. Clow, C.N. Dahm, K. Elder, C.R. Ford, N.B. Grimm, D.L. 

Henshaw, K.L. Larson, E.S. Miles, K.M. Miles, S.D. Sebestyen, A.T. Spargo, A.B. Stone, J.M. Vose, 

and M.W. Williams. 2012. Ecosystem processes and human influences regulate streamflow response 

to climate change at long-term ecological research sites. Bioscience 62:390–404. 

Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. 

Conservation Biology 20(2): 375–384. 

Loomis, J.B. 1993. Integrated public lands management: principles and applications to national 

forests, parks, wildlife refuges and BLM lands. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 

Mach, M.E., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and J. Rhode Ward. 2010. Distribution and potential effects of a 

nonnative seagrass in Washington State: Zostera japonica workshop. Available at: 

http://www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/pdfs/Machetal2010ZJWkshopRep.pdf. Accessed April 23, 

2013. 

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145–2151. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-57

Miller, R.E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood 

Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nealy, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L.F. DeBano, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on belowground 

sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 122: 51–71. 

Pin Foundation. 2013. Diamond Pier Foundation System. http://www.pinfoundations.com/dpier.php

Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear, and D.C. Guynn, Jr. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: 

review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(2): 374–384. 

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 83 p. 

Steel, Z.L., M. Wilkerson, P. Grof-Tisza, and K. Sulzner. 2011. Assessing species and area 

vulnerability to climate change for the Oregon Conservation Strategy: Willamette Valley Ecoregion. 

Conservation Management Program, Univ. of California, Davis. Available at: 

http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/assessing_species_and_area_vulnerability_t

o_climate_change_for_the_oregon_conservation_strategy_willamette_valley_ecoregion.pdf. 

Accessed May 7, 2013. 

U. S. Department of the Interior. 2007. The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation (CD-ROM.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid. 

Washington, D.C. 

USDA and DOI (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior). 2009. 

Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Black River Unit of Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Cultural Resource Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning. Virginia Parks, 

Archaeologist of the Cultural Resources Team, Region 1. 

USFWS. 2015. Wildland Fire Management Handbook. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/handbook/. Accessed August 7, 2015. 

Walstad, J.D., S.D. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg. 1990. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific 

Northwest Forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 317 pp. 

Weisbrod, G. and B.Weisbrod. 1997. Measuring Economic Impacts of Projects and Programs. 

Economic Development Research Group. Boston MA. 

West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health. 2008. Action Plan. Available at: 

http://www.westcoastoceans.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.display&pageID=135. Accessed 

April 23, 2013. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

6-58 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences
Appendices

 A-M

Vaughn Ruppert /USFWS

Chapter 5Human Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Appendices

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2Management Alternatives

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

A.1 Introduction

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1 (2006)) outlines the process that the Service uses to 

determine when general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously 

defined as wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and 

environmental education and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 are generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other exempt uses 

include situations where the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity and 

refuge management activities. In essence, the appropriate use policy provides refuge managers with a 

consistent procedure to first screen and then document decisions concerning a non-priority public 

use. When a use is determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then decide if the use is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. The policy provides refuge managers with a consistent 

procedure to screen and document decisions concerning public uses, with the use of the following 

questions: 

a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)?

c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and department and Service policies?

d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff?

h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation 

into the future? 

Uses marked “no” for questions (a) or (b) are not evaluated further. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent 

with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. When a use is 

determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then decide if the use is compatible before 

allowing it on a refuge. 

During the CCP process, the refuge manager reviewed all existing and proposed refuge uses for 

Grays Harbor NWR and Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR that are associated with 

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Appropriateness findings for the six wildlife-dependent 

uses identified in the Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, observation, 

environmental education, and interpretation) are not included in this appendix because they are 

appropriate by definition. They are, however, evaluated for compatibility in Appendix C 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Compatibility Determination. All other Refuge and Unit uses were evaluated using the criteria 

described in policy and listed on FWS Form 3-2319. The table below shows the uses evaluated and 

appropriateness findings made by the Refuge manager. Additional documentation is included in this 

appendix for each use identified in the table.

Table A-1. Summary of Appropriate Use Findings Appropriate 

Refuge Use Appropriate

Grays Harbor Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections Yes

Sweetgrass Gathering Yes

Black River Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections Yes

Black River Grazing, Haying, Mowing Yes
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-3 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington

Use: Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections

This form is not required for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)?

 X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies?

 X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document?

 X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed?

 X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, 

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate _____ Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________ Date: __________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If 

an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If 

found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ Date: __________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Justification for “Appropriate” finding.

The proposed use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. 

Criterion (a): The area proposed for this use lies within Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) owns and administers the Refuge and, 

consistent with Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Wildlife and Fisheries), has jurisdiction 

over public uses of the Refuge. 

Criterion (b): This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations. Permittees would be 

required to obtain necessary local, State, and Federal permits. 

Criterion (c): This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and U.S. Department of 

the Interior and Service policies, including the policies on Research and Management Studies (4 RM 

6) and Administration of Specialized Uses (5 RM 17). 

Criterion (d): This use would be consistent with public safety. Permittees would be required to limit 

their use of the Refuge to specifically designated areas and access routes, and review and understand 

Refuge rules and regulations, and any hazardous conditions. 

Criterion (e): This use would not be inconsistent with any draft Refuge goals, and would usually 

support several goals. Each research proposal would need to be evaluated individually to determine 

the degree of support. 

Criterion (f): This is not the first time this use has been proposed on the Refuge. Research as a 

Refuge use and research projects have been approved in earlier analyses. 

Criterion (g): The Refuge has adequate budget and staff to manage the current number of research, 

survey, and scientific collection projects. 

Criterion (h): It is expected that the Refuge will have adequate budget and staff in the future to 

manage research, surveys, and scientific collection projects at the rate they are occurring at present.

Criterion (i): Almost all research, surveys, and scientific collections on refuges are inherently 

valuable because they contribute to our understanding and appreciation of a refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources. This is beneficial because it enhances our understanding and often our ability to 

properly manage these resources. Proposed research projects that did not result in these benefits 

would not be a priority for the Refuge and would likely not be authorized. 

Criterion (j): Almost all visitation at the Refuge occurs on the Sandpiper Trail and Red Knot Spur 

Trail and the blacktop access road leading to the trailhead. This area is relatively small and crowding 

can occur, especially during special Refuge events. If research was conducted from the Trail during 

the spring (especially late April through early May), it could result in crowding on the Trail, and it 

could reduce the quality of viewing and photography by other Refuge visitors. If field research was 

conducted on or near the mudflats or marshlands during this same time period, it could result in 

flushing of shorebirds and other wildlife, and thereby reduce viewing and photography opportunities. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-5 

General and project-specific stipulations and permit conditions regarding the locations and 

scheduling of research would be used to greatly minimize the likelihood that such activities would 

impair wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation. The 

exception could be research and surveys specifically focused on public use. In such cases, approved 

study protocols would help ensure that such projects would not significantly reduce the quality of 

compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-7 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington

Use: Sweetgrass Gathering

This form is not required for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)?

 X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies?

 X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document?

 X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed?

 X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, 

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________ Date: __________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If 

an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If 

found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ Date: __________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Justification for “Appropriate” finding.

The proposed use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. 

Criterion (a): The area proposed for this use lies within Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) owns and administers the Refuge and, 

consistent with Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Wildlife and Fisheries), has jurisdiction 

over public uses of the Refuge. 

Criterion (b): This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations. Those Tribes that wish 

to gather sweetgrass would work with their tribal representative to acquire a Special Use Permit for 

each member. The representative would be in contact with the Refuge manager. Any other necessary 

local, State, and Federal permits would be required. Permittees would be required to limit their use of 

the Refuge to specifically designated areas and access routes to reach sweetgrass stands. They would 

also review and understand Refuge rules, regulations, special use requirements, and restrictions. 

Criterion (c): This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and U.S. Department of 

the Interior and Service policies including the Service’s Native American Policy.

 

Criterion (d): This use would be consistent with public safety. Permittees would be required to limit 

their use of the Refuge to specifically designated areas and access routes, and review and understand 

Refuge rules, regulations, special use requirements, restrictions, and any hazardous conditions. 

Criterion (e): This use would not be inconsistent with any draft Refuge goals. Each Tribal request to 

gather sweetgrass would be evaluated individually. 

 

Criterion (f): This is not the first time this use has been proposed on the Refuge. Sweetgrass 

gathering by local Tribal members has been approved in earlier analyses.

Criterion (g): The Refuge has adequate budget and staff to manage the current number of Tribal 

requests to gather sweetgrass. 

Criterion (h): It is expected that the Refuge would have adequate budget and staff in the future to 

manage Tribal requests to gather sweetgrass at the rate they are occurring at present.

Criterion (i): This activity contributes to appreciation of the Refuge’s natural resources and is a 

beneficial use of the Refuge’s natural resources because it supports the continuance of western 

Washington Tribal culture. Through mitigation measures it supports conservation of sweetgrass 

restoration on Tribal lands. This activity supports the Service’s Native American Policy. 

Criterion (j): The use can currently be accommodated under the guidance of a Special Use Permit 

that has certain criteria and limits sweetgrass gathering to local western Washington Tribes. 

Limitation to Tribal members was decided after reviewing a study showing negative impacts to the 

resource when gathering was allowed to basket weavers of the general public. The health and quality 

of sweetgrass stands will be monitored over time and continued gathering may be subject to 

monitoring results. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-9 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge: Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr.Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, 

Washington

Use: Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections

This form is not required for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)?

 X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies?

 X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document?

 X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed?

 X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, 

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No __

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________ Date: __________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If 

an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If 

found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ Date: __________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Justification for “Appropriate” finding.

The proposed use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. 

Criterion (a): The area proposed for this use lies within the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Unit). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) owns and 

administers the Refuge and, consistent with Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Wildlife 

and Fisheries), has jurisdiction over public uses of the Refuge. 

Criterion (b): This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations. Permittees would be 

required to obtain necessary local, State, and Federal permits. 

Criterion (c): This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and U.S. Department of 

the Interior and Service policies, including the policies on Research and Management Studies (4 RM 

6) and Administration of Specialized Uses (5 RM 17). 

Criterion (d): This use would be consistent with public safety. Permittees would be required to limit 

their use of the Unit to specifically designated areas and access routes, and review and understand 

Unit rules and regulations and any hazardous conditions. 

Criterion (e): This use would not be inconsistent with any draft Unit goals, and would usually 

support several goals. Each research proposal would need to be evaluated individually to determine 

the degree of support. 

Criterion (f): This is not the first time this use has been proposed on the Unit. Research as a Unit use 

and research projects have been approved in earlier analyses.

Criterion (g): The Unit has adequate budget and staff to manage the current number of research, 

survey, and scientific collection projects. 

Criterion (h): It is expected that the Unit would have adequate budget and staff in the future to 

manage research, survey, and scientific collection projects at the rate they are occurring at present.

Criterion (i): Almost all research, surveys, and scientific collections on refuges are inherently 

valuable because they contribute to our understanding and appreciation of a refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources. This is beneficial because it enhances our understanding of and often our ability to 

properly manage these resources. Proposed research projects that did not result in these benefits 

would not be a priority for the Unit and would likely not be authorized. 

Criterion (j): Because the Unit is closed to general public use, research, surveys, and scientific 

collections would have no effects on other visitors at this time. However, subject to evaluations for 

compatibility, it is proposed that the Unit also be opened in specific locations for wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental interpretation, and fishing. 

If research was conducted at one of the proposed new visitor facilities, it is possible that it could 

result in some crowding, especially with school groups. If field research was conducted in Unit

habitats near one of these new facilities, it could result in flushing of birds and other wildlife, or it 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-11

could cause some animals to move farther afield. This would reduce the quality of experience for 

observers and photographers. Such conflicts would be expected to be infrequent and temporary. 

General and project-specific stipulations and permit conditions regarding the locations and 

scheduling of research would be used to greatly minimize the likelihood that such activities would 

impair compatible, wildlife-dependent uses. The exception could be research and surveys specifically 

focused on public use. In such cases, approved study protocols would help ensure that such projects 

would not significantly reduce the quality of compatible, wildlife-dependent public uses. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-13

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge: Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, 

Washington

Use: Grazing, Haying, and Mowing

This form is not required for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)?

 X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies?

 X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document?

 X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed?

 X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

 X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, 

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No X 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________ Date: __________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If 

an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If 

found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ Date: __________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Justification for “Appropriate” finding.

The proposed uses evaluated herein for appropriateness are more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for these uses and the documents referenced in that CD. 

Criterion (a): The areas proposed for these uses lie within the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Unit). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) owns and 

administers the Unit and, consistent with Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Wildlife and 

Fisheries), has jurisdiction over public uses of the Refuge. 

Criterion (b): These uses would comply with applicable laws and regulations, including 50 C.F.R. 

29.1. It is expected that properly managed grazing, haying, and mowing could be used as valuable 

management techniques to increase wildlife values in dry, nonnative grasslands; seasonally flooded, 

nonnative grasslands; and emergent marshes. It is expected that these management practices would 

contribute to achievement of Unit purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission by 

reducing encroachment of woody plants, removing thatch, and increasing the vigor of native plants in 

overgrown and rank grasslands and marshes; maintaining a habitat mosaic in grasslands and marshes 

by setting back succession in treated areas; and controlling or reducing the presence of invasive 

plants. CD stipulations and conditions of special use permits, cooperative land management 

agreements, or other agreements would help ensure that potential adverse effects of these practices 

were minimized or avoided. 

Criterion (c): These uses would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and U.S. Department 

of the Interior and Service policies, including the policy on Administration of Specialized Uses (5 

RM 17). If found appropriate and determined compatible, grazing, haying, and mowing would be 

authorized through issuance of special use permits, cooperative land management agreements, 

contracts, or other agreements. Appropriate fees or in-kind exchanges of services would be charged 

to those grazing or haying. 

Criterion (d): This use would be consistent with public safety. Most if not all areas where these uses 

are proposed are and would remain closed to general public use. There would be no more risks to 

public safety associated with these uses on the Unit than exist in agricultural areas across America.

Criterion (e): When properly managed, these uses would directly support draft Unit goal numbers 1, 

2, 3, and 4. 

Criterion (f): Haying and mowing uses currently occur on the Unit. They have been found 

compatible and approved in the past. 

Criterion (g): The Unit has adequate budget and staff to manage grazing, haying, and mowing, as 

proposed. 

Criterion (h): It is expected that the Unit would have adequate budget and staff in the future to 

continue to manage these uses.

Criterion (i): Grazing, haying, and mowing would not be expected to directly contribute to the 

public’s understanding and appreciation of the Unit’s natural or cultural resources. However, use of 

these habitat management techniques would provide an interpretive opportunity for the Unit to 

explain to visitors the value of such practices. For the reasons described earlier, properly managed 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-15

grazing, haying, and mowing would be expected to be beneficial to the Unit’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

Criterion (j): The Unit is closed to general public use, so grazing, haying, and mowing would have 

no effects on compatible, wildlife-dependent, or other recreational uses at this time. However, subject 

to evaluations for compatibility, it is proposed that the Unit also be opened for fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental interpretation, and boating. 

The presence of grazing livestock, fencing, corrals, loading ramps, and dung and associated insects 

could adversely affect the quality of experience for those who visited the Unit for fishing, wildlife 

observation or photography, environmental interpretation, or boating. Workers conducting grazing, 

haying, or mowing programs could flush wildlife from treatment sites and reduce or enhance their 

observation or photography by Unit visitors. Activities associated with these management programs 

would not be ongoing and these effects would be infrequent. As noted above, it is expected that the 

larger effect of these proposed uses would be an improvement of grassland and marsh habitats, and 

an increase in abundance and diversity of wildlife using these habitats. This would enhance 

observation and photography opportunities in the future. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

B1. Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during this planning process evaluate uses 

proposed under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, for Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

and Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA). The evaluation of funds needed for 

management and implementation of each use also assumes implementation as described in Chapter 2 

under Alternative 2. Chapter 6 of the draft CCP/EA also contains analysis of the impacts of public 

uses to wildlife and habitats. That portion of the document is incorporated through reference into this 

set of CDs. 

B.1.1 Uses Evaluated at This Time

The following section includes full CDs for the Refuge and Unit uses that are required to be 

evaluated. According to Service policy, CDs will be completed for all uses proposed under a CCP 

that have been determined to be appropriate. Existing compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses must also be reevaluated and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP. 

The uses listed in Tables B-1 and B-2 have been evaluated and are included in this document, as 

applicable, for public review. 

Table B-1. Grays Harbor Refuge Uses, Determinations made in this CCP, and Year for 

Reevaluation

Refuge Use Compatible? Year Due for

Reevaluation 

Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation 

Yes 2031 

Environmental Education Yes 2031 

Research, Surveys, and Scientific 

Collections 

Yes 2026 

Sweetgrass Gathering Yes 2026 

Table B-2. Black River Unit Uses, Determinations made in this CCP, and Year for 

Reevaluation 

Refuge Use Compatible? Year Due for

Reevaluation 

Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation 

Yes 2031 

Research, Surveys, and Scientific 

Collections 

Yes 2026 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Refuge Use Compatible? Year Due for

Reevaluation 

Grazing, Haying, and Mowing Yes 2026 

B.1.2 Compatibility - Legal and Historical Context

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of national wildlife refuges. Compatibility is not new to 

the Refuge System and dates back to 1918 as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses 

of refuge lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” 

Legally, refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a compatibility 

determination. Regulations require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection 

of refuges before opening them to any public uses. However, the six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) designated by the Refuge Administration Act are to receive enhanced 

consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the refuge has made 

a concerted effort to seek out funds from potential partners. Once found compatible, wildlifedependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at the Refuge. If a proposed use is 

found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded from approving it. Economic uses that 

are conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require compatibility determinations.

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas 

where property rights are vested by others, where legally binding agreements exist, or where there 

are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, aircraft over-flights, emergency actions, some activities 

on navigable waters, and activities by other Federal agencies on “overlay refuges” are exempt from 

the compatibility review process.

 

New compatibility regulations, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act), were adopted by the Service in October 2000 (603 FW 1). The 

regulations require that a use must be compatible with both the mission of the System and the 

purposes of the individual refuge. This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the 

Refuge System. The Act also requires that compatibility determinations be in writing and that the 

public have an opportunity to comment on most use evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of 

primary consideration. The Improvement Act defined a compatible use as one 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.” Sound professional judgment 

is defined under the Improvement Act as “ . . . a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-3 

resources . . . ” Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent 

of a use. 

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests against 

the primary purpose of the refuge (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus [Ruby Lake Refuge]). The 

Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge managers 

are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best available 

science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). 

Evaluations regarding the existing uses on the Grays Harbor NWR and proposed uses on the Black 

River Unit (currently there are no approved uses) are based on the professional judgment of Refuge 

and Unit staff and regional planning personnel, including observations of current uses and reviews of 

appropriate scientific literature. 

In July 2006, the Service published its Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW1). Under this 

policy, most proposed uses must also undergo a review prior to a compatibility determination. Uses 

excepted from the policy include priority wildlife-dependent public uses and uses under reserved 

rights—see policy for more detail. Appropriate use reviews are in Appendix A. 

References:

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). 11 Envtl. Rptr. Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978), 

p. 873. 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on NWRSIA) - 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html 

Compatibility regulations, adopted by the Service in October, 2000: 

(http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-5 

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Refuge Purposes:

. . . (1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including but not limited 

to those of western sandpiper, dunlin, red knot, long-billed dowitcher, short-billed dowitcher, 

other shorebirds, and other migratory birds, including birds of prey; (2) to fulfill international 

treaty obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) 

to conserve those species known to be threatened with extinction; and (4) to provide an 

opportunity, consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), for wildlifeoriented recreation, education, and research (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041). 

. . . 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: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of 

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

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

present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C.668ddet seq.). 

Description of Uses:

Interpretation is the communication of information about, or the explanation of, the nature, origin, 

and purpose of historical, natural, or cultural resources, objects, sites, and phenomena using personal 

or non-personal methods. The National Association for Interpretation defines interpretation to be, “a 

mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the 

interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource. For national wildlife refuges, the 

purposes of interpretation are to convey an understanding of and appreciation for refuge resources, 

the issues that affect them, and the conservation techniques and programs pursued in their 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

management (USFWS 2006b). For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD), interpretation 

addresses environmental and cultural resources and values. 

Wildlife observation and photography and interpretation are often enhanced with the provision of 

brochures, wildlife and plant lists, interpretive signs and displays, trails, auto tour routes and vehicle 

pullouts, viewing platforms or towers, viewing equipment, photography or viewing blinds, 

interpretive presentations and tours, visitor stations or centers, and bookstores or similar retail 

outlets. Many of these facilities and information sources serve all three activities. In addition, refuge 

visitors often enjoy all three activities together. Information can be conveyed in person, in writing, 

with images, with sound, and, increasingly, through a diversity of electronic media and devices. 

For purposes of this CD, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation include viewing and 

capturing images of wild plants and animals, wildlife habitats, wildlands, waters, landscapes, cultural 

resources, and cultural activities, noncommercial recording of all types (e.g., filming, videography, 

audiography, writing, and drawing or painting), and general nature study and appreciation. This CD 

does not address recording of images and audio for commercial purposes. Nor does it address 

observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities offered by commercial tours, sometimes 

referred to as ecotourism. 

As noted above, one of the purposes of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is 

to provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation and education, consistent with the 

conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, and fulfilling associated international treaty 

obligations. 

The Refuge provides several opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife observation, photography, 

and interpretation. Habitats and wildlife can be viewed from the road on Paulson Road or Airport 

Way. However, the Refuge’s Sandpiper Trail currently provides the best views and it is the focus of 

public use at present. This 1-mile boardwalk allows visitors to easily travel through the dense 

riparian and salt marsh vegetation adjacent to Bowerman Airport and approach the edge of the 

intertidal mudflats. The trail includes a terminal loop, interpretive panels, benches, and wide top 

board on the railing for steadying binoculars, spotting scopes, and cameras for enhanced viewing or 

photography. Vegetation is clipped along some sections of the trail to allow visitors to better observe 

and photograph shorebirds, waterfowl, waterbirds, and raptors and in other locations, the vegetation 

provides viewing of songbirds. Peak viewing for shorebirds occurs in the spring (late April through 

mid-May) when these birds stop to feed in Grays Harbor’s intertidal mudflats in route from South 

American wintering areas to Arctic breeding grounds. The best times for viewing and photography 

occur 2 hours on each side of high tide, when the extent of exposed mudflats is the least and the 

feeding birds are most concentrated. Except when groups of birders or school groups visit, and 

except in association with the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival (see below), current visitor group size 

is usually small (i.e., individuals, couples, and families). 

The Sandpiper Trail is accessed by traveling west on Airport Way to the Port of Grays Harbor locked 

gate, parking in the narrow strip adjacent to the road (this strip can potentially accommodate 30–50 

passenger vehicles), and then walking west around the gate and approximately 1/3 of a mile further 

along the road on Port property. The road and trail are fully accessible for those with limited 

mobility. An information kiosk by the entry gate provides Refuge orientation and interpretive 

information. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-7 

Each year, the Refuge collaborates with the Grays Harbor Audubon Society and City of Hoquiam to 

host the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival. This 2- to 3-day festival is held in late April or early May 

and draws an average of 1,500 people annually. On average, approximately 75 percent of those 

attending the festival visit the Refuge (an average of approximately 1,100). Most festival activities 

occur offsite, but during the festival, the Refuge building and parking area are used for storage of 

supplies and to provide visitor orientation and information, festival registration, restrooms, and 

trashcans. Other on-Refuge activities include guided walks by volunteers (2 free walks with 20–40 

participants per walk and 1 paid walk with approximately 40 participants), and unguided wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities on the Sandpiper Trail. 

Comments received during the comprehensive conservation planning process reveal interest by 

several members of the public in additional trails, guided walks and talks, additional and improved 

signage, and a visitor or interpretive center on the Refuge. It is proposed that the surface of the 

narrow parking strip along Airport Way be improved and signed, and that two new wildlife viewing 

decks or platforms be developed on the south side of the Refuge: one near the port gate and Refuge 

information kiosk, and one adjacent to the intertidal mudflats partway between the port gate and the 

Sandpiper Trailhead. Visitors would access this latter viewing site by walking through the narrow 

strip of forest. It is also proposed that the western end of the Sandpiper Trail be lengthened by up to 

250 feet and identified as the Red Knot Trail. Extension of the trail would provide enhanced viewing 

and photography opportunities to the west and views further into the bay. These and all new Refuge 

facilities would be accessible to persons of all abilities. New interpretive panels are proposed for the 

Sandpiper Trail and the Red Knot Trail. 

A modestly sized nature center is planned for construction if funding becomes available. This nature 

center would be constructed near the eastern boundary of the Refuge and would be accessed from 

Paulson Road. The nature center would include information or exhibit areas, a classroom/meeting 

room, offices, restrooms, and a modestly sized parking area. Additionally, a short, raised boardwalk 

with railing (similar to that used for the Sandpiper Trail) would be built west-northwest through the 

marsh toward the intertidal mudflats and have a new viewing deck/platform. This facility would 

serve visitors participating in wildlife observation and photography, and interpretation and education. 

It is unknown how many additional visitors the proposed nature center might attract. Until further 

details are developed, this CD includes a conceptual level evaluation of anticipated impacts, many of 

which are the same as for the other wildlife observation and photography and interpretive facilities.

At present, no funding is available to construct the nature center and associated facilities, although 

many decisions have been made regarding the details of this development. An evaluation of its 

environmental impacts has been made in a formal review process. 

The Refuge is open for visitation every day of the year, from sunrise to sunset. There are no public 

restrooms, no potable water, and no entrance or user fees. Currently an estimated 13,000 people visit 

the Refuge each year. Almost 10 percent of those visitors enjoy the Refuge while attending the Grays 

Harbor Shorebird Festival. A cadre of volunteers who assist with special events and trail roving 

(providing visitors with interpretive and other information) supports the Refuge visitor services 

program. It is proposed that the Refuge work with partners to provide additional guided walks and 

interpretive programs on the Refuge. Visitor use of the Refuge is expected to grow over the next 15 

years.

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation are wildlife-dependent general public uses and 

are to be given special consideration in refuge planning and management. When determined 

compatible on a refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

refuge and is to be facilitated and encouraged (see National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 

the Black River Unit of Nisqually NWR. Much of the information and some of the analyses 

contained in this CD are addressed in detail in the CCP and EA. 

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the proposed improvements to the 

Refuge’s wildlife observation and photography and interpretive facilities. These projects would serve 

visitors enjoying observation, photography, and interpretation, and those participating in 

environmental education. Therefore, one-time project costs would be split between these uses. 

Table B-3. Costs to Administer and Manage Wildlife Observation and Photography and 

Interpretation under the Preferred Alternative

Category One-time

Expense ($)

Recurring 

Expense 

($/year)

1. New observation platform 65,000 1,000

2. Red Knot Trail Extension 50,000 1,000

3. New interpretive panels and signage 35,000 500

4. Improvements to kiosk area 125,000 3,000

5. Construct Nature Center with the associated facilities; 

parking lot, boardwalk trail, and observation deck/platform.

6,000,000 100,000

6. Administration and management 25,000 125,000

7. Maintenance 40,000 35,000

8. Law Enforcement 20,000 18,000

Total Costs 6,360,000 283,500

Monies raised by partner groups during the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival (a few thousand dollars 

each year) are used in part to help fund efforts at the Refuge, including construction of boardwalk, 

benches, and interpretive signing. 

Additional funding would be sought to develop new facilities and programs. The Refuge would 

expect to receive adequate budget and staffing to support the annual costs associated with the 

proposed facilities for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretive program on the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses:

Refuge Goals and NWRS Mission 

The Refuge has developed the following seven draft goals as part of its comprehensive conservation 

planning process. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-9 

1. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem 

for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem for the 

benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. 

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge and greater 

Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. 

4. Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

resources and foster a connection with nature. 

6. Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and foster a 

connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge. 

7. Support and strengthen an active volunteer work force and Friends Groups to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

Observation, photography, and interpretation activities would directly support draft Refuge goal 5 

and indirectly support goal 7. It is expected that these uses would enhance the public’s understanding 

of and appreciation for the importance of conservation and for the Refuge’s management programs; 

therefore, they would also indirectly support the Refuge System mission and draft goals 1, 2, and 3. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

As noted earlier, purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include conservation of fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats, with emphasis upon shorebirds, other migratory birds, birds of prey, 

and species threatened with extinction. Refuge purposes also include fulfilling international treaty 

obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Examples of such 

treaties include the Ramsar Convention and treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

Russia, the Soviet Union, and Western Hemisphere nations. These treaties address the conservation 

and protection of migratory birds and species in danger of extinction, protection of wetlands, and 

establishment and management of nature preserves (I.L.M. 11:963-976; 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628; 25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990; 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912; 23 U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345; T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 

Stat. 3110; and 56 Stat. 1354, T.S. 981). 

Wildlife species of special management concern at the Refuge include shorebirds such as western 

sandpiper (Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plover (Charadrius 

semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari), 

long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), 

and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca); birds of prey such as bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern harrier (Cirus cyaneus), merlin (Falco

columbarius), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); waterfowl, other waterbirds, and other 

migratory birds including ducks and geese, gulls, terns, mergansers, common loon (Gavia immer), 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias) and other waterbirds; and neotropical songbirds. Management also 

focuses on species threatened with extinction which, when the Refuge was established, included the 

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and brown pelican. All these species have since been removed from the 

Federal endangered species list and are considered recovered in this area of the U.S. Shorebirds and 

other fauna at the Refuge provide prey for these raptors, so the Refuge will continue to ensure that 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

management decisions support continued recovery of these birds. It is possible that the following 

three fishes listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) 

occur on the Refuge: green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and 

eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus, aka smelt). 

Refuge management focuses on providing quality intertidal mudflat roosting and foraging habitat for 

migrating shorebirds. This is especially important during the spring (late April through May) when 

hundreds of thousands of these birds use the entire Grays Harbor estuary as a refueling stop on their 

northern migration from wintering areas in South America. While at Grays Harbor, the birds enhance 

fat reserves for the nonstop flight to their Arctic breeding grounds. Grays Harbor is one of four major 

North American staging areas for shorebirds and hosts one of the largest concentrations of these birds 

on the West Coast south of Alaska. In 1995, in recognition of its high value to over 500,000 

shorebirds annually, Grays Harbor estuary was designated a site of hemispheric importance (the 

highest ranking) by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network). Bowerman Basin (within 

the Refuge) has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area and is listed as priority wintering 

habitat for peregrine falcons by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Audubon 

Washington, Jun 2001). Although shorebird numbers are especially high in the spring, a diversity of 

wildlife use Refuge habitats throughout the year. For example, shorebirds also visit and feed in the 

estuary from June through October, during their southward migration, and dunlin and black-bellied 

plover winter at the Refuge.

Refuge habitats of special management concern include open water, intertidal mudflats, tidal salt and 

brackish marsh, and forest. Native plants of special concern include native eelgrass (Zostera marina) 

and sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens). Because Refuge mudflats are some of the last in the 

estuary to flood during twice-daily high tides, they are especially valuable for foraging shorebirds. 

The Refuge’s mudflat habitat is dense with nutrient-rich, invertebrate bird foods, such as polychaete 

worms, tubeworms, and the shrimp-like Corophium amphipod (Corophium spp.). Red alder (Alnus 

rubra) dominates the forest that provides roost sites for raptors and cover and forage for passerines. 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include common reed (Phragmites australis), three 

different species of Spartina (Spartina spp.), a few knotweed species (Polygonum spp.), Asian or 

Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and 

Cirsium vulgare, respectively), Griffins isopod (Orthione griffenis), green crab (Carcinus maenas), 

and invasive mussels and snails. 

It is expected that the greatest effects upon wildlife of visitors engaging in wildlife observation and 

photography and interpretation would likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has 

differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved 

and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; 

whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the 

disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven 1993, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Kirby et al. 1993, Knight and Cole 

1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b, Lafferty 2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and to alter 

their normal behavior, cause them to stop feeding, cause abandonment of nests and young, and allow 

predators access to nests and young, reduce parental attention to young, and otherwise impact 

survival of individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or broods (Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Haysmith and 

Hunt 1995; Lafferty 2001b). The effects of disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-11

Distance of observers/photographers from wildlife subjects and the numbers of observers/ 

photographers involved are important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that 

vigilance behavior of Gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers 

increased. A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) 

revealed that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds 

(positively correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and 

Monaghan 2004). 

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993, Lafferty 2001b, Rodgers and Smith 1997, Rodgers 1991, Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

In a study of the effects of disturbance on feeding shorebirds in a British estuary, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven (1993) found that flushed birds normally flew just a short distance and quickly resumed 

feeding. They noted that although disturbance (by walkers, observers, anglers, dog-walkers, and shell 

fisherman) had increased over a 15-year period, populations of oystercatchers had not diminished 

because there were ample areas away from disturbance for the birds to move and continue feeding; 

birds could feed at other hours of the day and night when people were not present; feeding intensity 

could be increased somewhat to compensate for lost feeding time; some of the best feeding areas, the 

mudflats, were areas not usually accessed by humans; and the birds might habituate to certain types 

of disturbance. Importantly, if enough people were present in some of the smaller habitats, all of the 

feeding shorebirds were displaced and as the density of feeding shorebirds increased elsewhere, older 

birds stole more food from subordinate birds. 

In another study of the effects of disturbance on British shorebirds, Gill et al. (2001) found that there 

was a strong relationship between the density of desirable prey species and the numbers of godwits 

using a site, and that human disturbance had no effect on the numbers of godwits supported at 

preferred forage sites. In a study of the effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line 

skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no difference 

in shorebird use between sites without trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail users. 

However, after a certain point on high use days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in reduced 

numbers of foraging shorebirds. Similar to the situation at Grays Harbor, these trails were elevated 

and aligned parallel to the adjacent mudflats. 

In a study of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the 

number, proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected foraging time by the birds. The presence 

of dogs off-leash was especially disturbing. Smit and Visser (1993) reviewed numerous shorebird 

studies from the coasts of The Netherlands and Germany. They found that, when disturbed, entire 

flocks of nonterritorial shorebirds departed feeding sites and moved to other feeding sites. They also 

found that one person or a group of people could cause most or all territorial shorebirds (e.g., 

redshanks, oystercatchers, and curlews) to abandon a preferred feeding site until the disturbance 

ceased and then often a smaller number of these birds returned. Finally, they noted that their review 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

argued for keeping visitors to nature reserves at sufficient distance from high-tide roosts. These 

studies suggest that disturbance response varies considerably among foraging shorebirds and perhaps 

among feeding sites. It would appear that in some situations, certain shorebird species are somewhat 

more tolerant of modest levels of human disturbance than some other bird species and that such 

disturbance may not affect the birds’ ability to satisfy nutritional requirements or their populations if 

the areal extent of quality foraging habitats is adequate.

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al.

2007; DeLong 2002; Knight and Cole 1995). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser

1993). Lafferty et al. (2006) studied the effects of erecting educational signing, employing docents, 

and placing a rope barrier that directed recreationists away from a western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) nesting area on a California beach. Despite the fact pedestrians were easily 

seen and continued to routinely pass by the nesting area, human-related disturbance was reduced by 

more than half, plover numbers increased within the barrier area, and plover reproductive success 

was enhanced. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Observers, photographers, or participants in interpretation programs could also cause trampling of 

native plants, erosion, and introduction or spread of exotic species, including invertebrates, plants, 

and invasive species. All of these impacts could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon important life history parameters such as foraging, 

predator avoidance, reproduction, and survival of individuals and diversity and abundance of native 

species (community health) would depend on specific circumstances. 

The primary area of the Refuge open to public use is the Sandpiper Trail: a boardwalk that is built on 

piers and rises above the underlying brackish and salt marsh along the southern boundary of the 

Refuge. Access to this trail is on the hardened black top road. Confining visitors to the trail and 

associated access route avoids potential problems associated with trampling of vegetation and 

erosion of soils. Additionally, although visitors are provided an avenue through the forest and across 

the marsh to the edge of the mudflats, they are not allowed to venture onto the mudflats themselves, 

thus keeping this critical foraging area disturbance-free. The proposed new facilities on the Refuge’s 

south side (two observation decks/platforms and associated trails/boardwalks, the Red Knot Trail 

addition, new interpretive panels and signage, and improvements to the parking strip) would be sited 

in this same area and share the same design features as the current facilities. It is expected that these 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-13

new facilities and associated public uses would have the same effects on wildlife and their habitat as 

those at present. Anecdotal observations from the decades since the Sandpiper Trail has been opened 

to the public reveal that visitor use of this facility does not disturb shorebirds foraging on the 

mudflats. There are perch sites in trees on three sides of the Refuge allowing raptors to move to other 

locations should they be disturbed by visitors on the Sandpiper Trail. 

To preserve views at specific viewpoints along the Sandpiper Trail, staff or volunteers would trim or 

remove a modest amount of native and nonnative vegetation. Maintenance of some vegetation 

growth is not expected to effect on the overall health of the forest or marsh habitat. 

The existing small parking area is partially paved and partially graveled. This minimizes erosion 

potential. It is proposed that this narrow parking area be repaved to improve the existing parking 

surface, which would reduce vehicle-related erosion potential from this area. 

The proposed nature center and parking lot would be built adjacent to Paulson Road. The proposed 

boardwalk and observation deck/platform would be elevated above the marsh, similar to the 

Sandpiper Trail, at a distance to reduce disturbance of foraging shorebirds. When visitors use the trail 

and observation deck/platform, raptors might be discouraged from perching in immediately adjacent 

trees. Upland forest habitat occupies a much larger area at this location, so these birds should have no 

problem finding acceptable alternative perching sites. 

Visitors would be required to stay on trails or blacktop thus reducing the potential for impacts upon 

native fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Due to the denseness of vegetation and insubstantial nature of 

sediments, almost all other areas of the Refuge are, difficult for visitors to access; off-trail use or 

free-roaming would not allowed. 

Public Use

Not including research, the other general public use allowed (and proposed for authorization) on the 

Refuge is environmental education. This use occurs during the school year, primarily in the spring. It 

is unlikely that a handful of visitors enjoying wildlife observation, photography, or interpretation 

would adversely affect those participating in environmental education. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

There are no recorded prehistoric or historic sites on the Refuge and, to date, the Service has not 

conducted or authorized any other party to conduct cultural resource surveys on the Refuge. 

Development, including construction of the proposed visitor facilities described above, can impact 

cultural resources. However, because Refuge facilities would be built in areas that were formerly 

mudflats, but were filled in with dredge spoils in modern times, it is unlikely that there exist cultural 

resources at these sites. Nonetheless, prior to construction of any new facilities, the Service would 

undertake appropriate surveys and engage in consultations consistent with requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). This process would result in avoiding, 

minimizing, or mitigating any potential effects.

As noted earlier, all existing and proposed visitor uses, including observation, photography, and 

interpretation, occurs or would occur on hardened surfaces (i.e., gravel, pavement, or boardwalk). 

This further reduces the potential that these public uses would adversely affect cultural resources at 

the Refuge. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Refuge’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General 

In addition to the stipulations listed here visitors would be required to comply with Refuge Systemrelated and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 27). 

1. To access and use Refuge areas for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation, 

visitors would be required to angle park in the narrow strip of pavement/gravel just east of 

the port gate and adjacent to Airport Way, or at the proposed new nature center, and stay on 

hardened surfaces, including designated roads, trails, and boardwalks. 

2. Rules to help ensure public safety and minimize adverse effects upon native fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats would be posted on the kiosk and enforced by Refuge staff. 

3. Interpretive materials would be provided to inform visitors of desired behaviors when 

viewing and photographing wildlife. Examples include the “Principles of Ethical Field 

Practices” developed by the North American Nature Photography Association. Among 

others, these principles include not distressing or otherwise interfering with animal behaviors, 

using telephoto lenses to photograph animals from afar, and adherence to local regulatory 

requirements. Other practices that can reduce wildlife disturbance when observing or 

photographing include use of binoculars or spotting scopes to enable good viewing while 

maintaining a respectable distance from individuals or flocks. 

4. Observers and photographers would be prohibited from using attractants such as food or 

recorded audio playback devices (e.g., those used to attract birds and other wildlife). This 

includes tape and digital recorders, portable computers (e.g., laptops, notebooks, and tablets), 

and smart phones. Also, photography through use of kites, remote-controlled aircraft, drones, 

or extended poles (anything taller than a standard photographic tripod or monopod) would 

not be allowed.

5. Group size for guided/interpretive walks would be limited to help ensure a quality visitor 

experience and minimize potential effects on wildlife from large groups of visitors. To ensure 

that visitors are provided high quality orientation, information, and interpretation, the Refuge 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-15

would continue to provide regular training to volunteer roving interpreters and other Refuge 

volunteers. 

6. In order to avoid harassment, disease, or death of native wildlife, or transport of exotic or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in 

observation, photography, and interpretation would be prohibited from bringing dogs or other 

pets with them onto the Refuge. The exceptions would be leashed, certified service animals.

7. Cutting of vegetation to maintain views to the mudflats would be limited to that necessary, 

and conducted by staff or volunteers only. 

8. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written 

approval of the refuge manager or refuge complex manager. 

9. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of facilities, programs, habitats, and wildlife would be 

conducted by staff to assess if program objectives are being met with little or no additional or 

unexpected impacts to resources (budgetary, staffing, wildlife, facilities, etc.). 

Justification:

Service policy states that, “Viewing and photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments 

should foster a connection between visitors and natural resources” (USFWS 2006a). Policy also 

advises that wildlife observation and photography can promote understanding and appreciation of 

natural resources and their management across the Refuge System (USFWS 2006c and USFWS 

2006d). Participation in Refuge interpretive and informational programs can instill a sense of 

wonder, cultivate a connection with nature, foster a life-long relationship with a Refuge and the 

Refuge System, encourage a conservation ethic, and enhance the public’s understanding of and 

appreciation for fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and Refuge management 

programs to conserve these valuable resources. 

Service policy and Federal law require that wildlife-dependent public uses (including wildlife 

observation and photography and interpretation) be given special consideration in refuge planning 

and management, and opportunities to allow these uses are to be considered in each refuge CCP 

(USFWS 2000 and NWRS Administration Act). When determined compatible on a refuge-specific 

basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is to be facilitated 

and strongly encouraged. Safe and compatible opportunities for families, including children, to 

participate in wildlife-dependent uses are to be provided across the Refuge System. 

Potentially these activities could cause some wildlife disturbance. However, they have been available 

on the Refuge for decades and existing facilities and program management have appropriately 

minimized effects upon native wildlife, plants, their habitats, and cultural resources. The stipulations 

included herein continue those efforts and provide additional protection. 

The Refuge would monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine 

if these stipulations were resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge would apply 

adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve 

desirable results (see USDI 2008 and Williams et al. 2009). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

The Refuge would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in 

order to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be 

instituted as a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, 

or policy requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, 

wildlife, plants, or their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Visitors would be appropriately 

advised of any such changes. 

The Refuge would also reserve the right to terminate permission for these uses if individuals were 

violating Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts were occurring to native fish, wildlife, 

plants, or their habitats, cultural resources or Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other 

legitimate reasons.

Compatibility Standard. 

As noted earlier, the purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include providing opportunities for wildlifeoriented recreation and education, consistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their 

habitats, and fulfilling associated international treaty obligations. Providing opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography and interpretation is directly supportive of these congressionally 

established Refuge purposes. 

The several stipulations associated with these uses have been designed to greatly reduce the 

likelihood and magnitude of potential biological effects. Potential impacts associated with 

observation, photography, and interpretation are greatly limited because visitors would access and 

use key interpretive facilities, and viewing and photography opportunities via a paved road, and 

hardened and raised boardwalks and viewing decks or platforms. 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, observation, photography, and interpretation would need to be 

determined compatible. By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it is 

anticipated that wildlife which were disturbed would find sufficient food resources and resting places 

elsewhere on the Refuge or Grays Harbor so their abundance and use would not be measurably 

lessened. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring and adaptive management would prevent 

unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; other public uses; and 

cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations described 

herein, these uses would not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of Grays Harbor NWR’s 

purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only)

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-17

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has being developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA 

for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation at 

Grays Harbor NWR: 

Uses are compatible with stipulations.

Refuge Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-19

References Used and Cited:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (August 19, 1988, 16 U.S.C. 668dd nt). 

Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Russian 

Federation on Cooperation in the Field of Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources (23 

U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345). 

Audubon Washington. Jun 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Olympia, WA. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335-343. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117-133. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259-265. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Restonk, VA. 

Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan 

for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and their Environment (25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990). 

Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory 

Birds (39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628). 

Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 Stat. 

3110). 

Convention between the United States of America and the United Mexican States for the Protection 

of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912). 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (56 Stat. 

1354, T.S. 981). 

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats (I.L.M. 

11:963-976). 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by blacktailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology 38. 846–856. 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Grays Harbor NWR. Undated. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet. Olympia, WA.

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 203–219. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126. 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53–58. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949–1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315–325. 

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C.P. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers 

following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217–2230. 

National Association for Interpretation. Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://www.interpnet.com/NAI/interp/About/About_NAI/What_We_Believe/nai/_About/Mission_Vi

sion_and_Core_Values.aspx?hkey=ef5896dc-53e4-4dbb-929e-96d45bdb1cc1. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-21

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.nanpa.org/wp-content/uploads/NANPA-Ethical-Practices2.pdf. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission. Tallahassee, FL.

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6–19. 

Thomas, K. May 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings 

(Calidris alba). Capstone project. CSU, Monterey Bay, CA. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use Around San Francisco 

Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (8). 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USFWS. 2006a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 1: General Guidelines for 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html. 

USFWS. 2006b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 7: Interpretation. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw7.html.

USFWS. 2006c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 4: Wildlife Observation. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw4.html. 

USFWS. 2006d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 5: Wildlife Photography. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw5.html. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 602 FW 1: Refuge Planning 

Overview. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw1.html. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-23

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education. 

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Refuge Purposes:

. . . (1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including but not limited 

to those of western sandpiper, dunlin, red knot, long-billed dowitcher, short-billed dowitcher, 

other shorebirds, and other migratory birds, including birds of prey; (2) to fulfill international 

treaty obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) 

to conserve those species known to be threatened with extinction; and (4) to provide an 

opportunity, consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), for wildlifeoriented recreation, education, and research (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041). 

. . . 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)). 

Description of Use:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy defines environmental education to be, “...a process 

designed to teach citizens and visitors the history and importance of conservation and the biological 

and the scientific knowledge of our Nation’s natural resources. Through this process, ...[the 

Service]... can help develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, 

motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively towards the conservation of our Nation’s 

environmental resources. Environmental education within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, 

offsite, and distance learning materials, activities, programs, and products that address the audience’s 

course of study, refuge purpose(s), physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, 

and the Refuge System mission” (USFWS 2006). 

Environmental education is a formal, structured program that incorporates measurable learning 

objectives and uses audience-appropriate curricula to satisfy State or other standards. Environmental 

education activities can be provided by Refuge personnel, a volunteer(s), or other Service-authorized 

agent(s), or through partnerships with groups that share similar goals (e.g., a Refuge friends group). 

For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD), environmental education includes education 

regarding natural and cultural resources and values. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

As noted above, one of the purposes of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is 

to provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented education, consistent with the conservation of fish and 

wildlife and their habitats, and fulfilling associated international treaty obligations. At present, the 

Service partners with several local organizations to offer an environmental education program that 

reaches over 4,000 students and adults annually, both on the Refuge and offsite in local schools 

throughout Grays Harbor County. Formal environmental education efforts focus on third and fourth 

grade students (the goal is to reach at least 500 students annually). In the spring, following classroom 

trainings, students enjoy a field trip to the Refuge (800 students participated in such field trips in 

2012). Environmental education programs are provided by Service staff, interns, and trained 

volunteers, and since 2002, are coordinated by an AmeriCorps Volunteer who serves as the Refuge’s 

environmental education coordinator. As funding and staffing allow, the Refuge also assists with 

local summer camp programs, which include natural history activities and lessons. 

Formal teacher training is an important component of the Refuge’s environmental education 

program. Trainings address both Refuge-specific topics and watershed issues. Training participants 

receive “An Educator’s Guide to Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge” which customized the 

Shorebird Sisters School Program for local use. The “Growing Up Wild” program guide has been 

used for training early childhood teachers. The Service often partners with local educational 

organizations (e.g., Educational Service District 113 and the Chehalis Basin Education Consortium) 

to provide these trainings. Volunteers who assist with the education program also receive training. 

There are currently no public restrooms, no potable water, and no specialized facilities on the Refuge 

to serve environmental education. The Sandpiper Trail is the focus of onsite education efforts. The 

Port of Grays Harbor allows school buses to travel beyond the port gate and drive to the trailhead of 

the Sandpiper Trail. There, students can readily access the trail to observe wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats, and learn about Refuge management programs and conservation issues. The trail is fully 

accessible for those with limited mobility.

Comments received during the comprehensive conservation planning process reveal interest by 

members of the public in more educational opportunities throughout the year, guided walks and talks, 

additional trails, additional and improved signage, and a visitor/interpretive center on the Refuge. It 

is proposed that the surface of the narrow parking strip along Airport Way be improved and signed, 

and that two new wildlife viewing decks/platforms be developed on the south side of the Refuge: one 

near the port gate and Refuge information kiosk, and one adjacent to the intertidal mudflats partway 

between the port gate and the Sandpiper Trailhead. Students, teachers, and other visitors would 

access this latter viewing site by walking through the narrow strip of forest. It is proposed that the 

western end of the Sandpiper Trail be lengthened by approximately 250 feet and identified as the Red 

Knot Trail. Extension of this trail would provide enhanced viewing and photography opportunities to 

the west and further into the bay. These and all new Refuge facilities would be accessible to persons 

of all abilities. New interpretive panels are proposed for the Refuge information kiosk, and Sandpiper 

and Red Knot trails. 

A modestly sized nature center, associated parking, and trails are proposed for construction when 

funding is available. The nature center would be sited at the eastern boundary of the Refuge and 

would be accessed from Paulson Road. The nature center would include an information/exhibit area, 

a classroom/meeting room, offices, restrooms, and a modestly sized parking area. Additionally, a 

short, raised boardwalk with railing (similar to that used for the Sandpiper Trail) would be built 

through the marsh toward the intertidal mudflats and have a new viewing deck/platform. This facility 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-25

would serve students and teachers participating in environmental education along with those 

enjoying wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation. It is unknown how 

many additional visitors the proposed nature center might attract. 

Until further details are developed, this CD includes a conceptual level evaluation of anticipated 

impacts, many of which are the same as for the other wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental interpretive facilities. At present, no funding is available to construct the proposed 

nature center and associated facilities. 

Students often participate in wildlife observation, photography, and environmental interpretation

opportunities during their participation in formal environmental education activities at the Refuge. 

Observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities at Grays Harbor NWR are addressed in a 

separate CD (see CD for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation). 

Environmental education is a wildlife-dependent general public use and is to be given special 

consideration in refuge planning and management. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific 

basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is to be facilitated 

and encouraged (see National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 

the Black River Unit of Nisqually NWR. Much of the information and some of the analyses 

contained in this CD are addressed in greater detail in the CCP and EA. The CCP and EA are 

incorporated through reference herein. 

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the proposed improvements to Refuge 

facilities used in the environmental education program. These projects would serve students and 

teachers participating in environmental education. Therefore, onetime project costs would be divided 

between these uses. 

Table B-4. Costs to Administer and Manage Environmental Education under the Preferred 

Alternative

Category One-time

Expense ($)

Recurring 

Expense 

($/year)

1. Manage Environmental Education curriculum and programs 23,000 91,000

9.1 Conduct on and off site Refuge programs 10,000 55,000

Total Costs 33,000 146,000

Monies raised by partner groups during the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival (a few thousand dollars 

each year) are used in part to help fund efforts at the Refuge, including the environmental education 

program, and construction of boardwalk, benches, and interpretive signing. To date, the Refuge has 

partnered with other organizations and used grant funding to annually support the environmental 

education coordinator position (AmeriCorps Volunteer) and provide bus transportation for students 

as part of the environmental education program. This funding, especially the bus transportation, is 

not guaranteed annually. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Costs associated with the current environmental education program are funded through combined 

nonprofit and Service sources. Funding is needed annually to hire the education specialist 

(Americorps) position. This position is temporary. Additional permanent funding would be sought to 

develop all proposed facilities, staff needs, and programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

This CD addresses anticipated impacts of the Refuge’s onsite environmental education program. It is 

likely that offsite environmental education activities, such as those conducted in area schools, would 

not have measurable impacts on the Refuge or its natural or cultural resources. 

Refuge Goals and NWRS Mission 

The Refuge has developed the following seven draft goals as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. 

1. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem 

for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem for the 

benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. 

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge and greater 

Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. 

4. Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

resources and foster a connection with nature. 

6. Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and foster a 

connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge. 

7. Support and strengthen an active volunteer workforce and Friends Groups to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

Environmental education activities would directly support draft Refuge goal 6. It is expected that 

these activities would enhance the public’s understanding of and appreciation for the importance of 

conservation and for the Refuge’s management programs; therefore, they would indirectly support 

the Refuge System mission and draft goals 1, 2, and 3. Additionally, volunteers are recruited and 

trained to assist with the environmental education program; these activities would also indirectly 

support draft goal 7. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

As noted earlier, the purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include conservation of fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats, with emphasis upon shorebirds, other migratory birds, birds of prey, 

and species threatened with extinction. Refuge purposes also include fulfilling international treaty 

obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Examples of such 

treaties include the Ramsar Convention and treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

Russia, the Soviet Union, and Western Hemisphere nations. These treaties address the conservation 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-27

and protection of migratory birds and species in danger of extinction, protection of wetlands, and 

establishment and management of nature preserves (I.L.M. 11:963-976; 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628; 25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990; 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912; 23 U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345; T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 

Stat. 3110; and 56 Stat. 1354, T.S. 981). 

Wildlife species of special management concern at the Refuge include shorebirds such as western 

sandpiper (Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plover (Charadrius 

semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari), 

long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), 

and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca); birds of prey such as bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern harrier (Cirus cyaneus), merlin (Falco

columbarius), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); waterfowl, other waterbirds, and other 

migratory birds including ducks and geese, gulls, terns, mergansers, common loon (Gavia immer), 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias) and other waterbirds; and neotropical songbirds. Management also 

focuses on species threatened with extinction which, when the Refuge was established, included the 

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and brown pelican. Each of these species, have since been removed 

from the Federal endangered species list and are considered recovered in this area of the U.S. 

Shorebirds and other fauna at the Refuge provide prey for these raptors, so the Refuge will continue 

to ensure that management decisions support continued recovery of these birds. It is possible that the 

following three fishes listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544) occur on the Refuge: green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus), and eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus, aka smelt). 

Refuge management focuses on providing quality intertidal mudflat roosting and foraging habitat for 

migrating shorebirds. This is especially important during the spring (late April through May) when 

hundreds of thousands of these birds use the entire Harbor estuary as a refueling stop on their 

northern migration from wintering areas in South America. While at Grays Harbor, the birds enhance 

fat reserves for the nonstop flight to their Arctic breeding grounds. Grays Harbor is one of four major 

North American staging areas for shorebirds and hosts one of the largest concentrations of these birds 

on the west coast south of Alaska. In 1995, in recognition of its high value to over 500,000 

shorebirds annually, Grays Harbor Estuary was designated a site of hemispheric importance (the 

highest ranking) by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Bowerman Basin (within 

the Refuge) has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area and is listed as priority wintering 

habitat for peregrine falcons by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Audubon 

Washington Jun 2001). Although shorebird numbers are especially high in the spring, a diversity of 

wildlife use Refuge habitats throughout the year. For example, shorebirds also visit and feed in the 

estuary from June through October, during their southward migration, and dunlin and black-bellied 

plover winter at the Refuge. 

Refuge habitats of special management concern include open water, intertidal mudflats, tidal salt and 

brackish marsh, and forest. Native plants of special concern include native eelgrass (Zostera marina) 

and sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens). Because Refuge mudflats are some of the last in the 

estuary to flood during twice-daily high tides, they are especially valuable for foraging shorebirds. 

The Refuge’s mudflat habitat is dense with nutrient-rich, invertebrate bird foods, such as polychaete 

worms, tubeworms, and the shrimp-like Corophium amphipod (Corophium spp.). Red alder (Alnus 

rubra) dominates the forest that provides roost sites for raptors and cover and forage for passerines. 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include common reed (Phragmites australis), three 

different species of Spartina (Spartina spp.), a few knotweed species (Polygonum spp.), Asian or 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and 

Cirsium vulgare, respectively), Griffins isopod (Orthione griffenis), green crab (Carcinus maenas), 

and invasive mussels and snails. 

It is expected that the greatest effects upon wildlife of school groups and others participating in 

environmental education would likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has 

differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved 

and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; 

whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the 

disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and 

Verboven 1993; Holmes et al. 2005; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole, 

1995a; Knight and Cole 1995b; Lafferty 2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their 

normal behavior; cause them to stop feeding; cause abandonment of nests and young; and allow 

predators access to nests and young, reduce parental attention to young, and otherwise impact 

survival of individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or broods (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991; Haysmith and 

Hunt, 1995; Lafferty, 2001b). The effects of disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 

Distance of observers or photographers from wildlife subjects and the number of observers or 

photographers involved are important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that 

vigilance behavior of Gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers 

increased. A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) 

revealed that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds 

(positively correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and 

Monaghan 2004). 

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993; Lafferty 2001b; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Rodgers 1991; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

In a study of the effects of disturbance on feeding shorebirds in a British estuary, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven (1993) found that flushed birds normally flew just a short distance and quickly resumed 

feeding. They noted that although disturbance (by walkers, observers, anglers, dog-walkers, and shell 

fisherman) had increased over a 15-year period, populations of oystercatchers had not diminished 

because there were ample areas away from disturbance for the birds to move and continue feeding; 

birds could feed at other hours of the day and night when people were not present; feeding intensity 

could be increased somewhat to compensate for lost feeding time; some of the best feeding areas, the 

mudflats, were areas not usually accessed by humans; and the birds might habituate to certain types 

of disturbance. Importantly, if enough people were present in some of the smaller habitats, all of the 

feeding shorebirds were displaced and as the density of feeding shorebirds increased elsewhere, older 

birds stole more food from subordinate birds. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-29

In another study of the effects of disturbance on British shorebirds, Gill et al. (2001) found that there 

was a strong relationship between the density of desirable prey species and the numbers of godwits 

using a site, and that human disturbance had no effect on the numbers of godwits supported at 

preferred forage sites. In a study of the effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line 

skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no difference 

in shorebird use between sites without trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail users. 

However, after a certain point on high use days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in reduced 

numbers of foraging shorebirds. Similar to the situation at Grays Harbor, these trails were elevated 

and aligned parallel to the adjacent mudflats. 

In a study of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the 

number, proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected foraging time by the birds. The presence 

of dogs off-leash was especially disturbing. Smit and Visser (1993) reviewed numerous shorebird 

studies from the coasts of The Netherlands and Germany. They found that, when disturbed, entire 

flocks of nonterritorial shorebirds departed feeding sites and moved to other feeding sites. They also 

found that one person or a group of people could cause most or all territorial shorebirds (e.g., 

redshanks, oystercatchers, and curlews) to abandon a preferred feeding site until the disturbance 

ceased and then often a smaller number of these birds returned. Finally, they noted that their review 

argued for keeping visitors to nature reserves at sufficient distance from high-tide roosts. These 

studies suggest that disturbance response varies considerably among foraging shorebirds and perhaps 

among feeding sites. It would appear that in some situations, certain shorebird species are somewhat 

more tolerant of modest levels of human disturbance than some other bird species and that such 

disturbance may not affect the birds’ ability to satisfy nutritional requirements or their populations if 

the areal extent of quality foraging habitats is adequate.

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern if school groups engage in wildlife observation and 

photography (Cline et al., 2007; DeLong, 2002; Knight and Cole, 1995). Observers and 

photographers often want to enhance their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to 

their subject. This can cause increased stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is 

nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only 

temporary, eggs and nestlings can face survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and 

predation. 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser 

1993). Lafferty et al. (2006) studied the effects of erecting educational signing, employing docents, 

and placing a rope barrier that directed recreationists away from a western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) nesting area on a California beach. Despite the fact pedestrians were easily 

seen and continued to routinely pass by the nesting area, human-related disturbance was reduced by 

more than half, plover numbers increased within the barrier area, and plover reproductive success 

was enhanced. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Participants in environmental education programs could also cause trampling of native plants, 

erosion, and introduction or spread of exotic species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive 

species. All of these impacts could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

The degree of actual effects upon important life history parameters such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, reproduction, and survival of individuals, and diversity and abundance of native species 

(community health) would depend on specific circumstances. 

Currently, the primary area of the Refuge used for environmental education is the Sandpiper Trail; a 

boardwalk that is built on piers and rises above the underlying brackish and salt marsh along the 

southern boundary of the Refuge. Generally, for an onsite environmental education activity a school 

bus drops the children off on a blacktop area next to the trail; however, walking along a blacktop 

road to the trail is also an access method. Confining visitors to this trail and associated access route 

avoids potential impacts associated with trampling of vegetation and erosion of soils. Additionally, 

although students are provided an avenue through the forest and across the marsh to the edge of the 

mudflats, they are not allowed to venture onto the mudflats themselves, thus keeping this critical 

foraging area free from direct disturbance. It is possible that large groups of students moving quickly 

and noisily along the trail could disturb shorebirds feeding on the mudflats. Specific behavioral 

stipulations proposed for this use are intended to minimize these potential adverse effects. The 

proposed new facilities on the Refuge’s south side (two observation decks/platforms and associated 

trails/boardwalks, the Red Knot Trail addition, new interpretive panels and signage, and 

improvements to the parking strip) would be sited in this same area and share the same design 

features as the current facilities. It is expected that these new facilities and associated public uses 

would have the same effects on wildlife and their habitat as those at present. Anecdotal observations 

from the decades since the Sandpiper Trail has been opened to the public reveal that that use of this 

facility by school groups does not appear to disturb shorebirds foraging on the mudflats. There are 

perch sites in trees on three sides of the Refuge allowing raptors to move to other locations should 

they be disturbed by school groups on the Sandpiper Trail. 

To preserve views of the Refuge mudflats at various overlook points along the Sandpiper Trail, 

volunteers and staff would continue to remove a modest amount of native and nonnative vegetation. 

Maintenance of some vegetation growth is not expected to, nor has it had an effect on the overall 

health of the forest or marsh habitats. 

Buses transporting students and teachers to the Sandpiper Trail pass through the port gate and travel 

along the blacktop-paved road (on Port of Grays Harbor property) to the trailhead. Some participants 

in environmental education activities may park their vehicles at the existing small parking area (that 

is partially paved and partially graveled) near the port gate and adjacent to Airport Way. It is 

proposed that this narrow parking area be repaved to improve the existing parking surface, which 

would reduce vehicle-related erosion potential from this area. 

The proposed nature center and parking lot would be built on upland fill adjacent to Paulson Road. 

The proposed boardwalk and observation deck/platform would be designed and constructed similar 

to the Sandpiper Trail. The trails would be elevated above the marsh, but would not approach the 

mudflats as closely as the Sandpiper Trail, thereby reducing potential effects upon foraging 

shorebirds. When school groups use the trail and observation deck/platform, raptors might be 

discouraged from perching in adjacent trees. Because upland forest occupies a much larger area at 

this location that would remain closed to visitor access, these birds should have acceptable alternative 

perching sites. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-31

Due to the denseness of vegetation and insubstantial nature of sediments, almost all other areas of the 

Refuge are, at best, difficult for visitors to access, and free-roaming would not be allowed. Visitors 

would be required to stay on trails or blacktop roads, thus reducing the potential for impacts upon 

native fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

Public Use

Not including research, the only other general public uses allowed (and proposed for authorization) 

on the Refuge are wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. These uses occur year round, 

but the peak use period is in the spring, at the same time school groups visit the Refuge. A large 

group of students using the trail shared by wildlife observers/photographers could reduce wildlife 

sightings near the Sandpiper Trail and possibly cause shorebirds or other wildlife using the mudflats 

or open water to move farther afield. For the period the students were on the trail, this could diminish 

the quality of the experience for some other visitors. The same could occur with use of the proposed 

new nature center and associated facilities. Specific behavioral stipulations proposed for this use are 

intended to minimize these potential adverse effects. Additionally, the Sandpiper Trail is lengthy and 

it is proposed that it be extended (Red Knot Trail), so, if necessary, other visitors could move away 

from the students to acquire better opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife during the time 

the school groups were on the trail. The same could occur with the facilities at the proposed new 

nature center.

Cultural Resources and Values 

There are no recorded prehistoric or historic sites on the Refuge and, to date, the Service has not 

conducted or authorized any other party to conduct cultural resource surveys on the Refuge. 

Development, including construction of the proposed visitor facilities described above, can impact 

cultural resources. However, because Refuge facilities would be built in areas that were formerly 

mudflats, and later filled in with dredge spoils, it is unlikely that there exist cultural resources at these 

sites. Nonetheless, prior to construction of any new facilities, the Service would undertake 

appropriate surveys and engage in consultations consistent with requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). This process would result in avoiding, minimizing, and/or 

mitigating any potential effects.

As noted earlier, all existing and proposed environmental education activities occur or would occur 

on hardened surfaces (i.e., gravel, pavement, or boardwalk). This further reduces the potential that 

these public uses would adversely affect cultural resources at the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Refuge’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP/EA. 

Determination: (check one below) 

___ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General 

In addition to the stipulations listed here, students would be required to comply with Refuge Systemrelated and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 27). 

1. Prior to visiting the Refuge, student groups would be educated regarding appropriate conduct 

in such a natural area. This includes moving slowly and quietly so as not to disturb wildlife; 

not damaging or removing any animals, plants, Refuge facilities, or other objects; and not 

littering or otherwise leaving food or other items on the Refuge. Teachers, Refuge staff, 

interns, and trained volunteers would help ensure these behavioral requirements were 

observed. 

2. Teachers, interns, and trained volunteers would be informed of rules to help ensure public 

safety and minimize adverse effects upon native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats while 

education program participants were on the Refuge. Such rules would also be posted on the 

port gate sign and enforced by Refuge staff. 

3. Group size for school groups and guided education walks would be limited to help ensure a 

quality visitor experience and minimize potential effects on wildlife from large groups. To 

ensure that students and other visitors are provided high quality orientation, information, 

interpretation, and education, the Refuge would continue to provide regular training to 

volunteers assisting with the environmental education program. 

4. Vehicles used to access the Refuge for environmental education would park in designated 

parking areas or on port property on blacktop surfaces (with port permission). Those 

participating in education activities would be required to stay on hardened surfaces, including 

designated roads, trails, and boardwalks. 

5. Individuals participating in environmental education activities would be prohibited from 

using attractants such as food or recorded audio playback devices (e.g., those used to attract 

birds and other wildlife). This includes tape and digital recorders, portable computers (e.g., 

laptops, notebooks, and tablets), and smart phones. Also, photography through use of kites, 

remote-controlled aircraft, drones, or extended poles (anything taller than a standard 

photographic tripod or monopod) would not be allowed. 

6. In order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife, or transport of exotic or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in 

environmental education activities would be prohibited from bringing dogs or other pets with 

them onto the Refuge. The exceptions would be certified service animals. 

7. Cutting of vegetation to maintain views to the mudflats would be limited to that necessary 

and conducted by staff or Refuge volunteers only. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-33

8. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of facilities, programs, habitats, and wildlife would be 

conducted by staff to assess if program objectives are being met with little or no additional or 

unexpected impacts to resources (budgetary, staffing, wildlife, facilities, etc.). 

9. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written 

approval of the refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the refuge manager 

would be the project leader of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex). 

Justification:

Environmental education is a popular, valuable, and proven program at Grays Harbor NWR. Service 

policy states that environmental education programs can, “...promote understanding and appreciation 

of natural and cultural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the Refuge 

System” (USFWS 2006). Service policy strongly encourages refuge managers to provide quality, 

compatible environmental education programs. At Grays Harbor NWR, it is expected that students 

and teachers would also enjoy some wildlife observation and photography and environmental 

interpretation ancillary to their environmental education experiences. These are also wildlifedependent public uses that are to be given special consideration in refuge planning and management. 

Service policy and Federal law require that wildlife-dependent public uses (including environmental 

education) be given special consideration in refuge planning and management, and opportunities to 

allow these uses are to be considered in each refuge CCP (USFWS 2000 and NWRS Administration 

Act). When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a 

priority public use for that refuge and is to be facilitated and strongly encouraged. Safe and 

compatible opportunities for families, including children, to participate in wildlife-dependent uses are 

to be provided across the Refuge System. 

Potentially, environmental education could cause some wildlife disturbance. However, this program 

has been provided on the Refuge for decades and existing facilities and program management have 

appropriately minimized public safety concerns and effects upon native wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats, and cultural resources. The stipulations included herein continue the positive efforts of the 

past and provide additional protection to biological and cultural resources, and the public. 

Compatibility Standard. 

As noted earlier, purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include providing opportunities for wildlifeoriented education, consistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, and 

fulfilling associated international treaty obligations. Providing opportunities for environmental 

education is directly supportive of these congressionally established Refuge purposes. 

The several stipulations associated with these uses have been designed to greatly reduce the 

likelihood and magnitude of potential biological effects. Potential impacts associated with 

environmental education are greatly limited because visitors would access and use key facilities via a 

paved road, and hardened and raised boardwalks and viewing decks/platforms. 

The Refuge would monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance, and other potential impacts to determine 

if these stipulations were resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge would apply 

adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve 

desirable results (see USDI 2008 and Williams et al. 2009). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

The Refuge would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in 

order to ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified stipulations could be 

instituted as a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, 

or policy requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, 

wildlife, plants, or their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Teachers, interns, and volunteers 

would be appropriately advised of any such changes. 

The Refuge would also reserve the right to terminate permission for this use if individuals were 

violating Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts were occurring to native fish, wildlife, 

plants, or their habitats, cultural resources or Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other 

legitimate reasons.

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, environmental education would need to be determined 

compatible. By allowing this use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that 

wildlife which were disturbed would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their 

abundance and use would not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated 

that monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats; other public uses; and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated 

above and consistent with the stipulations described herein, this use would not materially interfere 

with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health; fulfillment of Grays Harbor NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

___Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

___Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has been developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA for 

Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-35

Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education at Grays Harbor NWR: 

Uses are compatible with stipulations.

Refuge Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

References Used and Cited:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (August 19, 1988, 16 U.S.C. 668dd nt). 

Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Russian 

Federation on Cooperation in the Field of Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources (23 

U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345). 

Audubon Washington. Jun 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Olympia, WA. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335-343. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259–265. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA. 

Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan 

for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and their Environment (25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990). 

Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory 

Birds (39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628). 

Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 Stat. 

3110). 

Convention between the United States of America and the United Mexican States for the Protection 

of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912). 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (56 Stat. 

1354, T.S. 981). 

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats (I.L.M. 

11:963-976). 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-37

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by blacktailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 846–856. 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Grays Harbor NWR. Undated. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet. Olympia, WA. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 203–219. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339-350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53–58. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949–1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315–325. 

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C.P. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers 

following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217–2230. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. See 

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf. 

Prohibited Acts (50 C.F.R. 27). 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991(?). Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6–19. 

Thomas, K. May 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings 

(Calidris alba). Capstone project, CSU, Monterey Bay, CA. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use Around San Francisco 

Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (8). 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USFWS. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 6: Environmental Education. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw6.html. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 602 FW 1: Refuge Planning 

Overview. http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw1.html. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-39

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections. 

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Refuge Purposes:

. . . (1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including but not limited 

to those of western sandpiper, dunlin, red knot, long-billed dowitcher, short-billed dowitcher, 

other shorebirds, and other migratory birds, including birds of prey; (2) to fulfill international 

treaty obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) 

to conserve those species known to be threatened with extinction; and (4) to provide an 

opportunity, consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), for wildlifeoriented recreation, education, and research (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041). 

. . . 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 (Refuge System or NWRS) Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of 

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

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

present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act).

Description of Uses:

This use involves research, surveys, and scientific collections conducted by non-Refuge System 

parties on Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). 

Research refers to a planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature. Such 

studies are designed to determine the cause(s) of observed biotic or abiotic phenomenon over a finite 

time period, where cause and effect relationships usually can be inferred through statistical analyses. 

Survey activities include scientific inventories and monitoring of fish, wildlife and plants, public use, 

and abiotic refuge resources (e.g., soils, water). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Scientific collecting involves gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific 

purposes. Examples include collection of vegetation, small mammals, and soils; contaminant 

sampling; adult and larval mosquito trapping/monitoring; and collection and curation of cultural 

resources. 

As noted above, one of the purposes of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is 

to provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented research, consistent with the conservation of fish and 

wildlife and their habitats, and fulfilling associated international treaty obligations. Relevant treaties 

include those with Japan, Russia, and Western Hemisphere nations which call for the exchange of 

fish-, wildlife-, and habitat-related scientific, technical, and research information, and the protection 

of regions and natural objects of scientific value (25 U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990; 23 U.S.T. 845, 

T.I.A.S. 7345; 56 Stat. 1354, T.S. 981). 

Refuge staff periodically receive requests from outside parties (e.g., universities, state agencies, other 

Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, surveys, and scientific 

collecting on Refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural and cultural 

resources as well as public-use management issues, including basic absence/presence surveys, 

collection of new species for identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for specific 

species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental 

contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on 

environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of 

paleontological specimens, wilderness character, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, 

and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific, Refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of Refuge lands and waters to larger 

landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, and international), issues, and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (USFWS 1982) and Appropriate Refuge Uses 

(USFWS 2006) policies indicate priority consideration for scientific investigatory studies that 

contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refugespecific needs for resource management goals and objectives, where applicable, would be given a 

higher priority over other requests. Attached to this compatibility determination (CD) are examples 

of high-priority research, survey, and scientific collection topics for Grays Harbor NWR. 

Research, surveys, and scientific collections on the Refuge would generally be authorized through 

individual special use permits (SUPs) consistent with Service policy (USFWS 1986). Before being 

allowed on the Refuge, this use would need to be found appropriate (see Appropriate Refuge Uses) 

and then be determined compatible (USFWS 2000). 

Projects that represent public or private economic use of the natural resources of the Refuge (e.g., 

bioprospecting) would need to comply with relevant Federal regulations for such uses (see May we 

allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges?, 50 C.F.R. 29.1). In such cases, the Refuge would 

need to first determine that the use contributed to the achievement of Refuge purposes or the Refuge 

System mission prior to making a determination regarding the project’s compatibility.

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 

the Black River Unit of Nisqually NWR. Much of the information and some of the analyses 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-41

contained in this CD are addressed in greater detail in the CCP and EA. The CCP and EA are 

incorporated through reference herein. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge responsibilities for research, surveys, and scientific collections by non-Refuge System 

entities are primarily limited to the following: review of proposals, preparation of an SUP(s) and 

other appropriate compliance documents (pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, etc.), and monitoring project 

implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels (compatible) 

over time. Additional administrative, logistical, and operational support could also be provided 

depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time and annually recurring tasks by 

Refuge staff are determined on a project-by-project basis. Sufficient funding in the Refuge’s general 

operating budget would need to be available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and 

conditions for funding and staff support necessary to administer each project on the Refuge would be 

clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research, 

surveys, and scientific collections that are currently taking place on Grays Harbor NWR (see table 

below). Any substantial increase in the number of projects would create a need for additional 

resources to satisfy administrative and monitoring needs to ensure the projects were implemented in 

a compatible manner. Any substantial additional costs above those itemized below could result in 

determining a project not compatible unless expenses were offset by the investigator, sponsoring 

organization, or other party. 

Monies raised during the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival (a few thousand dollars each year) may be 

used to help fund efforts at the Refuge, including research. 

Table B.5. Costs to Administer and Manage Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections 

under the Preferred Alternative

Category One-time

Expense ($)

Recurring 

Expense 

($/year)

Administration and Management 0 2,000

Monitoring 0 3,500

Maintenance 0 500

Total Costs 0 6,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses:

Refuge Goals and NWRS Mission 

Use of the Refuge to conduct research, surveys, or scientific collecting would generally provide 

information of benefit to native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats or cultural resources. 

Scientific findings gained through these projects could provide important information regarding lifehistory needs of species and species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to 

achieve natural or cultural resource management objectives. Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions undertaken in order to achieve desired outcomes 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

(objectives) is essential for adaptive management (see Adaptive Management, USDI 2008 and 

Williams et al. 2009). 

Potentially, some project’s methods could impact or conflict with Refuge-specific natural or cultural 

resources, priority wildlife-dependent public uses, other high-priority research, or Refuge 

management programs. In such cases, in order for the project to be determined compatible, it would 

need to be clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings would contribute to Refuge 

management and that the project could not be conducted off-Refuge. The investigator(s) would need 

to identify methods/strategies in advance to minimize or eliminate potential impacts and conflicts. If 

unacceptable impacts, including long-term and cumulative impacts, could not be avoided, then the 

project could not be determined compatible. 

Research projects that represent public or private economic use of the natural resources of any 

national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting) in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to 

the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they would vary depending upon nature and scope 

of the field work. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would have short-term 

impacts. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, 

plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) would be collected for identification and/or experimentation 

and statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State or Territorial and Federal collecting permits would also 

ensure minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If, after incorporating the above 

strategies, a project would still result in long-term or cumulative effects, it would not be found 

compatible. A section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884, as amended Public Law 93-205) would be required for activities that may affect a federally 

listed species and/or critical habitat. Only projects which have no effect or would result in not likely 

to adversely affect determinations would be considered compatible. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it would be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary. If 

after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated to 

occur, then the project would be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-43

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) would usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project would not be found compatible. Project 

proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts 

(short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to Refuge 

management issues and understanding of natural systems. 

At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

refuge manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format provided in 

Attachment 1. Project proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess 

the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation 

to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment would form the 

primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which result in unacceptable refuge 

impacts would not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after approval, all projects 

would be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable 

levels.

If the proposal is approved, then the refuge manager would issue an SUP(s) with required 

stipulations (terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to 

refuge resources as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and Refuge field management 

operations. After approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and 

conflicts remain within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) would 

ensure that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these 

projects would help fulfill Refuge purpose(s), contribute to the mission of the NWRS, and maintain 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Projects which are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 4 [Gather scientific information 

(inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support adaptive management decisions]) would 

require additional NEPA documentation. 

The management direction of Grays Harbor NWR is guided by the protection of biological diversity 

and enhancement and management of a valuable estuary ecosystem for the benefit of migratory 

shorebirds, other migratory birds, including birds of prey, fish, and other dependent wildlife 

(USFWS, 1988). 

 

The Refuge has developed the following seven draft goals as part of its comprehensive conservation 

planning process. 

1. Protect, maintain, and restore estuarine habitats representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem 

for the benefit of shorebirds, other migratory birds, fish, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitat representative of the Grays Harbor ecosystem for the 

benefit of migratory passerines and other wildlife. 

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the Refuge and greater 

Grays Harbor estuary and ecosystem. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

4. Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

resources and foster a connection with nature. 

6. Provide environmental education opportunities that initiate a sense of wonder and foster a 

connection with nature and the Refuge for students both on and off the Refuge. 

7. Support and strengthen an active volunteer workforce and Friends Groups to assist in 

providing quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

High priority research, survey, and scientific collection projects would directly support draft Refuge 

goal number 4. It is likely that most proposed research, survey, or scientific collection projects would 

also support one or more of the other draft Refuge goal numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; but each would 

need to be evaluated separately. Projects that were determined supportive of draft Refuge goals and 

the Refuge System mission would have a greater chance of being found appropriate, determined 

compatible, and authorized for implementation. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, and would vary depending upon the nature and scope of 

the field work. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would at least have shortterm, localized impacts.

As noted earlier, the purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include conservation of fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats, with emphasis upon shorebirds, other migratory birds, birds of prey, 

and species threatened with extinction. Refuge purposes also include fulfilling international treaty 

obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Examples of such 

treaties include the Ramsar Convention and treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

Russia, the Soviet Union, and Western Hemisphere nations. These treaties address the conservation 

and protection of migratory birds and species in danger of extinction, protection of wetlands, and 

establishment and management of nature preserves (I.L.M. 11:963-976; 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628; 25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990; 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912; 23 U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345; T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 

Stat. 3110; and 56 Stat. 1354, T.S. 981). 

Wildlife species of special management concern at the Refuge include shorebirds such as western 

sandpiper (Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plover (Charadrius 

semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari), 

long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), 

and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca); birds of prey such as bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern harrier (Cirus cyaneus), merlin (Falco

columbarius), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); waterfowl, other waterbirds, and other 

migratory birds including ducks and geese, gulls, terns, mergansers, common loon (Gavia immer), 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias) and other waterbirds; and neotropical songbirds. Management also 

focuses on species threatened with extinction which, when the Refuge was established, included the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-45

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and brown pelican. All these species have since been removed from the 

Federal endangered species list and are considered recovered in this area of the U.S. Shorebirds and 

other fauna at the Refuge provide prey for these raptors, so the Refuge will continue to ensure that 

management decisions support continued recovery of these birds. It’s possible that the following 

three fishes listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) 

occur on the Refuge: green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and 

eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus, aka smelt). 

Refuge management focuses on providing quality intertidal mudflat roosting and foraging habitat for 

migrating shorebirds. This is especially important during the spring (late April through May) when 

hundreds of thousands of these birds use the entire Harbor estuary as a refueling stop on their 

northern migration from wintering areas in South America. While at Grays Harbor, the birds enhance 

fat reserves for the nonstop flight to their Arctic breeding grounds. Grays Harbor is one of four major 

North American staging areas for shorebirds and hosts one of the largest concentrations of these birds 

on the west coast south of Alaska. In 1995, in recognition of its high value to over 500,000 

shorebirds annually, Grays Harbor Estuary was designated a site of hemispheric importance (the 

highest ranking) by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (http://www.whsrn.org 

/site-profile/grays-harbor-estuary). Bowerman Basin (within the Refuge) has been designated a 

Globally Important Bird Area and is listed as priority wintering habitat for peregrine falcons by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Audubon Washington Jun 2001). Although shorebird 

numbers are especially high in the spring, a diversity of wildlife use Refuge habitats throughout the 

year. For example, shorebirds also visit and feed in the estuary from June through October, during 

their southward migration, and dunlin and black-bellied plover winter at the Refuge.

Refuge habitats of special management concern include open water, intertidal mudflats, tidal salt and 

brackish marsh, and forest. Native plants of special concern include native eelgrass (Zostera marina) 

and sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens). Because Refuge mudflats are some of the last in the 

estuary to flood during twice-daily high tides, they are especially valuable for foraging shorebirds. 

The Refuge’s mudflat habitat is dense with nutrient-rich, invertebrate bird foods, such as polychaete 

worms, tubeworms, and the shrimp-like Corophium amphipod (Corophium spp.). Red alder (Alnus 

rubra) dominates the forest that provides roost sites for raptors, and cover and forage for passerines. 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include common reed (Phragmites australis), three 

different species of Spartina (Spartina spp.), a few knotweed species (Polygonum spp.), Asian or 

Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and 

Cirsium vulgare, respectively), Griffins isopod (Orthione griffenis), green crab (Carcinus maenas), 

and invasive mussels and snails. 

Disturbance would likely be one of the most common wildlife effects caused by research, surveys, 

and scientific collections. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent 

upon, among other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle 

stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the 

intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of 

approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Holmes et al. 2005; 

Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and Cole 1995b; Lafferty 

2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their normal behavior; cause them to stop 

feeding; cause abandonment of nests and young; and allow predators access to nests and young, 

reduce parental attention to young, and otherwise impact survival of individual birds, eggs, nestlings, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

or broods (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991; Haysmith and Hunt, 1995; Lafferty, 2001b). The effects of 

disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 

The distances of researchers from wildlife subjects and the numbers of researchers involved are 

important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of Gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al., Mar 

1995). A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) 

revealed that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds 

(positively correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and 

Monaghan, 2004). Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio, 2005; 

Hammitt and Cole, 1998). 

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993; Lafferty 2001b; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Rodgers 1991; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

In a study of the effects of disturbance on feeding shorebirds in a British estuary, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven (1993) found that flushed birds normally flew just a short distance and quickly resumed 

feeding. They noted that although disturbance (by walkers, observers, anglers, dog-walkers, and shell 

fisherman) had increased over a 15-year period, populations of oystercatchers had not diminished 

because there were ample areas away from disturbance for the birds to move and continue feeding; 

birds could feed at other hours of the day and night when people were not present; feeding intensity 

could be increased somewhat to compensate for lost feeding time; some of the best feeding areas, the 

mudflats, were areas not usually accessed by humans; and the birds might habituate to certain types 

of disturbance. Importantly, if enough people were present in some of the smaller habitats, all of the 

feeding shorebirds were displaced and as the density of feeding shorebirds increased elsewhere, older 

birds stole more food from subordinate birds. 

In another study of the effects of disturbance on British shorebirds, Gill et al. (2001) found that there 

was a strong relationship between the density of desirable prey species and the numbers of godwits 

using a site, and that human disturbance had no effect on the numbers of godwits supported at 

preferred forage sites. In a study of the effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line 

skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no difference 

in shorebird use between sites without trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail users. 

However, after a certain point on high use days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in reduced 

numbers of foraging shorebirds. Similar to the situation at Grays Harbor, these trails were elevated 

and aligned parallel to the adjacent mudflats. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-47

In a study of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the 

number, proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected foraging time by the birds. The presence 

of dogs off-leash was especially disturbing. Smit and Visser (1993) reviewed numerous shorebird 

studies from the coasts of The Netherlands and Germany. They found that, when disturbed, entire 

flocks of nonterritorial shorebirds departed feeding sites and moved to other feeding sites. They also 

found that one person or a group of people could cause most or all territorial shorebirds (e.g., 

redshanks, oystercatchers, and curlews) to abandon a preferred feeding site until the disturbance 

ceased and then often a smaller number of these birds returned. Finally, they noted that their review 

argued for keeping visitors to nature reserves at sufficient distance from high-tide roosts. These 

studies suggest that disturbance response varies considerably among foraging shorebirds and perhaps 

among feeding sites. It would appear that in some situations, certain shorebird species are somewhat 

more tolerant of modest levels of human disturbance than some other bird species and that such 

disturbance may not affect the birds’ ability to satisfy nutritional requirements or their populations if 

the areal extent of quality foraging habitats is adequate.

Trulio (May 2005) reviewed numerous studies of the effects of recreational and other human uses on 

wildlife, especially waterbirds. Reviewed studies found that similar to the effects of recreationists, 

researchers can often have a number of adverse effects on wildlife and can contribute to nest 

abandonment, increased depredation, reduction of nests near disturbed areas, lower productivity, and 

increased flight. These effects may vary based on the species studied, the stage in the breeding cycle 

when disturbance occurs, the presence of predators in the area, and other factors. In a near-shore 

study with Xantus’s murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus), Newman et al. (2005) found that 

biochemical and cellular indicators of stress were adversely affected by research activities, including 

capture, handling, and radio-marking. Wright et al. (2007) found that land-based researchers flushed 

large numbers of California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) in studies at a seabird colony on 

the lower Columbia River. A study of the effects of varying frequencies of research activities within 

black skimmer (Rynchops niger) nesting subcolonies by Safina and Burger (1983) found that prelaying adults left disturbed subcolonies; some nesting pairs deserted nests early in incubation; and 

nest density, late nesting, hatching success, and fledgling success were all adversely affected by this 

disturbance. Robert and Ralph (1975) assessed biological effects of researchers entering a nesting 

colony of western gulls (Larus occidentalis) and found that hatching failure was positively correlated 

with the frequency of disturbance and that effects were greater during the early stage of the breeding 

cycle. Colwell et al. (1988) studied the effects of blood sampling of shorebirds on breeding grounds 

in Minnesota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. They found that blood sampling had no effect on return 

of birds the following year; that it had varying effects on clutch desertion (based on when in the 

reproductive cycle the birds were captured, whether both parents were sampled, and whether the 

species was biparental or uniparental); and that a small percentage of birds (0-3 percent) died or 

sustained debilitating injuries.

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007; DeLong 2002; Knight and Cole 1995), and can include research or biologist activities. 

Observers and photographers often want to enhance their view or photograph by encroaching closer 

and closer to their subject. This can cause increased stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. 

If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. 

Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face survival challenges associated with temperature 

extremes and predation.

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser 

1993). Lafferty et al. (2006) studied the effects of erecting educational signing, employing docents, 

and placing a rope barrier that directed recreationists away from a western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) nesting area on a California beach. Despite the fact pedestrians were easily 

seen and continued to routinely pass by the nesting area, human-related disturbance was reduced by 

more than half, plover numbers increased within the barrier area, and plover reproductive success 

was enhanced. In the aforementioned study of researchers entering a nesting colony of western gulls, 

Robert and Ralph (1975) found that chick survival was higher in the more frequently disturbed plots 

compared with those that were disturbed less frequently. It appeared that chicks in the more 

frequently disturbed plots may have habituated to some extent to the researchers. When researchers 

approached chicks in the less frequently disturbed plots, the chicks flushed a greater distance and 

were exposed to attacks by adult birds. Chick survival on the control (undisturbed plot) was higher 

than on the disturbed plots. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human 

disturbance appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory 

populations, and potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult 

to forecast habituation in actual field situations. 

In addition to travel by foot or vehicle, field research can involve transport of project infrastructure, 

equipment, and supplies, such as permanent transects or plot markers, and exclosure devices. Access 

to and work at study sites could result in localized and temporary effects including trampling of 

native plants, erosion, collecting of soil and plant samples, and trapping and handling of fish and 

wildlife. Longer-term effects could potentially be caused by introduction or spread of exotic species, 

including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species, or pathogens. All of these impacts could 

adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon 

important life history parameters such as foraging, predator avoidance, reproduction, and survival of 

individuals; and on diversity and abundance of native species (community health) would depend on 

specific circumstances. These potential effects could be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods and possibly 

restoration or mitigation plans, where appropriate (see attached). 

It is possible that some research could be conducted from the Sandpiper and Red Knot Spur trails: 

boardwalks that are built on piers and rise above the underlying brackish and salt marsh along the 

southern boundary of the Refuge. Access to these trails is on the hardened blacktop road. Use of 

these trails and associated access route would avoid potential problems associated with trampling of 

vegetation and erosion of soils. Additionally, although researchers would be provided an avenue 

through the forest and across the marsh to the edge of the mudflats, they might or might not venture 

onto the mudflats themselves. If they did not, the critical foraging area would remain disturbancefree. Anecdotal observations from the decades since the Sandpiper Trail has been opened to the 

public reveal that visitor use of this facility does not disturb shorebirds foraging on the mudflats. If 

researchers did venture onto the mudflats, SUP conditions would limit their stay there to the 

minimum necessary. Shorebirds and other wildlife could be flushed, but such temporary and 

infrequent disturbance would not be expected to be significant. There are perch sites on three sides of 

the Refuge allowing raptors to move to other locations should they be disturbed by visitors on the 

Sandpiper Trail.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-49

The existing small Refuge parking area is partially paved and partially graveled. To the extent that 

researchers parked there, it would minimize erosion potential. It is proposed that this narrow parking 

area be repaved to improve the existing parking surface, which would reduce vehicle-related erosion 

potential from this area. 

Public Use

Almost all visitations at the Refuge occur on the Sandpiper Trail. This area is relatively small and 

crowding can occur, especially during special Refuge events. If research was conducted from the trail 

during the spring (especially late April through early May), it could result in crowding on the Trail

and it could reduce the quality of viewing and photography by other Refuge visitors. If field research 

was conducted on or near the mudflats or marshlands during this same time period, it could result in 

flushing of shorebirds and other wildlife, and thereby reduce viewing and photography opportunities. 

General and project-specific stipulations and conditions regarding the locations and scheduling of 

research would be used to greatly minimize the likelihood that such activities would impair other 

approved public uses, including wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. 

The exception could be research and surveys specifically focused on public use. In such cases, 

approved study protocols would help ensure that such projects would not significantly reduce the 

quality of wildlife-dependent public uses.

Cultural Resources and Values 

There are no recorded prehistoric or historic sites on the Refuge and, to date, the Service has not 

conducted or authorized any other party to conduct cultural resource surveys on the Refuge. It is 

unlikely that research at the Refuge would affect cultural resources. However, if such projects 

involved construction of new facilities, the Service would undertake appropriate surveys and engage 

in consultations consistent with requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

470) prior to project approval. Additionally, if the research, surveys, or scientific collections 

specifically focused on cultural resources, such projects could require additional permits and 

approvals, potentially including a permit under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 470aa-470mm). Stipulations and conditions associated with Refuge SUPs or ARPA permits 

would help ensure that research-related adverse effects upon cultural resources were avoided, 

minimized, and/or mitigated, as appropriate.

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Refuge’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Investigator(s), researchers, and support staff would follow all Refuge-specific regulations 

that specify access and travel on the Refuge. 

2. Projects would adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable

3. Permission to use the Refuge for research, surveys, or scientific collections would be 

officially authorized through issuance of a special use permit (SUP). 

4. To acquire an SUP, at least 3 months before initiation of field work, a researcher(s) would be 

required to submit a detailed project proposal (see attached format) and request an SUP. 

Among other things, proposals would need to adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for 

data collection, where available and applicable. 

5. Project proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed. This review 

would assess relative to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems the 

potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to the benefits of the 

investigation. This assessment would form the primary basis for determining whether or not 

the project could be approved. 

6. All SUPs would have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Annual or 

other short-term SUPs are preferred, however, some permits may be allowed for a longer 

period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. 

7. SUP renewals would be subject to refuge manager review and approval based timely 

submission of and content in progress reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and 

required permits. Continuation of existing projects would require approval by the refuge 

manager. 

8. SUPs would cover use by a specified individual or organization and could not be assigned or 

sub-permitted to others. 

9. Researchers must possess all required local, State, and Federal permits and approvals for 

collections and other activities of their proposed projects. 

10. SUPs would include maps clearly depicting the areas researchers would be authorized to 

access and use, including the Refuge entry point(s). Permittees would be prohibited from 

straying outside the project areas depicted on maps. 

11. The Refuge would supply researchers with information about the Refuge; its purposes and 

goals; natural and cultural resources of concern; open and closed areas, dates, and times; 

rules and regulations; and any hazardous conditions. Researchers would be responsible for 

reviewing and understanding this information and ensuring that their colleagues also 

received, reviewed, and understood this information. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-51

12. A section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act would be required for all projects 

and activities that may affect a federally listed species and/or critical habitat. Projects which 

would have “no effect” or would result in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination 

would be considered for potential approval. 

13. Researchers would be required to secure approval from the Service prior to use of any 

pesticide (including uses of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) on the Refuge. This 

would involve researchers submitting to the refuge manager a completed Pesticide Use 

Proposal (PUP) for each proposed pesticide use. Any researcher-applicator would be required 

to have a current state pesticide application license and endorsement for the applicable 

habitat. These PUPs would need to be submitted at least 90 days prior to proposed use of the 

pesticide to allow adequate time for evaluation and processing. 

14. To minimize the introduction and/or spread of exotic plants or animals, diseases, or other 

pests, sampling equipment as well as researcher’s clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATVs, boats) 

would need to be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt, seeds, and other plant material) before 

being used on the Refuge. 

a. Researchers/investigators would be required to disinfect waders by following specific 

protocols provided by the Refuge. Disinfection is required prior to entry into any 

Refuge wetland and when crossing between wetlands. 

15. Researchers would be prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures, 

creating new or expanding exiting trails, or removing vegetation to facilitate travel on the 

Refuge without specific, prior written approval of the refuge manager (for the purpose of 

these stipulations, the refuge manager would be the project leader of the Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex). 

16. Any flagging used would need to be biodegradable. 

17. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on 

refuges (USFWS 2001), permittees would be prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge. 

18. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, 

plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates, and artifacts) would be collected for identification 

and/or experimentation and statistical analysis. 

a. Where possible, researchers would be required to coordinate and share collections. 

This could reduce sampling needed for multiple projects and any associated mortality 

and disturbance. For example, if one investigator collected fish for a diet study and 

another researcher was examining otoliths, then it could be possible to accomplish 

sampling for both projects with one collection effort. 

19. Researchers and their colleagues would be prohibited from collecting, removing, disturbing 

or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric/archaeological or historic artifacts, cultural 

resources, abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge unless 

stated in the SUP. 

a. In the event such resources were inadvertently disturbed in the course of conducting 

otherwise permitted activities, the disturbing activity would need to be immediately 

discontinued and the refuge manager would need to be notified within 24 hours. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

20. If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

Refuge staff, then the refuge manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an 

ongoing project already permitted by SUP(s) on the Refuge. 

21. Upon completion of the project or annually (at the discretion of the refuge manager), 

researchers would be required to remove all equipment and physical markers (unless required 

for long-term projects) and restore sites to the refuge manager’s satisfaction. SUPs would 

specify conditions for removal and clean up. 

22. At any time, Refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field.

23. Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report would be provided to investigator(s) (see Attachment 

2). 

24. Final project reports would be due 1 year after completion of the project. 

a. Researchers would be required to provide Refuge staff with the following: 

i. An early opportunity(ies) to review and comment on draft manuscripts well 

before their submittal to a scientific journal for consideration for publication; 

ii. Copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a project permitted on the 

Refuge; and 

iii. At the conclusion of the project, raw data in a format negotiated with Refuge 

staff.

25. All samples collected on Refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal would require submission of a subsequent proposal 

for review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. 

For samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand would be necessary (see Attachment 3).

26. In all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on the Refuge, researchers would 

be required to appropriately cite and acknowledge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and Refuge 

staff and other Service personnel who supported or contributed to the project. 

27. The Refuge would monitor compliance with the stipulations and SUP conditions, habitat 

quantity and quality, wildlife use and productivity, water quality, cultural resources, Refuge 

facilities, other Refuge public uses, and other relevant endpoints to determine if stipulations 

associated with research, surveys, and scientific collections were resulting in expected and 

desirable outcomes. In consultation with researchers, the Refuge would apply adaptive 

management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve 

desirable results. In the event that modified stipulations or adjusted objectives did not 

adequately address the situation, the refuge manager could temporarily or permanently 

withdraw official permission to continue research, surveys, or scientific collections on the 

Refuge. Permission could also be withdrawn for other legitimate reasons. Permits could be 

revoked with 30 days or less written notice.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-53

28. The Refuge would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed 

herein in order to ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified 

stipulations would be instituted as a result of ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, 

or policy requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native 

fish, wildlife, plants, or their habitats; as a result of mutual agreement with researchers; or for 

other legitimate reasons. Researchers would be advised of new or significantly modified 

stipulations at least 90 days prior to their becoming effective.

Justification:

Almost all research, surveys, and scientific collections on refuges are inherently valuable to the 

Service because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions 

about fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, cultural resources, and/or public use. 

In addition, only projects which directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally would be 

authorized on Refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for the Refuge staff providing access to 

Refuge lands and waters along with some support, research would not occur and less scientific 

information would be available to aid the Service in managing and conserving Refuge resources. 

Compatibility Standard. 

As noted above, one of the purposes of Grays Harbor NWR is to provide opportunities for wildlifeoriented research, consistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, and 

fulfilling associated international treaty obligations. Relevant treaties include those with Japan, 

Russia, and Western Hemisphere nations which call for the exchange of fish-, wildlife-, and habitatrelated scientific, technical, and research information, and the protection of regions and natural 

objects of scientific value. Providing opportunities for research, surveys, and scientific collections is 

directly supportive of Refuge purposes. 

By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

which were disturbed by this use would find sufficient food resources and resting places elsewhere 

on the Refuge or, if needed, elsewhere in Grays Harbor. Their abundance on and use of the Refuge 

on a longer-term basis should not be measurably lessened. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats, cultural resources, and public use. Where this was not the case, the proposed 

project would likely not be compatible and would not be authorized for implementation. As a result, 

potential research, surveys, and scientific collections, consistent with the stipulations described 

herein, would not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of Grays Harbor NWR’s purposes; or the 

Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

___________Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has being developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA 

for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-55

Compatibility Determination for Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections at Grays 

Harbor NWR: 

Uses are compatible with stipulations.

Refuge Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONG-TERM 

MONITORING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to conduct research and/or long-term monitoring on refuge 

lands. To receive a SUP, a detailed project proposal using the following format must be submitted to 

the Refuge Manager approximately 6 months prior to the start of the project. 

Title:

Principal Investigator(s): 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that will be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In addition, 

provide a brief description or attach vitae of expertise for principal investigator(s) germane to work 

described in the proposal. 

Background and Justification:

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

• The resource management issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge gap 

regarding ecological function that currently exists with any available background 

information. 

• Benefit of project findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with 

refuge. 

• Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding ecological 

function is not addressed. 

Objectives:

Provide detailed objective(s) for the proposed project. 

Methods and Materials:

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field and laboratory 

work (if applicable) to be conducted for the project. Methods should include the following:

• study area(s); 

• number of samples; 

• sampling dates and locations; 

• sampling techniques; and 

• data analyses including statistical methods and significance levels. 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-57

equipment (e.g., vehicles, boats, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. Provide a 

clear description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and statistical analyses. 

Permits: 

Identify all State or Territorial and Federal permits required if applicable. 

Potential Impacts to Refuge Resources: 

Describe potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, 

wildlife, and fish species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the refuge. 

Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project. 

Animal Welfare Plan: 

If appropriate, attach a copy of the Institutional Animal Care and Use review and/or animal welfare 

plans that are required by the principle investigator’s affiliation. 

Partnerships and Funding Sources:

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature and 

magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

Project Schedule:

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data analyses, 

and report/manuscript preparation. If the project is divided into phases to be accomplished 

separately provide separate initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

Reports and Raw Data:

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer review of 

the final report/manuscript. Draft reports/manuscripts should be submitted to the Refuge Manager 

for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. At the conclusion of a research study 

(manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of the data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, 

animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be provided to the Refuge Manager. For 

long-term monitoring projects, the Service also requires raw data for management and planning 

purposes for the refuge(s). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Publications:

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, presentation 

at professional symposiums, or final reports. 

Disposition of Samples:

If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting the project in accordance with the SUP, the Service retains ownership of all samples 

collected on refuge lands. If the samples will be used for subsequent research activities that are not 

described within the original proposal, a new proposal must be submitted to the Refuge Manager to 

obtain a SUP before initiation of the follow-up project. After conclusion of the research activities, 

consult with the Refuge Manager regarding the final disposition of the samples. If specimens will be 

curated at a museum, then prepare a MOU using the format provided in Attachment 3. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-59 

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR REFUGE RESEARCH AND LONGTERM MONITORING PROJECTS

Study title:

Fiscal year:

Progress:

In a narrative format, summarize the work that was completed on the study including 

the number and types of samples collected and/or data analyses. 

Important findings:

In narrative format, generally describe any conclusions and/or management 

recommendations that may be drawn from the work completed to date. 

Describe problems encountered:

In narrative format, describe any problems that were encountered during the year 

and their effects upon the study. 

Proposed resolution to problems:

For each problem encountered, describe the actions that have been taken to 

remediate it. 

Preparer:

Date prepared:
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

FOR CURATORIAL SERVICES 

BETWEEN THE

(Name of the Federal agency) 

AND THE

(Name of the Repository) 

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this (day) day of (month and year), between 

the United States of America, acting by and through the (name of the Federal agency), hereinafter 

called the Depositor, and the (name of the Repository), hereinafter called the Repository, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory). 

The Parties do witnesseth that

WHEREAS, the Depositor has the responsibility under Federal law to preserve for future use certain 

collections of paleontological specimens and/or biological samples as well as associated records, 

herein called the Collection, listed in Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, 

and is desirous of obtaining curatorial services; and 

WHEREAS, the Repository is desirous of obtaining, housing and maintaining the Collection, and 

recognizes the benefits which will accrue to it, the public and scientific interests by housing and 

maintaining the Collection for study and other educational purposes; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the Federal Government's continued ownership and control 

over the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, listed in Attachment B 

which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, provided to the Repository, and the Federal 

Government's responsibility to ensure that the Collection is suitably managed and preserved for the 

public good; and

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the mutual benefits to be derived by having the Collection 

suitably housed and maintained by the Repository; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 

1. The Repository shall: 

a. Provide for the professional care and management of the Collection from the (names of the 

resources) sites, assigned (list site numbers) site numbers. The collections were recovered 

in connection with the (name of the Federal or federally-authorized project) project, 

located in (name of the nearest city or town), (name of the county, if applicable) county, 

in the State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory)- 

b. Assign as the Curator, the Collections Manager and the Conservator having responsibility for 

the work under this Memorandum, persons who are qualified museum professionals and 

whose expertise is appropriate to the nature and content of the Collection. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-61

c. Begin all work on or about (month, date and year) and continue for a period of (number of 

years) years or until sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with the terms set forth 

herein. 

d. Provide and maintain a repository facility having requisite equipment, space and adequate 

safeguards for the physical security and controlled environment for the Collection and any 

other U.S. Government-owned personal property in the possession of the Repository. 

e. Not in any way adversely alter or deface any of the Collection except as may be absolutely 

necessary in the course of stabilization, conservation, scientific study, analysis and research. 

Any activity that will involve the intentional destruction of any of the Collection must be 

approved in advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

f. Annually inspect the facilities, the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property. Every (number of years) years inventory the Collection and any other 

U.S. Government-owned personal property. Perform only those conservation treatments as 

are absolutely necessary to ensure the physical stability and integrity of the Collection, and 

report the results of all inventories, inspections and treatments to the Depositor. 

g. Within five (5) days of discovery, report all instances of and circumstances surrounding loss 

of, deterioration and damage to, or destruction of the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property to the Depositor, and those actions taken to stabilize 

the Collection and to correct any deficiencies in the physical plant or operating procedures 

that may have contributed to the loss, deterioration, damage or destruction. Any actions that 

will involve the repair and restoration of any of the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property must be approved in advance and in writing by the 

Depositor. 

h. Review and approve or deny requests for access to or short-term loan of the Collection (or a 

part thereof) for scientific and educational uses. In addition, refer requests for consumptive 

uses of the Collection (or a part thereof) to the Depositor for approval or denial. 

i. with possession of any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal 

property in any manner to any third party either directly or indirectly without the prior 

written permission of the Depositor, and redirect any such request to the Depositor for 

response. In addition, not take any action whereby any of the Collection or any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property shall or may be encumbered, seized, taken in 

execution, sold, attached, lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. 

2. The Depositor shall: 

a. On or about (month, date and year), deliver or cause to be delivered to the Repository the 

Collection, as described in Attachment A, and any other U.S. Government-owned personal 

property, as described in Attachment B. 

b. Assign as the Depositor's Representative having full authority with regard to this 

Memorandum, a person who meets pertinent professional qualifications. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

c. Every (number of years) years, jointly with the Repository's designated representative, have 

the Depositor's Representative inspect and inventory the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property, and inspect the repository facility. 

d. Review and approve or deny requests for consumptively using the Collection (or a part 

thereof). 

3. Removal of all or any portion of the Collection from the premises of the Repository for scientific 

or educational purposes; any conditions for handling, packaging and transporting the Collection; 

and other conditions that may be specified by the Repository to prevent breakage, deterioration 

and contamination.

4. The Collection or portions thereof may be exhibited, photographed or otherwise reproduced and 

studied in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Attachment C to this Memorandum. All exhibits, reproductions and studies shall credit the Depositor, and read as follows: 

"Courtesy of the (name of the Federal agency)."The Repository agrees to provide the Depositor 

with copies of any resulting publications. 

5. The Repository shall maintain complete and accurate records of the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property, including information on the study, use, loan and location 

of said Collection which has been removed from the premises of the Repository. 

6. Upon execution by both parties, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on this 

(day) day of (month and year), and shall remain in effect for (number of years) years, at which 

time it will be reviewed, revised, as necessary, and reaffirmed or terminated. This Memorandum 

may be revised or extended by mutual consent of both parties, or by issuance of a written 

amendment signed and dated by both parties. Either party may terminate this Not mortgage, 

pledge, assign, repatriate, transfer, exchange, give, sublet, discard or part 

 Memorandum by providing 90 days written notice. Upon termination, the Repository shall return 

such Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property to the destination 

directed by the Depositor and in such manner to preclude breakage, loss, deterioration and 

contamination during handling, packaging and shipping, and in accordance with other conditions 

specified in writing by the Depositor. If the Repository terminates, or is in default of, this Memorandum, the Repository shall fund the packaging and transportation costs. If the Depositor 

terminates this Memorandum, the Depositor shall fund the packaging and transportation costs. 

7. Title to the Collection being cared for and maintained under this Memorandum lies with the 

Federal Government. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum. 

Signed: (signature of the Federal Agency Official) Date:

(date) 

 

Signed: (signature of the Repository Official) Date:

(date) 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-63

 

Attachment 3A: Inventory of the Collection 

Attachment 3B: Inventory of any other U.S. Government-owned Personal Property 

Attachment 3C: Terms and Conditions Required by the Depositor 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

High-Priority Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections 

Following are examples of high-priority research, survey, and scientific collection topics for Grays 

Harbor NWR. They are not listed in priority order. 

• Survey shorebirds and their use of the Refuge as part of a comprehensive survey of Grays 

Harbor. 

• Assess the nature of sediment buildup in Bowerman Basin (e.g., its rate, areal extent, causes) and 

its effects on vegetation changes (e.g., encroachment of marsh onto mudflats) and shorebird 

foraging and roosting habitat. 

• Design and implement an appropriate climate change monitoring program for the Refuge. Assess 

effects of climate change on sea level and resultant effects on Refuge habitats and wildlife. 

Assess whether sedimentation of mudflats could offset sea level rise. 

• Inventory primary shorebird prey species in the Refuge’s mudflats and salt marsh habitats. 

• Assess effects of public use of the Sandpiper Trail on shorebird foraging, avian predation, and 

other wildlife use of the Refuge. Develop appropriate mitigation measures. 

• Inventory use of Refuge habitats by fish. 

• Inventory, map, and assess status, areal extent, and effects of exotic, especially invasive species, 

and determine the most effective methods to remove or otherwise manage such species. 

• In light of the commercial and industrial uses surrounding the Refuge and elsewhere in Grays 

Harbor, analyze water, sediments, vegetation, key prey species, and fish and wildlife in the 

Refuge for potential contaminants.

• Develop baseline inventory of animal groups on Refuge, including small mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, and pollinators.

• Develop baseline inventory of native and nonnative eelgrass beds on Refuge. 

• Monitor and map the health and abundance of sweetgrass on the Refuge. 

• Assess use of the Refuge by avian shorebird predators and their interaction with prey species. 

• Monitor the brackish and salt marsh following proposed berm removal. 

• Assess rate of change in areal extent of upland forest, its use by raptors and other wildlife, and 

current and future effects on foraging shorebirds. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-65

References Used and Cited:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (August 19, 1988, 16 U.S.C. 668dd nt). 

Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Russian 

Federation on Cooperation in the Field of Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources (23 

U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345). 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm). 

Audubon Washington. 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington. Olympia, WA. 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259–265. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA. 

Colwell, M.A., C.L. Gratto, L.W. Oring, and A.J. Fivizzani. 1988. Effects of Blood Sampling on 

Shorebirds: Injuries, Return Rates, and Clutch Desertions. The Condor 90:942-945. 

Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan 

for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and their Environment (25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990). 

Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory 

Birds (39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628). 

Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 Stat. 

3110). 

Convention between the United States of America and the United Mexican States for the Protection 

of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912). 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (56 Stat. 

1354, T.S. 981). 

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats (I.L.M. 

11:963-976). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by blacktailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 846–856. 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Grays Harbor NWR. Undated. Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet. Olympia, WA. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC.203–219. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53–58. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949–1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315–325. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-67

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C.P. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers 

following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217-2230. 

May we allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges?, 50 C.F.R. 29.1. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Newman, S.H., H.R. Carter, D.L. Whitworth, and J.G. Zinkl. 2005. Health Assessments and Stress 

Response of Xantus’s Murrelets to Capture, Handling, and Radio-Marking. Marine Ornithology 

33:147–154. 

Prohibited Acts (50 C.F.R. 27). 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992). 

Robert, H.C. and C.J. Ralph. 1975. Effects of Human Disturbance on the Breeding Success of Gulls. 

The Condor Vol. 77, No. 4. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991(?). Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Safina, C. and J. Burger. 1983. Effects of Human Disturbance on Reproductive Success in the Black 

Skimmer. Condor 85:164–171. 

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6–19. 

Thomas, K. 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings (Calidris 

alba). Capstone project, CSU, Monterey Bay, CA. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use Around San Francisco 

Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (8). 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USFWS. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 1: Appropriate Refuge Uses. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

USFWS. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 561 FW 5: RCRA – Solid Waste 

(Nonhazardous). Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/561fw5.html. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 2: Compatibility. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html.

USFWS. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Manual. Chapter 5 RM 17. Administration of 

Specialized Uses. 

USFWS. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Manual. Chapter 4 RM 6. Research and 

Management Studies.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

Wright, S.K., D.D. Roby, and R.G. Anthony. 2007. Responses of California Brown Pelicans to 

Disturbances at a Large Oregon Roost. Waterbirds 30(4): 479-487. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-69

Compatibility Determination

Use: Sweetgrass Gathering

Refuge: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Act to Establish the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Refuge Purposes:

. . . (1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including but not limited 

to those of western sandpiper, dunlin, red knot, long-billed dowitcher, short-billed dowitcher, 

other shorebirds, and other migratory birds, including birds of prey; (2) to fulfill international 

treaty obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) 

to conserve those species known to be threatened with extinction; and (4) to provide an 

opportunity, consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), for wildlifeoriented recreation, education, and research (Pub L. 100-406, 102 STAT. 1041). 

. . . 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 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C.668ddet seq.). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Native American Policy

The Service will work directly with Native American governments and observe legislative mandates, 

trust responsibilities, and respect Native American cultural values when planning and implementing 

programs. 

The Service has developed and adopted this policy to help accomplish its mission and to participate 

in fulfilling the Federal Government’s and the Department of the Interior’s trust responsibilities to 

assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and utilizing their reserved, treaty-guaranteed, or 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

statutorily identified trust assets. This policy is consistent with Federal policy supporting Native 

American government self-determination. 

Secretarial Order 3206, Sec. 4. Background 

The unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes is 

defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and differentiates 

tribes from other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship 

has given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving the legal responsibilities and 

obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due 

care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. 

Description of Use: 

In 1995, the Refuge received approximately 30 to 35 requests for gathering sweetgrass

(Schoenoplectus pungens, formerly Scirpus americanus) from the salt and brackish marsh habitat on 

the north side of the Refuge. Prior to Service acquisition of this parcel, gathering of sweetgrass (used

for basket weaving materials) had been occurring annually each summer. Additionally, Native 

Americans have traditionally gathered these plant materials within the greater Grays Harbor estuary 

for use in weaving baskets. 

Requests were largely for personal use and the amount typically desired was estimated at 25 to 50 

pounds of material wet weight per person. The primary requested collecting period is from mid-July 

through early August, when the plants were mature. Harvesting involved foot traffic through the salt 

marsh to access appropriate gathering sites for sweetgrass and utilizing traditional harvest methods 

by pulling the mature culms from the base of the rhizome. 

Gathering Methods: 

 

Gathering methods have included pulling individual culms from the rhizome and/or cutting above the 

rhizome. Mature culms ready for harvesting will pull out easily from the sheath, helping to minimize 

damage to the rhizome. However, a faster method of harvesting the plant material is cutting the 

culms above the rhizome. This method is considered more damaging to the plant, as culms that are 

not ready to be harvested are taken from the plant prematurely, thereby reducing the amount of 

energy returned and stored in the rhizome for the next season’s growth and production. Cutting 

plants may result in wasted plant materials, as inferior culms would most likely be taken in the 

process. Pulling has been described as the traditional harvesting method by Native American 

gatherers (Shebitz and Crandell, in press). Pulling is more selective since it focuses on desirable 

stems for weaving and does not remove all of the plants in a collecting area. 

Availability of Resources:

The Refuge currently has the following staff and funding to administratively permit and support 

monitoring of sweetgrass gathering currently taking place. Any substantial increase in the number of 

permit requests would create a need for additional resources to satisfy administrative permitting and 

monitoring needs in order to verify that activities are implemented in a compatible manner. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-71 

Table B.5. Estimated annual costs to administer Sweetgrass Gathering on the Refuge 

Category One-time 

Expense ($) 

Recurring 

Expense ($/year) 

Administration and management 0 2,500 

Monitoring 0 1,000 

Total Costs 0 3,500 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats 

As noted earlier, purposes of Grays Harbor NWR include conservation of fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats, with emphasis upon shorebirds, other migratory birds, birds of prey, 

and species threatened with extinction. Refuge purposes also include fulfilling international treaty 

obligations of the United States with regard to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Examples of such 

treaties include the Ramsar Convention and treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

Russia, the Soviet Union, and Western Hemisphere nations. These treaties address the conservation 

and protection of migratory birds and species in danger of extinction, protection of wetlands, and 

establishment and management of nature preserves (I.L.M. 11:963-976; 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. 628; 25 

U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. 7990; 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. 912; 23 U.S.T. 845, T.I.A.S. 7345; T.I.A.S. 9073, 92 

Stat. 3110; and 56 Stat. 1354, T.S. 981). 

Wildlife species of special management concern at the Refuge include shorebirds such as western 

sandpiper (Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plover (Charadrius 

semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari), 

long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), 

and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca); birds of prey such as bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern harrier (Cirus cyaneus), merlin (Falco

columbarius), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); waterfowl, other waterbirds, and other 

migratory birds including ducks and geese, gulls, terns, mergansers, common loon (Gavia immer), 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias) and other waterbirds; and neotropical songbirds. 

Management also focuses on species threatened with extinction which, when the Refuge was 

established, included the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and brown pelican. All these species have 

since been removed from the Federal endangered species list and are considered recovered in this 

area of the U.S. Shorebirds and other fauna at the Refuge provide prey for these raptors, so the 

Refuge will continue to ensure that management decisions support continued recovery of these birds. 

It’s possible that the following three fishes listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) occur on the Refuge: green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus), and eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus, aka smelt). 

Refuge management focuses on providing quality intertidal mudflat roosting and foraging habitat for 

migrating shorebirds. This is especially important during the spring (late April through May) when 

hundreds of thousands of these birds use the entire Harbor estuary as a refueling stop on their 

northern migration from wintering areas in South America. While at Grays Harbor, the birds enhance 

fat reserves for the non-stop flight to their Arctic breeding grounds. Grays Harbor is one of four 

major North American staging areas for shorebirds and hosts one of the largest concentrations of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

these birds on the West Coast south of Alaska. In 1995, in recognition of its high value to over 

500,000 shorebirds annually, Grays Harbor Estuary was designated a site of hemispheric importance 

(the highest ranking) by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Bowerman Basin 

(within the Refuge) has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area and is listed as priority 

wintering habitat for peregrine falcons by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(Audubon Washington, Jun 2001). Although shorebird numbers are especially high in the spring, a 

diversity of wildlife use Refuge habitats throughout the year. For example, shorebirds also visit and 

feed in the estuary from June through October, during their southward migration, and dunlin and 

black-bellied plover winter at the Refuge. 

Refuge habitats of special management concern include open water, intertidal mudflats, tidal salt and 

brackish marsh, and forest. Native plants of special concern include native eelgrass (Zostera marina) 

and sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens). Because Refuge mudflats are some of the last in the 

estuary to flood during twice-daily high tides, they are especially valuable for foraging shorebirds. 

The Refuge’s mudflat habitat is dense with nutrient-rich, invertebrate bird foods, such as polychaete 

worms, tubeworms, and the shrimp-like Corophium amphipod (Corophium spp.). Red alder (Alnus 

rubra) dominates the forest that provides roost sites for raptors, and cover and forage for passerines. 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include common reed (Phragmites australis three 

different species of Spartina (Spartina spp.), a few knotweed species (Polygonumspp.), Asian or 

Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense and 

Cirsium vulgare, respectively), Griffins isopod (Orthione griffenis), green crab (Carcinus maenas), 

and invasive mussels and snails. 

It is expected that the greatest effects on wildlife from sweet grass collection would likely be 

associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent 

upon, among other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle 

stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the 

intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of 

approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Holmes et al. 2005; 

Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and Cole 1995b; Lafferty 

2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their normal behavior; cause them to stop 

feeding; cause abandonment of nests and young; and allow predators access to nests/young, reduce 

parental attention to young, and otherwise impact survival of individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or 

broods (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991; Haysmith and Hunt, 1995; Lafferty, 2001b). The effects of 

disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 

Distance of observers/photographers from wildlife subjects and the numbers of observers/ 

photographers involved are important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that 

vigilance behavior of Gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers 

increased. A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) 

revealed that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds 

(positively correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and 

Monaghan 2004). 

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-73

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993; Lafferty 2001b; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Rodgers 1991; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

In a study of the effects of disturbance on feeding shorebirds in a British estuary, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven (1993) found that flushed birds normally flew just a short distance and quickly resumed In 

a study of the effects of disturbance on feeding shorebirds in a British estuary, Goss-Custard and 

Verboven (1993) found that flushed birds normally flew just a short distance and quickly resumed 

feeding. They noted that although disturbance (by walkers, observers, anglers, dog-walkers, and shell 

fisherman) had increased over a 15-year period, populations of oystercatchers had not diminished 

because there were ample areas away from disturbance for the birds to move and continue feeding; 

birds could feed at other hours of the day and night when people were not present; feeding intensity 

could be increased somewhat to compensate for lost feeding time; some of the best feeding areas, the 

mudflats, were areas not usually accessed by humans; and the birds might habituate to certain types 

of disturbance. Importantly, if enough people were present in some of the smaller habitats, all of the 

feeding shorebirds were displaced and as the density of feeding shorebirds increased elsewhere, older 

birds stole more food from subordinate birds. 

In another study of the effects of disturbance on British shorebirds, Gill et al. (2001) found that there 

was a strong relationship between the density of desirable prey species and the numbers of godwits 

using a site, and that human disturbance had no effect on the numbers of godwits supported at 

preferred forage sites. In a study of the effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line 

skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no difference 

in shorebird use between sites without trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail users. 

However, after a certain point on high use days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in reduced 

numbers of foraging shorebirds. Similar to the situation at Grays Harbor, these trails were elevated 

and aligned parallel to the adjacent mudflats. 

In a study of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the 

number, proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected foraging time by the birds. The presence 

of dogs off-leash was especially disturbing. Smit and Visser (1993) reviewed numerous shorebird 

studies from the coasts of The Netherlands and Germany. They found that, when disturbed, entire 

flocks of nonterritorial shorebirds departed feeding sites and moved to other feeding sites. They also 

found that one person or a group of people could cause most or all territorial shorebirds (e.g., 

redshanks, oystercatchers, and curlews) to abandon a preferred feeding site until the disturbance 

ceased and then often a smaller number of these birds returned. Finally, they noted that their review 

argued for keeping visitors to nature reserves at sufficient distance from high-tide roosts. These 

studies suggest that disturbance response varies considerably among foraging shorebirds and perhaps 

among feeding sites. It would appear that in some situations, certain shorebird species are somewhat 

more tolerant of modest levels of human disturbance than some other bird species and that such 

disturbance may not affect the birds’ ability to satisfy nutritional requirements or their populations if 

the areal extent of quality foraging habitats is adequate.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007; DeLong 2002; Knight and Cole 1995). Sweetgrass gathering could be compared to disturbance 

levels similar or greater to observation and photography. Observers and photographers often want to 

enhance their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause 

increased stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, 

disturbance can cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and 

nestlings can face survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser 

1993). Lafferty et al. (2006) studied the effects of erecting educational signing, employing docents, 

and placing a rope barrier that directed recreationists away from a western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) nesting area on a California beach. Despite the fact pedestrians were easily 

seen and continued to routinely pass by the nesting area, human-related disturbance was reduced by 

more than half, plover numbers increased within the barrier area, and plover reproductive success 

was enhanced. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Observers, photographers, or participants in interpretation programs could also cause trampling of 

native plants, erosion, and introduction or spread of exotic species, including invertebrates, plants, 

and invasive species. All of these impacts could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon important life history parameters such as foraging, 

predator avoidance, reproduction, and survival of individuals and on diversity and abundance of 

native species (community health) would depend on specific circumstances. 

The primary area of the Refuge officially open to public use is the Sandpiper Trail that consists of a 

boardwalk trail built on piers, which rises above the underlying brackish and salt marsh along the 

southern boundary of the Refuge. Access to this trail is on the hardened black top road. Confining 

visitors to this trail and the associated access route avoids potential problems associated with 

trampling of vegetation and erosion of soils. Visitors are provided an avenue through the forest and 

across the marsh to the edge of the mudflats; the mudflats themselves are closed to trespass, thus 

keeping this critical foraging area disturbance-free. The proposed new facilities on the Refuge’s 

south side include two new observation decks/platforms, new Red Knot Trail (approximate 250 feet 

long), new interpretive panels/signage, and improvements to the parking strip. As funding allows 

these future improvements would be sited in this same area and share the same design features as the 

current facilities. It is expected that these new facilities and associated public uses would have the 

same effects on wildlife and their habitat as those at present. Anecdotal observations over the 

decades since the Sandpiper Trail has been opened to the public reveal that visitor use of this facility 

does not disturb shorebirds foraging on the mudflats. There are perch sites in trees on three sides of 

the Refuge allowing raptors to move to other locations should they be disturbed by visitors on the 

Sandpiper Trail.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-75

General Impacts Expected: 

Impacts from the gathering of sweetgrass would be site-specific and would vary depending upon the 

number of annual special use permits allotted. Authorized gathering techniques (pulling method) 

would generally have minimal plant/animal mortality or disturbance, habitat destruction, no 

introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of non-indigenous species. Gathering of mature 

culms utilizing the pulling method would have short-term, localized impacts on the overall plant 

community.

 

Impacts to Listed Species:

No direct impact to listed species is anticipated to occur as a result of sweetgrass gathering. No listed 

species occur directly in the habitat where sweetgrass harvest occurs and use is limited both spatially 

and temporally. Any unanticipated future impacts would be reduced by ensuring that the activity 

avoids areas hosting rare species. 

Sweetgrass Gathering Specific Impacts: 

Description of Sweetgrass: S. pungens, commonly referred to as "sweetgrass" by many basketmakers, a perennial sedge also known as "American bulrush" or "American three square" due to its 

triangular culm with flat sides. Sweetgrass is generally not found in large stands, but is found 

forming fringes along the edge of ponds, lakes, and streams. Sweetgrass seems to prefer coarser 

substrates and is associated where there is a presence of freshwater influence (Pojar and MacKinnon, 

1994). 

Impacts from the gathering of sweetgrass would be site-specific and would vary depending upon the 

number of people actually gathering under the annual allotted SUPs. Not all permitees gather each 

year. Authorized gathering techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. Plant gathering would have short-term, localized impacts on the overall plant 

community. 

Status of Sweetgrass Habitat:

The site where sweetgrass is typically collected is located on the north side of the Refuge in an area

closed to the public. The area remains closed to provide undisturbed habitat for wildlife and to 

protect the native salt marsh and mudflats. Described as a low salt/brackish marsh, the sweetgrass 

stands in Grays Harbor are small, narrow, and somewhat disjunct. Sweetgrass is one of the most 

widespread flowering plants occurring on several continents. However, the occurrence of sweetgrass 

marsh is limited in western Washington and accessibility to stands for harvesting is further limiting 

(Shebitz and Crandell in press). 

Surveys conducted in 1996 had indicated there may be a total of roughly 25 acres of sweetgrass at 

Grays Harbor NWR. However, more complete surveys conducted in the early 2000s produced an 

estimate of approximately 10 acres of sweetgrass on Grays Harbor NWR (Crandell, 2004). These 

small stands comprise one of only three locations in coastal Washington where viable stands remain 

(Linda Kunze, pers comm). Sweetgrass is an important component of the native salt marsh at the 

Refuge, representing roughly 10 acres of the total estimated 156 acres of brackish and salt marsh on 

the Refuge.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

Current and historical information on the status of sweetgrass in Washington and on the Refuge is 

limited. Harvesting locations on the Olympic Peninsula in more recent times have included the 

Skokomish River delta in Hood Canal and multiple shoreline locations in Grays Harbor. Habitat and 

land use changes and overharvesting apparently have contributed to declines and reduced 

accessibility (Lamberson 1996, Nordquist and Nordquist 1983, Shebitz and Crandell, in press). 

Today, sweetgrass stands at Grays Harbor NWR are considered the only site in Grays Harbor that is 

accessible for harvesting by Native Americans (Shebitz and Crandell in press) and sufficient stands 

for harvesting do not currently occur in the Skokomish estuary. 

Concern about the status and health of sweetgrass on the Refuge has been ongoing for the Refuge 

staff and also for Native American gatherers. Lamberson (1996) indicated a consensus among 

gatherers and weavers that there is a general increase in numbers of basket-makers but a decrease in 

the quality and amount of sweetgrass habitat. A basket-weaver from the area who had traditionally 

harvested sweetgrass in Washington stated that because of marked declines, she began to harvest 

sweetgrass in Oregon instead. One longtime harvester who has been collecting at Bowerman Basin 

(now Grays Harbor NWR) for 20 years indicated that the reeds had become shorter. Others have 

reported that they believe it has declined in extent and quality. The sweetgrass stands on the Refuge 

represent a significant proportion of what remains in western Washington. Considering the limited 

occurrence and size of stands in Washington, sweetgrass stands on the Refuge should be treated as 

sensitive, likely declining habitats. 

This native coastal marsh is an important part of the diversity and richness of the Grays Harbor 

estuary and Grays Harbor NWR. This narrow strand provides a transition zone between the extensive 

mudflats of the estuary habitats of the Refuge and the adjacent uplands. Salt marshes in general play 

an important role in nutrient cycling, sediment trapping, contaminant filtering, and nurseries for fish 

and shellfish, and water recharge. The sweetgrass stands on the Refuge also provide food for 

waterfowl and waterbirds and potential nesting habitat for small numbers of birds (marsh wrens, song 

sparrows, etc.), as well as contribute to the health and function of the adjoining mudflats where 

shorebirds concentrate during migration and wintering periods. Grays Harbor marshes are threatened 

by the encroachment of invasive, exotic plant species, including Phragmites, Spartina, knotweed 

species, and nonnative eelgrass. The protection and enhancement of native marshes is essential in 

order to sustain the integrity and diversity of the Grays Harbor estuary. 

Results of 1995 Sweetgrass Gathering and Current Use: 

The lands where sweetgrass gathering has occurred were acquired as part of the Refuge in 1995. 

Limited sweetgrass gathering was allowed by SUP on a trial basis during July and August 1995. 

Thirty-one individuals (both Native American and non-Native American) were issued permits; one 

commercial request was denied. A detailed set of permit stipulations were designed to try to 

minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat. Amount, dates, duration (one day only within a prescribed 

period), and collecting method were all prescribed, based on resource protection needs and input 

from collectors. Only those collectors who had been gathering sweetgrass for many years were given 

permits; no new applicants were granted permits. Only personal use was allowed; permit conditions 

prohibited commercial uses. Management of this program was extremely labor intensive to try to 

ensure that each applicant met permit criteria and understood the special conditions. All permittees 

were informed that this was an experimental year, to allow a more thorough evaluation of the effects 

of sweetgrass gathering at Grays Harbor NWR. Permittees were cooperative and appeared sensitive 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-77

to habitat and wildlife considerations, but wanted to continue their practice of collecting sweetgrass

for use in making baskets. 

The effects of the summer 1995 harvesting activity were readily apparent during a site visit on 

September 14, 1995. There were many trails throughout much of the Sweetgrass stands, associated 

trampling of the plants and soils, and larger areas of impact where pulling or cutting had occurred. In 

areas where foot traffic was highest, trampling had exposed bare, muddy soils. Although permittees 

were required to only pull by hand, there were areas where sweetgrass had obviously been cut, which 

is much more harmful to the plants. Sweetgrass collecting and the foot traffic in the marsh necessary 

for collecting had caused visual impacts including creating trails in the salt marsh and sweetgrass 

stands, vegetation damage, compacting wetland soils, and reducing vegetative cover. Impacts to 

sweetgrass caused by cutting and harvest raised concerns, though detailed studies were not available 

at that time to quantify effects. 

The effects of sweetgrass gathering, despite being limited by an SUP with many conditions, appeared

to have potential cumulative effects on habitat. Preliminary results from 1996 sampling as part of an 

independent survey indicated a potential negative correlation between sweetgrass harvesting and 

plant density: sweetgrass plant density was twice as high in stands on the south side of Bowerman 

Basin (including Grays Harbor NWR) where harvesting does not occur, compared to stands on the 

north side where harvesting occurs. Although it was difficult to conclude what the relative effects of 

harvesting and foot traffic were in comparison to environmental conditions in each area, the direct 

and indirect effects of sweetgrass harvest raised concerns of cumulative, long-term effects to 

sweetgrass, salt marsh plants, soils, and the health of plant communities. 

As a result, to reduce impacts to sweetgrass and the salt marsh on the Refuge and maintain 

compatibility, sweetgrass harvesting for non-Native American gatherers was discontinued in 1996 to 

reduce effects on sweetgrass. However gathering continued to be permitted for Native American 

gatherers under SUPs, to continue to support a traditional cultural use. A range of 20 to 194 permits 

have been issued annually from 1997 onward to tribal members from as many as 13 tribes through 

their tribal representatives. Numbers of permits more typically range from 40 to 100 each year. It 

should be noted that each member who is issued a permit may not necessarily choose to collect in a 

given year and that not all tribes or members may obtain permits each year. 

The Refuge also encouraged and provided partial funding to support research on the health and status 

of sweetgrass at Grays Harbor NWR and the effects of harvesting to provide needed information to 

guide future management decisions. Although analysis is still ongoing, preliminary results of part of 

a PhD dissertation have been provided (Crandell 2004; pers. comm). Sweetgrass harvesting was 

conducted experimentally in test plots to evaluate the effects of harvesting on sweetgrass plants and 

also the trampling associated with access in the salt marsh. Preliminary results looked at above 

ground biomass, stem height, and stem density and showed some negative effects caused by 

harvesting using cutting and to a lesser degree by trampling, but further analysis is needed. To 

address those preliminary impacts, mitigating measures and stipulations were designed to protect and 

sustain sweetgrass and native salt marsh habitats, and maintain compatibility while supporting a 

traditional cultural use by local tribes. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses:

Permitted sweetgrass gathering generally results in little disturbance to other Refuge visitors, since it 

occurs within a closed area that is distant from open public areas. The activity of gathering 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

sweetgrass may inadvertently flush birds or mammals, but the likelihood is limited, so effects on 

wildlife observation are not anticipated. The collecting area is visible from the Sandpiper Trail, but is 

located more than 0.5 miles away. No significant effects to trails, trail users, or other education or 

interpretation programs are foreseen at this time.

Mitigating Measures: 

Although personal gathering for non-Native American gatherers cannot be sustained on the Refuge, 

the Refuge continues to support a traditional cultural activity that is important to many local tribes. In 

addition, as a measure to increase sweetgrass resources in the local western Washington area and 

provide new areas for harvesting, the Refuge has provided permission to gather seeds or seedlings for 

out-planting in other areas as part of restoration or reestablishment projects. For example, the Refuge 

worked closely with the Skokomish Tribe in the late 1990s to allow the gathering of a limited 

number of individual sweetgrass plants from Grays Harbor NWR to be used to restore sweetgrass in 

the Skokomish River estuary where sweetgrass was extirpated. Successful reestablishment or 

introduction in other nearby locations would help to perpetuate sweetgrass in western Washington, 

provide a new gathering site, potentially reduce harvesting pressure on the Refuge, and support an 

important cultural use by local tribes. 

Plant gatherings for reestablishment and out-plant purposes were allowed by an SUP on a limited 

basis in spring 1996, accompanied by an extensive monitoring program to provide important new 

information on the status of sweetgrass at Grays Harbor NWR and to ensure that no adverse impacts 

were caused. This cooperative effort with the Skokomish Tribe is an example of ways that the 

Refuge can create partnerships and further assist local Tribes in sustaining sweetgrass and this 

traditional use. The Refuge also offered to provide seeds or seedlings to another Tribe more recently 

in a restoration project on the Olympic Peninsula, although they later decided to use nursery stock for 

out-planting to ensure greater success. The Refuge will continue to consider future requests from 

others for similar out-planting purposes on a case-by-case basis, to perpetuate sweetgrass marshes for 

traditional use while insuring compatibility.

Public Review and Comment: 

Open-house style public meetings were held and verbal and written comments were solicited from 

the public during public scoping for the CCP/EA for the Refuge. Appendix J of the draft CCP/EA 

gives further details of public involvement undertaken during development of the CCP. Additional 

public review and comment will be solicited during the draft CCP/EA comment period. 

Note that the SUPs were developed and improved over time with input from gatherers and local 

tribes to reflect traditional practices and cultural needs while maintaining compatibility and 

supporting this cultural use. 

Determination: (check one below) 

_____ Use is Not Compatible

_X___ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-79

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. In order to minimize impacts to sweetgrass stands and the native salt marsh, sweetgrass 

harvesting will be limited to Native Americans by permit to support a cultural need while 

protecting and sustaining sweetgrass and other Refuge resources. 

2. Any new data or research relevant to sweetgrass plant communities or harvesting will be 

evaluated and considered as it becomes available. Additional conditions or restrictions will 

be considered if needed to sustain sweetgrass stands and the salt marsh and maintain 

compatibility.

3. Permits will be issued annually to Native American gatherers through Tribal representatives 

with appropriate special conditions to support long-term sustainability of salt marshes, 

sweetgrass stands, and harvesting that is compatible with Refuge purposes and also supports 

cultural needs. 

4. Sweetgrass harvest will be permitted between July 1 and September 15 (by permit as 

described) to allow sweetgrass to be harvested during optimum periods while limiting access 

into salt marsh habitats during other times of the year. 

5. Permits will include special conditions designed to support a cultural need for Native 

American gatherers, but also to minimize effects on sweetgrass and the salt marsh caused by 

foot traffic, trampling, plant harvesting, and presence in this sensitive habitat. 

6. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of facilities, programs, habitats, and wildlife would be 

conducted by staff to assess whether program objectives are being met with little or no 

additional or unexpected impacts to resources (budgetary, staffing, wildlife, facilities, etc.) 

The following SUP stipulations will be included in each permit to help ensure resource 

protection and sustainability of this shared resource: 

a. Permit is nontransferable and valid only for the specific named permittee. Only the 

individual permittee is allowed on the Refuge for harvesting. The permittee may bring an 

assistant (that is a tribal member), if needed, to gather sweetgrass. 

b. Permittee must sign permit. The signed permit must accompany permittee when 

harvesting sweetgrass Schoenoplectus pungens (formerly Scirpus americanus) on 

Refuge.

c. Gathering may only occur during daylight hours. 

d. Permit is for gathering of sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens) only. No other activities 

(i.e., picnicking) are allowed. 

e. In order to reduce the introduction of exotic species into the marsh, only clean, new bags 

will be used to transport collected material. Before entering the gathering area, boots or 

footwear must be clean of vegetation, debris, and mud that may contain seeds from other 

areas.

f. Permittee will remove all litter upon completion of harvesting materials. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

g. To minimize disturbance to the plants, the only gathering method allowed for sweetgrass 

(Schoenoplectus pungens) will be by pulling mature, individual plant stems from the 

plant base (culms from the rhizome). 

h. Permittee may only collect enough material that will fill one 30-gallon garbage bag, or 

one armful load (limited to one bag per permittee). 

i. Permit is valid only one day during the designated gathering period from July 1 to 

September 15. 

j. By September 30th, each Tribal representative is responsible for and will notify the 

Refuge in writing of the dates of all harvesting activities and amounts collected. 

k. No pets are allowed on Refuge. 

l. Violation of permit conditions will result in revocation of permit and may affect future 

gathering of sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens). 

Justification: 

The associated disturbance to wildlife from gathering activities is expected to be negligible to minor. 

Sweetgrass gathering tends to be focused in limited areas within the salt marsh where sweetgrass 

stands occur and is typically of limited duration. Much of the salt marsh is not accessed since 

sweetgrass does not occur in the majority of salt marsh habitat. In addition, the most accessible 

sweetgrass stands closest to roads are usually the areas where harvest occurs, further limiting spatial 

effects to the salt marsh.

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing these 

activities to occur. The relatively limited number of individual animals expected to be adversely 

affected will not cause animal populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of refuge species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not 

be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. 

The effects to sweetgrass and native plant communities will be greatly reduced by continuing to limit 

collecting only to Native American collectors by permit. Permits will include multiple permit 

conditions designed to protect sweetgrass stands in the long-term as well as native salt marsh plant 

communities. Harvest effects and sweetgrass will continue to be evaluated and if future conditions or 

restrictions are needed to protect natural resources and ensure compatibility, they can be designed 

and implemented. Because most collecting typically occurs in the more easily accessible areas near 

roads, much of the salt marsh and some of the sweetgrass stands receive little to no impacts. The 

limited areas where sweetgrass harvesting is concentrated receive more foot traffic and harvesting 

effects are greater on sweetgrass plants, however large portions of the Refuge and salt marsh do not 

receive direct effects. 

The Refuge would monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein.

The Refuge would monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance, and other potential impacts to determine 

if these stipulations were resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-81

The Refuge would apply adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, 

as necessary, to achieve desirable results (see 522 DM 1). 

Any new data or research relevant to sweetgrass plant communities or harvesting will be evaluated 

and considered as it becomes available. Additional conditions or restrictions will be considered if 

needed to sustain sweetgrass stands and the salt marsh and maintain compatibility. 

Thus, allowing sweetgrass gathering for cultural purposes under the stipulations described above will 

not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the 

Refuge system mission. Sweetgrass gathering provides an opportunity for tribal members to continue 

to gather sweetgrass and to support a traditional cultural use practiced over many years, and as such, 

help fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Compatibility Standard 

Providing opportunities for sweetgrass collecting is directly supportive of the Service’s Native 

American Tribal policy. It supports and respects the traditional cultural uses of the sustainable 

resources on the Refuge. The stipulations associated with this use are specifically designed to greatly 

reduce the likelihood and magnitude of potential biological effects. Potential impacts associated with 

sweetgrass gathering are greatly limited because permits are required to harvest the sweetgrass and 

staff would closely monitor use and impacts to the resource. 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, sweetgrass gathering would need to be determined compatible. 

By allowing this use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

that were disturbed would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance and 

use would not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, 

as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations described herein, 

this use would not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of the Refuge purposes; or the Refuge 

System’s mission.

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has been developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA for 

Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Refuge. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR B-83

Compatibility Determination for Sweetgrass Gathering at Grays Harbor NWR: 

Uses are compatible with stipulations.

Refuge Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

B-84 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Grays Harbor NWR

References and Citations: 

Crandell, Caren. 2004. Presentation: Sweetgrass status at Grays Harbor NWR and effect of 

harvesting and trampling. 

Lamberson, Gayle. 1996. Scirpus americanus. A cultural and physical assessment of the 

plant. Evergreen State College report, 36pp. 

Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of Coastal Waters A Systems Approach. Studies in Ecology 

Volume 8. Marine Ecology Laboratory Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth Canada. 

University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 322pp. 

Marten A.C., Zim, H.S. and A.L. Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife and Plants. Dover

Publications, Inc., New York. 500 pp. 

Pojar, J. and A. Mackinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington, Oregon, 

British Columbia and Alaska.B.C. Ministry of Forests and Lone Pine Publishing, Canada. 527pp. 

Shebitz, D. and C. Crandell. In press. Weaving cultural and ecological diversity, beargrass and 

sweetgrass. Chapter 9 in From the Hands of A Weaver, Olympic Peninsula Basketry Through Time. 

Pp 156-169. 

Teal, J.M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia, Ecology. 43:614-24.

USFWS. 2012. FWS Laws, Treaties, and History. In USFWS Office of External Affairs, Native 

American Liaison. http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/l_t_history.html

USFWS. 1994. The Native American Policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/graphics/native_amer_policy.pdf
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-85

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation.

Unit Name: Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, 

Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r)

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Unit Purposes:

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

birds (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

. . . 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 (Refuge System or NWRS) Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Unit] System is to administer a national network of 

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

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

present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act).

Description of Use:

Interpretation is the communication of information and explanation of the nature, origin, and purpose 

of historical, natural, or cultural resources, objects, sites, and phenomena using personal or 

nonpersonal methods. The National Association for Interpretation defines interpretation to be, “a 

mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the 

interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource.” For national wildlife refuges, the 

purposes of interpretation are to convey an understanding and appreciation for refuge resources, the 

issues that affect them, and the conservation techniques and programs pursued in their management 

(USFWS 2006b). For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD), interpretation addresses 

environmental and cultural resources and values. 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation are often enhanced with the provision of 

brochures, wildlife and plant lists, interpretive signs and displays, trails, auto tour routes and vehicle 

pullouts, viewing platforms or towers, viewing equipment, photography or viewing blinds, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-86 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

interpretive presentations and tours, visitor stations or centers, and bookstores or similar retail 

outlets. Many of these facilities and information sources serve all three activities. In addition, refuge 

visitors often enjoy all three activities together. Information can be conveyed in person, in writing, 

with images, with sound, and, increasingly, through a diversity of electronic media and devices. 

For purposes of this CD, observation and photography include viewing and capturing images of wild 

plants and animals, wildlife habitats, wildlands, waters, landscapes, cultural resources, and cultural 

activities; noncommercial recording of all types (e.g., filming, videography, audiography, writing, 

and drawing or painting); and general nature study and appreciation. This CD does not address 

recording of images and audio for commercial purposes. Nor does it address observation, 

photography, and interpretation opportunities offered by commercial tours, sometimes referred to as 

ecotourism. 

At present, the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit (Unit) is not 

officially open for general public use. However, public roads define some boundaries and cut through 

portions of the Unit so individuals have always been able to access portions of the Black River Unit 

via boat. There are two undeveloped boat launch sites within the Unit boundary. Individuals traveling 

local roads or boating on the river currently have undeveloped opportunities to observe and 

photograph wildlife on the Unit. 

Comments received during the CCP process reveal a desire of the public for interpretive signs, offroad parking and viewing areas, opportunities to view elk, trails, viewing blinds, a visitor center and 

information kiosks, and barrier-free facilities on the Unit. In the CCP, it is proposed that portions of 

the Unit be officially opened for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation, and that 

associated infrastructure and management programs be developed to facilitate these public uses. 

Specifically, it is proposed that two observation, photography, and interpretation sites be developed 

near the southern end of the Unit, on either side of Endicott Road, between 118th and 123rd Avenues. 

The east side site would focus on wetland, riparian forest, and riverine habitats, and include a parking 

area near a viewing deck. The west side site would focus on upland forest bounding an open 

grassland where wintering elk are commonly seen, have a viewing deck, and accommodate bus 

parking. Both sites would include parking areas for automobiles, some interpretive and regulatory 

signs or panels, and opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography, and would be fully 

accessible for those with limited mobility. Following establishment of the Thurston County GateBellmore Trail, the Service would also explore potential spur trails into the Unit to provide additional 

opportunities for observation, photography, and interpretation. It is proposed that these areas of the 

Unit be open for visitation every day of the year, from sunrise to sunset. 

In addition, it is proposed that a boat launch site and parking area be developed where 123rd Avenue 

crosses Black River. Boating on the river would provide additional opportunities for Unit visitors to 

enjoy wildlife observation and photography. 

Observation, photography, and interpretation are priority, wildlife-dependent public uses and are to 

be given special consideration in refuge planning and management. When determined compatible on 

a refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is 

to be facilitated and encouraged (see National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-87

the Black River Unit. Much of the information and some of the analyses contained in this CD are 

addressed in greater detail in the CCP and EA. 

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the Unit’s proposed wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretive facilities. 

Table B-8. Costs to Administer and Manage Wildlife Observation and Photography and 

Interpretation under the Preferred Alternative.

Category One-time 

Expenses ($) 

Recurring 

Expense 

($/year)

New parking and viewing area on east side of Endicott Road 110,000 1,000

New parking and viewing area on west side of Endicott Road 90,000 1,000

New boat launch, parking, and kiosk at 123rd Avenue 130,000 2,000

Monitoring and administration 5,000 12,000

Maintenance 5,000 21,000

Law Enforcement 5,000 13,000

Total Costs 345,000 50,000

Funding and/or in-kind support would be sought to develop the new facilities. The proposed Unit

annual operations budget will support the annual costs (staff) associated with the proposed wildlife 

observation and photography and interpretive program on the Unit. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Unit Goals and NWRS Mission

The management direction of the Black River Unit is guided by the protection of biological diversity, 

and enhancement and management of a valuable wetland ecosystem for the benefit of anadromous 

salmonid production, migratory birds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife (USFWS 1996). The 

Unit has developed the following six draft goals as part of its comprehensive conservation planning 

process. 

1. Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough Lowlands 

for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River watershed.

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater Black River 

watershed and ecosystem.

4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Unit’s natural resources 

and foster a connection with nature. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-88 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

6. Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in providing 

quality visitor services programs and outreach. 

Observation, photography, and interpretation activities would directly support draft Unit goal number 

5. It is expected that these uses would enhance the public’s understanding of and appreciation for the 

importance of conservation and for the Unit’s management programs; therefore, they would also 

indirectly support the Refuge System mission and draft goals 1, 2, and 3. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

The Black River is a tributary to the Chehalis River, which drains to the Pacific Ocean through Grays 

Harbor. Slow-moving Black River and surrounding wetlands form the most intact lowland river 

system remaining in western Washington. The Unit includes upland forest, riparian forest, grassland, 

various wetland types, including shrub swamp and rare sphagnum bog, and aquatic systems.

 

The Black River, tributaries, wetlands, grasslands, shrub swamps, and forests support a diversity of 

resident and migratory wildlife species. Wildlife species of special management concern at the Unit

include salmonids such as steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which use the Black River and its tributaries for migration, spawning, 

and rearing. Many species of frogs, salmanders, and newts are found in the mosaic of wetlands. River 

otter (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor 

canadensis) can be seen in the Black River; a herd of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) 

graze in Unit grasslands. Ducks, geese, and grebes; rails, bitterns, herons; raptors; and neotropical 

songbirds occur throughout the Unit. 

Unit management focuses on protecting, restoring, and maintaining quality habitats—especially 

freshwater streams, bogs and emergent marshes, and upland grasslands—for a diversity of native 

wildlife and plant species, including those that are rare and declining. The Unit provides valuable 

habitat for an endemic, State-sensitive species, the Olympic mud minnow (Novumbra hubbsi), and 

the State-endangered and federally threatened species Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). The frog 

is known to occur in three subbasins in the State and in two locations on the Unit. It is suspected that 

the Unit may support rare bog-adapted insects, federally endangered water howellia (Howellia 

aquatilis) and possibly the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), proposed for listing under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), knotweed species (Polygonum spp.), yellow flag iris (Iris 

pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), holly 

(Ilex spp.), New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), feral cat (Felis catus), bullfrog 

(Rana catesbeiana), and various warm water fish species.

It is expected that the greatest effects upon wildlife of visitors engaging in wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation would likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has 

differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved 

and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; 

whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the 

disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and 

Verboven 1993; Holmes et al. 2005; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-89

1995a; Knight and Cole 1995b; Lafferty 2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their 

normal behavior, cause them to stop feeding, cause abandonment of nests and young, and allow 

predators access to nests/young, reduce parental attention to young, and otherwise impact survival of 

individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or broods (Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Haysmith and Hunt 1995; 

Lafferty 2001b). The effects of disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 

Naylor et al. (2009) examined the effects of four types of off-road recreational disturbance (allterrain vehicle riding, mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding) on North American elk (Cervus 

elaphus) in northeast Oregon. They found that all types of disturbance studied affected elk behavior. 

Hiking generally caused an increase in the time elk traveled, especially in the morning; resulted in a 

decrease in resting time; and had no effect on time spent feeding. Ciuti et al. (2012) studied the 

effects of various human disturbances (e.g., hiking, biking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, riding 

all-terrain vehicles, general vehicle traffic, and roads) in various landscapes with different 

management programs in southwest Alberta. They also found that hiking caused elk travel time to 

increase and that an increase in the number of hikers caused an increase in travel behavior in elk. 

Behavioral responses of tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes) to off-trail hikers and off-shore boats 

were investigated by Becker et al. (2012) at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. They learned 

that elk exhibiting rutting behavior and those in the presence of off-trail hikers displayed the most 

disturbance behaviors (i.e., head up, stand, move off, run, or alarm cry). Elk were more sensitive to 

human disturbance when herd sizes were smaller (<15 animals). 

The distances of observers or photographers to wildlife subjects and the numbers of observers or 

photographers involved are important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that 

vigilance behavior of Gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers 

increased. A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) 

revealed that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds 

(positively correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and 

Monaghan 2004). Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005; 

Hammitt and Cole 1998). In a study of the effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and inline skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no 

difference in shorebird use between sites without trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail 

users. However, after a certain point on high-use days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in 

reduced numbers of foraging shorebirds. In a study of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California 

beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the number, proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected 

foraging time by the birds. The presence of off-leash dogs was especially disturbing. 

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993; Lafferty 2001b; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Rodgers 1991; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007; DeLong 2002; Knight and Cole 1995). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-90 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife is often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser 

1993). In an elk study in southwestern Alberta, Ciuti et al. (2012) found that, where hunting is not 

allowed, elk can exhibit habituation (e.g., reduced vigilance behavior) to some types or levels of 

human disturbance. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human 

disturbance appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory 

populations, and potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult 

to forecast habituation in actual field situations. 

Observers, photographers, or participants in interpretation programs could also cause trampling of 

native plants, erosion, and introduction or spread of exotic species, including invertebrates, plants, 

and invasive species. All of these impacts could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon important life history parameters such as foraging, 

predator avoidance, reproduction, survival of individuals, and diversity and abundance of native 

species (community health) would depend on specific circumstances.

The proposed public use facilities described above would invite visitors into the Unit to enjoy 

observation, photography, and interpretation and, at the same time, bring them closer to wildlife and 

their habitats. However, it is expected that wildlife disturbance and other potential impacts would be 

greatly limited because participating visitors would enjoy these uses within the bounds of new 

facilities that are adjacent to a public road and within a large block of Service-owned land, they 

would follow Principles of Ethical Field Practices, developed by North American Nature 

Photography Association, and open-field travel would be prohibited. 

The highest potential for wildlife disturbance might involve boaters on the Black River who were 

observing or photographing wildlife. For much of its reach through the Unit, the Black River is fairly 

narrow and not very deep. Wildlife approached by a boat would not likely have adequate space to 

move aside or dive under water and allow a boat to pass. Instead, such species might head to shrub 

cover along the shore, or swim or fly up or down the river away from the approaching craft. Boat use 

of the river is not expected to be high, so such disturbances would be infrequent, and there would be 

ample, undisturbed areas of the river for displaced wildlife to relocate. 

In addition, the presence of wildlife observers or photographers, or those enjoying interpretation at 

the new facilities on either side of Endicott Road, would have some effects on habitat use and 

movement by elk. The elk currently use the entire area, readily crossing the road and grazing or 

resting in much of the area. It is expected that elk would avoid the immediate footprint of the public 

facilities when in use by people, although the footprint is a relatively small part of the overall block 

of habitat available there, so effects would be fairly localized. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-91

Public Use

Because the Unit is closed to general public use, observation, photography, and interpretation would 

have no effects on other visitors. However, subject to evaluations for compatibility, it is proposed in 

the CCP that portions the Unit also be opened for fishing, boating, research, grazing, haying, and 

mowing. 

It is possible that visitors participating in wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation could 

meet up with a school group on an environmental education field trip at one of the proposed new 

visitor facilities. It is unlikely that a handful of visitors enjoying observation, photography, or 

interpretation would adversely affect those participating in environmental education or any of the 

other new uses listed above. 

Visitors would be expected to not disturb or otherwise interfere with animal behaviors by using 

telephoto lenses to photograph animals and adhering to local regulatory requirements. Other practices 

that can reduce wildlife disturbance when observing or photographing include use of observation or 

photo blinds and use of binoculars or spotting scopes to enable good viewing while maintaining a 

respectable distance from individuals or colonies. 

Social, Cultural, and Other Values 

To date, few cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the Unit. There are no recorded 

archaeological sites, but some local farms and associated structures are of historic value. Prior to 

construction of any new facilities, the Service would undertake appropriate surveys and engage in 

consultations consistent with requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). 

This process would result in avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating any potential effects.

Comments received during the CCP process reveal a concern by some members of the public that 

increased visitation on the Unit could result in vandalism (e.g., of old houses or other buildings on 

the Unit) or impacts to adjacent private property, such as trespass or illegal dumping. Substantial 

private property remains within the approved Unit boundary and public versus private property 

boundaries are not always well marked. Drawing additional visitors to the Unit could result in 

trespass or damage to private property. The sites proposed for the new visitor facilities lay along a 

public road and well within a large area of Service-owned property. That, along with improved 

signing, possibly maps and other visitor information, and the presence of other visitors, should 

reduce the likelihood of trespass or vandalism. 

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Unit’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-92 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

General 

1. In addition to the stipulations listed here, visitors would be required to comply with Refuge 

System-related and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” 

listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 27). 

2. Portions of the Unit would be open for public use daily, year-round, from sunrise to sunset, 

pending authorization. Visitation would not be authorized until the procedural and substantive 

requirements described earlier had been satisfied. The Service would also develop appropriate 

digital and hardcopy visitor information in support of wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation, including rules and requirements and State consumption advisories.

3. Members of the public accessing the new visitor facilities would be required to park their 

vehicles in the Unit-designated parking areas and stay on designated walkways or trails and the 

observation and photography decks. Open-field travel would be prohibited. 

 

4. Rules to help ensure public safety and minimize adverse effects upon native fish, wildlife, plants, 

their habitats, and private property would be posted on Unit sign boards and enforced by Unit

staff.

5. Interpretive materials would be used to inform visitors of desired behaviors when viewing and 

photographing wildlife. Examples include Principles of Ethical Field Practices developed by the 

North American Nature Photography Association. The Unit would provide signs, pamphlets, and 

verbal instructions from Unit staff and volunteers, as well as promote appropriate use of trails, 

blinds, and platforms to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. These materials will clearly 

state pertinent Unit-specific regulations. 

Among others, these principles include not disturbing or otherwise interfering with animal 

behaviors, using telephoto lenses to photograph animals, and adhering to local regulatory 

requirements. Other practices that can reduce wildlife disturbance when observing or 

photographing include use of observation or photo blinds, and use of binoculars or spotting 

scopes to enable good viewing while maintaining a respectable distance from individuals or 

colonies. 

6. Observers and photographers would be prohibited from using feed, manual elk calls, or recorded 

audio playback devices (e.g., those used to attract birds and other wildlife). This includes tape 

and digital recorders, portable computers (e.g., laptops, tablets, notebooks, etc.), and smart 

phones. Also, photography through use of kites, remote-controlled aircraft, drones, or extended 

poles (anything taller than a standard photographic tripod or monopod) would not be allowed.

7. In order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife, or transport of exotic or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in observation, 

photography, and interpretation would be prohibited from bringing dogs or other pets with them 

onto the Unit. The exceptions would be legitimate, leashed guide animals. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-93

8. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the refuge manager would be the 

project leader of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex). 

9. The Unit would establish a program to monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated 

herein. 

Justification:

Service policy states that, “Viewing and photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments 

should foster a connection between visitors and natural resources” (USFWS 2006a). Policy also 

advises that wildlife observation and photography can promote understanding and appreciation of 

natural resources and their management across the Refuge System (USFWS 2006c and USFWS 

2006d). Participation in Unit interpretive and informational programs can instill a sense of wonder, 

cultivate a connection with nature, foster a life-long relationship with a Unit and the Refuge System, 

encourage a conservation ethic, enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation for fish, 

wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and Unit management programs to conserve these 

valuable resources. 

Service policy and Federal law require that wildlife-dependent public uses identified in the 

Improvement Act (including wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation) be given special 

consideration in refuge planning and management, and opportunities to allow these uses are to be 

considered in each CCP (USFWS 2000 and NWRS Administration Act). When determined 

compatible on a refuge-specific basis, those wildlife-dependent uses becomes priority public uses for 

that refuge and are to be facilitated, and strongly encouraged. Safe and compatible opportunities for 

families, including children, to participate in wildlife-dependent uses are to be provided across the 

Refuge System. 

The Unit would monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance, and other potential impacts to determine if 

these stipulations were resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. The Unit would apply adaptive 

management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable 

results (USDI 2008 and Williams et al. 2009). 

The Unit would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order 

to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted 

as a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Unit environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, or 

their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Visitors would be appropriately advised of any such 

changes.

The Unit would also reserve the right to terminate permission for these uses if individuals were 

violating Unit rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts were occurring to native fish, wildlife, 

plants, or their habitats, cultural resources or Unit facilities, or other Unit visitors; or for other 

legitimate reasons.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-94 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Compatibility Standard. 

Providing opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation is directly 

supportive of one of the Unit’s draft goals, but could cause some wildlife disturbance and other 

effects. Carefully designed and constructed facilities, proper program management, and the 

stipulations included herein would greatly reduce this potential. This is primarily the case because 

Unit visitors would enjoy these uses within the bounds of new facilities that are adjacent to a public 

road and within a large block of Service-owned land, and open-field travel would be prohibited. 

In order to be allowed on the Unit, observation, photography, and interpretation would need to be 

determined compatible. By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it is 

anticipated that wildlife which wase disturbed would find sufficient food resources and resting places 

so their abundance and use would not be measurably lessened on the Unit. Additionally, it is 

anticipated that monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 

wildlife, plants, their habitats, other public uses, cultural resources, Unit facilities, and private lands. 

For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations described herein, this use 

would not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Unit’s biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of the Black River Unit’s purposes; or the Refuge 

System’s mission.

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Unit Use Decision: (check one below)

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has being developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA 

for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-95

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation at 

Black River Unit: 

Uses are compatible with stipulations.

Unit Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Unit Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Unit Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-96 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

References Used and Cited:

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Becker, B.H., C.M. Moi, T.J. Maguire, R. Atkinson, and N.B. Gates. 2012. Effects of hiker and boats 

on tule elk behavior in a national park wilderness area. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(1):147–154. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259–265. 

Ciuti, S., J.M Northrup, T.B. Muhly, S. Simi, M. Musiani, J.A. Pitt, and M.S. Boyce. 2012. Effects of 

Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear. PLOS 

ONE Vol. 7, Issue 11. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Unit. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 203-219. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53–58. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-97

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949–1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315–325. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

National Association for Interpretation. Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://www.interpnet.com/NAI/interp/About/About_NAI/What_We_Believe/nai/_About/Mission_Vi

sion_and_Core_Values.aspx?hkey=ef5896dc-53e4-4dbb-929e-96d45bdb1cc1. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Naylor, L.M., M.M. Wisdom, and R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American 

Elk to Recreational Activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3). 

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.nanpa.org/wp-content/uploads/NANPA-Ethical-Practices2.pdf. 

Prohibited Acts (50 C.F.R. 27). 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6–19. 

Thomas, K. 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings (Calidris 

alba). Capstone project, CSU, Monterey Bay, CA. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-98 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use Around San Francisco 

Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (8). 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USFWS. 1996. Final Environmental Assessment, Proposed Addition of the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, Washington. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 602 FW 1: Unit Planning Overview. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw1.html. 

USFWS. 2006a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 1: General Guidelines for 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html. 

USFWS. 2006b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 7: Interpretation. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw7.html. 

USFWS. 2006c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 4: Wildlife Observation. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw4.html. 

USFWS. 2006d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 605 FW 5: Wildlife Photography. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw5.html. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-99

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collection.

Unit Name: Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, 

Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r)

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Unit Purposes:

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

birds (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

. . . 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 (Refuge System or NWRS) Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Unit] System is to administer a national network of 

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

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

present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the national Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977 (Public Law 105-57). 

Description of Use(s):

This use involves research, surveys, and scientific collections conducted by non-Refuge System

parties on the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife (Unit). 

Research refers to a planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature. Such 

studies are designed to determine the cause(s) of observed biotic or abiotic phenomenon over a finite 

time period, where cause and effect relationships usually can be inferred through statistical analyses. 

Survey activities include scientific inventories and monitoring of fish, wildlife, plants, public use, 

and abiotic refuge resources (e.g., soils, water). 

Scientific collecting involves gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific 

purposes. Examples include collection of vegetation, small mammals, and soils; contaminant 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-100 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

sampling; adult and larval mosquito trapping/monitoring; and collection and curation of cultural 

resources. 

Unit staff periodically receive requests from outside parties (e.g., universities, state agencies, other 

Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, surveys, and scientific 

collecting on Unit lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural and cultural 

resources as well as public-use management issues, including basic absence/presence surveys, 

collection of new species for identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for specific 

species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental 

contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on 

environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of 

paleontological specimens, wilderness character, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, 

and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific, Unit-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of Unit lands and waters to larger 

landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, and international), issues, and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6, USFWS 1982) and Appropriate Unit

Uses (603 FW1.10D(4), USFWS 2006) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies 

that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refugespecific needs for resource management goals and objectives, where applicable, would be given a 

higher priority over other requests. Attached to this compatibility determination (CD) are examples 

of high-priority research, survey, and scientific collection topics for the Black River Unit. 

It is proposed that an approximately 300-acre research natural area (RNA) be established at the 

northern end of the Unit. This area would include a reach of the Black River, adjacent shrub swamp, 

and a large portion of the known bog habitat. The RNA would help further protect natural ecological 

processes surrounding these rare bogs and would facilitate long-term research and monitoring of 

these unusual habitats. 

Research, surveys, and scientific collections on the Unit would generally be authorized through 

individual special use permits (SUPs) consistent with Service policy (USFWS 1986). Before being 

allowed on the Unit, this use would need to be found appropriate (see Appropriate Unit Uses) and 

then be determined compatible (USFWS 2000). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 

the Black River Unit. Much of the information and some of the analyses contained in this CD are 

addressed in greater detail in the CCP and EA. The CCP and EA are incorporated through reference 

herein. 

Availability of Resources: 

Unit responsibilities for research, surveys, and scientific collections by non-Refuge System entities 

would be primarily limited to the following: review of proposals, preparation of an SUP(s) and other 

appropriate compliance documents (pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347], Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544], National Historic Preservation Act [16 

U.S.C. 470], etc.), and monitoring project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain 

within acceptable levels (compatible) over time. Additional administrative, logistical, and operational 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-101

support could also be provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time and 

annually re-occurring tasks by Unit staff are determined on a project-by-project basis. Sufficient 

funding in the Unit’s general operating budget would need to be available to cover expenses for these 

projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support necessary to administer each project 

on the Unit would be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Unit has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research, 

surveys, and scientific collections that are currently taking place on the Black River Unit (see table 

below). Any substantial increase in the number of projects would create a need for additional 

resources to satisfy administrative and monitoring of the investigators and their projects and to 

ensure the projects were implemented in a compatible manner. Any substantial additional costs 

above those itemized below could result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses were 

offset by the investigator, sponsoring organization, or other party. 

Table B-9. Costs to Administer and Manage Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections 

under the Preferred Alternative

Category One-time

Expense ($)

Recurring 

Expense 

($/year)

Administration and Management 3,500

Total Costs 3,500

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Unit Goals and NWRS Mission

Use of the Unit to conduct research, surveys, or scientific collecting would generally provide 

information of benefit to native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats or cultural resources. 

Scientific findings gained through these projects could provide important information regarding lifehistory needs of species and species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to 

achieve natural or cultural resource management objectives in refuge management plans (especially 

CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management actions 

undertaken in order to achieve desired outcomes (objectives) is essential for adaptive management in 

accordance with 522 DM 1 (see Adaptive Management USDI 2008 and Williams et al. 2009). 

Potentially, some project’s methods could impact or conflict with Unit-specific natural or cultural 

resources, priority, wildlife-dependent public uses, other high-priority research, or Unit management 

programs. In such cases, in order for the project to be determined compatible, it would need to be 

clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings would contribute to Unit management and 

that the project could not be conducted off-Unit. The investigator(s) would need to identify 

methods/strategies in advance to minimize or eliminate potential impacts and conflicts. If 

unacceptable impacts, including long-term and cumulative impacts, could not be avoided, then the 

project would not be determined compatible. Research projects that represent public or private 

economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting) in 

accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge

purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-102 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they would vary depending upon nature and scope 

of the field work. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would have short-term 

impacts. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, 

plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) would be collected for identification and/or experimentation 

and statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State or Territorial and Federal collecting permits would also

ensure minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If, after incorporating the above 

strategies, a project would still result in long-term or cumulative effects, it would not be found 

compatible. A section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884, as amended Public Law 93-205) would be required for activities that may affect a federally 

listed species and/or critical habitat. Only projects which have no effect or would result in not likely 

to adversely affect determinations would be considered compatible. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it would be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary. If 

after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated to 

occur, then the project would be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a project (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) would usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoided, the project would not be found compatible. Project proposals 

would be reviewed by Unit staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to Unit management issues and 

understanding of natural systems. 

At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

refuge manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format provided in 

Attachment 1. Project proposals would be reviewed by Unit staff and others, as needed, to assess the 

potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to 

Unit management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment would form the 

primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which result in unacceptable Unit

impacts would not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after approval, all projects 

also would be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within 

acceptable levels.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-103

If the proposal is approved, then the Unit manager would issue an SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to Unit resources as 

well as conflicts with other public-use activities and Unit field management operations. After 

approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain 

within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) would 

ensure that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Unit. As a result, these projects 

would help fulfill Unit purpose(s), contribute to the mission of the Refuge System, and maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Unit. 

Projects which are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 4 [Gather scientific information 

(inventories, monitoring, and research) but are necessary to support adaptive management decisions]) 

would require additional NEPA documentation.

The management direction of the Black River Unit is guided by the protection of biological diversity 

and enhancement and management of a valuable wetland ecosystem for the benefit of anadromous 

salmonid production, migratory birds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife (USFWS 1996). The 

Unit has developed the following six draft goals as part of its comprehensive conservation planning 

process. 

1. Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough Lowlands 

for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River watershed. 

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater Black River 

watershed and ecosystem.

4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Unit’s natural resources 

and foster a connection with nature. 

6. Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in providing 

quality visitor services programs and outreach.

High priority research, survey, and scientific collection projects would directly support draft Unit

goal number 4. It is likely that most proposed research, survey, or scientific collection projects would 

also support one or more of the other draft Unit goal numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5, but each would need to 

be evaluated separately. Projects that were determined supportive of draft Unit goals and the Refuge 

System mission would have a greater chance of being found appropriate, determined compatible, and 

authorized for implementation. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, and would vary depending upon the nature and scope of 

the field work. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-104 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would at least have shortterm, localized impacts.

The Black River is a tributary to the Chehalis River which drains to the Pacific Ocean through Grays 

Harbor. Slow-moving Black River and surrounding wetlands form the most intact lowland river 

system remaining in western Washington. The Unit includes upland forest, riparian forest, grassland, 

various wetland types, including shrub swamp and rare sphagnum bog, and aquatic systems.

 

The river, tributaries, wetlands, grasslands, shrub swamps, and forests support a diversity of resident 

and migratory wildlife species. Wildlife species of special management concern at the Unit include 

salmonids such as steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki clarki), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), which use Black River and its tributaries for migration, spawning, and rearing. Many 

species of frogs, salmanders, and newts are found in the mosaic of wetlands. River otter (Lutra 

canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor canadensis)

can be seen in Black River; a herd of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) graze in Unit

grasslands. Ducks, geese, and grebes; rails, bitterns, herons; raptors; and neotropical songbirds occur 

throughout the Unit. 

Unit management focuses on protecting, restoring, and maintaining quality habitats—especially 

freshwater streams, bogs and emergent marshes, and upland grasslands—for a diversity of native 

wildlife and plant species, including those that are rare and declining. The Unit provides valuable 

habitat for an endemic, State-sensitive species, the Olympic mud minnow (Novumbra hubbsi) and the 

State-endangered and federally threatened species Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). The frog is 

known to occur in three subbasins in the State, and in two locations on the Unit. It is suspected that 

the Unit may support rare bog-adapted insects, federally endangered water howellia (Howellia 

aquatilis) and possibly the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), proposed for listing under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), knotweed (Polygonum species), yellow flag iris (Iris 

pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), holly 

(Ilex spp.), New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), feral cat (Felis catus), bullfrog 

(Rana catesbeiana), and various warm water fish species. 

Disturbance would likely be one of the most common wildlife effects caused by research, surveys, 

and scientific collections. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent 

upon, among other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle 

stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the 

intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of 

approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Holmes et al. 2005; 

Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and Cole 1995b; Lafferty 

2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their normal behavior; cause them to stop 

feeding; cause abandonment of nests and young; and allow predators access to nests/young, reduce 

parental attention to young, and otherwise impact survival of individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or 

broods (Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Haysmith and Hunt 1995; Lafferty 2001b). The effects of 

disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-105

Naylor et al. (2009) examined the effects of four types of off-road recreational disturbance (allterrain vehicle riding, mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding) on North American elk (Cervus 

elaphus) in northeast Oregon. They found that all types of disturbance studied affected elk behavior. 

Hiking generally caused an increase in the time elk traveled, especially in the morning; resulted in a 

decrease in resting time; and had no effect on time spent feeding. Ciuti et al. (2012) studied the 

effects of various human disturbances (e.g., hiking, biking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, riding 

all-terrain vehicles, general vehicle traffic, and roads) in various landscapes with different 

management programs in southwest Alberta. They also found that hiking caused elk travel time to 

increase and that an increase in the number of hikers caused an increase in travel behavior in elk. 

They noted that, where hunting is not allowed, elk can exhibit habituation (e.g., reduced vigilance 

behavior) to some types or levels of human disturbance. Behavioral responses of tule elk (Cervus 

elaphus nannodes) to off-trail hikers and off-shore boats were investigated by Becker et al. (2012) at 

Point Reyes National Seashore, California. They learned that elk exhibiting rutting behavior and 

those in the presence of off-trail hikers displayed the most disturbance behaviors (i.e., head up, stand, 

move off, run, or alarm cry). Elk were more sensitive to human disturbance when herd sizes were 

smaller (<15 animals). 

The distances of researchers from wildlife subjects and the numbers of researchers involved are 

important disturbance variables. Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of Gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. A study of visitors to a 

colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed that nesting success was 

influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively correlated) and the number of 

observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 2004). Breeding birds are 

especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005; Hammitt and Cole 1998). In a study of the 

effects of trail users (walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line skaters) on shorebirds in San Francisco 

Bay, Trulio and Sokale (2008) found there was no difference in shorebird use between sites without 

trail use and those sites with low numbers of trail users. However, after a certain point on high use 

days, increasing numbers of trail users resulted in reduced numbers of foraging shorebirds. In a study 

of sanderlings (Calidris alba) on a California beach, Thomas (5-2000) found that the number, 

proximity, and activity of recreationists all affected foraging time by the birds. The presence of offleash dogs was especially disturbing.

A variety of factors affect flushing and flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species 

involved; the activity in which the birds are engaged (e.g., foraging versus nesting); prey density and 

nutritional requirements for feeding birds; flock size (large flocks may be more easily disturbed); 

whether the species is hunted; and the type, size, speed, and noise of disturbance (e.g., dogs versus 

humans, cycling versus walking, or approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (GossCustard and Verboven 1993; Lafferty 2001b; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Rodgers 1991; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a greater 

distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that otherwise 

would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, migration, predator avoidance, 

mating, nesting, and brood-rearing.

Trulio (May 2005) reviewed numerous studies of the effects of recreational and other human uses on 

wildlife, especially waterbirds. Reviewed studies found that similar to the effects of recreationists, 

researchers can often have a number of adverse effects on wildlife and can contribute to nest 

abandonment, increased depredation, reduction of nests near disturbed areas, lower productivity, and 

increased flight. These effects may vary based on the species studied, the stage in the breeding cycle 

when disturbance occurs, the presence of predators in the area, and other factors. Tremblay and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-106 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Ellison (1979) studied the effects on reproductive success of researchers entering black-crowned 

night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) colonies in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. They found that 

effects varied significantly based on when in the breeding cycle researchers entered colonies. 

Entering just prior to or during laying of eggs caused inhibition of laying, abandonment of nests, and 

predation or abandonment of eggs. Entry into the colonies following egg laying had much less 

impact. More frequent researcher disturbance had greater effects on reproductive success than less 

frequent visits. In some situations, researchers’ actions caused mortality of young birds. In studies of 

tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), Frederick and Collopy (1989) found that when researchers 

visited the nesting colonies after courtship and early egg laying, there were no differences in 

reproductive success between sites visited frequently versus those visited infrequently. Parsons and 

Burger (1982) examined the effects of research handling on behavior of black-crowned night heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax) nestlings in Massachusetts. Nestlings that were not handled exhibited escape 

behavior when disturbed. Nestlings that were regularly handled displayed increasingly defensive 

behavior, did not move from their nests, and appeared to have habituated somewhat to the 

disturbance. Handling did not affect growth of the nestlings. All adult birds flew away when 

researchers entered the colonies.

In a near-shore study with Xantus’s murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus), Newman et al. (2005) 

found that biochemical and cellular indicators of stress were adversely affected by research activities, 

including capture, handling, and radio-marking. Wright et al. (2007) found that land-based 

researchers flushed large numbers of California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) in studies at 

a seabird colony on the lower Columbia River. A study of the effects of varying frequencies of 

research activities within black skimmer (Rynchops niger) nesting subcolonies by Safina and Burger 

(1983) found that pre-laying adults left disturbed subcolonies; some nesting pairs deserted nests early 

in incubation; and nest density, late nesting, hatching success, and fledgling success were all 

adversely affected by this disturbance. Robert and Ralph (1975) assessed biological effects of 

researchers entering a nesting colony of western gulls (Larus occidentalis) and found that hatching 

failure was positively correlated with the frequency of disturbance and that effects were greater 

during the early stage of the breeding cycle. Colwell et al. (1988) studied the effects of blood 

sampling of shorebirds on breeding grounds in Minnesota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. They found 

that blood sampling had no effect on return of birds the following year, that it had varying effects on 

clutch desertion (based on when in the reproductive cycle the birds were captured, whether both 

parents were sampled, and whether the species was biparental or uniparental), and that a small 

percentage of birds (0-3 percent) died or sustained debilitating injuries. 

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007; DeLong 2002; Knight and Cole 1995). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and Cole 1995b; 

Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay in the same 

general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and Visser 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-107

1993). In an elk study in southwestern Alberta, Ciuti et al. (2012) found that, where hunting is not 

allowed, elk can exhibit habituation (e.g., reduced vigilance behavior) to some types or levels of 

human disturbance. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human 

disturbance appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory 

populations, and potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult 

to forecast habituation in actual field situations. 

In addition to travel by foot or vehicle, field research can involve transport of project infrastructure, 

equipment, and supplies, such as permanent transects or plot markers, and exclosure devices. Access 

to and work at study sites could result in localized and temporary effects including trampling of 

native plants, erosion, collecting of soil and plant samples, and trapping and handling of fish and 

wildlife. Longer-term effects could potentially be caused by introduction or spread of exotic species, 

including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species, or pathogens. All of these impacts could 

adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon 

important life history parameters such as foraging, predator avoidance, reproduction, and survival of 

individuals, and on diversity and abundance of native species (community health), would depend on 

specific circumstances. These potential effects could be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing and possibly restoration or mitigation plans, where 

appropriate (see attached). The general stipulations attached hereto, project-specific stipulations, and 

permit conditions would be expected to greatly reduce the potential impacts of research, surveys, and 

scientific collections on Unit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

Public Use

Because the Unit is closed to general public use, research, surveys, and scientific collections would 

have no effects on other visitors at this time. However, subject to evaluations for compatibility, it is 

proposed that the Unit also be opened for wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, fishing, 

boating, and grazing, haying, and mowing. 

If research was conducted at one of the proposed new visitor facilities, it is possible that it could 

result in some crowding, especially with school groups. If field research was conducted in Unit

habitats near one of these new facilities, it could result in flushing of birds and other wildlife, or 

cause some animals to move farther afield. This would reduce the quality of experience for observers 

and photographers. Such conflicts would be expected to be infrequent and temporary. 

General and project-specific stipulations and permit conditions regarding the locations and 

scheduling of research would be used to greatly minimize the likelihood that such activities would 

impair wildlife-dependent uses. The exception could be research and surveys specifically focused on 

public use. In such cases, approved study protocols would help ensure that such projects would not 

significantly reduce the quality of wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

To date, few cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the Unit. There are no recorded 

archaeological sites, but some buildings and associated structures are of historic value. It is unlikely 

that research at the Unit would affect cultural resources. However, if such projects involved 

construction of new facilities, the Service would undertake appropriate surveys and engage in 

consultations consistent with requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) 

prior to project approval. Additionally, if the research, surveys, or scientific collections specifically 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-108 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

focused on cultural resources, such projects could require additional permits and approvals, 

potentially including a permit under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA, 16 U.S.C. 

470aa-470mm). Stipulations and conditions associated with Unit SUPs or ARPA permits would help 

ensure that research-related adverse effects upon cultural resources were avoided, minimized, and/or 

mitigated, as appropriate. 

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Unit’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Investigator(s), researchers, and support staff will follow all Unit-specific regulations that 

specify access and travel on the Unit. 

2. Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable 

3. Permission to use the Unit for research, surveys, or scientific collections would be officially 

authorized through issuance of an SUP. 

4. To acquire an SUP, at least 6 months before initiation of field work, a researcher(s) would be 

required to submit a detailed project proposal (see attached format) and request an SUP. 

Among other things, proposals would need to adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for 

data collection, where available and applicable. 

5. Project proposals would be reviewed by Unit staff and others, as needed. This review would 

assess relative to Unit management issues and understanding of natural systems the potential 

impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to the benefits of the investigation. 

This assessment would form the primary basis for determining whether or not the project 

could be approved. 

6. All SUPs will have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Annual or 

other short-term SUPs are preferred, however, some permits may be allowed for a longer 

period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. 

7. SUP renewals will be subject to refuge manager review and approval based on timely 

submission of and content in progress reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and 

required permits. Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the refuge 

manager. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-109

8. SUPs would cover use by a specified individual or organization and could not be assigned or 

sub-permitted to others. 

9. Researchers must possess all required local, State, and Federal permits and approvals for 

collections and other activities of their proposed projects. 

10. SUPs would include maps clearly depicting the areas researchers would be authorized to 

access and use, including the Unit entry point(s). Permittees would be prohibited from 

straying outside the project areas depicted on maps. 

11. A section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act would be required for all projects 

and activities that may affect a federally listed species and/or critical habitat. Projects which 

would have “no effect” or would result in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination 

would be considered for potential approval. 

12. Researchers would be required to secure approval from the Service prior to use of any 

pesticide (including uses of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) on the Unit. This would 

involve researchers submitting to the refuge manager a completed FWS Pesticide Use 

Proposal (PUP) for each proposed pesticide use. Any researcher-applicator will be required 

to have a current State pesticide application license and endorsement for the applicable 

habitat. These PUPs would need to be submitted at least 90 days prior to proposed use of the 

pesticide to allow adequate time for evaluation and processing. 

13. To minimize the introduction and/or spread of exotic plants or animals, diseases, or other 

pests, sampling equipment as well as researchers’ clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATVs, boats) 

would need to be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt, seeds, and other plant material) before 

being used on the Unit. 

a. Researchers/investigators will be required to disinfect waders by following specific 

protocols provided by the refuge. Disinfection is required prior to entry into any Unit

wetland and when crossing between wetlands. 

14. Researchers would be prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures, 

creating new or expanding exiting trails, or removing vegetation to facilitate travel on the 

Unit without specific, prior written approval of the refuge manager (for the purpose of these 

stipulations, the refuge manager would be the project leader of the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Unit Complex).

15. Any flagging used would need to be biodegradable. 

16. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on 

refuges (USFWS 2001), permittees would be prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Unit. 

17. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, 

plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates, and artifacts) would be collected for identification 

and/or experimentation and statistical analysis. 

a. Where possible, researchers would be required to coordinate and share collections. 

This could reduce sampling needed for multiple projects and any associated mortality 

and disturbance. For example, if one investigator collected fish for a diet study and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-110 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

another researcher was examining otoliths, then it could be possible to accomplish 

sampling for both projects with one collection effort.

18. Researchers and their colleagues would be prohibited from collecting, removing, disturbing, 

or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric/archaeological or historic artifacts, cultural 

resources, abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Unit unless 

stated in the Special Use Permit.

a. In the event such resources were inadvertently disturbed in the course of conducting 

otherwise permitted activities, the disturbing activity would need to be immediately 

discontinued and the refuge manager would need to be notified within 24 hours. 

19. If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the Unit

staff, then the refuge manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an ongoing 

project already permitted by SUP(s) on the Unit. 

20. Upon completion of the project or annually (at the discretion of the refuge manager), 

researchers would be required to remove all equipment and physical markers (unless required 

for long-term projects) and restore sites to the refuge manager’s satisfaction. SUPs would 

specify conditions for removal and clean up. 

21. At any time, Unit staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field.

22. Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s) (see Attachment 2). 

23. Final project reports would be due 1 year after completion of the project. 

a. Researchers would be required to provide Unit staff with the following:

i. An early opportunity(ies) to review and comment on draft manuscripts well 

before their submittal to a scientific journal for consideration for publication; 

ii. Copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a project permitted on the 

Unit; and 

iii. At the conclusion of the project, raw data in a format negotiated with Unit

staff.

24. All samples collected on Unit lands are the property of the Service even while in the

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. For 

samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand will be necessary (see Attachment 3). 

25. In all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on the Unit, researchers would be 

required to appropriately cite and acknowledge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, and Unit staff and 

other Service personnel who supported or contributed to the project. 

26. The Unit would monitor compliance with the stipulations and SUP conditions, habitat 

quantity and quality, wildlife use and productivity, water quality, cultural resources, Unit

facilities, other Unit public uses, and other relevant endpoints to determine if stipulations 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-111

associated with research, surveys, and scientific collections were resulting in expected and 

desirable outcomes. In consultation with researchers, the Unit would apply adaptive 

management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve 

desirable results. In the event that modified stipulations or adjusted objectives did not 

adequately address the situation, the refuge manager could temporarily or permanently 

withdraw official permission to continue research, surveys, or scientific collections on the 

Unit. Permission could also be withdrawn for other legitimate reasons. Permits could be 

revoked with 30 days or less written notice.

27. The Unit would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein 

in order to ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified stipulations 

would be instituted as a result of ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Unit environment or status of native fish, wildlife, 

plants, or their habitats; as a result of mutual agreement with researchers; or for other 

legitimate reason. Researchers would be advised of new or significantly modified stipulations 

at least 90 days prior to their becoming effective.

Justification:

Almost all research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the 

Service because they would expand scientific information available for resource management 

decisions about fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and/or public use. 

In addition, only projects which directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally would be 

authorized on Unit lands. In many cases, if it were not for the Unit staff providing access to Unit

lands and waters along with some support, the project would not occur and less scientific information 

would be available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the Unit resources. By allowing 

the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife species which 

could be disturbed during the use would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their 

abundance and use would not be measurably lessened on the Unit. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats. As a result, these projects would not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfilling Unit purpose(s) (including wilderness); contributing to the mission of the NWRS; and 

maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Unit. 

Compatibility Standard 

Authorizing research, surveys, and scientific collections is directly supportive of one of the Unit’s 

draft goals, but these activities could cause some wildlife disturbance and other effects. In order to be 

allowed on the Unit, these uses would need to be determined compatible. By allowing these uses to 

occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife which were disturbed 

would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance and use would not be 

measurably lessened on the Unit. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, would 

prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, 

and public use. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations described 

herein, this use would not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Unit’s 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of the Black River Unit’s 

purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-112 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Unit Use Decision: (check one below)

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

This compatibility determination has being developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA 

for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-113

Compatibility Determination for Research, Surveys, and Scientific Collections at Black River 

Unit: 

Unit Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Unit

Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Unit Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-114 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

References Used and Cited:

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm). 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Becker, B.H., C.M. Moi, T.J. Maguire, R. Atkinson, and N.B. Gates. 2012. Effects of hiker and boats 

on tule elk behavior in a national park wilderness area. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(1):147–154. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259–265. 

Ciuti, S., J.M Northrup, T.B. Muhly, S. Simi, M. Musiani, J.A. Pitt, and M.S. Boyce. 2012. Effects of 

Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear. PLOS 

ONE Vol. 7, Issue 11. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA. 

Colwell, M.A., C.L. Gratto, L.W. Oring, and A.J. Fivizzani. 1988. Effects of Blood Sampling on 

Shorebirds: Injuries, Return Rates, and Clutch Desertions. The Condor 90:942-945. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Unit. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Frederick, P.C. and M.W. Collopy. 1989. Researcher Disturbance in Colonies of Wading Birds: 

Effects of Frequency of Visit and Egg-Marking on Reproductive Parameters. Colonial Waterbirds, 

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 152–157. 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC.203–219. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-115

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53–58. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949–1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315–325. 

May we allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges?, 50 C.F.R. 29.1. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Naylor, L.M., M.M. Wisdom, and R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American 

Elk to Recreational Activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3). 

Newman, S.H., H.R. Carter, D.L. Whitworth, and J.G. Zinkl. 2005. Health Assessments and Stress 

Response of Xantus’s Murrelets to Capture, Handling, and Radio-Marking. Marine Ornithology 

33:147–154. 

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. See 

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf. 

Parsons, K.C. and J. Burger. 1982. Human Disturbance and Nestling Behavior in Black-Crowned 

Night Herons. Condor 84:184–187. 

Prohibited Acts (50 C.F.R. 27). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-116 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992). 

Robert, H.C. and C.J. Ralph. 1975. Effects of Human Disturbance on the Breeding Success of Gulls. 

The Condor Vol. 77, No. 4. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Safina, C. and J. Burger. 1983. Effects of Human Disturbance on Reproductive Success in the Black 

Skimmer. Condor 85:164–171. 

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6–19. 

Thomas, K. May 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings 

(Calidris alba). Capstone project, CSU, Monterey Bay, CA. 

Tremblay, J. and L. N. Ellison. Apr. 1979. Effects of Human Disturbance on Breeding of BlackCrowned Night Herons. The Auk 96: 364–369. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use Around San Francisco 

Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (8). 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USFWS. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unit Manual. Chapter 4 RM 6. Research and 

Management Studies.

USFWS. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unit Manual. Chapter 5 RM 17. Administration of 

Specialized Uses.

USFWS. 1996. Final Environmental Assessment, Proposed Addition of the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, Washington. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 2: Compatibility. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html.

USFWS. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 1: Appropriate Unit Uses. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-117

USFWS. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 561 FW 5: RCRA – Solid Waste 

(Nonhazardous). Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/561fw5.html. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

Wright, S.K., D.D. Roby, and R.G. Anthony. 2007. Responses of California Brown Pelicans to 

Disturbances at a Large Oregon Roost. Waterbirds 30(4): 479–487. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-118 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

High-Priority Research, Surveys, and Scientific Projects 

Following are examples of high-priority research, survey, and scientific project topics for the Black 

River Unit. They are not listed in priority order. 

• Enhance understanding of Oregon spotted frogs, including habitat use, movements, breeding and 

rearing locations and requirements, and breeding success. Establish baseline inventory and 

mapping of oviposition sites and monitor annually. 

• Inventory, map, and assess health of bogs and associated biota, including plants and insects. 

• Enhance understanding of ecology of bogs and other abiotic and biotic systems within proposed 

research natural area.

• Enhance understanding of hydrology of Black River and its tributaries, including effects of water 

control at Black Lake, and the effects of reduced magnitude and frequency of high-flow events.

• Assess water quality and quality in Black River and its tributaries. Identify surface and 

groundwater withdrawals, impacts from sedimentation, sources and volumes/concentrations of 

nutrient inputs and effects of these nutrients on water quality; aquatic, marsh, and riparian plant 

growth (including invasive species); and amphibians. 

• Inventory, map, and assess status, areal extent, and effects of exotic, especially invasive species, 

and determine the most effective methods to remove or otherwise manage such species, including 

in a riverine environment (including reed canarygrass and bullfrogs). 

• Enhance understanding of the habitat and wildlife effects of various management practices, 

including grazing, haying, and mowing. 

• Develop baseline inventory of plant and animal groups on Unit, including small mammals; fish; 

reptiles and amphibians; insects and pollinators; wetland plants; submerged aquatics; and rare, 

declining, listed, and Federal and State priority species or species groups. 

• Inventory and assess use of Black River and its tributaries by fish, including anadromous and 

exotic species.

• Design and implement an appropriate climate change monitoring program for the Unit. Assess 

effects of climate change on Unit habitats and wildlife. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-119

Compatibility Determination

Use: Grazing, Haying, and Mowing. 

Unit Name: Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, 

Washington 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r)

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m) 

Unit Purposes:

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

birds (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

. . . 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 (Refuge System or NWRS) Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Unit] System is to administer a national network of 

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

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

present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act).

Description of Use(s):

This compatibility determination (CD) addresses grazing, haying, and mowing in the Black River 

Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit (Unit). As used herein, grazing involves 

domestic livestock feeding on native or nonnative vegetation. Grazing can include trailing and 

watering of livestock. Species of livestock potentially used for grazing on the Unit include cattle (Bos 

primigenius) and goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) or horses (Equus ferus caballus). 

On multiple-use public lands (e.g., those managed by the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management), grazing is one of several management purposes. However, on almost all national 

wildlife refuges, including this Unit, grazing is not a purpose and would instead be used as a 

management tool to achieve conservation purposes, such as enhancement of wildlife habitat values or 

control of invasive plants. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-120 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Haying involves the cutting or mowing, bailing, and curing of vegetation for livestock fodder. 

Mowing involves open field cutting, but not removal of vegetation. Haying and mowing on the Unit

would also be for purposes like those just mentioned. Grazing, haying, and mowing occurred on a 

number of parcels prior to these lands becoming the Unit to provide for livestock, to keep open areas 

of grass, and to control invasive plant species. 

There have been grazing, haying, and mowing programs on the Black River Unit-owned parcels 

since 2001 At present, one or more of these habitat management practices occur on approximately 

165 acres of either upland dry, nonnative grasslands, seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands, and 

some emergent wetlands. These practices are conducted consistent with cooperative land 

management agreements (CLMAs) which are authorized under Federal regulations (50 C.F.R. 29.2). 

It is anticipated that the program would initially include approximately165 acres, but the total 

number of acres treated could increase or decrease seasonally, annually, or otherwise depending on 

Unit habitat management needs and the addition of new lands to the Unit. If all the currently owned 

upland dry, nonnative grasslands; seasonally flooded, nonnative grasslands; and emergent marshes 

were treated using these management techniques, it would be nearly 300 acres.

Grazing and mowing are proposed for more than 82 acres of the Unit’s seasonally flooded, nonnative 

grasslands. Additional acres may be included as parcels are added to the Unit. This habitat supports 

migratory and marsh birds, many amphibian species, Oregon spotted frog (OSF, Rana pretiosa), and 

other wildlife species. Management is especially challenged by the widespread presence of invasive 

reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). 

Grazing, haying, and mowing are also proposed for more than 35 acres of emergent marshes. This 

habitat supports migratory and marsh birds, amphibians, other wildlife species, and potentially 

supports water howellia (Howellia aquatilis). Emergent marsh is very important for the Oregon 

spotted frog. Its management is challenged by the widespread presence of invasive reed canarygrass. 

Grazing, haying, and mowing are also proposed for more than 163 acres of upland dry, nonnative 

grasslands. It is possible some of these grasslands may have been maintained through prescribed 

burning by Native Americans. The purposes of employing grazing, haying, and mowing practices 

would be to maintain and enhance a mosaic of open and short, early successional grasslands and 

forbs (2 to 12 inches in height), an occasional large, cavity-producing tree (e.g., big leaf maple [Acer 

macrophyllum] or Garry oak [Quercus garryana]), and borders of native shrubs. This habitat 

supports Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti); black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus 

columbianus); bats; small mammals; western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and killdeer plover 

(Charadruis vociferus); raptors such as American kestrel (Falco sparverius), hawks, and owls; 

American wigeon (Anas americana) and geese; cavity-nesting birds; pollinators such as 

hummingbirds, butterflies, and moths; and possibly streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata, proposed for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544). Invasive plants of concern in upland grasslands include Himalayan and evergreen 

blackberries (Rubus armeniacus and Rubus acinatus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), common 

burdock (Arctium minus), common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), and Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium 

arvense and Cirsium vulgare). 

Haying or mowing would be conducted seasonally, generally from late April or early May through 

October. Grazing, as a tool, could be used year-round as needed to control invasive plants and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-121

provide appropriate habitat structure for wildlife, especially for Oregon spotted frog. The herbivores 

could be temporarily removed or rotated out of specific areas as needed. These practices would often 

be implemented along with an array of other habitat management techniques, such as placement of 

barrier cloth, hand cutting, fertilizing, prescribed fire, herbicide treatment, planting, seeding, and 

water control.

These activities are considered specialized uses under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy 

(USFWS 1986). Federal regulations consider grazing and haying to be economic uses (see May we 

allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges? 50 C.F.R. 29.1). Grazing, haying, and mowing on 

the Unit would be authorized through special use permits (SUPs), cooperative farming agreements, 

CLMAs, contracts, or similar agreements. Before being allowed on the Unit, these uses would first 

need to be found appropriate (USFWS 2006) and then be determined compatible (USFWS 2000). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Grays Harbor NWR and 

the Black River Unit. Much of the information and some of the analyses contained in this CD are 

addressed in greater detail in the CCP and EA. The CCP and EA are incorporated through reference 

herein. 

Availability of Resources: 

The Service seeks to recover its costs associated with administration of specialized uses and/or 

charge a fee equal to the fair market value of the benefit received by the user (see 5 RM 17). 

Applicable administrative costs include both direct and indirect costs, such as:

• Costs associated with construction, repair, operation, and maintenance of associated facilities; 

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to evaluation of the proposed use (including 

appropriateness finding, compatibility determination, and compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies such as the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4347], 

Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544], and National Historic Preservation Act[16 

U.S.C. 470]) and development of the grazing permit or agreement; 

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to monitoring of this use to ensure that 

permit/agreement requirements are followed and that the use remains compatible. This includes 

evaluation of the effects of grazing, haying, and mowing on the Unit’s natural and cultural 

resources, and compatible, especially wildlife-dependent, public use; 

• Use-related supplies, equipment, and travel; and 

• An applicable portion of Unit overhead costs. 

At the discretion of the Service, grazing permittees could be required to install temporary or 

construct permanent grazing-related facilities. Grazing fees and/or CLMA in-kind requirements 

would be adjusted accordingly. Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with 

implementation of proposed grazing program. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-122 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Table B-9. Costs to Administer and Manage Grazing, Haying, and Mowing under the 

Preferred Alternative

Projects One-time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs per/year

Administration and oversight of grazing, haying, and mowing 5,000

Monitoring 1,000

Maintenance 3,000

Total Costs 9,000

Fee revenues collected would not be retained by the Unit. Instead, these monies would be deposited 

into the U.S. Treasury Department’s National Wildlife Refuge Fund. Monies from this fund are used 

for redistribution to refuges to help offset the costs of administering specialized uses (Expenses for 

Sales) and for payments in lieu of taxes to counties or other local governments (under the Unit

Revenue Sharing Act [16. U.S.C. 715s]). 

Alternately, instead of charging a permittee a fee for grazing, haying, or mowing on the Unit, the 

Service and permittee could enter into a CLMA. This would allow the permittee to provide share-inkind services to the Unit that, depending on their value, could reduce or eliminate their grazing, 

hazing, or mowing fee. Because mowing would not generate a marketable commodity for the 

permittee, the Service could either contract for this work or include mowing as one of the share-inkind services to be provided by the permittee as part of a grazing and/or haying CLMA. Repair or 

maintenance of fences or gates or other similar work could also be included in a CLMA. 

The proposed Unit annual operations budget will support the annual costs (staff) associated with the 

proposed grazing, haying, and mowing program on the Unit. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Unit Goals and NWRS Mission

The management direction of the Black River Unit is guided by the protection of biological diversity 

and enhancement and management of a valuable wetland ecosystem for the benefit of anadromous 

salmonid production, migratory birds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife (USFWS 1996). The 

Unit has developed the following six draft goals as part of its comprehensive conservation planning 

process. 

1. Protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic habitats characteristic of the upper Black River 

Watershed while maintaining historical characteristics of the north Puget Trough Lowlands 

for the benefit of native fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and a diverse assemblage of other 

native species.

2. Protect and maintain upland habitats characteristic of the upper Black River watershed. 

3. Contribute to the protection and long-term environmental health of the greater Black River 

watershed and ecosystem.

4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, and research) necessary to support 

adaptive management decisions.

5. Provide quality opportunities for visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of wildlife 

and habitats to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the Unit’s natural resources 

and foster a connection with nature. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-123

6. Support and develop an active volunteer program and partnerships to assist in providing 

quality visitor services programs and outreach.

Properly managed grazing, haying, and mowing would directly support draft Unit goal numbers 1, 2, 

3, and 4. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Their Habitats

The Black River is a tributary to the Chehalis River which drains to the Pacific Ocean through Grays 

Harbor. Slow-moving Black River and surrounding wetlands form the most intact lowland river 

system remaining in western Washington. The Unit includes upland forest, riparian forest, grassland, 

various wetland types, including shrub swamp and rare sphagnum bog, and aquatic systems.

 

The river, tributaries, wetlands, grasslands, shrub swamps, and forests support a diversity of resident 

and migratory wildlife species. Wildlife species of special management concern at the Unit include 

salmonids such as steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki clarki), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), which use Black River and its tributaries for migration, spawning, and rearing. Many 

species of frogs, salmanders, and newts are found in the mosaic of wetlands. River otter (Lutra 

canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor canadensis)

can be seen in Black River; a herd of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) graze in Unit

grasslands. Ducks, geese, and grebes; rails, bitterns, herons; raptors; and neotropical songbirds occur 

throughout the Unit. 

Unit management focuses on protecting, restoring, and maintaining quality habitats—especially 

freshwater streams, bogs and emergent marshes, and upland grasslands—for a diversity of native 

wildlife and plant species, including those that are rare and declining. The Unit provides valuable 

habitat for an endemic, state sensitive species, the Olympic mud minnow (Novumbra hubbsi) and the 

State-endangered and federally threatened species Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). The frog is 

known to occur in three subbasins in the State, and in two locations on the Unit. It is suspected that 

the Unit may support rare bog-adapted insects, federally endangered water howellia (Howellia 

aquatilis) and possibly the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), proposed for listing under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Invasive species of actual or potential concern include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), knotweed (Polygonum species), yellow-flag iris (Iris 

pseudacorus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), holly 

(Ilex spp.), New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), feral cat (Felis catus), bullfrog 

(Rana catesbeiana), and various warm water fish species. 

Livestock grazing, haying, and mowing can be valuable techniques to manage grassland and marsh 

habitats. In the absence of livestock grazing, haying, mowing, or fire, or with insufficient grazing and 

browsing by wild herbivores, pasture and marsh grasses can grow tall and rank, and can accumulate 

substantial thatch. This reduces the values of these habitats for grazing and browsing animals, small 

animal movements and escape, ground-nesting birds, amphibian breeding and egg placement, 

juvenile movement, and can create a competitive advantage for invasive plants. Properly managed 

livestock grazing can diversify grassland habitats (e.g., by reducing vegetation height, removing 

standing herbage to increase the availability of succulent forbs, and increasing the diversity of insect 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-124 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

prey) to benefit certain ground-nesting songbirds, waterfowl, gallinaceous birds, rodents, and rabbits. 

It can increase the use of grasslands by foraging and loafing cranes and geese and can increase the 

palatability of forage on elk winter ranges. It can reduce the density and extent of invasive weeds and 

potentially allow a more diverse and palatable assemblage of native species to thrive and provide 

forage and cover for wildlife. It can help create the plant successional stage appropriate for target 

wildlife species (Drawe et al. 2006; Fenster 2006; Johnson-Nistler and Knight 2006; Krausman et al. 

2009; Mini and LeValley 2006; Stoneberg 2006). Grazing and haying can remove thatch, and 

grazing, haying, and mowing can all increase native plant vigor, stimulate new native plant growth, 

improve habitat and vegetation structure for native amphibians, reduce encroachment of woody 

plants, and help reduce the presence of invasive plant species. 

However, unless properly managed, these habitat management practices can cause a variety of 

undesirable effects. Kirby et al. (1992), Krausman et al. (2009), and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA 1994) reviewed numerous studies that evaluated the environmental 

effects, including the effects upon fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, of grazing. When stocking 

rates are too high or rotation among pastures is not frequent enough, livestock can overgraze pastures 

causing long-term damage to vegetation and soils. When grazing increases, vegetation diversity 

decreases, and heavy, long-term, continuous grazing is detrimental to almost all wildlife populations. 

Livestock can also graze pastures unevenly, can create less-dense vegetation in some areas, 

increasing the exposure of ground-nesting breeding birds and their eggs to predation, and can graze 

down and reduce recruitment of desirable riparian shrubs and trees, adversely affecting wildlife use 

of these valuable habitat components. Livestock (in drier areas than western Washington) are drawn 

to water and grazing in adjacent riparian and wetland areas can cause vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, erosion, and an increase in stream temperature due to loss of plant cover and shading. 

Areas surrounding water troughs and salt blocks, corrals, and loading ramps can be denuded by 

trampling and experience soil compaction. Heavy livestock grazing or grazing on wet or unstable 

soils or in streams can lead to stream bank damage, siltation from erosion of shorelines or through 

stirring up stream bottom sediments, and nutrient loading due to livestock defecating or urinating into 

the water or on adjacent lands where it is washed into the water. These effects would all impact water 

quality and could adversely affect fish and amphibians. They can also cause down-cutting of stream 

channels and lowering of water tables. Livestock can also facilitate introduction of alien, including 

invasive, species (e.g., through seeds carried in hair, on vehicles and farm machinery, and in feces) 

and disease (e.g., brucellosis). Livestock fencing can hinder movements by some wildlife species. 

Cattle grazing can also affect deer and elk though competition for forage. Cattle primarily graze 

grass, a preferred elk food, until mid to late summer when grass can become scarcer, and then cattle 

may increase their intake of browse, a preferred food of deer that is especially important during the 

winter. Whether to avoid forage competition or for other reasons, some studies have found that deer 

and elk avoid grazing cattle and grazed range in some situations, although other studies suggest 

possible habituation in other situations (Chaikina 2006; Drawe et al. 2006).

Haying or mowing can also impact wildlife and their habitats. If haying or mowing occurs during the 

nesting season (primarily April 1 to July 15), the nests, eggs, and young of ground-nesting birds can 

be injured or lost. Haying removes vegetation and nutrients from managed fields and long-term 

haying can require the application of fertilizer to compensate for lost nutrients. If grass is mowed 

when it is too high or too thick, the result can be an undesirably thick layer of long clippings lying on 

top of the cut grass. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-125

Grazing, haying, and mowing-related activities (e.g., transporting livestock or haying/mowing 

equipment, moving water and salt, fence and gate maintenance and repair, monitoring) would be 

potential sources of wildlife disturbance. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and 

is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the 

breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves 

vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the 

directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006; Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Holmes et 

al. 2005; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kirby et al. 1993; Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and Cole, 

1995b; Lafferty 2001a). Disturbance can cause animals stress and alter their normal behavior; cause 

them to stop feeding; cause abandonment of nests and young; and allow predators access to nests and 

young, reduce parental attention to young, and otherwise impact survival of individual birds, eggs, 

nestlings, or broods (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991; Haysmith and Hunt, 1995; Lafferty, 2001b). The 

effects of disturbance on individual animals are likely additive. 

Naylor et al. (2009) examined the effects of four types of off-road recreational disturbance (allterrain vehicle riding, mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding) on North American elk (Cervus 

elaphus) in northeast Oregon. They found that all types of disturbance studied affected elk behavior. 

Hiking generally caused an increase in the time elk traveled, especially in the morning; resulted in a 

decrease in resting time; and had no effect on time spent feeding. Ciuti et al. (2012) studied the 

effects of various human disturbances (e.g., hiking, biking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, riding 

all-terrain vehicles, general vehicle traffic, and roads) in various landscapes with different 

management programs in southwest Alberta. They also found that hiking caused elk travel time to 

increase and that an increase in the number of hikers caused an increase in travel behavior in elk. 

Behavioral responses of tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes) to off-trail hikers and off-shore boats 

were investigated by Becker et al. (2012) at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. They learned 

that elk exhibiting rutting behavior and those in the presence of off-trail hikers displayed the most 

disturbance behaviors (i.e., head up, stand, move off, run, or alarm cry). Elk were more sensitive to 

human disturbance when herd sizes were smaller (<15 animals). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006; Burger 1998; Holmes et al. 2007; Knight and 

Cole 1995b; Smit and Visser 1993). Some species can habituate to the presence of humans who stay 

in the same general location and remain relatively still (Goss-Custard and Verboven 1993; Smit and 

Visser 1993). Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Disturbance levels would be expected to be highest when the livestock program was initially 

established, when turn-outs or round-ups occurred, and when haying and mowing were conducted. 

These potential disturbances would be infrequent and short-lived. In the absence of human and other 

activity, wildlife might acclimate to the presence of grazing livestock. There could be differential 

effects to ground-nesting birds. Livestock could destroy nests or eggs, or injure or kill young birds by 

stepping on them. It is unclear whether such birds would appropriately alter their nesting habits in the 

presence of livestock or how great of a problem this could be. This would be addressed through the 

monitoring program. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-126 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Properly managed grazing, haying, and mowing would be expected to increase the value of Unit

grasslands and marshes for grazing and ground-nesting species of wildlife. When combined with 

other management techniques (e.g., planting, seeding, prescribed fire, and herbicides) careful use of 

prescribed grazing, haying, and mowing would help set back succession and enhance the mix of 

native versus nonnative species in the Unit’s savannah-like habitats. Because they lack the proper 

soils, these grasslands are not prairies. However, proper management of these savannah-like areas 

could create habitats to support a diversity of native wildlife, including prairie-species such as

Roosevelt elk; black-tailed deer; bats; small mammals; western meadowlark and killdeer plover; 

raptors such as American kestrel and owls; American wigeon and geese; cavity-nesting birds; 

pollinators such as hummingbirds, butterflies, and moths; and possibly streaked horned lark. 

These management practices could also be used to increase the interspersion of water and plants in 

overgrown wetlands or those choked with invasive species. An example would be the grazing or 

mowing of dense stands of reed canarygrass to reduce their height and density and open up areas to 

re-create habitat that allows for animal movement into and out of breeding and egg laying habitats, 

rearing habitats, foraging areas, and much improved sanctuary sites for Oregon spotted frogs. Other 

benefitting species would include other amphibans, small aquatic mammals, migratory and resident 

waterfowl and marsh birds, and potentially water howellia. 

The Service would implement management practices to reduce the adverse and encourage the 

beneficial effects of grazing. These include slow movement of heavy equipment, possibly using 

single-wire electric fencing, cross fencing, pasture rotations, seasonal grazing and other rotational 

grazing systems, desired animal unit months (grazing intensity), and in-pasture placement of salt 

blocks and water troughs to deter livestock from riparian areas and to spread out and target grazing 

pressure. Because of different physical and biological characteristics, different vegetation responses 

to these proposed habitat management techniques, and different management objectives, it is 

probable that the grazing, haying, and mowing programs in the grasslands will differ from those 

employed in the marshes. 

 

Public Use

The Unit is closed to general public use, so grazing, haying, and mowing would have no effects on 

other visitors. However, subject to evaluations for compatibility, it is proposed that the Unit also be 

opened for wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and research.

The presence of grazing livestock, fencing, corrals, loading ramps, and perhaps dung and associated 

insects could adversely affect the quality of experience for some who visited the Unit for wildlife 

observation, photography, or interpretation. Workers conducting grazing, haying, or mowing 

programs could flush wildlife from treatment sites and reduce or enhance their observation or 

photography by Unit visitors. Activities associated with these management programs would not be 

ongoing and these effects would be infrequent. As noted above, it is expected that the larger effect of 

these proposed uses would be an improvement of upland and seasonally flooded grasslands and 

marsh habitats and an increase in abundance and/or diversity of wildlife using these habitats. This 

would enhance observation and photography opportunities. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

To date, few cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the Unit. There are no recorded 

archaeological sites, but some buildings and associated structures are of historic value. By 

themselves, grazing, haying, mowing, and temporary grazing facilities would not be expected to have 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-127

adverse effects on cultural resources. However, if more permanent grazing facilities were 

constructed, they could impact cultural resources. Prior to construction of any new facilities, the 

Service would undertake appropriate surveys and engage in consultations consistent with 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). This process would result in 

avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating any potential effects.

Public Review and Comment:

Public availability of this CD has been widely announced together with announcement of the 

availability of the Unit’s draft CCP. The review and comment period has also been the same as for 

the draft CCP. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General 

1. In addition to the stipulations listed here, the general permit conditions and requirements, and 

the special permit conditions, permittees and their employees would be required to comply 

with Refuge System-related and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including 

“Prohibited Acts” listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 27). 

2. Permission to graze, hay, or mow on the Unit would be officially authorized through issuance 

of an SUP, cooperative farming agreement, CLMA, contract, or other agreement. Permits or 

agreements would include a plan that described what was to be done, conditions associated 

with this work, and the intended outcome. Permits or agreements would generally be issued 

on an annual basis, with a renewal option for up to a total of 5 years. Annual renewals would 

depend on compliance with these stipulations and conditions of any permit or agreement and 

the results of monitoring data demonstrating the value of the grazing program for target 

habitats and wildlife. Consistent with Service policy (5 RM 17), fees for permits or 

agreements would reflect fair market values. Permittees would be prohibited from 

transferring, assigning, or sub-permitting their Unit grazing authorizations. 

3. Grazing, haying, and mowing management tools would be designed to protect sensitive 

habitats, wildlife species, and cultural resources while still securing needed treatments to 

enhance grasslands, marshes, and retard invasive plants. Rotational grazing or other systems 

would be used to avoid over-grazing treatment sites. As needed, specific areas would be 

avoided through fencing or other means. Off-stream water supplies would be provided to 

avoid grazing-related impacts to stream banks, erosion, sedimentation, and water pollution. 

In order to minimize or avoid impacts to ground-nesting birds, haying and mowing would be 

scheduled to occur outside the nesting season, after July 15. Specific plans tied to each 

permit/agreement would be developed for each site and each management practice and 

include timing and location of grazing, haying, or mowing; treatment objectives (e.g., 

vegetation height and evenness of grazing, grazing stocking densities), types of livestock 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-128 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

permitted, access locations, restrictions on use of pesticides (including herbicides and 

insecticides) and predator management, and authorized personnel and equipment. Specific 

conditions may vary annually or seasonally due to differences in objectives, habitat 

conditions, or weather. 

4. Permittees would work out details with the Unit regarding transporting livestock, moving 

them, and removing them from the Unit; for erecting, maintaining, moving, and removing all 

needed structures, including fences, gates, cattle guards, corrals, and loading ramps; and for 

satisfying livestock water and salt needs, consistent with the grazing plan. Grazers would be 

required to maintain accurate written records on livestock numbers in each treatment area and 

turn-in, turn-out dates, and provide those records to the refuge manager upon request. 

Permittees could be required to use single-wire electric fences. With the exception of 

livestock fences, associated gates, watering troughs, and other grazing related structures 

specifically described in the grazing plan (see below), grazers would be prohibited from 

constructing new or maintaining existing structures on the Unit without specific, prior written 

approval of the refuge manager. 

5. Permittees would be required to move heavy equipment (including large trucks and trailers) 

slowly and carefully while on the Unit. Prior to arrival on the Unit, permittees would be 

required to clean equipment of nonnative plant and animal matter. Subject to inspection of 

treatment sites for weed species, permittees may be required to provide livestock with 

certified weed-free feed for 48 hours prior to arrival at the Unit. 

6. The Unit would be open for access and use by permittees daily, year-round, from sunrise to 

sunset. Special permission to access or use the Unit outside these hours could be authorized 

by the refuge manager on a case-by-case basis. Permittees would be required to restrict their 

activities and access on the Unit to their permit areas, the access roads depicted on the 

attached map, and other areas open to the general public. 

7. Grazed pastures would be fenced and gated or animals would need to be otherwise 

adequately confined or constrained. Grazing permittees would be responsible for ensuring 

that gates were closed and livestock were not allowed to roam across the Unit or onto 

neighboring lands outside the pasture fences. Grazers would be responsible for locating and 

removing livestock that had strayed from fenced pastures within 24 hours of notification by 

Unit staff. Grazers would be responsible for surveying fences and gates to identify breaks or 

other problems, and for making needed repairs in a timely fashion. Livestock would need to 

be removed from the treatment area or Unit within 48 hours of a request from the refuge 

manager. 

8. Grazers may desire the use of pesticides for control of pest plants or diseases and pests of 

livestock. Prior to application, use of all pesticides (including uses of herbicides, fungicides, 

and insecticides) would require Service approval. This would involve grazers submitting to 

the refuge manager a completed Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) for each proposed pesticide 

use. These PUPs would need to be submitted at least 90 days prior to proposed use of the 

pesticide to allow adequate time for evaluation and processing. All pesticides would need to 

be applied by qualified applicators and consistent with pesticide label restrictions or as 

modified by a special needs restriction approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-129

9. Approved PUPs would authorize pesticide application for a period of 1 year. If the Service 

developed and secured approval of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for the Unit, 

the PUPs addressed therein would be valid for 3 years. 

10. Application of fertilizers or soil enhancements would require prior approval from the refuge 

manager. 

11. Desirable trees in savannah-like habitats would be protected from potential grazing, haying, 

or mowing impacts through use of tree collars, fencing, or other techniques. 

12. Grazing permittees would be allowed to bring dogs or other guard animals (e.g., llamas) onto 

the Unit if they were needed to manage livestock (e.g., rounding up, loading, or unloading 

livestock). However, in order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife or 

transport of exotic or invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, the use of 

dogs would be limited to grazing pastures and associated loading and unloading areas, and to 

rounding up trespass livestock, as necessary. Permittees would be prohibited from bringing 

any other types of pets onto the Unit. The exceptions would be legitimate, leashed guide 

animals. 

13. Consistent with applicable Federal regulations (see Introduction of plants and animals, 50 

C.F.R. 27.52), permittees would be prohibited from introducing plants, animals, or 

invertebrates onto the Unit without specific, prior written approval of the refuge manager. 

This would not include domestic livestock participating in a permitted grazing program. 

14. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the refuge manager, permittees and their 

employees would be prohibited from disturbing, collecting, or removing any archaeological 

or historic artifacts, abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Unit. 

15. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on 

refuges (USFWS 2001), permittees would be prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Unit. 

16. Permittees would be required to hold the United States Government harmless from any 

damages or injury to the permittee, their employees, or members of the general public in 

areas and facilities accessed via the terms of their permit.

17. The Unit would establish a program to monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated 

herein and conditions associated with grazing-, haying-, or mowing-related permits, 

contracts, or agreements.

18. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written 

approval of the refuge manager. 

Justification:

Grazing, haying, and mowing are not wildlife-dependent general public uses; however, when 

properly managed, these habitat management practices would be expected to increase the value of 

Unit grasslands and marshes for a diversity of wildlife species, including grazing animals, small 

mammals, bats, ground-nesting birds, raptors, marsh birds, waterbirds, waterfowl, amphibians, and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-130 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

potentially rare species like Oregon spotted frog, streaked horned lark, and water howellia. Grazing, 

haying, and mowing would help set back succession and enhance the mix of native versus nonnative 

species in the Unit’s savannah-like habitats. In marshes, these management practices would increase 

interspersion of water and plants in overgrown wetlands or those choked with invasive species, and 

enhance breeding and sanctuary areas. Thus, allowing haying, mowing, and grazing on the Unit is 

found to be in support of the purposes for establishment of the Unit and the mission of the Refuge 

System. 

Compatibility Standard 

The Service would use permits or agreements to authorize grazing, haying, or mowing on the Unit. 

These permits or agreements would include a plan that described what was to be done, conditions 

associated with this work, and the intended outcome. Examples of conditions include protection of 

sensitive habitats, wildlife species, cultural resources, and private property through use of fencing or 

other constraints, tree collars, and providing off-stream water supplies and possibly salt blocks for 

livestock; use of seasonal and rotational grazing or other systems, and limitations on stocking 

densities to avoid over grazing treatment sites; restrictions on use of pesticides, fertilizers, and 

predator management; and scheduling haying and mowing after the nesting season for groundnesting birds. When combined with the stipulations included herein, these permit conditions would 

be expected to significantly reduce potential adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects of these 

habitat management practices.

The Unit would monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance, and other potential impacts to determine if 

these stipulations and conditions were resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. The Unit would 

apply adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to 

achieve desirable results (see USDI 2008 and Williams et al., 2009). 

The Unit would reserve the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order 

to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted 

as a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Unit environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, or 

their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Visitors would be appropriately advised of any such 

changes.

The Unit would also reserve the right to terminate permission for these uses if individuals were 

violating Unit rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts were occurring to native fish, wildlife, 

plants, or their habitats, cultural resources or Unit facilities, or other Unit visitors; or for other 

legitimate reasons.

In order to be allowed on the Unit, grazing, haying, and mowing would need to be determined 

compatible. By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated 

that wildlife which were disturbed would find sufficient food resources and resting places so their 

abundance and use would not be measurably lessened on the Unit. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats; other public uses; cultural resources; Unit facilities; and private lands. For the 

several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations described herein, this use would not 

materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Unit’s biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health; fulfillment of the Black River Unit’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s 

mission.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-131

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Unit Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination has being developed and issued concurrent with the CCP and EA 

for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-132 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Compatibility Determination for Grazing, Haying, and Mowing at Black River Unit. 

Unit Determination

Prepared by:

(Signature) (Date)

Approved by Project Leader, 

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually 

National Wildlife Unit

Complex:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Unit Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Pacific Region:

(Signature) (Date)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-133

References Used and Cited:

Becker, B.H., C.M. Moi, T.J. Maguire, R. Atkinson, and N.B. Gates. 2012. Effects of hiker and boats 

on tule elk behavior in a national park wilderness area. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(1):147–154. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of Motorboats and Personal Watercraft on Flight Behavior over a Colony of 

Common Terns. The Condor 100:528–534. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93:259–265. 

Chaikina, N.A. and K.E. Ruckstuhl. June 2006. The Effect of Cattle Grazing on Native Ungulates: 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Rangelands 28:8–14. 

Cooperative land management (50 C.F.R. 29.2). 

Ciuti, S., J.M Northrup, T.B. Muhly, S. Simi, M. Musiani, J.A. Pitt, and M.S. Boyce. 2012. Effects of 

Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear. PLOS 

ONE Vol. 7, Issue 11. 

Drawe, D.L., A. Ortega, and F.C. Bryant. Feb 2006. Cattle Grazing and Wildlife in South Texas. In 

A Symposium Presented at: Society for Range Management (SRM) 59th Annual Meeting and Trade 

Show “Rangelands to Rainforests.” Edited by C.M. Nistler, J. Boren, and D. Rollins. Vancouver, 

British Columbia.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Fenster, R.L., J.E. Knight, and C.M. Nistler. 2006. Livestock Grazing to Enhance Big Game Habitat: 

Case Studies. In A Symposium Presented at: Society for Range Management (SRM) 59th Annual 

Meeting and Trade Show “Rangelands to Rainforests.” Edited by C.M. Nistler, J. Boren, and D. 

Rollins. Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742m). 

Goss-Custard, J.D. and N. Verboven. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 68:59–66. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Haysmith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC.203–219. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339-350. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-134 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Introduction of plants and animals. (50 C.F.R. 27.52). 

Johnson-Nistler, C.M. and J.E. Knight. 2006. Noxious Weed Control with Livestock to Enhance 

Wildlife Habitat. In A Symposium Presented at: Society for Range Management (SRM) 59th Annual 

Meeting and Trade Show “Rangelands to Rainforests.” Edited by C.M. Nistler, J. Boren, and D. 

Rollins. Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Kirby, J.S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader 

roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:53-58. 

Kirby, R.E., J.K. Ringelman, D.R. Anderson, and R.S. Sojda. 1992. Grazing on National Wildlife 

Units: Do the Needs Outweigh the Problems? Trans. 57th N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51-69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71-79. 

Krausman, P.R., D.E. Naugle, M.R. Frisina, R. Northrup, V.C.Bleich, W.M. Block, M.C. Wallace, 

and J.D. Wright. Oct 2009. Livestock Grazing, Wildlife Habitat, and Rangeland Values. Rangelands 

31:15-19. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315-325. 

May we allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges? (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). 

Mini, A. and R. LeValley. 2006. Aleutian Cackling Goose Agricultural Depredation Management 

Plan, Del Norte County, California. 2005–2006. California Coastal Conservancy. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit B-135

Naylor, L.M., M.M. Wisdom, and R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American 

Elk to Recreational Activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3). 

Prohibited Acts (50 C.F.R. 27). 

Unit Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended (16. U.S.C. 715s). 

Smit, C.J. and G.J.M Visser. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing 

knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68:6-19. 

Stoneberg, R. 2006. The Positive and Negative Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Sage Grouse in 

Northeastern Montana: a Historical Perspective. In A Symposium Presented at Society for Range 

Management (SRM) 59th Annual Meeting and Trade Show “Rangelands to Rainforests.” Edited by 

C.M. Nistler, J. Boren, and D. Rollins. Vancouver, British Columbia. 

USDI. 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior Manual. Part 522 DM 1: Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy. http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1767. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Background for NEPA Reviewers: Grazing 

on Federal Lands. Washington, DC. 

USFWS. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unit Manual. Chapter 5 RM 17. Administration of 

Specialized Uses.

USFWS. 1996. Final Environmental Assessment, Proposed Addition of the Black River Unit, 

Nisqually National Wildlife Unit, Thurston County, Washington. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 2: Compatibility. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html.

USFWS. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 561 FW 5: RCRA – Solid Waste 

(Nonhazardous). Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/561fw5.html. 

USFWS. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Section 603 FW 1: Appropriate Unit Uses. 

Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Unit

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Unit Draft CCP/EA

B-136 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations–Black River Unit
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Introduction

Implementation of the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) would require increased funding, 

which would be sought from a variety of sources including Congressional allocations and public and 

private partnerships and grants. There are no guarantees that additional Federal funds would be made 

available to implement any of these projects. Activities and projects identified would be implemented 

as funds become available.

The CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. Some of these projects 

would be included in the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) and accomplished by permanent 

and temporary staffing, volunteers, and partnerships. Operational management includes staffing; 

maintenance; and managing public use, cultural resources, biology, administration, and 

habitat/wildlife restoration and maintenance management programs, both on- and off-Refuge. 

The Service Asset Maintenance and Management System (SAMMS) tracks deferred maintenance 

projects such as boardwalk and fence maintenance, roads and parking areas, and existing buildings. 

All funding for these types of projects is from Congress and the SAMMS database is used to 

prioritize and track the projects nationwide. 

Neither Grays Harbor NWR nor the Black River Unit has independent budgets. Instead, funding is 

combined with Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR into the Nisqually NWR Complex budget. Funding is 

spent on Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit as prioritized projects and needs arise. 

C.1.1 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

New public use facility construction and prioritized staffing would be identified in the RONS 

database and would be necessary to implement the CCP to meet goals and objectives. 

Currently, a backlog of maintenance needs exists for Grays Harbor NWR. In 2015, the deferred 

maintenance backlog for Grays Harbor NWR was $154,000. An attempt at reducing this backlog 

needs to be addressed and is included here in the analysis of funding needs. The SAMMS database 

documents and tracks repairs, replacements, and maintenance of facilities and equipment. Funding 

would be sought for these projects through a variety of sources, and smaller projects would be 

implemented as funding allows. 

In lieu of property taxes, the Refuge annual revenue sharing payments associated with Grays Harbor 

NWR would continue. Payments to Grays Harbor County have averaged $3,135 annually from Fiscal 

Years 2011 to 2013. The U.S. Congress each year determines what percent of funds will be 

appropriated for all appraised Federal lands. Counties are not restricted in the use of these funds. In 

addition, Grays Harbor NWR has a no-cost lease from the Port of Grays Harbor for 64 acres of 

wildlife habitat. 

Biological assessments and monitoring activities would be conducted on as many projects as funding 

allows to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and responses 

to management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures would be detailed in an 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation

Inventory and Monitoring Plan. General scientific activities are discussed in Chapter 2 under Goal 4, 

which addresses the collection of biological information (inventories, monitoring, feasibility studies, 

assessments, and research) to support adaptive management decisions on Grays Harbor NWR.

Grays Harbor NWR remains in the acquisition stage of development with 1,408 acres of land 

purchased and 64 acres leased from the Port of Grays Harbor out of 1,851 total acres within the 

approved boundary. If those lands come up for sale, the Refuge would attempt to acquire them.

C.1.2 Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

New public use facility construction and prioritized staffing needs would be identified in the RONS 

database and would be necessary to implement the CCP to meet goals and objectives. 

Currently, a backlog of maintenance needs, including building removal from recently acquired lands, 

exists for the Black River Unit. In 2015, the deferred maintenance backlog for the Black River Unit

was $913,229, with more projects likely added as new lands are purchased within the Unit 

acquisition boundary. The SAMMS database documents and tracks repairs, replacements, and 

maintenance of existing facilities and equipment. Funding would be sought for these projects through 

a variety of sources, and smaller projects would be implemented as funding allows. 

In lieu of property taxes, the Unit annual revenue sharing payments associated with the Black River 

Unit would continue. Payments to Thurston County for the Black River Unit and portions of the main 

unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR within the county have averaged $15,721 annually from Fiscal 

Years 2011 to 2013. The U.S. Congress each year determines what percent of funds will be 

appropriated for all appraised federal lands. Counties are not restricted in the use of these funds. 

Biological assessments and monitoring activities would be conducted on as many projects as funding 

allows to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and responses 

to management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures would be detailed in an 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan. General scientific activities are discussed in Chapter 2 under Goal 4, 

which addresses the collection of biological information (inventories, monitoring, feasibility studies, 

assessments, and research) to support adaptive management decisions on the Black River Unit. 

The Black River Unit is in an acquisition stage of development with 1,577 acres of land purchased 

out of 3,873 total acres within the approved boundary. The Unit would continue to work with willing 

landowners to acquire lands within the approved boundary. Funding to purchase these parcels from 

private landowners, NGOs, other agencies, or corporations is available through funding of the U.S. 

Congress. Easements would also be utilized to further land conservation. 

C.1.3 Spending Priorities

Priorities are designated in Tables C-1 and C-2 for one-time and ongoing (recurring) projects 

(strategies) identified under the CCP. Priorities are designated as High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L). 

The rankings were determined according to the following criteria: 

• A high-ranked project/strategy is ongoing, needed immediately, or should be considered in 

the near future to successfully manage habitat and/or public use activities on refuges. It 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-3 

should directly support Unit purposes, a wildlife-dependent priority public use, and/or restore 

a threatened or endangered species or rare/unique habitat. 

• A medium-ranked project/strategy is of a lesser degree of urgency, but also directly maintains 

and restores a threatened, endangered, or Service trust species, rare/unique habitat, supports 

Unit purposes, or is a wildlife-dependent priority public use. 

• A low-ranked project/strategy maintains restored habitat or species and/or addresses a 

wildlife-dependent priority public use activity that is not widely sought out by the public. 

C.2 Costs to Implement CCP

Projects listed below were drawn from the goals, objectives, and strategies and would be 

implemented over the next 15 years as funding and staffing allows. The following sections detail 

both one-time and operational/maintenance (or recurring) costs for various projects as described 

within the CCP for Grays Harbor NWR and Black River Unit alternatives. 

The following tables primarily document projects with a physically visible, trackable “on-theground” component, such as facility development, habitat restoration, research, and monitoring and 

surveys. The scope and costs for administrative activities, such as the development and 

implementation of cooperative documents (e.g., memoranda of understanding, agreements), 

reporting, and establishment or maintenance of partnerships are difficult to estimate in advance and 

thus are not accounted for in the tables below. 

To implement the CCP, funding is needed for new or expanded public uses and facilities, increased 

habitat management and restoration activities, new habitat assessment and monitoring, and staffing to 

complete the additional activities of Alternative 2. 

C.2.1 One-Time and Operational (Recurring) Costs to Implement the CCP by 

Alternative

One-time Costs 

One-time costs reflect initial start-up costs associated with a project. These are projects that can be 

completed in 3 years or less and may include the cost of temporary or term salaries associated with a 

short-term project. 

Funds for one-time costs would be sought through increases in the Nisqually NWR Complex base 

funding, special project funds, and grants. Projects listed below in Tables C-1 and C-2 show one-time 

start-up and implementation costs for the two alternatives, such as those associated with building and 

facility needs including removal of old structures and buildings, public use facilities, new signs 

including interpretive signs, road/trail improvements, purchasing new equipment for land 

management, and contracting for a service or construction. One-time costs are also associated with 

projects such as specific habitat restoration, species or habitat inventories, surveys and assessments, 

and initial invasive plant and animal control. In many cases new research projects, because of their 

relatively high initial establishment cost, are considered one-time projects and include costs of 

contracting services or hiring a temporary staff position for the short-term project. Some project costs 

are taken from RONS or SAMMS proposals; others are not yet in any project database and their costs 

have been estimated, particularly if the scope of the project is unknown at this time due to lack of 

baseline data.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation

Under all alternatives, the Service proposes to work with other agencies, current and new partners, 

the community, and others to review the current Grays Harbor NWR nature center plan and to 

evaluate other options, including alternate funding, sites, and designs, that could lead to a viable plan 

for the center. As such, estimated costs for an on-Refuge nature center were not included in Table C1. However, cost estimates (from 2008) for the construction of an approximately 10,000-square-foot 

building located on 4 acres of the Refuge, including a small administrative space, medium-sized 

visitor facilities, and an environmental education module, were $1.237 million dollars for 

architectural and engineering design and $4.948 million for construction. 

Table C-1. Grays Harbor NWR One-Time Costs (in thousands) for Habitat Management, 

Restoration or Enhancement, Biological Assessments (Baseline Inventories, Surveys, and 

Monitoring), Research, Visitor Services-Related, and Facility Projects Actions.

Project Description Priority

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Habitat Management, Restoration, or Enhancement

Initiate knotweed control project in coordination 

with GH PUD and other weed partners

High 0 25

Restore tidal action to 17 acres of saltmarsh by 

removing an existing berm

Medium 65 65

Subtotal (thousands) 65 90

Biological Assessments (Baseline Inventories, Surveys, and Monitoring)

Develop a biological Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan 

High 15 15

Conduct inventories for invasive animals and 

plants on the Refuge

Medium 2 10

Inventory and map the extent of native and 

nonnative eelgrass

Medium 0 20

Monitor and map the health and abundance of 

sweetgrass stands in relationship to the threats of 

climate change and sea level rise

Medium 0 15

Plan, coordinate, and conduct shorebird surveys 

throughout Grays Harbor estuary 

Medium 3 25

Subtotal (thousands) 20 85

Research

Develop and implement a collaborative research 

project to investigate rate of sedimentation 

accretion and effects on Refuge habitats and 

wildlife use

High 0 50

Assist or support red knot ecological and 

conservation research on population trends, 

habitat needs, and develop management 

measures as appropriate 

High 0 5

Investigate the ramifications of nonnative and 

invasive Japanese eelgrass 

High 0 35

Subtotal (thousands) 0 90

Visitor-Services Related

Update Wildlife and Plant lists and convert into 

Service-standard format

Low 0 5
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-5 

Project Description Priority

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Subtotal (thousands) 0 5

Facilities

Construct new boardwalks and viewing 

platforms in coordination with the Port of Grays 

Harbor and FAA

Medium 0 55

Design, construct, and install new interpretive 

panels and signage on new boardwalks, viewing 

platforms, and the existing kiosk and parking 

area

Medium 0 65

Rehabilitate existing Refuge building for use as a 

maintenance shop to support habitat management 

and trail and visitor facility maintenance 

programs

Medium 0 150

Design, construct, build viewing platform at 

existing kiosk and enhance parking

Medium 0 85

Subtotal (thousands) 0 355

Total of all one-time project costs 85 625

Table C-2. Black River Unit One-Time Costs (in thousands) for Habitat Management, 

Restoration or Enhancement, Biological Assessments (Baseline Inventories, Surveys, and 

Monitoring), Research, Visitor Services-Related, and Facility Projects Actions.

Project Description Priority

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Habitat Management, Restoration, or Enhancement

Remove derelict structures from Unit parcels High 5 350

Enhance emergent marsh habitat for Oregon 

spotted frog by managing reed canarygrass

High 2 75

Evaluate and enhance seasonally ponded areas 

and improve water management capabilities as 

needed through installation of water control 

structures, ditch or culvert removal, and 

improvements to water level management 

capabilities.

Medium 0 75

Use standard enhancement techniques (riparian 

plantings, IPM techniques, placement of large 

woody debris, etc.) as appropriate to improve 

tributary channel conditions.

Medium 0 30

Evaluate potential for translocation of rare 

species as appropriate, including marsh sandwort 

and water howellia, implement recovery actions 

if warranted

Medium 0 60
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-6 Appendix C. Implementation

Project Description Priority

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Plant 3–5 big leaf maples and/or Garry oaks 

where appropriate on approximately 50-acre 

blocks to provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds 

and enhance grassland habitat diversity to benefit 

appropriate species. Protect solitary or 

interspersed big leaf maple or Garry oak trees 

within nonnative grasslands by placing tree 

collars, fencing saplings, and similar habitat 

enhancement measures

Medium 0 20

Subtotal (thousands) 7 610

Biological Assessments (Baseline Inventories, Surveys, and Monitoring)

Develop and implement a biological Inventory 

and Monitoring Plan 

Medium 0 15

Develop a Water Resources Inventory and 

Assessment (WRIA)

Medium 0 25

Assess currently owned tracts for species use, 

habitat suitability, rare and declining species, 

nonnative species, assess habitats for restoration 

or enhancement needs, and enter into GIS

High 2 125

Evaluate endemic Olympic mudminnow

distribution, needs, and habitat quality in the Unit 

Medium 0 35

Inventory and classify all known and unknown 

bog locations, conduct baseline surveys, and 

survey for bog specific rare plants or animals

High 0 20

Subtotal (thousands) 2 220

Research

Research Oregon spotted frog habitat use, water 

dependency, movement, predation, and 

survivorship, especially associated with habitat 

enhancement techniques

High 0 65

Research status and long-term conditions of bog 

habitat stability, species health, and determine 

bog risks and needs 

Medium 

0 35

Subtotal (thousands) 0 100

Visitor Services-Related

Determine options for Unit access to potential

Gate-Belmore Trail

Low 0 15 

Establish a volunteer program with training to 

help with a variety of Unit activities

Medium 0 25 

Subtotal (thousands) 0 40

Facilities

Design and install a small vehicle pull-off area 

with a small viewing deck and interpretive and 

regulatory signs on west side of Endicott Road 

for wildlife viewing

High 0 85
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-7 

Project Description Priority

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Design and install a small parking area on the 

east side of Endicott Road along with a short trail 

to viewing deck and interpretive panels

Medium 0 75

Partner with Thurston County to design and 

construct boating access at 123rd Avenue 

High 0 90

Subtotal (thousands) 0 250

Total of all one-time project costs 9 1220

Annual Operational and Maintenance (Recurring) Costs 

Operational and recurring maintenance costs reflect Refuge and Unit spending of the congressionally 

allocated base funds to Nisqually NWR Complex each year. A portion of the base funds are spent on 

Grays Harbor NWR and a portion are spent on the Black River Unit. These operational and 

maintenance costs are also known as recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day 

operations, projects that last longer than 3 years, and permanent staff salaries. 

The recurring maintenance program funding need over the next 15 years is defined as funds needed 

to repair or replace existing buildings, equipment, and facilities. This also includes preventive 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; 

adjustments, lubrication, and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting; resurfacing; 

rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other actions to assure continuing service, prevent 

breakdown, and maintain value. 

Recurring maintenance also includes maintaining public use, administrative, storage, and shop 

buildings and facilities. Through normal use and weather conditions, buildings and facilities need 

annual maintenance and repairs. Maintenance of habitat, from the recurring threat of invasive plants 

and animals, succession, and protection of threatened, endangered, or candidate species is an annual 

occurrence. 

Maintenance costs include the maintenance backlog needs that have come due but are as yet 

unfunded in Alternative 1, whereas Alternative 2 reflects future recurring operational and 

maintenance costs associated with a specific new project or facility (that was included in one-time 

costs). 

Tables C-3 for Grays Harbor NWR and C-4 for the Black River Unit display projected annual 

operating costs to implement strategies under the CCP and include such things as salary and 

operational expenditures, including travel, training, supplies, utilities, and maintenance costs. It also 

includes administrative support for all programs and projects as well as permanent and seasonal staff 

needed year after year to accomplish each project; these staffing costs are not isolated in this table 

but are included as part of the entire project cost. 

Some project costs are taken from RONS or SAMMS proposals; others are not yet in any project 

database and their costs have been estimated, particularly if the scope of the project is unknown due 

to lack of baseline data.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-8 Appendix C. Implementation

Table C-3. Grays Harbor NWR Operational/Maintenance (Recurring) Costs (in thousands). 

Activity Description

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Habitat management, restoration, or enhancement:

Continue a joint effort to survey, remove, control existing

and prevent new establishment of invasive plants, 

especially Spartina and Phragmites through appropriate 

IPM methods with partners WDFW and WSDA; 

coordinate with spill response partners; partially fund 

AmeriCorps WCC crew

10 65

Biological assessment (baseline inventory, survey, and 

monitoring): Annual or periodic aerial and ground avian 

surveys; wildlife and fish surveys; habitat surveys, 

including sweetgrass; shorebird prey resource monitoring; 

species and habitat monitoring of regional value; species 

and habitat monitoring related to sea level rise and climate 

change; invasive species monitoring, efficacy 

assessments, and GIS mapping; monitor biodiversity 

trends; salt marsh restoration site monitoring; and 

providing administrative material support for all 

biological activities

5 45

Visitor services and environmental education: Provide 

a variety of both on- and off-Refuge education programs; 

continue outreach programs and events; continue to 

improve Refuge’s website; manage, enhance, and 

strengthen the volunteer program

15 60

Maintenance: Maintain existing boardwalks, including 

keeping clear of vegetation; viewing platforms, kiosks, 

interpretive signage, parking areas; existing buildings; 

new facilities; and equipment. Partially fund AmeriCorps 

WCC crew to assist in facility maintenance

15 25

Total Recurring Costs 45 195

Table C-4. Black River Unit Operational/Maintenance (Recurring) Costs (in thousands). 

Activity Description

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Habitat management, restoration, or enhancement:

Remove, control, and prevent new establishment of 

invasive plants and treat infestations with IPM 

techniques; continue to determine best methods to control 

reed canarygrass, especially for Oregon spotted frog 

habitat needs; maintain dry, short-grass habitat in early 

successional stage with specific enhancements; partially 

fund AmeriCorps WCC crew to assist with land 

management 

35 145

Biological assessment (baseline inventory, survey, and 

monitoring): Annual Oregon spotted frog egg surveys; 

15 95
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-9 

Activity Description

Current 

Management

Future 

Management

assessments of habitat quality and native species; periodic 

bog surveys; invasive species location surveys, treatment 

efficacy assessments, and GIS mapping; monitor 

biodiversity trends; provide administrative material 

support for all biological activities

Research: Facilitate and cooperate in specific research 

projects to benefit Unit resources

5 15

Visitor services: Educating visitors to wildlife resources, 

manage a new volunteer program; patrol and enforce 

regulations

0 100

Facilities: Continue efforts to remove excess structures 

on Unit lands; make repairs to Unit infrastructure and 

equipment; and maintain interpretive and regulatory 

signs, partially fund AmeriCorps WCC crew to assist with 

all needs.

20 75

Total Recurring Costs 75 430

C.2.2 Staffing

The current (2014) staff at the Nisqually NWR Complex split their time to work on Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually and Grays Harbor Refuges and the Black River Unit as projects, funding, and time allows 

(Table C-5). The future staffing to implement the programs detailed within the CCP are shown for 

Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit in Table C-6. Currently about 85 percent of current 

Complex staff time is expended on Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR, about 5 percent of staff time is 

expended on Grays Harbor NWR, and 10 percent of the time is spent on the Black River Unit. 

Table C-5. Current Staffing at Nisqually NWR Complex which includes Grays Harbor NWR 

and the Black River Unit

Current Positions at Nisqually NWR Complex Status Grade

Project Leader PFT GS-0485-13

Deputy Project Leader PFT GS-0485-12

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-11

Visitor Services Manager PFT GS-0026-11

Park Ranger (Vol. Program Specialist) PFT GS-025-07

Maintenance Worker PFT WG-4749-08

Administrator Officer PFT GS-0341-09

AmeriCorps/Nisqually TEMP

AmeriCorps/WCC Crew (5 members and Crew 

Leader) TEMP

Table C-6. Future Additional Staffing in Alternative 2 for Grays Harbor NWR and the Black 

River Unit

Future Positions for Grays Harbor NWR Status GS & Grade

Refuge Manager PFT GS-0485-07/09/11

Visitor Services Manager PFT GS-1001-07/09

Environmental Education Specialist PFT GS-1710-5/7
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-10 Appendix C. Implementation

PFT: Permanent Full Time

GS: General Schedule Federal Employee

WG: Wage Grade Federal Employee

AmeriCorps Programs:

The AmeriCorps program engages citizens in intensive community service work including 

environmental protection and education. The AmeriCorps program partially sponsors the Washington 

State Service Corps (WSSC, Corps), which is a sub-agency of the Washington Employment Security 

Department. Up until 2014, Nisqually NWR Compex had obtained a Corps member position that 

supported several Grays Harbor area elementary schools providing environmental education and 

outreach programs. The program focused on the ecology of Grays Harbor estuary and shorebirds and 

in 2012 over 6,143 participants benefitted from both onsite and offsite educational sessions (USFWS

2012). Friends of Nisqually NWR Complex sponsors and funds this position with the help of Grays 

Harbor Audubon Society. A Corps member position was not secured in 2014 and the education 

program had to be canceled. The groups will apply again during the next application period to secure 

a position. 

The AmeriCorps program also partially sponsors the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) which

is a sub-agency of the Washington Department of Ecology. WCC employs young adults in an 

outreach program to protect and enhance Washington's natural resources. Annually, Nisqually NWR

Complex cost-shares with WCC for a full-time six-person field crew. Nisqually NWR Complex’s 

share of the funding comes from the stations’ operational budget. These young adults work at Billy 

Frank Jr. Nisqually and Grays Harbor Refuges and the Black River Unit on environmental protection 

and maintenance projects. The crew is an integral staff component completing many projects at all 

three locations. Without the WCC crew, much needed work would not be accomplished, especially 

preparation for the Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival and maintenance on the boardwalk. 

Volunteer Program: 

Grays Harbor NWR

Grays Harbor NWR has a small but dedicated group of volunteers that are critical to the operation of 

this unstaffed Refuge. In 2012, 22 individual volunteers donated 1,883 hours towards accomplishing 

Refuge programs, including onsite and outreach environmental education programs, wildlife and 

habitat, maintenance, wildlife dependent recreation, visitor use assistance, and the annual 3-day 

Grays Harbor Shorebird Festival event (USFWS 2012). 

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-486-07/09/11

Biological Technician PFT GS-404-05/07

Administrative Assistant GS-303-04-05

Maintenance Worker PFT WG-4749-08

Refuge Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-485/486-07/09/11

Future Positions for the Black River Unit Status GS and Grade

Refuge Operations Specialist PFT GS-485-07/09

Biological Technician PFT GS-404-05/07

Maintenance Worker PFT WG-4749-8
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-11

The standard value per hour of a volunteer equals $22.14. Thus in 2012, the Refuge value of 

volunteer hours was (1,883 x $22.14) $41,689.62. The amount of volunteer hours donated is the 

equivalent of almost one full-time employee. 

Black River Unit

The Black River Unit does not currently have a volunteer program. However, the volunteer program 

is a strategy in Chapter 2, Goal 5 and is included in Tables C-2 and C-4. 

C.2.3 Budget Summary

Table C-7 summarizes the data from Tables C-1 and C-3 and displays the overall funding needed for 

Grays Harbor. Table C. 8 summarizes the data from Tables C-2 and C-4 and displays the overall 

funding needed for Black River Unit to implement the CCP. 

Table C-7. Budget Summary (One-time projects and annual recurring operational/ 

maintenance funding) needs for Grays Harbor NWR as identified in the CCP (in thousands). 

Budget Category Current Management Future Management

One-time 

cost 

Annual recurring 

cost 

One-time 

cost 

Annual recurring 

cost

Habitat management, 

restoration, or 

enhancement

65 10 90 65 

Biological assessments 

(inventory, survey, and 

monitoring)

20 5 85 45 

Research 0 0 90 0

Visitor services and 

environmental education 0 15 5 60 

Facilities 0 15 625 25

Totals 85 45 895 195 

Table C-8. Budget Summary (One-time projects and annual recurring operational/ 

maintenance funding) needs for Black River Unit as identified in the CCP (in thousands). 

Budget Category Current Management Future Management

One-time 

cost

Annual recurring 

cost 

One-time 

cost

Annual recurring 

cost

Habitat management, 

restoration, or 

enhancement

7 35 610 145 

Biological assessments 

(inventory, survey, and 

monitoring)

2 15 220 95 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-12 Appendix C. Implementation

Budget Category Current Management Future Management

Research 0 5 100 15

Visitor services and 

environmental education 0 0 40 100 

Facilities 0 20 250 75

Totals 9 75 1220 430 

C.3 Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are an important component of the implementation of this CCP and are reflected in the 

goals, objectives, and strategies identified in Chapter 2. Current and past partners include Federal and 

State agencies, Tribes, NGOs, schools, volunteers, and individuals. 

Coordinated partnership efforts will focus on environmental education, habitat management, fish and 

wildlife monitoring, habitat restoration, land protection, and quality wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Refuge Complex staff will work to strengthen existing partnerships and will actively look for new 

partnerships to assist in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies in this CCP. 

C.3.1 Grays Harbor NWR

Current and past partners for Grays Harbor NWR include Washington Department of Ecology, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Service Corps, Grays Harbor County 

Noxious Weed Agency, Grays Harbor Public Utilities District, Grays Harbor County, Port of Grays 

Harbor, City of Hoquiam, The Nature Conservancy, Grays Harbor Audubon Society, Friends of 

Grays Harbor, Grays Harbor College, local grade schools of Grays Harbor County, Pacific Coast 

Joint Venture, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative , U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Service, and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Washington State Office.

Partnerships like these increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support, as well as 

reduce Refuge operating costs. Presently, there is a six-person field crew funded partially through our 

partners, supporting the WCC conservation crew’s work at Grays Harbor NWR. Additionally some 

partners provide funding or matching funds for federal grants. 

C.3.2 Black River Unit

Current and past partners include Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Chehalis Basin Partnership, 

Chehalis Basin Weed Partnership, Thurston County Noxious Weed Agency, Thurston County, 

Thurston Conservation District, Chehalis River Cooperative Weed Management working group, 

Washington’s Oregon Spotted Frog working group, Capitol Land Trust, Port Blakely Tree Farm, The 

Nature Conservancy, Black Hills Audubon Society, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington State Office. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix C. Implementation C-13

Partnerships like these increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support, as well as 

reduce Unit operating costs. Presently, there is a six-person field crew funded partially through our 

partners, supporting the WCC conservation crew’s work at the Black River Unit. Additionally,

partners assist in providing funding or matching funds for federal grants. 

C.4 References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Nisqually NWR Complex RAPP Report. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

C-14 Appendix C. Implementation
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix D. Wilderness D-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness

D.1. Background 

D.1.1 Policy and Direction for Wilderness Reviews

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C. (1) (c)) requires that wilderness reviews 

be completed as part of the CCP process. This review includes the reevaluation of refuge lands 

existing during the initial 10-year review period of The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1131-1136) (Wilderness Act), as well as new lands and waters added to the Refuge System

since 1974. A preliminary inventory of the wilderness resources is to be conducted during preacquisition planning for new or expanded refuges (341 FW 2.4 B, Land Acquisition Planning). 

Refuge System policy on Wilderness Stewardship (610 FW 1-5) includes guidance for conducting 

wilderness reviews (610 FW 4, Wilderness Review and Evaluation). 

A wilderness review is the process of determining whether the Service should recommend Refuge 

System lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process 

consists of three phases: wilderness inventory, wilderness study, and wilderness recommendation. 

Wilderness Inventory 

The inventory is a broad look at a refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness: size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation. All areas meeting the criteria are preliminarily classified as 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). If WSAs are identified, the review proceeds to the study phase. 

Wilderness Study 

The study evaluates all values (ecological, recreational, cultural), resources (wildlife, water, 

vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within the WSA. The findings of the 

study determine whether or not we will recommend the area for designation as wilderness. 

We evaluate at least an “All Wilderness Alternative” and a “No-Wilderness Alternative” for each 

WSA to compare the benefits and impacts of managing the area as wilderness as opposed to 

managing the area under an alternate set of goals, objectives, and strategies that do not involve 

wilderness designation. We may also develop “Partial Wilderness Alternatives” that evaluate the 

benefits and impacts of managing portions of a WSA as wilderness. In the alternatives, we evaluate

the following: 

• the benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources 

• how each alternative will achieve the purposes of the Wilderness Act and the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)

• how each alternative will affect achievement of the refuge purpose(s) and contribution 

toward achieving the Refuge System mission 

• how each alternative will affect maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at various landscape scales 

• other legal and policy mandates 

• whether a WSA can be effectively managed as wilderness by considering the effects of 

existing private rights, land status and service jurisdiction, refuge management activities and 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness

refuge uses, and the need for or possibility of eliminating prohibited uses listed in the 

Wilderness Act, Section4(c). 

Wilderness Recommendation 

If the wilderness study demonstrates that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the NWPS, 

a wilderness study report should be written that presents the results of the wilderness review, 

accompanied by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). The wilderness study report 

and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of the 

Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to the United States Congress for action. 

Refuge lands recommended for wilderness consideration by the wilderness study report will retain 

their WSA status and be managed as “... wilderness according to the management direction in the 

final CCP until Congress makes a decision on the area or we amended the CCP to modify or remove 

the wilderness recommendation” (610 FW 4.22B). When a WSA is revised or eliminated, or when 

there is a revision in “wilderness stewardship direction, we include appropriate interagency and tribal 

coordination, public involvement, and documentation of compliance with NEPA” (610 FW 3.13). 

The following constitutes the inventory phase of the wilderness review for Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge and Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 

D.1.2 Wilderness Inventory

Criteria for Evaluating Lands for Possible Inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System

The Wilderness Act provides the following description of wilderness: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions... 

The following criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are outlined in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act and are further expanded upon in Refuge System policy (610 FW 4). The first three 

criteria are evaluated during the inventory phase; the fourth criterion is evaluated during the study 

phase. 

1. Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man's work substantially unnoticeable 

2. Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation 

3. Has at least five thousand acres of land or is of a sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition 

4. May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value 

 

Criterion 3 is further defined in Section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act as (1) a roadless area of 5,000 

contiguous acres or more, or (2) a roadless island. Roadless is defined as the absence of improved 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix D. Wilderness D-3 

roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of 4-wheeled, motorized vehicles that are 

intended for highway use. 

D.1.3 Process of Analysis

The following evaluation process was used in identifying the suitability of refuge units for wilderness 

designation: 

• Determination of refuge unit sizes

• Assessment of the units’ capacity to provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation 

• Assessment of “naturalness” of refuge units 

More detail on the actual factors considered and used for each assessment step follows.

Unit Size: Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply:

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres solely in Service ownership 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or an area that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features 

 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management.

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau 

of Land Management 

Outstanding Solitude or Primitive or Unconfined Recreation: 

A designated wilderness area must provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. Possession of only one of these outstanding opportunities is sufficient 

for an area to qualify as wilderness, and it is not necessary for one of these outstanding opportunities 

to be available on every acre. Furthermore, an area does not have to be open to public use and access 

to qualify under these criteria. 

Opportunities for solitude refers to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means nonmotorized, dispersed outdoor recreation 

activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. 

Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, selfreliance, and adventure.

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness

Naturalness and Wildness: the area generally appears to have been affected primarily by 

the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.

This criterion must be evaluated in the context of current natural conditions and societal values and 

expectations without compromising the original intent of the Wilderness Act. It is well recognized 

that there are few areas remaining on the planet that could be truly classified as primeval or pristine, 

with even fewer, if any, existing in the conterminous United States. Likewise, few areas exist that do 

not exhibit some impact from anthropogenic influences, be it noise, light, or air pollution; water 

quality or hydrological manipulations; past and current land management practices; roads or trails, 

suppression of wildfires; invasions by nonnative species of plants and animals; or public uses. While 

allowing for the near-complete pervasiveness of modern society on the landscape, the spirit of the 

Wilderness Act is to protect lands that still retain the wilderness qualities of being: (1) natural, (2) 

untrammeled, (3) undeveloped. These three qualities are cornerstones of wilderness character. For 

areas proposed or designated as wilderness, wilderness character must be monitored to determine 

baseline conditions and thereafter be periodically monitored to assess the condition of these 

wilderness qualities. Proposed and designated wilderness areas by law and policy are required to 

maintain wilderness character through management and/or restoration in perpetuity. 

 

Defining the first two qualities (natural and untrammeled) requires knowledge and understanding of 

the ecological systems which are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems are 

comprised of three primary attributes: composition, structure, and function. Composition is the 

components that make up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and 

animals, and abiotic (physical and chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. 

Structure is the spatial arrangement of the components that contribute to the complexity of the area. 

Composition and structure are evaluated to determine the naturalness of the area. Function is the 

processes that result from the interaction of the various components both temporally and spatially, 

and the disturbance processes that shape the landscape. These processes include, but are not limited 

to, predator-prey relationships, insect and disease outbreaks, nutrient and water cycles, 

decomposition, fire, windstorms, flooding, and both general and cyclic weather patterns. Ecological 

functions are evaluated to determine the wildness or untrammeled quality of the area. 

The third quality assessment is whether an area is undeveloped. Undeveloped refers to the absence of 

permanent structures such as roads, buildings, dams, fences, and other man-made alterations to the 

landscape. Exceptions can be made for historic structures or structures required for safety or health 

considerations, providing they are made of natural materials and relatively unobtrusive on the 

landscape. 

General guidelines used for evaluating areas for wilderness potential during this wilderness inventory 

process include: 

1. The area should provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, as well as a 

nearly complete complement of native plants and wildlife indicative of those habitat types. 

Nonnative and invasive species should comprise a negligible portion of the landscape. 

2. The area should be spatially complex (vertically and/or horizontally) and exhibit all levels of 

vegetation structure typical of the habitat type, have an interspersion of these habitats, and 

provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix D. Wilderness D-5 

3. The area should retain the basic natural functions that define and shape the associated 

habitats, including but not limited to, flooding regimes, fire cycles, unaltered hydrology and 

flowage regimes, and basic predator-prey relationships, including herbivory patterns. 

4. Due to their size, islands may not meet the habitat guidelines in 1 and 2 above. Islands 

should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which they evolved and they should 

continue to be shaped and modified by natural processes. Islands should be further analyzed 

during the study portion of the review if they provide habitat for a significant portion of a 

population, or key life cycle requirements for any resources of concern or listed species. 

5. Potential wilderness areas should be relatively free of permanent structures or man-made 

alterations. Areas may be elevated to the study phase if existing structures or alterations can 

be removed or remediated within a reasonable timeframe and prior to wilderness 

recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Supplemental Values—the Wilderness Act states that an area of wilderness may contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Supplemental 

values of the area are optional, but the degree to which their presence enhances the area’s suitability 

for wilderness designation should be considered. The evaluation should be based on an assessment of 

the estimated abundance or importance of each of the features.

D.2. Inventory Summary and Conclusion

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge is not recommended for further study for inclusion in the 

Wilderness System because it does not meet the above criteria. The Refuge comprises only 1,500 

acres (see Table 1-1 in Chapter 1). The size of this block is insufficient to make practicable its 

preservation and use as wilderness. The Refuge also has considerable evidence of past human use, 

does not have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, and is not a roadless 

island. 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge is not recommended for 

further study for inclusion in the Wilderness System because it does not meet the above criteria. This

Unit’s total acquisition boundary contains approximately 3,900 acres, with 1,581 acres currently 

managed (see Table 1-1 in Chapter 1). The size of this Unit is insufficient to make practicable its 

preservation and use as wilderness. The Unit also has considerable evidence of past human use, does 

not have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, and is not a roadless island. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-1 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

E.1 Resources of Concern for Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Table E-1. Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern for Grays Harbor National Wildlife 

Refuge.

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BIDEH a CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal Sp.ESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC fWDFW PHS c Partners in Flight d, nLandbirds of OR & WA oWA State Wildlife Plan gUSFWS Shorebird Plan (score 1-5) hN.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan i Pacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plan n Seabird Cons. Plan 

m

Mammals

Black-tailed 

deer 35 S53

Harbor seal SM1 25  S43

Birds

Common loon  SS1 1,25  TBA4 S4N3

Red-throated 

loon  25 TBA4 S5N3

Horned grebe  SM1 25 TBA4 S5N3

Western grebe  SC1   1,25 N-M4 S3N3

Double-crested 

cormorant

  25  NAR4 S4SB/

S5SN3 

Brown pelican  SoC1 E

Great blue heron  SM1 25  NAR4 S4B/ 

S5N3

Greater whitefronted goose   2,35   N-H4 S4N3

Cackling 

Canada goose   2,35   N-H4

Dusky Canada 

goose  SoC1   2,35   N-H4 SNRN

Pacific Canada 

goose   2,35   N-MH /B-H4

S5B/S

5N3

Pacific brant  

+F 2,35   N-H4 S3N3

Gadwall   2,35 NML4

S4N/ 

S5B3

American 

wigeon     2,35  N-H4 S4B/ S5N3

Mallard   2,35  N-MH 

/B-M4

S5B/ 

S5N3
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-2 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BIDEH a CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal Sp.ESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC fWDFW PHS c Partners in Flight d, nLandbirds of OR & WA oWA State Wildlife Plan gUSFWS Shorebird Plan (score 1-5) hN.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan i Pacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plan n Seabird Cons. Plan 

m

Northern 

shoveler   2,35 NMH4

S4B/ 

S3N3

Northern pintail   2,35  N-H4 S3B/ 

S4N3

Green-winged 

teal   2,35

N-MH 

/BMH4

S4B/ 

S3N3

Greater scaup  

+F 2,35 N-H4 S3N3

Lesser scaup  

+F 2,35 N-H4 S3N3

Black scoter  S4

Surf scoter  S3

White-winged 

scoter

 S5

Bufflehead    2,35 N-H4 S4N3

Common 

goldeneye   2,35 NMH4 S5N3

Barrow’s 

goldeneye 

(western)

 2,35 NMH4

S3B/ 

S4N3

Red-breasted 

merganser

 2,35  S3N3

Common 

merganser

 S3N3

Waterfowl 

concentrations    2,35  N3

Western WA 

non-breeding 

concentrations 

of loons, grebes, 

and cormorants

   2,35  N3

Osprey   SM1 S4B3

Bald eagle   SoC1 SS1  

+F   S4B/ 

S4N3

Northern harrier    S4B/ 

S4N3

Sharp-shinned 

hawk    S4B/ S4N3

Red-tailed hawk    S5B/ 

S5N3

Merlin   SC1 15  S3B/ 

S4N3

Peregrine falcon   SoC1 SS1   BI

Ic6  S2B/ S3N3 

Virginia rail   N-M/ 

B-M4

S4B/ 

S3N3
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-3 

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BIDEH a CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal Sp.ESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC fWDFW PHS c Partners in Flight d, nLandbirds of OR & WA oWA State Wildlife Plan gUSFWS Shorebird Plan (score 1-5) hN.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan i Pacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plan n Seabird Cons. Plan 

m

Sora*   N-H4 S4B3

Black-bellied 

plover  25  42 S4N3

Semi-palmated 

plover    25 32 S4N3

Greater 

yellowlegs  25  42 S5N3

Whimbrel    25 42 S3N3

Red knot 

(roselaari)   

+F 25  42 S3N3

Western 

sandpiper    25  42 S4S5N3

Least sandpiper  25 32 S4S/ 

S5N3

Dunlin  25  42 S5N3

Short-billed 

dowitcher      25  42 S4N3

Long-billed 

dowitcher  25  42 S4N3

Marbled godwit   

+F 25 42 S3N3

Ruddy turnstone  25 42 S4N3

Concentrations 

of migrating & 

wintering 

shorebirds

 

Ring-billed gull  25  

NAR4

S5B/ 

S5N3 

Western gull  25 L4 S4B/ 

S4N3 

Glaucous gull  25 L4 S5B/ 

S5N3 

Glaucouswinged x 

Western hybrid



Caspian tern    SM1   25  B-L4 S3B3 

Migratory 

passerines & 

landbirds

 

Rufous 

hummingbird    BI

6

D

S

7

 S4B3

Downy 

woodpecker    S4B/S5N3

Northern flicker  

D

S

7
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-4 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BIDEH a CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal Sp.ESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC fWDFW PHS c Partners in Flight d, nLandbirds of OR & WA oWA State Wildlife Plan gUSFWS Shorebird Plan (score 1-5) hN.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan i Pacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plan n Seabird Cons. Plan 

m

Willow 

flycatcher  SoC1  BI

6

D

S

7

 S4B/S

5N3

Pacific-slope 

flycatcher  BI

Ia6

D

S

7

 S4B/S

5N3

Tree swallow   S5B3

Violet-green 

swallow   S5B3

Marsh wren    BI

Ic6

S5B/ 

S5N3

Bewick’s wren  

American robin  

Orange-crowned 

warbler  

D

S

7

S4B3

Yellow warbler      S4B3

Yellow-rumped 

warbler  

Common 

yellowthroat   S5B3

Wilson’s 

warbler  BIIa6  S5B3

Song sparrow  

D

S

7

S5B/ 

S5N3

Fish

Chinook 

salmon*   SC1 15  S3B/ S4N3

Chum salmon*  SC1 15  S33

Coho salmon*   S33

Pink salmon*   S2

Steelhead*  SC1 15  S53

Coastal 

cutthroat trout*  SoC1  S43

Bull trout*  T1 SC1 15  S33

Green sturgeon*  T1 SM1  S23

Pacific 

lamprey*  SoC1 SM1  S3/ S43

Eulachon*  T1 SC1 

Forage fish*   

Amphibians & Reptiles

Pacific tree frog 

Plants

Sweetgrass   

Native eelgrass  
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-5 

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BIDEH a CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal Sp.ESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC fWDFW PHS c Partners in Flight d, nLandbirds of OR & WA oWA State Wildlife Plan gUSFWS Shorebird Plan (score 1-5) hN.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan i Pacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plan n Seabird Cons. Plan 

m

Invertebrates

Newcomb’s 

littorine

snail*

SoC1 SC1 S13

Benthic 

invertebrate 

concentrations

   

Habitats

Open water      

Intertidal 

mudflat         

Salt and 

brackish marsh         

Forest   

* = Not documented on Refuge. Species occupies habitat adjacent to Refuge or potential suitable habitat exists on Refuge. 1 T = Threatened; E = Endangered; FC = Federal candidate; SoC = Refuge species of concern; SC = State candidate; SS = State 

sensitive; Sm = State Monitor

2 Regional score. Category codes: 5 = Highly imperiled; 4 = High concern; 3 = Moderate concern; 2 = Low concern; 1 = No risk

3 S1 = Critically imperiled; S2 = Imperiled; S3 = Rare, uncommon; S4 = Apparently secure; S5 = Demonstrably secure; SX = 

Apparently extirpated, SH = Historical occurrences, but still expected to occur. B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding, SN = 

Regularly occurring, non-breeding, SR = Reported but without persuasive documentation 4 B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding; H = High concern or need, M = Moderate concern or need, L = Low concern or need, NAR = 

Not currently at risk, TBA = To be assessed,  = included in plan 5 1 = State-listed and candidate species, 2 = Vulnerable aggregations, 3 = Species of recreational, commercial, and/or Tribal 

importance 

6 B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding: I = High continental importance, II = High regional priority, IIa = High regional concern, IIb 

= High regional responsibility, IIc = High regional threats 7 DS = Declining species

 = Species is relevant to Refuge management and on the appropriate document(s). 

+F = Species is a Bird of Management Concern as well as a Focal Species (Chapter 4) a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 (BIDEH) b U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012, 2011; Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife 2012; and Washington Department of Natural Resources 2012. c Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008 & 2012 (State Priority Species and Habitats) d Rich et al. 2004 (Partners In Flight – Landbirds) e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 (FWS Birds of Conservation Concern) f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 (FWS Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species) g Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2005 (State Wildlife Comprehensive Conservation Strategy) h Drut and Buchanan 2000 (North Pacific Coast Shorebird Plan) 

i Kushlan et al. 2002 (NA Waterbird Plan) 

j Pacific Flyway Council 1983-2007 k North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004 

l Washington Department of Natural Resources 2005 & 2007 (Natural Heritage Plan) 

m US Fish and Wildlife Service 2005 (Seabirds) n Rosenberg 2004 (PIF BCR – WA Level) o Altman 2005 (Conservation Priorities for Landbirds of OR and WA) 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-6 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Table E-2. Table BIDEH: Natural Plant Communities at for Grays Harbor NWR: 

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

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, serial 

stage, species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors

And Threats

Open Water • Always inundated despite 

tidal cycles

• Salinity ranges from 5 to 20 

parts per thousand (ppt)

depending on the season

• Water depths vary depending 

on substrate elevation but are 

approximately 6 feet deep at 

0-foot tide

• Zooplankton, phytoplankton, 

algae, and macroinvertebrates carried in the 

water

• Native eelgrass beds if 

substrate characteristics, 

salinity, and light conditions 

are appropriate

• Heavy woody debris brought 

in by storm events which

provide underwater cover and 

structure for fishes and

invertebrates

Potential conservation species: 

bufflehead and native eelgrass as 

well as migratory and overwintering waterfowl and 

waterbirds, raptors, fish and 

native eelgrass. 

• Water circulation, salinity 

gradients, prevailing 

winds, storm events, high 

winds, water and air 

temperatures, watershed 

drainage of rain (flood 

events), and river outflow 

• Storm events move heavy 

woody debris 

• Sloughs are created by 

tidal movement through 

the substrate

• Invasive species such as 

Japanese eelgrass

• Potential pollution/ 

contamination of water and 

sediment substrate from 

nearby industry, ocean 

going shipping vessels and 

local boating industry

• Fish, wildlife, and prey 

species could be 

compromised by a 

contamination event

Intertidal 

Mudflat 

• 90% of the habitat is a large 

expanse of exposed mudflats 

at low tide levels that are 

approximately 80% free of 

rooted vegetation but do 

support algae growth

• Twice daily, tidally driven 

marine waters flood the 

mudflats between 0.0 and 9.0 

feet NGVD (National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum)

• Tidal salinity ranges from 5 to 

20 ppt depending on the 

season

• Abundant, healthy macro 

benthic and surface 

invertebrate populations are 

available prey during low tide 

levels for migrating 

shorebirds and other wildlife

• Tidal cycles renew moisture 

to mudflat invertebrates and 

carry large quantities of 

phytoplankton, zooplankton,

algae, and small invertebrates

• Tidal cycles, water 

circulation, salinity 

gradients, prevailing 

winds, storm events, high 

winds, water and air 

temperatures, watershed 

drainage of rain (flood 

events), and river outflow 

• Storm events move heavy 

woody debris and 

sediment within the 

estuarine mudflats

• Waves and winds create 

ridges and low mesas of 

mud, which become 

vegetated with pioneering 

salt marsh species

• Sloughs are sinuous 

channels that are cut 

through the mudflat by 

tidal action

• Loss of intertidal mudflat 

habitat negatively affects 

shorebird ability to the use 

the estuary for life needs 

such as foraging and 

roosting

• Natural processes regarding 

sedimentation in the basin 

are not well understood

• Sediment aggradation

causes mudflats transition to 

saltmarsh

• Increased saltmarsh 

development causes loss of 

shorebird foraging habitat

• Invasive species 

encroachment, such as 

Phragmites, Spartina, 

beachgrass, Japanese 

eelgrass, and potentially the 

New Zealand mudsnail, and 

Griffen’s isopod

• Japanese eelgrass may 

decrease shorebird foraging 

habitat and food resources 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-7 

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, serial 

stage, species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors

And Threats

• High elevation areas of the 

mudflat provide vital hightide roosts or resting sites for 

shorebirds during incoming 

tides

• Downed trees turn into heavy 

woody debris that rests on 

mudflats and both shorebird 

and raptor perches. These 

same trees provide underwater 

cover and structure for fish 

and invertebrates during 

higher tides. When woody 

debris remains above tidal 

inundation it provides perches 

for either shorebirds or raptors

• The sloughs are the first to 

flood and create deeper water 

environments for diving 

waterfowl and waterbirds and 

physical cover for fish and 

marine mammals. During low 

tide, these channels provide 

physical protection and moist 

habitat for small animals and 

invertebrate populations

• ≤2% Spartina, and very few 

other State or county listed, or 

other detrimental, nonnative, 

invasive plant species 

growing in the mudflat

• Minimal levels of 

contaminants and pollutants 

which are detrimental to 

invertebrates, fish, and 

wildlife species

Potential conservation species: 

Western sandpiper, semi-palmated 

plover, short-billed dowitcher, 

benthic invertebrates, Caspian 

tern, American wigeon. Also 

migratory and over-wintering 

shorebirds, raptors, wintering 

waterfowl, waterbirds, and fish.

as well as encourage 

sedimentation and assist in 

raising the mudflat levels

• Nearby Port of Grays 

Harbor industry 

development may affect the 

Refuge and its wildlife

• Potential pollution to water, 

sediment, vegetation, and 

wildlife from nearby 

industry, ocean-going 

shipping vessels, and local 

boating industry. Foraging 

habitat for migrating 

shorebirds could be 

compromised

• Climate change may bring 

warmer temperatures which 

may create large algal mats 

and algal blooms in water

• Climate change may cause 

sea level rise which may 

convert mudflat to tidal 

open water or subtidal 

habitat which would not 

benefit shorebirds

Salt and 

Brackish Marsh 

• Salt marsh vegetation usually 

occurs within tidal range of 9 

to 13 feet NGVD

• Brackish marsh waters (≤5 

parts per thousand) are less 

saline than marine water 

because they mix with 

freshwater inputs that usually 

come from upland drainages

• Low salt marshes are those 

nearest the low-tide line 

which are covered with each 

• Tidal cycles, water 

circulation, salinity 

gradients, prevailing 

winds, storm events, high 

winds, water and air 

temperatures, watershed 

drainage of rain (possible 

flooding)

• Native plant seed source

• As high saltmarsh elevation 

rises with sedimentation 

aggradation it converts to 

shrub-scrub habitat

• Potential loss of sweetgrass 

plant community to mudflat 

elevation changes or to 

climate change and sea level 

rise

• Invasive species: Spartina,

Phragmites, knotweed 

species, reed canarygrass, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-8 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, serial 

stage, species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors

And Threats

high tide. Species in low to 

mid-level salt marshes include 

pickleweed, salt grass, 

jaumea, sea arrow-grass, 

sand-spurry, seaside plantain, 

lilaeopsis, sea sweetgrass, and 

orache

• Mid-level marshes are 

covered by about half of the 

high tides each year. Plant 

species in mid- to high-level 

salt marshes include tufted 

hairgrass, Pacific silverweed, 

saltmarsh bulrush, gumweed, 

Baltic rush, and Lyngby’s 

sedge

• High salt marshes are 

generally covered by tides on 

fewer occasions. Species in 

high saltmarsh include cow 

parsnip, sea watch, dunegrass, 

Douglas aster, foxtail and 

meadow barley, and 

paintbrush owl-clover

• Brackish to slightly brackish 

marsh zones can include 

cattails, slough and Lyngby’s

sedge, saltmarsh bulrush, 

Baltic rush, spikerush species, 

meadow barley, and salineresistant freshwater marsh 

plants

• Both salt and brackish 

marshes are major producers 

of detritus and nutrients and 

help keep estuary function 

healthy

Potential conservation species: 

Marsh wren, fish; migratory and 

wintering shorebirds, wintering 

waterfowl, waterbirds, 

marshbirds, raptors and 

sweetgrass.

yellow flag iris, Japanese 

eelgrass, and potentially 

perennial pepperweed, 

European beachgrass and 

New Zealand mudsnail

• Pollution, oil spill, etc.,

from ocean-going tankers 

and pleasure boats using 

nearby shipping channel

• Sea level rise may cause salt 

and brackish marshes to 

flood and become open 

water habitats which would 

not benefit shorebirds

Forest • 80% multi-species overstory

cover dominated by a range 

of deciduous trees that 

includes red alder, native 

willows, cascara, Pacific 

crabapple, and other small 

trees

• 50% cover of a complex and 

dense midstory of osoberry,

salmonberry, thimbleberry,

red elderberry, twinberry, and 

other native shrubs

• The lands are former 

dredge sites and these

woodlands and forests 

have most likely grown up 

from unformed soils and 

bare ground

• These lands will most 

likely mature into a low 

elevation coastal forest 

plant community over 

time

• Climate characterized by 

• Early succession doesn’t 

produce snags or downed 

woody debris important to 

cavity-nesting birds, insects,

and many decomposers

• Invasive species such as 

knotweeds, Phragmities, 

nonnative blackberries, reed 

canarygrass, and broom 

overtake the native mid- and 

understory plant 

communities
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-9 

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, serial 

stage, species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors

And Threats

• A thick understory of 

waterleaf, waterparsley, 

swordfern, coltsfoot, and 

horsetails that completely 

covers the substrate in some 

areas and provides open soils 

in others

• A high diversity of mosses and 

lichens populate the trees and 

shrubs

• Provides migratory and 

resident passerines and other 

landbirds dense cover and 

foraging opportunities for 

insects, nectar, and seeds

Potential conservation species: 

yellow warbler. Also other

migratory passerines. 

hypermaritime (cool 

summers, very wet 

winters), abundant fog, 

and no major snow pack

• Natural disturbance 

windthrow occurs with 

occasional intense 

windstorms

• Catastrophic fires and 

extended droughts are 

infrequent

• Airport regulations may 

prevent tall trees growing 

near the runway

• Sea level rise may cause 

saline inundation of forested 

areas and cause tree decline, 

and eventually a vegetation 

conversion to a shrub-scrub 

or saltmarsh community. 

Over time water levels may 

cover the substrate long 

enough to cause mudflat to 

develop

• Contamination, pollution, 

oil spill, etc., from oceangoing tankers and pleasure 

boats using nearby shipping 

channel
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-10 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

E.2 Resources of Concern for Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Table E-3. Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern for Black River Unit of Billy Frank 

Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

Mammals

Pacific 

Townsend’s

big-eared bat*

 SoC1 SC1   S33

Little brown bat  SoC1 SM1  S53

Yuma bat  SoC1 SM1  S53

Bats roosting 

concentrations   SoC1 SM1 25 

Black bear   S53

Black-tailed deer  35 S53

Roosevelt elk  35  S53

River otter    S43

Mink   S53

Muskrat   S53

Birds

Pied-billed grebe    25 N-H 

/B-H4

S4B/

S5N3

Double-crested 

cormorant *  25  NAR4 S4B/SN53

American bittern    N-H/ 

B-H4

S4B/

S3N3

Great blue heron  SM1 25  NAR4 S4B/

S5N3

Green heron   B-L4 S5B3

Cackling goose   2,35   N-H4

SNR

B/SN

RN3

Pacific Canada 

goose   2,35   N-MH /B-H4

S5B/ 

S5N3

Wood duck   2,35  B-M4 S4B3

American wigeon   2,35  N-H4 S5N3

Mallard    2,35  N-MH 

/B-M4

S5B/

S5N3

Blue-winged teal*   2,35 BMH4 S5B3

Cinnamon teal*   2,35 DS

7

BMH4 S5B3

Northern shoveler   2,35 N-MH S4B/
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-11

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

/BML4S3N3

Northern pintail   2,35 

NH/BML4

S3B/

S4N3

Green-winged teal   2,35

NML/BMH4

S4B/

S3N3

Ringed-neck duck   2,35

NML/ 

BML4

S3N3

Hooded merganser  2,35 UNK

N

S4B/

S3N3

Waterfowl 

concentrations    2,35  N3

Bald eagle  SoC1 SS1 



+

F

  S4B/

S4N3

Northern harrier   S4B/ 

S4N3

Sharp-shinned 

hawk*   S4N3

Cooper’s hawk*  BIIa

6 S4N3

Red-tailed hawk   S5B/

S5N3

American kestrel     DS

7  S4B/

SN53

Virginia rail    N-M/ 

B-M4

S3N/

S4B3

Sora    N-H4 S4B3

American coot    25 N-L4 S4B/

S4N3

Killdeer   DS

7  42

S4B/

S4N3

Greater yellowlegs    25  4

2 S5N3

Wilson’s snipe    25  4

2 S4B3

Band-tailed pigeon   35 BI/

NI6

DS

7   S4B3

Mourning dove     35  DS

7

S4B/

S4N3

Barn owl   S4B/

S4N3

Western screech  BIIa  S4B/
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-12 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

owl* 6 S4N3

Short eared owl*  

Migrant passerines 

& landbirds  

Vaux’s swift*   SC1 BIIa

6

DS

7  S3B3

Rufous 

hummingbird     BI6 DS

7  S4B3

Belted kingfisher    DS

7 unkn

Red-breasted 

sapsucker  

BIIa

/NII

a6

S4B/

SN53

Downy 

woodpecker    S4B/S5N3

Hairy 

woodpecker* 

Northern flicker   DS

7 unkn

Pileated 

woodpecker   SC1 15   S4B/S4N3

Willow flycatcher    SoC1   BI6 DS

7  S4B3

Pacific-slope 

flycatcher  BIIa

6

DS

7  S4B3

Western Woodpewee

  DS

7 S5B3

Purple martin*   SC1 15   S3B3

Tree swallow    S5B3

Barn swallow   DS

7

S4S5

B3

Black-capped 

chickadee    S5B/S5N3

Chestnut-backed 

chickadee   

BIIa

/NII

a

6

DS

7

S5B/

S5N3

Bushtit  NII

a

6

DS

7

Marsh wren    BIIa

6  S5B3

Winter wren   S5B/

S5N3

Bewick’s wren* 

Golden-crowned 

kinglet   BIIa

6

S4S5

B3

Swainson’s thrush     DS  S5B3
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-13

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

7

Varied thrush    BIIa

6

S5B/

S5N3

Steller’s jay   S5B3

Orange-crowned 

warbler    DS

7 S5B3

Yellow warbler     S4B3

Black-throated 

gray warbler   BIIa

6 S5B3

Townsend’s 

warbler*  

BIIa

/NII

c

6

S5B/ 

S4N3

MacGillivray’s 

warbler*    DS

7  S5B3

Common 

yellowthroat   S5B3

Wilson’s warbler   BIIa

6

DS

7  S5B3

Spotted towhee   BIIa

6

S5B/

S5N3

Golden-crowned 

sparrow

  S5B3

Song sparrow   DS

7

S4B/ 

S5N3

Savannah sparrow     DS

7 S5B3

Black-headed 

grosbeak   BIIa

6

DS

7 S5B3

Western 

meadowlark*    DS

7

S4S5

B/S4

N3

Purple finch   BIIa

6

DS

7

S5B/ 

S5N3

American 

goldfinch   DS

7

S5B/ 

S5N3

Fish

Olympic 

mudminnow    SS   S2B/ SN3

Chinook salmon   SC1 15  S3B/

S4N3

Coho salmon     S33

Steelhead  T SC1 15  S53

Coastal cutthroat 

trout*    SoC1   S43

Pacific lamprey  SoC1   S3/S

43 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-14 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

Amphibians & Reptiles

Northwestern 

salamander    S53

Long-toed 

salamander  S53

Rough-skinned

newt

 S53

Pacific tree frog    S53

Red-legged frog    SoC1 SC1 S43

Oregon spotted 

frog

   T1 E1  S13

Northern alligator 

lizard  S53

Western terrestrial 

garter snake  S53

Northwestern 

garter snake  S53

Invertebrates

Oregon floater SM1  S33

Freshwater 

mussels  

Freshwater 

sponges

 unkn

Crayfish, native  unkn

Beller’s ground 

beetle*  SoC1 SC1

S3/

NNR

3

Hatch’s click 

beetle*  SoC1 SC1 S1

Pacific clubtail 

Dragonfly   S1/N43

Plants

Water howellia*  T1 T1 15 unkn

Bristley sedge  unkn

Sphagnum moss 

(bog)   unkn

Labrador Tea 

(bog)   unkn

Habitats

River channel    PR

H

  

Tributary channel    PR

H



North Pacific bog 

and fen   
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-15

Species/Habitat

Refuge Purpose BID

EH a 

CCP Priority RoC w/ Focal SpeciesESA bWashington Listed bUSFWS BCC e USFWS BMC f WDFW PHS cPartners in Flight d, m Landbirds of Or and WA nWA State Wildlife Plan gUS Shorebird Plan –PNW h 2N.A.Waterbird Conservation Plan iPacific Flyway Management Plans jNA Waterfowl 

Management Plan k

WA Natural Heritage Plani 

Freshwater 

emergent marsh    PRH

  

Seasonally flooded 

nonnative

grassland

   PR

H 

North Pacific 

shrub swamp 

   PR

H

  

North Pacific 

lowland riparian 

forest and 

shrubland

   PR

H 

  

North Pacific 

maritime drymesic Douglas-fir 

and western 

hemlock forest

   

Dry nonnative 

grassland   

* = Not documented on Refuge. Species occupies habitat adjacent to Refuge or potential suitable habitat exists on Refuge. 1 T = Threatened; E = Endangered; FC = Federal candidate; SoC = Refuge species of concern; SC = State candidate; SS = State 

sensitive; Sm = State Monitor

2 Regional score. Category codes: 5 = Highly imperiled; 4 = High concern; 3 = Moderate concern; 2 = Low concern; 1 = No risk

3 S1 = Critically imperiled; S2 = Imperiled; S3 = Rare, uncommon; S4 = Apparently secure; S5 = Demonstrably secure; SX = 

Apparently extirpated, SH = Historical occurrences, but still expected to occur. B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding, SN = Regularly 

occurring, non-breeding, SR = Reported but without persuasive documentation 4 B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding; H = High concern or need, M = Moderate concern or need, L = Low concern or need, NAR = 

Not currently at risk, TBA = To be assessed,  = included in plan 5 1 = State-listed and candidate species, 2 = Vulnerable aggregations, 3 = Species of recreational, commercial, and/or Tribal 

importance 

6 B = Breeding, N = Non-breeding: I = High continental importance, II = High regional priority, IIa = High regional concern, IIb 

= High regional responsibility, IIc = High regional threats 7 DS = Declining species

 = Species is relevant to Refuge management and on the appropriate document(s). 

+F = Species is a Bird of Management Concern as well as a Focal Species (Chapter 5) a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 (BIDEH) b U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012, 2011; Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife 2012; and Washington Department of Natural Resources 2012 . c Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008 & 2012 (State Priority species and habitats)

d Rich et al. 2004 (Partners In Flight – Landbirds) e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 (FWS Birds of Conservation Concern)

f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 (FWS Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species g Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2005 (State Wildlife Comprehensive Conservation Strategy) h Drut and Buchanan 2000 (North Pacific Coast Shorebird Plan) 

i Kushlan et al. 2002 (NA Waterbird Plan) 

j Pacific Flyway Council 1983-2007 k North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-16 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

l Washington Department of Natural Resources 2005 and 2007 (Natural Heritage Plan) 

m Rosenberg 2004 (PIF BCR – WA Level) n Altman 2005 (Conservation Priorities for Landbirds of OR and WA)

Table E-4. Table BIDEH: Natural Plant Communities at the Black River Unit: Characteristics, 

Natural Processes Involved in Sustaining Community and Limiting Factors. 

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, seral stage, 

species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors and Threats

River Channel 

and some 

Tributary 

Channels with 

Mud Bottoms 

• Habitat is confined to the 

channel portions of the Black 

River and its tributaries

• Habitat also includes a small 

ribbon of bank habitat along 

the channel

• Water flow is exceedingly 

slow

• Water depth ranges about 3–

15 feet deep in the main 

channel (depth possibly from 

dredging)

• Water tends to be stained 

brown from tannic acid

• Thick growth of submersed, 

native species such as water 

starwort, native milfoil 

species, duckweed, American 

waterweed , mosquito fern, 

and emergent plants such as 

spatterdock, smartweeds, and 

water pennywort

Potential conservation species:

Olympic mudminnow and 

cutthroat trout. Additionally, 

Oregon spotted frog, pied-billed 

grebe, purple martin, tree and 

barn swallows, belted kingfisher, 

coho and Chinook salmon, 

freshwater sponges, bat species

• Moderate to high annual 

rainfall levels (~60”/ yr) in 

winter

• Almost annual winter 

flooding

• Altered hydrologic regime 

including reduced water in 

the system from diversion 

ditches and excessive water 

well withdrawals

• Older logging practices 

allowed soil movement into 

river channel and silt to 

build up

• Loss of naturally occurring 

flood events (due to altered 

hydrologic regime) allows 

silt to build up and loss of 

cobble bottom

• Low water flow speed 

creates low dissolved 

oxygen levels

• Nonnative, invasive plant 

species including reed 

canarygrass, purple 

loosestrife, and yellow flag 

iris are changing the plant 

community and choking 

water flow

• Nearby threats not yet 

known to be in the system, 

such as New Zealand mud 

snail, hydrilla, Eurasian 

watermilfoil, parrotfeather, 

fanwort, etc. 

Tributary 

Channels with 

Cobble Bottoms 

• Tributaries run clear and 

shallow

• Some elevational incline 

provides water movement

• Cobble substrate

• Higher oxygen content water 

from riffles than is found in 

the river channel

• Cooler water temperatures 

than river channel

• Riparian overstory provides 

shade and particulate matter

• Heavy woody debris 

accumulation from natural 

sources

Potential Conservation Species: 

Coho salmon, and native crayfish 

• Moderate to high annual 

rainfall levels (~60”/ yr) in 

winter

• Unpolluted and 

undisturbed water sources 

• Intact riparian habitat in 

headwaters

• Springs near headwaters

• Altered hydrologic regime 

• Nonnative, invasive plant 

species specifically reed 

canarygrass is changing the 

associated riparian plant 

community 

• Threats not yet known to be 

in the system such as New 

Zealand mud snail, hydrilla, 

Eurasian watermilfoil, 

parrotfeather, fanwort, etc.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-17

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, seral stage, 

species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors and Threats

spp. Additionally, cutthroat trout, 

invertebrates, freshwater mussels, 

bat species.

Bog • Bogs are dictated by 

sphagnum peat soil 

presence 

• Peat soils are dominated 

by sphagnum and/or 

with living Sphagnum 

spp. over the soil surface

• Peat soils of different 

types retain water and 

provide a natural 

filtration 

• Bogs are domed in 

structure and rely on rain

to provide moisture 

• Bog species may include 

sphagnum, native bog 

cranberry, sundew, 

white beak-rush, 

Labrador tea, western 

bog laurel, and shore 

pine

Potential conservation species: 

Bog specialist species such as 

Beller’s ground beetle and 

Hatch’s click beetle. Possibly 

Oueen Charlotte’s copper 

butterfly, bristly sedge, sphagnum 

moss, Labrador tea, bog orchids, 

and possibly Pacific clubtailed 

dragonfly

• Isolated from surface 

water flow

• Fed primarily by 

precipitation and are

generally restricted to 

areas in which 

precipitation exceeds 

evapotranspiration

• Unpolluted and 

undisturbed water sources 

• Low pH and low nutrient 

levels in soils and water

• Organic material 

accumulates faster than it 

decomposes

• No fire disturbance

• Disturbance of any kind 

especially hydrologic 

changes, water loss or 

changes in water sources 

and timing

• Loss of appropriate ground 

water levels 

• High nutrient, polluted, 

contaminated, or alkaline 

waters seeping or draining 

in from surrounding 

development or land use. 

• Invasive, nonnative plants 

will change plant 

community function and 

dynamics

• Fire 

Shrub Swamp • Deciduous, tall shrublands 

dominate a wet, muddy 

substrate that is seasonally 

flooded

• Occurs adjacent to the river or 

in lowland oxbows

• Soils are poorly drained, finetextured, organic muck

• This shrub swamp grows so 

densely it could be described 

as impenetrable

• Woody plants that developed 

from clear cutting include 

Oregon ash, Pacific 

crabapple, willows, red-osier 

dogwood, ninebark, and 

spirea

• Other plants include skunk 

cabbage, touch-me-not, 

cleavers, bog violet, hedge 

nettle, water parsley, sedges, 

and horsetails

• Oregon ash snags may reflect 

• Seasonal flood conditions 

or periodic ponding or 

root zone saturation 

during the growing season

• Consistent source of 

shallow freshwater is 

essential

• Beaver and dam structures 

• Loss of seasonally 

occurring, surface covering, 

flood waters

• Water diversion, hydrologic 

changes

• Former landowner logging 

helped to convert forested 

wetland or swamp to shrub 

swamp conditions

• Fragmentation 

• Invasive, nonnative plants
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-18 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, seral stage, 

species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors and Threats

sustained flood conditions 

that cause larger growing 

shrubs to die

Potential conservation species: 

Willow flycatcher, Olympic 

mudminnow, and mink. 

Additionally, red-legged frog, 

Pacific tree frog, green heron, tree 

and barn swallows, purple martin, 

and spring migratory passerines, 

possibly Pacific clubtailed 

dragonfly

Riparian • Occurs further upland from 

the river

• Is in low-elevation, alluvial 

floodplains 

• This habitat was most likely 

logged years ago and has 

grown back with Oregon ash 

as the dominate tree along 

with ninebark, Pacific 

crabapple, black hawthorn 

and snow berry. Over time, 

big leaf maple, red alder, 

black cottonwood mixed with 

conifers will become the 

overstory with Sitka willow,

Pacific willow, red-osier 

dogwood as the midstory

Potential resources of concern: 

yellow warbler, Swainson’s 

thrush, Pacific tree frog. 

Additionally migratory passerines 

such as orange-crowned, blackthroated gray, MacGillivray’s, and 

Wilson’s warblers, black-headed 

grosbeak, rufus hummingbird,

purple martin, tree swallow, 

willow and Pacific-slope 

flycatchers, golden-crowned 

kinglet, and red-breasted 

sapsucker, northern flicker, 

pileated woodpecker, 

• Flooding and the plant 

succession that occurs 

after major flooding 

events 

• Off-Refuge water diversion 

and withdrawal prevents 

natural flooding events

• Fragmentation 

• Excess nutrient or 

contaminant runoff from 

agriculture or development

• Invasive plant species

Emergent 

Marsh

• Freshwater marshes are 

dominated by emergent 

herbaceous species in 

depressions such as 

abandoned river channels, 

isolated swales, ponds and 

land depressions

• Regular plant components 

include a wide variety of 

sedges, rushes, spike rushes, 

slough sedge, bristly sedge, 

cattails, bur-reed, tickseed, 

• Semi-permanently flooded 

between 4”- 3’ depths

• Periodic ponding or 

saturation of the root zone 

during the growing season

• Undrained hydric soils 

(muck or mineral) with 

high-nutrient water at or 

above the surface for the 

growing season

• Consistent source of 

freshwater is essential 

• Hydrologic regime 

alteration, water Ouality 

issues (i.e. temperature and 

sedimentation), increased 

nutrients, and passage 

barriers 

• Invasive, nonnative plant 

reed canarygrass has 

changed the native plant 

distribution and wildlife 

population in these areas

• System wide water loss 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-19

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, seral stage, 

species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors and Threats

water hemlock, water parsley, 

yellowcress, monkeyflower, 

and skunk cabbage

• Vegetation varies from <4” to 

20” in height

• Open patches of mud 

exposure

• A small portion of the 

emergent marsh may include 

wet prairie and associated 

species. Inventory and 

monitoring is needed to verify 

this over time

Potential conservation species: 

Oregon spotted frog, northwestern 

salamander, and marsh wren. 

Additionally, Pacific tree frog, 

red-legged frog, American bittern, 

sora, Wilson’s snipe, tree and barn 

swallows, common yellowthroat, 

purple martin, and possibly water 

howilla or bristly sedge, possibly 

Pacific clubtailed dragonfly

• Land depressions that hold 

water where surface water 

lingers creating shallow 

wetlands

reduces surface water and 

critical shallow water 

habitats

Seasonally 

Flooded, 

Nonnative

Grasslands

• Generally are former 

emergent marsh, possibly wet 

prairies that are now 

dominated by invasive RCG

• RCG was planted in former 

private lands as a pasture 

grass in moist areas to provide 

livestock forage and it thrives

• Adequate surface and river 

water availability throughout 

the seasons for maintaining 

wetland habitats and 

sustaining wildlife 

populations

Potential conservation species: 

red-legged frog, mallard, and 

greater yellowlegs, Oregon 

spotted frog, American bittern, 

sora, muskrat, American kestrel, 

Wilson’s snipe, killdeer, possibly 

water howilla, or bristly sedge

• Saturated to moist soils 

year round

• Low elevation areas, open 

with little woody growth, 

and generally are proximal 

to the aquatic bed or 

tributaries

• Invasive and nonnative

plant species such as RCG 

displace and outcompete 

native plant communities

• Area subjected to almost 

annual flood (rising water) 

conditions resulting in 5 

inches to 4 feet of standing 

water depth. Flood 

conditions may last as long 

as 3-4 months

• RCG changes plant 

community structure and 

negatively affects wildlife 

species diversity

• Lack of frequent fire (~ 3–

4 year intervals), during 

dry season

• Polluted or contaminated 

waters and possibly soils

Dry Nonnative

Grassland

• Are residual agricultural 

pasturelands of nonnative

grass and perennials such as 

timothy, quackgrass, fescues, 

foxtail, orchardgrass, 

ryegrass, velvetgrass, alfalfa, 

etc. 

• Nonnative pasture grasses 

planted in former private 

upland areas

• Low nutrient, gravelly, 

glacial outwash soils 

• Cool summers, wet 

winters

• Scot’s broom, wild chervil, 

poison hemlock, burdock, 

Himalayan blackberry, and 

other upland invasive plants

• Fire suppression 

• Forest encroachment
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-20 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Habitat & Plant 

Communities 

that Represent 

Existing BIDEH

Population/Habitat Attributes

(Age class, structure, seral stage, 

species composition)

Natural Processes 

Responsible for these 

Conditions

Limiting Factors and Threats

Potential conservation species: 

Savannah sparrow and American 

kestrel. Additionally, western 

meadowlark, western bluebird, 

lazuli bunting, tree and barn 

swallows, purple martin, killdeer, 

and mourning dove.

Mixed Forest • Most areas on the Refuge are 

early to mid-successional 

stage stands recovering from 

logging.

• Tree species generally include 

Douglas-fir and big leaf 

maple with young western 

hemlock and western red 

cedar growing in. 

• Mid-story plants include vine 

maple, red-osier dogwood, 

and osoberry. Understory 

with sword fern, salal, dull 

Oregon grape, trailing 

blackberry, twinflower, and 

vanilla leaf

Potential resources of concern: 

black-capped and chestnut-backed 

chickadees and varied thrush. 

Additionally, Steller’s jay, rufous 

hummingbird, red-breasted 

sapsucker, northern flicker, 

pileated woodpecker, varied 

thrush, Vaux’s swift, purple 

martin, tree swallow, goldencrowned kinglet, Wilson’s, 

Townsend’s, and MacGillivray’s 

warblers, Pacific tree frog

• Mild, moist climate 

• 35–100 inches of winter 

rain

• Well-drained mesic to dry 

soils 

• Mosaic structure from fire

• Habitat fragmentation

• Invasive species 

E.3 References

E.3.1 References for Grays Harbor Refuge and Black River Unit

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds In Lowlands and Valleys Of Western Oregon 

and Washington. Version 1.0. American Bird Conservancy. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

Altman, B. 2005. Conservation Priorities for Landbirds of the Pacific Coast of Oregon and 

Washington. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 

Kushlan, J.A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-21

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. Implementation Framework: 

Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 106 pp. 

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. 

Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, 

D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Rosenberg, K.V. 2004. Partners In Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives Defined at the State 

and Bird Conservation Region Levels-Washington. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Seattle Audubon Society. 2002. Seattle Audubon's Guide to the Birds of Washington State. BirdWeb 

internet site. The Science Committee of Seattle Audubon. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/birds

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Federal Register Vol. 

66, No. 10, January 16, 2001/Notices. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html

USFWS. 2005. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Focal Species Strategy for Migratory Birds. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/migbirds/focalSpecies.php

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

Virginia. 85 pp. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

USFWS. 2010a. USFWS listed species in Washington State based on published population data. Fed 

Listed Species in WA.mht. 

USFWS. 2010b. Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

USFWS. 2012. USFWS listed species in Washington State based. Accessed April 15, 2016. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html

Wahl, Terence R., B. Tweit, and S.G. Miodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of Washington, Status and 

Distribution. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. Washington’s Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Accessed 

April 14, 2016. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/

WDFW. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) List. Olympia, WA. 174 pp. Accessed April 14, 

2016. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/maps_data/
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-22 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

WDFW. 2009. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/All/

WDFW. 2012. Lists of endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, species of concern, and state 

monitor species for Western Washington. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Accessed April 18, 2016 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Western%20WA%20Species%20List%20December%202012.pdf

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2005. State of Washington Natural Heritage 

Plan 2005 Update. Olympia, WA. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plan/index.html

WDNR. 2011. List of Vascular Plants Tracked by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. 

Accessed April 19, 2011. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html 

WDNR. 2012. State of Washington Natural Heritage Program Information Systems. Accessed April 

18, 2016. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC, U.S.A. Access April 18, 2016. 

http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/

E.3.2 References for Refuge

Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, J.E. Hightower, S.T. Lindley, and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status Review for 

North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/upload/grn-sturgeon-status.pdf

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

Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic 

Resources Division and Puget Sound Program. Lacey, WA. 

Buchanan, J.B., L.J. Salzer, G.J. Wiles, K. Brady, S.M. Desimone, & W. Michaelis, 2011. An 

investigation of Red Knot Calidris canutus spring migration at Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, WA. 

Wader Study Group Bull. 118(2):97–104. 

Dobler, F.C., R.D. Spencer. 1986. Wintering Peregrine Falcon Habitat Utilization in Grays Harbor, 

WA. Wash. Dept. Game. 14 pp. 

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

US Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird 

Management, Portland, OR. 

Jeanes, E.D., C.M. Morello. 2006. Native Char Utilization Lower Chehalis River & Grays Harbor 

Estuary Aberdeen, WA. Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 73 pp. 

Kunze, L.M. and L.C. Cornelius. 1982. Baseline Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered 

Plant Species/Communities Along Washington’s Pacific Coast. Washington Natural Heritage 

Program. Coastal Zone Management Grant No. G82-029. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-23

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Species Lists. Accessed April 18, 2016. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Species-Lists.cfm. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1983. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Coast Band-tailed 

Pigeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1999a. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Cackling Canada Goose. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1999b. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Aleutian Cackling Goose. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2001. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of 

Tundra Swans. Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Subcommittee on Tundra Swans. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2002. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Brant. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2003. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of 

Greater White-fronted Geese. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, 

Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2006. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of 

Trumpeter Swans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, 

OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2007. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Dusky Canada Goose. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Program, Portland, OR. 

Sandell, T., Fletcher, J., Buehrens, T., McAninch, A., and Wait, M. 2011. Grays Harbor Juvenile 

Fish Use Assessment: 2011 Annual Report. Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group. 

Wild Fish Conservancy NW. 

Simenstad, C.A. 1994. Faunal associations and ecological interactions in seagrass communities of the 

Pacific Northwest coast. Pages 10–18 in: S. Wyllie-Echeverria, A.M. Olson, and M.J. Hershman, 

eds. Seagrass science and policy in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a seminar series (SMA 94-

1). 

Simenstad, C.A. 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific Northwest Coast: a 

community profile. FWS/OBS-83/05. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 181 pp. 

Simenstad, C.A., D.M. Eggers. 1981. Juvenile Salmonid and Baitfish Distributions, Abundance, and 

Prey Resources in Selected Areas of Grays Harbor, Washington. Fisheries Research Institute, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Final Report to Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Contract No. DACW 67-80-C-0102. 205 pp.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

E-24 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Sundstrom, C. 2008. Grays Harbor Power Line Post-Construction Study. Year 2 Report January 

2007–2008; Including Year 1 and Year 2 Combined Summaries December 2005–January 2008. 

Written for USFWS and Grays Harbor Public Utilities District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific 

Population of Western Canada Geese. Pacific Flyway Study Subcommittee. (c/o USFWS, MBMO) 

Portland, OR. Unpublished report. 

USFWS. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/PDF/Seabird%20Conservation%20Plan%20Complete.pd

f

USFWS. 2011. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1 and 2. Accessed April 18, 2016. 

http://www.fws.gov/willapa/CCP/CCP%20Process.html

Warnock, N, M.A. Bishop, J.Y. Takekawa, T.D. Williams. 2004. Pacific Flyway Shorebird 

Migration Program: Spring Western Sandpiper Migration, Northern Baja California, Mexico to 

Alaska—Final report 2004. 

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2010. NOAA Threatened and Endangered Species 

and Critical Habitat Occurring in Washington State under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Accessed April 14, 2016. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/bio_noaa.htm 

E.3.3 References for Unit

Corkran C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. A Field 

Identification Guide. Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Annotated 

Version. Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. 

Kunze, L. 1994. Preliminary Classification of Native, Low Elevation, Freshwater Wetland 

Vegetation in Western Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Natural 

Heritage Program Resource Protection. Olympia, WA. 120pp. 

Larsen, E.M., Elizabeth Rodrick, and Ruth Milner. 1995. Management Recommendations for 

Washington's Priority Species Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

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

Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Trailside Series. Seattle, WA. 

Mongillo, P.E. and M. Hallock. 1999. Washington State Status Report for the Olympic Mudminnow. 

Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl. Olympia. 36 pp. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-1 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

for implementation of the

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Grays Harbor County, Washington 

Black River Unit of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, Washington

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), as amended

The planning process has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Implementing Procedures, with Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) procedures, and in coordination with the affected public. The requirements of 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations in 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500–1508 

have been satisfied in the procedures used to reach this decision. These procedures included the 

development of a range of alternatives for the CCP, analysis of the likely effects of each alternative, 

and public involvement throughout the planning process. The start of the scoping period was 

announced through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local newspapers, the Service’s refuge 

planning website, and a planning update. The draft CCP/EA was released for a 30-day public 

comment period. The affected public was notified of the availability of the document through a 

Federal Register notice, news releases to local newspapers, the Service’s refuge planning website, 

and a planning update. Copies of the draft CCP/EA and/or planning updates were distributed to an 

extensive mailing list. In addition, the Service participated in a variety of public outreach efforts 

throughout the planning process (see Appendix J). 

The CCP is programmatic in many respects, and specific details of certain projects and actions 

cannot be determined until a later date depending on funding and implementation schedules. Certain 

projects or actions may require additional NEPA compliance. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended

The management of the archaeological and cultural resources of the Refuge and the Unit will comply 

with the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Under the proposed 

action, historic properties would be maintained and repaired as funding becomes available. 

Maintenance and improvement of historic resources would result in positive impacts to cultural 

resources; however, determining whether a particular action has the potential to affect cultural 

resources is an ongoing process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project plans are 

developed. Should additional historic properties be identified or acquired in the future, the Service 

will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the 

potential to affect any these properties.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

F-2 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review 

Coordination and consultation with affected Tribal, local and State governments, other Federal 

agencies, and the landowners has been completed through personal contact by Refuge and Unit staff,

supervisors, and/or inclusion of the appropriate entities on the CCP mailing list. 

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

As required under the Secretary of the Interior Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal Tribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), the Refuge and Unit 

acknowledge the responsibilities to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. This responsibility includes working directly with Tribes in 

developing programs for healthy ecosystems, remaining sensitive to Indian culture, and making 

information available to Tribes. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations

All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the United States. Actions in all 

alternatives were evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects were identified for 

minority or low-income populations, Indian tribes, or anyone else. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 

The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge and the Unit for wilderness designation 

through the inventory phase according to the guidelines of the Wilderness Review process as 

described in 610 FW 4. In this inventory, no areas on either Grays Harbor NWR or Black River Unit 

were found to meet the minimum wilderness criteria for size, naturalness, or outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation (see Appendix D for additional 

details).

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)

This act requires the Service to develop and implement a CCP for each refuge. The CCP identifies 

and describes refuge purposes; the vision and goals for the refuges; fish, wildlife, and plant 

populations and related habitats on the refuges; archaeological and cultural values of the refuges; 

issues that may affect populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to 

restore and improve biological diversity on the refuges; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, as required by the act.

During the CCP process, the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed uses at the Refuge

and the Unit. Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation) are considered automatically appropriate 

under Service policy and thus exempt from appropriate uses review. Compatibility determinations 

have been prepared for all uses found appropriate (see Appendices A and B). 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

This order directs agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. A provision of the order directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their activities, 

especially in reference to birds on the Service’s list of Birds of Conservation Concern. It also directs 

agencies to incorporate conservation recommendations and objectives in the North American 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-3 

Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by Partners in Flight into agency 

planning as described in Chapter 1. The effects to Refuge and Unit migratory birds’ habitats, public 

use activities, and cultural resources actions were assessed within the draft CCP/EA. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of State 

programs. Documentation is required under section 7 of the ESA. Refuge policy requires the refuge 

manager to document issues that affect or may affect endangered species before initiating projects. 

Consultation on specific projects will be conducted prior to implementation to avoid any adverse 

impacts to these species and their habitats.

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands

The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because CCP implementation would protect any 

existing wetlands. 

Integrated Pest Management. 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has 

been adopted to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species on the Refuge and the Unit. 

In accordance with 517 DM 1, only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by USEPA may be applied on lands and 

waters under Refuge and Unit jurisdiction (see Appendix G). 

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management 

Under this order, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.” The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11988 because 

Grays Harbor NWR and Black River Unit CCP implementation would maintain and enhance habitats 

located within floodplains on the Refuge and the Unit, which will minimize flood impacts and 

continue to contribute to the natural and beneficial fish and wildlife resource values unique to the 

area.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended

This act requires access to Federal facilities for people with disabilities. Access for persons with 

disabilities has been considered during the planning process and actions related to access are found in 

Chapter 2 of the CCP/EA. 

 _______________________________ _________________________ 

 Project Leader, Nisqually National Date

Wildlife Refuge Complex

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

F-4 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-1 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

G.1 Background 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) applies equally to Grays Harbor NWR and the Black River Unit. 

In this appendix, the terms “refuge” and “Refuge” refer to both Grays Harbor NWR and the Black 

River Unit. 

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control 

pest species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve 

wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive 

management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the 

refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate 

management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, sitespecific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be 

uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation 

decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of 

refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations 

thereof, would be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, 

including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, 

volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding would be considered when determining 

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies (see Section 2.0 of this CCP/EA) in 

an adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy 

requirements for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) 

entitled Integrated Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, and 

an Online Database, the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this 

draft CCP/EA: 

• Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques 

• Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this Appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses presented in 

Section 4.0 (Environmental Consequences) of this draft CCP/EA. Only pesticide uses that likely 

would cause minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental 

quality with appropriate BMPs, where necessary, would be allowed for use on the Refuge. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. Moreover, it does not address the effects of mosquito control 

with pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides). However, the basic framework to assess 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-2 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

potential effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of 

pesticides or use of insecticides for mosquito management would be similar to the process described 

in this appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 

G.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced 

wildlife and fish populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management 

objectives. Pest control on federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following 

legal mandates: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd668ee) 

• Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC 7701 et seq.) 

• Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 USC 7781-7786, Subtitle E) 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 USC 136-136y) 

• National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701) 

• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701) 

• Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136) 

• Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a) 

• Executive Order 13112 

• Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468) 

Pests are defined as “...living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“...invasive plants and introduced or native organisms that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 517 

DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this draft CCP/EA, the terms pest and invasive 

species are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife 

and habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the Refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 569 FW 

1, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following criteria are 

met:

• Threat to human health and well-being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious 

• Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available 

• Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-3 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the Refuge are the following: 

• Protect human health and well-being

• Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources 

• Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species

• Control non-native (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species

• Prevent damage to private property 

• Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the Refuge: 

 

• “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

• “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species...” 

Animal species damaging/destroying federal property and/or detrimental to the management program 

of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control Operations). 

For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., clogging with 

subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats (e.g., removing 

woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on refuge lands may be conducted 

without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their activities 

or refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. Exotic nutria, 

whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, can be 

controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest control 

proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of refuge staffs and public (e.g., auto tour routes) driving on structurally 

compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species would only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-4 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

G.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the Refuge for each pest species. 

G.3.1 Prevention

This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management option for pests. It 

encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the established pests to uninfested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to reduce the likelihood of 

infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning can be used determine if 

current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread invasive species in order to 

identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information 

about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion 

methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent re-introductions by 

various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. Because invasive species 

are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention would require a reporting 

mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick response to eliminate any new 

satellite pest populations. Prevention would require consideration of the scale and scope of land 

management activities that may promote pest establishment within un-infested areas or promote 

reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, 

prevention would involve halting the spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). 

The primary reason for prevention would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming 

infested. Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing 

pests. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge lands: 

• Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge staff 

would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity.

Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in un-infested areas before 

working in pest-infested areas.

• Refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid or 

minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of seed 

or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

• Refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation sites 

where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would clean 

equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This practice does 

not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that would remain on 

roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be collected, where practical. 

The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before 

moving it into a project area. 

• Refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in areas 

infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, 

identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-5 

• Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, inspect, 

remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their clothing and 

equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and then properly 

discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

• Refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites with ongoing restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate disturbed soil 

(except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment for each specific 

site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, 

and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use native material, where 

appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free 

hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably available. 

• Refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff would educate them 

about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures. 

• Refuge staff would require grazing permittees to utilize preventative measures for their 

livestock while on refuge lands. 

• Refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and transport onto 

and/or within refuge lands. 

• Refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance activities.

• Refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into refuge 

waters: 

• Refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating equipment. 

Where possible, the refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or mud before 

leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge staff would drain 

water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land before leaving the site. If 

possible, the refuge staff would wash and dry boats, downriggers, anchors, nets, floors of 

boats, propellers, axles, trailers, and other boating equipment to kill pests not visible at the 

boat launch. 

• Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a 100-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around culverts, 

canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff would inspect and clean equipment 

before moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were taken 

verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of US Forest Service (2005). 

G.3.2 Mechanical/Physical Methods 

These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or interfere with the reproduction 

of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tool 

(manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, 

swathing, grinding, sheering, girdling, mowing, and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based upon 50 CFR 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-6 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with federal or state laws and regulations. In some cases, nonlethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the state. 

 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial plant’s 

root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root systems, they 

may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the spread depending 

upon the target species (e.g., Canada thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be 

major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often 

would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment only. 

G.3.3 Cultural Methods 

These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality by reducing its 

suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level manipulation, mulching, winter 

cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, prescribed burning (facilitate 

revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist in emergence of desirable 

species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, crop rotations that would include non-susceptible 

crops, moisture management, addition of beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash 

disposal, planting or seeding desirable species to shade or out-compete invasive plants, applying 

fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. 

G.3.4 Biological Control Agents 

Classical biological control would involve the deliberate introduction and management of natural 

enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce pest populations. Many of the most 

ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the United States originated in foreign 

countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from natural enemies found in their country 

or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This 

competitive advantage often allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread 

economic damage to crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest 

species population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost 

prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations have 

become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost/acre, 

capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to hosts’ life 

cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts would develop resistance to agents. Disadvantages would 

include the following: limited availability of agents from their native lands, the dependence of 

control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, biotype matching, the difficulty 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-7 

and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host specificity when host populations 

are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work well 

in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to survive 

over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially understood or 

not at all.

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control agents, 

residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or survival would 

be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the population of the 

biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural cycle. Some pest 

populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a biological control 

agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the agents search 

behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include diseases, 

invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (the most common group). Often it 

is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest problems. There are 

several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive weed species in the Pacific 

Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort (Klamath weed) and tansy ragwort. 

Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple 

loosestrife and yellow star thistle. However, historically, each new introduction of a biological 

control agent in the United States has only about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to 

Coombs et al. (2004) for the status of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be selected 

as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related plants in 

their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. Except 

for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by USEPA under FIFRA, 

most biological control agents are regulated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). State departments of 

agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional 

approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113

Riverdale, MD 20737 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-8 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Or through the internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, safe, 

and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or they 

may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial sources 

should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds (USDA-PPQ 

Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in a state and/or county. 

Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, 

sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic 

contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). In 

addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic /exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates to 

the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, July 9, 1999. This 

code identifies the following: 

• Release only approved biological control agents 

• Use the most effective agents

• Document releases

• Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species and the environment 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA (e.g., Bti) 

are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental conditions 

of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control agents released; 

and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. Systematic monitoring to 

determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents 

prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases on refuge 

lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents include the Bureau of 

Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate 

by reference parts or all of existing document(s) from the review. Incorporating by reference (43 

CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a 

Service NEPA document, which only must identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. 

In addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent 

necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the 

referenced material to the current analysis. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-9 

G.3.5 Pesticides

The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of reproduction), 

the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, topography), known 

efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best management practices (BMPs) 

to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, sensitive habitats, and potential to 

contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage (pesticide, target species, application rate, 

and method of application) would comply with the applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations 

pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to 

eradicate, control, or contain pests on refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would 

be prepared and approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a detailed, 

time-, site-, and target-specific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the Refuge. All PUPs 

would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), 

which is a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records 

for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and degradation of 

surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., backpack sprayer, 

wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to apply pesticides would 

include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for 

direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized 

dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where 

access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of 

ground-based methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge lands 

and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a growing 

season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to achieve 

resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly effective, where 

practical, because pesticide-resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least expensive 

pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product would be 

selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as least potential effect to native 

species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats would be acceptable for use on 

refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

G.3.6 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance 

Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge habitats associated with achieving wildlife and 

habitat objectives would be essential for long-term prevention, eradication, or control (at or below 

threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable plant communities through the manipulation of 

species composition, plant density, and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant 

management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-10 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

components of succession could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site 

availability, species availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a 

single method (e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the 

resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species and/or 

other invasive plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, 

revegetation with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and 

accelerate plant community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame.

The selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors 

including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, 

precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of 

establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

G.4 Priorities for Treatments

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the Refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations.

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected marine 

mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts would 

focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation is not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. Essential to the 

long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of 

the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed 

methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-11

G.5 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Integrated Pest Management policy (569 FW 1), the use of applicable BMPs (where feasible) also 

would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species and/or their 

critical habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon targetand site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

G.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

• As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

• All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

• All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas.

• The refuge staff would triple rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 

• All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

• Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

• The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label.

• All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

G.5.2 Applying Pesticides 

• Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, state or BLM certification to 

safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

• The refuge staff would comply with all federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Departmental, Service, and NWRS pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific 

pest(s) identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

• Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUPs) for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other 

requirements listed on the pesticide label.

• A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-12 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

• Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

• Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct 

and uniform application rates. 

• Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

• Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

• Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

• Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7 mph and preferably 3 to 5 

mph) and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85°F). 

• Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas.

• Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

• Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift.

• If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

• Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 

hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

• Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

• Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

• For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

• When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 

• Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary 

pesticide applications. 

• The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

• Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation.

• Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE 

would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the 

potential spread of pests to un-infested areas. 

• Cleaning boots (or use rubber boots to aid in sanitation) and brush off clothing in a place 

where monitoring is feasible to control for new seed transportation. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-13

G.6 Safety

G.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE would be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and 

applying. PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves 

(latex, rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to 

concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing 

pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an 

apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers would be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and OSHA requirements, and 

Service policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical examination 

(including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of the 

respirator. 

G.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents of 

the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the Refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

G.6.3 Medical Surveillance

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically monitoring 

if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to concentrations at or 

above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 242 FW 4); use 

pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a manner that requires 

a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW7.7A, Frequent Pesticide Use

means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies pesticides, with a Health Hazard 

rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more hours in any 30-day period.” 

Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored who use pesticides infrequently 

(see section 7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short-term), or use pesticides with a health 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-14 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the individual’s health and fitness level, the 

pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from other pesticide-related activities. Refuge 

cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., state and county employees) 

would be responsible for their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

G.6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 

G.6.5 Record Keeping

Labels and material safety data sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs.

Pesticide use proposals (PUPs)

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable.

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), a refuge staff may 

receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat 

management plan (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-15

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database.

Pesticide usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other federal agencies, state and county governments, non-government 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

desiccants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides.

 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

• Pesticide trade name(s) 

• Active ingredient(s) 

• Total acres treated

• Total amount of pesticides used (lbs. or gallons) 

• Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs.) 

• Target pest(s) 

• Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS) to 

facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

G.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-16 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 7.5). These profiles would include threshold 

values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental 

fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only 

pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section 4.0) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

G.7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 

of pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in 

Section 6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and 

environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources 

can be found in Section 7.5. 

Table G-1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals to 

establish toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations 

Species Group Exposure Measurement endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50)

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of 

offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth, 

and time to swim-up.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-17

3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, evidence of 

mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

G.7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (USEPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing 

units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing 

the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological endpoints or 

published effect (Table G-1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by US Environmental 

Protection Agency (1998 [Table G-2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for 

screening potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The 

following are four exposure-species group scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological 

risk to fish and wildlife on the Refuge: acute-listed species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed 

species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (non-listed species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table G-2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse 

effects to nonlisted species. 

Table G-2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish, and mammals (USEPA 1998) 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern

Listed Species Non-listed Species

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-18 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Risk Presumption Level of Concern

Listed Species Non-listed Species

Fish 0.05 0.5

Mammals 0.1 0.5

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0

Fish 1.0 1.0

Mammals 1.0 1.0

Environmental exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the soil 

into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to lower 

soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et al. 1999, Butler et al. 

1998, Ramsay et al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993a). Pesticides which would be injected into the soil may 

also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means complete, but 

it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with transfers occurring 

continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these exchanges occur not 

only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation of pesticides over 

long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

Terrestrial exposure 

The ECC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (USEPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation 

because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon the 

proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kenaga nomogram method (USEPA 

2012, Pfleeger et al. 1996) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX)

version 1.5 (USEPA 2012). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on short grass (<20 

cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX input variables 

would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application rate (pounds 

active ingredient [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although there are 

other food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and fruits, pods, seeds and 

large insects), short grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 ppm per lb. 

ai/acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for carnivorous 

species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure through the diet of 

avian and mammalian prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a conservative 

screening tool for pesticides that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table 3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-19

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kenaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would yield 

a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table G-3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in 

research to establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984) 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1,000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

Terrestrial – granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight 

(Table G-3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and 

in-furrow applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without 

incorporation of the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of the granules 

remain on the soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat 

with the soil surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the 

soil during band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 

15% of the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1% of the 

granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-20 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2) for comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (USEPA

1998). The T-REX version 1.5 (USEPA 2012) contains a submodel which automates Kenaga

exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas would be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular 

pesticide application: 

• In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 ft.

2

/acre)/(row 

spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1,000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1,000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1,000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

• % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

• Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table G-3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

Aquatic exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-21

the Refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table 4) would be would 

be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the max 

application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 

4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during actual 

treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100% overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or the 

PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 

Table G-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of pesticides in aquatic habitats (1 

foot depth) immediately after direct application (Urban and Cook 1986) 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb)

0.10 36.7

0.20 73.5

0.25 91.9

0.30 110.2

0.40 147.0

0.50 183.7

0.75 275.6

1.00 367.5

1.25 459.7

1.50 551.6

1.75 643.5

2.00 735.7

2.25 827.6

2.50 919.4

3.00 1,103.5

4.00 1,471.4

5.00 1,839

6.00 2,207

7.00 2,575

8.00 2,943

9.00 3,311

10.00 3,678

Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-22 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-foot distance 

(buffer) from treated area to water. 

Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, US 

Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts 

or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique used to 

avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which 

only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions 

would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision 

maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current 

analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the US Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest 

Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005) and 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (BLM 2007). In accordance with 43 CFR 46.120(d), use of existing 

NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 

NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the US Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 

• 2,4-D 

• Chlorsulfuron 

• Clopyralid 

• Dicamba

• Glyphosate 

• Imazapic

• Imazapyr
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-23

• Metsulfuron methyl 

• Picloram

• Sethoxydim 

• Sulfometuron methyl 

• Triclopyr 

• Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

• Bromacil 

• Chlorsulfuron 

• Diflufenzopyr

• Diquat 

• Diuron 

• Fluridone 

• Imazapic

• Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

• Sulfometuron methyl 

• Tebuthiuron 

• Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

Assumptions for ecological risk assessments

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (2004) process. These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or underestimation of risk from pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following 

describes these assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or 

not they may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological 

risk from potential pesticide exposure. 

• Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities.

• Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (USEPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-24 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

• Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data are selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 

available, the selected data would not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

• The Kenaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kenaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to 

several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, 

years or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week exposure 

phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data are usually not 

available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is difficult to 

determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response.

• Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. 

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they would be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a 

pesticide use. The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern 

translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to 

reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and tolerance for risk. 

• The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-25

calculating TWAs would require justification and it would not exceed the duration of 

exposure in the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian 

reproduction study). An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to 

base the TWA on the application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval 

would suppress both the estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another 

alternative to using TWAs would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is 

predicted to exceed the LOC.

• Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is 

prone to “wash-off.” Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be utilized, if available. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

• Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (USEPA 2004). 

• Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kenaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion would not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists of a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted on food items. 

• Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, 

and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA (1990) 

reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable 

route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable 

particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 

microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios 

indicate that less than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. This 

route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution for 

ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop size distribution. 

• Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-26 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA 

is currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

• The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

• Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling 

dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, 

particularly with high risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they would be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

• Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to 

quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols would be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

• Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and 

mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual continuing 

education. 

• The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify.” Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th 

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-27

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared 

USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the 

USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole above-ground plant material, but others will preferentially select different plant 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

• Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

• There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized 

in the published literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment 

process. 

• It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no 

habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 

in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal.

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-28 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

• Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may 

have the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as 

ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have 

low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

• For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

• For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological conditions, 

runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

• There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location 

of pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action, effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-29

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

• USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

G.7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

• List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

• List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

• List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

• List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some of 

the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-30 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the US Forest Service (2005) found that 

mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

• TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]) 

• USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific 

papers published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms) 

• TOXLINE (a literature searching tool) 

• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers 

• Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s).

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less mobile 

and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 2003). 

Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides and 

degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a less 

toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater effects 

on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates for 

many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-31

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the Refuge. This is especially 

relevant when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an 

effect(s) associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a 

tank mix under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or 

potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In general, 

adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection of 

adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential for 

the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

G.7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996):

• Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area 

• Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind 

• Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be categorized as 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data are usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data cited 

in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data are not available, soil half-life data may be 

used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism would 

be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-32 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is expressed 

as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as micrograms of 

pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. Pesticides with 

higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in water, 

100-1,000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (USGS 2000). As pesticide 

solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula.

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4 - log10 (Koc)]

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 would have a very 

high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure because 

pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water solubility, 

t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide Properties 

Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were derived from 

the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making (Wauchope et 

al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface): 

• Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

• Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-33

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

• Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

• Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

• Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would run off rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which effects pesticide degradation. 

• Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality.

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

• Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be 

dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides 

in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The 

rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide 

concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also 

would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), 

which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the 

mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly 

the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching 

would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to 

runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

• Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. 

In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

• Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-34 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it is persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

G.7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (OSU 1996). Vapor pressure values for pesticides 

are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) pesticide database. 

G.7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data are available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 

determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

5.0), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any 

application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In 

some cases, the Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the Refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-35

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, desiccant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, piscicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA Establishment 

Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. No. for each 

trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components usually 

contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications,” “Exposure Control/Personal Protection,” and 

“Regulatory Information.” If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-36 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

G.7.7 Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data are available in references” would be recorded as the 

data entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) 

would be cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would 

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-37

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 

Table G-1 in Section 7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, 

or EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate 

species available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green 

algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test 

species for aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

G.7.8 Ecological Incident Reports

After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be exposed to these chemical(s). When 

exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed 

(incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. The USEPA maintains a database 

(Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. This database stores information 

extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and state agencies and non-government 

organizations. Information included in an incident report is date and location of the incident, type and 

magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of 

contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and cholinesterase activity analyses 

conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

G.7.9 Environmental Fate

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1,000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (USGS 2000). As pesticide Sw increases, 

there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-38 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical’s mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see 

Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is 

the most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data are 

not available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative 

half-life value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis 

for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-39

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential 

to degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

 

If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the following: nonpersistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-40 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential<1.0, low - 1.0 to 2.0, moderate - 2.0 to 3.0, 

high - 3.0 to 4.0, or very high>4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move off-target 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor pressure that 

is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. Vapor 

pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure would 

be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure 

index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides 

with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (OSU 1996). Vapor pressure values for 

pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-41

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect 

air quality. 

If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

• Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

• Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments.

• Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85o

F.

• Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

• Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during 

or after application. 

 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (USGS 2000). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-42 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application rate 

of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis)”. This 

table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (USEPA 2004). For each max application rate [see 

description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service personnel would record 2 

EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case terrestrial and aquatic 

exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For terrestrial and 

aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under Presumption of Unacceptable 

Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in a 

Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 7.2 for 

discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body using 

the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 

2.01 under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate 

(acid basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section 7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kenaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.5. T-REX input variables would 

include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life (days) in 

soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items for 

terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-43

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section 7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be used 

to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with Levels of Concern (LOCs) established by 

USEPA (see Table G-2 in Section 7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in 

brackets inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable 

risk) to federally listed (T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section 7.2 for detailed descriptions 

of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species:

• Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs

• For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label provides the appropriate 

information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information for 

a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-44 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative 

effort of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, 

Cornell University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management 

Unit, Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, 

Forest Health Protection, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of the Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department 

of Energy; and Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture (http://infoventures.com/ehlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center 

(http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm) 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, 

Inc. (CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained 

by agrichemical companies 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada, Ontario, Canada (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and 

Registration Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

(http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The 

Invasive Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy 

(http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. US Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, 

D.C. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, DC 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-45

Chemical Profile

Date:

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical 

Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration 

Number:

Pesticide Class: CAS Number:

Other Ingredients:

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50:

Mammalian LC50:

Mammalian Reproduction:

Avian LD50:

Avian LC50:

Avian Reproduction:

Fish LC50:

Fish ELS/Life Cycle:

Other:

Ecological Incident Reports

Environmental Fate

Water solubility (Sw):

Soil Mobility (Koc):

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2):
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-46 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Soil Dissipation (DT50):

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2):

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50):

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg):

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: BAF:`

BCF:

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application 

Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae 

basis)

Habitat Management:

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance:

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management):

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management):

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance):

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) 

Species

Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-47

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments:

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) 

Species Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]

Justification for Use:

Specific Best 

Management Practices 

(BMPs):

References:

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name

Trade 

Namea

Treatment 

Typeb

Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre)

Max 

Product 

Rate -

Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - 

AI on acid 

equiv basis)

Max Number 

of 

Applications 

Per Season

Max Product 

Rate Per 

Season 

(lbs/acre/sea

son or 

gal/acre/seas

on) 

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Applications 

(Days)

a

From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel 

would record application information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands. 

b

Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is 

labeled for both types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-48 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

G.8 References 

AgDrift. 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology. 

62 pp. (+ appendices). 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. Presentation at the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, April 2000, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495. Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application 

for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 15 pp. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and transformation 

products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743–756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375–382. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land 

Management. Washington, D.C. 539 pp. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 

54:77–88. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2. University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service. 

Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: Lewis

Publishers. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological control. Pages 245–263 in: D. 

Simberloff, D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown, eds. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of 

nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-49

Coombs, E.M., J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203–210. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. Cave Creek, AZ: Eldon Publishing. 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, 

University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State 

University. 4 pp. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381–1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201–222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. Corvallis, OR. 4 pp. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension Service. 

Corvallis, OR. 8 pp. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502–517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392–403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1–9 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24–29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009–1021. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-50 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An invasive species assessment 

protocol: evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, 

Arlington, VA. 40 pp. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive plant 

species. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Issue Paper (13):1–18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kenaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535–543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA, and Iowa Department of 

Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington—protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644.Washington State 

University Extension. Pullman, WA. 12 pp. 

SDTF 2003 (Spray Drift Task Force 2003). 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies.

Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

Spartina Task Force. 1994. Spartina Management Program: Integrated Weed Management for Private 

Lands in Willapa Bay, Pacific County, Washington. Unpublished report prepared for the Noxious 

Weed Board and County Commissioners, Pacific County, WA. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 1997. A user’s guide for

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of pesticides. Technical Note 

No. 95-10. CDI. Princeton, NJ. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. AgDRIFT®: 

a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 21:659–671. 

Urban, D.J. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC. 94 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to 

microbial pest control agents by the respiratory route to nontarget avian species. EPA/600/3-90/070. 

Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 82 pp. 

USEPA. 1998. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from pesticides and their uses: 

background, methodology and case study. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 105 pp. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-51

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and threatened species effects 

determinations. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. 101 pp. 

USEPA. 2012. User’s guide TREX v1.6. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/t-rex-version-15-users-guide-calculating-pesticide. Accessed April 19, 

2016. 

USEPA. 2012. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment: Available at

https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/technical-overview-ecologicalrisk-assessment-risk. Accessed April 19, 2016. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and 

managing invasive plants final environmental impact statement. U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR. 

359 pp. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota—current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. US Geological Survey. 

Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. 

Washington State Noxious Weed Board. 2010. Common cordgrass (Spartina angilca). Available at

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/detail.asp?weed=129. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Washington State Noxious Weed Board. 2010. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica ssp. 

dalmatica). Available at http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/detail.asp?weed=85. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Washington State Noxious Weed Board. 2010. Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). Available at: 

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/detail.asp?weed=84. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Washington State Noxious Weed Board. 2010. Lawn burweed (Soliva sessilis). Available at

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/detail.asp?weed=125. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992.The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1–155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 8 pp. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

G-52 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-1 

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

H.1 Abbreviations 

Below is a list of the most common acronyms and abbreviations within this CCP document. 

a.i. Active Ingredient 

Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

 (also Improvement Act or NWRSIA) 

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

AM Adaptive Management

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

AUD Appropriate Use Determination 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCR Bird Conservation Region 

BIDEH Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health

BMC Birds of Management Concern

BMP Best Management Practice

BP Before Present 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CD Compatibility Determination

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement 

CMP Conceptual Management Plan

COE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRBAP Chehalis River Basin Action Plan 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program (Washington State) 

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DOI Department of the Interior 

DM U.S. Department of the Interior Manual 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

DSL Department of State Lands

EA Environmental Assessment

EE Environmental Education

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

E.O. Executive Order 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-2 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Ecological Significant Unit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register

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

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GHPUD Grays Harbor Public Utility District 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GHCNWB Grays Harbor County Noxious Weed Board 

GLO Government Land Office

IBA Important Bird Area 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(also Act, NWRSIA) 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Pest Management

LE Law Enforcement

LPP Land Protection Plan 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LCD Landscape Conservation Design 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

LWD Large Woody Debris 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity System 

MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

MBCF Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MHW Mean High Water

MHHW Mean Higher High Water

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

MMS Maintenance Management System

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph Miles per Hour 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NAS National Audubon Society 

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

NAWCP North American Waterbirds Conservation Plan 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-3 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPCRSCP Northern Pacific Coast Region Shorebird Conservation Plan 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRC National Wildlife Refuge Complex

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

NWRSIA National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

OSF Oregon Spotted Frog 

PBRO Point Reyes Bird Observatory 

PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture 

PFMP Pacific Flyway Management Plan

PIF Partners in Flight 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

PPP Preliminary Project Proposal 

PPT Parts Per Thousand 

PUD Public Utilities District

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal

PUPS Pesticide Use Proposal System

R1 Region 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plan 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RCG Reed Canarygrass

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RM Refuge Manual 

RM River Mile

RNA Research Natural Area

ROC Resource of Concern 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System

ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right-of-Way

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance and Management System

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

SCP Seabird Conservation Plan 

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

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model

SOC Species of Concern 

SUP Special Use Permit
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-4 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

T&E Threatened and Endangered Species 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TCNWCB Thurston County Noxious Weed Control Board 

TESS Federal Threatened and Endangered Species list

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

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

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USSCP U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

WAP Washington Wildlife Action Plan

WCC Washington Conservation Corps

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WFWO Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (of USFWS)

WHSRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

WPA Works Progress Administration 

WRIA Water Resources Inventory and Assessment 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSSC Washington State Service Corps 

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

WTHP Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 

USSCP U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-5 

H.2 Glossary

Accessible. Without fences or vegetative barriers (tall, dense vegetation) at its margins.

Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that 

uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Alternative. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

The “no action” alternative is current refuge management, while the “action” alternatives are all other 

alternatives.

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following 

four conditions: 

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of the USFWS Appropriate 

Use Policy (Service Manual 603FW1). 

Approved Acquisition Boundary. National wildlife refuge boundary approved by the National or 

Regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director for potential acquisition of lands by the Service. 

Approved Refuge Boundary. A national wildlife refuge boundary approved by the National or 

Regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director. Within this boundary, the Service may negotiate 

with landowners to acquire lands not already owned by the Service (Modified from Region 1 

Landowner Guide, USFWS Division of Refuge Planning). 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and culture 

(Webster’s II). 

Benefiting Resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for a resource of concern. 

Big Six. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the Refuge System Improvement Act that 

receive priority consideration in planning: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

Birds of Conservation Concern. A category assembled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Birds identifying the migratory and nonmigratory species (beyond those 

already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Division’s highest 

conservation priorities (FWS, Division of Migratory Birds). 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the variety 

of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-6 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

they occur (Service Manual 601FW3). The Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities (Service Manual 601FW3). 

Bog. A slightly domed, low-nutrient, and low-pH plant system which grows on sphagnum peat. The 

system depends on low-nutrient rainfall for its moisture. Plants growing in these sensitive wetlands 

are specifically adapted to these severe conditions and are uncommon elsewhere. 

Bulkhead. A man-made wall-like structure whose primary purpose is to hold or prevent sliding of soil 

caused by erosion and wave action. In Grays Harbor, a bulkhead was constructed in the 1940s to hold 

rock and soil. The entire bulkheaded area eventually was filled and became Bowerman Airport. 

Candidate Species (Federal). Fish, wildlife, or plant species for which the Service or NOAA has on 

file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA, but the proposal is precluded by other priorities. 

Candidate Species (State). Fish, wildlife, or plant species that a state will review for possible listing 

as a state-endangered, -threatened, or -sensitive species. A species will be considered for designation 

as a state candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that its status may meet the listing criteria defined 

for state-endangered, -threatened, or -sensitive.

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

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

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

1508.4).

Channel. Channel habitat is where water flows within the confines of river or tributary banks and 

includes the nearby edges of the gently sloped bank. 

Compatibility Determination. A written determination signed and dated by the refuge manager and 

regional chief signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible 

use or is not a compatible use. The Director makes this delegation through the Regional Director 

(Service Manual 603 FW 2). 

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

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

the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge (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. A plan that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge 

or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where 

appropriate, restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and 

the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if 

appropriate; and meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-7 

Concern: See Issue.

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move 

across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of 

appropriate vegetation. 

Conservation Targets (also see Resources of Concern; Priority Species, Species Groups, Focal 

Species, and Communities). Term used by land management agencies and conservation 

organizations to describe the resources (ecological systems, ecological communities, species, species 

groups, or other natural resources) selected as the focus of conservation actions (Adapted from Low, 

Functional Landscapes 2003). 

Consumptive Use. Recreational activities such as hunting and fishing that involve harvest or 

removal of wildlife or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

Contaminants or Environmental Contaminants. Chemicals present at levels greater than those 

naturally occurring in the environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes that 

potentially result in changes to biota at any ecological level (USGS, assessing EC threats to lands 

managed by USFWS). Pollutants that degrade other resources upon contact or mixing (Adapted from 

Webster’s II). 

Cooperative Agreement. An official agreement between two parties. 

Cover. The estimated percent of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, occupied by a particular 

plant species.

Cover Type. The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways that 

connect us to our Nation’s past (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources). 

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

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

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

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

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

eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 

FW 1.7). 

Deciduous. Describes trees and shrubs which shed all their leaves each year. 

Direct Loss. Loss of food or habitat when nonnative species outcompete native species.

Dissolved Oxygen. The concentration of oxygen dissolved in water, expressed in mg/l or as percent 

saturation, where saturation is the maximum amount of oxygen that can theoretically be dissolved in

water at a given altitude and temperature.

Distinct Population Segment (DPS). A subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a 

species for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be so recognized, a potential 

DPS must satisfy standards specified in a Service or NOAA policy statement (See the February 7, 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-8 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

1996, Federal Register, pages 4722-4725). The standards require it to be separable from the 

remainder of and significant to the species to which it belongs. 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition, or of the behavior of wildlife. 

May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused (e.g., aircraft overflight) events. 

Ecological Attribute. A characteristic or condition required to support the life history, habitat, 

physical processes, or community interaction of conservation targets. 

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

associated nonliving environment. 

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

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

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely.

Effect (Impact). A direct result of an action which occurs at the same time and place, or an indirect

result of an action which occurs later in time or in a different place and is reasonably foreseeable, or 

the cumulative results from the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other 

actions (40 CFR 1508.8). 

Emergent Vegetation. Herbaceous plants that require a water environment to grow for at least part 

of their life cycle, stem structure is rigid and self-supporting, and vegetative growth continues above 

the waterline. 

Endemic. A species that is native to the area in which it is found; a species confined to a specific 

region.

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

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

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

an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed written statement required by section 102(2) (C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action, 

adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short term uses of 

the environmental versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-tern productivity, and any 

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

Endangered Species (Federal). An animal or plant species 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 a state 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.
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-9 

Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (Service Manual 601FW3). 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native 

species.

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

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

Ethnography. The study and systematic recording of human cultures; a descriptive work produced 

from such research. 

Exotic Species. A species from another part of the state or the world that does not occur naturally in 

an area. A nonnative species, either plant or animal (see nonnative, invasive, nuisance, noxious). 

Executive Order. A President's or Governor's declaration which has the force of law, usually based 

on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature. 

Experimental Population. A population (including its offspring) of a listed species designated by a 

rule published in the Federal Register that is wholly separate geographically from other populations 

of the same species. An experimental population may be subject to less stringent prohibitions than 

are applied to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. 

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). 

Floodplain. A flood plain is an area of relatively level land—usually bordering a lake, stream, or 

river—that gets inundated with water from time to time. The flood plain includes the floodway, the 

border area of land that normally gets inundated during annual or 10-year floods, and the floodway 

fringe, which may get inundated during a 100-year or 500-year flood (WDOE).

Focal Conservation Target. A suite of conservation targets that for purposes of planning are sorted 

and condensed to represent threats to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the 

refuge level. 

Focal Species. Those species whose ecological requirements are used to define quality habitat (on a 

refuge), to measure habitat conditions and ecological processes, and maintain the range required by 

the species and many other species using the same habitats. 

Forb. An herbaceous, flowering plant that is not a grass, sedge, or rush. 

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

purpose but does not define measurable units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

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

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-10 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

Habitat Connectivity (also Landscape Connectivity). The arrangement of habitats that allows 

organism and ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are 

either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation. 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that provides refuge managers with a decision-making process; 

guidance for the management of refuge habitat; long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for 

habitat management on refuge lands (Service Manual Habitat Management Planning policy 

620FW1.4). 

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

processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Historic Conditions. Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human-related changes to the landscape. (Service Manual 601FW3)

Hydrology. A science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below 

the earth’s surfaces and in the atmosphere. 

Hydrograph. A graph of water flows in a river or stream. A hydrograph provides a way of seeing 

seasonal and yearly changes in the flow or discharge of a waterway. 

Hydroperiod. A segment of a hydrograph for a specific time frame. 

Important Bird Area. A site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of bird and that 

is recognized as being important on a global, continental, or state level. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the 

status of the key ecological attribute. Something that serves as a sign or symptom. 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an approved refuge boundary that are not owned by the Service. 

These can be private lands or lands owned by city, county, state, or other Federal agencies. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The use of pest and environmental information in conjunction 

with available pest control technologies to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most 

economical means and with the least possible hazard to persons, property, and the environment (U.S. 

EPA Pesticide Glossary). 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating 

explanation. Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources 

(yourdictionary.com). 

Interpretive Trail. A trail with informative signs that provide factual and stimulating explanations 

of what the visitors see, hear, feel, or otherwise experience while on the trail. 

Intertidal Mudflat. Expanses of silt, mud, or sandy mud affected by rising and falling tides. They 

are often components of estuaries and are revealed when the tide goes out. 

Invasive. Nonnative species (plant or animal) disrupting and replacing native species and disrupting 

ecological function and processes (thebiotechdictionary.com) (see exotic, nonnative, nuisance). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-11

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 

Inviolate Sanctuary. The original intent of the term inviolate sanctuary is found in the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (first passed in 1918 as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and amended in 1934 

and 1938). This Act originally required that all refuges be inviolate sanctuaries and deemed refuges’ 

primary purposes were as breeding grounds and habitat for migratory birds. Migratory bird hunting 

was prohibited on migratory waterfowl areas by the Act, but most other human uses were not 

addressed. The 1938 amendment to the Act gave refuge managers authority to decide if, when, and 

how bird hunting would be allowed. After World War II, public demand for opening refuges to 

recreation increased. The 1949 Duck Stamp Act allowed waterfowl hunting on refuges, but restricted 

the percentage of each refuge open to hunting. Current policy states that portions of a refuge are 

considered “inviolate sanctuaries” if they were (a) acquired with the approval of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission (MBCC) for the purpose of an inviolate sanctuary; (b) acquired with 

MBCC approval or Land and Water Conservation Funds to protect a threatened or endangered 

species; or (c) established by an instrument or document which states the intent to manage the area as 

an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” or to fulfill the purpose of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. Policy further allows migratory game bird hunting on no more than 40 percent of 

the area considered inviolate sanctuary if compatible with a refuge’s purposes and mission. Inviolate 

sanctuary classification imposes no limits on hunting nonmigratory birds, fur bearers, or other game 

species.

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Key Ecological Attributes. Those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or 

patterns of biological structure and composition, that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of 

the target. These key ecological attributes are further divided into measurable indicators. 

Keystone Species. Species who enrich ecosystem function in a unique and significant manner 

through their activities, and the effect is disproportionate to their numerical abundance. Their 

removal initiates changes in ecosystem structure and often loss of diversity. These keystones may be 

habitat modifiers (i.e., cottonwood or beaver), predators (i.e., puma or coyote) or herbivores (i.e., 

prairie dog) (Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan). 

Land Protection Plan (LPP). A plan detailing the protection, via acquisition of fee-title, easement, 

lease, cooperative agreement, or other means, of a given land parcel to protect important natural 

resource values on the land. An LPP is prepared by the Service to evaluate the needs, goals, and 

appropriate strategies for implementing land protection. 

Legacy Data. Historic or past data collected from surveys, monitoring, or study projects conducted 

upon refuges. 

Listed Species (Federal). Species that have been formally listed under the Endangered Species Act 

as threatened or endangered. Also includes candidate and proposed species. An endangered species is 

one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened 

species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Candidate species 

include those taxa for which there is sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened. Proposed species include taxa for which the Service or NOAA has 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-12 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

published a proposal to list as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. (Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office).

Macrophyte. A macrophyte may be an emergent, submergent, or floating type of aquatic plant. Its 

ecological significance is to provide cover for fish and act as substrate for aquatic invertebrates, as 

well as to produce oxygen and serve as food for some fish and other wildlife. 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structures, and capitalized equipment necessary 

to realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; 

periodic condition assessment; periodic inspections, adjustment, lubrication, and cleaning 

(nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and 

other actions to assure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Maintenance Management System (MMS). A national database of refuge maintenance needs and 

deficiencies. It serves as a management tool for prioritizing, planning, and budgeting purposes 

(RMIS descriptions). 

Mean High Water. The average level of the surface of the river, as used as a standard in 

determining land elevation or sea depths. 

Mean Higher High Water. The average of the two high waters of any tidal day (24-hr period). 

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

Migratory Birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 CFR 10.13 (Service Manual 720 FW 1, 

Policies and Responsibilities of the Migratory Bird Program). 

Mixed Forest. Mixed forest is a habitat type in uplands that consists of a group of native plant 

species in a layered structure appropriate to this Puget Sound lowland area. The forest includes native 

deciduous and coniferous trees, a midstory of small trees and shrubs, and an understory of 

herbaceous ground cover plants. 

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

Monoculture. Vegetation composed primarily of a single species, such as areas dominated by 

invasive weeds. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies 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 (40 CFR 1500). 

Native Species. A species that naturally or historically occurs in a particular ecosystem. 

National Natural Landmark. A nationally significant natural area that has been designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior. To be nationally significant, a site must be one of the best examples of a 

type of biotic community or geologic feature in its physiographic province. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-13

National Register of Historic Places. The Nation’s master inventory of known historic properties 

administered by the National Park Service. Includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts 

that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the national, 

state, and local levels (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources). 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System, excluding coordination areas (Service Manual 601 FW1.3). 

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; 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. A Federal law creating the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and stating its 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 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (Public Law 114-38). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 A Federal law that amended and 

updated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668) (Public 

Law 105-57). 

Naturalized. A nonnative plant or animal that has been established for so long it is sometimes 

considered part of the native flora and fauna. 

Neotropical migrant. A bird that winters in southern Mexico, Central or South America, or the West 

Indies and migrates northward to breed in North America. 

Nonnative Grasslands. Upland areas formerly used for agricultural purposes such as pastures and 

include a mixture of nonnative pasture grasses and herbaceous plants. 

Nonnative Species. An introduced species that did not naturally occur in an area prior to 

Euroamerican settlement of the Americas. 

Nonconsumptive recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal, or 

consumption of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources. 

Nonpoint Source. Coming from more than one location. Frequently refers to pollution or erosion 

that comes from a widespread area and accumulates in streams and rivers. 

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

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

serious insect or disease; or nonnative, 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 has adverse 

effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to the public health. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-14 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

Nuisance Species. An aggressive or difficult to manage species that impairs plant community 

function or natural processes. Usually a noxious, nonnative, or invasive species of plant or animal. 

Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable (Service 

Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of facilities and equipment. Costs such as 

utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, janitorial services, window cleaning, rodent and pest 

control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, waste management, and personnel costs for operating 

staff are generally included within the scope of operations. 

Open Water. A habitat type that may include ponds, freshwater lakes, oceans, or estuaries. 

Regarding an estuary, it is the area of water that remains in the estuary regardless of tidal exchange 

processes. 

Outreach. Providing information to the public on a specific issue through the use of the media, 

printed materials, and presentations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The Pacific 

Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. 

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

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Peat. The least decomposed of all organic soil material. Peat contains a large amount of wellpreserved fiber that is readily identifiable according to botanical origin. Peat has the lowest bulk 

density and the highest water content at saturation of all organic soil material. Peat forms in 

bottomland hydric soils and in the Black River these are the Semiahmoo and Mukilteo muck soils. 

Planning Team. The primary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and others who play a key role in 

developing and writing the CCP. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a planning team leader, refuge manager, and staff biologists, a state 

natural resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). We also include other natural resource agencies to provide 

team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the CCP and appropriate NEPA 

documentation (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

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

layers of vascular species in a climax community (e.g., Oregon white oak/ovalleaf viburnum/poison 

oak plant association). 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species that is unique in its composition, occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences, reflects or integrates the environmental influences on 

the site, such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall, and that 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community (e.g., Oregon white oak woodland). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-15

Port of Grays Harbor. State legislation established the laws that would allow communities like 

Grays Harbor to form their own public port. Founded in 1911, PGH district was founded and is 

governed by three elected commissioners. 

Parts Per Thousand (Ppt). A measure of salinity in oceans, estuaries, river mouths, and other 

waters. 

Preferred Alternative. The alternative determined to best achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and 

goals; to best contribute to the Refuge System mission; to best address the significant issues; and to 

be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Preplanning. The first phase of comprehensive conservation planning. It includes identifying the 

planning area and data needs, establishing the planning team and planning schedule, reviewing 

available information, preparing a public involvement plan, and conducting internal scoping. 

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, where compatible, are defined under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (See Big Six). 

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

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

Priority species include: 

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; 

3) Species of recreation, commercial, and/or Tribal importance. 

Proclamation. The official designation of the reason(s) a particular national monument was 

established and the purposes for which it is to be managed. 

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

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

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

may not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Public Land Order. Public lands consist of that class of land remaining from the original public 

domain that was acquired by the United States by treaty, purchase, or cession from a foreign power. 

Public Use Area. A designated area within a refuge that is open to the public. 

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

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

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs 

required to meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal mandates. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-16 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

It is used as a planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and staffing needs of 

the Refuge System. 

Refuge Purpose(s). 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, refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Research Natural Area (RNA). Special designation areas on national wildlife refuges established to

(1) Preserve examples of major ecosystem types or other outstanding physical or biological 

phenomena; (2) Provide research and educational opportunities; and (3) Preserve a full range of 

genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals, including endangered or threatened 

species. 

Resource of Concern (ROC). All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities 

specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), Refuge System mission, or international, national, 

regional, state, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a 

resource of concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect “migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.” 

Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of 

concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts (FWS Habitat Management Planning 

policy, 620 FW1.4). 

Restoration/Restore. The act of bringing back to a former or original condition (Webster’s II). 

Riparian Forest. A wooded habitat between upland and aquatic habitats. The forest is higher in 

elevation than a swamp, but has seasonally wet or moist soils. The forest is generally composed of 

more deciduous than conifer trees and has a species-rich and dense mid- and understory. 

River Mile. The river is measured and numbered by mile, from the river mouth (starting number 0) 

to the head waters. 

Salmonid. A category of elongate, boney fishes that have the last three vertebrate upturned, such as 

salmon, steelhead, and trout. 

Salt and Brackish Marsh. Emergent wetlands growing on the edge of the mudflat up to the highest 

tide lines and are frequently inundated with tidal (saline) water depending on tide height. Salt marsh 

plants are adapted to and tolerant of higher saline levels ranging from moderate to essentially that of 

sea water (18- to 30-ppt salt). Brackish marshes need greater freshwater inputs to reduce the intensity 

of marine water levels (0.5 to 18 ppt salt). 

Scoping. Engaging State, local and tribal governments and the public in the early identification of 

concerns, potential impacts, relevant effects of past actions, and possible alternative actions. 

Outreach is used to notify the public of the opportunity to participate. 

Seasonally Flooded, Nonnative Grasslands. Low-lying lands flooded from October to May that are 

dominated by the aggressive, dense, and nonnative reed canarygrass. Most likely farmers established 

reed canarygrass in these floodplain sites to provide livestock forage. 

Seral. Of or relating to an ecological sere; a seral stage. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary H-17

Shrub Swamp. Freshwater wetlands found in broad low-lying zones where soils are poorly drained, 

fine-textured organic muck, and the substrate is permanently saturated or underwater during 6 

months of the year. The habitat is dominated by shrubby native plants adapted to very wet conditions 

that can grow into virtually impenetrable thickets. 

Significant Effect. Use of the term in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity (40 

CFR 1508.27). Context means the significance of an action must be analyzed in its current and

proposed short- and long-term effects on the whole of a given resource (e.g., affected region). 

Intensity refers to the severity of the effect.

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

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Source. An extraneous factor that causes stress (the most proximate cause) (TNC 2000). 

Species of Concern. An informal term referring to a species determined by a refuge or fish and 

wildlife office to be in need of conservation action. This could include a need for periodic monitoring 

of populations and the threats to the species and its habitat. Such species receive no legal protection, 

and use of the term does not imply that a species will eventually be proposed for Federal listing. 

Step-down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

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

meet unit objectives (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Stress. The impairment or degradation of a key ecological attribute for a conservation target (TNC 

2000). 

Sweetgrass. Also known as “common three-square bulrush.” Its current scientific name is 

Schoenoplectus pungens; its former scientific name was Scirpus americanus. This sedge (not a grass) 

is a component of basket weaving in Pacific Northwest Native American cultures. 

Threatened Species (Federal). An animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

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

the near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Turbidity. A level or measurement of water clarity based on particles suspended in the water. 

Vegetation Type (Also Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type, Plant Community). A land 

classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes and other mandates. 

The vision statement for a refuge is tied to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of a 

refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; and other mandates (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

H-18 Appendix H. Abbreviations and Glossary

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Water Quality. A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

Watershed. The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature 

that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often 

a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River basin, contain thousands of smaller watersheds. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the 

growing season of each year (Service Manual 660 FW 2; Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 

public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. The Service will also consider these 

other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take 

precedence. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors I-1 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors

I.1 Planning Team Members 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan was developed primarily by a core planning team. Team 

members are the primary strategists, analysts, and writers, and attended all team meetings. To avoid 

scheduling and logistical conflicts, the core team had a limited number of participants. 

The extended team, which included professionals from several different agencies, organizations, and 

Service programs, played a supporting role to the core team. Extended team members provided 

critical input early in the alternatives development process, and continued to provide review and 

comment as the document evolved. They attended periodic planning meetings, and provided 

comments on portions of the plan within their areas of expertise. In addition, content specialists from 

other agencies, universities, or organizations were contacted as needed by members of the core and 

extended teams for specific planning needs. Core and extended team members are listed below. 

The following Service personnel served as core planning team members for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan: 

Name and title Degree(s) Organization

Glynnis Nakai, Refuge Manager MS, Wildlife Biology

BS, Zoology 

USFWS Nisqually NWRC

Jean Takekawa, Former Refuge Manager BS, Wildlife Biology USFWS Nisqually NWRC 

(retired)

Doug Roster, Deputy Refuge Manager BS, Wildlife Biology USFWS Nisqually NWRC

Marian Bailey, Wildlife Biologist MS, Biology 

BS, Wildlife Biology

USFWS Nisqually NWRC

Sheila McCartan, Visitor Services Manager BS, Environmental 

Education 

USFWS Nisqually NWRC

Rebecca Young, Former Conservation 

Planner

BS, Natural Resource 

Management

USFWS/Region 1/Branch 

of Planning

Khemarith So, Conservation Planner MS, Resource Ecology and 

Management

BS, English and 

Environmental Science

USFWS/Region 1/Branch

of Planning 

Brian Root, Wildlife Biologist BS, MS, PhD, Wildlife 

Biology

USFWS/Region 1/

Inventory and Monitoring 

The following personnel served as extended planning team members for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan:

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Jonathan Bloomfield, Realty Specialist, Lands 

Division, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Region 1, replaced

Realty analysis, review of related sections in 

document, assisted with verifying map accuracy 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

I-2 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Dave Allen, Realty Specialist, Division of Realty 

and Refuge Information, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Region 1

Brad Bortner, Chief, Migratory Birds and Habitat 

Programs, USFWS Region 1 (departed)

General guidance on migratory bird planning

Joseph Buchanan, Natural Resource Scientist, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subject matter expert on shorebird ecology, raptors, 

estuary habitats

Erin Carver, Economist, USFWS Economic analysis

Rex Crawford, Ecologist, Washington Natural 

Heritage Program, Washington Department of 

Natural Resources (retired)

Subject matter expert on habitat descriptions and 

ecology 

Liz Cruz, Geographer, Lands Division, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, replaced

Tom Miewald, Geographer, Lands Division, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Development of working, public involvement, and 

document maps; GIS data gathering and analysis

Joe Engler, Assistant Regional Refuge Biologist, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Lead reviewer of biological goals/

objectives/strategies; AUFs and CDs; IPM

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner, Assistant Regional 

Refuge Biologist and Regional IPM Coordinator, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Reviewer of IPM; mosquito management

Kevin Foerster, Regional Refuge Chief , National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, replaced,

Robin West, Regional Refuge Chief , National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1 (retired)

Major decisions on CCP direction, CCP/EA and 

Federal Register Notice approvals

Glenda Franich, Visitor Services and 

Communication, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Region 1

Document and related products (e.g., planning 

update) print management; CCP cover design

Brock Hoenes, Wildlife Biologist, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subject matter expert on invasive species; reviewer

Jeff Holm, Chief, Branch of Transportation, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Review of transportation-related goals/

objective/strategies

Kay Kier-Haggenjos, Technical Writer/Editor, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Processing Federal Register notices; development of 

related products (e.g., planning updates); website 

management 

Charles Houghten, Chief, Lands Division, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

CCP advisor for realty, planning policy and 

guidance; reviewer

Linda Kunze, Washington Department of Natural 

Resources (retired)

Subject matter expert on wetland habitats, rare 

species; scientific information gathering; preliminary 

writing and documentation

Judy Lantor, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration, 

USFWS Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Subject matter expert on grassland, prairie habitats
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors I-3 

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Region 1

Deanna Lynch, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 

Listing and Recovery, USFWS Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office, Region 1

Subject matter expert on Oregon spotted frog 

ecology, wetland habitats, invasive species, resource 

management

Mike Marxen, Branch Chief ,Visitor Services, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Visitor services review and guidance on public use 

goals/objectives/strategies; assistance with related 

alternatives development workshop

Scott McCarthy, Branch Chief, Conservation 

Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Region 1

CCP advisor for planning policy and guidance; 

planning workload priorities; coordination with other 

divisions; reviewer

Nicole McCarthy, Technical Writer/Editor,

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Technical edit and review of CCP; pre-print 

production

Virginia Parks, Archaeologist, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Region 1

Cultural and historic resources goals/

objectives/strategies and affected environment and 

environmental consequences

Sylvia Pelizza, Refuge Supervisor, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, replaced

Bob Flores, Refuge Supervisor, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1 (retired)

Assist with coordination; reviewer of document and 

related products; guidance on overall process and 

components 

Miranda Plumb, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration, 

USFWS Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Region 1

Subject matter expert on fish, aquatic habitats; 

reviewer 

Kayla Saville, Park Ranger, Nisqually National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex (departed)

Gathering preliminary information; draft writing, 

organizing, and documentation

Michelle Tirhi, District Wildlife Biologist, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Subject matter expert on Oregon spotted frog, 

wetland habitats, invasive species, grasslands, elk, 

resource management

Brad Thompson, Division Manager, Listing and 

Recovery, USFWS Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Region 1

Subject matter expert on fish, freshwater 

invertebrates, aquatic habitats; advised on 

communications and interpretation

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1

Final decision-maker, CCP/EA and Federal Register 

Notice approvals

Kim Trust, Deputy Regional Refuge Chief, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, 

replaced

Ben Harrison, Deputy Regional Refuge Chief

(formerly Division Chief, Natural and Cultural 

Resources), National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Region 1, (retired)

CCP advisor

CCP advisor, reviewer of policy, AUF, CDs, and 

wilderness
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

I-4 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Contributors
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix J. Public Involvement J-1 

Appendix J. Public Involvement

J.1 Summary of Public Involvement 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and 

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge began in 2010. A core team 

and an expanded team were formed to guide development of the CCP. However, CCP development 

was not restricted to just these teams: we also held workshops and meetings with local, State, and 

Federal agencies, other organizations, and the public. 

Public scoping was initiated in 2011 to help us to further identify issues and priorities to consider 

during CCP development. The first planning update was published and distributed on May 6, 2011, 

to a mailing list of approximately 500 recipients. A press release was also sent to 25 media sources 

for distribution. In addition, the planning update was posted on the Refuge and Unit websites and 

copies were available at public open houses, along with a comment form. 

The Service held two public open houses: May 18, 2011, in Aberdeen, Washington, and May 19, 

2011, in Littlerock, Washington. Press releases notifying the public of the open houses were sent to 

several daily newspapers (including The Daily World and The Olympian). In addition, The Daily 

World and The Olympian published articles regarding the planning meetings. 

At each open house, the Nisqually NWR Complex project leader gave a brief presentation and 

explained the CCP process; the Refuges and Unit purposes and current management; and preliminary 

management issues, concerns, and opportunities that had been identified early in the planning 

process. At the end of the presentation, Refuge and Unit staff were stationed at tables to write down 

comments and questions on flipchart. A total of 44 private citizens and representatives from various 

organizations attended the open houses, providing comments on the issues and opportunities 

presented. Eight people attended the open house in Aberdeen and 36 people attended in Littlerock. 

In addition to comments recorded by staff during the public open house meetings, a total of 18 

written responses were received from individuals or organizations from May 6 through June 2011. 

Ten of these were comment forms returned by mail or fax, at the public meetings, or hand delivered 

to the Refuge or Complex. Five comments/letters were sent via email and three were letters received 

through the postal service. 

On June 8, 2011, a notice of intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and associated 

NEPA document was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 33339). 

The Service provided newsletters and planning updates at strategic points during the planning 

process to keep the public updated. The mailing list grew from the initial scoping of approximately 

300 recipients to over 470 recipients. To date, the three planning updates distributed to the public 

included: 

• Planning Update 1 (May 2011): Announced the start of public scoping for the CCP. 

• Planning Update 2 (December 2012): Provided information on public comments received 

during public scoping. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

J-2 Appendix J. Public Involvement

• Planning Update 3 (June 2013): Provided the preliminary management alternatives.

J.2 Issues Identification during Public Scoping

The preliminary issues distributed with Planning Update 1 and presented during the public open 

house meetings in 2011 posed the following questions for Grays Harbor NWR:

• Habitat Management and Restoration. What actions are needed to sustain and restore 

priority species and habitats over the next 15 years? How is sedimentation affecting

shorebird habitat quality? What will the effects of climate change and sea level rise have on 

Refuge habitats and species?

• Invasive Species Control. Invasive plant species degrade habitat quality for shorebirds, 

migratory birds, and many other fish and wildlife species. Invasive animals may compete 

with native fish and wildlife for limited resources. How can we reduce the incidence and 

spread of invasive species? 

• Visitor Services and Education Opportunities. Wildlife observation, interpretation, 

photography, and environmental education are provided at Grays Harbor NWR. How can we 

improve these services and programs? What visitor services facilities are needed or planned? 

What volunteer programs and partnerships can be developed or strengthened to improve 

outreach and education? Trespassing, vandalism, and other illegal activities take place at the 

Refuge. What can be done to reduce these activities and improve wildlife and habitat 

protection? 

Additional public issues, concerns, and opportunities raised during public scoping included the 

following:

• Hunting and Fishing Opportunities. Are there opportunities to provide hunting and/or 

fishing at the Refuge? 

• Contaminants. What can be done to address potential sources and impacts of contaminants 

on and around the Refuge? 

The preliminary issues distributed with Planning Update 1 and presented during the public open 

house meetings in 2011 posed the following questions for the Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge:

• Land and Water Protection. What actions are needed to sustain and restore priority species 

and habitats over the next 15 years? How can we help improve habitat protection and 

connectivity and reduce habitat fragmentation? How can we improve water quality and 

quantity in the Black River system for fish and wildlife?

• Habitat Management and Restoration. Most habitats have been altered by human actions 

and are in need of management and restoration to increase value as fish and wildlife habitat. 

What actions will help provide important information on key species, habitat composition, 

and the management prescription needed for the Black River Unit? What will the effects of 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix J. Public Involvement J-3 

climate change and sea level rise have on Unit habitats and species? How can we enhance 

Oregon spotted frog recovery? 

Invasive Species Control. Invasive plant species degrade habitat quality for migratory birds, 

fish, amphibians, and many other forms of fish and wildlife. Nonnative animals may compete 

with native fish and wildlife for limited resources. How can we reduce the incidence and 

spread of invasive species? 

• Visitor Services and Education Opportunities. The Black River Unit has remained largely 

closed because of the fragmented nature of current Unit land ownership. Trespassing, 

vandalism, and other illegal activities take place. How can we reduce these activities and 

improve wildlife habitat and protection? What wildlife-dependent priority public uses should 

be considered at the Unit?

Additional public issues, concerns and opportunities raised during public scoping included the 

following: 

• Visitor Facilities/Enhancements (Boats and River Access). What opportunities are there for 

improving access to Black River, boat launching, and parking on the Unit?

• Education, Outreach, and Volunteer Programs. What opportunities are there for providing 

environmental education, interpretation, and outreach activities focused on the Black River 

Unit? How can partnerships and volunteers be developed to support visitor service 

programs?

• Hunting and Fishing. Are there opportunities to provide hunting and/or fishing? 

• Conservation Partnership. How can the Service develop a coordinated approach with other 

groups and agencies including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, United States 

Coast Guard, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Soil Conservation Service, Thurston County, Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological 

Services, law enforcement agencies, Capitol Land Trust, and The Nature Conservancy to

plan and manage for the protection, restoration, and interpretation of lands and waters 

within the Black River corridor? 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

J-4 Appendix J. Public Involvement
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-1 

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species 

This is a list of species that have been documented to be currently on the Refuge, or are strongly 

suspected to be. More species are expected to be added upon conducting additional baseline 

monitoring, surveys, and scientific studies. 

Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Waterfowl

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Brant Anser albifrons

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Gadwall Anas strepara

Eurasian Wigeon* Anas penelope

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Northern Shoveler Ana clypeata

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

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

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-2 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Pheasants, Grouse

Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Loons 

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica

Common Loon Gavia immer

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Pelicans, Cormorants, Herons 

Brandt’s Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

American Bittern^ Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Green Heron^ Butroides virescens

Raptors,Vultures 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

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

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Gyrfalcon^ Falco rusticolus

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Rails, Coots, Cranes

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

American Coot Fulica americana

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatrarola
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-3 

Common Name Scientific Name

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica

Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macuaria

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Willet Catotrophorus semipalmatus

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotus

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria

Gulls, Terns, Jaegers

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia

Heerman’s Gull Larus heermanni

Mew Gull Larus canus brachyrhynchus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Western Gull Larus occidentalis

California Gull Larus californicus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Thayer’s Gull Larus thayeri

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens

Glaucous-winged X Western (*Hybrid ) Larus sp.

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Common Murre Uria aalge
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-4 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata

Doves, Pigeons

Rock Pigeon* Columba livia

Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata

Eurasian Collared-Dove^* Streptopelia decaocto

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Owls

Western Screech-Owl Otus kennicottii

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Short-eared Owl^ Asio flammeus

Northern Saw-whet Owl^ Aegolius acadicus

Swifts, Hummingbirds

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi

Rufous Hummingbird Selaphorus rufus

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher^ Megaceryle Alcyon

Woodpecker

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Flycatchers

Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Pacific-slope Flycatcher E. difficilis

Shrikes, Vireos

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii

Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Jays, Crows

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Northwest Crow Corvus caurinus

Common Raven Corvus corax

Larks, Swallows

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-5 

Common Name Scientific Name

Chickadees and Allies

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla

Chesnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus

Creepers, Wrens

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii

Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Thrushes, Pipits

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius

Waxwings, Starlings

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris

American Pipit Anthus rubescens

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Warblers

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

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

Towhee, Sparrows

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-6 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Tanager, Grosbeak

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Blackbirds

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater

Finches

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

House sparrow* Passer domesticus

Accidentals

Bean Goose Anser fabalis

Ross's Goose Chen rossii

Arctic Loon Gavia arctica

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Great Egret Ardea alba

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus

Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica

Surfbird Aphriza virgata

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata

Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus

Little Gull Larus minutus

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorcarius parasiticus

Common Murre Uria aalge

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-7 

Common Name Scientific Name

Black Swift Cypseloides niger

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii

Horned lark (streaked) Eremophila alpestris

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

Bear, Black Urus americanus

Cottontail, Eastern ^* Sylvilagus floridanus

Deer, Columbian Black-tailed Odocoileus heminous columbianus

Oppossum^*, Virginia Didelphis virginiana

Otter, River Lontra canadensis

Squirrel*, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata

Weasel, Short-tailed (Ermine) Mustela erminea

Fish

Common Name Scientific Name

Anchovy^ Engraulis mordax

Bacaccio^ Sebastes pacispinis

Blenny, Snake Lumpenus saggitta

Cabezon^ Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

Char Native (Bull Trout)^ Salvelinus confluentus

Cod^, Pacific Gadus macrocephalus

Dogfish^, Spiny Squalus acanthias

Eelpout^ Lycodes species

Euhaclon^ (Pacific Smelt) Thaleichthys pacificus

Flounder^, Starry Platichthys stellatus

Goby^, Arrow Clevelandia ios

Greenling^, Kelp Hexagrammos decagrammus

Gunnel^, Crescent Pholis laeta

Gunnel^, Saddleback Pholis ornata

Herring^, Pacific Clupea harengus
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-8 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Lamprey^, Pacific Lampetra tridentata

Lingcod^ Ophiodon elongatus

Mackerel^, Pacific Trachurus symmetricus

Market Squid^ Loligo opalescens

Peamouth^* Mylocheilus caurinus

Perch^, Shiner Cymatogaster aggregata

Perch^, Surf Embiotocids 

Pikeminnow^*northern Ptychocheilus oregonensis

Pipefish^, bay Syngnathus leptorhynchus

Ratfish^ Hydrolagus colliei

Rockfish ^, Black Sebastes melanops

Rockfish^, Brown Sebastes auriculatus

Rockfish^, Copper Sebastes caurinus

Rockfish^, Quillback Sebastes maliger

Sablefish^ Anoplopoma fimbria

Salmon, Chinook^ Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Salmon, Chum^ Oncorhynchus keta

Salmon, Coho^ Oncorhynchus. kisutch

Sanddab^, Pacific Citharichthys sordidus

Sandlance^, Pacific Ammodytes hexapterus

Sardine^, Pacific Sardinops sagax

Sculpin ^, Pacific staghorn Leptocottus armatus

Shad^*, American Alosa sapidissima

Shark^, Soupfin Galeorhinus galeus

Skate^, California Raja inornata

Smelt, Longfin Spirinchus thaleichthys

Smelt^, Surf Hypomesus pretiosus

Sole^, English Parophrys vetulus

Sole^, Sand^ Psettichthys sp.

Steelhead^ Oncorhynchus. mykiss

Stickleback^,Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus

Sturgeon^, Green Acipenser medirostris

Surfperch^, Walleye Hyperprosopon argenteum

Tomcod^, Pacific Microgadus proximus

Trout^, Coastal Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki clarki

Whiting^, Pacific Merluccius productus
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-9 

Plants

Common name Scientific name

Trees

Alder, Red Alnus rubra

Cascara Rhamnus purshiana

Cottonwood, Black Populus trichocarpa

Crabapple, Oregon Malus fusca

Dogwood, Pacific Cornus nuttallii 

Mountain-ash*, European

(or Rowan tree) Sorbus aucuparia

Willow Species Salix species

Willow, Hooker's Salix hookeri

Willow, Scouler's Salix scouleriana

Willow, Sitka Salix sitchensis

Shrubs, Brambles, Vines

Bindweed^ Convolvulus arvensis

Blackberry*, Himalayan Rubus discolor

Blackberry*, Evergreen Rubus laciniatus

Blackberry, Trailing Rubus ursinus

Broom*, Scotch Cytisus scoparius

Bush^*,**, Butterfly Buddleia davidii

Elderberry, Red Sambucus racemosa

Huckleberry, Evergreen Vaccinium ovatum

Ivy^, English Hedera helix

Laurel, Spurge^,* Daphne laureola

Plum, Indian Or Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis

Rose, Nootka Rosa nutkana

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis

Spirea, Douglas' Spiraea douglasivar. d.

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus

Twinberry Lonicera involucrata

Forbs (Herbaceous)

Angelica, Kneeling Angelica genuflexa 

Angelica, Sharptoothed Angelica arguta

Arrow-grass, Seaside Triglochin maritimum

Aster, Douglas ^ Aster subspicatus

Avens, Oregon Geum macrophyllum

Bittersweet* Solanum dulcamara

Bulrush, Saltmarsh Scirpus maritimus

Bulrush, Small-fruit Scirpus microcarpus

Buttercup*, Creeping Ranunculus repens

Buttercup, Celeryleaf Ranunculus sceleratus

Canarygrass*, Reed Phalaris arundinacea
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-10 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common name Scientific name

Cat's-ear*, Spotted Hypochaeris radicata

Cattail, Common Typha latifolia

Chickweed*, Common Stellaria media

Cleavers Galium aparine

Clover*, Alsike Trifolium hybridum

Clover*, Least Hop Trifolium dubium

Clover*, Red Trifolium pratense

Clover*, White Trifolium repens

Clover, Springbanks Trifolium wormskjoldii

Cow-Parsnip Heracleum lanatum

Dandelion*, Common Taraxacum officinale

Dock*, Bitter Rumex obtusifolium

Dock*, Curly Rumex crispus

Dock, Golden Rumex maritimus

Dodder, Salt-marsh Cuscuta salina

Dunegrass, American Elymus mollis

Eelgrass Zostera marina

Eelgrass*, Japanese 

 (Or Asian/Narrow Blade/Dwarf) Zostera japonica

Foxglove* Digitalis purpurea

Gumweed^ Grindelia integrifolia

Iris*, Yellow Flag Iris pseudacorus

Jaumea Jaumea carnosa

Knotweed*,** (Japanese, Giant, Bohemian,

Himalayan, & Hybrids) Polygonum species

Miners Lettuce, Common^ Claytonia perfoliata

Miners Lettuce, Siberian (Or Western SpringBeauty Or Candyflower) Claytonia sibirica

Nipplewort* Lapsana communis

Orache / Goosefoot* Atriplex patula

Paintbrush Owl-clover Orthocarpus castillejoides

Parentucellia*, Yellow Parentucellia viscosa

Pea, Beach Lathyrus japonicus

Pepperweed^,*,**, Perennial Lepidium latifolium

Pickleweed Salicornia virginica

Plantain*, English Plantago lanceolata

Plantain, Seaside Plantago maritima

Sea Rocket*, European Cakile maritima

Sea Rocket, American Cakile edentuala

Sea Watch Angelica lucida

Silverweed, Pacific Potentilla pacifica

Sorrel^, Sheep Rumex acetosella

Sowbane Chenopodium hybridum
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species K-11

Common name Scientific name

Sow-thistle^*, Prickly Sonchus asper

Speedwell, American Veronica americana

Spike-rush, Common Eleocharis palustris

Spurry, Sand Spergularia spp

St. John's-wort*, Common Hypericum perforatum

Starwort, Longstalk Stellaria longipes

Tansy^*,**, Common Tanacetum vulgare

Teasel^*,**, Common Dipsacus sylvestris

Thistle*,**, Canada Cirsium arvense

Thistle*.**, Bull Cirsium vulgare

Touch-Me-Not Impatiens noli-tangere

Vetch, Common Vicia sativa

Vetch, Giant Vicia gigantea

Waterleaf, Pacific Hydrophyllum tenuipes

Water-parsley, Pacific Oenanthe sarmentosa

Water-starwort, Pond Callitriche stagnalis

Willow-herb*, Watson's Epilobium watsoniivar w.

Yarrow, Common Achillea millefolium

Sedges, Rushes

Bullrush, Saltmarsh Scirpus maritimus

Bulrush, Small-Fruit Scirpus microcarpus

Rush, Baltic Juncus balticus

Rush, Soft Juncus effusus

Sedge, Lyngby's Carex lyngbyei

Sedge, Sawbeak Carex stipata

Sedge, Slough Carex obnupta

Spike-rush, Common Eleocharis palustris

Sweetgrass Schoenoplectus pungens

Grasses

Canarygrass*, Reed Phalaris arundinacea

Cordgrass*, **Smooth Spartina alternifolora

Cordgrass*,**Dense- Flowered Spartina densiflora

Dunegrass, American Elymus mollis

Grass, Orchard Dactylis glomerata

Grass, Salt Distichlis spicata

Grass, Tufted Hair Deschampsia caespitosa

Reed*, Common Phragmites communis

Fern And Allies

Fern, Deer Blechnum spicant

Fern, Northern Lady Athyrium filix-femina

Fern, Spreading Wood Dryopteris austriaca

Fern, Sword Polystichum munitum
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

K-12 Appendix K. List of Grays Harbor NWR Species

Common name Scientific name

Horsetail, Field Equisetum arvense

Horsetail, Giant Equisetum telmateia

Key: 

All plants or animals were actual biological observations except those with a ^ character.

^ indicates probable plants or animals that may be within the Refuge boundary

* indicates nonnative plants or animals

** indicates nonnative/invasive plants or animals that are priority to control 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-1 

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species 

This is a list of species that have been documented to be currently on the Unit or are strongly 

suspected to be. More species are expected to be added upon conducting additional baseline 

monitoring, surveys, and scientific studies. 

Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Waterfowl

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Eurasian Wigeon^* Anas penelope

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Northern Shoveler Ana clypeata

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Pheasants, Grouse

California quail Callipepla californica

Ring-necked Pheasant^* Phasianus colchicus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Dusky Grouse Dendragapus obscurus

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Pelicans, Cormorants, Herons

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Green Heron Butroides virescens

Raptors, Vultures 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk^ Accipiter striatus

Cooper’s Hawk^ Accipiter cooperii

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-2 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Name Scientific Name

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Rails, Coots, Cranes

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

American Coot Fulica americana

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatrarola

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Long-billed Dowitcher^ Limnodromus scolopaceus

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata

Gulls

Gull spp.

Doves, Pigeons 

Rock Pigeon^* Columba livia

Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata

Eurasian Collared-Dove^* Streptopelia decaocto

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Owls

Barn Owl Tyto alba

Western Screech-Owl^ Otus kennicottii

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Short-eared Owl^ Asio flammeus

Northern Saw-whet Owl^ Aegolius acadicus

Swifts, Hummingbirds

Vaux’s Swift^ Chaetura vauxi

Rufous Hummingbird Selaphorus rufus

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle Alcyon

Woodpecker

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker^ Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher^ Contopus cooperi

Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-3 

Common Name Scientific Name

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Pacific-slope Flycatcher E. difficilis

Vireos

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii

Hutton’s Vireo^ Vireo huttoni

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Corvids

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Common Raven Corvus corax

Swallows

Purple Martin Progne subis

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Chickadees and Allies

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla

Chesnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus

Creepers, Wrens

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Pacifc Wren Troglodytes pacificus

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet^ Regulus calendula

Thrushes, Pipits

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius

Waxwings, Starlings

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-4 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Warblers

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

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

Towhees, Sparrows

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Fox Sparrow^ Passerella iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Golden-crowned Sparrow^ Zonotrichia atricapilla

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Tanager and Allies

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Lazuli Bunting^ Passerina amoena

Blackbirds

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark^ Sturnella neglecta

Brewer's blackbird^ Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater

Bullocks Oriole Icterus bullockii

Finches

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Red Crossbill^ Loxia Curvirostra

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow* Passer domesticus

Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus

Bat, California Myotis californicus
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-5 

Common Name Scientific Name

Bat^, Keen’s Myotis keenii

Bat, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus

Bat, Long-eared Myotis evotis

Bat, Long-legged Myotis volans

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans

Bat, Townsend's Big-eared^ Plecotus townsendii

Bat, Yuma Myotis yumanensis

Bear, Black Ursus americanus

Beaver Castor canadensis

Beaver^, Mountain Aplodontia rufa

Bobcat^ Lynx rufus

Chipmunk, Townsend's Tamias townsendii

Cottontail*, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus

Cougar^ Puma concolor

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer, Columbian Black-tailed Odocoileus heminous columbianus

Elk, Roosevelt Cervus elaphus

Mink Neovison vison

Mole, Coast Scapanus orarius

Mole^, Townsend’s Scapanus townsendii

Mole, Shrew Neurotrichus gibbsii

Mouse, Deer Peromyscus sp.

Mouse^, Pacific jumping Zapus trinotatus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Nutria* Myocastor coypus

Opossum^*, Virginia Didelphis virginiana

Otter, River Lontra canadensis

Shrew, Dusky Sorex monticolus

Shrew^, Masked Sorex cinereus

Shrew^, Trowbridger's Sorex trowbridgii

Shrew, Vagrant Sorex vagrans

Shrew, Water Sorex bendirii

Skunk^, Spotted Spilogale gracilis

Skunk^, Striped Mephitis mephitis

Squirrel, Douglas Tamiasciurus douglasii

Squirrel*, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis

Vole, Creeping Microtus oregonii

Vole^, Gapper’s red-backed Clethrionomys gapperi

Vole^, Long-tailed Microtus longicaudus

Vole, Townsend's Microtus townsendii

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata

Weasel, Short-tailed (Ermine) Mustela erminea
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-6 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Woodrat^, Bushy-tailed Neotoma cinerea

Reptiles and Amphibians

Common Name Scientific Name

Boa^, Rosy Charina bottae

Frog*, Bull Rana catesbeiana

Frog, Pacific chorus (Or Pacific tree frog) Hyla regilla

Frog, Red-legged Rana aurora

Frog, Oregon spotted Rana pretiosa

Lizard, Northern Alligator Elgaria coerulea 

Lizard^, Western fence Sceloporus occidentalis

Newt, Roughskin Taricha granulosa

Salamander, Long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum

Salamander, Northwestern Amybstoma gracile

Snake, Garter Thamnophis sp.

Snake^, Gopher Pituphis catenifer

Turtle*, Red-eared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans

Turtle^*, Painted Chrysemys picta

Fish

Common Name Scientific Name

Bass*, Largemouth Micropterus salmoides

Bass^*, Smallmouth Micropterus dolomieu

Bass*, Rock Ambloplites rupestris

Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus

Bullhead*, Brown Ameiurus nebulosus

Crappie*, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatas

Dace, Speckled Rhinichthys osculus

Lamprey, Pacific Lampetra tridentata

Lamprey, Western Brook Lampetra richardsoni

Lamprey^, Pacific Lampetra tridentata

Lamprey^, Western Brook Lampetra richardsoni

Mudminnow, Olympic Novumbra hubbsi

Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus

Perch*, Yellow Perca flavescens

Pikeminnow*, Northern Ptychocheilus oregonensis

Pumpkinseed* Lepomis gibbosus

Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Salmon, Chum Oncorhynchus keta
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-7 

Common Name Scientific Name

Salmon, Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch

Sculpin, Prickly Cottus asper

Sculpin, Reticulate Cottus perplexus

Sculpin, Riffle Cottus gulosus

Sculpin, Torrent Cottus rhotheus

Shad*, American Alosa sapidissima

Shiner, Redside Richardsonius balteatus

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

Stickleback, Three-spined Gasterosteus aculeatus

Sturgeon, Spp Unknown Acipenseridae

Sucker, Largescale Catostomus macrocheilus

Trout, Cutthroat (Anadromous) Oncorhynchus clarki

Trout, Cutthroat (Resident) Oncorhynchus clarki

Trout, Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

Trout^*, Rainbow Oncorhynchus mykiss

Whitefish, Mountain Prosopium williamsoni

Mussels and Sponges

Common Name Scientific Name

Floater, Oregon Anodonta oregonensis

Sponge, Freshwater (no common name). Spongilla lacustris

Crayfish, Signal Pacifasticus leniusculus

Plants

Common Names Scientific Names

Trees

Alder, Gray Alnus incana 

Alder, Red Alnus rubra 

Apple, Cultivated* Pyrus malus

Ash, Oregon Fraxinus latifolia 

Aspen, Quaking Populus tremuloides

Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 

Cedar, Western Red Thuja plicata

Cherry*, Sweet Prunus avium

Cherry, Bitter Prunus emarginata

Cottonwood, Black Populus balsamifera

Crabapple, Pacific Malus fusca

Dogwood, Pacific Cornus nuttalli

Fir, Douglas Pseudotsuga menziesii 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-8 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Names Scientific Names

Fir, Grand Abies grandis

Hemlock, Western Tsuga heterophylla

Holly*, English Ilex aquifolium

Locust*, Black Robinia pseudoacacia

Madrone Arbutus menziesii

Maple, Big-leaf Acer macrophyllum

Oak, Garry (Or Oregon) Quercus garryana

Pear*, Cultivated Pyrus communis

Pine, Lodgepole Pinus contorta

Pine, Ponderosa Pinus ponderosa

Plum*, Cultivated Prunus domestica

Spruce, Sitka Picea sitchensis

Willow, Geyer Salix geyeriana

Willow, Hooker Salix hookeriana

Willow, Pacific Salix lucida

Willow, Scouler's Salix scouleriana 

Willow, Sitka Salix sitchensis

Shrubs, Brambles, Vines

Birch, Bog Betula glandulosa 

Bittersweet*, European Solanum dulcamara

Blackberry*, Evergreen Rubus laciniatus

Blackberry*, Himalayan Rubus armeniacus

Blackberry, Trailing Rubus ursinus

Blueberry*, Cultivated Vaccinium sp.

Bog-laurel, Western Kalmia microphylla

Broom*, Scot's (Or Scotch) Cytisus scoparius 

Bush*,** Butterfly Buddleia davidii

Cranberry, Highbush Viburnum edule

Cranberry,Bog Vaccinium oxycoccus

Currant, Wax Ribes divaricatum

Dogwood, Red-Osier Cornus sericea 

Elderberry, Red Sambucus racemosa

Hawthorn*, Ornamental Crataegus sp.

Hazel, Beaked Corylus cornuta 

Holly*, English Ilex aquifolium

Honeysuckle, Bearberry Lonicera involucrata

Honeysuckle, Orange Lonicera ciliosa. 

Huckleberry, Red Vaccinium parvifolium

Ivy*, English Hedera helix

Ivy*, Irish Hedera hibernica

Juniper*, Ornamental Juniperus sp.

Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-9 

Common Names Scientific Names

Labrador-Tea Ledum groenlandicum

Laurel^*,** Spurge Daphne laureola

Lilac* Syringa sp.

Maple*, Japanese Acer palmatum

Maple, Vine Acer circinatum

Nightshade*, Black Solanum americanum

Ninebark, Pacific Physocarpus capitatus

Ocean-spray Holodiscus discolor 

Oregon-grape, Dull Berberis nervosa 

Oregon-grape, Tall Berberis aquifolium 

Plum, Indian Oemleria cerasiformis

Rhododendron*, Ornamental Rhododendron sp.

Rose*, Ornamental Rosa sp.

Rose, Baldhip Rosa gymnocarpa 

Rose, Clustered (Or Swamp) Rosa pisocarpa

Rose, Nootka Rosa nutkana 

Salal Gaultheria shallon 

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia

Snowberry, Common Symphoricarpos albus 

Snowberry, Creeping Symphoricarpos hesperius 

Spirea, Douglas' Spiraea douglasii 

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 

Twinflower, Western Linnaea borealis 

Forbes (Herbaceous)

Aster, Douglas Aster subspicatus

Baneberry Actaea rubra

Bedstraw, Small Galium trifidum 

Bedstraw, Sweetscented Galium triflorum 

Beggar-ticks, Nodding Bidens cernua 

Bindweed*, Field Convolvulus arvensis

Bindweed*, Hedge Convolvulus sepium

Bleeding Heart, Pacific Dicentra formosa

Brooklime, American Veronica americana 

Bugleweed, Northern Lycopus uniflorus 

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis

Burdock*,** Common Arctium minus

Bur-reed, Narrow-leaved Sparganium angustifolium 

Buttercup*, Creeping Ranunculus repens 

Buttercup, Western Ranunculus occidentalis 

Campion*, Bladder Silene vulgaris

Carrot, Wild Daucus carota
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-10 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Names Scientific Names

Cat's-Ear*, Hairy [Spotted] Hypochaeris radicata

Chamomile*, Stinking Anthemis cotula

Chervil*, Burr Anthriscus caucalis

Chervil*,** Wild Anthriscus sylvestris

Chicory Chicorium intybus

Cinquefoil, Marsh Potentilla palustris

Cleavers Galium aparine

Clover*, Red Trifolium pratense

Clover*, White Trifolium repens

Colt's Foot Petasites palmatus

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum

Corydalis, Scouler's Corydalis scouleri

Cottongrass Eriophorum chammisonis 

Creeping Charlie* Glechoma hederacea

Cudweed*, Marsh Gnaphalium uliginosum

Currant, Wax Ribes divaricatum

Dandelion*, Common Taraxacum officinale

Dock*, Curly Rumex crispus

Dock, Western Rumex occidentalis

Duckweed, Small Lemna minor

Fairy-Bell, Hooker Disporum hookeri 

False Lily-of-the-Valley Maianthemum dilatatum

False Solomon-Seal, Star-flowered Smilacina stellata

Fireweed* Epilobium angustifolium

Forget-me-Not, Small Water Myosotis laxa

Foxglove* Digitalis purpurea

Fringecup Tellima grandiflora.

Gentian, King Gentiana sceptrum

Ginger, Wild Asarum caudatum

Goldenrod, Canada Solidago canadensis

Groundsel*, Wood Senecio vulgaris

Hawksbeard*, Smooth Crepis capillaris 

Hedge-Nettle , Cooley's Stachys cooleyae

Hemlock*,**, Poison Conium maculatum

Hogweed^*,** Giant Heracleum mantegazzianum

Inside-out Flower Vancouveria hexandra

Iris*,** Yellow flag Iris pseudacorus

Knapweed^* Spp. Centaurea spp.

Kneeling Angelica Angelica genuflexa 

Knotweed*,** (Japanese, Giant, Bohemian, 

Himalayan, & Hybrids) Polygonum spp.

Ladysthumb*, Spotted Polygonum persicaria
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-11

Common Names Scientific Names

Lamb's-quarters Chenopodium album

Lettuce*, Prickly Lactuca serriola

Letuce, Wall Lactuca muralis

Lily*, Ornamental Lilium sp.

Loosestrife, Purple Lythrum salicaria

Marsh Yellow Cress Rorippa palustris

Meadowrue, Western Thalictrum occidentale

Miner's Lettuce, Siberian (Or Western SpringBeauty Or Candyflower) Claytonia sibirica

Mint, Field Mentha arvensis 

Mint, Spear Mentha spicata

Monkeyflower, Yellow Mimulus guttata

Mullein*, Common Verbascum thapsus

Mustard Spp. * Brassica spp.

Mustard, Hedge Sisymbrium officinale

Nettle, Stinging Urtica dioica 

Nipplewort* Lapsana communis

Old man’s Beard^* Clematis vitalba

Orchid, White Bog Habenaria dilatata 

Oxeye-daisy* Leucanthemum 

Parentucellia*, Yellow Parentucellia viscosa

Pathfinder Adenocaulon bicolor

Pea, Perennial Lathyrus latifolius

Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea

Pennywort, Water Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

Phacelia Phacelia sp.

Pineapple Weed* Matricaria discoidea

Plantain*, Common Plantago major 

Plantain*, English Plantago lanceolata

Pondweed, Fern Leaf Potamogeton robbinsii

Pondweed, Sago Potamogeton pectinatus

Purslane*, Water Ludwigia palustris 

Queen-Anne's-lace* Daucus carota

Ragweed*, Common Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Ragwort*, Tansy Senecio jacobaea

Sandwort, Big-leaved Moehringia macrophylla 

Self-heal Prunella vulgaris 

Shepherd's Purse* Capsella bursa-pastoris

Skullcap, Blue Scutelaria lateriflora

Skullcap, Mad-Dog Scutellaria lateriflora

Skunk-cabbage Lysichiton americanum

Smartweed, Willow Polygonum lapathifolium
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-12 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

Common Names Scientific Names

Sorrel*, Sheep Rumex acetosella

Sow-thistle*, Prickly Sonchus asper

St. John's-wort*, Common Hypericum perforatum

Starflower, Broad-Leaved Trientalis latifolia

Starflower, Western Trientalis borealis 

Stork's-bill*, Common Erodium cicutarium 

Strawberry, Wild Fragaria virginiana

Strawberry, Woods Fragaria vesca 

Sundew, Round-Leaved Drosera rotundifolia

Sweet-cicely, Mountain Osmorhiza chilensis 

Sweet-clover*, White Melilotus alba 

Tapegrass*, Water Celery Vallisneria americana

Thistle*,**, Bull Cirsium vulgare

Thistle*,**, Canada Cirsium arvense

Touch-me-Not Impatiens noli-tangere

Trail-plant Adenocaulon bicolor 

Trefoil*,Birdsfoot- Lotus corniculatus

Trefoil, Big Lotus uliginosis

Trillium, Western Trillium ovatum

Vanilla-leaf Achlys triphylla

Vetch Spp. Vicia spp.

Violet Spp. Viola spp.

Violet, Marsh Viola palustris

Water hemlock, Western Cicuta douglasii

Water-carpet, Ground Ivy-leaved Chrysosplenium glechomaefolium

Watercress, white* Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum 

Waterleaf, Pacific Hydrophyllum tenuipes

Water-lily* Nymphaea sp.

Water-lily, Yellow (Or Spatterdock) Nuphar polysepalum

Water-parsley, Pacific Oenanthe sarmentosa

Waterpepper Polygonum hydropiperoides

Waterplantain, American Alisma plantago-aquatica 

Water-shield Brasenia schreberi

Water-starwort, Diverse-leaved Callitriche heterophylla

Waterweed, Common (Or American) Elodea canadensis

Willow-herb*, Hairy Epilobium ciliatum 

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 

Yerba Buena Satureja douglasii

Youth-on-Age Tolmiea menziesii

Sedges, Rushes

Beak-rush, White Rhynchospera alba 

Bulrush, Hard-stem Scirpus lacustris
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species L-13

Common Names Scientific Names

Bulrush, Soft-stemmed Scirpus tabernaemontanii 

Rush Spp. Juncus spp.

Rush, Baltic Juncus balticus

Rush, Common (Or Soft) Juncus effusus 

Rush, Pointed Juncus oxymeris 

Rush, Swordleaf Juncus ensifolius 

Rush, Tapered Juncus acuminatus

Sedge, Beaked Carex rostrata 

Sedge, Bristly Carex comosa

Sedge, Bristlystalked Carex leptalea

Sedge, Kellogg's Carex kelloggii

Sedge, Lenticular Carex lenticularis

Sedge, Slough Carex obnupta

Sedge, Water Carex aquatilis

Spike-rush, Creeping Eleocharis palustris

Spike-rush, Needle Eleocharis acicularis

Water Whorlgrass Catabrosa aquatica

Grasses

Bentgrass Agrostis sp.

Canarygrass*, Reed Phalaris arundinacea

Cat-tail, Common Typha latifolia

Fescue Festuca sp.

Grass, Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis

Ryegrass Lolium spp.

Trisetum, Nodding Trisetum cernuum

Velvetgrass, Common Holcus lanatus

Ferns And Allies

Fern, Deer Blechnum spicant

Fern, Licorice Polypodium glycyrrhiza

Fern, Northern Lady Athyrium filix-femina

Fern, Spiny (Or Spreading) Wood Dryopteris expansa

Fern, Sword Polystichum munitum

Fern, Western Bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

Horesetail, Scouring-rush Equisetum hyemale v

Horsetail, Field Equisetum arvense

Horsetail, Giant Equisetum telmatiea

Mosses

Moss, Peat Sphagnum sp.

Water Moss, Common Fontinalis antipyretica

Key: 

All plants or animals were actual biological observations except those with a ^ character.

^ indicates probable plants or animals that may be within the Refuge boundary
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

L-14 Appendix L. List of Black River Unit Species

* indicates non-native plants or animals

** indicates non-native / invasive plants or animals that are priority to control 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix M. Grays Harbor NWR Nature Center Plan M-1 

Appendix M. Grays Harbor Nature Center Plans

Public Law 100-406, which established Grays Harbor NWR, directed the Service to develop a 

management plan that would include a nature (visitor) center for education and research. The Refuge 

created a Management and Development Plan (1990) that identified facilities as a high priority. 

Establishing legislation for the Refuge authorized Congress to appropriate funds for facility 

development, but specific funding has never been appropriated. 

Many meetings have been held with partners to develop facilities for Grays Harbor NWR. In 2005, 

the Grays Harbor Food Bank moved off the Refuge to make way for facility development; however, 

funding has not been approved. 

The location for the proposed nature center was chosen based on placing it in the only location that 

was not a wetland. The decision for the existing Refuge building was to convert it to a maintenance 

yard/shop. The proposed building site is 4 acres located along the east boundary of Grays Harbor 

NWR and the west side of Paulson Road. 

In 2007, an approximately 10,000-square-foot conceptual building was designed and included a 

small administrative space, medium-sized visitor facilities, and an environmental education module. 

In 2008, cost estimates were $1.237 million dollars for architectural and engineering design and 

$4.948 million for construction. 

Today, in the Common-To-All Section (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Grays Harbor NWR, Nature 

Center Planning) the proposed nature center project will continue the planning and development 

process. During the CCP preparation, ideas were suggested and reviewed. The nature center would 

include a small parking area, restrooms, office space, an information/exhibit area, and a classroom 

for the environmental education program, as well as to hold meetings, trainings, and outreach events. 

 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

M-2 Appendix M. Grays Harbor NWR Nature Center Plan
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix M. Grays Harbor NWR Nature Center Plan M-3 

Figure M.1. Conceptual Drawing of Nature Center Building (in 2008). 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

M-4 Appendix M. Grays Harbor NWR Nature Center Plan
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

Appendix N. Maps N-1 

Appendix N. Maps

Map 1. Chehalis Basin Overview. 

Map 2. Grays Harbor NWR Habitats. 

Map 3. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 1. 

Map 4. Black River Unit Alternative 1. 

Map 5. Black River Unit Habitats. 

Map 6. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2. 

Map 7. Black River Unit Alternative 2. 
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-2 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

Appendix N. Maps N-3

Map 1. Chehalis River Basin Overview.

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

Grays Harbor

Willapa

Bay

NISQUALLY NWR

BLACK RIVER UNIT OF

NISQUALLY NWR

GRAYS HARBOR NWR

P u g e t

Sou n d

Chehalis Ri ver

Black Ri v er

Ch

e

h

a l is

R

iver

Pacific

Ocean

WAS HI N G TO N

O RE GO N

Columbia River

Aberdeen

Centralia

Chehalis

Elma

Hoquiam Ocean

Shores

Olympia

Tacoma

Westport

UV8

£¤101

£¤12

£¤101

£¤101

£¤101

£¤30

£¤12

§ ̈¦5

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-10.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Elevation from NED; Hydrology from NHD; Roads from ESRI

USFWS R1 Lands Division

0 10 20

Kilometers

0 10 20

Miles

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Chehalis River Basin

Rivers and Streams
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-4 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Appendix N. Maps N-5

Map 2. Grays Harbor NWR Habitats.

I

Bowerman Airport

To Hoquiam

Mini Moon Island Moon Island

W Emerson Ave

Airport Way

Paulson Rd

Moon Island Road

Airport Way

UV109

123°55'0"W

123°55'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°59'0"W

123°59'0"W

46°59'0"N

46°59'0"N

46°58'0"N

46°58'0"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Owned and Managed by the

Port of Grays Harbor

I Port Gate

Open Water

Intertidal Mudflat

Salt and Brackish Marsh

Forest

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-6.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries and Habitats from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery from 2011 NAIP

USFWS R1 Lands Division

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-6 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Appendix N. Maps N-7

Map 3. Grays Harbor NWR Land Status and Alternative 1.

""

I

Bowerman Airport

To Hoquiam

Mini Moon Island Moon Island

!Õ

]! !F i3⁄4

Airport Way

Paulson Rd

UV109

W Emerson Ave

Airport Way

Moon Island Road

[!

123°55'0"W

123°55'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°59'0"W

123°59'0"W

46°59'0"N

46°59'0"N

46°58'0"N

46°58'0"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Managed Lands

Refuge Lease from the

Port of Grays Harbor

Owned and Managed by the

Port of Grays Harbor

Berm

I Port Gate

Public Access - Blacktop Road

Sandpiper Trail

"" Refuge Building

Refuge Entrance Sign

]! Information Kiosk

!Õ Interpretive Panels

i3⁄4 Parking Area

!F Trail Access

[! Wildlife Viewing Area

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-4.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery from 2011 NAIP

USFWS R1 Lands Division

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-8 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA

N-9

Bloom Ditch

Salmon Creek

D me psey

C er

ek

Waddell Creek

Bloom Ditch

Black River

L ti t el or ck Rd

WS

123rd Ave SW

Waddell Creek Rd SW

May ot wn Rd SW

101St Ave SW

128Th Ave S

01

W

3Rd Ave SW

105Th Ave

WS

WSd Rtt oci dnE

WSd Recnar F aL

118Th Ave SW

Litt el or ck Rd

WS

97Th Ct SW

Gifford Rd SW

110Th Ave SW

WSt Stt ekcor C

WSr Dkoor b wodahS

95Th Ave SW

115Th Ave SW

113Th Ave SW

WSd Ri hpl e D

WSd Ri hpl eD

122°58'30"W123°0'0"W123°1'30"W

46°57'0"N

46°57'0"N

46°55'30"N

46°55'30"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Managed Lands

Refuge Easement

Privately Owned Lands

0 1 0.5

Miles

0 1 0.5

Kilometers UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-1.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Hydrology from NHD; Imagery from 2013 NAIP

USFWS R1 Lands Division
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-10 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

N-11

Black River

L ti t el or ck Rd

WS

Waddell Creek Rd SW

123rd Ave SW

Waddell Creek Rd SW

May ot wn Rd SW

101St Ave SW

128Th Ave S

01

W

3Rd Ave SW

105Th Ave

WS

WSd Rtt oci dnE

WSd Recnar F aL

118Th Ave SW

Litt el or ck Rd

WS

97Th Ct SW

Gifford Rd SW

110Th Ave SW

WSt Stt ekcor C

WSr Dkoor b wodahS

95Th Ave SW

115Th Ave SW

113Th Ave SW

WSd Ri hpl e D

WSd Ri hpl eD

122°58'30"W123°0'0"W123°1'30"W

46°57'0"N

46°57'0"N

46°55'30"N

46°55'30"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Managed Lands

Refuge Easement

Privately Owned Lands

0 1 0.5

Miles

0 1 0.5

Kilometers

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-2.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Hydrology from NHD; Imagery from 2013 NAIP

USFWS R1 Lands Division

UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Bog

Emergent Marsh

Seasonally Flooded Non-Native Grassland

Shrub Swamp

Riparian Forest

Mixed Forest

Non-Native Grassland

Modified

Developed

Salmon Creek

D me psey

C er

ek

Waddell Creek

Bloom Ditch

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-12 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Appendix N. Maps N-13

Map 6. Grays Harbor NWR Alternative 2.

""

I

@"

Bowerman Airport

To Hoquiam

Mini Moon Island Moon Island

!Õ

[!

[!

Airport Way

Paulson Rd

UV109

W Emerson Ave

Airport Way

[! !Õ ]! !F i3⁄4

[! !Õ

Red Knot Trail

Moon Island Road

[!

123°55'0"W

123°55'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°56'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°57'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°58'0"W

123°59'0"W

123°59'0"W

46°59'0"N

46°59'0"N

46°58'0"N

46°58'0"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Managed Lands

Owned and Managed by the

Port of Grays Harbor

Berm

I Port Gate

Blacktop Road

(access to Refuge Trail)

Sandpiper Trail

Proposed Trails

Marsh Restoration

"" Maintenance Shop

@" Proposed Nature Center

Refuge Entrance Sign

]! Information Kiosk

!Õ Interpretive Panels

!Õ Proposed Interpretive Panels

i3⁄4 Parking Area

!F Trail Access

[! Wildlife Viewing Area

[! Proposed Wildlife Viewing Area

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.25 0.5

Kilometers UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-5.mxd USFWS R1 Lands Division

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Imagery from 2011 NAIP

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-14 Appendix N. Maps
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

N-15

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

)

)

)

Black River

L ti t el or ck Rd

WS

!] ![!i !Õ

![ !i !Õ

!y!i !]

Waddell Creek Rd SW

123rd Ave SW

Waddell Creek Rd SW

May ot wn Rd SW

101St Ave SW

128Th Ave S

01

W

3Rd Ave SW

105Th Ave

WS

WSd Rtt oci dnE

WSd Recnar F aL

118Th Ave SW

Litt el or ck Rd

WS

97Th Ct SW

Gifford Rd SW

110Th Ave SW

WSt Stt ekcor C

WSr Dkoor b wodahS

95Th Ave SW

115Th Ave SW

113Th Ave SW

WSd Ri hpl e D

WSd Ri hpl eD

122°58'30"W123°0'0"W123°1'30"W

46°57'0"N

46°57'0"N

46°55'30"N

46°55'30"N

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Managed Lands

Refuge Easement

Privately Owned Lands

Evaluate for Research

Natural Area Designation

! ! ! ! Boat Fishing in River Channel Only

Future County Gate to Belmore Trail

!y Proposed Boat Launch

!] Proposed Information Kiosk

!Õ Proposed Interpretive Panels

3⁄4

i Proposed Parking

![ Proposed Wildlife Viewing

0 1 0.5

Miles

0 1 0.5

Kilometers UTM ZONE 10N

NAD 83

Map Date: 06/02/2015 File: 12-095-3.mxd

Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Roads from ESRI; Hydrology from NHD; Imagery from 2013 NAIP

USFWS R1 Lands Division

Salmon Creek

D me psey

C er

ek

Waddell Creek

Bloom Ditch

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EA
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA

N-16 Appendix N. Maps
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, 

objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

best estimates of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for strategic planning and program prioritization 

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, September 2016

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge and the 

Black River Unit of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

100 Brown Farm Road

Olympia, WA 98516

Phone: 360/753 9467

Fax: 360/534 9302

http://www.fws.gov

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

September 2016

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service is working with others to conserve, 

protect, andenhance fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people.

Grays Harbor saltmarsh and mudflats

Katherine Stevens

Cover: 

Above: Western sandpiper. Gerit Vyn

Below: Marsh wren. Michael Schramm/USFWS