Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives,
and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a
commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases or funding for
future land acquisition.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND.................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purpose .......................................... 1-2
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ................. 1-7
1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................ 1-8
1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................................... 1-8
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System.................................................. 1-8
CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS........... 2-1
2.1 The Nisqually NWR CCP Process............................................................. 2-1
2.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others ............................................... 2-2
2.2.1 Public Involvement ....................................................................... 2-2
2.2.2 Interest Group and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination ...... 2-4
2.2.3 Tribal Consultation/Coordination .................................................. 2-5
2.3 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EIS................................. 2-5
2.4 Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.......................................... 2-5
CHAPTER 3: REFUGE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Climate......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.3 Geology........................................................................................ 3-3
3.1.4 Soils ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.1.5 Environmental Contaminants ....................................................... 3-5
3.2 Vegetation and Habitat Resources............................................................ 3-8
3.2.1 Habitats and Vegetation Communities ......................................... 3-8
3.2.2 State and Regional Trends for Key Habitats Represented
at Nisqually NWR....................................................................... 3-24
3.2.3 Plants, Including Exotic and Invasive Species ........................... 3-24
3.3 Fisheries Habitats and Resources........................................................... 3-26
3.3.1 Pacific Salmon ........................................................................... 3-26
3.3.2 Forage Fish................................................................................ 3-30
3.3.3 Other Fishes .............................................................................. 3-31
3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Fish.............................................. 3-33
3.4 Wildlife..................................................................................................... 3-34
3.4.1 Waterfowl ................................................................................... 3-34
3.4.2 Waterbirds and Seabirds............................................................ 3-37
3.4.3 Shorebirds.................................................................................. 3-38
3.4.4 Landbirds ................................................................................... 3-39
3.4.5 Marine Mammals........................................................................ 3-41
3.4.6 Land Mammals........................................................................... 3-41
3.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................... 3-42
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page ii Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.4.8 Invertebrates .............................................................................. 3-42
3.4.9 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species .......................................... 3-43
3.4.10 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species ........................ 3-43
3.4.11 State-listed Species ................................................................... 3-44
3.5 Special Uses............................................................................................ 3-44
3.5.1 Haying........................................................................................ 3-44
3.5.2 Scientific Research .................................................................... 3-44
3.5.3 Tribal Fishing.............................................................................. 3-44
3.6 Public Access, Education, and Recreational Opportunities ..................... 3-45
3.6.1 Public Access............................................................................. 3-45
3.6.2 Recreation.................................................................................. 3-46
3.6.3 Environmental Education ........................................................... 3-52
3.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-53
3.7.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape...................... 3-53
3.7.2 Euro-American Cultural History.................................................. 3-54
3.8 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................... 3-56
3.8.1 Socioeconomic Setting............................................................... 3-56
3.8.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 3-60
3.8.3 Land Use.................................................................................... 3-61
3.8.4 Refuge Management Economics .............................................. 3-64
3.8.5 Area Recreation Sector.............................................................. 3-67
3.8.6 Agricultural Sector .................................................................... 3-69
3.8.7 Commercial Shellfishing............................................................. 3-69
CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................... 4-1
4.1 Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines ........................................... 4-1
4.2 Land Protection Policies and Guidelines ................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Refuge Boundary and Expansion................................................. 4-1
4.2.2 Land Protection Methods ............................................................. 4-2
4.2.3 Land Protection Priorities ............................................................. 4-3
4.3 Management Plan for Nisqually NWR ....................................................... 4-3
4.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................... 4-11
4.4.1 Overview.................................................................................... 4-11
4.4.2 Detailed Description of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ... 4-11
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ............................................. 5-1
5.1 Funding and Personnel............................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Partnership Opportunities........................................................................... 5-4
5.4 Projects ...................................................................................................... 5-5
5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................ 5-12
5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................ 5-12
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page iii
FIGURES:
Figure 1.1-1 Regional Context ............................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1.1-2 Current Ownership within the CCP Study Area ................................. 1-5
Figure 3.2-1 Major Habitat Types and Wildlife Typical of the Refuge .................... 3-9
Figure 3.2-2 CCP Study Area Habitat Types ....................................................... 3-11
Figure 3.2-3 National Wetland Inventory of Regional Estuarine Wetlands .......... 3-15
Figure 3.2-4 Historic (1878) and Current Wetlands in the Nisqually Delta........... 3-17
Figure 3.2-5 Overall Losses in Salt Marsh Acres for Puget Sound
River Deltas..................................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3.2-6 Distribution of Invasive Reed Canary Grass, 1997.......................... 3-27
Figure 3.4-1 Waterfowl Survey Units ................................................................... 3-35
Figure 3.6-1 Current Authorized Public Recreation within the Study Area........... 3-47
Figure 3.8-1 Special Designated Areas ............................................................... 3-65
Figure 4.3-1 Management Plan ............................................................................. 4-5
TABLES:
Table 3.2-1 Summary of Habitat Types and Acres Within the CCP Study
Area................................................................................................. 3-13
Table 3.3-1 Representative Fish Species Inhabiting the Estuarine Habitats
of the Refuge................................................................................... 3-29
Table 3.8-1 Local Population Trends.................................................................. 3-57
Table 4.3-1 Components of the CCP.................................................................... 4-7
Table 5.1-1 Current Staffing ................................................................................. 5-2
Table 5.1-2 Future (Proposed) Staffing ................................................................ 5-2
Table 5.2-1 Step-down Management Plans ......................................................... 5-3
Table 5.4-1 Projects: Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) List................................ 5-6
Table 5.5-1 CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects.......................................... 5-14
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page iv Table of Contents
APPENDICES
A* Glossary of Terms/Acronyms & Abbreviations
B Distribution List
C* References
D Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
E* Nisqually NWR Species List
E.1 Plant List
E.2 Wildlife List
F1 Plan Implementation
G* Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Actions
G.1 Recreational Boating
G.2 Recreational Fishing
G.3 Waterfowl Hunting
G.4 Environmental Education
G.5 Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation
G.6 Research
G.7 Agriculture - Haying
H List of Preparers
I2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies
J* Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary
K* Land Protection Plan
L* Wilderness Review
M Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses
N*3 Record of Decision (ROD)
*Appendices in bold and designated with an asterisk (*) are included with this
CCP. Unbolded appendices (without an asterisk) are included only with the Final
CCP/EIS document, but are cross-referenced as appropriate throughout this CCP.
1Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 5 of this CCP.
2Information from this CCP/EIS appendix has been updated and is included as Chapter 4 of this CCP.
3New appendix, exclusive to the CCP (not part of the CCP/EIS).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005
Chapter 1
Introduction & Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is located at the southern end of Puget
Sound, Washington in the Nisqually River delta (Figure 1.1-1). The 2,925-acre Refuge, located
in Thurston and Pierce counties, is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and
protects one of the few relatively undeveloped large estuaries remaining in Puget Sound. The
Refuge has international significance as a staging area, sanctuary, and migration stopover for
migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. The Refuge also has regional importance as migration
and rearing habitat for salmon, particularly the Federally listed fall chinook salmon. A more
detailed description of the environment and resources on the Refuge is contained in Chapter 3.
The south Puget Sound region, with its rapidly growing urban development, is undergoing
dramatic changes in population and landscape. Some areas within the study area that are
currently proposed for development are ecologically inseparable from Refuge habitats. Eighty
percent of estuarine habitat has been lost in Puget Sound in the last 150 years, contributing to the
decline of many fish and wildlife that depend on estuaries, including several salmon species
(Dean et al. 2000). The Refuge’s diked freshwater wetlands were historically estuarine and
habitat quality has declined.
Nisqually NWR has become an urban Refuge easily accessible to outdoor enthusiasts. Visitor
use and interest in the Refuge have increased as residential developments expand in the nearby
cities of Lacey, DuPont, Olympia, and the Seattle-Tacoma area. Thousands of students and
teachers participate in the Refuge’s environmental education program. The Refuge is an ideal
setting to provide an improved and expanded education program to respond to this growing
need. More than 100,000 visitors come to Nisqually NWR each year to participate in wildlife
interpretation, wildlife observation, environmental education, photography, fishing, and
shellfishing. As Refuge use has increased, so have conflicts among visitors and concerns over
meeting the needs of fish and wildlife species. These planning issues, concerns, and
opportunities are described further in Chapter 2.
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Nisqually NWR describes a bold new vision
for management of Nisqually NWR. The vision is detailed in Chapter 4, Management Direction,
which contains new goals, objectives, and strategies. Most significant are its new objectives for
habitat restoration including restoring 699 acres of diked freshwater marsh to estuarine habitat.
Also, the CCP nearly doubles the size of the Refuge boundary and contains numerous other
management strategies to increase the quality of Refuge public use activities or bring them into
compatibility with Refuge purposes and policies and guidelines of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS or System). The CCP will guide management of Refuge operations, habitat
restoration, and visitor services for the next 15 years. The CCP replaces the 1978 Conceptual
Plan (CH2M Hill et al. 1978) as the primary management guidance document for the Refuge.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
The former approved Refuge boundary totaled 3,936 acres. Figure 1.1-2 identifies the CCP
Study Area, which was used during the planning process to identify potential areas for Refuge
expansion that could be incorporated into the various action alternatives in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) developed to analyze CCP implementation (USFWS 2004). The CCP
Study Area totals 9,326 acres and includes the bluffs east of the Refuge and lands south of
Interstate 5 (I-5) along approximately 6 miles of the Nisqually River corridor and 2.5 miles up
McAllister Creek to its headwaters at McAllister Springs. The new approved Refuge boundary
consists of 7,415 acres, and thus reflects a portion of the CCP Study Area. Any reference made
to the study area in this document refers to the 9,326-acre CCP Study Area.
1.2 HISTORY OF REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE
The proximity of the Nisqually delta to two major urban centers, Tacoma and Olympia, has
exposed it to numerous development threats over the years. In 1965, the Port of Tacoma
proposed developing 1,100 acres of the Nisqually River Estuary as a deepwater port facility.
Largely as a result of citizen efforts led by conservationist and teacher Margaret McKenny and
the Nisqually Delta Association, the proposal was denied (Burg 1984). In 1967, the Port of
Olympia proposed development of an aluminum mill on the delta (Stevenson 1998). In 1966 and
1967, to further stave off development, the Washington State Department of Game (now the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]) purchased holdings of approximately
616 acres of delta tidelands and salt marshes (USFWS 1977; Guth 1998).
In 1970, the Nisqually River Task Force (see Section 5.4.2 in the CCP/EIS) was created to assist
in preserving and protecting the river and delta. In 1971, in recognition of the significance of the
area as a natural estuarine and aquatic ecosystem, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated
the estuarine portion of the Nisqually River delta as a National Natural Landmark (see Figure
1.1-2). The Nisqually River Task Force recommended in 1972 that the delta be set aside as a
National Wildlife Refuge.
In February 1974, in recognition of the area’s unique fish and wildlife resources, the Brown
Farm property and tidelands were acquired for inclusion in the NWRS as Nisqually NWR. In
total, 1,285 acres of diked grasslands, freshwater marshes, and tidelands were initially purchased
with funds approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act and subsequently placed under the management of the Service
(Hesselbart 1977a). Revenue from the sale of Duck Stamps is the primary source of funding for
those lands purchased under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Three other funding sources
include appropriations authorized by the Wetlands Loan Act, import duties collected on arms
and ammunition, and receipts from the sale of Refuge admission permits. Nisqually NWR was
established with the following purposes:
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds” (16 U.S.C. ss 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
!
!
!
!
!
!
TUALATIN
RIVER
NWR
BASKETT SLOUGH NWR
ANKENY NWR
WILLIAM L. FINLEY NWR
DUNGENESS
NWR
PROTECTION
ISLAND
NWR
GRAYS
HARBOR
NWR
WILLAPA
NWR
JULIA BUTLER HANSEN
REFUGE FOR THE COLUMBIAN
WHITE TAIL DEER
SILETZ BAY
NWR
STEIGERWALD LAKE NWR
FRANZ LAKE NWR
PIERCE NWR
BANDON
MARSH
NWR
NESTUCCA
BAY NWR
BLACK RIVER
UNIT
CAPE MEARES
NWR
COPALIS
NWR
QUILLAYUTE
NEEDLES
NWR
FLATTERY
ROCKS
NWR
THREE ARCH
ROCKS NWR
LEWIS AND
CLARK NWR
OREGON
ISLANDS
NWR
RIDGEFIELD NWR
SAN JUAN
ISLANDS
NWR
P a c i f i c O c e a n
W A S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
I D A H O
Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge
¥¦§5
¥¦§90
¥¦§84
¥¦§82
Salem
Eugene
Tacoma
Olympia
Seattle
Portland
Area
Enlarged
Pacific
Flyway
Regional Context
Figure 1.1-1
N
Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003 P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\Figure1_1_1.mxd
Legend
National Wildlife Refuge
Nisqually River Watershed
North Pacific Coast Ecoregion
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 1-3
¨§¦5
Nisqually River
Sound
THURSTON COUNTY
PIERCE COUNTY
N i s q u a l l y D e l t a
McAllister Creek
Puget
McAllister Springs
Current Ownership within CCP Study Area
Figure 1.1-2
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003 P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\Figure1_1_2.mxd
0 0.3 0.6 1.2
Miles
1:70,000
Legend
Current Ownership within CCP Study Area
Nisqually Tribe WDFW
Private USFWS
City of Olympia
Ft. Lewis Military
Reservation
County
No Data
CCP Study Area
N
Aerial Photo 1990
Approved Nisqually
NWR Boundary
Burlington-Northern
Railroad
County Line
March 2005 Page 1-5
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 1-7
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish
and wildlife resources ... 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) ... for the benefit of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be
subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude”
... 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
In 1977, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to expand the Refuge boundary and
authorize the acquisition of approximately 3,780 acres of delta lands (USFWS 1977). One year
later, a Conceptual Plan and associated EA were developed for the Refuge (CH2M Hill et al.
1978). These documents provided initial direction for managing wildlife, habitat, and public
use. The Conceptual Plan designated a Research Natural Area (RNA) in the northeast corner and
habitat management, surface water control, and haying within the diked interior to provide
forage and cover for waterfowl.
In 1996, the Service acquired a 107-acre parcel on the top of the West Bluff. Funding for this
parcel came from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is supported by proceeds from
off-shore oil and gas development. A total of 516 acres of tidelands was also transferred from
the Department of Army to the Refuge.
By 2000, the Service had acquired 76% (or 2,925 acres) within the approved Refuge boundary.
These lands consist primarily of the Nisqually River, the delta estuary, McAllister Creek, diked
freshwater wetlands and grasslands, and upland bluffs to the west. The diked area includes
approximately 1,000 acres of Refuge lands between the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek.
Refuge buildings, roads, parking lots, and an old orchard are located at the southeast corner of
the Refuge.
In November 2000, Congress appropriated an additional $2 million of Land and Water
Conservation Funds earmarked for a land purchase on the East Bluff of the delta. In December
2004, the Service purchased 20 acres of forested habitat from the Cascade Land Conservancy,
who had purchased the land from Quadrant, a subsidiary of Weyerhauser on behalf of the
Service.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
PLAN
The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to provide the Service, the NWRS,
partners, and citizens with a management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions
and Refuge infrastructure for wildlife and public use on Nisqually NWR over the next 15 years.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) requires
that all National Wildlife Refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012.
Implementing the approved CCP will ensure that the Service manages Nisqually NWR to
achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, and goals and to help fulfill the mission of the NWRS.
Specifically, the CCP: (1) determined that the Refuge boundary should be expanded; (2)
determined the extent of restoration of historic estuarine habitat; (3) addressed the compatibility
and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education; (4) addressed
waterfowl hunting and related needs for sufficient wildlife sanctuary; and (5) provided a basis
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 1-8 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
for budget requests to support the Refuge’s operational needs for staffing, operations,
maintenance, and capital improvements.
1.4 LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE
Nisqually NWR and its management and administrative activities are managed as part of the
NWRS within a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines. The Refuge is guided by
the mission and goals of the NWRS, the purpose of the Refuge as described in its acquisition
authority, Service policy, Federal laws and executive orders, and international treaties. Below is
a discussion of concepts and guidance for the System covered in the NWRS Administration Act
of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (USFWS 1981), and, more recently, through the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. A list of other laws and Executive Orders
that may affect the CCP for Nisqually NWR or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is
provided in Appendix D of the Final CCP/EIS.
1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nisqually NWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the
Interior. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing
the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this
responsibility with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
trust responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and certain
anadromous fish and marine mammals. The Service also has similar trust responsibilities for the
lands and waters it administers to support the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.)
Starting with the first Refuge, Florida’s Pelican Island NWR established in 1903 by President
Theodore Roosevelt, the NWRS has grown to 100 million acres in size, including 542 National
Wildlife Refuges. The NWRS is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and
wildlife conservation in the nation. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on
Refuges, in contrast to other public lands which are managed for multiple uses.
The administration, management, and growth of the NWRS are guided by the following goals
(Director’s Order No. 132, as amended on March 31, 2003):
• Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve Refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.
• Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that
are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 1-9
• Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.
• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
• Conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United States,
including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
conservation, by providing the public with safe, high quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent
public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
1.4.2.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amends the
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by defining a unifying mission for all Refuges,
including a new process for determining compatible uses on Refuges, and requiring that each
Refuge be managed under a CCP. The Act expressly states that wildlife conservation is the
priority of NWRS lands and that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Refuge lands are maintained. Each Refuge must
be managed to fulfill the NWRS mission and the specific purposes for which the Refuge was
established. The first priority of each Refuge is to conserve, manage, and, if needed, restore fish
and wildlife populations and habitats according to its purpose. The Service has statutory
authority under the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act and the Improvement Act to
regulate activities that occur on water bodies “within” a Refuge. The Improvement Act requires
that a CCP be completed for each Refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an
opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is Service policy that
CCPs are developed in an open public process and that the agency is committed to securing
public input throughout the process.
Compatibility Policy
Lands within the NWRS are different from other, multiple-use public lands in that they are
closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No Refuge use may be allowed
unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound
professional judgement of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from
the fulfillment of the mission of the NWRS or the purposes of the Refuge. The Improvement
Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As priority public uses
of the NWRS, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and
management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans...” The policy is an additional directive for Refuge managers to follow
while achieving Refuge purpose(s) and System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on Refuges and
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 1-10 Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for Refuges,
Refuge Managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their Refuges’ contribution
to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound
professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of Refuge resources, Refuge
role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation
with others both inside and outside the Service.
1.4.2.2 Research Natural Area Policy
Research Natural Areas (RNA) have special status on lands managed by the Service.
Guidance for the operation of RNAs is provided in Section 8 RM 10 of the Service’s
Refuge Manual. The purposes of RNAs are:
(1) “...to preserve adequate examples of all major ecosystem types or other outstanding
physical or biological phenomena;”
(2) “To provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and others in the
observation, study, and monitoring of the environment;” and
(3) “...to preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and
animals, including endangered or threatened species.”
According to the Manual:
“activities on RNAs are limited to research, study, observation, monitoring, and
educational activities that are non-destructive, non-manipulative, and maintain
unmodified conditions. Picnicking, camping, collecting plants, gathering nuts and herbs,
picking berries, hunting, fishing, trapping, and other public uses which contribute to
modification of a Research Natural Area should be discontinued or expressly prohibited
if such uses threaten serious impairment of research and education values.” (USFWS
1981)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005
Chapter 2
Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANNING
PROCESS
2.1 THE NISQUALLY NWR CCP PROCESS
The CCP process for Nisqually NWR met the dual requirements of compliance with the
Improvement Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), both of which require the
Service to actively seek public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents.
NEPA also requires the Service to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives to its Preferred
Alternative including the “No Action” alternative, which represents continuation of current
conditions and management practices. The Final CCP/EIS, dated August 2004, evaluated four
alternatives for Refuge management. The Record of Decision (ROD), dated November 1, 2004,
selected Alternative D as the Proposed Action.
Key steps in the CCP/EIS process include:
1. Form the Planning Team and conduct pre-planning
2. Initiate public involvement and scoping
3. Identify issues and develop vision and goal statements
4. Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects
5. Identify the Preferred Alternative
6. Publish the Draft CCP and NEPA Document
7. Revise and Publish a Final Plan
8. Implement the CCP
During the summer of 1995, Nisqually NWR staff initiated preliminary habitat management
planning. Interest was based on a desire to reevaluate how habitat was managed and to guide
improvements for areas of deteriorating habitat quality. After the Refuge experienced severe
flooding in 1996, comprehensive planning was initiated, and public scoping meetings were held
during 1996 and 1997 to gather comments on issues to be addressed in the CCP. The CCP
process is guided by the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Part
602 FW2.1, Draft, November 1996 and Final, June 2000).
In 1997, a core team of Refuge and Regional Office staff was established to prepare the CCP.
An internal Service technical work group was also formed to advise on the technical aspects and
management strategies of the plan. This technical work group met five times during the
planning process to review and comment on the progress of the plan. The list of preparers as
well as other participants can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix H of the Final CCP/EIS.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 2-2 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
During 1997, the Refuge also established a cooperative management agreement with Ducks
Unlimited (DU) to assist with the CCP and provide technical support on habitat management and
restoration. In early 1998, the Service and DU hired ENSR, a Redmond, Washington-based
consulting firm, to prepare a hydrodynamic and sediment transport model to assess restoration
alternatives on the Nisqually River delta. The model and evaluation of restoration alternatives
were presented in a technical report completed by ENSR in May 1999. A summary of this report
can be found in Appendix J.
In this same month, an analysis in support of the CCP, titled “The Regional Context of Intertidal
Habitat Restoration in the Nisqually River Delta” was produced by Curtis Tanner (1999). Also,
a “Characterization of Fishes in the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach” was developed by
Carrie Cook-Tabor (1999) in support of the planning process. In September 2000, the Service
hired EDAW, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to assist the agency in completing the
CCP/EIS and assist with public involvement.
Like most Refuges, the CCP process was carried out at the same time that existing management
programs continued. Habitat management and public use programs steadily increased in size
and complexity during this time and the Refuge met all of its administrative demands. The 7- to
8-year timeframe to complete the CCP and its EIS was long, but one should consider the
following factors. Flood damage to the Refuge and its facilities in 1996 resulted in a complete
rebuilding of the Refuge headquarters including design and construction of a new visitor center,
maintenance complex, parking lot and entrance road, and boardwalk trail (completed in 1999);
planning guidance was lacking as the national planning and compatibility policies were being
written during the early stages of the plan (policies were completed in 2000); many staffing
changes occurred; the Refuge Complex was restructured, splitting it into two complexes in 1999;
and the Refuge had to respond to damage caused by a 2001 earthquake measuring 6.8 magnitude
with the epicenter located in the Nisqually River delta. Since its establishment in 1974, the 8
years, 1996 to 2004, will stand out in Nisqually’s history. It seemed that several events
converged and were in some way connected to the significant change in management direction
proposed by the CCP.
2.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
This section describes consultation and coordination efforts with the public, interested groups,
other agencies, and tribes. A Public Involvement Plan was completed February 4, 1998 that
described goals and procedures that would be used to ensure full public involvement in
developing the CCP.
2.2.1 Public Involvement
Public involvement is an important component of Federal planning and was given considerable
attention in the Nisqually NWR CCP process. Public involvement began with a preliminary
scoping meeting on July 25, 1996. Refuge staff gave more than 50 presentations to a variety of
groups. Tools used to encourage public involvement included public meetings, Planning Update
newsletters, workbooks, workshops, presentations, web pages, and Federal Register notices. The
Final CCP/EIS was revised from the Draft CCP/EIS (released in December 2002) based on
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 2-3
extensive public comment received on the draft document. The full comment and response
process of the Draft is described in detail in Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS.
The following summarizes public outreach, including public meetings/open houses, workshops,
Planning Update mailings, and Federal Register notices.
2.2.1.1 Public Meetings / Open Houses
Scoping Meeting: The first scoping meeting was held on July 25, 1996 in Lacey, Washington.
Thirty participants came to discuss habitat management concerns within the diked area, provide
input on key issues, and help to identify partners.
Open Houses: Two open houses were held on November 18 and 19, 1997 in Lacey and
Tacoma, Washington. The purpose of these meetings was to encourage public input by
providing an informal opportunity for the public to learn about and comment on the CCP
process. The meetings were attended by 151 people who provided input on Refuge goals,
Refuge expansion, eight draft habitat restoration alternatives, and a wide range of public use
issues, including trail access and configuration, waterfowl hunting, fishing, environmental
education, personal watercraft, boating, and wildlife disturbance issues.
Public Meetings: Two meetings were held on January 15 and 16, 2003, to provide the public
opportunities to review, discuss, and provide comments on the Draft CCP/EIS. The meetings
were held at Nisqually NWR and in Tacoma and were attended by 250 people. A wide range of
subjects were discussed and are summarized in Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS.
2.2.1.2 Workshops
Grassland Workshop: On May 13, 1998, a technical Grassland Workshop was conducted at
Nisqually NWR. Eight technical experts reviewed historic and current grassland conditions and
developed recommendations for improving grassland wildlife habitat on the Refuge.
Public Use Workshop: Sixty-five representatives of local groups or organizations with specific
interests in public use and education participated in a Public Use Workshop on June 2, 1998 in
Lacey, Washington. Workshop attendees were divided into six focus groups to provide input on
these topics: (1) boating and kayaking; (2) hunting and fishing; (3) hiking, photography, and
bird watching; (4) outdoor recreation providers and planners; (5) tourism; and (6) environmental
education.
Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Workshops: Two technical workshops were held on June
29-30, 1998 and June 3, 1999 to focus on estuarine and freshwater wetland management on the
Refuge. Fifteen to 18 technical experts reviewed historic and current habitat conditions,
conducted site visits, and provided recommendations for future restoration and management of
Refuge wetlands. They provided input on estuarine restoration, wetland loss, invasive species,
monitoring, and provided recommendations on specific habitat restoration alternatives.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 2-4 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
2.2.1.3 Planning Update Mailings
The Service published eight Planning Updates and one Issues Workbook as part of public
outreach efforts. These were sent to everyone on the CCP mailing list. In addition, the Issues
Workbook was handed out at the November 1997 public open houses. Planning Update #6 was
also summarized in the April 2002 issue of the McAllister Water News published by the City of
Olympia. The seventh Planning Update announced the release of the Final CCP/EIS and the last
update announced release of the Record of Decision. Planning Updates were published in
August 1996, November 1996, November 1997, April 1998, December 1998, June 2001, August
2004, and November 2004.
2.2.1.4 Federal Register Notices
A formal “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan and Associated
Environmental Document” was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1997. Later in
the process, the Service decided to prepare an EIS for the CCP. For this, a second Notice of
Intent was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2000. A Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2002, which announced the availability of the
Draft CCP/EIS for public review with comments due on February 21, 2003, and two public open
house meetings to be held in January 2003. A Notice of Availability of the Final CCP/EIS was
published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2004. A Notice of Decision and Availability of
the Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2004.
2.2.2 Interest Group and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination
Refuge staff gave more than 50 presentations to a variety of groups on- and off-Refuge,
providing a summary and update on the CCP process, key issues, and soliciting public input.
These groups included: local Audubon chapters, Evergreen College classes, Kiwanis Club of
Olympia, Rotary Club in Tacoma, National Marine Fisheries Service technical group, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers wetland training classes, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Sierra Club, Thurston
County Leadership Council, Nisqually Summer Lecture Series, among others.
Service staff participated in panel discussions on estuarine wetland restoration at two Society of
Wetland Scientists Northwest Chapter Meetings on May 6, 1996 in Olympia, Washington with
approximately 45 attendees and on May 21, 1998 in Tacoma, Washington with about 200
participants. The panelists included university scientists, agency and tribal representatives, and
other restoration professionals. Discussions centered around the issues and challenges of
estuarine restoration in Puget Sound as related to Nisqually NWR.
The Refuge Manager met individually with the three Thurston County Commissioners on May
17 and June 4, 2001, summarizing the CCP key issues and focusing on Refuge expansion. A
meeting was held with representatives of Congressman Adam Smith’s and Congressman Brian
Baird’s local offices on May 23, 2001 to summarize CCP key issues, the schedule, and focus on
Refuge expansion. Briefings were provided to Congressmen Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, and
Brian Baird during the planning process, and to representatives from Senator Patty Murray’s
office.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 2-5
Several meetings were held with major landowners within the expansion study area, including
Fort Lewis, Weyerhaeuser, City of Olympia, and some of the farmers with the largest land
holdings in the Nisqually Valley, to summarize the CCP process, key issues, and schedule, with
a focus on Refuge expansion and solicit further comment. Coordination meetings were also held
with the City of DuPont. Fort Lewis was given the opportunity to comment on the internal
review draft of the CCP/EIS.
The Service gave five presentations to the Nisqually River Council during the planning process.
The Council includes more than 20 key partners and citizen participants. Meeting dates included
November 19, 1999; May 18, 2001; August 17, 2001; April 19, 2002; and January 17, 2003.
The Service met with the WDFW seven times during the planning process. WDFW was given
the opportunity to comment on an internal review draft of the CCP/EIS. Meeting dates were on
January 29, 1998; November 9, 2000; April 17, 2001; May 1, 2001; May 17, 2001; September
14, 2001; and October 5, 2001.
2.2.3 Tribal Consultation/Coordination
The Service met with the Nisqually Indian Tribe 14 times during the course of the planning
process, and they were given the opportunity to comment on an internal review draft of the
CCP/EIS. Meeting dates included:
June 23, 1999
July 20, 1999
January 25, 2000
February 29, 2000
April 24, 2000
June 9, 2000
August 10, 2000
January 31, 2001
August 27, 2001
October 1, 2001
October 15, 2001
February 14, 2002
March 19, 2002
April 18, 2002
2.3 COMMENT RESPONSE PROCESS ON THE DRAFT CCP/EIS
Public comments on the Draft CCP/EIS were accepted from December 20, 2002 to February 21,
2003; in addition, comments dated within one week after the official close of the comment
period were accepted and analyzed. All comments were reviewed and analyzed; the information
contained in those comments was used to help develop the Final CCP/EIS and the refined
Preferred Alternative. A detailed summary of the comment process, all comments, and the
Service’s responses to those comments is included as Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS.
2.4 PLANNING ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions with key contacts,
workshop participants, and through the public scoping process. The following section
summarizes seven major issues that were identified and analyzed as part of the CCP/EIS process.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 2-6 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
ISSUE 1: REFUGE BOUNDARY EXPANSION
Should the Service play a larger role in protecting the lower Nisqually watershed and expand
its Refuge boundary and, if so, what areas should be included?
When the Refuge was originally established, protection was focused on the part of the delta that
was imminently threatened with development. The CCP process provided an opportunity to
consider whether the original boundary provided sufficient protection to the delta and lower
Nisqually watershed, or whether additional lands beyond the approved Refuge boundary should
be included within an expanded Refuge boundary. The CCP/EIS evaluated the potential for and
environmental consequences of Refuge expansion onto lands along the East Bluff and on
adjacent habitats of the Nisqually Valley on the south side of I-5 along the Nisqually River and
McAllister Creek. Public comments indicated almost unanimous support for Refuge expansion.
An additional 3,479 acres have been added to the approved Refuge boundary as a part of the
CCP, for a total approved boundary of 7,415 acres.
ISSUE 2: HABITAT RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DIKED
AREA
Should Nisqually NWR restore historical estuarine habitat and, if so, to what extent should
this occur?
This issue focused primarily on the 1,000 acres of former estuarine habitat within the Brown
Farm Dike. This area was historically a major part of the Nisqually River Estuary but was diked
for farming in the late 1800s. This habitat is currently managed by the Service as a mosaic of
freshwater wetlands and non-native grasslands to benefit a variety of migratory waterfowl and
other migratory birds. However, the quality of this habitat has become degraded due to the
spread of reed canary grass, limited water level management capabilities, plant succession to
shrub habitats, and deterioration of the dike system, which has required costly repairs. The dikes
were further damaged by flood conditions in 1996 and 1997, as well as the Nisqually Earthquake
of 2001.
Estuarine habitat loss in Puget Sound and throughout the West Coast area has led to the decline
of many estuarine-dependent fish and wildlife species. Estuarine restoration is considered the
highest priority to recover the Nisqually Chinook salmon, a federally threatened species.
Estuarine restoration would also benefit many key migratory birds and restore a critical part of
the Nisqually Estuary.
Public input was wide ranging, but a majority who expressed preference for an alternative
supported the Preferred Alternative. People who supported estuarine restoration did so for a
variety of reasons, including restoring an historic habitat, improving protection of the Nisqually
delta, restoring ecological function in the estuary, enhancing recovery of salmon, improving
control of invasive plants, and reducing costs of maintaining the dike system. Those who
opposed estuarine restoration or the amount of restoration selected did so for various reasons, but
the majority focused on the effects on the trail system and the conversion of freshwater or non-native
grassland habitats and the effects on associated migratory birds and mammals. The
Preferred Alternative will restore 699 acres to estuarine habitat, leaving 263 acres of freshwater
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 2-7
wetlands to be managed more intensively than under current conditions. Freshwater wetland
restoration was also identified as a high priority in expansion areas.
ISSUE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Should the Refuge expand its environmental education program and facilities to serve the
growing urban community?
Environmental education is a priority use of the NWRS and a high priority use for urban refuges
like Nisqually NWR. The Refuge is ideally located to reach a diverse group of students in the
surrounding, growing urban community. Public scoping identified environmental education as a
highly valued purpose and activity of Nisqually NWR. The current environmental education
program and facilities are inadequate to meet both current and projected future demands for
environmental education opportunities. The Service also sees an opportunity to develop and
strengthen a partnership with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center to provide a coordinated
environmental education program in the Nisqually delta area. Public input showed strong
support for the environmental education program, and some commentors indicated a preference
for a larger expansion of the program than described in the Preferred Alternative. The CCP
includes a variety of program improvements and will triple the number of students served
annually, from 5,000 to 15,000.
ISSUE 4: WILDLIFE OBSERVATION, HIKING, AND TRAIL
CONFIGURATION
What areas of the Refuge will be accessed by trails and available to visitors if estuarine
restoration occurs?
The Refuge supports 7 miles of trails, including the 5½-mile Brown Farm Dike Trail and the 1-
mile Twin Barns Loop Trail. During the scoping process in public meetings, workshops, and
Issues Workbooks, many commentors said that fish, wildlife, and habitat needs should take
priority. Some expressed the desire to have access to all habitat types in whatever changes were
selected. Changes to the Brown Farm Dike associated with habitat restoration activities will
greatly reduce the length of the dike trail and change the configuration so it is no longer a loop.
During the public comment period on the Draft CCP/EIS, of those who commented specifically
on the trail, slightly more expressed a preference for maintaining the trail as is, than changing it.
The effects of trail changes will be reduced in the Preferred Alternative through construction of
new trails, including a 0.75-mile boardwalk trail that would extend into the estuary, a 2.5-mile
loop trail on the east side of the Nisqually River, and a 0.5-mile primitive trail through surge-plain
habitat. The 1-mile Twin Barns Loop Trail will remain intact.
ISSUE 5: WATERFOWL HUNTING ON NISQUALLY NWR
How can unauthorized hunting on the Refuge be resolved? Is sufficient wildlife sanctuary
currently provided within the Refuge? Should waterfowl hunting occur on Nisqually NWR?
Would consolidation of hunting on Refuge and State lands in the tideflats provide the best
location for a hunting area? Should the Service in cooperation with the WDFW take a more
direct role in managing the waterfowl hunting program?
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 2-8 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
The CCP process provided an opportunity to re-evaluate waterfowl hunting in the delta and
consider implementation, consolidation, or enforcement of closure of a waterfowl hunting
program on Refuge lands to resolve the current unauthorized hunting on a closed Refuge. Since
its establishment, Nisqually NWR has never been formally opened to waterfowl hunting.
However, waterfowl hunting is a popular State-managed activity that occurs in the delta, October
through January each year. Waterfowl hunting is permitted on three parcels (inholdings within
the Refuge boundary) owned by WDFW. These parcels have irregular boundaries and are not
distinguished from Refuge lands by boundary markers, so hunters often hunt on Refuge lands.
Except in limited areas where some posting has been done, the Service has not enforced the
hunting closure. The most comments received on the CCP addressed this key issue, with the
great majority opposed to opening Nisqually NWR to waterfowl hunting. Many comments
specifically objected to the reduction in size of the Research Natural Area to accommodate
hunting. A number of comments recommended additional restrictions to reduce wildlife
disturbance or conflicts with other visitors. Some provided suggestions on other areas to be
opened to hunting or walk-in or accessible hunting opportunities. The selected alternative will
open 191 acres of Refuge lands to waterfowl hunting adjacent to State lands, but provides
improved wildlife sanctuary in other portions of the Refuge. The RNA will be reduced by 73
acres to accommodate hunting, but 44 acres will be added to the south end.
ISSUE 6: FISHING AND SHELLFISHING
What opportunities should the Refuge provide for bank fishing, boat fishing, and shellfishing?
The Refuge offers fishing for salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in McAllister Creek and the
Nisqually River, and for shellfish and bottomfish in the tideflats. No fishing is allowed inside
the dike. Some fishing and shellfishing occur within the RNA although this is not allowed by
Service policy. Relatively few people commented on these issues on the Draft CCP/EIS. Public
comments during the scoping process identified concerns over limited access and opportunities
for bank fishing, increases in use and crowding, conflicts with other users, and the need for
fishing facilities accessible to people with disabilities. The Preferred Alternative provides
continued boat fishing opportunities but eliminates the McAllister bank fishing access due to
dike removal for restoration. New opportunities for bank fishing access along the Nisqually
River are included, as well as exploration of sites along McAllister Creek if suitable sites are
acquired in Refuge expansion. The RNA closure to consumptive uses will be enforced to
provide improved wildlife sanctuary.
ISSUE 7: BOATING
Is boating a compatible use and, if so, what restrictions are necessary?
Limited launch sites, shallow water conditions, and narrow boating corridors along the Nisqually
River and McAllister Creek currently limit the amount of boat traffic in the Refuge. However,
boat use, estimated at 6,700 visits per year for motorized and non-motorized use, is increasing.
High speeds and erosion caused by boat wakes, pollution, and wildlife disturbance are the
primary management concerns. Other management concerns include lack of access control,
disturbance to Refuge wildlife, conflicts with other Refuge visitors, and the absence of
educational materials at launch sites. Wildlife disturbance caused by boating could also
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 2-9
potentially increase in areas currently diked. Under Thurston County regulations, all watercraft
are restricted to a speed of 5 mph within 200 feet of any shoreline; however, the speed limit is
minimally enforced. Many people opposed allowing personal watercraft use on the Refuge.
Some expressed a desire to eliminate all motorized boating in Refuge waters. The selected
alternative continues to provide boating opportunities, but also reduces wildlife disturbance
through a 5 mph boat speed limit in all Refuge waters, a seasonal closure in the RNA during
winter months, and closure of all estuarine restoration sites.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 2-10 Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005
Chapter 3
Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3: REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the environment that may be affected by land acquisition and
management activities of Nisqually NWR. The Refuge environment includes important portions
of the Nisqually delta and lower reaches of the Nisqually River watershed. For this document,
the affected environment includes the CCP Study Area, which includes the lands within the
former approved Refuge boundary (3,936 acres) and areas considered for Refuge expansion
(5,390 acres), for a total study area of 9,326 acres. The new approved Refuge boundary includes
7,415 acres, and this reflects a portion of the CCP Study Area. The study area (Figure 1.1-2)
includes four distinct areas: McAllister Springs and Creek area, Nisqually River corridor,
Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain, and East Bluff. The McAllister Springs and Creek
area, Nisqually River corridor, and Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain are located south
of the current Refuge and are bordered on the north by I-5, on the east and west by bluffs, and on
the south by a combination of railroad tracks, bluffs, and property boundaries of residential
housing developments. The East Bluff area is east of the Refuge and is bordered on the north by
Sequalitchew Creek, on the west by Puget Sound, on the south by I-5, and the eastern boundary
follows property lines, including most of the forested habitat west of Fort Lewis.
3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Elements of the physical environment considered include climate, hydrology, geology, soils, and
contaminants.
3.1.1 Climate
Maritime air masses have a moderating effect in south Puget Sound year round, creating a
modified Mediterranean climate. Air quality is generally high due to climate, location, and few
industries that produce particulates. Average annual rainfall is 53 inches in nearby Olympia.
During the fall and spring seasons, the climate of the Nisqually delta is relatively mild. Winters
are usually wet and mild, with intermittent moderate to heavy rain rather than snow. Summers
are generally cool and dry.
The Olympic coast and Cascade ranges protect south Puget Sound from strong south-southwest
prevailing winds associated with winter storms. Average fall and winter daytime temperatures
range from 40°F to the low 50s. Winds are northeasterly during the summer and fair-weather
periods. July, August, and September temperatures average 60 to 70°F, exceeding 90°F on
approximately six days each summer. The average growing season is 250 days, depending on
elevation and distance from Puget Sound (D. Weaver, pers. comm.; USFWS 1978; Thurston
County Advance Planning and Historical Preservation 1994).
3.1.2 Hydrology
3.1.2.1 Freshwater
Freshwater sources in the CCP Study Area include the Nisqually River, McAllister and Red
Salmon creeks, Medicine Creek, McAllister Springs, and groundwater aquifers and artesian
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-2 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
wells. Surface drainage primarily enters the delta from the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek,
and Red Salmon Creek (USFWS 1978). A subsurface aquifer is located 175 feet below the delta
(USFWS 1977, 1978).
Originating on the south slope of Mount Rainier, the Nisqually River is 78 miles long and has a
712 square mile drainage basin. Flow volumes in the upper half of the Nisqually River result
from runoff and snow melt into the tributaries (Canning 1986). Located at river mile 44.2 and
42.5 are Tacoma City Light’s Alder and LaGrande hydroelectric dams, respectively. These
dams and their reservoirs have altered the natural flow regime by regulating downstream
discharge (Whiley and Walter 1998). From the town of Yelm to the delta, the floodplain width
broadens to 1 mile, bordered by bluffs on both sides rising 200 feet. Peak flows on the Nisqually
River occur during winter (December through February) and late spring (May and June). Low
flow periods occur in August and September. Low flows of about 1,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) usually occur in June through October in the watershed; wet season flow values are
typically around 2,000 cfs (ENSR 1999). Flood flows of about 13,000 cfs were recorded in
December 1995. River discharges over 18,000 cfs can overflow onto the riverbanks (Consoer,
Townsend, and Associates 1974; USFWS 1977).
McAllister Creek originates at McAllister Springs in the lower Nisqually River Valley at 6.7 feet
above mean sea level. Numerous small springs and seeps also feed into the creek near its
headwaters (Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management 1993). McAllister
Springs is the source for the municipal water supply for the City of Olympia (Consoer,
Townsend, and Associates 1974). A wellhead protection plan was developed and implemented
in 1995 to decrease the possibility of contamination of the drinking water supply and to provide
reaction time for a town to find another water source or install a treatment system in the event of
water contamination (City of Olympia 1995).
McAllister Creek flows north through the study area and Refuge for 6 miles to the Nisqually
Reach in Puget Sound. A very low stream gradient allows the tide to influence the creek all the
way to its source, and creek salinity varies with the tide. The streambed changes to sand, peat,
and muck downstream toward the delta. Medicine Creek is the longest tributary to McAllister
Creek, originating near the Nisqually River and flowing 3½ miles, joining McAllister Creek at
river mile 4.1. Another tributary to McAllister Creek is Little McAllister Creek. In wetlands
above McAllister bluff, Little McAllister Creek travels through a steep ravine into agricultural
ditches that outfall into McAllister Creek (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste
Management 1993).
Red Salmon Creek originates in the eastern uplands above the delta as a shallow gradient creek
that courses through marshes to the east delta bluffs, where it enters the Nisqually River
(USFWS 1978).
Groundwater aquifers and several artesian wells are located within the study area. Generally,
groundwater flows toward Puget Sound and major drainages, but patterns can vary locally.
Groundwater of the Nisqually River watershed occurs mostly in the glacially deposited
unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers. Infiltrated precipitation recharges the central and
western portions of the watershed (Emmett 1995). A 500 square mile south-central Pierce
County aquifer extends north and east to the Puyallup River and Ohop Creek, bordering the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-3
Nisqually River and Puget Sound to the south and west. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated this aquifer as a sole source aquifer and is a primary drinking
source for Pierce County (Emmett 1995; Moulton 1994; White 1997).
Population growth in the watershed is increasing the demand for water. Currently, 225,000
people live in the watershed, with 169,000 using the Pierce County aquifer as their sole source
for drinking water (which supplies on the average of 42 million gallons of drinking water per
day) (Emmett 1995). The City of Olympia withdraws 7 to 15 million gallons of water per day
from McAllister Springs to serve approximately 40,000 customers (V. Decillo, pers. comm.).
Groundwater withdrawals within all the drainages have the potential to adversely affect critical
flows (Emmett 1995).
3.1.2.2 Estuary
The Nisqually River provides the majority of the freshwater to the estuary. The tidally driven
reach currents distribute the turbid plume of river waters and sediment into a crescent-shaped
pattern across the delta front (Thom et al. 1985). McAllister Creek also opens into a broad,
tidally influenced estuary with a silt and muck streambed, braided distributaries, and mudflats at
Nisqually Reach (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993).
The delta undergoes two daily high and low tides. The mean higher high water (MHHW) line in
the Nisqually Reach is 13.5 feet, and the maximum yearly tide is 18.7 feet (J.G. Dunbar, pers.
comm.). Tidal influence extends upstream of the Nisqually River to about river mile 3.3
(Canning 1986). Very low tidal cycles (below Mean Low Low Water [MLLW]) usually occur
twice a month, and the lowest tides occur during the spring and summer (-3.5 feet MLLW)
(Wisseman et al. 1978).
3.1.3 Geology
The Nisqually delta is one of several river-mouth estuaries within the greater fjord-type estuary
of Puget Sound. The delta is located in the Puget Trough, a broad structural and topographic
depression formed at the time of the final uplift of the Cascade and Coast Range mountains, 11
million years ago (Burg 1984). Areas of volcanic activity raised large volcanic cones such as
Rainier and Baker. Sedimentation, glaciation, and pressure between plates all worked to form
the Puget Sound lowlands (White 1997).
After erosion, deposition, and plate tectonics worked on the landscape in Puget Sound for
approximately 60 million years, a series of glaciers advanced from what is now British Columbia
into the lowlands between the Cascade and Olympic ranges (White 1997). After each advance,
the glaciers receded to the north and up the valleys to higher elevations, where they persist
today. Between 150,000 and 15,000 years ago, these glaciers formed a glacial drift plain of
gravels, sand, silt, clays, and tills that comprise the gently undulating surface of the Puget Sound
lowlands (White 1997). When the last glacier receded about 14,000 years ago, the valleys were
flooded with sea water and became the major basins and numerous smaller inlets of Puget Sound
(Burg 1984). In lowland areas around the sound, retreating glaciers left behind a thick mantle of
lacustrine and outwash sediments over the bedrock as far south as Chehalis, Washington (Burg
1984). The Nisqually River carved a deep valley into its floodplain, building the present-day
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-4 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
delta when sea level reached its present condition 5,000 years ago. Sediments deposited at the
mouth of the river built the delta northward a distance of at least 2.4 km until an equilibrium was
reached between the river’s deposition and tidal current erosion in the Nisqually Reach. The
delta achieved its unique crescent shape during the final stages of development when more
extensive outward growth occurred along the east and west margins where tidal currents were
weaker (Burg 1984).
3.1.4 Soils
Refuge soils vary widely, from the hydric soils of tidal marshes to the sandy and gravelly soils of
the adjacent uplands. The delta is composed of alluvial layers of sand, silt, and clay to a depth of
138 feet (CH2M Hill et al. 1978). Tidal soils are very deep, poorly drained soils on which salt-tolerant
vegetation grows (Pringle 1982; Burg 1984). Surface sediments of the main river
channel are composed of silt mixed with sand, clay, and organic matter (Caicco 1989b).
Soils of the high marsh and sloughs are generally organic with silt, sand, or clay (Caicco 1989b).
Sediments of the delta marsh and mudflats have been largely derived from glacial material,
which historically and currently have been carried by the Nisqually River from its glacial source
on Mount Rainier. The construction of LaGrande Dam in 1910-1912 and completion of Alder
Dam midway up the river in 1945 reduced the amount of sediment carried to the delta by the
Nisqually River.
Pilchuck loamy sand underlies an area known as the surge plain (see Section 3.2, Vegetation and
Habitat Resources) and is then covered by sandy alluvial deposits of the Nisqually River
floodplain.
Soils within the diked interior are silt loams of the Pilchuck, Puget, Puyallup, Sultan, and
Tacoma series. These soils are compressible, tend toward wetness, and have a high organic
content, low strength, and slow permeability (CH2M Hill et al. 1978).
The West Bluff in the Refuge consists of well-drained very gravelly sandy soils on 60 to 90%
slopes. The East Bluff is composed of similar soils, moderately to excessively well-drained on
45 to 70% slopes, and are formed in sandy and gravelly outwash (Pringle 1982). In the uplands
above East Bluff, known as the Hoffman Hill area, the Kitsap formation is associated with a
significant risk of slope failure. In areas of groundwater seepage, steep slopes tend to break off
in large blocks (URS Company 1979).
The McAllister Springs basin soils are found in six or so layers of silt, sand, and gravel. Soils
consist of glacial till, outwash, and drift, some with peat layers deposited before the Vashon
glacier advanced. Soils south of I-5 in the agricultural area are primarily Puyallup silt loams, a
dark brown loamy fine sand, and sandy loam. This moderately rapidly draining soil developed
in the alluvium, forming floodplain soils. Large pockets of Puget silt loam, a deep, poorly
drained soil, are found within depressions in the floodplain soils (Pringle 1982).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-5
3.1.5 Environmental Contaminants
Between 1985 and 1988, the Service conducted four contaminant investigations on the Refuge.
As a result of their findings, the Refuge was classified as Category C, which requires
reconnaissance monitoring for metals. The justification for the classification was based on the
Refuge’s proximity to urban areas and a dead bald eagle containing extremely high levels of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found on the Refuge in 1982 (Momot 1993).
The diked interior along I-5, the orchard, Shannon Slough, and McAllister Creek on the Refuge
were documented as areas of potential concern due to elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and
mercury. Mice from the Twin Barns contained high levels of lead. Elevated levels of mercury
were found at McAllister Creek at I-5, Shannon Slough, and the “red-tailed hawk” pump
(Momot 1993). In 1997 and 1998, amphipod tissue studies conducted in the delta detected
measurable quantities of heavy metals, especially copper, zinc, and butyltins, in the tissues of
amphipods (Davis et al. 1997). However heavy metals detected were below what are considered
levels of concern for these organisms. In 1999, the Washington State Department of Ecology
tested soils collected from the old orchard area for the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and lead.
Results detected no presence of cadmium and very low levels of arsenic and lead (J. Mercuri,
pers. comm.).
On the Nisqually Reach, vanadium and aromatic hydrocarbons were found in clams and oysters,
and low levels of PCBs were found in ghost shrimp. Elevated concentrations exceeding National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) standards were also documented for zinc,
copper, nickel, and manganese (Momot 1993). Heavy metals and chemicals were found in 1987
and 1992 in sediment chemistry of the Nisqually River delta and reach by the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority. They included aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, arsenic, copper,
cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc, and total organic carbon (Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems
1987; Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1992). A 1985 study in Puget Sound revealed high
levels of contaminants in fish, marine mammals, and marine birds. Great blue heron eggshells
from the heronry in the Nisqually River delta were found to be significantly thinner than a pre-
1947 mean, likely due to contamination by Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or its
derivative, DDE (Calambokidis et al. 1985). Aquatic plants, such as eelgrass, appear to
concentrate metals without being affected, allowing metals to move through the food web
(Phillips 1984).
Since the study area is located in the vicinity of I-5, industrial and commercial operations (such
as the gravel mine and gas stations), and residential developments, non-point sources of
environmental contaminants exist. In addition, hazardous materials may be transported on I-5,
the railroad, or by ship in Puget Sound and have potential for accidental spills, which would
affect Refuge lands and waters.
It is Service policy to minimize the potential liability of the Department of the Interior and the
Service by acquiring real property that is not contaminated with hazardous waste unless directed
by the Congress, court mandate, or as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. In compliance
with Service policy, we have conducted an initial overview survey to identify actual or potential
hazardous substances or other environmental problems located in areas identified for Refuge
expansion. This is the first step in determining the potential for hazardous wastes prior to
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-6 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
acquisition or land transfer. Additional “Level 1” environmental site assessments are also
required prior to the acquisition of any real property to determine the potential for, and extent of
liability for hazardous substances or other environmental remediation or injury. This includes
but is not limited to a determination of the absence or presence of hazardous substances or
conditions that indicate an existing or past release, or a material threat of a release on the real
property. The initial site assessment and records search revealed the following:
East Bluff: A portion of the former DuPont Works, an explosives manufacturing plant from 1906
until the mid-1970s, is within the Refuge expansion area. Contamination resulted from the
manufacturing process, waste disposal, pesticide use, and decommissioning of the site buildings.
In July 1991, Department of Ecology, Weyerhaeuser, and DuPont Companies signed a consent
decree to conduct a remedial investigation/risk assessment/feasibility study (RI/RA/FS). The
site was divided into two main areas: Parcel 1 (the former production area, about 636 acres) and
Parcel 2 (about 205 acres). Parcel 2 (the black powder area or Area 40) was cleaned up to
industrial standards and was removed from the 1991 consent decree in August 1997.
A final EIS was issued in July 2000 for a golf course/containment facility in Parcel 1 which
would isolate and manage lead and arsenic-contaminated soil (WDOE 2003). The main
contaminants of concern are lead and arsenic in soil. While lead was detected site-wide, arsenic
contamination, generally from pesticide use, was restricted to more discrete areas. Other
hazardous substances discovered are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), mercury, di- and
trinitrotoluenes (DNT/TNT), and benzo(a)pyrene. DNT is the only chemical of concern in
groundwater and concentrations are generally low, at levels that meet drinking water standards.
The Department of Ecology, Weyerhaeuser, and DuPont Companies have agreed on a cleanup
for the former explosives plant. The consent decree, including the cleanup action plan, requires
Weyerhaeuser and DuPont Companies to take several actions, which include disposal of higher
level-contaminated soils at a hazardous waste landfill, excavating and consolidating lower level-contaminated
soil within approximately 90 acres of the planned golf course area, capping it with
a 180-acre engineered golf course including 18 inches of clean gravel and soils, and monitoring
groundwater. Deed restrictions would limit site use to primarily commercial purposes that will
not disturb the cap/cover system and to control groundwater so it will not be used for drinking
water (WDOE 2003). The cleanup regulation also requires the Department of Ecology to review
site conditions every five years to make sure that human health and the environment are being
protected. The Department of Ecology will oversee the project to ensure that all terms of the
consent decree are satisfied.
Expansion Area South of I-5: The portion of the study area managed by the Fort Lewis Military
Reservation includes areas used for light training and areas zoned as Research Natural Area
(RNA). A Level 1 contaminants survey would be conducted prior to the land transfer process.
Other locations in the study area south of I-5 with potential for contaminants include farms, the
Holroyd gravel mine, the Nisqually Exit 114 gas stations, and McAllister Creek State Fish
Hatchery (now closed). All may have underground or above-ground fuel storage tanks that have
potential for leaking or past spills. Other potential contamination may occur in equipment
maintenance areas or from pesticide storage and use. Fish hatchery operations may also have
other sources of contaminants that would be investigated in a Level 1 survey prior to acquisition.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-7
Initial reconnaissance of the City of Olympia McAllister Springs site has indicated that there is a
low probability of contaminants located at this site due to its history as a drinking water source
for the City.
3.1.5.1 Water Quality
The Nisqually River, from its headwaters on Mount Rainier to Alder Dam (river mile 44), is
listed by the Department of Ecology as Class AA, which means that its waters are expected to
meet criteria characteristic of extraordinary quality water (Emmett 1995). From Alder Dam to
the delta, the river is listed as Class A, with expected criteria characteristic of good and fair
quality waters. Water analyses of monitoring stations indicate that significantly higher fecal
coliform concentrations occur below river mile 34 (within the mainstem Nisqually River) in
comparison to upriver locations, particularly during storm events (Whiley and Walter 1998).
This increase is linked to both an increase in nonpoint source fecal coliform loading and to
decreased dilution. While significant increases in fecal coliform concentrations were observed
for the lower portion of the river, those increases were well within the Washington State Water
Quality Standard. The trend in fecal coliform for the lower river indicates that concentrations
have reduced over the past 19 years from a median level of 33 colony-forming units (cfu)/100 ml
to a present median of 10 cfu/100 ml (Whiley and Walter 1998).
McAllister Creek provides the most continuous source of fecal coliform to the marine areas of
the Nisqually Reach (Whiley and Walter 1998). A positive correlation was detected between
fecal coliform concentrations within the creek during storm events to corresponding increases in
bacterial levels found over shellfish growing areas. In 1992, the Washington State Department
of Health reclassified 2,130 acres of commercial and recreational shellfish beds in the Nisqually
Reach from “approved” to “conditionally open” after finding elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria in the reach following storm events (Whiley and Walter 1996; Emmett 1995).
Following further evaluation, the shellfish beds were closed to harvest in spring 2000 (W.
Clifford, pers. comm.). Water testing is conducted regularly to monitor contaminant levels.
The Nisqually River regularly experiences high turbidity or cloudiness during the summer due to
its glacial source. Summer fluvial flows in all rivers and creeks within the CCP Study Area are
extremely low and are not supporting existing water rights or fish populations, nor are they
reducing the effects of pollutants or providing for recreation. The sand and gravel outwash
deposits throughout the aquifer are susceptible to contamination from surface sources, such as
land application of wastes (Emmett 1995).
River temperatures on the Nisqually River vary seasonally, with maximums greater than 60.8°F
observed in August or September (at the gaging station at river mile 3.4). Minimum
temperatures at this station are observed in January or February with values below 42.8°F
(ENSR 1999).
Salinity profiles were sampled in 1977 in the Nisqually Reach during low slack water and flood
tide (ENSR 1999). Freshwater in this area flows over the marine water in a very thin layer,
estimated at 3 to 5 cm. Salinity measurements varied from 0 to 30 parts per thousand (ppt), with
the most stratified conditions occurring near the Nisqually mudflats. The Nisqually Reach water
is replaced every 8 days and is considered well flushed (ENSR 1999). Saltwater and tidal
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-8 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
influence have been observed from the mouth of Nisqually River to the old US Hwy 99 bridge
(river mile 0.0-3.3) (Canning 1986). Salinity ranged from 0 to 6.3 ppt at McAllister Creek from
October 1984 to May 1985 (ENSR 1999).
3.1.5.2 Air Quality
The delta is susceptible to localized low level inversions, which can entrap both gaseous and
particulate pollutants (Hesselbart 1977b). Stationary sources of air pollution in south Puget
Sound include pulp mills, lumber mills, veneer dryers, and sand and gravel companies. North to
Seattle and Snohomish County, stationary sources also include steel plants, flour mills, cement
plants, aluminum smelters, sawmills, and grain elevators (WDOE 1991). Deteriorating air
quality in the local area is necessitating burn bans of increasing duration and area.
3.2 VEGETATION AND HABITAT RESOURCES
The Nisqually NWR represents an important regional wildlife habitat resource. Information is
presented below on important habitats and plant species (including exotic and invasive species)
present on the Refuge and in the entire study area. Habitats in the study area include estuarine,
freshwater wetland, riverine and riparian, and upland. Figure 3.2-1 is a graphic representation of
the habitat types and wildlife typical of the Refuge. This section ends with a discussion of
regional trends for important habitats.
3.2.1 Habitats and Vegetation Communities
A habitat type map covering the approved Refuge as well as the entire study area was created
based on analysis of a 1997 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) image. The amounts of each
habitat type present within the approved Refuge boundary, the study area outside the approved
Refuge boundary, and within the total study area are shown in Figure 3.2-2 and listed in Table
3.2-1.
3.2.1.1 Estuarine Habitat
The Nisqually River Estuary, one of the most extensive and productive estuaries in Puget Sound,
is one of the few remaining vegetated nearshore estuarine habitats in the sound (Copping 1990).
Estuarine habitat includes open water, aquatic bed, unconsolidated shore, and vegetated
intertidal areas (Figure 3.2-3). The estuary is a complex and highly integrated system that serves
as important habitat for migrating waterbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and salmon
populations (Thom et al. 1985; URS Company 1979). Estuarine habitats attract a diversity and
abundance of wildlife species and provide nursery areas for juvenile salmon and other fish.
Many species of plants and animals depend on the delta for one or more phases of their life
cycles (Canning 1986).
Page 3-9
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005
Nisqually River
P u g e t S o u n d
McAllister
Creek
Red Salmon Creek
Shannon
Slough
CCP Study Area Habitat Types
Figure 3.2-2
Source: 1997 Landsat TM Image; USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2003
March 2005
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_2.mxd
N
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
1:70,187
Legend
Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary CCP Study Area
Open Water, Salt
Open Water, Fresh
Unconsolidated Shore
Aquatic Bed
Vegetated Intertidal
Freshwater Wetland
Riparian and Forested Wetland
Upland Forest
Grassland
Agriculture
Bare Land
Developed
Aerial Photo 1990
Page 3-11
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-13
Table 3.2-1. Summary of Habitat Types and Acres Within the CCP Study Area.
Acres
Habitat
Approved Refuge
Boundary
Study Area Outside
of Refuge
Boundary
Total Study Area
Open Water, Salt 393 43 436
Open Water, Fresh 142 244 386
Unconsolidated Shore 1,115 64 1,179
Aquatic Bed 295 0 295
Vegetated Intertidal 623 10 633
Freshwater Wetland 623 48 671
Riparian and Forested Wetland 259 1,913 2,172
Upland Forest 71 1,262 1,333
Grassland 434 305 739
Agriculture 93 1,108 1,201
Bare Land 0 89 89
Developed 5 304 309
TOTAL ACRES 4,053 5,390 9,443
Source: Service data, Ducks Unlimited, and National Wetlands Inventories.
Includes State, Nisqually Indian Tribe, and Private lands. Acres presented in this table were calculated from
Geographic Information System (GIS) database; variations in the GIS cover type data result in slight discrepancies
in acreage totals presented elsewhere in this CCP.
Historically, the Nisqually delta supported 6,207 acres of intertidal estuarine habitat (Figure 3.2-
4). Currently, 5,016 acres of this habitat remains, which represents a loss of 1,191 acres or 19%.
Especially significant is the loss of vegetated intertidal habitat or salt marsh, which has
decreased from 1,458 acres to 674 acres (a loss of 784 acres or 54%) because of diking, channel
migration and straightening, and land filling around I-5 (Tanner 1999). The landward extent of
the historical salt marsh, depicted on a 1878 topographic survey map (Bortleson et al. 1980;
Figure 3.2-4), reached southwest to Martin Way, just south of I-5. Tidal channels crossed the
forested lowland. Since 1878, the Nisqually River channel shifted laterally and straightened
from the I-5 crossing to the river mouth (Burg 1984). At the turn of the century, the Brown Farm
Dike was constructed and converted estuarine habitat to approximately 1,000 acres of freshwater
wetlands and non-native grasslands in the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 1978). The
construction of the dike also significantly reduced the amount of shoreline by cutting off the
upper reaches of tidal channels and former river distributaries.
The dike is a barrier preventing nutrients, produced in the freshwater wetlands it encompasses,
from being released into the estuary. Once an energy and nutrient source to the estuary, the
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-14 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
diked interior is now interrupting the physical, chemical, and biological processes of the
estuarine system. The alteration of estuarine wetlands to freshwater wetlands by diking has
removed habitat for waterfowl, salmon, and other estuarine-dependent species, resulting in
detrimental effects (Burg 1984).
The construction of two dams on the Nisqually River reduced the amount of sediment carried to
the delta, which may have altered the equilibrium between erosion and deposition toward erosion
and recession. The river discharges about 105,000 tons of sediment annually, nearly all of which
is currently deposited in Alder Lake (Nelson 1974). The dike may also have caused tidal
velocities to increase, resulting in erosion of the mudflats (Consoer, Townsend, and Associates
1974; USFWS 1977; Burg 1984; Canning 1986).
Estuarine Vegetation Community Descriptions
Estuarine habitat surrounds the diked area in the delta. Below are described three general
categories of estuarine habitat–aquatic bed, unconsolidated shore, and vegetated intertidal–and
their distinct vegetation communities (Figure 3.2-2).
Aquatic Bed
Aquatic bed refers to wetlands and deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow principally
on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season (Cowardin et al. 1979). One
of the most important vegetation communities of the aquatic bed in the Nisqually delta is
eelgrass beds. Eelgrass provides shelter for fish and invertebrates and is an important source of
food for shorebirds, waterfowl, benthic invertebrates, and a large number of other animals.
Eelgrass is restricted to habitats where erosion and sedimentation are in equilibrium because its
rhizomes tend to grow horizontally (Phillips 1984). The Nisqually River delta is the southern-most
source of eelgrass in Puget Sound (T. Mumford, pers. comm.).
Eelgrass beds covering about 49 acres in 1978 were found to occur from the County line
northeast to the sandspit on the eastern shore (Wisseman et al. 1978), and covered about 25% of
the RNA in the Nisqually Reach (Caicco 1989a). The northeast eelgrass meadows are in the
lower intertidal and shallow subtidal areas (Wisseman et al. 1978). The delta front, from the
County line to McAllister Creek, is devoid of eelgrass, presumably due to strong tidal scouring
action in the reach. High concentrations of eelgrass (22 acres) were found in the McAllister
Creek channel in 1978, extending well into the creek mouth and reach (Wisseman et al. 1978).
The eelgrass beds in this area are sparsely distributed and less dense than eelgrass beds in other
parts of Puget Sound (A. Sewell, pers. comm.).
Unconsolidated Shore (Saltwater)
Unconsolidated shore areas consist of mudflats, sandflats, and rocky shores characterized by a
lack of vegetation, except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods
when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce
these landforms (Cowardin et al. 1979). These areas attract many wildlife species including
#
#
#
Olympia
¨§¦5
Lacey
DuPont
Anderson
Island
Hartstene
Island
Squaxin Island
Johnson
Point
P U G E T
S O U N D
National Wetland Inventory of
Regional Estuarine Wetlands
Figure 3.2-3
March 2005
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002
N
1:150,000
P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_3.mxd
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Wetland Type
Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bed
Estuarine Intertidal Beach/Bar
Estuarine Intertidal Open Water
Estuarine Intertidal Flat
Estuarine Intertidal Emergent
Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore
Estuarine Subtidal Open Water
Legend
Former Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary
Major Road
Railroad
Page 3-15
¦§¨5
¨§¦5
Historic (1878) and Current Wetlands
in the Nisqually Delta
Figure 3.2-4
Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; Tanner 1999; EDAW, 2002
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005
N
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
1:60,004
P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_4.mxd
Current Wetland Resources
Wetland Type
Estuarine Subtidal (Open Water), E1
Estuarine Intertidal, E2
Upland, U
Palustrine (Freshwater), P
Riverine, R
Former Approved Nisqually
Historic Wetland Resources, 1878
Wetland Type
Estuarine Subtidal (Open Water), E1
Estuarine Intertidal, E2
Upland, U
Palustrine (Freshwater), P
No Label
Former Approved Nisqually
Historic Composition
17% 33%
48%
2%
E1 (2499 ac)
E2 (3708 ac)
U (1254 ac)
P (152 ac)
R (0 ac)
Current Composition
1%
37%
28%
14%
20% E1 (2851 ac)
E2 (2165 ac)
U (1512 ac)
P (1082 ac)
R (46 ac)
NWR Boundary
NWR Boundary
Page 3-17
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-19
shellfish and other invertebrates, shorebirds, and mammals. The delta mudflats and
unconsolidated substrate harbor microalgae and over 80 seaweed species. Microalgae, which
attaches to sediment, is a possible source of carbon to the detritus-based food web, which plays a
primary role in estuarine production (Thom et al. 1985). Sparse mudflat vegetation includes
Lyngby’s sedge, seashore saltgrass, seaside arrowgrass, fleshy jaumea, and pickleweed (Kunze
1984; Burg et al. 1980). The sparsely vegetated mudflats transition into the more abundant
vegetation and dense drainage channels of the low salt marsh (see Vegetated Intertidal, below).
Vegetated Intertidal (Estuarine Emergent)
Vegetated intertidal or estuarine emergent areas are better known as salt marshes. These areas
can be further subdivided into low, middle, and high salt marsh communities based on salinity
patterns, elevation, and other factors such as substrate, wave energy, marsh age, sedimentation,
and erosion. Low salt marsh generally occurs between the lowest margin of the marsh and mean
high water (MHW). Middle salt marsh occurs between MHW and MHHW. High salt marsh
occurs between MHHW and the highest margin of the marsh. High salt marsh vegetation
typically mixes with upland plant species in the marsh/upland zone (Figure 3.2-1).
Low salt marshes are found on low terraces where the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek
meet the reach and in sandy intertidal marsh areas along the outer fringe of the Brown Farm
Dike. The topography is hummocky with a diffuse drainage pattern and attracts an abundance of
migrating waterfowl species, rails, and bitterns. In the delta toward the reach, low salt marshes
are of moderate salinity, with silty and sandy soils. Low to intermediate salt marsh plant
communities are dominated by pickleweed, Lyngby’s sedge, gumweed, tufted hairgrass, seaside
arrowgrass, seashore saltgrass, fleshy jaumea, halberd-leaf saltbush, and scattered patches of
Baltic rush (Burg 1984; Burg et al. 1980; Mason et al. 1974). In sandy, low intertidal marsh
areas, plant communities include seashore saltgrass and pickleweed (Kunze 1984; WNHP 1998).
The broad, relatively level vegetated areas of the high salt marsh, separated by wide drainage
channels up to 6 feet deep, were formed by distributaries of the Nisqually River prior to diking
(Klotz et al. 1978; Burg 1984). Migrating waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks, utilize the rich
food sources available in these areas. The high salt marsh is composed of plant communities that
tolerate low and moderate salinity. Along the river, communities include tufted hairgrass, Baltic
rush, Pacific silverweed, Lyngby’s sedge, and red fescue (Burg et al. 1980; Burg 1984).
Quackgrass, redtop, velvetgrass, and orchardgrass are found high on the banks of McAllister
Creek.
Salt marsh productivity is dependent upon the health of its vegetation (URS Company 1979).
Nisqually salt marsh studies in 1980 showed a production weight recorded for Lyngby’s sedge
that is among the highest rates recorded for salt marshes in the Pacific Northwest (Thom et al.
1985). Lyngby’s sedge, covering roughly 20 acres in the delta, was the most productive plant
type at both high and low elevations (Burg et al. 1980).
3.2.1.2 Freshwater Wetland Habitat (Palustrine Emergent)
Freshwater wetlands in the CCP Study Area include permanent and seasonal ponds, marshes,
wet meadows, and scrub-shrub habitats. These are also known as palustrine emergent wetlands.
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-20 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Riverine and riparian wetlands are other types of freshwater wetlands, discussed separately
below. Freshwater wetlands provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl (especially dabbling
ducks), herons and other waterbirds, shorebirds, landbirds, mammals, amphibians, and
invertebrate species.
Since the mid-1800s, a loss of wetlands in the Nisqually River delta and watershed has occurred,
not only in estuarine but also in freshwater wetlands (Canning 1986). Freshwater wetland losses
have been caused by draining, filling, and diking of lands. Losses are also due to competing
activities and practices such as agriculture, grazing, forestry, and recreation (Canning 1986).
When the dike was built in the late 1800s, estuarine habitat was converted to freshwater habitat,
increasing freshwater habitat in the delta by 610% (Tanner 1999). With the cessation of
agricultural practices, the diked area became progressively wetter. Since Refuge establishment,
the diked area has been managed as freshwater wetlands and non-native grasslands.
Freshwater wetlands within the current Refuge boundary are found primarily within the diked
area and include permanent and seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, marshes, and scrub-shrub
habitats. These wetlands are fed by several artesian wells and rainfall and are found around
artesian wells, in low lying depressions, along historically tidal slough channels, and in borrow
ditches. During high flood conditions, freshwater also flows into the diked area through two
overflow channels from the Nisqually River. Normally, there is no direct flow from the
Nisqually River or McAllister Creek into the diked area. Saltwater seepage through the dike
occurs frequently, allowing both freshwater and brackish vegetation to grow in the borrow ditch
and sloughs. Interspersed within the dike’s emergent wetlands and seasonally flooded
freshwater depressions are non-native grasslands (see Upland Habitat, below).
Vegetation dominating wet meadows commonly includes rushes, cattails, sedges, and grasses.
Scrub-shrub vegetation scattered through the marsh areas includes mixed grasses and forbs and
is dominated by native shrubs. Aquatic vegetation found in permanent ponds includes
pondweeds, smartweeds, knotweeds, bulrushes, sedges, and grasses (Burg 1984).
During the past 20 years, the habitat quality of the diked interior freshwater wetlands at
Nisqually NWR has declined. Reed canary grass, a highly invasive exotic plant, is rapidly
spreading throughout much of the area and now occupies more than 30% of the total acreage.
Water level management has become increasingly limited, and portions of the diked area are
becoming too wet to easily manage. Plant succession has been allowed to occur in large sections
of the diked area, allowing wetlands and grasslands to gradually convert to scrub-shrub habitats.
Approximately 48 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands occur in the study area outside of the
currently approved Refuge boundary. All of these wetlands are found south of I-5. The majority
of them occur in the McAllister Creek basin in potholes and upland depressions. Wetland
vegetation ranges from sedge stands to cattails, bulrushes, willows, salmonberry, and skunk
cabbage (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). Other freshwater
wetland locations are also found along the Nisqually River and adjacent floodplains.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-21
3.2.1.3 Riverine and Riparian Habitats
This group of habitats includes riverine, freshwater unconsolidated shore, riparian, and forested
wetlands areas in the CCP Study Area. They are found within and alongside the Nisqually
River, McAllister Creek, and Red Salmon Creek. Natural riverine and riparian corridors are
diverse, dynamic, and complex habitats supporting a wide variety of fish and wildlife. Although
riparian areas constitute a small portion of the surface landscape, they are very productive, and
approximately 85% of Washington’s wildlife species have been known to use riparian habitat
associated with rivers and streams (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Habitat for many upland species is
also directly enhanced by the presence of adjacent riparian and riverine habitat.
Most of the Nisqually River floodplain in the study area is comprised of riparian vegetation
(Canning 1986). The original extent, and subsequent loss to conversions, of the riparian forests
is unknown. Historically, losses occurred primarily due to timber harvest, livestock grazing,
road construction, and reservoir impoundments (Canning 1986). On the Refuge, agricultural
fields, roads, and building sites are located on historical riparian and bottomland habitat along
the Nisqually River. These disturbed areas have been colonized mainly by non-native grasses
and forbs (Klotz et al. 1978).
Riverine and Unconsolidated Shore
Riverine habitat is home to some aquatic plants but is dominated by open water. Unconsolidated
shore includes sandflats containing pioneering plants that are periodically disturbed by floods
and other erosive events. The Nisqually River provides good wintering habitat for bald eagles
(URS Company 1979). A peak count of 200 eagles on the Nisqually River has been observed
(Stalmaster 2001). Other species that use the riverine habitat in the study area include several
anadromous (migratory) salmonids, such as chinook and chum salmon, and a variety of
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
Riparian and Forested Wetland (Deciduous and Mixed)
Riparian forests in the study area are typically deciduous or mixed forests along the Nisqually
River and McAllister Creek. Deciduous riparian forests are dominated by big-leaf maple, black
cottonwood, and red alder. In areas where coniferous tree species are present (mixed forests),
Douglas-fir or western red cedar are typical. Understory vegetation includes salmonberry,
snowberry, Indian plum, and red-osier dogwood. Riparian vegetation along the upper
McAllister Creek grows in a broad wetland with some saltwater intrusion. Vegetation consists
of willows, red elderberry, ninebark, and Indian plum. From the middle reach of the creek to the
estuary, agricultural dikes and lawns with scattered wetland plants occur, as well as riparian
habitat limited to narrow bands along the streambanks (Thurston County Dept. of Water and
Waste Management 1993). Riparian areas provide habitat for more bird species, including
passerines, woodpeckers, waterfowl, and raptors, than all other habitat types combined (Knopf et
al. 1988; Kirby et al. 1992).
Within the Refuge, a high quality example of a surge plain—a high energy, high nutrient, tidal
freshwater forested wetland–can be found along the Nisqually River. The approximately 70-acre
forested wetland community is regularly influenced by tidal waters. The surge plain is flooded
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-22 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
during high tides and freshwater storm events. Between inundating floods and high tides, the
forested wetlands remain wet to saturated by slightly brackish water and freshwater, and the
water table is near the surface (WNHP 1998; Caicco 1989a). The surge plain consists primarily
of deciduous forests with small pockets of mixed canopy. The deciduous stands are dominated
by black cottonwood, big-leaf maple, red alder, with a very dense shrub layer (Caicco 1989a).
The shrub layer consists of two communities—one dominated by common snowberry and the
other by salmonberry (Klotz et al. 1978; Caicco 1989a). Other plants found in the understory
include various willow species, vine maple, red-osier dogwood, Oregon ash, and red elderberry
(Caicco 1989a; URS Company 1979).
3.2.1.4 Upland Habitat
Upland habitat consists of lands not inundated by water except during catastrophic events.
Upland habitat in the CCP Study Area includes upland forest, grassland, and agricultural land.
Most of the upland areas within the approved Refuge boundary are in the southwestern portions
of the diked area, on the western property above the bluffs, the eastern hillside near Mounts
Road, and the area around the Refuge administrative buildings and parking lot. Upland areas
within the study area outside the Refuge boundary include the bluffs along the Nisqually River,
McAllister Creek and along the eastern boundary of the Refuge, and agricultural lands in the
valley. Upland forest habitats support a variety of nesting birds, including the bald eagle, red-tailed
hawk, great blue heron, woodpeckers, and passerines, as well as mammals and
amphibians. Agricultural lands and grasslands, depending on specific management regime, can
be good foraging areas for some landbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl.
Within the Refuge, upland forests were formerly highly diverse and probably contained western
hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas-fir, which flourished in openings created by fire, wind,
drought, insect damage, and disease (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management
1993). By the mid-1800s, the upland forests were cleared as settlers created fields for cultivation
amidst transitional freshwater wetlands (Burg 1984). Forests throughout the Puget Sound
lowlands, including the Nisqually River watershed, have been heavily affected by logging. Red
alder, which was much less common before settlement and logging of the delta, is now more
abundant (URS Company 1979). The overall reduction in structure and complexity of forests in
the watershed compared to their historical counterparts may offer less stormwater protection and
habitat diversity (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993).
Soil map analysis of the study area suggests that prior to European settlement, forested uplands
and riparian forested bottomlands grew adjacent to the estuarine wetlands of the delta. Native
grasslands were, at that time, restricted to uplands and prairies south and east of the delta.
Upland Forest
The Refuge and study area lie entirely within the Puget Sound Douglas-fir ecoregion/vegetation
zone, adjacent to the Woodland/Prairie Mosaic zone on Fort Lewis. Forests cover about 87 acres
of the Nisqually delta and bluffs (Klotz et al. 1978). The delta bluffs are dominated by mixed
coniferous-deciduous upland forests (USFWS 1977). Forests along the west delta bluffs are
mixed deciduous-conifer species. Douglas-fir is predominant, mixed with big-leaf maple,
western hemlock, and red alder at lower levels on the bluffs. The upland area adjacent to the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-23
West Bluff between Meridian Road and the top of the bluff was historically a dense forest of
Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and some western red cedar. Most of the trees were clearcut from
the southern two-thirds of the property in the early 1990s, before the Service purchased the 110-
acre tract. The parcel has since reverted to a field of Scot’s broom with some occurrences of
natural revegetation. The uplands were acquired by the Refuge as a wildlife corridor to the West
Bluff and to stabilize the slope above the creek and protect the biological and aesthetic integrity
of the Refuge. Reforestation efforts were initiated in the late 1990s.
Forests in the remainder of the study area are comprised of second-growth coniferous and mixed
forests (Thurston County Dept. of Water and Waste Management 1993). The bluff along the
eastern boundary of the Refuge and along McAllister Creek south of I-5 is dominated by
coniferous trees, primarily Douglas-fir. Mixed deciduous forests are scattered along the
Nisqually Valley lowlands.
Grassland
Approximately 230 acres of the diked interior are former pastures that were historically
extensively cultivated and heavily grazed. Today, pasture grasses that dominate these areas and
elevations of these former pasture lands fluctuate slightly with distinct vegetation changes,
creating a mixture of non-native grasslands and wet meadows. In lower depressional areas of the
diked interior, non-native grasses, such as creeping bentgrass and common velvetgrass, and
occasional stands of rushes are found (Mason et al. 1974). Reed canary grass dominates the
transition zone between former pasture land and wet meadows, comprising more than 30% of the
diked interior.
Since 1974, between 75 and 450 acres have been mowed or hayed each year each to control reed
canary grass and provide fall browse vegetation for waterfowl, particularly American wigeon.
The area mowed or hayed varies from year to year, depending on rainfall. Currently,
approximately 300 to 350 acres are mowed or hayed each year.
Agriculture
With over 1,100 acres in crops and pasture in the CCP Study Area outside of the Refuge
boundary, agriculture is one of the predominant land uses south of I-5. The principal crops
grown in this area include hay, corn, and Christmas tree farms. To maintain the existing rural
environment of the Nisqually Valley, agricultural lands in this area became part of Thurston
County’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program since 1994 (S. Morrison, pers.
comm.; Thurston County Planning Department 1992). The PDR program permanently preserves
farmland while supporting the farming community.
3.2.2 State and Regional Trends for Key Habitats Represented at
Nisqually NWR
Historically, presettlement wetland acreage in Washington ranged from 1.17 to 1.53 million
acres (Lane and Taylor 1996). Estimates of wetland loss in Washington range from 20 to as
great as 50% decline during the past 200 years due to dredging, filling, diking, and industrial and
residential development (Lane and Taylor 1996). The Puget Sound area has experienced even
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-24 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
greater losses of up to 70 to 100% of historic wetlands in some urbanized areas (White 1997;
Lane and Taylor 1996). Freshwater wetlands throughout the state were subject to a high rate of
loss until the 1940s. Since then, the trend of wetland loss has slowed considerably since fewer
wetlands remain to be converted, particularly in urbanized areas (Boule et al. 1983; Lane and
Taylor 1996). Of the estimated 900,000 acres of wetlands currently in Washington State, about
22% are estuarine and 78% are freshwater (also known as palustrine) (Boule et al. 1983; Lane
and Taylor 1996).
Over 80% of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound, and up to 33% of its eelgrass beds, have been
lost (White 1997; Lane and Taylor 1996; Dean et al. 2000). In south Puget Sound, estuarine
intertidal areas comprise only 6% of wetland areas and are dominated by vast expanses of
shoreline (Tanner 1999). Figure 3.2-5 shows large overall losses in salt marsh acreage for 11
major river deltas in Puget Sound. Currently, salt marsh habitat is one of the smallest wetland
components, comprising just 0.3% or approximately 1,529 acres of wetland and deepwater
resources in the south Puget Sound region (Tanner 1999).
Roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of freshwater wetlands are filled each year in western Washington
(White 1997). Current loss and degradation of freshwater wetlands in western Washington are
due to urban expansion, forestry and agricultural practices, industrial development, and invasive
or exotic plants and animals (Lane and Taylor 1996). Currently, freshwater wetlands comprise a
significant component (18%) of wetlands in the south Puget Sound region (Tanner 1999).
Freshwater wetlands in the region are dominated by vegetated wetland classes, with emergent
wetlands comprising 35% of all freshwater wetlands found in this region (Tanner 1999).
3.2.3 Plants, Including Exotic and Invasive Species
A list of plant species found on the Refuge is located in Appendix E.1. There are no rare plants
inhabiting the Refuge or study area. As many as 437 species of plants have been recorded on the
Refuge (USFWS data). These include a variety of forbs, trees, shrubs, grasses, and sedges. The
most abundant group of plants are forbs, with over 200 species. Shrubs are the next most
abundant, with 60 species. The number of species of grasses and trees is similar, with about 35
species each. An inventory of plants within the study area has not been conducted. See Habitats
and Vegetation Communities, above, for examples of plant species found in various habitat
types.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-25
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Nooksack
Lummi
Samish
Skagit
Stillaguamish
Snohomish
Duwamish
Puyallup
Nisqually
Skokomish
Dungeness
River Delta
Wetland Acres
Historical (ac)
Present day (ac)
Figure 3.2-5. Overall losses in salt marsh acres for Puget Sound river deltas
Nisqually NWR has numerous invasive weed species that compete aggressively with native plant
communities. One species in particular, reed canary grass, has invaded most non-forested
freshwater wetlands. Figure 3.2-6 displays the best available data showing the distribution of
reed canary grass on the Refuge.
Canary grass grows under a variety of moisture conditions; however, optimal growth occurs on
moist or wet soils, particularly in wetlands. Canary grass infestations establish quickly and
expand rapidly. Because canary grass is highly competitive, it poses a major threat to native
wetland vegetation. Many wetlands throughout the Pacific Northwest have become infested
with dense, monotypic stands of canary grass, decreasing the diversity of flora and fauna.
In 1997, reed canary grass dominated at least 30% of the diked interior and it continues to spread
rapidly. Effective control is extremely difficult and costly, requiring an intensive combination of
mowing, discing, prolonged and deep flooding, and herbicide application.
Other weed species are monitored and controlled annually to prevent them from taking over
Refuge habitats. Scot’s broom was introduced to the Pacific coast as a garden ornamental by
early settlers. Scot’s broom aggressively grows into dense, pure stands eliminating native forbs,
grasses, or young trees. In Washington, this plant interferes with re-establishment of conifer
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-26 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
seedlings on harvested lands. Other pest species include common reed, poison hemlock, rush
skeletonweed, gorse, Canada thistle, and tansy ragwort. The Refuge is surveyed throughout the
year for the presence of these species, and plants are removed manually. The non-native
Himalayan blackberry is an aggressive invader of pastures and seasonal freshwater wetlands,
forming dense monotypic stands. Control requires aggressive measures including mowing,
discing, scraping, hand removal, and herbicide application.
3.3 FISHERIES HABITATS AND RESOURCES
As many as 94 species of fishes from 30 different families have been observed in the Nisqually
Basin, Estuary, and Reach (Cook-Tabor 1999). These species include salmonids, lamprey,
herring, smelt, cods, sculpins, rockfish, surfperches, pricklebacks, gobies, sandlances, flounders,
and flatfishes. There are few freshwater species residing in the Nisqually River, McAllister
Creek, and associated tributaries that would be affected by this plan. The description presented
in this CCP focuses on the selected species listed in Table 3.3-1 below (see Wildlife Species
List, Appendix E.2). All of these species are considered indicators of estuarine environmental
health and are meant to represent the broader set of fish species using estuarine habitats of the
Refuge and study area (Emmett et al. 1991). The species listed in the following table are
described below by species group.
3.3.1 Pacific Salmon
Salmonids are probably the most abundant fishes in the Nisqually River Basin, with ten species
found in the Nisqually River and Estuary, McAllister Creek, and independent tributaries. Six of
the salmonids observed in the Nisqually Basin are Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon are an integral
component of the Pacific Northwest, supporting industry, recreation, and culture (Nehlsen et al.
1991). The Pacific salmon runs present in the Nisqually River include summer/fall chinook,
winter chum, coho, and pink salmon, and cutthroat and winter steelhead. Chum salmon are the
most abundant species, followed by coho salmon, pink salmon, steelhead, and chinook salmon.
Due to high numbers of releases of hatchery fish in the Nisqually River Basin, the summer/fall
chinook and coho salmon runs are considered to be of mixed hatchery/native origin. All other
Pacific salmon runs are of native origin.
Extensive losses of salmonid populations throughout the Pacific have occurred over the last 150
years. Adverse effects of habitat alterations, dams, and hatchery operations are widely
recognized as major contributors to the decline of salmon in the region. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
associate these activities with over 90% of the documented stock extinctions or declines. The
importance of habitat is underscored in coastal watersheds with declining salmon populations.
The generalized life history of Pacific salmon includes spawning in freshwater, migration
through estuaries to the ocean, and subsequent maturation and migration back to freshwater for
spawning. Juveniles migrate from the river to the estuary primarily during spring and early
summer, and the occurrence of juvenile salmon within different estuarine habitats varies by time,
species, and size, with species residing in estuaries from a few days to many months. Of the
P u g e t S o u n d
¨§¦5
Nisqually River
McAllister Creek
Distribution of Invasive Reed
Canary Grass, 1997
Figure 3.2-6
Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002
March 2005
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd_CCP\figure3_2_6.mxd
N
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
1:30,007
Legend
Former Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary
Dike
Seasonally Flooded Reed Canary Grass
Page 3-27
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-29
Table 3.3-1. Representative Fish Species Inhabiting the Estuarine Habitats of
the Refuge.
Species Group Family
1. Pacific Salmon
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Salmonidae, trouts
Chum salmon (O. keta) Salmonidae, trouts
Coho salmon (O. kisutch) Salmonidae, trouts
2. Forage Fish
Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) Clupeidae, herrings
Surf smelt (Hypomesus prettiosus) Osmeridae, smelts
Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) Ammodytidae, sand lances
3. Other Fishes
White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) Acipenseridae
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Salmonidae, trouts
Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) Gadidae, cods
Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) Cottidae, sculpins
Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) Embiotocidae, surfperches
Arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) Gobiidae, gobies
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders
English sole (P. vetulus) Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders
Pacific salmon found in the Nisqually River, chinook salmon are the most dependent on estuaries
to complete their life cycle, followed by chum, pink, and coho salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout
(Aitkin 1998).
Estuaries provide important habitat for foraging, predator avoidance, and for the physiological
transition from fresh to saltwater (Healey 1982; Simenstad et al. 1982; Iwata and Komatsu
1984). Juvenile anadromous salmonids use intertidal and shallow subtidal sloughs and tidal
channels during the critical transition from spawning habitats in freshwater to the marine feeding
grounds of the north Pacific Ocean (Simenstad et al. 1992). Juvenile salmonids congregate in
areas where estuary morphology favors detritus retention, such as weed beds and channels with
braided and meandering morphology (Healey 1982).
Chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, are the largest of the Pacific salmon. Nisqually
River chinook salmon are included, with 27 other distinct stocks, in the Puget Sound
evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) determined by NMFS (Myers et al. 1998; Stout et al. 2001).
Abundance of native chinook salmon in this ESU has declined substantially; NMFS has
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Page 3-30 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
determined this ESU to be at risk of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future and
listed this ESU as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999 (63 FR 11482).
Chinook salmon have the most diverse life history strategies of the Pacific salmon (Myers et al.
1998) and remain at sea commonly from 2 to 4 years, with some proportion remaining as little as
2 or 3 months or as long as 6 years (Gilbert 1912; Mullen et al. 1992). The majority of juvenile
chinook salmon out-migration to the estuary has been found to occur between mid-February and
early June (Williams et al. 1975). The principal prey items eaten by juvenile chinook salmon in
the estuary were insects (primarily dipteran flies) as well as spiders, decapod zoea, harpacticoid
copepods, amphipods, and fish (Pearce et al. 1982). The highest growth rates for juvenile
chinook salmon have been recorded in estuaries (Simenstad et al. 1982). Results of studies in
the Sacramento River and Skagit River systems suggest that juvenile chinook salmon reared in
estuaries grow faster than chinook salmon reared in upper river habitat, and this may increase
their marine survival (Kjelson et al. 1982; Congleton et al. 1982). Tag recovery data from
hatchery fish indicate that juvenile chinook salmon originating from other river systems in south
Puget Sound utilize the Nisqually Estuary (Pearce et al. 1982).
Winter chum salmon in the Nisqually River are considered native in origin. The main prey of
juvenile chum salmon in the Nisqually River Estuary was found to shift over the period of out-migration
from bottom-dwelling prey, primarily harpacticoid copepods and gammarid
amphipods, to prey found in shallow waters, such as calanoid copepods, crustacea larvae, and
hyperiid amphipods (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982).
Nisqually River coho salmon were included in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU
determined by NMFS in their status review of coho salmon stocks of Washington, Oregon, and
California (Weitkamp et al. 1995). This ESU is under consideration for listing (candidate
species) under the ESA due to the continuing loss of habitat, high artificial production rates, high
harvest rates, and a severe decline in average size of spawners. Coho salmon juveniles remain in
the system for more than 1 year, rearing in the accessible length and tributaries of the Nisqually
River, the independent tributaries of the south shore of the Nisqually Reach, and McAllister
Creek (Williams et al. 1975). The majority of out-migration to saltwater occurs between late
February and early June. Juvenile coho salmon located in shallow sublittoral (water zone to
about 600 feet) habitat in the Nisqually Reach feed primarily upon bottom-dwelling organisms,
such as gammarid amphipods, harpacticoid copepods, cumaceans, isopods, and mysids, as well
as sand lance and surface drift insects (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982).
3.3.2 Forage Fish
Herring species observed in the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach include American shad, a
non-native species, and Pacific herring (Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). Pacific herring are
a significant part of the prey base of finfish, marine mammals, and seabirds of Puget Sound
(Lemberg et al. 1997; Stewart 1977; West 1997). The herring found utilizing the Nisqually
Reach and Estuary is the Squaxin Pass stock, the southernmost stock in Puget Sound (Lemberg
et al. 1997). A Biological Review Team (BRT) from NMFS reviewed the declining status of
Pacific herring in Puget Sound and concluded that it is neither at risk of extinction, nor likely to
become so. However, the report also found that there is evidence pointing to the potential for
human-caused factors to be disrupting the Puget Sound ecosystem (Stout et al. 2001).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
March 2005 Page 3-31
Prior to spawning, adult herring hold in the Nisqually Reach and, once ready, spawn in south
Puget Sound from mid-January to mid-April (Lemberg et al. 1997). Herring usually deposit
eggs on intertidal and shallow subtidal eelgrass and marine algae. Juveniles remain in nearshore
shallow-water areas until fall, when most disperse to deeper off-shore waters. Alterations of
water quality, prey species, spawning substrate, and habitat can also affect populations. Puget
Sound herring reside in an increasingly urbanized and threatened environment and are
particularly susceptible to influences of shoreline development (O’Tool et al. 2000). The
maintenance of these stocks is dependent upon protection of their critical habitats—intertidal and
shallow subtidal locations.
Surf smelt in all life stages are found in estuarine and marine waters (Emmett et al. 1991). They
are a significant part of the total Puget Sound forage base (Lemberg et al. 1997). Surf smelt
spawn in 2.5 to 5 cm of water in the upper intertidal zone, depositing eggs that stick to sand
(Emmett et al. 1991). Surf smelt spawning habitat has been documented in the Nisqually
Estuary (Lemberg et al. 1997). Due to its strict spawning habitat requirements, this species is
considered an indicator of environmental health (Emmett et al. 1991).
Pacific sand lance have been observed in very large numbers in the Nisqually Reach and Estuary
(Fresh et al. 1979; Pearce et al. 1982). Sand lance spawn within the upper intertidal zone
(Emmett et al. 1991; Lemberg et al. 1997). Sand lance can be an important component of
seabirds and salmon prey bases, with reports of 19 to 53% of the diet of coho, sockeye, and
chinook salmon consisting of sand lance (Beacham 1986; Manzer 1969; Pearce et al. 1982). Due
to their importance as prey for many species of marine vertebrates and sensitivity to oil-contaminated
sediments, Pacific sand lance are considered an indicator species of environmental
stress (Emmett et al. 1991).
3.3.3 Other Fishes
White sturgeon are anadromous, spawning in large rivers and residing in both marine and
freshwater. This species tolerates a wide range of saltwater concentrations and is common in
estuaries of large rivers of the Pacific coast. Larvae and very young juveniles are riverine, while
older juveniles and adults are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats. White sturgeon
are not usually found in intertidal areas, although they may feed on intertidal flats at high tide.
Juvenile and adult white sturgeon are primarily carnivorous benthic feeders. This species is
considered an indicator of environmental stress because it is long-lived and may concentrate
contaminants. White sturgeon are considered to be a priority species for conservation and
management by WDFW.
Pacific tomcod spawn from late winter to spring in Washington in marine coastal water